Why abortion is NOT a reproductive right

In order to justify the defense of the wholesale slaughter of millions upon millions of innocent preborn human beings as a stance in keeping with human rights, people will invoke the doctrine of reproductive rights.

Reproductive rights are the rights of others to make informed choices about their reproduction; it is often described as the right to determine the number and spacing of one's children.[1] This differs from (yet overlaps with) sexual rights.

Now, there are two parts to this. First is the right to be informed, which consists of comprehensive sex ed as early and as often as possible.

The next is the implementation of the informed choice, consisting of such things as sexual privacy, the right to contraception, and the right to say no.

A clarification of what reproductive rights do NOT include:

Abortion is not and can never be a reproductive right because it kills an offspring that has already been produced. Humans are a sexually reproducing species, and, like all such species, reproduce through a couple steps.[2] Meiosis produces gametes and the gametes. The second stage, the fusion of an egg and a sperm to create an offspring (fertilization) is where the sexual reproduction takes place.

Abortion takes place after reproduction has occurred, and, as such, cannot be classified as a reproductive right. Even if humans reproduced asexually with a new organism produced at birth, Hyde-esque amendments would not violate reproductive rights for the same reason the Second Amendment doesn't give us taxpayer-funded firearms.

Abortion is not "forced motherhood"; it is the criminalization of prolicide.

As Personhood.net said, "The fundamental human right is the right to life itself. This is true of life from its earliest stage of development until natural death. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right—it is the very opposite.".

Fascist?

This word is thrown around a lot. You need to know what it means.

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism^[1][2][3][4] with a corporatisteconomic system,^[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.^{[dubious – discuss][6][7][8][9][10]}Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.^[11]

Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.^[12] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.^[13] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.^[14]

In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism.^[15][16] This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state").^[17][18] No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition.^[19]

Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II and the publicity surrounding the atrocities committed during the period of fascist governments, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word.^[20]

Religious Power

The things often cited as religious freedom fall under liberty in general. Your brain is your own.

There is no right, however, to coerce because of one's religious beliefs. One may not, for example, perform human sacrifices or lynch people or kill your unborn offspring because of your beliefs. You may also not force your beliefs directly upon others, even your children.

This demonstrates that there is no such thing as religious freedom.

Reproductive Power

In its simplest sense, freedom is liberty. Liberty is the right of A to control A. A has every right to control A, B has every right to control B, ad infinitum.

The problem comes when we introduce coercion. Power is the ability of A to control B, of B to control A, of C to control G, ad infinitum. C only has the right to control A in order to stop A from coercing C.

The a problem arises when the concept of freedom is expanded beyond liberty and into power. Many seek to extend A's freedom into power over B.

We see this taking place in the Net Neutrality argument, with many arguing A should be allowed to censor the content that B, S, Q, F, and L are exposed to. It also takes place when the concept of "reproductive freedom" is extended to the right of M to avoid the consequences of her mistakes by inflicting violence upon D.

This post would be about something else had you payed attention in 8th grade.

You know the deal. You're defending prenatal rights online. Perhaps even more certain than Godwin's Law, a Roebot will eventually submit some form of this argument. Examples below.

• If abortion is murder, masturbation is genocide. (and/or some reference to the "Tubesock Holocaust")
• LIFE BEGINS AT MEIOSIS!
• If abortion is murder, any woman who's ad more than one period is a serial killer!
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Now, for this post I'm going to assume a fundamental understanding of the subject of biolo-...

Actually, I'd better not.

You see, sperm and egg cells (reproductive cells that fuse to form a zygote, collectively referred to as gametes) are formed through a process called meiosis, in which-

Whoa, there! Don't you think I should handle this?

Um, this is kind of my blog. Who are you exactly?

I'm Gamete Pete!

Err... okay?

Anyway, meiosis occurs when a body cell splits in two, copying its chromosomes as in mitosis, resulting in 2 daughter cells with a normal number of chromosomes. Next each of these daughter cells splits in two, but do not copy their chromosomes. The result is that the original parent cell produces four new cells with half a full set of chromosomes. This occurs in both the male and the female, though in the female 3 of the 4 granddaughter cells merely become polar bodies. This is simplified, but it's enough for our purposes. When half the chromosomes from a mother and half the chromosomes from the father join in a process called fertilization, a new organi-

MY TURN!

Um...

Who are you?

I'm Kate the Prenate!

I should've expected.

When the father's spermatozoon (sperm) fertilizes the mother's ovum (egg cell), the two half-genomes (sets of chromosomes) join to form a new genome, thus a new and unique organism is formed. Unlike gametes, which are cells of the parent, the zygote (the single celled organism created by the union of the two gametes) is a new organism. The zygote then begins to grow through mitosis into a blastocyst. In viviparous animals, the blastocyst travels down a fallopian tube of the mother into her uterus, implants in the uterine lining, and becomes an embryo. In humans, the stage of development after approximately five months is termed the fetal stage, and the individual is termed a fetu-

Ahem.

No, sorry Cletus. No.

As you can see, there is no comparison to be made. Gametes are cells of the parent and a prenate is a separate individual. A gamete has the potential to contribute half of the genome of a human being. A prenate is a human being.

Nobody is pro-choice.

As I have shown, "pro-choice" is a euphemism.

However, another interesting complication arises from the fact that the term ("choose" being a transitive verb) is ambiguous.

As I have said, the phrase "the right to choose" gives no direct object. Because of this, linguistics state that it must be taken at its broadest (the right to choose anything, cf. freedom of speech) or its weakest (the right to choose at least one thing, whatever that may be). In the latter case, the term becomes meaningless, as one could imagine a dictatorial state not violating said right, no matter how strict, as long as the people keep at least one freedom, not matter how trivial (they have the right to choose, and they're exercising it by picking their outfits)..

The former is where things get interesting. If one were to support choice for everyone on everything, that would seem swell. At first.

But what about the choice to rape? Rape takes away the choice of the victim. And who are you to to tell a man he cannot choose to form the very dictatorial state described above? Why should stop a woman from choosing to steal your car? The same argument was made for slavery: "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave!"

Supporting the right to choose anything includes supporting the right to choose to take away the right of others to choose, as evidenced by abortion's removal of this right from the unborn.

The term "pro-choice" is a piece of political framing that, when examined, is meaningless at best and internally contradictory at worst.

A pro-life ______? Who knew!

All political and/or moral philosophies have a common thread of pacifism. This states that it is generally wrong to harm another person. "Person" here refers to a member of your moral community.

Some philosophies have a small moral community, often restricted to one race, creed, nationality, or religion. Others expand their moral community to all living things (though they often ignore the fact that a living thing can be a non-animal). Another philosophy falls somewhere in between, stating that each species is its own moral community, and that every organism has a moral obligation towards its own kind.

Another thing that makes moral philosophies is how lax they are on the "generally wrong to harm another person". Sometimes, violence is allowed if it supports some kind of greater good. Sometimes, violence is never justified.

Sometimes, "harm" is defined very narrowly to physical harm. Sometimes, emotional abuse is thrown in. Still other ideologies (such as communism) see economic exploitation and/or denial of basic services (police, fire station, health care) as a form of harm.

Whichever one of these you subscribe to, the common thread of "do no harm" is there. But what defines a philosophy such as left/right, libertarian/authoritarian is not the scope of the moral community, but the scope of "generally wrong" and "harm". The definition of "person" is more or less up to the individual. Whatever the scope of the moral community, that determines the definition of "person". The definition of "person", combined with the scope of "generally wrong" and "harm", is then plugged into the combining thread of pacifism to determine the application of a belief system.

Because of this, the anti-prenaticide position is compatible with any belief system. This is why you see such groups as Democrats for Life of America, Libertarians for Life, Feminists for Life, the Society of Pro-Life Agnostics and Secular Humanists, the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and others.

Words

I've spent a great deal of time here explaining the euphemistic nature of the term "pro-choice". The whole question is irrelevant, however. I could say I'm pro-rape, and, when called out on it, clarify that I do not personally agree with rape, but I support the right of a man to rape a woman if he so chooses. I would not impose my personal morality on men; after all, it's his penis. If person A supports the right to rape, and person B supports rape itself, they are going to have largely the same impact on the law: more votes towards the legalization of rape. And both are equally abhorrent positions to hold, or at least the difference is insignificant.

"Pro-abortion-choice"

Even in context "pro-choice" is ambiguous. Who's choice? It's like saying "I'm pro-choice on circumcision", but then saying the child hasn't developed intelligence yet and so has no say in it because he can't really think or speak.

Terminology

http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/on-political-euphemisms-pro-choice/

In American political dialog, "pro-X" means "pro-right to X". For instance, I am pro-gambling, but I still see gambling as a stupid thing to do. I am pro-gun, and I *also* think everyone should own a gun.

Following this pattern, "pro-choice" means "pro-right to choose". Sounds good on the surface, but think harder. "Choose" is a transitive verb. Right to choose what?

Choose to own a gun or choose to rob a bank? Choose to gamble or choose to rape your daughter?

Choose to be a prostitute or choose to murder?

There exists a right to do this and a right to do that, but no right to choose. What are we talking about?

Robbery? I'm anti-choice. Gambling? I'm pro-choice.

Murder? I'm anti-choice. Smoking? I'm pro-choice.

Pro-choice on gambling is pro-gambling.

Pro-choice on owning slaves is pro-slavery.

Pro-choice on owning guns is pro-gun.

Pro-choice on having an abortion is pro-abortion.

"Pro-X" can also be translated as "pro-choice on X" or "pro-right to choose X".

Now let's examine "pro-life". Pro-life = pro-right to live. "Live" is an intransitive verb. You live, and that's it. You don't live anything but a life. "Pro-life", like "pro-choice", encompasses more than abortion, however. "Pro-life" refers to a Consistent Life Ethic.

"Pro-choice"

Pro-gun: I support the right of others to choose to own a gun, but do not necessarily support them myself.
Pro-gambling: I support the right of others to choose to gamble, but do not necessarily support it myself.

Pro-X means pro-right to X.

There is no right to choose; "choose" is a transitive verb. There is, however, a right to choose X. Just like there is no right to punch. You may punch a brick but not a person. There is no right to choose to rob a bank. There is a right to choose what clothes to wear.

"Live" is an intransitive verb.

By the pro-abortion logic, anti-gambling people are anti-choice. "Pro-choice" would mean supporting choice in general. 

Sorry, but those who are pro-abortion don't get to claim choice as exclusively refering to abortion.

Etymological misunderstandings

Note to all feminists: before making up a new word, research the etymology of the original.

Here are some common feminist neologisms, and why using them makes you look stupid:

1. womyn
   
2. herstory*
   
3. ad feminam - "Ad hominem" means "to the person". "To the man" would be "ad virum". "Ad feminam" implies women aren't human. How's that for irony?
   

Don't even try "femail" (female comes from the same root as feminism), womanufacture, or "femstruation"!

There are no prefixes "wo-", "hu-"**, or "fe-". If a cow was called a "wobull", or if bovines were called "hubulls" you might have a case.*** Pairs like "(wo)man" and "(fe)male" are purely coincidental (cf. "girl"/"boy") and do not shape anyone's opinion of women or of gender roles in general. Making up words without looking into the etymology of the original, however, makes me think less of you.

Now, I'm not saying you don't have a right to call yourself a "womon"; I have the right to call myself a "rugaflax" if I want to.

I'm just saying, were I to excersize my equal right to call you a moron for doing so, I would be much more justified.

*I know this is just a pun poking at the percieved male-centricity of history. The only problem is that, in most of history, women weren't permitted to do anything important.

**"Human" comes from the same root as "Homo sapiens".

***Interesting note: Many peopleactually use "cow" as gender-neutral like "man" is often used. Is that misandry? No.

EDIT: The etymological origins of the word "feminazi" and its links to Glenn Beck have come to my attention. To apologize for any misunderstanding, here's a webcomic!

Is abortion genocide?

Main Entry:
geno·cide 
Pronunciation:
\ˈje-nə-ˌsīd\ 
Function:
noun 
Date:
1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group 
— geno·cid·al \ˌje-nə-ˈsī-dəl\ adjective

No.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one's even calling for all prenates to be aborted.

It is, however, quite analogous, as expressed brilliantly by Augustine of Pro-Life America's Forums:

In 1996 Gregory Stanton the president of Genocide Watch presented a briefing paper called "The 8 Stages of Genocide" at the United States Department of State. In it he suggested that genocide develops in eight stages that are "predictable but not inexorable". 

-Stage Characteristics of Genocide 

1.Classification 

People are divided into "us and them". (the born vs the unborn, person vs fetus, mother vs baby, etc...) 

Women and unborn persons are portrayed as competitors human rights in a adversarial manner. The prospect of motherhood is seen as a conflict between the right of the child to be born and the desire of the woman to be unburdened from the inconveniance of carrying a child to term. 

2.Symbolization 

"When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..." (reproductive choice, a womans right to choose, reproductive freedom, womans health, family planning etc...) 

The unborn are portrayed as burdensome, unwanted, malicious, threatening, dangerous; as infringing on the rights of women, while women are portrayed as victims, carrying children "against their will" and having their rights taken away by the unborn. 

3. Dehumanization 

"One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases." (clump of cells, blob, fetus, parasite, comparisons to tumors, not a person, mutant, tec...) 

The unborn are portrayed as not being persons. It is said they are only a clump of cells, they are not sentient, they are not "persons", they are unaware, they are different from adults, undeveloped and only potential human beings. 

4. Organization 

"Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..." (abortion providers, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Emilies List, NOW, ect...) 

Organization that claim to represent to women's health give large sums of money and exert political influence in order to protect and preserve the practice known as abortion. They fight any attempts at restrictions or safeguards against certain types of abortion, age of the women/child receiving abortion and prevent parental notification where and when possible. 

5. Polarization 

"Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..." (information promoting abortion on websites, radio, blogs, publications) 

Abortion rights groups and abortion providers portray the pro-life movement as being radical, anti-women, intolerant, bigoted while making abortion seem as normal as possible rejecting any negative consequences of abortion including negative effects of the health of women. 

6. Preparation 

"Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..." (in this instance the commonality is conceived unborn persons who are deemed not persons, undeveloped, weak, sick, deformed, unwanted, ill timed, etc...) 

Unborn persons are deemed a threat to the welfare of the mother either physically or mentally, considered a financial burden, are deemed unworthy to live because of health problems or physical defects which may or may not be life threatening. They portray the practice as compassionate shifting the focus away from the conceived person to the woman, identifying rare instances and exceptions to justify what is normally and largely an elective practice. In 96% of all abortions the health or welfare of the mother or child has no bearing on the decision to abort. 

7. Extermination 

"It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human." (abortion, partial birth abortion, saline abortion, medicated abortion, etc...) 

Unborn persons are ripped apart, dismembered, euthanized in the womb prior to delivery, have the brains removed in partial birth, are frequently not given anasthetics; wombs are injected with saline to cause premature delivery to crush the unborn when expelled from the womb or are left to die or are killed if they survive the abortion technique. 

8. Denial 

"The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..." (abortion is not killing, abortion is not murder, it's my body, abortion is a right, right to privacy, etc...) 

People say that abortion is not murder. They say that abortion does not kill a person. They call abortion a medical precedure. They stack the courts with people who believe the same, have passed numerous decisions and laws allowing abortion to remain legal; they claim that abortion is a right, deny the personhood of the unborn, and reject any and all evidence and testimony to the contrary.

Abortion Donuts

After the Krispy Kreme - American Life League thing, I realized I need an anti-abortion equivalent of "Roebot". While ALL is not dumb in the way Roebots are, it's only a matter of time.

Anyone got a suitable pun?

"Reality Check" gets a reality check

Hey. You may know me from from The Lair of the P-LELLNA, where I pointed out pro-abortion fallacies. I'll be doing the same thing here, just more frequently and more than just fallacies.

Anyway, I came across this video on YouTube. I missed the beginning at first, and thought it was supposed to be an even debate. But the anti-Personhood women's arguments were so bad I thought she was a parody. Turns out, she was supposed to be the right one.

Some things you need to know before we start.

Terms:

"anti-abortion": one opposed to a legal right to choose to have an abortion, analoguous to "anti-gun", "anti-slavery", or "anti-gambling"

"anti-Personhood": a shortened, less clumsy form of "anti-prenatal personhood"

"conception": synonomous with "fertilization"; this is important because conception was redefined so that certain drugs could be sold as "contraception", rather than abortifacients

"Personhood" [capital P]: shorthand for "legal personhood beginning at fertilization".

"prenate": a useful coverall for zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus

"pro-abortion": one who supports a legal right to choose to have an abortion, analoguous to "pro-gun", "pro-slavery", or "pro-gambling" NOTE: Before anyone starts complaining to me, read this.*

"pro-life": one in favor of the right to life in general, one that follows a Consistent Life Ethic: those who are anti-abortion yet pro-war or pro-death penalty are not pro-life. Note: "pro-choice" is not in here because it is overbroad and would translate to something like "libertarian" or "anarchist"

"pro-Personhood": a shortened, less clumsy form of "pro-prenatal personhood"

"Roebot": a pro-abortion person who demonstrates such a low level of inteligence and critical thinking that they would get a D- on the Turing Test Note: I have not corresponding term for the anti-abortion side, because I have yet to find a suitable pun

About me:

I am pro-Personhood.

I know a lot about logical fallacies, and am not afraid to call you out on them.

I get really annoyed when people use a comma where a semicolon belongs or mess up their subject-verb agreement. I don't know why; other gramatical errors don't phase me.

Let's get started on the video! I've painstakingly transcribed it for your convenience, color-coded on the speaker's hair color, my comments in black.

On this edition of Reality Check, we’ll weigh in on that endless, unresolved debate: When does life begin? Or, to be more specific: Is a fertilized egg already a person?

Good. So far, so good. Although, I should point out that "fertilized egg" is an oxymoron; once it's fertilized, it becomes a zygote by definition. That's like saying "melted ice cube".

I believe that life begins at fertilization; that’s the first time you have a separate, unique being that’s different from his parents. Naturally, that’s when you declare him a person. That’s why I support state constitutional amendments that define life as beginning at conception.

Good, good. I see from the into that you're "misinformation", so I'm waiting for something...

There’s no actual, scientific moment that life begins. Most scientists would coyly tell you that life began over a billion years ago in the primordial swamp and has continued and evolved since then.

Of course they would, because scientists love to be smartasses. You asked the wrong question. Ask any scientist when an individual human's life begins, and every single one will tell you it's when the sperm and egg meet. A unique individual is present at conception. That's sixth grade stuff. It's also irrelevant to the debate as to whether or not said individual is a person.

Declaring a fertilized egg a person, on par with a baby is insulting to babies; fertilized eggs have no feelings, brains, or anything else that babies have.

Ah, our first logical fallacy! This is the fallacy of begging the question; there are three ways to get two unequal values (A and B) to equal each other: (1)move A only, (2)move B only, or (3)move A and B. Let's call the moral value of the prenate A, and the moral value of the infant B. Now, let's assume a specific low value for A. This fixes A's value, eliminating options (1) and (3), leaving us with (2). Because we assumed a moral value for the prenate lower than that of the infant, the only logical way for the two to be equal is if the value of the infant is lowered. However, this is not what pro-Personhood are suggesting. We are saying that A is not fixed; we are raising the value of the prenate, not touching that of the infant(1). The same applies to those who say comparing abortion to the Holocaust belittles the Holocaust. EDIT: Statistically, abortion is worse.

Interestingly, a similar argument is made against gay marriage:

Declaring a gay marriage "marriage", on par with a heterosexual marriage is insulting to heterosexual couples; gay couples cannot have kids.

In both situations, an irrelevant factor is cited, and raising the value of one does not deminish the value of the other. Oh, yeah, did I mention I'm pro-gay?

EDIT: I mean that's like saying granting personhood to newborns is insulting to adults because adults can do more. Also, who's out there trying not to insult babies?

May the fetus I save be gay or not; I don't give a [crap]. What makes people think I'm anti-gay? Oh, right, the Spotlight Fallacy.

But if you leave it alone, a fertilized egg becomes a person; it’ll grow and develop into a baby that needs to be protected from harm.

I don't think I've ever heard a pro-Personhood say this; they would, by definition, say that the zygote is already a person, and cannot "become" something it already is!

Why are we protecting people at all if we’re not gonna protect them at their weakest moment?

This is an argument used by many of us pro-life liberals. Oh, I forgot to tell you, I'm a liberal too!

Fertilization seems like a simple line in the sand for personhood, but it isn’t. Most importantly, it’s far from guaranteed that any one fertilized egg is going to become a person; many, possibly most, fertilized eggs sloff off or die on their own without a woman even knowing about it. Does that mean we should file a death certificate? Or a suicide report? Or a homicide investigation?

No, it means that zygotes, like all people, are mortal; people die at all stages of life. Also, notice the begging the question in the phrase "become a person".

Well, in my heart, I know that’s when life begins. Sexual union is holy because that’s when God intended for life to begin. I believe that it’s a person with a soul, and that is more important than whether it has brains or feelings.

This is a blatant strawman! Nobody argues for Personhood just because they believe it; they support it with why they believe it!

What’s great about America is we have religious freedom; you can believe that a fertilized egg is a baby if you want. You can believe it has a soul whenever you want. You can believe that a sperm delivers a soul or that it has a soul when it takes its first breath. The First Amendment gives you that right. But in order to protect that right, you can’t impose your beliefs on others. The Constitution forbids you from imposing your beliefs on my body and my right to do what I want with it according to my beliefs.

Actually, religious freedom does not extend to actions; human sacrifice is illegal whether or not it is okay with you personally. A person's religion may teach that blacks are inferior to whites, but you'll still go to jail for lynching one. Also, your child is not your body.

You’ve been wrong all along; there’s definite, scientific proof that it’s a separate person at fertilization. A fertilized egg has it own DNA, and once you have your own DNA, you’re definitely a person.

Good argument. Let's see how she handles it...

Interestingly, sperm and eggs also have unique DNA that’s separate from the people that they’re in, but we don’t consider them separate people.

Okay, Ms. Roebot. Where'd you go to school?

Come on, if we though DNA was what really made people distinct, then we would think that identical twins, who come from one egg, are not separate people.

An interesting conundrum, but not an anti-Personhood one.

And I dare you to find one set of twins that’s okay with that.

Okay, here's another one! Appeal to emotion this time. I do not believe that twins are the same individual, but, if they were, they would still be the same individual no matter how much they objected.

Now the "debate" is over, and the Roebot is giving her closing statement.

The argument that life begins at fertilization is a fundamentalist Christian belief that has no scientific evidence behind it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Wait, are you serious‽ That's a hasty generalization. I want to point out that I am an atheist. The anti-abortion movement cuts across religous boundaries. I'll point you to Pagans for Life, the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-life League , and the Society of Pro-Life Agnostics and Secular Humanists for starters.

In fact, no one really acts as if they believe that

Whoa! That's an ad hominem attack you got there. An ad hominem tu quoque to be precise. Morality is a function of reality. Reality doesn't change based in what anyone acts like is true.

unless they’re looking for a reason to restrict women’s rights.

Riiiiiight. It's all to restrict women's rights; that's why we do it. It isn't at all because we hold the rights of the mother against the rights of the child and determine that the universal non-agression axiom is not wavered in prenatal mother-offspring relations.

All sarcasm aside, I guess you're right; we do restrict women's rights. We restrict them in the same way the abolitionists restricted the rights of slave owners, and Civil Rights activists restricted the rights of KKK members, and feminists restricted the rights of husbands. Any advance in the rights of group A is going to restrict the rights of group not A to oppress group A.

And let's assume you're right and we are trying to restrict your rights. Reality doesn't care who's advocating what position for what reason; what's moral will stay moral and what's immoral will stay immoral. Even if Copernicus had developed his model of the solar system to piss off the Church, he still would have been right.

Did I mention I'm a feminist?

If we really though that life began at conception, we would sing songs to celebrate your conception, and not your birthday. And pregnant women could use the carpool lane. And we’d have funerals for tampons, just in case.

This is just a pile of appeals to common practice, but I'll go though them anyway.

We do not celebrate the anniversary of your conception because we don't know whan that is. This is also an appeal to tradition.

We do not let a pregnant woman ride in the carpool lane because she only take up one seat. I don't think infants count in the carpool lane either, but correct me if I'm wrong. EDIT: Okay, I'm wrong. In that case, it's basically using the law to justify the law.

We do not hold funerals for anyone "just in case".

It’s clear that, outside of the reproductive rights debate,

This is not a "reproductive rights debate"; this is a human rights debate. If the prenate is a person, the mother has no right to kill it unless her life is in danger. Reproductive choice is not retroactive, and, if you're pregant, you've already reproduced. Just as I couldn't (morally) go up to my 16-year-old daughter and shoot her in the head, claiming I'm choosing not to have a child (which I already have), you cannot (morally) have an abortion to not be a mother (which you already are, and would just become a mother of a dead child through abortion).

no one acts as if they think that life begins at fertilization.

Yeah. Think I'm done here. Though take into account that her arguments being fallacious does not make her premise wrong, since reality doesn't care who's advocating what how.

Let's recap: I'm a godless, pinko, anti-choice, feminist hippie. If you don't hate me already, let me tell you something. I agree with NAMBLA theoretically (on paper), but not necessarily in action. But not for why you might think. NAMBLA supports protecting young people from unwanted sexual experiences (such as rape) while keeping consensual sexual relationships private. I support this, as I consider age of consent laws immoral ageist discrimination against the young. Do you hate me now? Yes? This should be fun! No? Welcome to the club!

I did a long post about abortion here. A must read for everyone! I may repost it some day.

*I don't applaud every time someone gambles. In fact, I wish nobody would gamble. Yet I am pro-gambling because I support the right of people to (choose to) gamble.