Posts

There is also the right, in one's lifetime, at some point, to HAVE a baby. 

Having a baby is a big complicated deal, and the pieces - the personalities and the money - can easily never fall into place, in exactly the perfect right way, so it never happens. Maybe that is sad.

By the time people can afford it financially, they are too old biologically and socially. The older guys think they will choose a young one when they are established, and the young women say 'not yet'.Then the women over thirty say, 'ok, it's time, hello, I'm here', and the men don't want a wife that age. She knows too much and talks too much. And her fertility is fading rapidly as 35 approaches.

All this aspirating and curettage has some odd costs. Men, this means you. If you want a son, start now, or forever sigh. Oh, sure. You might want a daughter. Sure you might.

An unwanted pregnancy doesn't mean  "you weren't wanted, get your own breakfast" for the rest of time. Silly. People adjust to having children. Ask your own parents. Prepare for a long story. Have wine handy.

Ow, I just realized my comment got stuck at the bottom of all the others, when it was meant as a comeback to the genius who said that abortion is like kicking babies–I thought it would get posted right underneath if I hit Reply! Sorry! The site moderator can remove it if they want!

ok, what propaganda, before you even start to slice and dice, is- is ‘pro-life’ ‘pro-choice’ your one or none.
its bullsh*t, quite honestly, why should i label to something that belittles the severity what it actually referring to. i’m pro life and pro choice, buts thats not what we’re talking about. are you pro abortion or anti abortion OR are you pro civil rights or against? or amalgamate the best of the two, are you anti abortion or are you pro civil rights, thats seems to me the only thing we’re talking about anyways when people speak abortion, am I wrong?

anything else is insanity, I wanna slap people that ask me if i’m pro-life, its like that comedian, if your not gonna explain what your talking about- i’m assuming what I want… next time someone asks me that, this is what i’m telling them, ‘pro-life? hells yeah, i’ve been pro life for as long as I can remember, 20th anniversary edition, i’ve got that. you knows those diploma’s you get if you choose college, well mine’s framed, shit, i’ve been pro life for as long as i can remember. pro yahtzee too.

Speaking strictly legally, RvW decision was a big mistake.
Nowhere in the Constitution there is abortion Right or privacy Right. States can regulate (read: prohibit) ANY medical provedure, no matter how beneficial it may be for the patient.
Also it was not necessary. Almost all states in early 1970′s were moving towards pro-choice laws, except for handful(even there u could drive across state line for an abortion).
Politically RvW was adisaster for the Left. Low income Evangelicals started to vote in droves for Republicans, also 1/3 of Hispanics. “Not much”, u say, but it made “Purple” states “Red”.

“Woman need to learn how to make the right choices before theres a baby involved. Use a condom or birth control pills! What is so difficult about that? Why is adoption not the answer but destroying a human life is? Take responsibility for what you created and give the child a chance to live! Abortion is a disgusting horrible way to ‘fix the problem’. Only if the Mother’s life is at stake should this procedure be done and that is very rare these days that pregnancy is a danger to a woman.”

A few reasons this post scares me….
1) “Abortion is a disgusting[,] horrible way to ‘fix the problem’”: Which “problem” are we talking about here? If we’re talking about unwanted pregnancy, I would argue that surgical abortion, particularly after the first trimester, is not the ideal situation. It is a _necessary_ procedure for some women. Why is it necessary? Is it because, as Anon seems to think, women always make the “wrong” choices “before theres a baby involved” [sic]? No. It is necessary because too many women in the US–and myriads of women in other countries around the world–have no or no meaningful access to contraception. Access to contraception in the US depends on your income, where you live (rural or urban), your age (if you are a young woman, you may be subject to parental consent laws, parental coercion, or parental abuse), and many other factors. Disturbingly, many of these factors are also linked to race, making it even more difficult for women of color to obtain adequate contraceptive options before unwanted pregnacny becomes a problem. Women of color and rural women also have less access to abortion if they do find themselves in the dilemma of an unwanted pregnancy.

“Use a condom or birth control pills! What is so difficult about that?” Indeed, condoms are cheap to make, as are birth control pills, but they are not cheap to obtain, and the burden of paying for oral contraceptives nearly always falls on women. In order for all people–not only women, whom Anon seems to think are solely responsible for conception (if it weren’t for that pesky fact about sperm…)–to “use birth control” or other forms of contraceptives in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy, they need meaningful access to those contraceptives. In other words, we all need feminism, a political movement whose aim is social and political equality between men and women.

The right-wing and conservative movements may claim that they are only against “murder” and that they would rather see women (and you better believe the right wing blames women only) use contraceptives, the real story is that these dangerous political movements are focusing their strategies against all unmarried, non-heterosexual, non-procreative sex. They fund abstinence programs though these have been proven ineffective in preventing teen pregnancy (see http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/sex-education/abstinence-only-programs.html). They refuse to make contraceptive access a national priority. These lawmakers and policymakers, particularly men, ignore the fact that many insurance policies do not adequately cover contraceptives, that many women have no health coverage in this country, that some counties have only Catholic hospitals who refuse to administer emergency contraception (even in cases of rape), the list goes on and is, indeed, frightening.

2) “Only if the Mother’s life is at stake should this procedure be done and that is very rare these days that pregnancy is a danger to a woman.” This response displays a grave ignorance about and lack of regard for the lives of women living outside the US, not to mention the lives of poor women in the US, who generally are less likely to have health insurance and so often have inadequate prenatal care. Outside the US, as the original article notes, pregnancy and childbirth claim the lives of far too many women, and these are indeed “preventable” fatalities. But they will not and cannot be prevented if the right wing continues to pursue policies against not only abortion (a necessary procedure in some cases) but against contraceptive access and against more economic equality for women.

3) “Why is adoption not the answer but destroying a human life is? Take responsibility for what you created and give the child a chance to live!” This is another complicated issue that, in the US at least, affects people of color disproportionately. First of all, thousands of children in the US are waiting to be adopted. Some reports (for example, from the Adoption Institute) claim that about 60% of children waiting to be adopted domestically are children of color. We’re obviously doing something very wrong. In addition to this gross inequality, conservative politicians continue to promote policies like those in the state of Florida, where same-sex couples can become foster parents but cannot become adoptive parents. Which children do we, as a society, care about if we allow such policies to continue? Why prevent a loving couple who wants to have children from adopting, especialy if there are so many children waiting for permanent, loving homes?

I don’t usually turn to personal nit-picking, but I have to ask, Anon, how many children have you adopted so far?

My main point is that an emotional rant about abortion isn’t going to “fix the problem,” either. There will always be unwanted pregnancies, but we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by pursuing goals that feminism has long pursued: real, robust sex education; contraceptive access; health coverage; economic equality; improved, affordable childcare. There are more goals, too, all interrelated and none turning to the unfortunately age-old response of blaming women for a “problem” caused by heterosexual intercourse (or, sadly, rape). The last time I checked, you still needed a man to make a baby– wanted or unwanted.

SOURCE:http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

“Scientific” myths and scientific facts

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients — and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current “scientific” myths.

Myth 1: “Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions — and that is ridiculous!”

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess “human life” and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual “human being.” Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings — they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman’s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: “The product of fertilization is simply a ‘blob,’ a ‘bunch of cells’, a ‘piece of the mother’s tissues’.”

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a “blob” or a “bunch of cells.” This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother’s and the father’s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a “piece of the mother’s tissues”. Quoting Carlson:

“… [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species.”15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: “The immediate product of fertilization is just a ‘potential’ or a ‘possible’ human being — not a real existing human being.”

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a “potential” or a “possible” human being. It’s an actual human being — with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: “A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings.”

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being — and that that’s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: “The immediate product of fertilization is just an ‘it’ — it is neither a girl nor a boy.”

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy — determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

“…[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)”16

Myth 6: “The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation.” (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles — especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization — not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O’Rahilly:

“Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. … [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth …”17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: “The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a ‘pre-embryo’ — and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated.”

Fact 7: This “scientific” myth is perhaps the most common error that pervades the current literature. The term “pre-embryo” has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

The term “pre-embryo” was also used as the rationale for permitting human embryo research in the British Warnock Committee Report (1984),21 and then picked up by literally hundreds of writers internationally, including, e.g., Australian writers Michael Lockwood, Michael Tooley, Alan Trounson — and especially by Peter Singer (a philosopher), Pascal Kasimba (a lawyer), Helga Kuhse (an ethicist), Stephen Buckle (a philosopher) and Karen Dawson (a geneticist, not a human embryologist). Note that none of these is even a scientist, with the exception of Karen Dawson, who is just a geneticist.

Oddly, the influential book by Singer, Kuhse, Buckle, and Dawson, Embryo Experimentation,22 (which uses the term “pre-embryo,” and which contains no scientific references for its “human embryology” chart or its list of “scientific” terms), along with the work of theologian McCormick and frog developmental biologist Grobstein, was used in the United States as the scientific basis for the 1994 National Institutes of Heath (NIH) Human Embryo Research Report.23 That Report concluded that the “preimplantation embryo” (they, too, originally used the term “pre-embryo”) had only a “reduced moral status.” (Both the Warnock Report and the NIH Report admitted that the 14-day limit for human embryo research was arbitrary, and could and must be changed if necessary.) It is particularly in the writings of these and other bioethicists that so much incorrect science is claimed in order to “scientifically” ground the “pre-embryo” myth and therefore “scientifically” justify many of the issues noted at the beginning of this article. This would include abortion, as well as the use of donated or “made-for-research” early human embryos in destructive experimental human embryo research (such as infertility research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, etc.).

To begin with, it has been demonstrated above that the immediate product of fertilization is a human being with 46 chromosomes, a human embryo, an individual member of the human species, and that this is the beginning of the embryonic period. However, McCormick and Grobstein24 claim that even though the product of fertilization is genetically human, it is not a “developmental individual” yet — and in turn, this “scientific fact” grounds their moral claim about this “pre-embryo.” Quoting McCormick

This will be the last I say on this subject, I do agree that a child does not need to be born into a family that does not want them, but what about adoption? Do you realize how many couples are desperate for a child of their own and can’t have one? There will always be someone who would want that baby! I am a christian and believe that life is not an accident. Whether the life is in the womb or out is irrelevant, it is LIFE. I will not argue with you on religion since you don’t believe in anything beyond this existence, That is your view. I believe otherwise and believe every human life born or unborn is precious and deserves a chance to live. Adoption is a way to do that.

Abortioninfo.net is my source. The point is, intercourse produces babies when you do not use birth control or protection, Why are you going to irresponsible , get pregnant and just get an abortion to make it go away? It’s not the baby’s fault they are conceived! They are innocent, helpless human beings being ripped out of the womb and killed because of a woman who was careless and doesn’t want to take responsibility for her actions! That is wrong! I am a mother of one precious baby boy and I remember the first ultrasound I had at only six weeks pregnant, he was tiny but had a little beating heart in his chest! That blew me away! If you stop a beating heart, a living growing little human, you have killed them! Killing is wrong or did that change some where down the line?

I got my info from a real source! This is all fact! You were once a fetus, what if your mom decided you should’ve died? How crule to say such things! A fetus is a human being for god’s sake!

After the first day, biological development into human form progresses very rapidly. Two weeks after conception, the embryo has a developing brain and rudimentary heart.3 Three weeks after conception,THE BABY HAS A WORKING HEART, the beginning of vertebrea, a closed circulatory system separate from the mother’s, developing eyes and ears and the beginning of lungs.3 Around the 25th day, lungs are fully developed, and the heart begins to beat. The heart circulates blood throughout the fetus’ body; blood completely different and often incompatible with that of the mother.2 The baby’s developed systems are already separate from those of the mother; one month after conception it is no longer a part of her.

Five weeks after conception, the embryo has developed smaller organs such as a bony jaw3, and by six weeks, it has fully developed a vertebral column , ribs3, a four-chambered heart, fingers, and nostrils2. The baby also has a developing nervous system, and brainwaves are recorded at an average of 40 days after conception.2 Death is often defined as the cessation of brainwaves, and it follows that the presence of these brainwaves guarantees the individual life of the fetus.

By 7 weeks, the baby has developed a pancreas, a bladder, kidneys, a tongue, and a larynx,2 and muscles begin to appear.3 By eight weeks, the embryo has ears, fingers, and toes, and all key bodyparts are developed or developing.3

Nine weeks into the pregnancy (about 2 months), THE BABY CAN FEEL PAIN4. In ten weeks, the baby has developing fingernails, and also begins to move by itself2. By eleven weeks the baby has the fingerprints that will identify it for the rest of its life. Twelve weeks after conception, the baby’s gender can easily be determined, it is able to swallow, and its kidneys are able to make urine2.

Fourteen weeks into pregnancy, the fetus has fully developed legs. It can kick, sleep, and move its head.

WHEN YOU STOP A BEATING HEART YOU HAVE KILLED! Just because the baby has not breathed air yet means they are not human and alive? That’s crazy! People use abortion as a form of birth control and thats not right!

I’m undecided about the abortion issue, but several of the arguments put forward by “pro-choice” advocates (with whom I, as a generally progressive sort, usually feel most aligned) put me off a bit.

First,the idea that one must be suspicious of men who oppose abortion-”why should they have a say? It’s not their issue”-strikes me as unnecessarily identity-driven. Don’t we want a polity in which one’s political commitments transcend one’s immediate interests? Women opposed or supported the draft in the ’60′s. Men should be able to oppose abortion without having the left raise it’s collective eybrow, or support it without the right calling them self-intersted sexual predators for doing so.

Second, much pro-choice rhetoric is ferally individualistic. Saying that the only locus of interesting ethical inquiry occurs between a woman and her doctor greatly impoverishes moral discourse. You’ve all seen the slogan, “If you’re against abortion, don’t have one”. Imagine another: “If you’re against slavery, don’t own one.” Fritz Perls redux-you do your thing, I’ll do mine. Some would argue that such a radically individualist stance makes grounding an ethical system impossible.

It matters to a pro-lifer whether or not someone has an abortion for precisely the same reason that it matters to an abolitionist whether or not someone owns a slave. You may disagree, but doing so on the grounds that, “Hey, it’s my business” doesn’t cut it.

Before someone objects, “But I’m making decisions about my own body by having an abortion. The slave owner is making decisions about someone else’s”, note that this begs the very question under dispute. Whether or not the OB-GYN is dealing only with her nominal patient or whether she is terminating the life of someone else is precisely the question-no fair assuming its answer to defend your point.

I am coming in way after the fact, but I have something to add. There is always the ‘unless it threatens the health of the mother’ clause. All pregnancies threaten the health of the mother. When we talk about late term diagnoses of malformed fetuses, there is not only the physical but mental damage caused by carrying a known nonviable fetus to full term.

Labor and birth can always cause complications. I think part of the flaw in the thinking by pro-lifers is that the mother is only a factor in the equation if the woman’s death is certain. This is opposed to the reality that even in apparently healthy women, birth can cause complications leading to death. It also assumes that death is worse than 4-5 months of the knowledge that a brain dead fetus is being carried in the womb and the psychological damage and physical damage that can be incurred due to this.

It seems if we could somehow impart the reality of pregnancy, and the inherent risks, it might at least lead some lifers to begin understanding why the woman whose body is directly affected should have an important say.

You can argue for one person’s right to disagree to a matter, but how on earth do you disagree with a person’s right to choose what occurs to their own body? Perhaps I have missed it in the commentary, but who here commented on the “bright” future that awaits any “fetus” that would have normally been aborted by its mother once it becomes a “child”? Statistics show that children that grow up unplanned, unwanted, and unloved are MOST likely to grow up marginalized, impoverished, and under-educated, ie.: criminals. Criminals, by the way, that the USA chooses not to rehabilitate.

As far as partial birth abortion, well how in the hell do you suppose a hopeful mother can give birth to children if she dies during an already doomed child-birth? We are far past the dark ages here, ladies and gentlemen. I can not for the life of me understand why, as women in the year 2008, we CHOOSE to be objects controlled by our wombs, by anyone other than OURSELVES. Perhaps the next step should be burkas?

I have no doubt however, that the women that bark “Pro-Life” today, will be the same women sending the babies off to war to fight for some propagandist dream. Good luck to you. I believe in the quality of survival, not the quantity – that and evolution.

“Anon you are so stupid..the issue is a woman’s right to choose and nothing more”

Behold– the liberal two-prong argument. An ad hominem attack followed by an unsubstantiated assertion.

Here’s a clue for you– one is not an “idiot” simply because he (or she) does not share your views. Moreover, the “issue” is also a living, growing baby, and not just a made-up constitutional right to kill the child for the crime of being a potential inconvenience.

Amy, your insightful and well written post concludes with the notion that we have yet to identify the kind of young leadership that can make feminism resonate with young women. I disagree. You clearly are that type of woman, and your well-honed arguments demonstrate that with brio. Keep up the good work.

I couldnt help but notice all of these nasty comments back and forth. I just think its interesting that Monica seems to say she likes dialogue and it shouldnt be taken as threatening, yet Monica is the one who came back with comments such as “bratty” and “immature” Gee Monica…seems like you are the one that’s threatened. Seriously…take a deep breathe…its ok for people to disagree with you…but name calling? really? is that where you’re at?

insulting people again. i am not hostile, i agree with Amy Odell’s piece. I just thought your replies to those anonymous commments were really rude. Wanted to stick up for someone speaking their mind.

real nice to completely insult someone who is interested in the website you are blogging on. i don’t know about anon, but i am completely offended by you. Why don’t you look at your own writing, if you want to talk about bad grammar.

Being an “old” experienced woman and having lived through the first bout of ‘women’s rights” i would like to make one observation. Until ALL women realize our inherent power and start to use it, nothing will change. It matters not- how many laws are written. Women as a whole have little self-esteem or self-worth; and men feel much the same. “Women are plentiful and of what real worth are they?” This IS NOT my opinion, but it seems to be the general attitude in the world. At some time in our ‘civilization’ women where removed from being important in the continuing the speces. We are not bold enough, arrogant enough to show our true strength.

Until the supreme court decision last week, I hadn’t really considered what ‘partial-birth’ abortion really consists of, and so I thought the ban was terrible.

Then I looked it up, and it was up there with reading about death camps and darfur in the category of ‘most disturbing things ever’. Check out the wikipedia article (not after a big meal, and sitting down if you know what’s good for you).

A number of western european countries restrict abortion even earlier then the supreme court decision allows: Denmark, France, Norway, Austria, Belgium and Sweeden.

I don’t think a zygote is the same as a person, but this may be an area where we can compromise with pro-life people. It’s possible to stand for a woman’s right to chose and still be repulsed by the idea of a viable living fetus having it’s brains sucked out with a tube or its skull crushed by a doctor.

Maybe the pro-choice movement we need is one that is less dogmatic and can recognize that sometimes pro-life advocates have a point.