Didn't he already answer this during the youtube debate? I thought he said he would punish the doctors, not the women getting the abortions. I cannot recall this with certainty, however.

Well, it's not so much about making *women* criminals, but about making the doctors who perform the actual procedure criminals. Still, I would like to have seen actual quotes from McCain indicating his personal feelings on the issue. I'm no fan of McCain's, but I dislike excessive hyperbole, too.

Well, it's not so much about making *women* criminals, but about making the doctors who perform the actual procedure criminals. Still, I would like to have seen actual quotes from McCain indicating his personal feelings on the issue. I'm no fan of McCain's, but I dislike excessive hyperbole, too.

I am pro-life because I know most abortions occur not out of necessity, but by choice. That is how we sell it too, my body, my choice. I also know that most aborted fetuses would be born. Our infant mortality rate is quite low. 6.37 deaths per 1000 is less than 1% (.64% to be exact).

Now, let's look at this:

Revolutionary War - 4,435 deaths
Civil War (both sides) - 498,332 deaths
World War I - 116,708 deaths
World War II - 407,316 deaths
Korea - 25,604 deaths
Vietnam - 58,168 deaths
Operation Desert Storm (Combat - 147)
Afghanistan - 322
Operation Iraqi Freedom to the present day - 2,106

Total killed due to abortion since 1973 - 48,000,000 (48 MILLION) deaths

Now with the numbers we have, we can reduce that 48 Million down by only 305,760. That means that 47,694,240 WOULD HAVE SURVIVED.

Comparing the numbers with wars it is easy to see how much damage Roe vs Wade caused in such a short amount of time. Therefore, I am pro-life. I am sure my position will be unpopular here but I know there are some pro-life feminists as I am one and I have met a few over the years.

Links:

http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm

http://www.clinicquotes.com/war.html

well, I don't know exactly who or what would be punished, however, even if the women are not punished, and the doctors are, the doctors are going to get scared of doing the procedure, therefore women are going to be at the losing end as well. So, not only would doctors be affected, but women, too!

I looked on the McCain site and all it says is that we have to overturn Roe V. Wade, promote the sanctity of marriage and promote adoption-which this in and of itself, isn't a bad thing. But, I am NOT for overturning Roe V. Wade and although I believe in the sacrament of marriage, I do believe that people should choose whom they want to marry not on the basis of sex and gender, but based on love and compassion.

Earlier I posted that I don't know who I would vote for b/c I think all the candidates stink, but I thank Vanessa because this makes me more want to vote for Obama. I can't say Hillary b/c I don't she's going to get the nomination

SweetLittleSister: You forgot to account for miscarriages.

SLS- regardless of the statistics, a woman should have the right to choose if she wants an abortion or not. The government should not dictate what people should do with their bodies and their lives.

SweetLittleSister: You say "I am pro-life because I know most abortions occur not out of necessity, but by choice." - but who are you to decide what is necessity and what is not? I am pro-choice because I think the only person capable of deciding what is "necessary" and what isn't in my life is ME.

Also, though I reject your premise that an abortion is a death, I have to wonder what you think the result of 48 million unwanted pregnancies would be.

The typical suggestion is adoption, but our adoption system can't handle the kids it's charge with now. Add 48 million to the load, and what do you have then? What do these unwanted people grow up to be?

"SweetLittleSister: You forgot to account for miscarriages."

So did you, I am listening.

"SLS- regardless of the statistics, a woman should have the right to choose if she wants an abortion or not. The government should not dictate what people should do with their bodies and their lives. "

over 47 million deaths and the only thing that matters are choices? How many would it takee before it matters because wars catch alot more scrutiny for alot less loss of life.

noname - I looked it up. I was wrong. Paul and Thompson were the ones saying doctors should be punished. McCain did not take part in that segment.

""SweetLittleSister: You forgot to account for miscarriages."

So did you, I am listening."

Uhmm... what?

SLS, it's not that I think you're practicing pedantry, but neglecting the fact that this -- "Total killed due to abortion since 1973 - 48,000,000 (48 MILLION) deaths" -- isn't across-the-board objectively realized and unanimously agreed on as being true, sort of debunks using statistics in the first place.

"Uhmm... what?"

You wanted to include miscarriages, so do so, show us the statistics.

SLS, I would genuinely like to know what punishment you would propose for women and their doctors. Remember that only punishing doctors does not answer the question in those cases where their is no doctor, but women have performed them themselves (with coat hangers and so forth). And a follow up question, I would also like to note that comparing abortion to military deaths is interesting, because when a U.S. Soldier kills an "enemy" soldier, that is not punishable as murder either. So, I am wondering if you would also like to give the same punishment to soldiers who kill that you would advocate for women who have abortions, since you know, you compared the two.

but wars create more hated and are UNNECESSARY! The Iraq war is in no way justified and those poor men are out their dying for this countries greed and Bush doesn't give a flying fuck about our soldiers. They-the soldiers- were forced into going to war and dying. An abortion is a personal choice-it doesn't affect the entire world.

And...imagine if all those 48 million were on the world today..yeah...this world would be well beyond populated!! Talk about saving the environment...

"Uhmm... what?"

You wanted to include miscarriages, so do so, show us the statistics.

"You wanted to include miscarriages, so do so, show us the statistics."

But it's your argument, not mine.

Personally, I don't care what the number is, and I don't think it matters. To a pro-life person, even 10 would be a lot. To a pro-choice person, who likely doesn't consider an abortion a death, any number you come up with is invalid.

pro-life feminists

Not pro-life... anti-abortion. You can call yourself pro-life when you have a comprehensive plan to provide healthcare and good homes to the children who will result from the millions of pregnancies you are planning on forcing women to carry to term.

SLS,
First of all, do better research:

-492 dead in Operation Enduring Freedom*

-4,073 dead in Operation Iraqi Freedom*

That is all. I give props to others but I simply can't bother to debate on abortion with anti-choice "feminists."

*As of today.

"Not pro-life... anti-abortion. "

Alright, I end my role in this here. I won't get banned over this one issue.

Last I checked, feminism wasn't about silencing women you don't agree with. I doubt you're in any danger of being banned.

If men had the babies we would not be discussing the legality of abortion. I think it’s a shame that the GOP has glommed onto the issue of abortion at all since they only do it for votes – nobody recognizes it as such because they think the anti-choice position is “right.� Deep down I think a lot of them (politicians) probably think it should be legal but cant say so or theyd lose their re-election(s). I am sad when I see any anti-choice woman, but I can’t change their mind. One cannot argue someone’s position of faith with fact, waste of time. But here I go anyway.

SweetLittleSister- I don’t have much to add to others comments in response to your post, but I will say this about labeling yourself as pro-life with the inference that abortion = death. The two opposing sides to this very important issue do not even argue two opposite sides of the same argument. People that are pro-choice are for a woman’s right to choose, but they are not pro-abortion nor are they anti-life. However, since the issue is choice (ultimately meaning privacy within one’s doctor’s office) it renders the label of pro-life as moot. Pro-choicers are not anti-life, but pro-lifers are anti-choice so that is what I label you as – Anti-Choice.

The issue of abortion has nothing to do with life or the taking away of life, but with the audacity of others (whoever they are) that think they have any right to control when a woman reproduces and when she does not. The decision is not made when she opened her legs – this is a religious position which has no place in this discussion.

The problem with the anti-choice movement is that it provides no solutions to lower the numbers of unwanted pregnancies. It doesn’t promote or support comprehensive sex education. It is a completely religious based position that has no place interfering in the doctor’s office. One religion’s position on a medical procedure should not prevent others from having access to said procedure. The entire anti-choice position, in my opinion, is ludicrous and completely out of touch with reality. The legalization of abortion went so far as to change the language in the Hippocratic Oath so doctors could not be arrested and prosecuted for performing a legal medical procedure.

Begin rant - In either the last SOTU address or last year’s Bush (in regard to health insurance mind you) said something along the lines of: ‘decisions should be made between doctors and their patients, not by insurance companies and politicians.’ So apparently, even Bush supports privacy within the doctor’s office, cause hey, he cant be all about privacy with respect to insurance billing but not when it comes to whether a woman wants to carry a pregnancy to full term right? I mean really, who writes and reads this shit before it comes out his piehole! What maroons!!– end rant

Personally, I can't see how someone can be anti-choice and still a feminist. But, that's me.

Oh..and kudos to Jem for bringing the REAL statistics on how many poor souls were lost in Iraq due to Bush! :)

About our infant mortality rate:

Ummm...for supposedly being the most advanced ("the greatest") country in the world, isn't the infant mortality rate a little high?

Seriously, the country with the lowest infant mortality rate is Singapore, with 2.3 deaths per 1000 live births!

What enhancedvibes said, rant and all.

SweetLittleSister said: I am pro-life because I know most abortions occur not out of necessity, but by choice.

But you acknowledge that some abortions occur out of necessity. In fact, all third trimester abortions are out of necessity, by law in many places. The necessity is the life or health of the mother. By outlawing abortion, you've created the following choice for these women: go to jail, or die.

Can you really live with this choice? And still call yourself a feminist?

"Personally, I can't see how someone can be anti-choice and still a feminist. But, that's me."

rose colored glasses, i have a hard time with this as well. i don't want to hold feminism to views on one issue of many that are relevant, but this one seems really, really basic. to paraphrase sarahMC i think in another post, either women own their own bodies or they do not.

You have to remember that pro-lifers consider fetuses as babies.

To them, its not about controlling women's bodies, its about killing "babies"

(im not pro-life)

I understand that, qwerty, but I don't understand why they're so resolute in that assertion. Why would you want to believe fetuses are babies, especially when there's so much telling you they aren't?

I also don't understand how someone can call them self a feminist and be pro-life. I also don't understand how pro-lifer's can even call themselves pro-life when most of them are republicans who support war... and since when does the life of a fetus(a potential human) count for more than the life of a woman (an existing human)? So, logically as a pro-choice, vegetarian, peace activist, I am more pro-life than these "pro-lifers" will ever be.

If you're looking for a good laugh here's some George Carlin on the subject: Pro-life is anti-woman.

They are resolute on that assertion largely due to the teachings of religion.

Operation Iraqi Freedom to the present day - 2,106

Not to derail the thread or anything, but that's not even half of the US deaths in the assault on Iraq. The actual death toll is over a million and growing rapidlz.

She copied and pasted from a haphazard, out of date site.

That said, even when the figure was current, it still didn't account for the loss of Iraqi lives because, as far as this country is concerned, those lives don't count.

Which, you know, is a mixed message from a site claiming to be pro-life.

To them, its not about controlling women's bodies, its about killing "babies"

Actually, if we assume this, it's hard to make much sense at all out of the policy initiatives that come from the pro-"life" reactionaries. The so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, for example, does nothing but ban one method of abortion (that happens to be the safest method in some cases). Parental consent and spousal notification (read: "consent") laws do nothing to stop abortions per se; they just ensure added danger to those who need them.

Indeed, even an absolute and total ban on abortions would do nothing to stop abortions. It would just mean that women would die from clandestine abortions.

Moreover, the opposition of many pro-"life" reactionaries to contraceptives, one thing proven to reduce the need for abortion, is further proof that abortion is just a means to an end.

It is important to look at the pro-"life" movement, made up as it is largely of fundamentalists and the demagogues they follow, in the context of the overall attitudes towards women espoused by fundamentalism.

Fundamentalists believe, to one degree or another, that a woman is never her own person. Instead, she is owned first by her father, then by the man her father conveys her to. Her body is thus never her own. Women, in their view, are to be submissive, obedient, and silent to the extent possible.

There have been a million rationalisations for treating women like livestock ("broodmares of the State" in George Carlin's apt phrase), all of which have been put forth with an urgency meant to suggest that the world would end if women were to be free. This is just another step in a long tradition.

One telling indicator here is the way the foetus is increasingly treated like the real person in the pregnancy. The more of a person the blastocyst/embryo/foetus is made out to be, the less of a person the woman becomes. And that is the ultimate goal. Abortion just happens to be a good, opportunistic target.

*sighs* I thought feministing was the one place I could go to and not have to deal with these people.

Let me just say that I am pro-choice. But I think its possible to be anti-abortion and still a feminist. It must be quite a difficult position to be in, being sandwiched between the two movements like that, but if you truly believe that abortion = murder (for religious reasons or whatever), then I guess the issue of choice would seem a bit irrelevant. If you believe abortion is killing a human being, people who say to you 'It's my choice [to kill that human being]' must seem ... frustrating.

The numbers aren't important. 10 billion dead fetuses is not worse than 1 dead fetus because fetuses aren't people and are not, in themselves, worth any moral consideration.

But I think its possible to be anti-abortion and still a feminist.

I would agree, to the extent that one does not seek to impose one's own views on the bodies of others (though I can imagine situations, largely related to the motivation for one's opposition, in which it would even then be a poor fit).

Great commercial. I'd like to get involved in political and cause advertising as one of the avenuess I'd like to consider with my mass comm degree.

"sweetlittlesister,"

BTW, NO you CANT be a feminist and be anti-choice, anymore than you can be one of those faux feminists associated with Concerned Women for America. A feminists doesnt have distorted ideas about womens choices that concern her OWN body along with some outlandish belief that she is a MURDERER. Anti-choicers always claim that theyre feminists but the real feminist community doesnt consider them one of us. ITs absolutely absurd. What next: mens rights activists?

SWL,
Do you consider abortion murder, or killing? I mean, you'd have to, in order to have the views you do.

"those poor MEN are out their dying for this countries greed"

rosecoloredglasses,
....And women. Jeesh, I have to remind you about this on a FEMINISTS forum?

"BTW, NO you CANT be a feminist and be anti-choice"

I see, then I guess I am not a feminist by your standards. I love how pro-life is turned into anti-choice. Anti=negative and that is why I dropped out of this thread in the first place. I could see where this was going. Just the mere mention of me being pro-life (and backing up my case with statistics) and I'll bet most of you think I was imposing my views on you, which is all the more reason to drop out of this thread. My goal is not to impose my view but rather to share my opinion. I can see though that pro-lifers are not welcome in the feminist community and that is too bad because feminism is much more than just abortion but I will be on my way as I clearly do not belong here. Have a good day everyone. :)

There's a difference between being personally opposed to having an abortion oneself--or even sharing honestly the reasons for that moral stance to others--and legislating that choice for others. That's why being privately anti-abortion can be reconciled with feminism (as Elise points out), but anti-choice activism and beliefs cannot. One is compatible with women's physical and moral autonomy and our personhood; the other is not.

feminism is much more than just abortion

Without the basic right to control what happens to our own bodies there is no feminism. So you're wrong. The pro-choice position is central to feminism.

"There's a difference between being personally opposed to having an abortion oneself--or even sharing honestly the reasons for that moral stance to others--and legislating that choice for others. That's why being privately anti-abortion can be reconciled with feminism (as Elise points out), but anti-choice activism and beliefs cannot. One is compatible with women's physical and moral autonomy and our personhood; the other is not. "

First of all, I am not involved in any pro-life activism. I am simply stating my opinion.

Did I say I was protesting outside clinics or worse? It was just assumed so I guess.

However, isn't it a bit hypocritical to say that a pro-life view should not be legislated but a pro-choice view should? Personally, I am not interested in legislating either way but I did notice the hypocrisy in that statement.

Once again, for the record, I only stated my view and backed it up (a reasonable thing to do in any discussion/debate). I am not involved in any activism regarding abortion.

The tendency to jump to conclusions will make the feminist community exclusive instead of inclusive. If that is your goal, then carry on.

rosiepie,
Religion is based on misogyny and patriarchy and engenders to its adherents a distorted and offensive perspective about women. If, 'for religious reasons' you oppose abortion then its due to misogyny from the religious indoctrination with which you've been saturated with. This is anti-feminist and proves you cant be feminist and be anti-choice.

GopherII,

Many atheists are pro-life as well. I am atheist and the reason I am pro-life is because 48 Million potential lives being destroyed is a moral issue in my mind. I guess you can't see that reasoning either can you?

SWL - i am not sure you followed my point on the explanation of anti-choice, sorry if i was not clear -- it is bringing the two opposing sides into the same argument so they actually ARE debating the same issue -- and again, the issue is not life, its choice -- i dont know any pro-choice people who are pro-abortion or anti-life (the insinuation is a bit ridiculous dont you think?) but ALL pro-lifers ARE anti-choice -- pro-lifers like to say they are prolife because they think they are morally right so by labeling themselves as pro-life they come off as the "right" side of the debate, "we're for life and they are for death" but this is just smoke and mirrors and does nothing to address the issue at all -- its all about the language with this issue and we know this is true because the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was actually called that and in its assent opinion SCOTUS judges referred to a medical procedure as PBA (a medically incorrect term) so many times it was one of the most politically charged SCOTUS opinions ive read in a long time -- there was SO much mis-information in the assent opinion it was redonkulous

it doesnt matter to me if those werent your views at all and you were just playing devils advocate - i am ok with stirring up the pot =) - BUT why should the anti-choice movements position be regulated or given equal or more consideration than the prochoice position when all it would do is restrict access to a medical procedure? why should the position that restricts a practice be considered over the one which would allow a practice to be regulated and voluntary? it doesnt make sense --- if its voluntary there is no need to restrict it

SWL - i am not sure you followed my point on the explanation of anti-choice, sorry if i was not clear -- it is bringing the two opposing sides into the same argument so they actually ARE debating the same issue -- and again, the issue is not life, its choice -- i dont know any pro-choice people who are pro-abortion or anti-life (the insinuation is a bit ridiculous dont you think?) but ALL pro-lifers ARE anti-choice -- pro-lifers like to say they are prolife because they think they are morally right so by labeling themselves as pro-life they come off as the "right" side of the debate, "we're for life and they are for death" but this is just smoke and mirrors and does nothing to address the issue at all -- its all about the language with this issue and we know this is true because the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was actually called that and in its assent opinion SCOTUS judges referred to a medical procedure as PBA (a medically incorrect term) so many times it was one of the most politically charged SCOTUS opinions ive read in a long time -- there was SO much mis-information in the assent opinion it was redonkulous

it doesnt matter to me if those werent your views at all and you were just playing devils advocate - i am ok with stirring up the pot =) - BUT why should the anti-choice movements position be regulated or given equal or more consideration than the prochoice position when all it would do is restrict access to a medical procedure? why should the position that restricts a practice be considered over the one which would allow a practice to be regulated and voluntary? it doesnt make sense --- if its voluntary there is no need to restrict it

Isn't it interesting.

You see, I don't apply an anti to your position.

I say pro-life and pro-choice. Trying to be as fair as possible because I believe in fairness and equality. Something which this statement:

"BUT why should the anti-choice movements position be regulated or given equal or more consideration than the prochoice position when all it would do is restrict access to a medical procedure?"

proves that you do not.

The way I see it, the difference in the pro-life and the pro-choice viewpoints are that pro-lifers see the fetus as a potential life and the pro-choicers see the fetus as nothing more than tissue and cells. However, I think even you would find it hard to dispute that the tissue and cells are a potential life if not aborted.

That a womans choice overrides the loss of 48 million potential lives is scary to me and it makes us (women) look very bad. No longer can we complain about the losses of a war when their numbers are much lower compared to ours. Oh and BTW, mentioning the lost lives of Iraqi citizens is irrelevent to these stats bcause that 48 million is in the US only and so the war numbers must also be comparably calculated. US citizens to US citizens.

I understand the pro-choice view and I was pro-choice for many years but 48 million lost potetial lives is enough to shake my moral compass. How much will it take to shake yours?

The way I see it, the difference in the pro-life and the pro-choice viewpoints are that pro-lifers see the fetus as a potential life and the pro-choicers see the fetus as nothing more than tissue and cells.

Nope. I definitely see the fetus as potential life. But so long as that life is unsustainable outside the mother's body it must be counted as part of her body and she must be given the right to make choices about what happens to her own body.

Nobody suggests there isn't a life process going on that could result in a baby. So long as that potential life is dependent on another life though, it isn't an autonomous being in its own right. It is part of the mother's body. And the individual whose body it is must be allowed to control her own body.

Have I said that enough times?

Without that autonomy women are slaves.

Can I say that again? Without that autonomy... without that choice... women are slaves. Which is not a feminist position. See that?

"Can I say that again? Without that autonomy... without that choice... women are slaves. Which is not a feminist position. See that?"

Not really because men don't have that choice and I don't see them as slaves. Having a baby affects a mans body as well since labor brings home the money to raise that baby. Be it via child support or being in the home.

If we are to believe that no choice = slavery then men should also have abortion rights. I don't, for a second see it as slavery on either the part of the man or the woman.

Let's face it, if you choose not to abort and this child is now forcing you to work longer hours...wouldn't that also fit your definition of slavery? Should you be able to simply kill the child to prevent slavery?

SweetLittleSister - "Potential life"? How do you define that? How do you feel about birth control? Male masturbation?

"SweetLittleSister - "Potential life"? How do you define that? How do you feel about birth control? Male masturbation?"

Masturbation by men or women does not create life. It takes both the sperm and the egg to create life. That is nature's intent.

So I have no problem with masturbation at all from either men or women. Masturbation does not equal abortion.

Ooops, I guess I didn't answer your other two questions.

Potential Life occurs once a woman is pregnant. That cannot happen due to masturbation.

Birth control, I have no problem with preventing pregnancy but once that pregnancy occurs, we cross over into potential life.

Not really because men don't have that choice and I don't see them as slaves.

Men don't have the choice to what? Do with their own bodies as they choose? Of course they do.

Keeping abortion legal or making it illegal does not affect the choices men have to make with their own bodies.

It's women's bodies that are used by the fetuses during pregnancy. Therefore, if a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want, it's only the women whose bodies are enslaved, used without their permission or recompense.

Should you be able to simply kill the child to prevent slavery?

We're not talking about children, we're talking about fetuses.

Masturbation by men or women does not create life.

But each of those sperm cells has the potential to create life. And isn't it all of the millions of potential lives you're worried about?

Also, the statistic for miscarriages after implantation is 1/3 mortality. So divide your number of abortions by 3 to get a more accurate count.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE0DC1439F934A15754C0A96E94826

"Men don't have the choice to what? Do with their own bodies as they choose? Of course they do."

When a woman decided to have a baby he can look forward to 18 years of extra labor that is forced to take of that child. He had no choice after the pregnancy occured. That extra, forced labor sure sounds like it fits your definition of slavery to me.

Likewise, a woman can decide to kill the baby with him also having no choice.

Are you sure no choice = slavery? If so, then I must assume you support that nonsensical Roe vs Wade for men that came up last year. If I was pro-choice I would have to support that nonsense too in the interest of equality, luckily I am not pro-choice.

"We're not talking about children, we're talking about fetuses."

Fetuses have a very large chance of becoming children if not aborted.

"But each of those sperm cells has the potential to create life. And isn't it all of the millions of potential lives you're worried about?"

Even when pregnancy occurs, millions of sperm are unused. That trashes your argument.

"Also, the statistic for miscarriages after implantation is 1/3 mortality. So divide your number of abortions by 3 to get a more accurate count."

Ok, reducing the number by 1/3 still leaves it at 32 Million. Ouch, Hitler only killed 6 million.

Not really because men don't have that choice and I don't see them as slaves. Having a baby affects a mans body as well since labor brings home the money to raise that baby. Be it via child support or being in the home.

No no no no no. You don't get it. Men do not physically support a fetus with their own body. Nothing ever grows inside of them that is physically dependent upon them for its continued existence. Your example is a dishonest one. It denies the physical reality that the rest of us are working with.

SWL: You yourself state that an embryo or fetus is a "potential" life. In what legal system should a "potential" person be given more rights than a born person? Abortion is a case of competing rights only if a fetus is a person with rights. As you don't seem to think that a fetus is a person, because you call them "potential" lives, than you should understand why they have no rights in society.

Barring that you state fetii are "potential" lives, even if a fetus were a person with a full set of rights, they would STILL not have the right to usage of a woman's body against her will. No person in society has that right. If I need blood that I will die without receiving, I can't force a woman off the street to give of her body to save my life. It is nice when people donate blood, but they are under no obligation to do so.

Shimp v. McFall - Federal Court case before Roe v. Wade which said that no person can force another person to give of their body (in this case, it was bone marrow) to save the other person's life.

Therefore, no matter what way you look at it, there is no fair and equal legal balance that would support the pro-life position, ever. If the pro-life position were to become law, it would give fetuses more rights than any other member of society.

"No no no no no. You don't get it. Men do not physically support a fetus with their own body. Nothing ever grows inside of them that is physically dependent upon them for its continued existence. Your example is a dishonest one. It denies the physical reality that the rest of us are working with."

Denying that men have any stake in how their future shapes or the amount of labor they are forced to endure because of a baby they did not want and could not abort would be a dishonest argument.

One side having more choices than the other is a slap in the face of equality.

There are two possible solutions, get rid of abortion (except in cases of rape or when the mothers life is in danger) or give men abortion rights.

How many of you feel it is ok to abort a baby because you aren't ready for the burden of having a child? This is exactly the choice men do not have and to dismiss that is dishonest.

Of course, you could say "fuck the men" as you are now and continue to lose male feminists to the mens rights groups.

Personally, I think that giving men abortion rights is absurd but if you continue down the path you are on, men WILL eventually get it in the name of equality. This concerns me because there will be MORE abortion then.

FemiDancer stole the words right out of my mouth. Brava!

Oh my God , SLS, you just played your cards. You're an MRA.

I won't engage anymore. Your arguments are dishonest to their core and not subject to reason. You lose.

The "right to an abortion" is a misnomer. Women do not have a right that men are denied, women just have a way to exercise that right that doesn't come up for men because of their biological differences. Men and women in society both have the right not to have their bodies used against their will for any purpose. This right is part of why rape is illegal. It is also part of why forced organ donation is illegal. Forcing a woman to continue gestating when they do not wish for their body to be used for gestation is violating their rights, and is similar to forced organ donation. A man cannot be forced to allow a dying person to have use his kidneys, just as a woman cannot be forced to allow another being to have use of her uterus.

'Personally, I think that giving men abortion rights is absurd but if you continue down the path you are on, men WILL eventually get it in the name of equality.'

So we've got two choices - One, outlaw abortion, letting the state decide what women do with their reproductive organs, or two, let men decide what women do with their reproductive organs! Awesome.
I'm still gonna hold on to the belief that people will come round to the idea of letting WOMEN decide what women do with their reproductive organs, thanks.

"Oh my God , SLS, you just played your cards. You're an MRA.

I won't engage anymore. Your arguments are dishonest to their core and not subject to reason. You lose.
"

Are you telling me that if a poster is percieved to be an MRA, you won't even talk to them?

When a person demonstrates that they will continually reiterate lies and misrepresent the truth in order to further an argument that results in me losing my bodily autonomy then yes, I refuse to go further with a discussion. You don't even deserve this response. You have been lying throughout this thread. Your position is a lie, you defend it with lies, and you lose because you refuse to admit a truthful argument when it is presented (and it has been ably presented by FemiDancer among others). You have failed. You are made of fail. You lose lose lose.

"When a person demonstrates that they will continually reiterate lies and misrepresent the truth in order to further an argument that results in me losing my bodily autonomy then yes, I refuse to go further with a discussion. You don't even deserve this response. You have been lying throughout this thread. Your position is a lie, you defend it with lies, and you lose because you refuse to admit a truthful argument when it is presented (and it has been ably presented by FemiDancer among others). You have failed. You are made of fail. You lose lose lose.

"

I have lied about nothing. I have provided statistics to back up my position.

What this is really about is what you screwed up and said the first time. Let me show you.

"Oh my God , SLS, you just played your cards. You're an MRA.

I won't engage anymore. Your arguments are dishonest to their core and not subject to reason. You lose."

You percieve me to be an MRA and now you want to claim that everything I have said is a lie. That's interesting. Let me tell you once again what I am.

I am a pro-life 34 year old female who is really losing faith in feminism. It seems that anyone who doesn't see things the popular feminist way is not a feminist at all and shall not be tolerated, will be called a liar and be accused of being an MRA.

The fact that men have little choice compared to women (as the situation currently stands) as to when they have children is an unfortunate fact of biology. I'm sure many feminists would change the fact that women are the ones who get pregnant, give birth etc if they could. What is the alternative to women being the ones who get to decide whether to carry on with the pregnancy? Forced pregnancy? Forced abortion? Both are invasive and of the type of experience that, as femidancer points out, men never have to go through in our society. Giving men 'abortion rights' would not be 'in the name of equality', it would be in the name of priviledging men's voices over women's, which I'm beginning to suspect, is what the pro-life movement is really about.

"I'm still gonna hold on to the belief that people will come round to the idea of letting WOMEN decide what women do with their reproductive organs, thanks."

Psst...that has already been tried but 48 Million abortions is a little hard to defend. It will only get worse from here because the number will continue to rise and more and more people will change their views, as I did.

An abused right is a right just waiting to be taken away. Just ask any law enforcement officer.

48 million abortions is extremely easy to defend.

1) You seem to be taking the tact that fetuses have the same rights as born persons, instead of them being "potential lives" as you were arguing earlier. Please state your argument to suggest that fetuses are deserving of the same rights as born persons in society.

Once you have argued that fetuses are deserving of rights:
2. Argue why fetuses have the right to use another person's body against their will, a right which no other person in society has.

Once you have provided both of these arguments, I will be glad to participate in debate with you. It does not seem as if you are entering into this debate with intellectual honesty.

I find 48 million abortions perfectly easy to defend. They were not murders. A fetus is not a life, it is a potential, hypothetical life in the way that a sperm or ovum is, in that it is still reliant on circumstance (i.e. meeting the right conditions in the woman's body) in order to develop into a life.

An abused right is a right just waiting to be taken away.

*snert*

Yeah, all of that free speech going on in newspapers and such. They're just abusing that right! Take it away, for Christ's sake, before they say something else!

Ouch, Hitler only killed 6 million.

If any one woman has had 6 million abortions, maybe that comparison would work, we'll talk, then.

I also invoke Godwin's law: You fail at this thread.

1) A potential life is only potential because of the legality of abortion. Without abortion, that potential is extremely likely to be a life. So yes, the way I see it they have the right to life once created.

There was a case a few years ago about a man killing his pregnant wife and he got charged with 2 murders. It seems the law saw that fetus as having the same rights as an adult.

2) Because the fetus did not create itself. It is a consequence of a consensual act that everyone knows can result in pregnancy. There is no mystery here folks. Pregnancy can occur even when using birth control, that is a risk that you take.

Oh and as far as the argument about there being no equality because of biology? Well, the law doesn't seem to mind bridging that gap when we want to get into the military or become police officers. The standards are lowered to accomodate our biology.

"If any one woman has had 6 million abortions, maybe that comparison would work, we'll talk, then."

Actually no one soldier killed 6 million either and Hitler himself probably killed none.

Ready to talk now?

1) You are still saying that the fetus has a potential that is "extremely likely" to become life. Meaning, you do not believe that it is a life until it is born. Is a fetus a "potential life" or is it a life deserving of rights now, instead of one who will receive rights later?

The states are divided on pregnancy homicides. Approximately half charge it as two murders, and the other half only as one. Because this is not federal law, and has not yet been decided, the cases in question have mixed precedents and are therefore not useful to the argument.

And as to point 2)

I imagined that we would see your true colors in the answer to this question, and I was right. For point of clarification, before I continue, your argument is that the act of sex is equivalent to consent to giving your body to a fetus for nine months?

(and for your "biology" concern, I previously stated that the "right to an abortion" is not the actual right in question, nor is it a real right. The right involved in the abortion debate is the right not to have another human being use your body against your will, a right which both men and women have the free ability to exercise. Women are not granted an extra right, both have the right to not have their body used against their will.)

Actually no one soldier killed 6 million either and Hitler himself probably killed none.

Godwin's Law. You lost.

"I find 48 million abortions perfectly easy to defend. They were not murders."

That is an opinion and not proof of anything.

"A fetus is not a life, it is a potential, hypothetical life in the way that a sperm or ovum is, in that it is still reliant on circumstance (i.e. meeting the right conditions in the woman's body) in order to develop into a life. "

That pregnancy occured pushes it one step past simple sperm. The conditions for pregnancy were correct. I also think you are overstating the matter about conditions for continuing the pregnancy, odds are that once pregnancy occurs, there will be a baby if no abortion occurs.

2) Because the fetus did not create itself. It is a consequence of a consensual act that everyone knows can result in pregnancy.

Shorter SLS: Forced pregnancy is a just punishment for sluts.

And, the Nazis killed approximately 11 million born people, capable of feeling pain, with family members. 6 million Jews, 4-5 million Romani gypsies, homosexuals, Catholics, blacks, disabled persons, and other groups.

I agree to reducing abortions, even if just because prevention is more efficient. I mean if all the money and energy going into giving abortions were going into other things like reproductive justice, that would be great. America does have a high abortion rate. Hmm, I'm not sure how to ask this without sounding judgmental but I read 47% of women who have an abortion in a year have had one before. I guess I'm just wondering if someone talks to these women about using birth control (46% weren't) or about using it more consistently or is there an affordability issue for many? The reasons on this site given for not using contraception are pretty vague. I don't know how much an abortion costs in America but it doesn't seem like something I'd want to pay for and do more than once.

"Denying that men have any stake in how their future shapes or the amount of labor they are forced to endure because of a baby they did not want and could not abort would be a dishonest argument."

Labor? You mean how men have to pay a percentage (less than half) of what it takes to raise a child but besides that can expect the mother to do all the work? Many escape any responsibility, particularly if the mother never cares to contact them again. The responsibility of raising a child is defaulted to the mother so that is another reason for her to be able to choose.

lyndorr: The Guttmacher Institute provides some of the most balanced and thorough statistics on abortion. The list these statistics regarding abortion and contraceptive use:

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.

Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.

About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

• Each year, about two out of every 100 women aged 15–44 have an abortion; 47% of them have had at least one previous abortion.

At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45[4], and, at current rates, about one-third will have had an abortion.

That is the website I was looking at. Still leaves me with more questions. Why did that 33% think they were low-risk for pregnancy? What were the concerns of the 32%?

I had a nice long response typed out and when I went to post it, I wasn't signed in. This has happened 3 or 4 times. Is there some reason this site logs people out automatically? For that matter, is there a reason it takes forever and a day for a post to go through?

Anyway, forget it. I don't wanna type all that again and I doubt it would do any good anyway. I will sum up my position:

I am pro-life because those numbers are just unjustifiable.

I also pointed out that those numbers will cost pro-choicers everything in the end (and was attacked) and they will.

I will say that if those numbers were much lower (perhaps less than 10 million) I would still be pro-choice. For that reason, I forsee more and more people turning against pro-choicers as the numbers grow.

Maybe feminists should start taking those numbers seriously.

An argument for rights isn't made by the number of times someone exercises that right. Free speech isn't any more or less of a right if it is exercises every week or 15 times a day.

You support a woman's ability to obtain an abortion only if fewer women had done so before her? How are the actions of others the deciding factor in the rights of one?

I think SLS showed her true colors when she said "The standards are lowered to accomodate our biology." Excuse me, the standards have not been "lowered" but altered to take into account the fact that people have different strengths and weaknesses that don't necessarily impact the way they can do their job, even though tradition says they will. No true feminist would claim that this was a "lowering of standards".

"No true feminist would claim that this was a "lowering of standards"."

Just like no true feminists would be pro-life?

Gotcha, I am not a feminist by the standards here. No problem.

(and was attacked)

I wasn't attacking. I was mocking.

"Maybe feminists should start taking those numbers seriously."

Feminists aren't the ones trying to deny women birth control. Maybe pro-life people should look at what has lowered abortion in other countries and take these numbers seriously as a sign that what they're doing isn't working.

"Feminists aren't the ones trying to deny women birth control. Maybe pro-life people should look at what has lowered abortion in other countries and take these numbers seriously as a sign that what they're doing isn't working. "

Currently birth control and abortion are legal here. What SOME pro-lifers are trying to do is not FORCING abortions so why are pro-lifers resposible for that large number?

The same people who want to deny women access to abortions are working very hard to restrict access to birth control and have succeeded in replacing education about birth control with programs devoted to a failed abstinence only approach.

"The same people who want to deny women access to abortions are working very hard to restrict access to birth control and have succeeded in replacing education about birth control with programs devoted to a failed abstinence only approach. "

I knew all about the abstinence only approach but I knew nothing about them wanting to deny access to birth control.

The abstinence only approach won't work in a culture that loves casual sex. So I don't support a method doomed to fail.

In what way are they working to restrict access to birth control?

Making it harder to get Plan B.

And in other countries, certain groups of certain people from certain churches go around saying that condoms don't prevent AIDs.

SLS-

Okay, I see you're all about the numbers. Let's say abortion does get outlawed. The dying will not stop, because women will STILL GET ABORTIONS. And because it will be, by necessity, done illegally and unsafely, more women will die in the process too. Will that really help save more of these precious lives you talk of?

Also, I hope you're really keen on welfare if abortion is ever made illegal. Everyone knows that the wealthy women will not be the ones to suffer. They will travel elsewhere to get an abortion if they want to. It is the poor women, the ones who cannot afford to leave the state/country who will suffer most.

Of course, most pro-lifers don't seem to give a flying fuck what happens after birth, so I might just be talking to a wall here.

SweetLittleSister:

You sound well-intentioned, but also like you haven't thought through all the angles.

Since other commenters are covering the aspect of a woman's right to control her body and her life far more competently than I can, I'll address some other things.

You keep repeating statistics (questionable ones, but that's beside the point) about huge numbers of abortions. You ask how it is that we can't be horrified by the snuffing out of these millions of potential lives.

Someone upthread had pointed out that our planet is having trouble sustaining all the human lives already on it; how much more strained would our resources be with the addition of millions, if not billions, more?

That's why I, for one, have no problem with abortion. Yes, snuffing out a potential life is a sad thing. But the idea of birthing billions of children into a world which does not welcome them, a world in which people come to resemble Dr. Calhoun's rats... that horrifies me.

Something else you appear not to have considered is that if you actually want fewer abortions to occur, the best thing to do is join hands with the pro-choicers.

No, seriously. There are two reasons for this, both of which have already been pointed out upthread:

1. Outlawing abortion does not prevent women from getting it done. It just lowers the chances of women getting safe abortions. If you want women to die in droves, along with their fetuses, outlaw abortion.

2. The anti-abortion movement as it currently exists is also anti-birth-control. See this article.

Godwin's Law. You lost.

-------------

Seriously, nothing is more lame than Nazi analogies.

Godwin's Law. You lost.

-------------

Seriously, nothing is more lame than Nazi analogies.

Glad i'm not alone.

You seem to be taking the tact that fetuses have the same rights as born persons, instead of them being "potential lives" as you were arguing earlier. Please state your argument to suggest that fetuses are deserving of the same rights as born persons in society.

Actually, it is pro-choicers who see the foetus as having the same rights as "born persons" (read: persons). Anti-choicers believe a foetus should have rights that no person on the planet has, namely, the right to make use of the body of another against her will.

And anti-choicers shouldn't be throwing those Nazi analogies around for another reason: Under Hitler, abortion was punished severely. It was considered a "crime against the race". He's on their side, and they can keep him.

The fact that men have little choice compared to women (as the situation currently stands) as to when they have children is an unfortunate fact of biology.

Actually, men have plenty of choice. Their sterilisation methods, in particular, are simpler, safer, less expensive, and more easily reversible. Virtually every contraceptive method (including sterilisation) available to men is safer and more effective than those available to women.

"Currently birth control and abortion are legal here. What SOME pro-lifers are trying to do is not FORCING abortions so why are pro-lifers resposible for that large number?"

It's not simply what they're doing but what they're not doing. If they were serious about reducing abortions, they would would work towards making the pill and condoms available for free and make sure every woman has unbiased information about them. Look at the Netherlands' numbers. When that site says women who had an abortion had concerns about birth control and so weren't using it, I have to wonder if they heard some myth from a pro-lifer and so thought it wasn't worth it to use birth control. But all this would require being okay with people having sex which too many pro-lifers don't seem to be. People don't just have casual sex. People have sex in relationships and marriage without having kids. Actually, I would guess that fewer people have "casual sex" than you think depending on your definition.

And as others have said, what does changing the law accomplish? People still sell sex, people still smoke marijuana and people still get unfair rape trials. It almost seems like pro-lifers either think if the law is changed then all is good because the law matches what they think is right and who cares about the women who will get abortions after that or that the law is some magical thing that fixes everything.

Oh, and why I don't like the terms pro-life versus pro-choice? I've read about what a baby looks like at three months, sounds a lot like a very tiny baby, of course I recognize that until then the baby can naturally abort and won't survive on its own but still, I can see how a pro-life position could be attractive (who doesn't want to reduce the number of abortions). BUT being pro-life means you're not pro-choice (thus anti-choice) and I will always support the mother having that choice. I really wonder if the pro-life movement would have so many followers if it were labeled anti-choice.

Oh, and why I don't like the terms pro-life versus pro-choice? I've read about what a baby looks like at three months, sounds a lot like a very tiny baby, of course I recognize that until then the baby can naturally abort and won't survive on its own but still, I can see how a pro-life position could be attractive (who doesn't want to reduce the number of abortions). BUT being pro-life means you're not pro-choice (thus anti-choice) and I will always support the mother having that choice. I really wonder if the pro-life movement would have so many followers if it were labeled anti-choice.

The use of the term pro-life is one of the more impressive feats of truly unbridled audacity of the past several decades.

When a reactionary movement that cares precious little about non-foetal life (the lives of women and the doctors who help them are famously of little interest to them), and implicitly and/or explicitly condones murderous violence of all kinds (whether it's bombing clinics or carpet-bombing cities), actually manages not only to declare itself "pro-life" but also to convince others to accept the use of the term, you've got a true Great Moment in Chutzpah.

As I (amongst others) have pointed out here and elsewhere, a loook at the policy priorities of these reactionaries immediately gives the lie to the notion that it is the "sanctity of life" that has them so exercised. Indeed, the only real consistent thread is the desire to use state power to force themselves on women's bodies. It's really nothing more than a more refined form of rape that lacks the risk of prosecution and allows for greater effiency.