More questions for people who want to make abortion illegal

kwright · #1 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 07:23 AM

More questions for people who want to make abortion illegal
This isn't for the segment of the pro-life movement that calls abortion "murder" -- it's for everyone in the movement who believe in mandating the carrying of a fetus to full term and giving birth to a child.

Here is a speculative question or two for every single person who believes abortion should be made illegal.

If the government wanted to force you to donate blood monthly, would you be okay with this as legislation?

What if the government passed a law mandating that all children who are able to donate blood without dying should donate blood as well as all adults?

If someone living is a tissue match for someone else who needs a kidney, should the government be able to force them to give the kidney to the other person?

If it is okay to commandeer a woman's uterus in the name of preserving a life, why wouldn't it be okay to mandate the use of blood, bone marrow, or kidneys from living people in order to preserve lives?

http://mollysavestheday.blogspot.com/

kwright · #2 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 07:29 AM

would any of the antis be OK with the government mandating that someone HAVE an abortion?

from jennifer nj abortion provider, located in comments.

tweetyluvsjoshua · #3 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 08:12 AM

How many threads could we possibly need about abortion?? OK OK we get it, you are for abortion. Get over it, not everyone is.

NovAngel · #4 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 08:26 AM

Give it a freaking rest already.

geela · #5 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 10:20 AM

Hmmm, last I checked no one is forcing embryos into womens uterouses. The vast majority of women are willingly engaging in an activity in which their body, doing what it was designed to do, creates a baby.

When the government starts implanting embryos into women, then I will call it forced birthing, otherwise, it is a willing act on the part of the mother.

Jescafa · #6 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 10:28 AM

When the government starts implanting embryos into women, then I will call it forced birthing, otherwise, it is a willing act on the part of the mother.

Except for rape or incest. Let us not forget that rape also occurs within marriages.

Let us also not forget that when young women (and men) are denied basic knowledge about the human reproductive system (through elimination of sex-ed programs in schools and opt-outs, or through negligence of *some* parents who home-school), they are not aware of the risks of their activity. In that case, the resulting pregnancy is not "a willing act on the part of the mother." Or the father.

kwright · #7 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by tweetyluvsjoshua

How many threads could we possibly need about abortion?? OK OK we get it, you are for abortion. Get over it, not everyone is.

It's a goddamned debate board. Debate it or move on. Don't like my choice of topic ? to fruckin bad, start your own. Jesus Christ.

kwright · #8 (**permalink**) 03-20-2006, 03:06 PM

heres the follow up:
http://mollysavestheday.blogspot.com/
I tend to agree with her.

Which is it?
After my two "questions" posts, I have seen clear and direct evidence of something most pro-choice people have already assumed for a long time:

For people who are "pro-life," it's not about life at all, it's about responsibility.

If it was really about life, forced organ donation would be mandatory for living people who had organ matches with other living people. If it was really about life, every single anti-abortion person would have said that 1/3 of American women (that's the number who've had abortions, folks -- and it's worth noting that in the early 20th century this proportion was higher, not lower) are murderers who should be given the penalty for premeditated murder.

But what I did see, over and over, were people saying that there should be "responsibility." That when you have sex, you know there is a finite chance it will result in pregnancy. That was the difference most people complained about in the forced organ donation questions -- that in one case, you are responsible for a life.

Guess what that means? It means it's NOT ABOUT LIFE. If abortions should be illegal but there should not be forced marrow donations from living donors, the distinction isn't one of life, it's one of responsibility.

So stop using the "pro-life" canard when really, anti-abortion is just a notation for a belief in sexual responsibility -- but not even full sexual responsibility, mind you, just a particular kind of sexual responsibility that happens to **** over women every single time.

See, another place where this sort of "sexual responsibility" doctrine comes into play is with the new HPV vaccine, which could prevent cervical cancer almost entirely. You'll note that cervical cancer, by definition, can only happen to women. Well, government officials have been steadfastly opposed to allowing this vaccine or making it part of the rest of the vaccinations we give young people. Why? Because giving them the vaccine would "encourage promiscuous sex." Apparently, people who have sex just need to "take responsibility" for their actions -- which could mean, among other things, getting cervical cancer.

But you see, no one makes these same claims for, say, syphillis, or gonorrhea. Here's an idea. Let's stop all treatment for all sexually transmitted diseases, because when people have sex, they should know that they could get sick.

Everyone knows that the best way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases is to not have sex. Everyone knows that if you have sex, you might end up with a sexually transmitted disease. Therefore, people should only have sex if they want to contract a disease.

Do you see how this doesn't make sense, people who advocate "sexual responsibility?" Yet the previous paragraph, with "sexually transmitted disease" replaced by "pregnancy," is exactly what is being touted as the responsible position. Yes, people do realize that sex can result in disease or pregnancy, in much the same way that a bungee jumper knows the cord could snap. But in the same way we don't deny medical treatment to a bungee jumper and say "hey, look, you knew the consequences, now you can die to take responsibility," we shouldn't deny it for sexual consequences.

So of course, the difference is...well, I guess you could say it comes back to "but abortion stops a beating heart!" -- but you've already made it crystal clear that this isn't your motivation, either, unless you really believe that your 12 year old child should be forced to donate his bone marrow to save a life (since, after all, outlawing abortion means forcing 12 year old girls to donate their uteruses to save a life).

So which is it? You can't have it both ways. You just can't. Either it's sexual responsibility, and we shouldn't treat any sexually transmitted diseases whatsoever, or it's about lives and we should be forcing organ donation from anyone who wouldn't immediately die from the process.

Which is it? Is it life, or is it responsibility? Think about this and think about it seriously. Do you really believe in saving lives even if it requires someone else giving up their bodily autonomy? Or do you just believe it when it's a "consequence," and believe that people should be forced to accept any consequence, even to the massive detriment of their health, bodily autonomy, or even at the cost of their lives, whenever they engage in behavior with risks? Which is it?