52 comments
Avatar
Athena1077
For all the pro-lifers on this site, both Josh and Timothy, someone please answer my question, does the uterus owner have the right to control the contents of her uterus? does uterus owner lose her rights to her uterus and now it belongs to the embryo/fetus?
if i as a pro-choicer come up to you and tell you that i am pregnant, (5 weeks or so) and tell you that i refuse to be an incubator for 9 months and go thru childbirth, that i think it is disgusting and de-humanizing to be pregnant, what you would say to me?
Avatar
nicolehocott
Sometimes when I'm dialoguing they ask what I'm doing here, and they're very suspicious. So I say what that we're out here doing a free speech poll about abortion to try to hear what people think, then talk to them about it. Some of these people seem deceived when I start asking questions, because they feel misled that I said it's just a poll when really I'm trying to change their mind. Is there a better way to answer their initial question?
Also, in response to this article, I suppose I can't exactly picture where in the conversation to say this. Is it right after your first question?
Hide Replies 29
Avatar
timothybrahm
When I'm doing a poll table event and people ask about the event, I prefer to be more direct and transparent about it. If you give a misleading answer, it's just going to come back to bite you. I typically say something like, "We're doing an informal poll, we're interested in what people think about abortion." If people ask what side I'm on, I answer very directly. "I think abortion is immoral," or if I'm feeling a little cheeky, "I think if the unborn is a human person, then abortion is immoral." I'm actually very quick to volunteer that the poll isn't that interesting. We count the results of the poll but it isn't a scientific poll and we don't care about it that much. Really, we just want to have productive conversations where people don't yell at each other because we think the issue really matters. People tend to respect that.
As far as when to say it, that all depends on the conversation. I wish I had an easy formula to give you but I really don't. It's one of the things I look for an opportunity to non-awkwardly say. If they say something like, "My views might be considered controversial," or in some other way express a hesitancy to be straightforward, I'll say it then. I might say it when I'm talking about how important I think dialogue is and how frustrating it is when people are polarized and won't listen to each other. I think everyone should be intentional about saying this, but when they should say it comes down to personal style somewhat.
Hide Replies 28
Avatar
Athena1077
you said; "I think if the unborn is a human person, then abortion is immoral"
The problem with this statement is that no person born or unborn, have a right to be gestated inside another person's body. If the issue of abortion was just about the unborn "having a right to life", that did NOT require gestation, then i say it can have all of the right to life it wants.
The problem is for the unborn to live at least until viability (outside the body), it requires a willing host and a uterus. You cannot compel someone to gestate a life in their body against their will.
I am pro-choice because, i believe women have a right to refuse to gestate a pregnancy , regardless how they got pregnant. It is violation of her bodily autonomy to be forced to gestate against her will, just like it would be a violation to of your body to take your kidney or suck your blood.
Uterus owner has a right to refuse gestation. An embryo/fetus does not have a right to uterus just because it needs one to live , not trying to be callous, but i put the pregnant woman's right FIRST.
Hide Replies 27
Avatar
timothybrahm
This blog post isn't really about the bodily rights objection, though I've written about that elsewhere, and I'm working on another post that relates strongly to the forced gestation objection. No spoilers. ;)
I do think a bodily rights position like yours is a far superior pro-choice argument than most.
Hide Replies 26
Avatar
Athena1077
you said : I do think a bodily rights position like yours is a far superior pro-choice argument than most.
Of course it is, i wish more pro-choicers used this argument, i think everything else is irrelevent, because i know even pro-lifers do NOT believe in forcing a woman to gestate against her will, they know deep down a woman has a right to refuse.
Hide Replies 25
Avatar
timothybrahm
If all she was doing was refusing, than I'd say she has a right to do it, in the same way that you'd have the right to refuse being hooked up to a violinist.
The problem is that abortion isn't refusing to gestate a child, abortion is intentionally killing a child. You don't have the right to dismember the fetus any more than you have a right to take a machete and dismember the violinist.
Hypothetically, if we had a way of helping a woman not have to gestate a baby that she didn't want to gestate, and without killing the baby (like if we had awesome artificial womb technology), then I'd fight alongside you to prevent women from being forced to gestate against their will.
Hide Replies 24
Avatar
Athena1077
"Hypothetically, if we had a way of helping a woman not have to gestate a baby that she didn't want to gestate, and without killing the baby (like if we had awesome artificial womb technology), then I'd fight alongside you to prevent women from being forced to gestate against their will.
the problem is their is no way to stop gestation WITHOUT killiing the embryo, their are no artificial wombs for it to be transferred,
So basically you are saying you are for forcing gestation?
So you are saying the embryo/fetus HAS a right to a uterus, and the woman has no right to to refus gestation.
Hide Replies 18
Avatar
timothybrahm
I think the language of "forcing gestation" is incredibly misleading. I'm saying "don't intentionally kill children." As it happens, that removes all of the alternatives to continuing gestation. That may sound like the same thing to you, but think of it in terms of a toddler. If you wanted to kill your toddler and I said "don't intentionally kill children," and you responded with "how dare you FORCE me to be a parent," I'd say you're using misleading language there too, even if there were no adoption services for you to turn to.
Hide Replies 17
Avatar Placeholder
Ann Morgan
Only problem is... I don't think there is a right of toddlers to be cared for by a particular person, any more than there is a right of fetuses to be gestated by a particular person. If you want to feed toddlers or gestate fetuses, you will not be stopped. The fact that you can't or don't want to doesn't create a right to force others to do so.
Tell me: Do you think Bill Haast should have been strapped down and forced to donate blood to Snake bite victims if he didn't want to? Or is it only the uterus and not blood that is up for grabs?
Avatar
Athena1077
No it is not misleading, the alternative to stopping someone from terminating a pregnancy is by "default" forcing them to gestate against their will . You are trying to avoid the issue, by re-labeling it as killing children, i will NOT FALL for that and i say it with all due respect.
Removing a pregnancy to me is stopping a gestation process, and medically i am correct, since abortion is a medical procedure, to terminate a pregnancy.
So if i become pregnant and stop me from procuring an abortion, you are forcing me to stay pregnant and that is a violation of my bodily rights.
So from my perspective, yes , you are forcing a gestation process, since without it being interrupted, the embryo/fetus will continue to be in my body and continue to use my body against my will
Does that make sense to you?
So again let me ask you , are you comfortable with forcing women like me to stay pregnant against my will, and force me to endure 9 months of physical changes and the trauma of childbirth?
Please do not answer with "killing children" please stay on topic which is GESTATION.
Hide Replies 15
Avatar
timothybrahm
You have completely ignored my argument. I'm not attempting to trick you or get you to fall for anything. You said you thought the personhood stuff was irrelevant, it's all bodily rights. So for the sake of argument, we should treat the embryo as a human person, just like Thomson's violinist story does. No tricks here.
The "forcing gestation" language is misleading, for the same reason that "forced parenthood" is misleading in the example I shared above. I'm well aware of the practical implications of saying "don't kill the embryo" given the lack of artificial womb technology. The implication is that she can't have an abortion, which means having to carry the baby to term. But that isn't forcing gestation any more than it is forcing parenthood to tell someone "don't kill your two year old, even though no one else will or can adopt your two year old."
Hide Replies 14
Avatar Placeholder
Ann Morgan
So for the sake of argument, we should treat the embryo as a human person, just like Thomson's violinist story does. No tricks here.
Actually, yes, there IS a trick. You need to define what you mean by the term 'human person'.
If you mean 'mindless cells with special human DNA', there is nothing of value in that.
If you mean a 'thinking feeling person with brain function'... the embryo doesn't qualify.
Avatar
Athena1077
In addition you contradict yourself when you said that you are NOT against someone refusing to gestate, yet you are against abortion because it dismembers, well what, do you expect the embro to leave on its own?
You never answered my question how else should a woman stop the gestation process?
If a woman has the right to refuse gestation then she has the right to remove it from her uterus using whatever force necessary
You cannot both say you are against forced gestation and then say you are against someone actually excercising that right because it might be ugly.
Hide Replies 11
Avatar
timothybrahm
This kind of comment is exactly the kind of thing that convinces me that it isn't a good use of my time to bother arguing with you. There obviously isn't any contradiction in what I said. I'd be against forcing people to stay pregnant if we had a non-lethal way to remove the child, but currently we don't. That is not a contradiction. I'm sure there are people on the internet interested in having debates that go nowhere and where parties lob those kinds of distracting comments on each other, but I'll pass.
Hide Replies 10
Avatar Placeholder
Ann Morgan
** There obviously isn't any contradiction in what I said. **
Do you support forced organ donation? Currently, we have no non-lethal way other than organ transplants to keep certain people alive, so unless you support forced organ transplants, you are a hypocrite, who wants the uterus and ONLY the uterus to be up for grabs against the will of the organ owner, and the human fetus and ONLY the human fetus, and no other needy person to have this special right.
Which in turn would mean, yes, there is a contradiction.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar
Athena1077
Yeah to them the uterus belongs to others except the person who actually has it in their body. They think they have the right to tell someone what to do with their uterus.
They are not for equal rights, but "special rights" for the embryo/fetus, it has a special right to a uterus.
Avatar
Athena1077
you said "this kind of comment"
Was i disrepectful to you in in any way? I just want a straight answer from you , do you believe as a woman that i control the contents of my uterus? and that as the uterus owner, i have final say on what grows there?
Also answer me does an embryo/fetus have MORE rights than ME TO MY UTERUS?
answer me this questions and we can stop the conversation if you like.
Avatar
Athena1077
Ok then just say that you are for forcing women to stay pregnant, since their is NO non-lethal way to remove an embyro without it dying am i correct?
Just admit that you believe that a woman loses the rights to her body and HER uterus and that the embryo/fetus HAS MORE RIGHTS OVER THE UTERUS, than the uterus owner?
Am i correct?
I say this with respect, you just dont want to admit that you CANNOT defeat my bodily autonomy/rights argument .
i don't know about you, but i am willing to continue this conversation, and i am not the one that is trying to minimize bodily rights.
Hide Replies 6
Avatar
timothybrahm
"I say this with respect, you just dont want to admit that you CANNOT defeat my bodily autonomy/rights argument"
It is not respectful to say that I am ending our conversation because anything other than the reason I said. If you wanted to have a respectful conversation, you'd have responded to my last comment by apologizing for being so quick on the trigger to accuse me of a contradiction. Instead, you continue with the same tone and posture, and declare that I'm just afraid of your argument. Give me a break.
If you read this blog, you should have a clue about the kinds of abortion arguments I'm interested in. This kind of obnoxious internet behavior is the opposite. I genuinely hope you have a nice day, and that you find people who enjoy sparring the way you do.
Hide Replies 5
Avatar Placeholder
Ann Morgan
Tim - I've seen the game of pretending to be offended and making excuses for not responding to a particular question, because you can't refute it, thousands of times before.
It's not some new and brilliant tactic. It's something done by immature idiots, and whenever you try it, you are telling the world loudly and clearly that you are an immature idiot, and your position can't hold up to the hard questions.
Hide Replies 2
Avatar
joshbrahm
As our comments policy clearly states, our goal in moderating comments is to encourage an atmosphere where people can respectfully disagree and consider each other's ideas. We have no problem with people voicing their disagreement. We have a problem with people being nasty to each other and trying to control conversations with things like namecalling. You are banned for calling someone else in the thread an "immature idiot."
Hide Replies 1
Avatar
Athena1077
i have a question for you? You say that an embryo/fetus should have equal rights as a born person, yet you want to compel a woman to donate her uterus to PROVIDE that embryo/fetus life. That is NOT equal rights, that is "SPECIAL" RIGHTS.
Having the use of another person's body to live is NOT equal rights. Equal rights would be for the embryo/fetus to be able to live outside a host body on its own.
Why should the embryo/fetus have "special rights" that no born person has which is a uterus to live in that HAS to be provided by another person?
If you say that the embryo/fetus is in its natural environment, well, why must the uterus owner have to provide it? why can't it find its own natural environment elsewhere or with another host?
The fact that the embryo/fetus needs a uterus does NOT make it a right.
Your answer to these questions would be appreciated.
Avatar
Athena1077
Since we have no artificial wombs, i want you to answer the forced gestation question with the technology we have today, not in some hypothetical future.
If i come to you and tell you that i refuse to stay pregnant because i think it is disgusting and humiliating , what would you say to me?
Avatar
Athena1077
To me it is a contradiction (not trying to be snarky) to say that you are against forced gestation, yet, you want to stop someone from having an abortion , which by default forces gestation process to continue.
You are very thinned skinned, if you asking me to apologize for simply misunderstanding you?
Avatar
Athena1077
I disagree, an analogy is if I have a parasite in my body and you stop me from killing it , you are by default ALLOWING The parasite to live inside of me for it will not remove itself on its own.
By stopping me from terminating a pregnancy , yes you are allowing the gestation to continue. Which is forcing by default to gestate for 9 months and endure childbirth.
The fact that an embryo is human is irrelevent it has NO right to my uterus. My uterus , I own it so , I control its contents.
Do you dispute that I own my uterus?
Avatar
Athena1077
abortion is the only way to remove a pregnancy, it isn't like the woman can WILL it out of her body, it has to be forcibly removed either by an abortion pill to expel it out or suctioned out.
Are you opposed to a removal for a pregnancy or are you opposed to the method of how it is done?
Avatar
Athena1077
the embryo will die either way without a host body?
Let me ask you what should a woman do than to remove an unwanted pregnancy, if the vacuum suction is unacceptable to you, how else does a a woman STOP a gestation?
Avatar
Athena1077
"The problem is that abortion isn't refusing to gestate a child, abortion is intentionally killing a child. You don't have the right to dismember the fetus any more than you have a right to take a machete and dismember the violinist"
You are wrong, the fact , the abortion pill if done early in pregnancy does NOT dismember the embryo, and if you are speaking about the vacuum 1st trimester abortion, the dismemberment is caused by the vacuum suction, it is not done maliciously.
The removal causes the death, either way the embryo/fetus will die WITHOUT A
Hide Replies 2
Avatar
timothybrahm
It seems like your last reply was cut off or something.
The abortion pill does not dismember the embryo. I refer to dismemberment because 99.9999% of pro-choice people I've talked with defend first trimester surgical abortions.
Defending the intentional dismemberment of a child on the grounds that it isn't done maliciously seems sketchy to me. I think there are Gosnell types that might be malicious, but probably most are not.
Do you think you have the right to take a machete and dismember the violinist as long as you aren't having malicious feelings while you're doing it? Suppose for sake of argument that your body will have an easier recovery from the violinist removal procedure if he's dead when you unplug.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar
sharondiehl
Pretty darn hard to 'dismember' an embryo/fetus, the size of a raisin to an olive.
The violinist, my dear, is a conscious free-living human being. Embryos and early fetuses are not sentient, nor are they "children", nor are they "human beings".
Load More 30View All 52