blog for choice: 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade

[thejunipertree]

I find it astonishing and disheartening that in my office, the only two people who made mention of what today was were me and our Communications Coordinator, Steffy (who is all sorts of awesome). This would not have been the case a year ago and that is extremely disappointing. Therefore, I'm going in the steps of vivaemptiness and jennifer0246:

I vote pro-choice because women are not brood mares.

I vote pro-choice because no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy when they do not want to bring a child into this world, regardless of their reasons or if the pregnancy will lead to adoption.

I vote pro-choice because women should not be told, "well, you shouldn't have spread your legs."

I vote pro-choice because a child should never be a punishment.

I vote pro-choice because every child should be a wanted child.

I vote pro-choice because I do not want anyone else making decisions about what I'm going to do with my body.

I vote pro-choice because abstinence-only education obviously does not work.

I vote pro-choice because not every woman should be or wants to be a mother.

I vote pro-choice because this society should never return to the world of back alley procedures that usually ended in gangrene, perforated uteruses, sterility, or death.

I vote pro-choice because no birth control is 100%.

I vote pro-choice because a fetus does not have more rights than I do.

I vote pro-choice because the idea of "once you see the baby's face, everything willl change and you will fall in love!" is a complete and utter myth.

I vote pro-choice because there are still states in this country that are doing everything within their power to make it more difficult for a woman to have an abortion.

I vote pro-choice because I can't stand it when people say, "I'm only pro-choice as long as abortion isn't being used as birth control."

I vote pro-choice because every day, I see the faces of women who choose abortion and hear their stories. Where would they go if they didn't have this choice?

I vote pro-choice because women are still forced, intimidated, and coerced into having sex.

I vote pro-choice because we do not live in a theocracy.

I vote pro-choice because when I was sixteen years old, my eldest brother said to my mother, "I'm surprised she's not knocked up like you were when you were her age."

Comments

[vivaemptiness.livejournal.com]

Amen, amen, amen, and hallefuckinglujah times a billion.

I heard on the news last week that NJ was first in the country for abortions and thought WOOHOO CONGRATZ!

[ravens-hearth.livejournal.com]

"I vote pro-choice because a fetus does not have more rights than I do."

Legitimate question: When does a human being inherit their natural human rights that we all would claim to possess?

[meetzemonsta.livejournal.com]

When does a human being inherit their natural human rights that we all would claim to possess?

Birth.

[ravens-hearth.livejournal.com]

By birth, do you mean the moment that the process of birth begins, or the moment that the birth is complete? Or perhaps somewhere in between?

At the risk of this entire line of discussion becoming a strawman, I'll use the most extreme example I can on this basis, and assume that you're stating that a child inherits their natural human rights the moment that the birth is complete, that is, when it is bodily separated from their mother.

Assuming this is so, it would logically follow that any action taken against the child before this point does not in any way violate it's rights as a human being, because it does not yet have those rights.

Therefor, it would be perfectly reasonable for a mother (who is not yet a mother, no?) to have second thoughts and decide at the last moment before the cord is cut to break the child's neck, or crush it's skull, or impale it's brain with a metal implement, or any other method of ending it's life (which it doesn't yet have, no?) which you might be able to imagine. This would not be a violation of it's rights, because it doesn't have any. If there is no violation of an individual's rights (there is of course, at this point, no individual,) then there must necessarily be no crime.

If we accept that a child is not a human being in possession of its natural human right to life until it no longer exists in a parasitic relationship with its host, then all forms of infanticide must necessarily become acceptable if undertaken before the cord is cut.

If we choose instead to accept that a child becomes a human being in possession of its natural rights at some point prior to its separation, then it becomes entirely a matter of conjecture as to precisely when this inheritance occurs. Some say conception, some say three months, six months; You say birth.

[meetzemonsta.livejournal.com]

At the risk of this entire line of discussion becoming a strawman

Too late.

It's a strawman, purely by your coming up with a grossly exaggerated situation that is highly unlikely to ever happen.

That being said, I'll still answer you.

I feel that, if you want to split hairs with a completely extreme situation that is highly unlikely to happen except maybe in cases of breaks from reality, it would still not be a violation of its rights because the birth is incomplete (despite the fact that at that point, the infant is no longer involved in a parasitic relationship with its host, the cord must be cut or the infant cannot live), but it would not be reasonable for a mother to do because it would be illegal.

There would, in fact, be a crime, just not the one you're attempting to get at, because elective third trimester abortions, which are what that act should technically be considered, are not legal. Furthermore, all abortions may only be legally performed by licensed medical clinicians.

Any woman who would commit such an act should be psychologically examined and if found to have been completely sane during the act, then prosecuted for violation of state and federal abortion laws and practicing medicine without a license.

(who is not yet a mother, no?)

A woman does not need to have completed the birth process to be termed a mother. A fetus is still offspring, regardless of how early in development. Offspring are products of reproduction. A mother is a biological (or social, but we're not discussing that type) female parent of an offspring.

Would you tell a woman who had their child be stillborn that they are not a mother any longer? Or a woman who suffered a miscarriage? No existing final product from the reproduction does not negate "motherhood".

(which it doesn't yet have, no?).

On a celluar level, as they are not inorganic or dead organisms. But then again, so do tapeworms and tumors. Socially, however, women aren't expected or demanded to unwillingly carry those organisms.

edited for HTML retardedness

[aprilrobin.livejournal.com]

but what if the baby was born it suddenly grabbed a nearby shank and tried to attack the mother, but the cord was not cut yet and she crushed it's skull with a metal implement in self-defense.

Would that be illegal?