Video: Pro-lifers reluctant to punish women who abort
posted at 2:43 pm on August 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Anna Quindlen thinks this clip is Teh Awesome because it shows how squeamish even anti-abortion activists are about locking women up for their “crime.” My hunch is that the guy who shot it went out looking for wingnuts breathing fire about sending aborters to the electric chair, was disappointed when he didn’t get what he want, and cobbled this together as salvage. What the clip actually does, as E.M. notes, is put the lie to the nutroots canard that the pro-life movement is all about controlling women. If that were true, the penalty phase would be the most well thought out part of the plan. Instead it’s the least, which suggests two things: that their goal is what they say it is, i.e. stopping the behavior itself (albeit without much sense as to how they’ll do that), and that they do indeed compassion for women for whom this decision is obviously very hard (“just pray for them”).
But then what do I know? I’m part of the Patriarchy. Click the image to watch.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Whaaaa?
I would love just one time for something other than a human to be born from a fetus in a woman! After such time, I will agree with you – maybe.
On-my-soap-box on August 2, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Hey, dufus, an amoeba is a single cell living creature. An apple tree is a living thing. It has seeds that are living in the fruit which is living. You plant the living seed in the dead ground and it grows a living tree.
A fetus is somehow not a living thing so it should be treated as so much garbage as to be disposed of because it is inconvenient. That is abortion – not the act itself!
On-my-soap-box on August 2, 2007 at 5:12 PM
“Fetus” – a euphemism allowing comfort to those who destroy the children in their wombs.
Euphemisms are the first line of self-deception.
In the end, it’s a religious matter -
Job 31:15 – “Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?”
Psalm 22:10 – “… thou art my God from my mother’s belly.”
Psalm 139:13 – “… thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.”
Isaiah 44:2 – “Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, …”
Isaiah 49:1 – “… The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.”
Jeremiah 1:5 – “Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, …”
Luke 1:15 – “…; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.”
Luke 1:41 – “And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; …”
Luke 1:44 – “For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.”
Romans 9:20 – “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?”
Interesting that “fetus” isn’t used, but “babe” is. Yes, very interesting.
OhEssYouCowboys on August 2, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Interviewer: What should happen to women who get illegal abortions?
Interviewee: I think we should pray for them.
Interviewer: Ah-HAH! So you think…Oh…Um, never mind.
John from WuzzaDem on August 2, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Obviously a human fetus is human, so what Nonfactor must mean is that some humans don’t deserve human rights. And he claims the right to choose which ones.
pedestrian on August 2, 2007 at 5:13 PM
When you go back to the origin of the word “fetus”, it just means offspring.
Esthier on August 2, 2007 at 5:15 PM
I love it when self-dubbed “pro-lifers” make this argument. “ABORTION IS MURDER!!! (except if the fetus came from a man who raped the woman or from one of the woman’s relatives)” The very idea that you said “Period” and then added an amendment to your point is hilarious as well.
Another hilarious note? People in this thread are mentioning men “controlling” or “pressuring” the women to get abortions somehow ignorant of the fact that they’re attempting to “control” or “pressure” woman to go through with a pregnancy in their “pro-life” campaign.
If laws were made by what people like you thought was ridiculous or not we’d be living in a theocratic society. Just as there are people like you there are people who similarly think that sperm cells are just as much of a human life as a fetus. However, you do come off as a huge relativist in those two sentences.
Firstly, congratulations. Secondly, sorry you can’t understand it, but it’s simply true. “Sperm cells swim, people swim.” It is essentially the exact same argument you’re making: “my fetus kicked, babies kick.”
I recommend you to a basic human sexuality class. You might be left speechless the entire quarter judging by your posts in this thread.
Personally I think all women should be sent to a controlled society, lets call it “The Farm,” when they become pregnant as to ensure that they don’t murder they unborn baby.
Nonfactor on August 2, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I agree with your first three points, but if abortion is illegal, the providers will dry up, go underground, etc. It will be so hard for a woman to get a relatively safe abortion from a medical practicioner that the number of abortions will reduce dramatically. Which would mean that remaining abortions would be sought out by the most highly motivated individuals – far fewer women to prosecute. I don’t think that it’s dancing around the issue as much as it being considered a minor point compared to the other factors involved. To pro lifers, there are bigger fish to fry at the moment.
I would like to know how he punishment for the women who abort was addressed in the days before Roe V Wade.
Dork B. on August 2, 2007 at 5:17 PM
I have two basic questions for anyone willing to answer: 1) What is a human life? 2) What is it to die?
Nonfactor on August 2, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Nonfactor = evil in action
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 5:20 PM
How was abortion punished before Roe v. Wade? By punishing both the abortionist and the woman.
Care to guess what will happen once abortion is criminalized? Eventually, the women involved will have to be punished to enforce such a law, regardless of what the pro-life crowd claims now.
What about women who leave the state pregnant and return without the fetus? How will you prevent this? Ireland has an answer … and it is not one that the pro-life crowd would like to discuss either.
Like it or not, if you criminalize abortion, you will be forced to punish women who get them in order to enforce such a law … you can deny it all now, but, logically, you will have to do it or admit the law is unenforceable as written.
Kristopher on August 2, 2007 at 5:20 PM
I like it.
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 5:22 PM
I’m curious, at what point do you think human life begins? I appreciated your honesty when you stated that a fetus wasn’t a human life. If a fetus isn’t human yet, when does that occur?
Dork B. on August 2, 2007 at 5:22 PM
The question was what kind of punishment should a woman endure for having an abortion if abortions were illegal. For women, just having an abortion is punishment. How many women do you know that have had multiple abortions? Since it is usually a abortion clinic or doctor that performs the abortion, the question should have been what should the punishment be for the abortion PROVIDER when abortion is illegal. In reality, only a very tiny percentage of women would have “back ally” abortions if it was illegal. Of course the question was skewed. That’s how polls are done. Which is why I never trust polls. They never ask the right question. God bless these women who answered with their hearts. Sometimes I think people who are so pro-abortion really wish they had been aborted themselves. There has to be a certain level of self hate operating to get behind the concept of killing a child mainly because it would have a chance to ruin somebody’s life. Which is basically the argument for abortion in the first place. Kill it before it ruins (my) life.
Guardian on August 2, 2007 at 5:25 PM
How utterly despicable, that a woman be held accountable for the very act that allowed the creation of a child in her womb. Utterly despicable – responsibility for one’s acts. Abortion as a means of birth control. Destroy the child in your own womb. That inconvenient thing. Yes, that is more like it. Yes, much more in tune with the hedonism that makes America so great.
OhEssYouCowboys on August 2, 2007 at 5:26 PM
But far, far fewer women than the number who abort legally now. If it’s also illegal to provide abortions, the numbers would decrease from the hundreds of thousands to mere hundreds. Or less, one would hope.
Dork B. on August 2, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Criminalizing something is not necessarily the same as making it illegal. In some places, pot is still illegal but has been decriminalized.
Also, you can’t break an American law in another country. Otherwise teens who went abroad and drank would be given MIPs here. And if you commit murder in another country where murder is against the law, often, it’s that country who gets to punish you. At the very least, it’s that country that builds the case against you.
Though if you specifically mean going from one state to another where it is legal, which would theoretically undermine the law of a state, then there are measure against that as well, such as proving you live in the state where you plan to have an abortion and proving that you plan to continue living there after the abortion.
It’s hardly failsafe, but nothing in this world is.
Esthier on August 2, 2007 at 5:29 PM
You mean like making slavery illegal reduced slavery?
Whodathunkit.
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Let’s see -
“101 Most Popular Names For Your Fetus.”
Doctor to expecting couple, “So, have you named your fetus, yet?”
“We’re going to have a fetus shower for Debbie!”
Just thinkin’ out loud, here.
OhEssYouCowboys on August 2, 2007 at 5:36 PM
I’ll bite.
1. I like these definitions…
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual
any specified period of animate existence
2. To lose your life, which is defined above.
Esthier on August 2, 2007 at 5:36 PM
you know, national review had a whole symposium about this yesterday: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjkwNWQ4ZDQ2NTljNDg4MjUyYWIxZWQ0NDVjMTkxYjg=
just sayin’.
WillBarrett on August 2, 2007 at 5:46 PM
To leave your mortal body and await your turn to face God for eternal judgement.
pedestrian on August 2, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Thanks for the congrats.
Nonfactor – this is generally why I don’t like to get into conversations with you. You, mired in scientific rationalism, take a position which you claim to be obviously universally true – when there is legitimate debate on the issue. Anyone who deviates from your “obvious fact” is unintelligent, or whatever. In conversations with you, there is absolutely no room for discussion, which makes me wonder what the point is. It kind of reminds me of religious fundamentalists, although your “religion” is of a different kind.
What I said was that this is where the issue divides. And, I think it does – on whether you believe a fetus is a human life or not. I do, and I don’t think that you and I will find any common ground on the issue, and will always disagree.
nailinmyeye on August 2, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Define evil, seriously.
I’m sure you’ll be able to administer the spankings yourself.
When is something alive? To answer that question you first need to look at examples outside of humankind (to clarify when I say alive I mean a member of the species seeing as how even the smallest cells are alive). Is a seed a tree? When does a seed become a tree? Is an egg a chicken? When does it become a chicken? To answer all of these questions you have to define what a tree is or what a chicken is or what a human is. So before I tell you when human life occurs I’ll define what a human is.
Websters dictionary defines “human” as “of, relating to, or characteristic of humans.” We can agree a fetus has certain characteristics of humans, but so do dolls. If we created a robot with blood pumping through it’s body via a mechanical heart, and grafted muscle and skin tissue onto it’s skeleton, and made it aware of pain, and programed it to feel emotions, would it be a human? According to Websters it would. But practically I don’t think any other human would say “Yes, that’s a human being;” why not? What is it missing that we don’t have? What is it missing that a baby doesn’t have (or, for sake of argument, a fetus)? What is life? It isn’t an abstract question, it’s been going on ever sine the first computers beat people in chess. Religious people will tell you it’s the “soul,” but even they can’t quantify it, and it boils down to another incoherent answer aimed at easily answering a hard question (note: an easy way for religious people to get out of answering the question of “Why?” is to simply give two responses: 1) Because God did it (why?) 2) Because he has a plan that we can’t know about).
But this still hasn’t answered the question. What is a human life? A human life is a species, a very complex organism, that is self-sustaining in Earth’s environment (I mention Earth’s environment because if there were beings in outer space that looked exactly like us but breathed CO2 and exhaled O they wouldn’t be quantified as a human being). A robot isn’t a species, it’s complex, but not an organism (although the one we’ve created is made up of many complex organisms), and we could, however, create it to be self-sustaining, but due to the mere fact that it isn’t a species determines that it isn’t a “human life” (the debate about whether it is alive is something else entirely). A fetus (or blastyocyst, or sperm cell, or egg) is definitely not a species; it has the possibility to become a species (in this case the human species), but in it’s form it isn’t. A fetus (or sperm etc.) is very a very complex organism, but that’s only one of the three prerequisites. The fetus is also not self-sustaining (although this is the most arguable point–when I say self-sustaining I don’t mean that they can get food for themselves etc. I mean that the organisms can remain alive without the help of a machine), but due to the fact that it misses out on one of the requirements it isn’t a human.
Now when does that fetus become a human? We know fetus’ become self-sustaining inside at sometime in the third trimester. So when does a fetus become a homo-sapien? It seems like the only acceptable answer is when all their human traits have shown (not developed, but simply shown themselves). So to answer your question (finally, I didn’t think I’d be typing this much) a fetus becomes a human being at sometime in the third trimester, the exact date I couldn’t give you, but the moment the fetus is self-sustaining and the human features have shown it is a human life.
If you have traits of a human you think I’ve left out or you think I’ve added that aren’t true I’d be happy to hear them and your explanation as to why they constitute forming a “human life.”
Nonfactor on August 2, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Isn’t that from a book – or a movie or something. Handmaid’s Tale?
nailinmyeye on August 2, 2007 at 5:54 PM
If you can convince me I’ll abandon my previously conceived notions and agree with yours. The way I view these arguments is “logic first facts second.” Now don’t think that means I disregard all facts, it’s the opposite; what I mean is that if your argument is illogical (a fetus kicked and babies kick therefore a fetus must be a baby) I’ll point that out before I rush to Google to provide you with the facts as to why a fetus kicks or why kicking does not constitute life.
I agree 100%. The problem with the abortion debate is that the two sides can’t even agree what “life” or “death” are. There’s not going to be any substantial agreement until one side sees a different type of logic. Nobody’s going to say something that will end the abortion debate (I’m reminded of a Simpsons episode where there’s a sign that says “witty bumper sticker ends abortion debate”–it’s not going to happen). The purpose of arguing about it is to try to find a middle ground. Some people simply aren’t going to give one way or another, and that’s why you don’t argue with them.
Then sadly I think our conversation is over.
Nonfactor on August 2, 2007 at 6:01 PM
If it is I haven’t read it, although the suggestion sounds like a common theme from satiric or dystopian novels.
Nonfactor on August 2, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Doing or advocating death to a child.
I wouldn’t touch a woman there who had so recently and remorselessly killed her own child.
I would, however, like to see justice be done and a variety of sentences to be handed out for killing children and administered with full respect to a prisoner’s rights to humane treatment.
I would also take great joy in the reduction of abortions and the people who have a chance to live.
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 6:03 PM
You make this answer so specific because you know that babies outside of the womb are not self sustaining and that even young teens have a bad record of surviving on their own, but your argument still includes to many that others consider living.
There’s a story of a woman who, for reasons completely unknown to her, was unable to keep food down for a long period of time, so much so, that she almost died and now has to use a machine to keep sustenance from leaving her body.
She cannot survive without a machine. According to your definition though, it should be legal to end her.
There are people right now walking around with an artificial heart. Are they nonlife as well?
Besides, you contradict yourself by writing that a fetus is life at the third trimester, something you just moments earlier claimed was still fair game for abortions. Or maybe that’s not a contradiction, maybe you’re not against ending life.
Esthier on August 2, 2007 at 6:05 PM
A life-like doll or a self-sustaining robot with artificial blood is not conscious. Consciousness is beyond our understanding. While shutting down the brain does shut down consciousness, we know of no way that brain cells could give rise to something so unlike anything else in the universe that consciousness is. Depending on your faith, you may take the presence of consciousness inside your body as an indication that there is a larger consciousness somewhere out there that our brains are somehow tied to (i.e. had life breathed into).
For the same reasons that we extend human rights to people even when they are presently not conscious we should also extend them to people who are not conscious yet, but in all likelihood would be if properly care for.
pedestrian on August 2, 2007 at 6:05 PM
I prefer “A Modest Proposal,” though when I’ve debated it in classes, the other side was extremely pathetic in trying to say it was the wrong proposal. My side won hands down.
Esthier on August 2, 2007 at 6:08 PM
I don’t want women locked up for getting an abortion, just community service and a fine is fine by me.
The doctors who perform the abortion I want the state to execute them….
Tim Burton on August 2, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Not anymore. The SCOTUS allows the federal government to punish people outside the US for violating US federal law. The feds may choose not to do so … but they can. Drug, terrorism, and money laundering prosecutions more often than not … with some tax evasion cases thrown in.
As for individual US states … the nexus is at the border … they could criminalize failing to return with the fetus.
Actually … I am not on your side on this issue … I would like to see the pro-life folks be up front and honest about the results of their proposed legislation. Such honesty might cost you support …
Kristopher on August 2, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Should a woman who has a miscarriage be sent to the Grand Jury? If found guilty, would she be an Abortionist?
Kristopher on August 2, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Gulliver’s Travels = win.
Nonfactor on August 2, 2007 at 6:24 PM
That’s federal laws, not state laws. I personally disagree with a federal abortion ban since I believe it should be a state issue.
So they’d criminalize adoption in another state or miscarrying in another state? That, to me, seems an unnecessary burden.
I am being honest. I see no reason to lock women up for this anymore than I see a reason to lock up people who attempt suicide.
I’m not even that interested in trying to worry about every illegal immigrant. I’d much rather punish the businesses who hire them.
You’re not going to stop something by going after the individuals when the thing you’re trying to stop is this wide-spread.
Esthier on August 2, 2007 at 6:28 PM
I was never a fan of that book. In fact, I used it to help me sleep at night for a whole year.
Swift has a genius, but I never saw it in that one.
Esthier on August 2, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Not a threat to anyone else, except her next baby.
You are trying to confuse the topic with a point that says: If a person commits an act on a baby in a womb, then they are no longer a threat to “society” because society is able to protect itself against the person and the person has no interest in commiting the crime against anyone other than babies in the womb.
It would be easy to give you lots of scenarios that would tear your (non)logic to shreds.
nottakingsides on August 2, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Hmmmmm. It seems this guy is trying to disparage these folks because they want to create a law, yet they do not have a punishment in mind for that law.
I see that as the mentality of folks who see an injustice and want it stopped, but believe that immoral people who would kill a child to begin with would be deterred by a law prohibiting abortion.
csdeven on August 2, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Either way, jailing such a woman will not make society any safer as it does not keep her from getting pregnant and cannot keep her from doing the same thing again.
It may deter her from doing it again, but it does not otherwise keep her from doing it again.
Esthier on August 2, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Are all human beings “self-sustaining”?
What exactly are “human features”?
Do you believe that 3rd trimester abortions should be legal or illegal?
nottakingsides on August 2, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Do you apply that logic to all criminal acts? And why or why not?
nottakingsides on August 2, 2007 at 6:51 PM
That’s funny. Care to explain any part of that?
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 6:53 PM
That’s not my application of the logic. It’s just simply how it is.
Esthier on August 2, 2007 at 6:53 PM
In regards to:
You said:
I agree with you it’s not any application of logic. However, as I said above it IS funny. Care to explain any part of that .
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Clicked submit by mistake… still, the comment was pretty much complete… was going to leave off the last sentence as it appeared at 6:59 and go on further about how it doesn’t make any sense.
Shorter Esthier:
“Except for the fact it works, it doesn’t.”
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Exactly.
mikeyboss on August 2, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Our laws really do border on insanity. It’s against the law to do drugs while pregnant so as not to endanger the child, but it’s okay to murder the child if it’s in the mother. So if I hide inside a cardboard box and someone kills me, it’s not murder,right? If I am outside the box it is murder. TOTAL INSANITY. Am I not the same person?
Vanquisher on August 2, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Yes, to be logical about it, if it really isn’t a human being and is just an organ of the mother, then logically she should be able to damage it in any way she wants without penalty.
Yes, if drugs are illegal, then she could still be charged… but no extra charge or penalty for damaging a second person.
However, that’s not the way it works.
Likewise, if I kick her in the stomach, it’s assault… but only one count, not two, and NOT murder even if I do irreparably damage her fetus-organ.
Because it isn’t a person and for that matter, it’s not an essential organ of the mother as she can quite easily live without it.
Very easily.
And if a pregnant woman punches her own stomach or hires someone to do so? Her business. Drinks to excess every day? Also her business. Smoking? No one’s business but hers.
Has casual sex resulting in herpes she doesn’t bother treating and passes this on to her child while giving birth?
Also her business. Because, yes, once out of the vagina, it is a child and subject to human rights… but will still IN the vagina, it isn’t, and can be killed at will.
Since one can stick a needle in it’s head, suck the brains out, and crush the skull with forceps… there should be no problem to exposing “it” to herpes, should there?
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Do you think life starts when the sperm fertilizes the egg? Why?
Nonfactor on August 2, 2007 at 8:02 PM
There is no need for all that logic. As soon as you bring these obvious pro-”choice” contradictions to light, they will give you the “right to choose” and “her own body” contradictions right back at you.
The “right to choose” can’t be applied to everything and pro-choice advocates screw this up everytime.
nottakingsides on August 2, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Great question. In fact, the best question.
It’s one of only two distinct non-arbitrary points.
The blending of DNA from both parents to become a single entity takes place at fertilization.
All other times except one are arbitrary… 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester, etc. are just so many weeks and months where, on average, certain amounts of development will have taken place.
IF a person becomes a human being at some time after conception, but before being delivered from the woman’s body, and there is no distinct provable time when this should be so, then it is incumbent upon us to protect all unborn human life and life that may be human because the consequences of killing actual humans are just too terrible.
The only other distinct rational place to believe a person becomes a human would be at birth when they enter the world.
That is something I disagree strongly with. I think most people of left and right understand intuitively it is wrong to harm an unborn near-term fetus because it is a baby. While the contrary position is at least not arbitrary, because it is a fact the baby is still in the mother, it is defensibly rational.
Yet while being defensible, most people are abhorred by it. The reason is our intuitive understanding it is a person is correct.
Ultimately, it comes down to this for me: If there is any doubt about when someone becomes human, we have to protect all because murder is an egregious act.
We simply can’t stand by and tolerate being part of a society that commits millions of murders or even a fraction of that large number depending on when life “actually” begins.
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 8:25 PM
This of course requires the definition of “human.” You can’t make a statement like that without defining it. And secondly it asks the question of why it is immoral to kill a person (for example Aristotle thought it was wrong to kill beings that could ask and answer moral questions).
You think it is unknowable when someone becomes a human being, but the entire reason why abortion is legal is because we do know roughly when a fetus does become a human, just look at nature. Is the yoke of an egg a baby chicken? No. Just as well a fetus is not always a human.
Why do you think that’s rational? If you cut open a pregnant woman two days before birth the fetus will most likely be able to survive. If you cut open a pregnant woman 8 months before birth the fetus will most definitely not survive. And then there is the idea of miscarriages. Are those just God’s way of killing off babies he doesn’t like?
So if there were no doubt that a fetus didn’t become a homo sapien baby until the middle of the third trimester you’d be in favor of abortion?
You’re trying to play it both ways here. You give a semi-rational argument about not doing anything if there is any doubt (semi is a big word here), but then in your very next statement you say without a doubt that our society commits millions of murders.
Nonfactor on August 2, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Nonfactor,
What species would you have upon taking a DNA sample from a chicken’s egg?
What species would you have upon taking a DNA sample from a fetus? I’m pretty sure you would find that it is indeed human. And this human satisfies every definition of life. All living things are: composed of cells, require energy (metabolize), reproduce, display heredity, respond to stimuli. It is both alive and human. Which to me means that it is entitled to protections afforded other humans.
Incidentally, an egg or a sperm are not human until combined to give the full DNA sequence. Neither fulfill the necessary requirements of life on their own. Neither an egg or a sperm on their own would be an adult human, while a fetus would.
As regards this video, I agree that abortion should be criminalize d. The problem really lies in prosecution of the crime. Fundamentally there maybe be only 1 (would be mother) or 2 (mother – doctor) (maybe 3) persons involved in the crime. It would be in no one’s interest to confess to the crime. Before Roe v. Wade prosecutors routinely made deals with the women in order to go after the doctors. These women rarely saw jail time.
burnitup on August 2, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I see no reason for your vitriol. After all, we seem to agree that women whom you haven’t been able to guilt trip suffer no bad effects from an abortion.
thuja on August 2, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Me. Right here. I’m one of those. When Mr. Jones contracts Mr. Smith to kill Mrs. Jones, certainly Mr. Smith gets convicted and goes to jail. But so does Mr. Jones, as the *originator* / *motivator* of the concept to kill Mrs. Jones. Put aborting mommies in jail as fast as you do the providers.
And to address the point brought up by several posters, regarding male relatives, associates, friends, etc., who pressure a woman to get an abortion, *BAM*, right to prison they go to.
grids7 on August 2, 2007 at 9:32 PM
No, I believe a person becomes a human being at conception. I think if there’s any doubt about that, we have to err on the side of safety rather than killing people.
The term I used was human being: A person.
Ah, but there is. It’s an arbitrary time. And it would vary from homo sapien baby to homo sapien baby depending on its development… so, in the unlikely event you are correct, we’d still be killing SOME human beings, something I object to.
It’s certainly a distinct life leading to a chicken. It’s DNA is distinct from its mother and father. I have no moral problem eating it because it is an animal not a human being.
Well, Mr. “cut open a pregnant woman” and “because some man’s sperm managed to crawl up her body”,
You don’t quote what I actually say or characterize it accurately. What I actually say is:
Nonfactor, don’t let honesty get the way of your efforts to make a bad argument.
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 9:36 PM
So are you saying egg = chicken just like fetus = human?
But according to you there is no doubt? Correct? And how do you know that?
That’s why it’s called a hypothetical.
But you still think an egg is a chicken? I really need to clarify this to see if debating with you is even worth it. Simply because something might become something else does not mean that it is that thing. Egg yoke is egg yoke (not a chicken), a fetus is a fetus (not living human being so you can stop saying how abortions are “killing” human beings).
I’m reminded how conservatives complain about how liberals are overly politically correct, yet the second you mention a hypothetical or explain the way the human body works they cringe.
The bottom line is that you claim to know where human life begins yet the proof you offer (combined DNA) is not backed up by any over living being (i.e. the egg of a chicken) and then you use a logical fallacy in claiming that ‘well even if I’m wrong abortion is still wrong because there might be doubt.’
It’s the same argument religious people make when they think they’re proving the existence of their God.
Nonfactor on August 2, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Incorrect. I’m stating this is my opinion. I’m saying there is DEFINITELY doubt that a fetus isn’t a human being before delivery. As proof, the abortion debate.
I cringe when I think of a woman having her body cut open. It would never have occurred to me to interject that monstrosity into this conversation. You could have said, “if you remove a fetus from a mother at x months” and that would have meant the same thing, but not allowed you the gratuitous “cutting open pregnant woman” images.
It isn’t for nothing I often consider “pro-choice” and “evil” to comprise one and the same populations, as a rule.
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Nonfactor,
Please take a biology course. There’s this new fangled thing called DNA maybe you’ve heard of it.
A fetus has DNA and it is human DNA. Not a chicken’s DNA or any other organism under the sun.
A fertilized chicken egg is a chicken in a stage of the chicken’s life.
A fetus is a human in a stage of it’s life. Other stages include infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood. Maybe you’ve read about these in a biology book or experienced them yourself? Who knows?
A human egg and a human sperm are in no stage of a humans life. I’m just adding this note because you are having trouble differentiating between a reproductive cell and a living organism.
There is no doubt about a fetus’ species now is there? Or rather after you’ve read up on DNA and chromosomes and then able to answer in the affirmative that “Yes, it is a human”. The fetus is also alive according to the definitions of life. When you combine those two facts what do you have? A human being.
burnitup on August 2, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Christoph,
The debate of the human-ness of a fetus is quite similar the situation in Nazi Germany regarding the Jews and earlier in this country over slavery.
The Nazis had blood laws to “legally” allow for what happened.
The US had the constitution which referred to blacks as less than whites.
Once the human-ness of an group of people is eroded it doesn’t bother one’s conscience so much when they are treated inhumanely.
burnitup on August 2, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Just because some people are delirious doesn’t mean that there is “doubt,” at least no doubt backed up by proof. For example see people who think the Earth is only 10,000 years old.
I’ll try to PC down my hypotheticals next time, but if any conservatives yell at me for being a PC liberal I’ll expect you to come to my aid.
And the reason you think that is because abortion is murder, and the reason you think that isn’t backed up by any real life examples (see the egg of a chicken not being a chicken).
So you believe something is a member of a certain species if it has certain DNA? Simply because a fetus has human DNA does not make it a human baby, it makes it a human fetus. Simply because a egg has chicken DNA does not make it a chicken, it makes it a chicken egg. The egg might become a chicken, but eating that egg does not constitute chopping the head off of a live chicken (I’m sorry for that piece of imagery, Christoph, but you’re going to have to live with it).
And many times even fertilized eggs don’t develop into fetus’ and then people. One sperm cell may become a person though, and what if the sperm cells really are alive. If there is any doubt we just shouldn’t do it at all. /sarcasm
Let me explain this one more time for you. It is a human fetus, not a human. Period.
fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind
Really? That fits the “definitions of life” (specifically a human being)? We must be getting pretty lax. Structural plan? Check. A vertebrate? Check. You’re a human being! Congratulations!
I hereby invoke Godwin’s Law. This discussion is now officially over.
Nonfactor on August 2, 2007 at 10:39 PM
WillBarrett on August 2, 2007 at 5:46 PM linked to an NRO symposium on Quindlen’s column: One Untrue Thing.
It has brief comments from about 17 people. They have some thoughtful and insightful things to say. It is excellent.
Thanks for the link, Will.
Newsweek should publish the NRO reply.
INC on August 2, 2007 at 11:12 PM
One Fetus = One Human Being. You can call it a baby whenever you want.
Dork B. on August 2, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Except for the fact that they all said basically said the same exact thing and were pretending that forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy she doesn’t want isn’t punishment.
Nonfactor on August 2, 2007 at 11:30 PM
I guess forcing a killer to refrain from murder is punishment to the killer.
It’s gotta suck. I feel their pain.
Of course, that’s WORSE than the punishment of having your life ended as the victim of murder.
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 11:35 PM
It’s so easy when you just say things.
God = doesn’t exist.
Wow, it is easy. And it feels so good.
It’s so easy when you just say things… Asking someone like you to prove abortion is murder is like asking someone to prove their God exists. You can’t do it. I know you can’t do it. But I like to see you try and worm your way around the question. Except in this debate, unlike the God one, there is solid evidence in nature showing that simply because something may become something does not mean that the original thing is the end thing (egg yoke =/= chicken; egg yoke = egg yoke).
Nonfactor on August 2, 2007 at 11:47 PM
When does the sperm and egg which united, and formed a zygote, and is now developing become a human being Nonfactor?
In the womb?
Out?
How long outside? Or inside?
Explain it to me.
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Err… so the membership card is mailed out upon birth? Or some other arbitrary date?
Again there genius what are some stages of human life? Fetal, infancy, etc.
What species would a human fetus be a member of? Hint: it’s in the question. BTW.. way to sidestep the chromosome issue.
No you have eaten a dead chicken.
You have neither denied that a fetus is made up of human genetic material or that it is alive. Congrats.
Way to pu$$y out with Godwin’s Law.
It is quite valid to draw comparisons to the Nazi view of who they saw as “less-than-human” and abortionists views on the non-humanness of fetus. And accorded both with mass murder.
burnitup on August 3, 2007 at 12:01 AM
“I too have known women who have had abortions, but they say they never think about. When I’ve told them about the Post-Abortion Syndrome, they say they have more important things to think about.” thuja on August 2, 2007 at 4:27 PM
no…these are not women…they are the walking dead. To be this cavalier about having had YOUR OWN BABY sucked out of your own womb in pieces W/ NO reflection! Where is the adult that was not a child carried in the womb?? Our own mothers allowed us to live & so we can type on this issue tonight….but where are the voices of the murdered Unborn to tell their side?? Any woman who says abortion isn’t murder is either insane or a lier.
lobosan5 on August 3, 2007 at 12:13 AM
I’m not pro life, I’m anti abortion and it has very little to do with keeping Jesus happy and much more to do with seeing where a local abortion doctor dumped the “medical waste” his profession produces in an open field some years ago.
I had been very lukewarm on the subject, probably falling over the line of personal choice for someone else but never for me and mine. What I saw that day was little dead babies and from that moment on abortion has equaled murder in my mind. A crime committed on the absolutely most innocent and defenseless of all.
I don’t do pro life marches or get radical on the issue but then again I don’t vote for folks who support killing little unborn babies either.
Buzzy on August 3, 2007 at 12:30 AM
I’ve explained my position through logic and reason. I haven’t had to use equals signs to make my point. Both of you have still not proven a fetus to be a baby. You’ve simply claimed it (and while this may work in your sewing circles where you don’t have anyone to argue with) and hoped nobody would call you out. Let me repeat something I said earlier: You can’t do it. I know you can’t do it. But I like to see you try and worm your way around the question. Let me use one more analogy seeing as how burnitup completely destroyed my chicken example with his “No you have eaten a dead chicken” response. If you shred yarn you haven’t destroyed a blanket, you’ve simply cut up some yarn. People like you guys are claiming that a blankets life starts when you make your first weave, I’m claiming it starts when it’s at least three feet long. My decision is based in reality via chicken eggs, seeds, et cetera. Your decision is based on emotion because you can’t bear to see yarn cut up.
And to finish this post let me repeat my thoughts on you guys proving a fetus was is a human child: You can’t do it. I know you can’t do it. But I like to see you try and worm your way around the question.
Nonfactor on August 3, 2007 at 12:46 AM
No these are perfectly normal women. Their views are healthy. That you want to twist them around and f*** them over with the guilt you want to impose on them is why you are an evil human being.
thuja on August 3, 2007 at 12:48 AM
Hoo-yah, Buzzy.
You make my point about people who are nominally pro-choice, then are confronted with it, and their decency speaks up.
burnitup, regarding Nonfactor and thuja, is there any point in debating with such evil people?
They are who they are.
And Nonfactor is blatantly dishonest… he has been grilling us for an extended period of time asking for our reasoning about when people become human and when asked the simple, logical, same question himself… refuses to answer it and goes on deflection.
The man is dishonest, a scoundrel, and I wouldn’t be caught dead shaking his hand.
Christoph on August 3, 2007 at 1:11 AM
Wow, did you just ignore my post at 5:53 PM? I know it was long and everything, but damn!
Again. I know you won’t offer up any proof as to why a fertilized egg is a human being. I know you can’t prove it. I know you can’t use any examples in nature to fortify your opinion. I know you’ve been weaseling your way around this question for an entire day. And I love it. You can’t even logically defend yourself. You are a dishonest, oppressive, two-faced, callous, pathetic excuse for a human being.
Nonfactor on August 3, 2007 at 1:22 AM
“No these are perfectly normal women. Their views are healthy. That you want to twist them around and f*** them over with the guilt you want to impose on them is why you are an evil human being.”
thuja on August 3, 2007 at 12:48 AM
EVIL IS AS EVIL DOES.
lobosan5 on August 3, 2007 at 9:31 AM
You and I already had that exact same discussion. My position hasn’t changed in the slightest.
Prison time might deter a woman from having an abortion. A huge fine might deter her as well.
But putting her in a jail cell will not keep her from ending the life of her unborn child.
We can separate murderers from their intended victims by locking them up. We cannot do the same with women who intend to have an abortion. It is physically impossible.
So killing of the stupid and morally inept is no big deal. Well, maybe he was onto something…
Yeah, just like people who die of old age, disease and ever other imaginable way are God’s rejects as well. Death happens. We accept that as mortals.
That doesn’t mean we’re cool with making it happen to another person. That’s a huge leap to make, going from saying that things die to saying that it’s therefore OK to kill them.
Yeah, actually, most of us would be cool with that. We get that an egg that hasn’t yet met its sperm is not a dying child when it goes out of our bodies every month and that each tiny sperm by itself is not a person either. So we have no problem trying to advance medicine to a state where every egg and every sperm can be saved.
But when something is growing, eating, moving and has its own heartbeat, well, you’re hard pressed to prove it isn’t life. And according to the dictionary’s definition of life, it is life when it can do those things.
You seem to be willfully ignorant of a few things. The breast cancer thing is something doctors simply do not understand. They don’t know if its hereditary or what. Some even believed, for a time but not now, that birth control can cause breast cancer.
They just didn’t know.
But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t physical side effects that women suffer from an abortion. Women suffer negative side effects from a miscarriage.
Women’s bodies were meant to have babies. Disrupting the body while it is in the middle of that process leads to physical consequences. It’s simple truth. One that women are hopefully prepared to deal with if they decide to end their pregnancy.
Esthier on August 3, 2007 at 9:55 AM
Nonfactor,
We don’t generally eat fertilized eggs. The stuff you buy at a store generally has no papa.
Chicken eggs, the kind we eat, are no more a chicken than one of my eggs that I lose every month, is a person.
You’re making a completely different argument here though, because no one is arguing that an UNfertilized egg is a person. Most of us are arguing that the sperm is what gives it life and its own DNA strand.
Too? I would think even in your world where the women get to jail that you’d make an exception when the woman is forced into something. I know I wouldn’t want Mrs. Jones in jail if she was there at the meeting to have her husband killed but actively tried to stop it.
Except you never responded to those of us who question your reasoning. I called bs on your claim that a human is only human if it can survive without a machine and made a few examples.
Your definition is so restricted as to fit your personal ideas and potentially flexible to fit with the changing times.
When we’re sick of putting scared prom teens in jail for throwing away their babies because they waited too long to kill it before it was born, we’ll move the bar back even further.
Esthier on August 3, 2007 at 10:07 AM
NONFACTOR
Could you answer a question for me?
Why is it illegal and punishable by jail time to steal, disturb or molest an eagles egg?
If it is not really an eagle yet what’s the problem?
Thank you in advance for your enlightening answer
bdog2995 on August 3, 2007 at 10:27 AM
NONFACTOR said….If you shred yarn you haven’t destroyed a blanket, you’ve simply cut up some yarn. People like you guys are claiming that a blankets life starts when you make your first weave
What you miss NONINTELLIGENT is so simple it shouldn’t even need to be explained but I will try to do it in a way that a 6 yr old could understand.
If you shred the yarn of course you haven’t destroyed a blanket you have destroyed some yarn.
Here’s the difficult part for you I hope you can understand
If you leave the yarn alone in your knitting basket it will lay there for years and never become a blanket it will just get dusty and dry but if you leave a human fetus alone it will become someone like you unfortunately
This is how stupid your yarn/fetus analogy is.
I know it’s going to be hard but think about it.
Also I’m just curious do you have any children? I’ll bet you don’t!
bdog2995 on August 3, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Plus, yarn can become anything, not just a blanket, whereas a fetus can and will only become a human, so long as its brains aren’t sucked out.
Also, if you cut up some yarn, you can still put it back together and make that blanket. If you cut up a fetus, you can’t make another fetus.
Esthier on August 3, 2007 at 10:55 AM
good point Esthier
bdog2995 on August 3, 2007 at 11:06 AM
As a man I suppose I’m not allowed or qualified to comment on a woman’s rights to control her own body. I have read a lot of the comments posted on this subject and I am surprised there are so few pro-choice people posting. I’m very pro-choice—CHOOSE TO KEEP YOUR KNEES TOGETHER!!!
How many people know that 40 million little babies have been murdered since Roe v. Wade emanated from the constitution (how that works I don’t know)? To me this subject is quite simple life is life and removing that life whether it is a “parasite” in the womb or a “parasite” in the room down the hall is murder no matter the circumstances and in fact I consider this the worst form of murder possible a “mother” taking the life of her own child despicable!! A “father” who was to do this type of thing would be lynched and some are. I point you to Scott Peterson and that Bobby guy up in Ohio. One is on death row and the other is charged for the murder of an unborn baby. Why is it that if a woman does not want to support her child she just has an abortion but if a man does not want to support his child he is called a dead beat dad and can be thrown in jail? The reason so many are unable to call abortion what it is and propose an appropriate punishment (electric chair) is this politically correct attitude of our society. Oh you can’t say that. That will hurt someone’s feelings. I care nothing for how someone may feel about my comments only that I speak the truth as far as I know it or believe it to be. Sometimes the truth hurts. Here are some truths for you:
1. No sex = no pregnancy = no abortion=no STD’s
2. No abortion = less sex = less pregnancy=less STD’s
3. Mothers are supposed to jump in front of danger to protect their child not murder their child to save their own skin
4. Fathers are supposed to provide for their whole family even if you are not married. Some say why buy the cow when you get the milk for free. Well I say you may have got the milk for free but the calf is going to cost you. Stop being cowards and do the right thing men.
5. Act like a Wh___, dress like a Wh___, talk like a Wh___ and you will be treated like a Wh___ (which means you will be used by men for what they see you as. No respect, no dignity, no caring and worst no real love)
6. Act like a lady, dress like a lady, talk like a lady and you will be treated like a lady (which means you can confidently turn down men’s advances without fear of him running off. Respected, dignified, cared for and most important truly loved.)
revans2468 on August 3, 2007 at 12:08 PM
If an experiment is preformed on the fetus of a monkey, is it a future monkey?….& why is PETA so upset???!!
The point is this, no human ever walked on this earth w/out 1st being in utero…..THIS CANNOT BE DENIED PERIOD
We all started in the womb….& as such have a ‘Right to Life!” yes? …..or is it no. Is it the shape & form of the earliest human experience that trips you up?….how about the human vehicle when it is VERY old & wrinkled???
Would YOU be here if your mother had you sucked out in pieces because you were ONLY! in the 1st trimester.
How about we teach our daughters & sons that ‘the Child conceived’ is their BABY & your grandchild!!…what a freakin’concept…..& that if you are not ready to take on the responsibility of another HUMAN LIFE…don’t FK! WOW!..let’s get our hands around this one…
what is to be gained by teaching our teenagers to sacrifice their innocence for pleasures that don’t really need to be reigned in by discipline!?? I mean, what a guilt trip, how religiously freighted!(sarcasm!) & what is to be gained by teaching our Teens that they don’t need to feel ‘guilt’ about destroying the logical consequences of fkng???….after all, it is only a LIFE!! (more sarc).
Why is this country on the verge of being taken over?…..because we murder our unborn w/ impunity….no big deal…..what ever…guilt isn’t very PC you know!
“What you do unto the least, you do unto Me.” The words of the Only Master who gave up His Life to rescue others.
lobosan5 on August 3, 2007 at 1:06 PM
The question asked of the Pro-Lifers “what should be done to a women who has an abortion if it is illegal,” is much like the one asked by the Pharisees to Christ on the stoning of the adulterous women. It is designed to make them look bad no matter how they answer. If they say that a woman who has had an abortion should not be punished, then they look like fools for protesting and wanting abortion to be illegal in the first place. If they say a woman should be punished well then they look inconsiderate heartless fools as well. No answer to this question will please those evil enough to condone abortion. And this tactic shows how desperate they are.
This country paid a bloody price for the sin of slavery of which more Americans died in the Civil War then all American wars since combined. I hate to think what abortion will cost us.
Irenaeus on August 3, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Exactly what I was talking about. There is absolutely no point in engaging with Nonfactor, as he already assumes things as fact, that are instead opinion. One’s opinion on when life begins is the hinge of the debate. If he, or anyone, will not allow for discussion on this point, as his comment quoted here shows, then there is no point in furthering the discussion with that person. It is arrogance, pure and simple.
nailinmyeye on August 3, 2007 at 1:50 PM
And the point about something potientially becoming something else is ridiculous. The point is that they are not two seperate things – a human being cannot be such without first being an embryo, or a fetus. They are all stages of the same thing, not a different thing.
nailinmyeye on August 3, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Revans
You hit on a point that I have been saying for years.
Men are treated differently than women and in a terrible way
Not just with abortion issues but also with custody and support issues.
we are treated very unfairly.
If a woman gets pregnant from a 1 night stand or a long term relationship she can decide for any reason whatsoever that she doesn’t want the baby and can kill it ( abortion )
Unfortunately we men don’t have a choice.
I love it when they say they have the right to choose.
Why can’t men choose?
And don’t give me the ” it’s her body ” excuse. It’s not her body! It isn’t like they’re taking a lung or a kidney from her body. It is a different body inside her it is not an internal organ that she can’t live without.
I think men should be allowed to decide if they don’t want to be involved in an unwanted pregnancy just as women do after all femenists are all about equal rights usually.
Men have absolutely no say in the matter when it comes to a baby being born or not.
Women can literally kill your child and there is not a thing you can do about it.
Women can also tell you to take a hike and give birth to your baby and expect you to pay them a monthly fee for 18 to 22 yrs. ( college ) if they so desire.
Men and unborn babies don’t have any rights in the politically correct country we live in.
bdog2995 on August 3, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Exactly. A fetus is simply a human at a certain developmental stage just as an infant is a human at a certain developmental stage.
Esthier on August 3, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2