Home | About | Donate

What Life Is Like When Abortion Is Banned

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/11/what-life-when-abortion-banned

No worries, Hobby Lobby will develop and place on super-sale a new line of sanctified coat hangars to celebrate their certain to fail attempt at celibacy.

When one considers what makes people ban abortion, or deny others what are private personal choices, we begin to understand why Warren’s free higher education is needed, why taking the ‘person’ out of the corporate person is necessary, why we should not tolerate medical care being denied others, or destruction of the environment. The inter-connectedness is everywhere we care to look.

4 Likes

Excellent piece and important information to get out there, Margaret! Thanks.
Ted M

Think about what life will be like if abortion is banned, and then, think about what you would do for someone you love that would do anything to get themselves out of trouble.

Don’t wait until then, act now.

A woman’s right to choose must never be taken away.

1 Like

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to learn that in countries where abortion is banned, birth control is also banned.

2 Likes

I would hope that M4A would ban any attempts to fool with a persons right to choose.

Semantic infiltration has certainly worked on you but of course, it’s a REgressive trademark.

I bet you love the latest, instead of a “heartbeat” now being used as a cutoff for murdering a human being, REgressives have taken to use the phrase “fetal rumblings”.

The sickness never ends when it comes to abortion. As imagery of baby development becomes more and more sophisticated, what’s the response from REgressives seeking to keep mothers from seeing these images? Ban them of course.

Rather then engage in what abortion actually does, which is terminate the life of a developing human being, REgressives prefer to side step that and focus on a minute percentage of women actually imperiled by their pregnancy.

99%+ of all abortions are performed for convenience. Since Roe, there have been over 59,000,000 human beings killed for convenience. It’s a black mark on the soul of this country that is bearing poisonous fruit in a 100 different ways.

So what is your plan for all the unwanted kids, genius? Are you gonna take some of them in? More than likely they will end up getting abused by parents that didn’t want them or in already overcrowded orphanages. A lucky very few just might get adopted by good people. The US better start building more orphanages and prisons then.

Of course you defend your position with hyperbole. Adoption and abortion are both emotionally difficult decisions but painting the killing of a human being rather putting the child into a caring home or even a foster home, as NBD is evil.

You don’t know me and touting any past decisions I’ve made in regards to your question is pointless.

Would you rather be flushed out of the womb instead of given a shot on this side? Stats are meaningless to REgressives if you can’t respond to the one I posted. You take the position a dead human being is better off dead than having that shot. That’s sick.

You think I like it? But I have yet to see Right to Life crowd come up with any kind of “after the fact” plan.

The fact remains that over 59,000,000 human beings have been killed for nothing more than convenience in this country since Roe. A large part of that is due to the cultural normalization of abortion.

Ignoring the long term effects on women getting abortions is dangerous. National abortion policy is built upon this judicial “fact” that abortion is a “safe” procedure. If this “fact” is found to be false, then national policy toward abortion must be re-evaluated. Indeed, if it is found that abortion may actually be dangerous to health of women, there is just cause for governments to regulate or prohibit abortion in order to protect their citizens. This is especially true since over 1.5 million women undergo abortions each year.

Since the Court’s ruling in 1973, there have been many studies into the aftereffects of abortion. Their combined results paint a haunting picture of physical and psychological damage among millions of women who have undergone abortions.

So as well as the killing of a human being, abortion can have serious long term repercussions on the health of the mother. Women aborting first pregnancies are prone to complications in future ones.

Your point is not entirely illogical. But let’s have a closer look. Because it is possible to use your logic, your argument’s base, to also consider male masturbation a crime, because of the death - or is it murder? - of living sperm, but also for the impact that this loss of sperm has on the potential human being. Perhaps you would argue that a fertilized human female egg is not merely a “potential human being” but an actual living human being. Perhaps you have an argument for that. I am sure that a forced abortion - the one you commit against my wife, for example - is one that I would consider a form of murder. But I do that because it was your choice, your decision, to perform that act, and not my wife’s. I don’t consider my wife’s decision a murderous act. And I’m not sure either one of us will ever convince the other of their position. And in that case, I think it best to allow you to do as you will for yourself and your loved ones, and me for mine - and most importantly, the woman, or the girl in many cases, for herself. This is what you call a grey area, and we have to live with them as people if we are to get by. Do you think you could take a step back and manage to do that? Because that is what the REgressives, as you say, are asking of you: to stay out of their decisions about their lives. They are not making any attempt to enter into your life and interfere with YOUR decisions. Don’t you think that is about as fair and proper as we are going to get here? Mutual respect and consideration?

3 Likes

Well said markp.

You begin with a strawman argument, that is sperm is a human being when it is one of 2 components needed for life. No man is killing a living human being when he masturbates.

The fact your wife has made the decision does not negate the reality that a human being is being killed.

It’s seemingly all well and good for you to say I should allow your wife to decide as she will and you will allow the same for mine…that is if we were speaking of a garden layout or a color scheme for our bedroom. In this case, you want me to allow you to kill another human being just because it’s temporary location is inside her body. The tide against this now common and barbarous practice is slowing turning.

In fact, your side is now arguing for both post birth abortion and the right to kill an infant that has survived an abortion. That anyone would take that side is simply incomprehensible to me.

And the non sequitur at the end of your comment alleging that REgressives are not entering my life and attempting to control me is laughable. If you truly believe that…well, deluded is no way to go through life.

The only regressive here is you. You’re still stuck on the idea that you have the right to own other human beings. You don’t own my body. You have no right to force me to do any labor with my body that I refuse to do. Welcome to the 21st century. Women are no longer your slaves.

I agree, your body is yours. Do what with it you will. However the fact a human being gestates in your body does not give you the right nor cause to kill it. It’s like saying you own your home so what ever you want to do in it can’t be challenged

As for your assertion that your my slave, well of all the lies promulgated by the abortion industry, the claim that abortion on demand has improved the lives of women in general is the most pernicious. It encourages women to make uninformed choices which can and do damage their physical and psychological health.

I do own my home and can kick anybody I want to out of it. I am queen of my castle. I own my body as well and it is illegal for you to force it to perform physical labor. You just can’t seem to wrap your head around the fact that you can’t own a woman anymore and force her body to gestate for you. It’s slavery. We fought this battle once before. It was called the civil war. You lost.

And don’t give me any of your slaver lies about abortion. You’re talking to a woman who has had one before when my contraception failed. It did no damage to either my physical or psychological health. It did improve my life. I got to finish my schooling and go on towards a rewarding career as both an accountant and social justice advocate for other women.

Welcome to the 21st century. Woman are no longer your slaves.

Can you kill someone who is in your home, say your brother-in-law, who has has past legal entry onto the premises, is doing you no harm and is sitting in the den, watching HBO? And you come up behind him and put a bullet in his head?

Good luck with that.

Your arguments are based SOLELY on your perceived right to kill an unborn human being. If you can live with that…well that’s something I will never understand.

Your argument seems to be based entirely on your perception that every stage of development, from fertilized egg, to blastocyst, to embryo, to fetus, to baby is, in fact, baby all the way through. Forcefully asserting a fertilized egg is a baby doesn’t make it so. Is it human? Yes. Is it a baby? No.

What makes a fertilized egg human? The genetic code, of course. Does genetic code alone make it a baby? No. Because if it did, the genetic code that resides on computer hard drives as a result of the human genome project would constitute babies, presumably deserving of rights according to you. Destroying those hard drives would be murder, according to you.

If the genetic code is not a baby, what is it? A potential baby? Yes, it might be, if we want to look at it like that, just like the code on the hard drives are potential babies. With a few key strokes, those computer encoded genomes can be synthesized and placed into an empty cell and implanted in a uterus, or possibly a machine we could theoretically build, to develop into a full-fledged sentient human.

The fact that the code is a potential human does not imbue that code with rights. Sentient, conscious beings have rights, and that includes all other animals that are conscious. Our best evidence through fMRI studies suggests that babies that have been born are conscious. We don’t know at what point a fetus develops consciousness, but our best evidence to date cannot place it any earlier than the period of fetal viability, which is between 24 and 28 weeks. An embryo without a brain does not have rights.

We might also consider our ability to modify the genetic code of a fertilized egg. In order to modify it, the original code is necessarily destroyed. Whatever that “baby” would have been will never exist. What will come to exist will be what we choose to exist.

I wonder what your thoughts are about fertility clinics and the unused embryos that result from those procedures? All of those unused embryos are potential babies. They all have a full set of chromosomes. Why is it okay to destroy those embryos, but not an embryo that may or may not have implanted itself in a uterus, with or without the host’s consent, that may or may not be viable? Some people who think as you do will even object to the existence of types of contraception that prevent uterine implantation of a fertilized egg, that the instant an egg is fertilized, it becomes a baby (in your terminology). That would, of course, mean all of those unused embryos in the fertility clinics are babies that must necessarily be implanted in somebody’s uterus, whether they like it or not.

It seems to me you probably do not, in fact, care one bit about embryos, otherwise you would be adamant about saving all of those fertility clinic embryos, and making sure all of them develop to fully functional sentient beings. But, of course, a woman can’t be forced to incubate an embryo in her uterus against her will, whether the state placed it there, or it got there by some other means.

Does abortion kill human cells? Yes. Do those cells sometimes take on the rough, undeveloped resemblance to a human body form? Yes. Do those human cells have the potential to become sentient, conscious being? In some cases, yes. In some, no. Will it become a sentient being just because it has the potential to become one? No. Fertility clinics prove that point. We choose when, where, and how to give birth, or to not give birth, when individuals who think they have the right to control our bodies aren’t telling us we have neither bodily autonomy, nor reproductive rights. We share DNA with every other living thing on this planet because life began as single-celled life 3.75 billion years ago and has never not been alive since then. Terminating a pregnancy is as much a pregnant person’s right as it is their right to become pregnant.

And we haven’t even addressed the moral reasons a person might object to reproducing themselves. There are moral reasons as well as medical and social reasons.