Late for the lie

A great post over at RH Reality Check on how to cut the anti-choice crap from the abortion ''debate.''

Here's a clip from the section on the medical terminology for what constitutes a pregnancy.

"Baby" is another term we don't use in medical practice: it's an infant or newborn when we're talking about a live birth. Before birth, we are talking about an embryo, around two weeks after gestation, or a fetus, from the end of the tenth week of gestation onward. This language is not meaningless or just about semantics: we're talking about very different phases of development when we talk about a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus and an infant. But for those of us working in abortion, embryo or fetus are the only terms we're using: anything before an embryo is to early for a termination (and often even for a pregnancy test), and an infant at or post-birth is not something we ever see in our practice.

Fascinating that ''anything before an embryo is to (sic) early for a termination (and often even for a pregnancy test).'' It doesn't even seem to register hormonally in a woman's body.

The way the zygote zealots shriek about how ''the pill kills'' and how other contraceptive methods are abortifacient, you'd think women who have sex and choose to prevent getting pregnancy were serial murderers.

Serial murderers and sluts, of course.

(H/t to my Facebook and Twitter feminist sistah, @MadamaAmbi)

Comments

[Dafe Oputu]

Antonia, you have an annoying tendancy to close comments on articles immediately after I've been rebutted. So this time I'm going to carry on the argument here.

1) Why would you say that a woman who was pregnant would go to prison? I said in every phase of my argument that this would not be the case. Only a woman who had an abortion would go to prison. And of course this would be starting from the time the law is enacted.

2)I don't mean any woman who drank alohol or smoked would be arrested. I specifically said excessive and you chose to ignore that. I mean a woman who is intaking riddiculously high levels of these toxins. And of course they wouldn't be punished if they don't know of their pregnancy, that's called an accident. As for driving without a seatbelt isn't that already illegal? and don't police already search for those breaking this law? And again: We would not arrest all women just for being pregnant! Why do you keep saying that?

3) I already said EXCESSIVE smoking and drinking. And the snitch line you criticize is the same way the police investigate any attempted murder. One snitch wouldn't land the woman in jail. It would just mean the police would come over and see if there was anything wrong.

4) Women died slow and painful deaths because pregnancy was more dangerous back then. And for the last time if the woman is going to die an abortion is justified. And how does having an abortion free you from an abusive relationship? As for your other two points they could be solved by some responsibility. If you want to escape from poverty or not to give babies to orphanages then don't engage in the one act that will give you children. And how can you pretend that giving a child to an orphanage is worse than killing them?

5) Wow. "It isn't a person because it isn't a person"? Use some science, use some logic and explain your point, because I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

[hysperia]

Oh women should just refuse to have sex with any guy who hasn't had a vasectomy. Period.

[Antonia]

Ah Dafe ...

It isn't about you, okay? It's about automatically -- as in a setting -- closing comments after a certain time to avoid spam. There is always a lot of spam, and I am not talking about certain regulars.

1. So you would imprison hundreds of thousands of women? Hey good going!

2. Excessive. Hmm. Define that. Would women have compulsory breathalyzer tests? Pee tests? Blood tests? How often?
Where?

How many people get arrested and charged with attempted murder for driving without a seatbelt? You imply a pregnant woman would be.

3. A ''snitch'' line? Like how about one in every bar? How about sending bar tenders to prison for not snitching?

4. Pregnancy is no more dangerous than it's ever been. The difference is, now, women can have abortions, legal abortions in hospitals, when pregnancies are dangerous.

5. How about you use some logic?

Now I will exercise my deletion abilities, which I do have, and use them to junk any comment of yours that does not advance this discussion with logic and intelligence.

[Diana Marie]

Re Ah Dafe:

Well said Antonia! Your rarely used (I'm sure) delete option will be well advised in this case.

[David Marniss]

Your justification for the legalization for abortion is that it would be difficult to enforce. Aside from the sheer stupidity of that logic, it wouldn't be and that shouldn't be part of your rationale when justifying anything.

1. When something becomes illegal, people do it less. How can you not understand that?

2. Excessive as in too much, it's not that hard to define. Why do you assume that when abortion becomes illegal, we suddenly become a fascist state? That doesn't make any sense. Besides, you're already charged when you drive without a seatbelt.. so that's moot.

3. We already have a snitch line. It's how child services works....if you didn't know.

4.No...pregnancy is much safer than it was in the 1600's. If you can't see that, it's only from obstinate ignorance. The difference in childbirth isn't that people can have abortions, it's that modern medicine is evolving to the point where we can create controlled environments that seriously reduce the risks involved in pregnancy.

5. Logic means 1+1=2. You make farcical leaps in your argument. Assumptions with no grounds, and you refuse to articulate any real argument. Everything boils down to, woman this woman that. This is a human life. A human life growing in the womb. You can't wave that off with semantics. From where I'm standing, it just seems this is nothing more than another issue where you can flaunt the "I'm a feminist" flag.

[Dafe Oputu]

Antonia, you're riddiculously exaggerating everything I say to jump to unreasonable conclusions instead of actually arguing the point.

I have said over and over again we would not need to stalk women and test them constantly for this. Do we position police at all late night parties to check people who may be about to DWI? No. If a pregnant woman is clearly seen taking massive amounts of alcohol (and no we do not mean a single bottle of beer or wine)a concerned friend or observer could call police and have them check it out.

A woman driving without a seatbelt wouldn't be charged with murder if it was an accident. It would be a similar charge to having a child with no carseat on.

And "Why don't you use some logic?" what kind of response is that? The fact that you used such a childish retort in defense of such a serious matter only further shows your lack of logic.

Despite all your assertions and criticisms of our side, the only way you can win this argument is if you PROVE (not just claim) that the fetus is not a human.

[Antonia]

Dafe it is you not arguing the point.

How do you prevent women from getting illegal abortions? Putting ankle bracelets on all pregnant women? Forcing all women of fertile ages to report their periods to the state?

How do you prevent them from dying? Because they will seek out illegal abortions. The rich will buy them from sympathetic doctors. The poor will die.

HOW DARE YOU ROB THEM OF CONTROL OF THEIR BODIES AND LIVES?

I have a proposition for you.

How about ALL MEN get state-imposed vasectomies -- they can be reversible -- at, say, 15, and they can undo them when they're ready to have children?

I don't like the idea either. And you know why? Because the state has no business in anybody's body.

As for your constant harping about ''the fetus,'' it is composed of human cells -- just like that appendix you might have had out or that urine you deposited in the toilet.

It is a tiny, even microscopic, clump of tissue -- certainly for at least 13 weeks -- with no brain activity in a woman's body.

What it is not is a PERSON.

The woman carrying that fetus -- which is not called A PERSON either legally, medically or even by you -- is A PERSON, legally and medically.

Not sure you see that woman carrying the fetus as a person, do you?

Why do you hate women Dafe?

[Dafe Oputu]

Good, good Antonia, you finally see the point. And now I can finally argue what we should've been arguing from day 1.

Just because a crime is hard to stop doesn't mean we should give up and make it legal. Every year many people get away with murder and theft and some get hurt or killed attempting to do so. Yet such things are still illegal. Also I'd be willing to bet that the amount of abortions would drop drastically if it was illegal, if only because it becomes less accessible.

As for how to prevent them. We would stop abortion centres to make it harder. We'd educate on how to prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place. If a doctor has reason to believe his patient has had an abortion he would report it. Women who had abortions would be arrested (starting from after the law was enacted). Women would be educated on the danger of illegal abortions. All these would be used as deterrents.

Yes my appendix is made of human cells. But it is made of MY human cells. It is not its own but simply an organ of mine. A fetus has unique DNA and is therefore property of itself not of the woman who holds it.

And what about after those 13 weeks? In Canada abortion is legal right up until birth. Why are women allowed to kill unique living humans with functioning brains? I do consider this a person so don't try and say that I'm denying my own argument. Birth does not make one human. It is something before this and at the very least it is brain activity.

As for women. Use that argument on someone else because I respect all humans and value them all as complete equals. This includes women. You use this defence all the time by saying that we are men and therefore hate women and that's why we are prolife. You are wrong. I do not hate women. My prolife stance is based on the knowledge that life > inconvenience + pain + depression + etcetera not the belief that fetus > woman. You know this to be true because I always say that abortion is justified if the woman is going to die otherwise.

When a woman's life is not endangered an abortion is wrong because she is placing her comfort, convenience and happiness over somebody's life. It is not a matter of controlling sex, it is not a matter of controlling women, it is not a religious viewpoint that I force others to abide by. It is a truth, and the only part that can be argued is the identification of a fetus as human. This means all your arguments you have been spouting in the past are not important. Stop dodging the issue and answer the question: Why is a fetus not a human?

[...pat.]

Dafe, catch up on Canadian law.A fetus is not independent of the woman, nor considered a human life that gets protection, until it is born. A woman is entitled to security of the person as guaranteed by the charter of Rights & Freedoms.
In one case, Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote the decision for the majority. She stated: "The only law recognized is that of the born person. Any right or interest the fetus may have remains inchoate and incomplete until the birth of the child." She concluded that any attempt to forcibly treat a pregnant woman would violate "the most sacred sphere of personal liberty - the right of every person to live and move in freedom...A pregnant woman and her unborn child are one...To make orders protecting fetuses would radically impinge on the fundamental liberties of the mother - both as to lifestyle choices and as to where she chooses to live..." She expressed concern that if the state were found to have a right to interfere with a pregnancy then women who smoke cigarettes or who exercise strenuously might be the next to be taken into custody. This could cause the problem to be driven underground: pregnant women might refuse counseling and medical help out of fear of being confined; some might even resort to having an abortion in order to continue their addiction. "In the end, orders made to protect a fetus's health could ultimately result in its destruction."
Other than that, you're getting into beliefs. Your belief is that it's an unborn child. Mine is that it is a parasitic relationship of a non-viable life form.
I'm not interested in arguing your religious beliefs vs my atheism, and how that impacts our world views. We have legal rights. Learn them, please, Dafe. We're not your high school debating society.

[Antonia]

It is not a person. There is no''somebody.''

And why aren't women persons to you? I don't care what you say. If you take away women's human rights, she is less than the clump of cells in HER body.

Go convince the courts otherwise.

You are wasting your time here.

[Dafe Oputu]

What a relapse. As soon as your views are challenged you backtrack straight to your original arguments, which by the way we've already defeated.

Pat: we already talked about the law. At one time the law said that blacks weren't people, once they said that women weren't people once they said that natives weren't people. I don't hate the law or anything, but we must admit that laws and true justice are not always synonymous.

If you actually read what I said above you will know why I said the unborn child and its mother are not one. You will also know that it has nothing to do with religion. I am not a religious person. Does atheism mean you can justify any crime? no. If you can only resort to personal jabs instead of arguing (after all that's what we're here for isn't it?) then you may as well concede defeat on this point.

Antonia: your response was even worse. "It is not a person there is no somebody." Why? I just told you various reasons why it was and you responded with zero reasons. Does that mean you have none? If you do bring them out.

For the last time women are persons to me. I am not removing any rights from the woman. SHE is not less than the unborn child. But her comfort is less than the child's life. Notice that you asked me why aren't women persons to me and I answered it three times. But when I ask you Why is a fetus not a person to you? You don't answer so much as once.

If I'm wasting my time here then why was I invited to express my opinion? I'm beginning to think that you can't take it quite as well as you can dish it out. My purpose of arguing to you is to prove the security of my opinion and the fragility of yours. Anyone who doesn't want to argue an opinion doesn't deserve to keep it. So if you really think your side is right you should be able to communicate why. So do so.

[PaulR]

Hmm. Is it a pizza the moment you put your hands in the dough, or in the moment it comes out of the oven?

[Voice of Reason]

When a living human cell "comes together" with another living human cell and forms a genetically independent living human being how does the condition and/or size of the being make it any less human or any less alive?

[...pat.]

Dafe, the fact that some laws in the past were really bad and have been repealed does not mean that I'm willing to accept your position that this current law is as bad, and should be therefore ignored in this argument. That is opinion, not fact.

I know you said the fetus (it's not an unborn child) and its mother are not one because of DNA. Reductio ad absurdum, neither are cancerous tumours that result from genetic mutations.

Atheism justifying crime is purely a red herring that you're trying to introduce.

I have addressed your points of criminalizing pregnant women by referring to a decision of the Supreme Court. All I'm getting from you is a regurgitation of opinions (it's an unborn child!). Although you protest to the contrary, you are removing rights from the woman. Reread the quotation I gave. You are trying to remove fundamental liberties.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Dafe you Naif,

" I'm beginning to think that you can't take it quite as well as you can dish it out. "

You're not being quite fair. I disagree with the Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator on almost everything. She is far better at "taking it" than most, it's just that she is constrained by the Goderators.

[PaulR]

Goderators or editorial mandate?There have been conspiratorial excesses (ie. the public workers' strike being an example of a misogynistic devaluation of woman workers)) that have prompted my speculation that some of the content has been determined by a mandate to crowbar in a "feminist" angle, by trying hard to discover or invent a new misery for women at the hands of men. In exquisite double-speak, this process is described as "empowerment".

As they say, "If all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."