What is ‘reproductive rights’?

What is this thing called ‘reproductive rights’? Sure, if you’re a liberal everything you want but can’t have for whatever reason is a violation of your rights. However, setting aside the other human being involved, I can’t think of an analogue to this oft-repeated claim, which is that denying someone the right to destroy the child in utero is a denial of one’s reproductive rights.

Ostensibly, a reproductive right is nothing more or less than the capacity to start a family with a spouse. In other words, it’s something you share with the other sex, and it’s something that can only be enjoyed with another person of the opposite sex. So, it’s not something unique to women. Further, if it is such a right then the corollary is that no other person is, prima facie, justified in frustrating your power to start a family with another person of the opposite sex. In other words, anything that interferes with procreation would count as a violation. From this stand point, forced contraception to sterilization, or forced separation, would count as interference with your ‘reproductive right’.

Now, lets look at the potential analogue to this, say, by reference to health. Health of the body is a good not a right, but we have rights to undertake measures to maintain or improve our health. These rights would include things like visiting a doctor, to engage in regular exercise, to obtaining food and drink, and the like. The idea is that nothing, prima facie, should frustrate our endeavour to maintain good health.

So what could possibly be the analogue in the example of health to the right to destroy the child in utero, which seems like a right to reverse the actual good that the rights associated with reproduction are aimed at, which is actually producing (and caring) for children. It would appear to be a right to sabotage our own good health. Now, we may certainly be free to do so, but do we really have a right to such a thing? Can we demand a doctor give us poor medical advice, poison us, and the like? I don’t think so.

It’s clear, then, that the claim that abortion constitutes a ‘reproductive right’ is absurd. Whatever is being asserted by its use is neither a right, nor is it ‘reproductive’.

83 thoughts on “What is ‘reproductive rights’?”

  1. To characterise the killing an unborn foetus as somehow “reproductive” is truly Orwellian.

    WAR IS PEACE, SLAVERY IS FREEDOM, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.


    Report comment

    8
  2. The only sensible answer is either a Patent or a license agreement with the Patent holder.

    There might be a metaphysical angle to this, so I’ll leave that to the deep thinkers.


    Report comment

    1
  3. I rather like Jessica Chastain. She brings a fragile, vulnerable aura to her roles – something quite difficult to achieve and valuable to directors.

    If only she’d stick to play acting. She’s good at that.


    Report comment

    6
  4. I think the great Sir Anthony Hopkins said it best when he said..

    ““Actors Are Pretty Stupid. My Opinion Is Not Worth Anything”

    Quite so Sir Anthony.

    There is nothing worse than hearing actors opine on matters they shouldn’t.


    Report comment

    17
  5. I’m on FB currently speaking with someone who thought “If you’re opposed to abortion, don’t have one” was a winner.

    My response: “If you’re opposed to slavery, don’t own one. See how that works?”

    In both cases, people who will never be subjected to the conditions of slavery or abortion are the most ardent supporters. Funny that. I guess it’s really easy to ignore the plight of our fellow human beings when convenient.


    Report comment

    7
  6. As someone who is more flexible than is probably justified on such a thing, this is the worst argument ever.

    It implies that men must be fertile and available at the whim of any woman, for otherwise is an obvious violation of such a claimed right.

    Likewise, beer rights imply that beer must be produced just on the off chance that I want it, and anyone not prepared to ferment is a bigot and violator of human rights.

    Even I know it’s dumb.


    Report comment

    2
  7. For a redhead she’s a pretty decent looker. Give her a pass and ignore the tantrum.

    Well, I’d roger her.

    But only because I’ve had a vasectomy.


    Report comment

    4
  8. Dover,
    Have you ever heard of the concept of negative rights and did you ever consider whether abortion was an example of it?


    Report comment

    1
  9. Cassie of Sydneysays:
    July 5, 2022 at 7:15 pm
    Does Ms Chastain support those who want “vaccination rights”?

    Cassie, you’re being ridiculous ?


    Report comment

    1
  10. Someone who does dress up and make believe for a living

    Is not someone whose life advice or opinions hold any weight to me

    Harsh but there you go


    Report comment

    7
  11. Have you ever heard of the concept of negative rights and did you ever consider whether abortion was an example of it?

    Sure have but not sure how an abortion could constitute a negative right. Doesn’t the child in utero have a negative rights claim against the mother? I would think so. I suppose you are thinking of it from the angle of the mother who purportedly enjoys a negative rights claim against the father, child, or state, but how are we to deal with the former? Either way, not sure talking about negative or positive rights is very helpful.


    Report comment

    2
  12. Expecting a liberal female to be honest about something as life-changing as reproduction is a lost cause. For a start, liberals hate themselves and are extremely neurotic.

    Oh, she’s an actress, you say, and pretends to be someone else for a living?

    Well, double the neurosis.

    In all the turmoil, it’s a miracle she remembers to breathe.


    Report comment

    6
  13. Speaking of rights, we are about to be told that we have to have done a total of four vaccine shots and wear masks again.
    These measures were touted as “essential and effective” when they were actually coercive and ineffective last time(s).
    When will our politicians and unelected “health advisors” be told where to get off, and when will China be sued for damages?


    Report comment

    6
  14. I do not give a stuff about whether having abortions is a right, or not a right. what actually galls me in this is that the anti-abortion folk want ME to help pay for all these unwanted sprogs.

    Fair enough that an unborn kid is a human being, since even the dimmest leftist uses the phrase ‘unborn child” from time to time, especially when a woman (whatever that may be) is damaged whilst pregnant, but FFS, why must I pay for it when the mother doesn’t want to raise it?

    I guess my ‘position” would be something like “get rid of the embryo as soon as you can” or else bear the cost of it. Meanwhile, that probably comes back to all those wanting the unwanted kids be born (most on New Cat by the look of it), to pay some sort of super-tax to cover what they want = some sort of surcharge on tax returns if you tick the “no abortions to be allowed” box.

    Anyone here willing to adopt a few of these not-aborted kids?


    Report comment

    2
  15. “My body, my choice” includes the right to become pregnant without assistance from anyone else. There could be a common phrase for that.


    Report comment

    1
  16. I think the great Sir Anthony Hopkins said it best when he said..

    ““Actors Are Pretty Stupid. My Opinion Is Not Worth Anything”

    You got there before me, cassie!


    Report comment

  17. It goes without saying that actors are not the brightest sparks, but even here she is only repeating a line written for her by pro-aborts. So it’s not really her intelligence in question, its whether an argument for abortion on the grounds of ‘reproductive rights’ actually makes sense. It doesn’t.


    Report comment

    1
  18. I guess my ‘position” would be something like “get rid of the embryo as soon as you can” or else bear the cost of it. Meanwhile, that probably comes back to all those wanting the unwanted kids be born (most on New Cat by the look of it), to pay some sort of super-tax to cover what they want = some sort of surcharge on tax returns if you tick the “no abortions to be allowed” box.

    I don’t buy your argument but I would nevertheless still accept these terms.


    Report comment

    1
  19. I rather like Jessica Chastain. She brings a fragile, vulnerable aura to her roles

    I had to look her up. And then I realised why I’ve never heard of her. Her Wiki page has this:
    Known for primarily starring in films with feminist themes


    Report comment

    1
  20. dover0beachsays:
    July 6, 2022 at 10:46 am; “I don’t buy your argument”

    It’s not an argumenta as such but I am interested in your view on the citizenry being forced to pay for ignorant bimbos’ kids when they do not want them but are forced to have them.

    Could you flesh it out a bit?


    Report comment

  21. In a couple of years:

    Jessica: Why aren’t producers offering me roles?
    Her Agent: No one wants to watch you anymore.
    Jessica: Was it something I said?


    Report comment

  22. It’s not an argumenta as such but I am interested in your view on the citizenry being forced to pay for ignorant bimbos’ kids when they do not want them but are forced to have them.

    Firstly, whether they want it or not, they have it now. They can and largely will learn to love the child. Secondly, in the instance where this doesn’t eventuate or they persist and reject the child, adoption is available. What is the role of the state here? Pretty much where it is with any child now. You provide whatever assistance is necessary for the parent to raise the child themselves, in the first instance. Many parents here already have the capability and resources in order to look after the child anyway, so you only need to provide assistance to those don’t. The state is the last in line here, with extended family, friends, and local community in between. Re the second, the government needs to make adopting a child less onerous on prospective parents.


    Report comment

    4
  23. dover0beachsays:
    July 6, 2022 at 2:54 pm; “they night keep them or they may not” (paraphrased0

    And who pays the single mothers’ pensions and child-rearing costs when they are forced to raise unwanted sprogs? And who suffers from the delinquent brats later running amok? And don’t most new Cats agree that “fatherless households” are generally disasters for the wider community = so why force millions more of such households onto society by not making it easier to get early-stage abortions? And so on…Plus…

    Everything I read about adopted kids paints a very depressing picture overall. some work out, bur…”Children who wind up in the foster care system often have more troubled outcomes. Many of them came to be in the foster care system under traumatic circumstances and may even face more trauma once within the foster care system which is rife with problems.” etc

    AND, I still get the tab for the adoption process too? FFS: chicks who have unwanted embryos should not be at my cost. But since they will be, then reducing that cost is my much preferred option!


    Report comment

    1
  24. And who pays the single mothers’ pensions and child-rearing costs when they are forced to raise unwanted sprogs? And who suffers from the delinquent brats later running amok? And don’t most new Cats agree that “fatherless households” are generally disasters for the wider community = so why force millions more of such households onto society by not making it easier to get early-stage abortions? And so on…Plus…

    Firstly, because they’re human beings. Secondly, because they are not automatically delinquent brats anymore than the ‘wanted’ children. Thirdly, many are already in ‘households with fathers’.

    Everything I read about adopted kids paints a very depressing picture overall. some work out, bur…”Children who wind up in the foster care system often have more troubled outcomes. Many of them came to be in the foster care system under traumatic circumstances and may even face more trauma once within the foster care system which is rife with problems.” etc

    Sure, but we don’t get rid of these children either.

    AND, I still get the tab for the adoption process too? FFS: chicks who have unwanted embryos should not be at my cost. But since they will be, then reducing that cost is my much preferred option!

    They are our cost in part whether they are wanted or not. Still, think of them as future tax payers if you’re worried about cost, and they can substitute the immigrants that we are going to otherwise need if present birthrates are anything to go by.


    Report comment

    1
  25. Mantaray – All your points apply equally to dependent children of any age. Can we assume you’re in favour of a child of (say) two or maybe five years being knocked off if under any of those same circumstances If not, please explain why.


    Report comment

  26. No need to overthink this. They call them “reproductive rights” because it sounds nicer than “abortion rights” – that’s all.


    Report comment

    1
  27. Everything I read about adopted kids paints a very depressing picture overall. some work out, bur…”Children who wind up in the foster care system often have more troubled outcomes. Many of them came to be in the foster care system under traumatic circumstances and may even face more trauma once within the foster care system which is rife with problems.” etc

    Mantaray, this is an excellent point you make, but db doesn’t care about it at all. He is a religious extremist who is concerned only about the implications of scripture and how to impose them on our lives.

    He does not care about real life and its complexities. He will hand-wave away anything you throw at him. All that matters to him is his mental image of the foetus.

    He is not a bad man, but he is racked with delusion and misguided concerns. The end result is a melange of contradictions, a compote of cognitive dissonance. He can not argue rationally, and if you try to engage him rationally you will be disappointed by his reaction.


    Report comment

    2
  28. LOL

    Religious extremist, that is the generation that defeated Nazism had the same beliefs.

    Another bruh moment monty.

    Manta doesn’t agree with you about men being forced to pay for kids they have no say in aborting, raising or even procreating.

    Bruh


    Report comment

  29. A similar lack of logic underlies the tag ‘pro-choice’. There’s nothing wrong with being ‘pro-choice’. A women who wants to abort her unborn child is not ‘pro-choice’ but ‘pro-changing-her-choice’.
    moderated

  30. Mantaray, this is an excellent point you make, but db doesn’t care about it at all.

    The only response to Mantaray’s point is not to kill the child in utero, its to provide them with good homes, and assist their parents (or their nearest substitute) where necessary in this endeavour, because, as Katzenjammer states, there is no reason, if you want kids to avoid the foster care system, not to also kill children that are abandoned or orphaned so as to avoid foster care.

    He is a religious extremist who is concerned only about the implications of scripture and how to impose them on our lives.

    And yet I never refer to Scripture in argument.

    He does not care about real life and its complexities. He will hand-wave away anything you throw at him. All that matters to him is his mental image of the foetus.

    This is mere projection. The hand-waving is all on the side of the pro-aborts who invariably have to rely on a series of gimcrack moves to justify the destruction of the child in utero, from the ‘clump of cells’, ‘viability’, etc. and then finally, they remove the mask and simply say that they need no reason at any time, it’s just pure will.

    He is not a bad man, but he is racked with delusion and misguided concerns. The end result is a melange of contradictions, a compote of cognitive dissonance. He can not argue rationally, and if you try to engage him rationally you will be disappointed by his reaction.

    LOL. Yes, yes, you can always tell who the ‘rational’ one is in an exchange, their entire comment is usually one long ad hominen.


    Report comment

  31. The only response to Mantaray’s point

    The word “only” is doing a lot of work there. Only response according to whom? You.

    Or is it according to Scripture? Or maybe the only response allowed by the conservative majority on SCOTUS. Who are a law unto themselves, a modern golden calf.

    and then finally, they remove the mask and simply say that they need no reason at any time, it’s just pure will

    Not every woman thinks like Clementine Ford, much as you might like to think so. Not even Clementine thinks like that; it’s rhetoric designed to shock. Every woman agonises over the decision, and retains some level of shame and pain throughout their lives.

    Anyone who thinks modern abortion is a frippery doesn’t understand women. It is never whimsical or joyful. Those small minority who want to shout it out are not bragging, they are fighting shame and embarrassment.

    Dobbs is a stain on the history of America. It is misogynist, theocratic and undemocratic. It came from a decades-long plot to subvert institutions to work against the will of the people. Everyone involved in the project hates women.


    Report comment

    1
  32. The word “only” is doing a lot of work there. Only response according to whom? You.

    Monty, there is nothing about Mantaray’s argument that wouldn’t equally apply to an orphaned child. If the argument is that the unwanted child in utero is better off dead than in foster care the same applies to the orphan. Now, I could refer to the command to defend the orphan but I won’t.

    Not every woman thinks like Clementine Ford, much as you might like to think so. Not even Clementine thinks like that; it’s rhetoric designed to shock. Every woman agonises over the decision, and retains some level of shame and pain throughout their lives.

    Anyone who thinks modern abortion is a frippery doesn’t understand women. It is never whimsical or joyful. Those small minority who want to shout it out are not bragging, they are fighting shame and embarrassment..

    I’m not sure what this argument of yours here is trying to achieve. If killing the child in utero is morally wrong that’s all there is to the matter. That some women feel ‘shame or pain’ is to their credit, it indicates they have a conscience, but then you go and say that these campaigns to ‘shout your abortion’ are attempts to fight this ‘shame and pain’, which indicates that you think they really shouldn’t feel ‘shame or pain’ having killed their own child. If that is the case, why shouldn’t abortion be for ‘any reason or none at any time’? Your position is simply incoherent.


    Report comment

    1
  33. Dobbs is a stain on the history of America. It is misogynist, theocratic and undemocratic. It came from a decades-long plot to subvert institutions to work against the will of the people. Everyone involved in the project hates women.

    Roe shielded the murder of approx. 60M people, half of them female. To the extent that Dobbs will mitigate the slaughter of innocents is a welcome and wonderous achievement.


    Report comment

    1
  34. Reproductive ‘rights’ certainly do not apply in our woke world to the one thing that counts as a deviant pervert lifestyle: the heterosexual married woman who wants to be a full-time mother. Those who resist even the vicious fiscal persecution designed to reduce them to penury if they don’t hand their children over to Leninist collective farms will need to be dealt with.


    Report comment

    1
  35. Dobbs is ‘against the will of the people ‘, Monty? Spare me. Dobbs is a profoundly democratic ruling. It returns the question to the elected legislatures from whom a cabal of unelected and unaccountable leftist judges stole it when they manufactured a ‘constituonal’ ‘principle’ out of thin air.


    Report comment

    1
  36. As I said db, you come from the extremist group who would gaol a 10-year-old rape victim for murder if you could. Your perspective is believed only by a tiny minority of religious fanatics.

    The fact that your position is now the law of the land in America is monstrous.


    Report comment

    1
  37. Ridiculous, monty.

    You are making up medical regulation contrary to state law regarding patient safety. The state law cited here was statute.

    No 10 year olds are being forced to carry a pregnancy to term, no one wants that nor is anyone saying a child in such a situation is criminally responsible.

    You’re just making shit up.


    Report comment

  38. As I said db, you come from the extremist group who would gaol a 10-year-old rape victim for murder if you could. Your perspective is believed only by a tiny minority of religious fanatics.

    I’ve stated pretty clearly on the OOT when you trotted this report out that the child in this alleged incident shouldn’t be charged because she’s under the care of her parents, is likely below the age of criminal responsibility, and she wouldn’t be the one that commits murder anyway, the doctor would. The only reason you continue to pound the table flows from your position being so weak that you have to resort to theatrics.

    Get used to coping and seething.


    Report comment

    1
  39. No 10 year olds are being forced to carry a pregnancy to term, no one wants that nor is anyone saying a child in such a situation is criminally responsible.

    A law that is deemed morally acceptable because there are nearby jurisdictions to which you could escape temporarily to avoid it… is a bad law. Not to mention moot when SCOTUS approves of a national abortion ban.

    Also, there are laws in some US states right now criminalising the practice of crossing state lines for an abortion.

    and she wouldn’t be the one that commits murder anyway, the doctor would

    So you are going to gaol any doctor who provides an abortion for murder, plus gaol anyone who helps her cross state lines as an accessory to murder. Thus you will stop any doctors providing abortions at all. That is your end goal.

    The legal system your mob are setting up is designed to maximise physical pain, emotional scarring and death for women and girls.

    Dobbs puts America back not just to the 1950s, but the 1890s. It is barbaric.


    Report comment

  40. A law that is deemed morally acceptable because there are nearby jurisdictions to which you could escape temporarily to avoid it… is a bad law.

    It was shown to you on the OOT that Ohio has an exception for cases that endanger the life or may permanently impair the life of the mother.

    So you are going to gaol any doctor who provides an abortion for murder, plus gaol anyone who helps her cross state lines as an accessory to murder. Thus you will stop any doctors providing abortions at all. That is your end goal.

    First, you make the complaint that unless I support jailing the doctor I’m inconsistent, and then I tell you, no, I’m quite prepared to jail a doctor that murders a child in utero, and then you complain that this will stop abortions. Umm, yes. What are you even arguing anymore, monty.

    Dobbs puts America back not just to the 1950s, but the 1890s. It is barbaric.

    To repeat: Roe shielded the murder of approx. 60M people, half of them female. To the extent that Dobbs will mitigate the slaughter of innocents is a welcome and wonderous achievement.


    Report comment

  41. It would appear to be a right to sabotage It would appear to be a right to sabotage our own good health. Now, we may certainly be free to do so, but do we really have a right to such a thing? Can we demand a doctor give us poor medical advice, poison us, and the like? I don’t think so. good health.
    Given that it is the woman’s health at risk Dover it would appear that your empathy has run over.


    Report comment

  42. Trained Observer, it’s clear in that passage that I’m searching for the appropriate analogy to a ‘reproductive right’ that negates its object as is the case with abortion. And there I use the object of good health, so even there the ‘we’ is entirely appropriate. You’re either confused about what was being argued, or you’re trying to recover from the earlier mistake.


    Report comment

  43. Dover: it’s women’s decision to make. No matter how you parse it. People can lawyer it. Police it. Impose whatever penalty on women who make that choice. Nothing will change reality.
    Blokes don’t get to decide. Only to judge.


    Report comment

  44. It was shown to you on the OOT that Ohio has an exception for cases that endanger the life or may permanently impair the life of the mother.

    And yet it was not invoked in this case.

    You are assuming a level of mercy by the authorities that is not in evidence. That is part of the system – particularly since the rest of the system involves criminalising anyone whose job includes providing or enabling abortion.

    First, you make the complaint that unless I support jailing the doctor I’m inconsistent, and then I tell you, no, I’m quite prepared to jail a doctor that murders a child in utero, and then you complain that this will stop abortions. Umm, yes. What are you even arguing anymore, monty.

    The point I am making is that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Abortion is murder, you say, so we will criminalise it… but we will make an exception for a 10-year-old rape victim… except you won’t really, because there will be no one left to give her an abortion because you gaoled everyone who would do it.

    The direct consequence of your policy is death, mass incarceration, subjugation, terror… it is theocratic fascism, put simply. You should not pretend it is anything else.


    Report comment

  45. m0ntysays:
    July 9, 2022 at 9:59 am
    It was shown to you on the OOT that Ohio has an exception for cases that endanger the life or may permanently impair the life of the mother.

    And yet it was not invoked in this case.

    m0nty we’ve been through this several times.
    It’s highly improbable that the supposed event actually occurred. Even if something like it did happen, it’s overwhelmingly probable that the car ride to Indiana was a stage managed political stunt, since there’s absolutely no grounds whatsoever for the “danger to the mother” exception not to be applied to a 10 year old girl.
    Find some evidence that the rape occurred to corroborate the abortionist’s sob story, and find some evidence that the “danger to the mother” exception isn’t certain to apply in a case like this, and you’d be part way towards credibility.

    The point I am making is that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Abortion is murder, you say, so we will criminalise it… but we will make an exception for a 10-year-old rape victim… except you won’t really, because there will be no one left to give her an abortion because you gaoled everyone who would do it.

    Poor old mental defective. “If you imprison people who don’t obey the law, there’ll be no-one outside prison to do something that’s lawful.”
    Incidentally, if you’re so sure that abortionists will all disobey the law and all go to jail, remind me again of why the 10 year old kid had to be taken to Indiana.


    Report comment

  46. It is not currently illegal in Ohio to help a woman cross state lines to get an abortion.

    There are bills to do so in other states, not sure any have been passed yet but they soon will be.


    Report comment

  47. It’s highly improbable that the supposed event actually occurred.

    You don’t like the story thus you call it fake news. Pathetic.

    The law gives no explicit exclusion for rape or incest. Thus there is no operational exclusion for rape or incest for a healthy ten-year-old girl. This is not hard to understand.

    If the law was supposed to exclude ten-year-olds, it would have said so. It didn’t. Ten-year-olds are not excluded.

    You lot need to get it through your thick heads about what absolutism means in this area. It means accepting that a ten-year-old rape victim is the face of your policy.


    Report comment

  48. m0ntysays:
    July 9, 2022 at 12:27 pm

    English translation: All we’ve got is the word of an abortionist spruiking for their gravy train to be allowed to continue to roll, there’s 0.00000 [recurring to infinity] corroborating evidence that the alleged rape ever occurred even though Ohio is a “mandatory reporting” jurisdiction (as is Indiana) for child abuse, the statistical probability of a 10 year old girl getting pregnant in Ohio within the 3 day window in the storyline is negligible, no-one is able to offer a remotely credible explanation as to why the “danger to the mother” exception wasn’t invoked given, e.g., World Health Organisation pronouncements on the dangers of pre-teens giving birth – even at older than 10, but everyone should accept uncritically that it happened.

    You fat idiot. Not once have you gone within a trillion light years of assessing the actual evidentiary aspects of this story. You just demand that people accept it because it suits your weird sick deranged perverted support for the sale of aborted babies’ body parts by “Planned Parenthood”.


    Report comment

  49. Dover: it’s women’s decision to make. No matter how you parse it. People can lawyer it. Police it. Impose whatever penalty on women who make that choice. Nothing will change reality.
    Blokes don’t get to decide. Only to judge.

    You can say the same about murderers.


    Report comment

  50. And yet it was not invoked in this case.

    You are assuming a level of mercy by the authorities that is not in evidence. That is part of the system – particularly since the rest of the system involves criminalising anyone whose job includes providing or enabling abortion.

    We have no idea about the facts of this case. It remains the case that, legally, a doctor can recommend an abortion after 6 weeks where the mother’s life is in danger or has a reasonable prospect of permanent injury. No one has to assume mercy in this instance at all.

    The point I am making is that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Abortion is murder, you say, so we will criminalise it… but we will make an exception for a 10-year-old rape victim… except you won’t really, because there will be no one left to give her an abortion because you gaoled everyone who would do it.

    Where am I having my cake and eating it too? Abortion is murder. In the case of the rape victim, I’m simply stating what the law is in Ohio.

    The direct consequence of your policy is death, mass incarceration, subjugation, terror… it is theocratic fascism, put simply. You should not pretend it is anything else.

    Utter tosh. Granting the protection of the law to the unborn is not a policy of death, it is the opposite, but in your Orwellian world, everything is inverted. In Australia, dozens of infants that have survived an abortion are left to die alone on a tray in our hospitals without receiving any care. The other tens of thousands are poisoned or dismembered in the womb and killed each year. You have nothing to say about this Mengelean regime. Nothing at all.


    Report comment

  51. Dover: and that’s your problem. The majority don’t think of abortion as murder. Much if the angst arises from religious beliefs.
    So you could say anti-abortionists are just like extreme shariah adherents.


    Report comment

  52. Dover: and that’s your problem. The majority don’t think of abortion as murder.

    Hubris, you never cared for majorities when you sought changes in the law, so your appeal to them now is disingenuous. Further, if you were so worried about majorities you wouldn’t be riled by a decision that simply returns the situation to political deliberation at the state level, and yet you are, because your appeal to majorities is disingenuous.

    Much if the angst arises from religious beliefs.

    And yet not a single argument which I’ve made against abortion and against the arguments of pro-aborts has needed any appeal to religious beliefs.
    May I suggest the problem for pro-aborts is, that, beyond mindless appeals to bigotry, emotion, and the like, your actual arguments are pretty thin.


    Report comment

    1
  53. Dover: only thin if you have no regard for the rights of women.
    As for your view if majority let’s see how this all plays out politically. I think the court has started something that they will regret.


    Report comment

  54. Dover: only thin if you have no regard for the rights of women.

    Not at all, women do have rights. However, they do not have the right to kill their own children. Do you, for instance, appeal to the ‘rights of women’ when a woman has left their toddler in the car during a hot day for hours while they gamble and the toddler dies?


    Report comment

    1
  55. My 2cts worth – abortion should be legal until the fetus is alive . When this occurs is probably the biggest sticking point . After that its murder (or manslaughter). At this point in time its getting used as contraception by many and that is arguably bad for the mother and obviously fatal for the child . Its a pity we don’t seem to be able to use other forms of contraception as this would make this argument largely moot . My last point would be that both participants in the sexual act have a responsibility for any issue – not just the woman.


    Report comment

  56. My 2cts worth – abortion should be legal until the fetus is alive . When this occurs is probably the biggest sticking point .

    It’s alive from the moment of conception as it is from that moment on, distinguishable, genetically and physically, from the mother and growing and developing.


    Report comment

  57. It’s alive from the moment of conception as it is from that moment on, distinguishable, genetically and physically, from the mother and growing and developing.

    Sperm are alive, as are eggs. Your definition is wrong.


    Report comment

  58. Granting the protection of the law to the unborn is not a policy of death

    As has been said upthread, American women will still get abortions, you can’t actually stop that in practice. Your policy will only lead to deaths and injury of more women who have to use more desperate means.

    And that’s the real objective here: to punish women for their sins. You hate women who gained freedoms, and you want to remove those freedoms or make them harder to reach. Ultimately, you don’t believe in freedom.


    Report comment

  59. My niece and her husband live in New Mexico having recently shifted from Washington (Seattle) and were fortunate to adopt a little boy (6 weeks old I believe) from Indiana. His name is Benedict. A beautiful little boy. Thank goodness the mother went ahead with the pregnancy.


    Report comment

    1
  60. Sperm are alive, as are eggs. Your definition is wrong.

    No, the definition is just fine. You completely ignored distinguishable, genetically and physically, from the mother and growing and developing, which you cannot say about the egg. I should probably add ‘organism’: It’s alive from the moment of conception as it is from that moment on, [a] distinguishable [organism], genetically and physically, from the mother and growing and developing. Hopefully, this will stop these disingenuous criticisms but I’m being charitable.

    But at all times they are overridden by a clump of cells that might be a man.

    Not at all, but it’s obvious you can never engage in anything but slogans.

    As has been said upthread, American women will still get abortions, you can’t actually stop that in practice. Your policy will only lead to deaths and injury of more women who have to use more desperate means.

    Do laws against murder stop all murder? Of course not, but they do lead to fewer murderers, and yet I never see you argue that the failure to stop all murders is reason enough to abolish laws against murder. Nor does it lead you to argue that maintaining such laws will only lead to deaths and injury as would-be murderers have to use more desperate means to kill and avoid justice. You don’t because the argument is absurd on its face.

    And that’s the real objective here: to punish women for their sins. You hate women who gained freedoms, and you want to remove those freedoms or make them harder to reach. Ultimately, you don’t believe in freedom.

    How is this punishing women? Woman are moral creatures just as men are, and they are bound to respect the life of another or face just punishment just as men are. That you persist in ignoring the life of the child in utero simply undermines your claim. You are like the slaveowner that only sees the abolition of slavery as undermining the ‘freedom’ of the slaveowner while they ignore the right of the slave (or any other human being that may be enslaved ) to also enjoy the protection of the law. All of this bluster about hate, remove, etc. is just cope.

    It is as simple as that.


    Report comment

    1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.