I need help refuting pro-life arguments from the left.

[Athelwulf]

The specific reference is The Liberal Case Against Abortion by Vasu Murti, ISBN 0-9772234-3-4, if anyone wants to look it up.

I came across this book in the library and wondered how one could argue against abortion from a liberal point of view. So I opened it and skimmed it. I was expecting it to really be an argument from a conservative viewpoint, but disguised as a liberal viewpoint — in other words, nothing more than "Life begins at conception! Abortion kills babies! Praise Jesus!", just like any other "liberal" case against things like same-sex marriage.

Well, to me, it doesn't seem to be that simple. Some arguments in this book have me at a loss for words. I'm not sure how they could be refuted. If anyone has seen these arguments before and knows any counter-arguments, I appreciate any help here.

I'll share two passages which contain, in my opinion, a couple of the toughest arguments. They're both from a chapter about pro-life feminists. The first is a quote from an article called "Pro-Abortionists Poison Feminism" by Rosemary Bottcher, on page 28:

(Pro-abortion feminists) resent that the value of a woman is determined by whether some man wants her, yet they declare that the value of an unborn child is determined by whether some woman wants him. They resent that women have been "owned" by their husbands, yet insist that the unborn are "owned" by their mothers.

They believe that a man's right to do what he pleases with his own body cannot include the right to sexually exploit women, yet proclaim that a woman's similar right means that she can kill her unborn child.

The other passage is a quote from the book Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices, on page 29:

Abortion, in the final analysis, works to the advantage of the exploitative male, not for the female. It provides an end to any and all financial, legal or social obligation which comes with childbirth by eliminating the possibility of birth. Abortion provides the ultimate rationale when pressing for sexual favors. It makes the female a perpetual and re-suable sex object. When an unwanted pregnancy occurs, the female is potentially left without any social support.

The male can remove himself from the situation, physically or mentally because abortion is "her" right. The female is left with the sole and final legal responsibility for killing her offspring. It is her body and mind which bear the scars of this destructive operation and experience... Abortion is a male sexual fantasy come true.

Again, counter-arguments are greatly appreciated.

[willing dwarf]

1. There actually are social conservatives who are political liberals

I think it's possible to disagree on cultural issues and still form political alliances. Remembering that might be more fruitful than trying to change the mind of other people.

I think that the "culture wars" were created to keep the people divided. So long as we're divided, we are no threat to the status quo.

[SharonAnn]

16. Any "argument" that uses the term "pro-abortion" to describe "pro-choice" isn't liberal.

[kestrel91316]

2. Nobody has the right to force me to bear a child against my wishes.

I own my own body. Nobody else owns my body. Forced childbearing is reproductive slavery.

If men don't like what some women choose to do with a fetus they helped create, they can always use a condom or get a vasectomy or simply keep their pants zipped the next time around, as they should have the FIRST time around.

I really don't care WHAT some anti-choicers arguments are at this point. The matter is NON-NEGOTIABLE.

[MLG Pro]

35. its not "reproductive slavery"

its a right for a baby to live and i don't understand why someone would want to have an abortion, just give the baby up for adoption rather than killing it.

[Scout]

36. i don't understand how someone can think it's just oh so easy

to remain pregnant and just squeeze that baby out and give it away!

a fetus does not have rights. a pregnant woman has rights. a born baby might have some rights.

if you don't want to be PREGNANT then you can't carry it to term, give birth, and give it away.

it IS reproductive slavery to be forced to remain pregnant and bear a child. if you can't understand that, you are probably in the wrong forum.


eta: i should have known not to waste time checking your profile ... you are a boy, so of course you will NEVER understand.

[MLG Pro]

37. wow

First off a fetus should have rights and just because our government does not say it should does not make abortion morally right. It seems that some people think that pregnancy just happens. Regardless if it is legal or not it is morally wrong to have an abortion.

[Scout]

38. your opinion about abortion not being "morally right"

is just your opinion. as such, it is not justification to force a woman into reproductive slavery. every sperm does not deserve a name. if you don't want your sperm aborted, you should be very careful where you leave it.
:eyes:

"some people think that pregnancy just happens"
who might that be? they think a woman can just spontaneously become pregnant?
:rofl:

tell me, are you one of those people who thinks a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant and give birth can choose
a) an entire lifetime of abstinence, or
b) squeeze out that baby whether you wanted to be pregnant or not, 'cuz hey, if your birth control failed so what? you shouldn't have been having sex anyway you dirty girl!

[iverglas]

39. you still here?

Surely there is homework needing doing.

Your posts are juvenile and self-absorbed. As long as you're here, do try reading a little of what other people say and think and feel. It will help in your maturation process, which seems to be a little stunted at present.

Your opinion that it is "morally wrong" to have an abortion is just fascinating. If you want to debate the moral rightness and wrongness of abortion, you should be able to find someone somewhere who is interested in doing that with you.

Me, I don't care what your opinion of the moral rightness or wrongness of abortion is. I don't care about it any more than you care about my opinion of the moral rightness or wrongness of anything you do is. Your only concern about my opinion in that regard would be if I started trying to force you not to do something you didn't think was morally wrong.

I think it's seriously morally wrong to have more than two children. So how's about I join with a bunch of people and elect a government that forces you to have a vasectomy after you have fathered two children?

You think fetuses should have rights. Good for you. Now let's see you make some sense.

If a fetus has the same rights as a pregnant woman -- and really, if a fetus has rights, it has to have exactly the same rights as a pregnant woman -- how are these things going to work?

The fetus has a right to life. The pregnant woman has a right to life. The woman wants to terminate her pregnancy because she doesn't feel like getting stretch marks. The government makes it a criminal offence to perform an abortion -- it's murder, in fact, since the fetus is a human being with the right to life, right? -- so she can find no way of ending her pregnancy. After nine months, she delivers a bouncing baby ... and then she haemorrhages, and the bleeding can't be stopped, and she dies.

So. Whom do we charge with her murder? She didn't choose to die, she was prevented from doing the thing that would have prevented her death, and she is dead.

If you fell off a boat at sea, and someone wanted to throw you a life jacket but I stopped that person from doing it, would you think that what I did was "morally wrong"? Would you think maybe it should be against the law to stop someone from saving a person at risk of drowning? Would you oppose a law that made it a criminal offence to throw a life jacket to a person in deep water?

Use that head on your shoulders.

And if you should feel tempted to say things like "It seems that some people think that pregnancy just happens" to a group of adults who are strangers to you, in future, try to resist that urge. The people you are addressing aren't the ones who look like morons when you say things like that.

[MLG Pro]

40. yeah i'm still here

"The fetus has a right to life. The pregnant woman has a right to life. The woman wants to terminate her pregnancy because she doesn't feel like getting stretch marks. The government makes it a criminal offence to perform an abortion -- it's murder, in fact, since the fetus is a human being with the right to life, right? -- so she can find no way of ending her pregnancy. After nine months, she delivers a bouncing baby ... and then she haemorrhages, and the bleeding can't be stopped, and she dies.

So. Whom do we charge with her murder? She didn't choose to die, she was prevented from doing the thing that would have prevented her death, and she is dead."

This just shows how morally bankrupt our country has become to be so selfish that someone kill there own baby because "she doesn't feel like getting stretch marks."

[Scout]

41. wow, way to miss the whole fucking point

why don't you stand on a chair and let iverglas run it by you again?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

actually, it's not funny, it's pretty sad that you just can't seem to get it....


eta: why don't you answer my post #38?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WildClarySage]

43. Someone order a pizza?

[Scout]

44. you are just digging yourself in deeper...

you are EXACTLY one of the people i listed...

and guess what? when a woman is pregnant, it is all about her--she is the one who will decide what happens to her body, whether you like it or not.

[MLG Pro]

45. double post sorry

i accidentally doubled posted the message below.

[MLG Pro]

46. yeah

right, like you know what kind of person I am and you missed my point at the end, it wasn't directed at pregnant woman.

How about this a compromise would you agree with a law like this?

Making abortions illegal, except when the physical survival of the mother is threatened, to be determined by three medical doctors.

[Scout]

48. nope, no compromise n/t

[Kerrytravelers]

47. There is much to be commented on when reading such posts. This addresses all your posts.

Edited for formatting error


To claim superior morality only allows you to grant yourself the gift of not dealing with reality. It is really easy to sit in judgment if you don’t deal with the reality of life. Life isn’t black-and-white, yes-or-no. You might like to think so, but again, you are fooling yourself into a false comfort. And when reality hits you, when you are forced to face the grays of life, of the maybes of life for the first time ever, having enveloped yourself in the false sense of comfort, you find yourself completely lost and questioning. Those who chose to accept the variations of life, who understand and acknowledge that there are layers of experiences that we might never have to deal with, but we prepare ourselves for the reality don’t fall apart when faced with the cruel truth of reality.

Let me state it simply: Abortion isn’t as simple as many would like me to believe. People have all kinds of life experiences that bring them to a point in life where they have to consider many options. I need not know all the experiences in life, I need not know everyone’s journey and what brought them to the point of making such a personal choice. But what I need to know is this: when faced with important decisions, I need to be living in the reality-based community where facts and understanding guide my personal choices, not self-anointed importance and a false sense of superior morality.

In all honesty, you give away your lack of knowledge when you say people are killing babies. No one is going into a nursery with an oozy, so cut with the dramatics. Really, it’s hard to take anyone seriously with such melodramatic rhetoric.

You said: How can anyone say that a fetus is not a baby, wait I know they just call it a fetus so you don’t feel bad when you have an abortion, because everyone that it is always about you.

Are you still making that circular argument? Really? Because, when you come to this site, in particular this forum, you’re going to have to better on your game. Really.

I would suggest a basic human biology course, taught in an accredited university (so that rules out the likes of “Liberty University.” ) If you allow yourself, you will learn that the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg, there are many stages before “baby.” For example, stages from zygote, blastocyst and foetus- and this is before the fetus stage that I’m sure you think you’re talking about. The gestation period has multiple stages that are never acknowledged by the forced-birthers (which is, apparently, you.) I wonder why this is? Why would forced-birthers leave this out? Maybe because it doesn’t fit into their black-and-white view of the world. Or maybe because it doesn’t fit into their agenda, which is to create wedge issues. You’re so concerned about “killing babies” that you don’t see what else is going on. Anyone who would believe “killing babies” is gullible enough to believe anything their selling. And it’s the Republican cash-cow (even though over 50% of registered Republicans are pro-choice.) They get more money from people like you, who are taken in with such silly rhetoric. I bet you have given money to candidates who claim they’re “pro-life.” (More on “pro-life later.)

Once you take this course in basic human biology (which I’m so sure you’ll rush right out and do,) you’ll learn about the various and dangerous stages a woman’s body goes through. I’m sure you don’t believe me, because your local forced-birther hasn’t bothered to mention this. And I bet you won’t believe a thing they’d tell you if you asked at the local women’s clinic.

The issue of abortion is beyond you basic black-and-white universe. The world is full of shades of gray, which takes a willingness to understand. You have to actually accept science and human biology to accept the fact that one month into gestation isn’t a “baby.” It is a mass collection of cells. When a woman has a miscarriage at an early stage of gestation and is sad about it, she is sad over losing the potential of having a baby and the end of the nine-month gestation. She didn’t lose an actual “baby” because it’s not an actual “baby” at that point. It is common language to say “baby” because that is what we picture it someday to be. Just like a sapling is someday a tree. If I planted a seed and, when it because a sapling it died, I wouldn’t say “My sapling didn’t make it.” I’d say, “That tree I planted died.”

One shouldn’t get linguistically bogged down. Human biology is more complex than everyday English. Again, I suggest a basic human biology course. You can’t find that in the Bible. Sorry. Jesus taught us many things, but basic human biology isn’t one of ‘em.

So, let’s talk about “pro-life.” If one is for “life,” they are for everyone’s life. That includes the lives of women who are gestating a zygote into a fetus. That includes the (…here is your favorite word…) baby. That includes the child as it grows. That includes people as they develop and become adults. That includes adults working hard to care for their families. That includes people as they retire. That includes people on death row, especially considering how many death-row inmates have been exonerated based on DNA evidence. However, all these “pro-life” people also vote against social safety nets for the poor and disadvantaged (including pregnant women,) they vote against health care for everyone (including pregnant women,) they vote against school programs and education funding and attack teachers and educators, they vote against maintaining a stable job force by rewarding companies who send jobs overseas, they vote against social security and want to privatize it (and considering the current mess, I’m glad they’ve failed at the complete privatization of social security,) they vote against everything that helps the poor by adding the tax burden to the middle class and writing loophole after loophole for the corporations and those in the top 5%.

(Oh, and for your further information, making abortion illegal won’t end it. The poor will go to the back ally and the wealthy will go overseas, to Canada or pay to have it done privately. Seriously, you didn’t already know this?)

You had the audacity to somehow suggest you had “morality.” Do you think cutting social safety nets, education or any of the aforementioned is moral? If you do, I think it speaks more of you than anything else you’re claiming to believe.

So, since you opened the door, I have to enter it. You stated: It seems that some people think that pregnancy just happens. Well, yes, actually. This is the product of abstinence-only sex education. By not giving people full information about their body, people will think such things. Having worked in education for a decade, I have absolutely met young, pregnant girls who had no idea how they got pregnant. They had no idea that what their daddy did to them in their rooms at night could leave them in this condition. If you choose not to believe this, that speaks more to your claim of morality, not mine.

It always puzzles me why people don’t want full and sensible sex education taught in schools. We teach full and sensible math. We teach full and sensible physical education. Why is science and health under such attack, unless it is to further the agenda of setting up a wedge issue- the one in which you have fallen for hook, line and sinker. I wish I had a bridge to nowhere to sell you…

And finally, to address you claim that men need to take responsibility. Well, yes, they do. That has nothing to do with the serious issue of abortion and Roe. Whether men step up and take responsibility or not is a separate issue, and one that is certainly worth discussing. However, do not cloud the issue. The choice of abortion is between a woman, her medical professional and whomever she chooses to discuss her medical condition with. When discussing important issues, one must stay focused on the actual topic at hand and not being random other issues into the discussion. Unless, of course, you don’t have a strong argument. Then distractions are exactly what you’re looking for…

[MullenBank]

3. Put on

your nomax survival suit.

[enki23]

4. i must assume you are at a loss for words because of how astonishingly stupid they are?

this is, i have almost no doubt, thinly veiled evangelism. you won't be around long. in the meantime, you might want to try harder. the first passage rests on the assumption that an abortion kills an "unborn child." anyone who holds that an early-term fetus is an "unborn child" will all but certainly oppose abortion on those grounds alone. the rest is superfluous, and (frankly) stupid bullshit piled around it in a ridiculous attempt to hide the actual argument.

the second passage is... just bizarre. but it doesn't really matter, as it proceeds from the assumption that the male is the one who has the right to make the decision about whether or not to abort. since men have no such legal right or privilege in this country... one doesn't even need to try to analyze the tangled, silly mess. the premises of the argument are not only wrong, they're ridiculous. it's an invalid argument, and needs no refuting.

[Athelwulf]

28. I guess that's one way of saying it, yeah.

I kinda figured there must be something wrong with the arguments. The problem is, I don't specialize in the issue of choice, because I'm not a woman and I never felt too concerned about it. I think much more often about GLBT rights, because I'm gay. This is why I needed help.

So the first passage is begging the question, since it assumes fetuses are people, when that's the very point that needs to be established to even make it relevant? Good, thanks.

As for the bizarreness of the second passage, I don't think it's literally arguing what it's saying. Rather, it's saying that if people were allowed to choose, then men could use it as a way to control their girlfriends and wives. It's saying that shouldn't happen, and since they think allowing abortion consequently allows it to happen, then abortions shouldn't be allowed. However, that is a good point that men aren't the ones who choose to abort anyway.

Also, I hope you weren't talking to me when you said this:

this is, i have almost no doubt, thinly veiled evangelism. you won't be around long. in the meantime, you might want to try harder.

[teach1st]

5. Choices

The arguments reflect values that each person must consider. They don't go toward legislation.

[madeline_con]

6. I see a lot of male-centered thinking

coming from what (I assume) are female writers. Very curious, to say the least.

It goes on about what MEN want, and the function abortion serves them. Why no mention of the women who have to make tough decisions? Why relegate everything to somehow being an advantage to men? It seems to be man-hating obsession disguised as a discussion about choice. I'll give it a :puke:

[bluestateguy]

7. Abortion prohibition is statism

It is effectively a mandate that your body belongs to the state.

[mrcheerful]

8. Best way to refute it?

Easy, are you willing to take care of every child thats born in America if the parents refuse to or are fond unfit to be parents? Anti abortion people only care about fetuses end of story. As soon as the fetus is born the child is then left to the mercy of life and whatever happens to it is none of anti abortion business.

Btw, anti abortions point is misleading as they are just asking women to give up rights to sexual freedom and be brooding mares for men. Because anti abortion is also anti sex ed, anti birth control and anti sex outside of the marriage bed. So every point they think they are making is based on horse shit and therefore irrelevant.

[patrice]

20. If anti-Choice activists had their way, those additional children they are not concerned about would

include Special Needs babies, because if abortion is prohibited, there will be more babies born and if more babies are born, there will be more Special Needs children amongst those babies whom anti-Choicers ceased to care about the moment they came into the World. Maybe all of the additional Special Needs children will be able to get along on Social Security Disability payments, something else that anti-Choicers usually resent.

[Athelwulf]

29. I agree,

but with these guys, it doesn't seem that simple. They do identify as liberals. If I remember correctly, elsewhere in the book, they seem to imply the children would be taken care of if necessary, emphasizing that particular liberal value.

I'm used to conservatives arguing against abortions, and liberals arguing for choice. So when I see something like this book, I'm not sure what to think.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. A few thoughts...

"Unborn child" automatically defines the embryo as a "child," and then goes on to equate the embryo with the mother, and otherwise assign it rights coequal with human beings. An egg ain't a chicken.

In the second passage, the cited effets of abortion are not distinguishable from those of any form of birth control. Preventing conception also permits the woman to be used as a sex object, and the woman can as readily be left to raise an unwanted child without social support, as sne can be undergo an abortion under the same conditions. Again, they predefine the embryo as a human, and then try to browbeat you with the epistemological consequences of having lured you into that category error.

[Athelwulf]

30. Very good! Thanks.

I especially like your response to the second passage. When I first read it, I said, "Oh, I never thought about that before." But one could certainly say the same thing of contraception, which would be silly. Very good point.

[Myrina]

10. Freedom of Choice ... does not exploit women.

Or Men.

The argument is badly framed. It's not that anyone is 'pro abortion'.
It is that we are PRO CHOICE.
We support an individual's ability to make their own choice.

Just as I wouldn't want any person, church or gov't entity to force me to have a child I didn't plan to, I would never mandate an abortion for a woman who prefers to carry the pregnancy to term.

What it comes down to is: we should NOT stick our noses in other people's personal choices, it us not up to any of us to 'play God'.


Just my .02

[Orrex]

11. Tough ones, but here's a response to the first part...

(Pro-abortion feminists) resent that the value of a woman is determined by whether some man wants her, yet they declare that the value of an unborn child is determined by whether some woman wants him. They resent that women have been "owned" by their husbands, yet insist that the unborn are "owned" by their mothers.

They believe that a man's right to do what he pleases with his own body cannot include the right to sexually exploit women, yet proclaim that a woman's similar right means that she can kill her unborn child.

This is simply a false analogy. In all of history, no wife has ever gestated in her husband's womb, so any comparisons of relative "ownership" are faulty from the outset. It's also an attempt at begging the question, because it assumes outright that a fetus is a life in the same way that a full-grown woman is a life.

A good reframing of the argument IMO is that the fetus is an ongoing process within the woman's body and as such is subject to the choices she makes concerning her body; it's not ownership but is instead the straightforward right to self-determination.

A woman is in no way a process of her husband's body, and his right of self-determination does not extend to her.

[Athelwulf]

34. That's good.

You're right, the relationship between husband and wife is not the same as between mother and child, or between pregnant woman and fetus.

Someone else said about the second passage that contraceptives have an equal potential for exploitation. The man could say "Give me sex! You can always use protection." just as easily as "You can always get an abortion." However, it would be senseless to argue that contraception is bad.

[leftofcool]

12. Why do you feel the need to refute it?

Some people just believe that life does indeed begin at conception. The only problem is when they want to force their views on you. Are they entitled to their opinions just as you are, whether they are liberal or conservative?

[azureblue]

13. easy

Don't force your religious beliefs on me and I won't force mine on you....
and remind them that other christians and Jewish people believe that life begins at quickening, so they are, in fact trying to force a religious belief on others. If they insist, then tell them you will accet thier belief if they will not operate machinery on Saturday and start going to church on Saturday.

[ladjf]

14. In my opinion, it is (1) a waste of time trying to change ones

views on the pro-life issue and (2) it might be unethical to invade someone else's opinions on this subject.

[Stellabella]

15. The author is conflating several issues:

Privacy, sexual exploitation and men abandoning women and children.

First of all, no one is 'pro-abortion'. That's a giveaway statement right there. We are pro PRIVACY. There are some issues that are so private they can't be deemed illegal. Abortion is one of them.

I've never heard of rape being equated with abortion before. Perhaps the writer doesn't understand that rape involves two people, while abortion involves one person: a woman? That's really sick.

And, if a woman has a child and takes a man to court for support, and testing proves he's the father, he has to support the child. There isn't any form of legal abandonment.

I know lots of women who have had abortions. They aren't 'bearing scars of this destructive operation and experience.' (which, by the way, is another giveaway statement that this person has an anti-choice agenda.) They are happy they had the choice to deal with their bodies and their lives in private.

[CrispyQ]

17. No one is pro-abortion - we are pro-choice.

To those who are truly against abortion, & not just about controlling women, they should support the party that actually implements policy that decreases the number of abortions, not the party that uses this issue to manipulate their vote! The number of abortions went down during Clinton's presidency & increased during Bush's. The anti-choice crowd is being played. The repubs could care less about Roe v Wade except as a wedge issue to try manipulate the anti-choice crowd's vote.

The second passage is just offensive. "The female is left with the sole and final legal responsibility for killing her offspring. It is her body and mind which bear the scars of this destructive operation and experience..." What the fuck? This does not sound like any kind of feminism to me. Feminism is about equal rights for men & women. Why should women's medical decisions be given to the state, simply because we are capable of pregnancy? Where is the concern about how a woman's life could be scarred & dramatically affected by forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term? What about her rights? I simply cannot fathom why some people think a mass of cells should get more consideration than a here-and-now, living human being!

If you're not a disruptor, good luck & if you are a disruptor, good riddance.

[Athelwulf]

31. I'm not a disruptor, don't worry.

I posted this thread because I don't specialize in the arguments for choice. I'm a man, so I actually never thought much about it. I've always been more preoccupied with GLBT rights since I'm gay, so I know that issue like the back of my hand.

The second passage is just offensive. "The female is left with the sole and final legal responsibility for killing her offspring. It is her body and mind which bear the scars of this destructive operation and experience..." What the fuck? This does not sound like any kind of feminism to me.

I don't think it's literally arguing that. I think the author is saying if women are allowed to choose to abort, then men could use that fact to exploit their girlfriend or wife. "Give me sex! You can always get an abortion if you get pregnant."

However, someone else pointed out, further up the thread, that contraceptives could just as easily serve as a tool for exploitation, in precisely the same way. But it's stupid to say for that reason that contraception is bad.

[Union Thug]

18. Rubbish...

Argument 1: Sets up a false argument that would have you believe that what is being aborted is "a child." In fact, in the vast majority of cases, what is being aborted can hardly be described as anything more than vibrant protoplasm.

Argument 2: Where to begin with this one. So, am I to assume from this argument that sex is only for creating offspring and that women do not also enjoy the sexual experience? This "sexual favors" argument is only true if a woman is being held hostage somehow and isn't engaging of her own free will. Oh, and so what if abortion provides an end to any and all financial, legal..obligation. Isn't that the point?

[bowens43]

19. a fetus isn't a person. nt

[patrice]

21. What Orrex said! + A woman is NOT to a man as a child IS to a woman. Different relationships.

In the second case, as long as her own autonomy is protected no matter how she decides, if there is not enough of a relationship between a man and a woman to be a factor in what happens one way or the other to the fetus, why would a woman care whether the man is freed by an abortion?

In addition to mis-characterizing PRO-CHOICE as pro-Abortion and mistaking a fetus, ANY fetus, no matter how early, for a Child, both of these arguments are Male arguments.

[Mnemosyne]

22. Another pro-back-alley abortion advocate, eh?

:puke:

Of anyone is that disturbed after an abortion, then it is your doing when you force your fantasy beliefs on others.

To be literally technical, a fetus is more of a parasite than a "baby".

It makes me sick thinking about the untold pain and suffering you people cause.

[Athelwulf]

32. I hope you're not talking to me.

I posted this thread because I don't specialize in pro-choice arguments. It's proving to be a huge help so far, I must say.

[snot]

23. Paper tigers

The author's claims about feminists' arguments are, to my mind, false or at best misleading.

I am a feminist. In my view, a woman's right to terminate pregnancy is based on much different and better grounds than your authors pretend.

The first, main reason that abortion should generally remain legal and accessible is that an early-term fetus is NOT a human being. Most abortions are early-term; most anti-abortionists oppose early- as well as late-term abortions. An early-term fetus is a bunch of cells that may or may not have the POTENTIAL to become a human being but which prolly has the the I.Q. of a carrot or at best a flatworm and which looks more like a salamander than a person. If we're supposed to consider the loss of such cells tragic, then we definitely need to stop killing insects and prolly need to find a way to stop menstruating, etc.

The second big reason abortion should generally remain legal and readily accessible is that forcing a women against their will to carry pregnancies to term is the worst form of slavery.

The day society can remove a fetus from my body and raise it to term in a test tube, with no more danger or inconvenience to me than I'd suffer in having an abortion, well, it's welcome to do so. But for now, the process of pregnancy and childbirth is one of the most dangerous, painful, and inconvenient experiences most women ever go through -- mortality from pregnancy is MUCH higher than from abortion.

Suppose an identical twin made a stupid mistake with the result that his twin's life could be saved if the first twin donated an organ. We do not REQUIRE the first twin to donate the organ. In fact, we don't even REQUIRE the first twin to donate blood. We may or may not think the first twin SHOULD donate blood, or even an organ; but we don't prosecute him for failing to do so.

For better or worse, whatever else we may believe about property and the rights pertaining thereto, there's an implicit but fundamental assumption that even if you own nothing else, you own your own body. If you want to sacrifice your body for someone else's benefit, fine; but it should be YOUR decision.

To address your authors' arguments more directly:

"(Pro-abortion feminists) resent that the value of a woman is determined by whether some man wants her," -- YES.

"yet they declare that the value of an unborn child is determined by whether some woman wants him." -- NO, I don't believe any of us ever said or believed that. I don't know what you think the value of a fetus should be determined by; but in my view, it can't just depend on whether one or more cells has the POTENTIAL to become a human being. (Among other reasons, I'm not that much of a human chauvinist.)

They resent that women have been "owned" by their husbands," -- YES, I do resent that.

"yet insist that the unborn are "owned" by their mothers." -- Um, what feminist ever insisted that?

"They believe that a man's right to do what he pleases with his own body cannot include the right to sexually exploit women," -- YES.

"yet proclaim that a woman's similar right means that she can kill her unborn child." -- Pardon me, but B.S. I do not ask that anyone sacrifice their welfare for mine; I insist merely that I not be required to sacrifice mine for theirs, and esp. not for a bunch of cells that at best merely has the POTENTIAL to become human. (Dick Cheney might theoretically still have some potential to become human, but I can't say I'd be glad to jeoparize my physical welfare to keep him alive, let alone house him in my body!)

"Abortion, in the final analysis, works to the advantage of the exploitative male, not for the female. It provides an end to any and all financial, legal or social obligation which comes with childbirth by eliminating the possibility of birth." -- Disagree; or at least, this is warped. In most cases, the failure to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is far more disadvantageous to the female than the male, because at least in our society, it is still the female who not only deals with the challenges of pregnancy and childbirth but also with the lion's share of everything after that, physical, financial, and otherwise. Indeed, in most cases I've seen, having a child results in FAR more danger, pain, work, personal sacrifice, etc. to the mother than to the father; and the very FEW exceptions I've observed involved children that were very much planned and WANTED by both parents.

"Abortion provides the ultimate rationale when pressing for sexual favors." I've been hit on a lot but I've never had a guy say, let me screw you 'cause you can always abort my unwanted spawn.

"It makes the female a perpetual and re-suable sex object." -- I think there have been various factors involved, for better or worse; I don't think abortion has been a big contributor.

"When an unwanted pregnancy occurs, the female is potentially left without any social support." -- No sh*t. Eliminating abortion would change this how?

"The male can remove himself from the situation, physically or mentally because abortion is "her" right." No, he can remove himself because he's not the one who's pregnant -- he can remove himself whether she carries the pregnancy to term or not.

"The female is left with the sole and final legal responsibility for killing her offspring." Excuse me, but it's not just hers; and again, it's only POTENTIAL offspring. Personally, I have no problem with that responsibility; what I have a problem with is being deprived of the CHOICE as to whether to undertake it.

"It is her body and mind which bear the scars of this destructive operation and experience..." Or the much more destructive scars of pregnancy and childbirth.

"Abortion is a male sexual fantasy come true." This would have more force if society actually held males responsible; but so far, that hasn't happened much. Historically and to this day, in most cases, it's the woman who's left with the bag. I think the REAL male sexual fantasy is, fuck every decent-looking gal you meet, then run away to fuck the next one! (Hey, funny, my fantasy is to fuck every decent-looking guy I meet, then run away to fuck the next one! If only I could eliminate the pregnancy part!) Let's face it, for men, the evolutionary imperative is, GET AS MANY WOMEN PREGNANT AS POSSIBLE, AND PROHIBIT ABORTION -- thus propagating as many offspring carrying the male's DNA as possible!

'Nuff said.

[Quantess]

24. Oh, you think they listen to reason?

Get real.

Reproductive rights are not negotiable. Reproductive rights belong to me, to you, and every other fertile person around you.

Would you like the government to force women to abort? Or would you rather have women have unplanned babies and be strapped for cash and unable to support their baby? In either case, would you want government involved in your reproductive health?

[PeaceNikki]

25. Read this paper

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/repeal.pdf

[iverglas]

26. why is this shit smelling up the place?

If anybody actually needs help countering these "arguments", phew, I hardly know what to say.

(Pro-abortion feminists) resent that the value of a woman is determined by whether some man wants her, yet they declare that the value of an unborn child is determined by whether some woman wants him. They resent that women have been "owned" by their husbands, yet insist that the unborn are "owned" by their mothers.

I insist that my bicycle and my pet cat are owned by me too. Might this be relevant?

I've never insisted that any woman "owns" a fetus. I don't own my body. My body is part of what I am. All of its parts are part of what I am. Ditto a fetus and any woman whose body it is a part of.

That was easy. Moving on.

They believe that a man's right to do what he pleases with his own body cannot include the right to sexually exploit women, yet proclaim that a woman's similar right means that she can kill her unborn child.

Well, we've probably disposed of that.

If anybody ever happens to run into an unborn child, maybe they'd give me a shout. I'll take a picture and put it next to the one of the unbuilt house and the unwritten book -- all the things in my collection that just somehow defy all reason.

Abortion, in the final analysis, works to the advantage of the exploitative male, not for the female. It provides an end to any and all financial, legal or social obligation which comes with childbirth by eliminating the possibility of birth. Abortion provides the ultimate rationale when pressing for sexual favors. It makes the female a perpetual and re-suable sex object. When an unwanted pregnancy occurs, the female is potentially left without any social support.

Huh. Somebody sure is objectifying women here. I think I know who. It would be whoever is writing about women as if they are not human beings with aspirations and desires of their own. And whose aspirations and desires -- gosh -- just may not include being pregnant and having a child this year.

No, that can't be. All woman always want to be pregnant and all women want to have children right now. That's us. All the same, interchangeable, kinda object-like.

The male can remove himself from the situation, physically or mentally because abortion is "her" right. The female is left with the sole and final legal responsibility for killing her offspring. It is her body and mind which bear the scars of this destructive operation and experience... Abortion is a male sexual fantasy come true.

Gosh. With opinions about men like that, you'd almost think the author was one of those horrible feminist people, wouldn't you??

I'm afraid I'm not fooled.



html fixed

[Athelwulf]

33. Consider it mental exercise.

If anybody actually needs help countering these "arguments", phew, I hardly know what to say.

What I need is to learn the arguments that exist for the anti-choice arguments that I discovered in the library and have me stumped. What I don't need is to be insulted for not already knowing the arguments. Being a man, I've frankly never felt concerned about the issue and rarely thought about it or discussed it with others. Being gay, I specialize in GLBT rights instead.

The rest of your post is helpful. Thanks.

[musette_sf]

27. there is this poster on AlterNet and HuffPo

posts under name of vasumurti, that cuts and pastes miles of psuedo "feminist" anti-choice BS. looks like we have a match.