It is this line that made me feel this article was Plime-worthy.

This brings to light an important facet to this debate, and this author articulates it much better than I.

I've said before that I've been too many places and seen too many things to be so naive as to think every woman should carry every baby to term, but this article discusses these reasons in more detail than I can or I have.

It's a nicely worded article. I just don't see the problem as keeping women in their place. I see the problem as increased brainwashing in both religious and non-religious ways on people to make them think that in an increasingly over-populated world, new life trumps over all other issues. Of course, this women's right issue is connected to other women's rights issues, since they are all women's rights issues.

I wish I could remember which comedian said this (tell me if you know): "I used to be pro-choice, but now I am pro-life, all thanks to a witty bumpersticker."

Good read. Who quoted someone earlier :"If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement?" Lynxie?? Either way, that quote seems to fit in here.

I hadn't thought about some of these issues from this perspective before. I"ve only really thought "well, maybe I'll start to be a little bit sympathetic towards the pro-life movement when I see an equal number of single fathers as single mothers*," but I didn't think to extrapolate the abortion debate this far into gender inequalities.



From the comments: L.O.L.


*My reasoning was that if there really were as many single fathers as single mothers, the choice would definitely, definitely be there so I wouldn't have to fight for it!

The real issue behind the abortion debate is not women's rights.

It is what defines a person.

If you think a person is only a person after they leave the mother's body, then abortion is fine.

If you think a person is a person from the moment of conception, then abortion is not fine.

It is not about women's rights nor is it about privacy.

No one believes that a woman shouldn't choose to do what she wants with her own body. The problem is if the baby inside her is a human or not.

And when that blob of flesh is growing inside of you, you'll understand why that argument is complete bunk.

And until men are as committed to the consequences as women, until it changes their life in the same way as it does a womans' (oh yes, even giving it up for adoption will change a woman's life), men's opinion on this matter DOES represent inequality. If YOUR decision f**ks up MY life, simply on the basis of gender, it's inequality.

Unless you're proposing that men be indentured to a child for 18 years if they get a girl knocked up. Are you? Are you saying that the man should be held just as accountable for the blob of flesh? Because it sure ain't happening now.

Women's rights, huh? What about baby's rights?

Not a bad idea, actually. Men are comfortably able to avoid taking responsibility for that thing between their legs, leaving someone else to worry about the consequences of their actions. In my opinion, our justice system should be a lot harder on the dead-beat dads who leave their families simply because they don't want to take responsibility for them.

Unfortunately, the same is true for women. You know what happens when tab A is inserted into slot B. If you don't want to be saddled with a kid, there are appropriate measures you can take that don't include the slaughter of an innocent "blob of flesh"*.


*Also known as a "baby", or "human being".

The problem then becomes: after forcing a woman to stay pregnant, what happens to this kid?

Does it grow up in a poor, single-parent household and may very likely be responsible for 50% of another kid's genetics when this kid is not ready to be a parent as well? Does this kid get thrown into the vastly underfunded foster care system? If there really were so many parents waiting with open arms for babies to adopt, there probably wouldn't be a need for IVF or any orphans on the planet. What if it grows up with a serious illness because the mother was a drug addict? Will anyone adopt it then? What happens when it grows up knowing it was a mistake and that neither parent really wanted it and that's why it's dad has been MIA all it's life?

And yet the dude can still just walk away and wash his hands of it all. Not. Fair.

And as an aside, at what point is it a baby? Is it still a baby at 2 weeks when her uterus flushes out the embryo as a side effect of birth control pills? Is it still a baby at three days when it's flushed down the sink with the other embryos after IVF, or when they're foraged for stem cells?

Umm, you seem to really care about what I might do with my uterus, so I don't believe you here.

No, you're taking that out of context. Your body isn't what he's saying people care about, it's the being inside that is the issue. Is that being a human or not? If it's human, it's not your body, it's the little human's body. If it's not, then it's your we're talking about.

Your mouth is your mouth to do with as you please, but if my tongue is in it I'd have a problem with you biting down. Same basic idea here. Do what you will with your uterus, unless that's a human in there. If it's a human, then it's murder; if it's not defined as a human, then it's not murder.

The question is, as John pointed out; when is that thing considered to be a human? The answer to this question varies based on who you talk to.

No one cares what you do to your body. If it's cancer they'll support it getting cut apart. You can pierce whatever you want. The issue is what you do to that fetus in there (and more specifically, this depends on whether that fetus is considered to be a human yet or not.)

I don't know about the US, but under Canadian law (Horsley v. Maclaren), there is no imperative to help someone in distress. As a fetus requires a metaparasitic relationship with its mother for nine months, it is permanently in distress at this time.

Fina and good. But if the fetus is considered human, then the mother is not refusing to help someone in distress, but is murdering the person.

I'm undecided on whether it's a human or not. I don't really know enough about biology to reach any real conclusion. And I don't really care enough about the issue, personally.

As a firm moderate who voted for Obama, I take strong issue to his supporting a pro-choice "litmus test" for justices, for any reason.

I do not believe that justices should be appointed based on their pro-life stances, but i most certainly also believe that they should not be appointed based on their pro-choice stances either.

I can't, and no one else can, determine when a set of cells become a living being. But while the possibility of erring on the side of ending a human life still exists, then there should be 59 comments on Plime's abortion articles and even longer debates in congress. And, most importantly, we should be damn hesitant in making lasting decisions on this issue, as there is every possibility that you are making the wrong choice.

I have always been rather moot about abortion, for the very reason that I see both sides of the argument. But there is something so fundamental about this issue that we need to take a lot of care in every way, and that includes not making your mind up one way or the other.

I really wish we could just coast and let Roe v. Wade stand until a time when we educate our children so effectively that we won't need such laws or debates anymore. As unattainable as this future is, I firmly believe that this is a step toward it:

I think that is one of the more intelligent comments on the issue.

However, that seems to be the very reason to make sure the appointed judges won't remove it.

No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. If a woman doesn't want one no one is telling her to have one. We need to stop moralizing for other people.

Side thought: I wonder what the "Pro-Life" folks want to see as a punishment if a woman would have an abortion should it become illegal. Will she be tried for murder?
If that zygote is considered a human being then why not?

The next logical step would be to try every woman/couple who had IVF for murder, as not every fertilised embryo is used (the best are picked and the rest are flushed).


I've got a few little issues with IVF of my own, but they're just opinions and not anything based on science. So I'm sorry if I seem to pick on it.

You see, condoms break, birth control pills fail for various reasons, one swimmer can be obscenely stronger and faster than the others and babies are produced. Even abstinence can fail, haven't you seen Scrubs?

and that 'blob of flesh' is just that until the end of the 3rd month, which so happens to be the cut-off for abortions. I believe couldn't have given a better description of that 'blob of flesh' growing inside her, which was: TUMOR. a rapidly growing bit of tissue feeding off of the unwilling womans nutrients. Perhaps, tapeworm would have been a more fitting description(even though it doesn't have the benefit of losing weight). the women who wrote the blog and, actually went through the abortion, gave an amazing insight on what a woman who is going through with the abortion, could eventually be facing(you know, the hate caused by fear instead of understanding the girl and being supportive of how the hell SHE feels about the whole situation).

As for the rights of the baby? the baby has no rights, only the rights the mothers carrying the EMBRYO give it. IT'S NOT YOUR F****N BODY, IT'S NOT YOUR F****N UTERUS. In my opinion, on this subject, men shouldn't get to have an opinion because like HELL would they want to go through birthing children, even if they had the parts.

If the baby you helped save turned out to be gay, would you still fight for it's rights?

how's that for a bumpersticker?

^ holy hostility batman. If you can't be civil, don't join the discussion

And that would be fine as long as you are able to make the decision to have one or not have one, but when you start making the decision for someone else based on your beliefs (and no supporting facts I might add) then you intrude on the rights of someone else. (I would also like to defy you to distinguish the mass of cells you call a life from a mass of say cancer cells, without lots of biological study you're most likely unable to do it).

If you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one. It's that simple.

mostly everything I say comes out as b***hy even when it isn't meant to be...
this issue really does gets my blood a flowin, though...