HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What "Saving Unborn Babie...

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 04:09 PM

What "Saving Unborn Babies" While Protecting Women's Rights Over Their Bodies Looks Like

So you want to save unborn babies from being aborted. It's a moral bedrock for you, a do-or-die issue that you'll go to the most extreme barrier imaginable (or unimaginable) to accomplish.

It's about the UNBORN BABIES, not about controlling women, not about trying to restrict their rights, nothing to do with limiting their choices over their lives and their bodies. But when it comes to a choice between those rights, and saving the life of an unborn baby, something MUST give way, and to you, that's the already-born woman's autonomy and control over her body and her choices.

Let's start with a basic stipulation:

Even the most complete legal restrictions on abortion possible or imaginable- even dumping the whole Constitution in the shitter and going full-on "Handmaid's Tale" controls, COMBINED WITH unimaginably sophisticated medical technology, will not accomplish the goal of allowing every conceptus to be carried to term.

You can't even ensure that the majority will be carried to term. Somewhere around sixty percent of natural conceptions fail for one reason or another: They don't implant, they fail to develop, they spontaneously miscarry even before the mother has missed a period, etc.

And some unborn babies have such profound damage that even if they get past the implantation and begin to develop, they will spontaneously abort, sometimes in the process killing the mother.

And some mothers have various conditions in which the effects of the pregnancy may kill them before the unborn baby is even viable enough to incubate.

And some mothers will find ways to kill themselves and their unborn baby if forced to carry the pregnancy, no matter what you do. (There is virtually NO way to prevent someone who is determined to do so, from killing themselves.)

And some mothers will find ways to abort their unborn baby even if it means jail or their own execution for the crime.

But those last four contingencies, you'll say, are RARE.

(There is actually room for dispute about the "rarity" in that last case- women who will find ways to abort, no matter what, based on data accumulated during prior periods of history. But for now, we'll stipulate that women can be sufficiently coerced to make such attempts rare.)

We are also stipulating that you don't really want that level of totalitarian, draconian control. You just want women to make the "morally right" choice to carry every pregnancy to term, and want the law to provide some disincentives to keep women from making a "morally wrong" choice to end their pregnancy.

But disincentives are rarely as powerful as incentives. We're looking to assure maximum possible rights for women, minimum possible "murders of unborn babies".

Is it even possible?

Well, actually, it may be.

What would that look like?

First, contraception would be safe, would not interfere with sexual enjoyment, would be no-cost and easily accessible, and would be available equally to men and women. That is, it would almost always be a positive choice, requiring positive action and consent on behalf of both parties, for a conception to even be possible.

While such contraceptive options aren't quite available yet, they are easily within reach of existing medical technology and could almost certainly be brought into reality with a comparatively modest investment.

At that point, almost every intentional conception would be wanted, and the number of abortions would plummet.

There would still be some "terrible regret" pregnancies, perhaps forcibly initiated in criminal circumstances (that would be "RAPE" ), perhaps entered into willingly and then with a change of relationship or financial circumstances, appearing to be unfeasible for various reasons.

If we focused social resources on raising our boys and young men not to be rapists, that would reduce rape-related pregnancies to very near zero.

And by offering complete and unbiased mental health services, ongoing expert counseling, financial and social support, reliable judicial redress, top-quality health care, and generous adoption programs to the few remaining rape victims, it would be easier for the ones who share the socially-demonstrated value for unborn life to act on that value. They would have confidence in the availability of lifelong generous support for their recovery from the trauma of both the rape and the pregnancy.

It won't keep every single rape victim from exercising the option to abort, but it may substantially make a dent in the number who make that choice, and since we've already reduced rape to a rare occurrence, that would make such choices more than rare.

What about those other "regrets"?

Most of those are rooted in a woman's contemplation of the responsibilities of raising a child with the grotesquely inadequate social and financial support available to single mothers in our society. We could tackle that by making high-quality pregnancy and infant parenting support readily accessible at no cost, making quality child care services universally available and accessible, improving the public education system, subsidizing other costs of raising children for women without financial resources, making health care universal, making college tuition free or low-cost, and ensuring the availability of safe, attractive, affordable housing.

Do all that, and you'll get the "regrets" factor down to almost nothing, as well. Add in generous support for adoption options, reduce it further.

So if you're looking for a world where unborn babies are MOST likely to make it out of the womb and the rights of women to autonomy over their bodies are fully respected, try those three things:

1. Universal, safe, free contraception for both genders.

2. Eliminate the patriarchal fostering of rape culture and enabling of rape as a crime.

3. Provide generous and universally-available support for parenting and raising children.

Done.

Yes, there will still be some "RARE" issues to address. But once we've saved so many unborn babies, and rejoiced in their lives, we can probably find common ground and positive ways to address those as well, don't you think?

Or is it really just about controlling women's choices and keeping them from having full autonomy and rights over their bodies?

Be honest, now.

encouragingly,
Bright



38 replies, 4061 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 38 replies Author Time Post
Reply What "Saving Unborn Babies" While Protecting Women's Rights Over Their Bodies Looks Like (Original post)
TygrBright Feb 2019 OP
JenniferJuniper Feb 2019 #1
LiberalFighter Feb 2019 #13
MadDAsHell Feb 2019 #15
Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2019 #17
JenniferJuniper Feb 2019 #18
Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2019 #23
uponit7771 Feb 2019 #24
JenniferJuniper Feb 2019 #28
uponit7771 Feb 2019 #30
Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2019 #31
JenniferJuniper Feb 2019 #33
Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2019 #35
JenniferJuniper Feb 2019 #36
Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2019 #38
secondwind Feb 2019 #29
Wounded Bear Feb 2019 #2
Mystery sage Feb 2019 #7
MH1 Feb 2019 #3
Stargazer09 Feb 2019 #26
happybird Feb 2019 #4
vlyons Feb 2019 #5
guillaumeb Feb 2019 #6
Maraya1969 Feb 2019 #8
LiberalFighter Feb 2019 #14
TexasBushwhacker Feb 2019 #16
LiberalFighter Feb 2019 #19
Maraya1969 Feb 2019 #20
uponit7771 Feb 2019 #25
50 Shades Of Blue Feb 2019 #9
xmas74 Feb 2019 #11
50 Shades Of Blue Feb 2019 #12
Bettie Feb 2019 #21
50 Shades Of Blue Feb 2019 #22
mjvpi Feb 2019 #10
Stargazer09 Feb 2019 #27
KentuckyWoman Feb 2019 #32
spanone Feb 2019 #34
Oneironaut Feb 2019 #37

Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 04:12 PM

1. Women are human beings. Embryos and fetuses are not.

Human beings get the rights here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JenniferJuniper (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 11:34 PM

13. The way I see it.

Considering that the embryos and fetuses rely on the blood from the female. As long as the fetus/embryo needs it is nothing but an organ or tissue within the body of the female.


If they really want the fetus to come to term do it without being inside the female. And the party that agrees to take over the fetus needs to pay for the procedure without endangering the female.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JenniferJuniper (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 14, 2019, 12:12 AM

15. I wouldn't say you're really human until about a year old. Till then it's open season. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JenniferJuniper (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 14, 2019, 10:05 AM

17. The question as to whether a fetus is a human being is at the center of the abortion debate

Both "yes" and "no" are nothing more than opinions. These opinions may be strongly held, but they remain opinions.

It goes back to one of the basic philosophical questions, "What is a human being?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 14, 2019, 11:14 AM

18. It's well settled at the societal level.

Embryos and fetuses are not human beings.

I can list a ton of examples that support this. No deep philosophical debate is needed.

Further, an entity dependent on an actual human being's body for survival doesn't have a say in whether it stays there or not. That's the human being's call.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JenniferJuniper (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 15, 2019, 05:32 AM

23. No, it is not settled.

Both sides like to claim that it is, but they are merely spouting their own propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 15, 2019, 05:57 AM

24. Fetuses aren't sentient beings, water is not dry, bears don't pee in Porta potties

The pro forced government birth factions can't make up this own realities

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 15, 2019, 09:08 AM

28. Exactly.

Forced-birthers and their nonsense gets so tiresome.

Is a human embryo/fetus human life? It is. Is it a human being? NO. It is not. Never has been, never will be.

Women are human beings, however, whether misogynists like that fact or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JenniferJuniper (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 15, 2019, 12:06 PM

30. +1, most of RussiaPublican ideals of reality are pulled out of their butts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JenniferJuniper (Reply #28)

Sat Feb 16, 2019, 06:38 AM

31. Your OPINION is that a fetus is not a human being.

But, as I keep saying, and none of you has successfully refuted, it is nothing but an opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #31)

Sat Feb 16, 2019, 10:55 AM

33. It's not MY opinion

And you are playing a false equivalency game.

But I'll play along. Are you claiming a four month fetus is a human being and therefore must have rights equal to those of the woman carrying it?

How does that work exactly?

And if this is what you are claiming, if a woman aborts that fetus should she be sentenced to the same prison term she'd she'd get if she'd murdered her neighbor's three year old?

How would that work exactly?

I haven't even heard the most extreme fundamentalist Christians claim fetuses and embryos are actual human beings as opposed to merely human life. And of course they don't care about anyone's children; their goal is to keep women barefoot, pregnant and subservient second class citizens.

What's your goal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JenniferJuniper (Reply #33)

Sun Feb 17, 2019, 07:48 AM

35. It is your opinion. What evidence do you have to back it up? None.

Certainly nothing that you have presented.

I have not expressed an opinion one way or another. In fact, I happen to agree with you that a fetus is no more a human being than an acorn is an oak tree. My "goal", as you put it, is to state, as I have done, is that both sides in the debate are based on their beliefs as to whether a fetus is a human being or not. That's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #35)

Sun Feb 17, 2019, 07:53 AM

36. Fair and balanced?

Stuff and nonsense is more like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JenniferJuniper (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 18, 2019, 07:39 AM

38. Jennifer, what you are saying is:

"I disagree with you. I don't have a scintilla of actual evidence to show that you're wrong, so I'll just whinge."

All I have said in this thread is that the question, "Is a fetus a human being or not?" is undecidable. It is a philosophical question, part of the broader question, "What is a human being?" Any answer that anyone may give is simply an opinion. That's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 15, 2019, 10:53 AM

29. I have always said that a fetus is an

Incipient human being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 04:13 PM

2. If only the forced birther crowd would bend to logic and rationality...

Nice write-up, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 04:40 PM

7. Yeah they would be like "too long didn't read"

However if you have pictures or an animation of what your saying they would be unable to unsee that since it speaks their language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 04:23 PM

3. One more thing about adoption.

Hopefully you make the need for it rare. But when it happens, particularly as the result of rape, but importantly ANYTIME THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER REQUESTS PRIVACY

...YOU RESPECT THAT PRIVACY.

Not like it is today, where adoption records can be unsealed by a court without any requirement to contact all of the parties involved and get permission.

This is a quiet problem with the adoption system as it exists today, because someone who has already had their desired privacy breached, is not coming forward to make a public issue of it.

Adoptees should not be raised to think they have a right to know their biological parents. If records were sealed, that should be the end of it. Unless and until all parties agree, without coercion.

Until I believe the law has been corrected in all states to respect privacy, I will never counsel adoption as an "option" for a rape victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 15, 2019, 07:18 AM

26. That's no longer possible

In a perfect world, hell yes the womanís privacy should absolutely be guaranteed. I support that 100%!

In todayís world, unfortunately, it wonít work. I personally donít need to take a DNA test to have someone I gave up for adoption find me. A sibling here, a first cousin there, and pretty soon, Iím easy to find for someone determined to seek out the answers. (And some adoptees go to significant lengths to find relatives. I know a guy who takes DNA tests from just about every company offering them, because he wants to find ALL of the members of his family tree.)

As popular as DNA testing has become, itís just a matter of time before none of us will be able to hide behind anonymity, particularly in regards to adoptions and paternity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 04:26 PM

4. Hell yes. Well reasoned and said.

I'd add medically accurate, real sex education in all schools, with a federally mandated curriculum developed by experts, and including lots of discussion about consent and the many situations where consent issues can arise.

"Abstinence only" is unrealistic and harmful bs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 04:26 PM

5. We don't need any more unwanted children. We have enough of those already.

That is my bottom line on free, available safe contraception. And when necessary, abortion. Let's get clear about a few facts.

1. The majority of women, who seek abortions, are already mothers. They simply cannot handle more kids for a vast number of reasons. Economic, health, emotional stress. Single mothers already holding down 1 or 2 jobs with no support from the fathers. Mothers who cannot afford more child care or take off time for work. Mothers in an already rocky marriage. Mothers with neglected children. Mothers who know that another baby will bring post partum depression. Mothers without extended family support.

2. No amount of laws will prevent women from aborting babies. Women with money will go on "vacation," where they can get an abortion no problem. Women without money will throw themselves down the stairs, out of windows, drink bleach, or draino, or god-knows-what. Women will visit Aunt Hatpin Hattie and Cousin Coathanger Cathy. Maybe end up dead, leaving their other children motherless.

3. Our planet is simply over-populated with humans. We are destroying our environment. Families with just 1 or 2 children do much better, live better lifestyles than families with 5 or 6 or more kids. Those 1 or 2 kids have a better chance to go to school, be well-fed, and well cared for.

Need I say more?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 04:32 PM

6. Pro-life, or pro-fetus?

The GOP is clearly in the second category.

As always, well written.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 05:44 PM

8. To the ones who insist abortion is immoral tell them that God, (or insert whoever or whatever here)

will put that soul in a different woman's womb; that every soul that is supposed to be born will be born. An abortion is not the end of that soul; it will just go on to a new mother.

That's my take anyway.

Also ask any rabid pro-lifer if they donate to groups who hand out free contraception. If everyone had access to free contraception the number of unwanted pregnancies would plummet (I think you said that).

Great post!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 11:41 PM

14. My take on the god thing...

The Christian OT is based on the Jewish Bible. The Jewish Bible based on interpretations of the Rabbis from that time period allowed abortions as well as executions of pregnant women. As long as the woman was not giving birth at the time.

Since the Jewish Bible is the origin of the OT it should be treated as the authority based on interpretations by the Rabbis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 14, 2019, 08:13 AM

16. And the Bible does not consider a fetus to be "alive"

or for the life of a fetus to have as much value as that of the mother.

"Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Exodus 21:22-25"

https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18514-what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion

Furthermore:

"According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasBushwhacker (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 14, 2019, 12:58 PM

19. There is even a potion priests give to women to cause an abortion. Numbers 5

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasBushwhacker (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 14, 2019, 03:18 PM

20. After I watched this video I knew that life begins with breath. It is a little troubling but if you

watch to the end you will be happy that you did.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 15, 2019, 06:00 AM

25. They don't care about morality supporting Trump's kid knappings

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 06:36 PM

9. I don't know a single woman who's had an abortion who regretted it.

I've been around a long time. I know a lot of women who've had abortions. Not a single one regretted it. They were relieved they had the option.

I'm not saying it was only women I "knew," either...

I also know a couple of women who were unable to get abortions and were forced to carry dead fetuses to term. It haunted them the rest of their lives.

That is why I'm not just pro-choice. I'm PRO-ABORTION!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 50 Shades Of Blue (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 06:51 PM

11. The closest I can think of is someone who regretted needing it, not the procedure itself.

She had a late term procedure after discovering her daughter had a profound birth defect that would never get better with any treatment. Her daughter would die and die quickly after birth, possibly in pain though that was unknown. She would never even make it past the first month, which was a given considering her brain had developed outside of her skull. We both working in a state habilitation center at the time and she knew not to kid herself about there being any hope.

She said she regretted needing it but not the procedure itself. Most of her regret was grief that she was still working through while blaming herself for her daughter's development. The baby was very wanted with a nursery already set up, lots of clothes and relatives already talking about savings bonds upon birth. She and her husband eventually divorced because neither could get over the loss of their wanted child. Last I heard both had remarried and she has a 14 year old while he has three children with his second wife.

The women I know who didn't need it for such a dramatic reason don't regret it one bit. They've all said it was the best decision they could make in a crap situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xmas74 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 07:11 PM

12. Very sad story. :( So sorry for what she went through! This again highlights how vital CHOICE is.

These misogynistic patriarchy-obsessed monsters would force her and women with pregnancies like hers to carry to term, regardless of the pointlessness of carrying to term and the additional agony it would cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 50 Shades Of Blue (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 14, 2019, 04:14 PM

21. I know one

she had two while she was in college and then she found right wing religion.

This new religious group told her that her second child has CP as punishment for her abortions. Now she's against all forms of birth control except abstinence and says that if pregnancy endangers a woman's life, "well, she knew that was a possibility going in!".

She's my SIL and I avoid her at all costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 14, 2019, 04:24 PM

22. To quote my late grandmother... she sounds like a pip!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 06:50 PM

10. Way to cloud the issue with logic and compassion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2019, 07:20 AM

27. Honestly

Itís the control over women that most of the forced-birthers want. The unborn babies angle is just to make it palatable to women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2019, 09:33 AM

32. Right to life has nothing to do with life.

I'm up to my eyeballs in these idiot right to lifers. Not a single one gives one iota about the babies or the women. Death of the mother, suicides, back street abortions,... they don't care. Not in the very least. And once the child is born the poor little kid could be used kleenex for all these right to lifers care.

What do they care about? Beats me. Half of the right to lifers I know barely care about themselves, let alone anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2019, 11:00 AM

34. K&R...Thanks Bright!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2019, 08:57 AM

37. And the religious right wants to ban contraceptives incl. the pill, pre-marital sex, and abortion.

Problem solved, right? Because humans are great at just not having sex!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread