Opposition to justice for Baby Velez

This kind of thing makes me struggle to not call the pro-abortion camp "anti-life". When they fight tooth-and-nail against things like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act or expanding health care to the unborn or even allowing pregnant mothers to use deadly force in defense of their unborn children, they loose a lot of credibility.

Why abortion is NOT a privacy right

In addition to the doctrine of reproductive rights, the pro-abortion crowd often cites the right to privacy as a justification of abortion. This clearly is not the case, as the same argument could be applied to child abuse or spousal rape.

Abortion is a violent act against an innocent human being, and, as such, the government has a legitimate interest in preventing it (in fact, the protection of natural rights is the main purpose of government).

And the Court has gone as far as to admit* that, if the unborn are persons, abortion is illegal.

*This admission is known as the "Blackmun Hole" and is the reason for the Personhood Movement.

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.".

Fluffy Language

Any position can be made to sound good by dressing it up and dancing around the issue and insulting the opposition.

Those against gay rights speak of "defending marriage" and "protecting children" and "supporting traditional marriage".

Those against youth rights speak of "for their own good" and "parental rights" and "protecting children".

Those against prenatal rights speak of "women's reproductive rights" and "no forced parenthood" and "every child a wanted child" and "deciding whether and when to reproduce" and "Get your laws off my body!" and "Against abortion? Don't have one!".

Those in favor of slavery spoke of "property rights" and "privacy" and "constitutional protections" and "legislating morality".

Those in favor of rape speak of "men's sexual rights" and "no forced celibacy" and "opposing rape is telling those conceived of rape they should not exist" and "the right to one's own penis" and "Get your laws off my body!" and "Do not force your morality upon others!" and "If you are against rape, you are free not to rape anyone.".

Okay, I made that last one up but you get the point. I believe that the personhood movement will ultimately succeed because it forces people to look at the essential issue: Do all human beings deserve human rights?

Broodmares of the state?

No, not the 1937 Soviet porno flick of the same name.

I'm referring to the "argument" that pro-lifers just want to force women to pop out babies. This is absurd. I would be okay if nobody reproduced ever.

The definition of reproduction indicates that at least one additional organism is produced. The law of biogenesis states that organisms reproduce after their own kind: dogs make dogs (puppies), cats make cats (kittens), cows make cows (calves), wolves make wolves (pups), and humans make humans (babies).

Therefore, once reproduction occurs, another human being is brought into existence. And along with this human being comes human rights. One of the human rights is the right to live.

Those devious prenates!

Before they are even created, they force their parents to have sex. They then create themselves and begin sucking nutrients from the mother*. And they make themselves delicate and unviable so that they cannot be removed. What a cunning plan!

Wait, what's that? The offspring has no say in the matter? A prenate's existence, location, and dependency are thrust upon him or her? Wait, by who? By the parents?

Try telling that to the Roebots who compare an unwanted child to a rapist.

If you want intelligent debate on prenatal rights, don't go to NationStates.

*The mother's body delivers nutrients to the baby and the nutrients are passed from one circulatory system to another by diffusion.

Morons (or is it Moroens?)

Even beyond Roebots are the pro-abortion folks who are ignorant of basic facts like the following:

The difference between natural death and homicide*

That prenatal development is controlled by the fetus's DNA

That your kidney is not a human being

That hamburgers are neither human nor alive

That Jello™ cannot be fertilized by human sperm

All those were on the NationStates forum. Why do certain forums attract morons?

*If Old Man Jenkins down the road dies because I shot him, I go to jail. If he's hit by an asteroid, I don't? Why? One scenario has me choosing his death and one doesn't. ZOMG teh murder lawz r antichoice!!!1one

Thanks, ALL!

I've always seen the American Life League as the PETA of the anti-abortion movement, with their anti-sex agenda, but they actually saved me some trouble by fisking a video I'd been meaning to get to.

Slaves to biology?

One thing I'm tired of hearing is how affirming prenatal rights would make women "slaves to their biology". This is absurd. Even abortion is only possible because biology allows it. Biology is the study of life. It says what is, not what ought to be, and you can't be a slave to an entity (though biology isn't even a entity) that has no free will of its own.

It's like... it's like...

"Gag Rule"?

Lemme make something perfectly clear. The Mexico City Policy does not violate free speech. It does not punish foreign institutions, but merely prevents taxpayers from being forced to support the promotion of the violence of abortion.

Doe, oh dear.

I've discussed Doe v. Bolton before, so I'll just do a brief overview.

Basically, Roe v. Wade presented what seemed to be a reasonable compromise, and many people still see it as one. However, it demanded that abortions be allowed until birth for "health", which they Doe (decided the same day as Roe) defined so broadly as to cover emotional concerns, familial concerns, the mother's age, et cetera.

In the same thread I mentioned yesterday, someone claimed that this means no elective abortions can be performed after viability. In his/her opinion, a woman could be carrying a postterm baby, the doctors could be about to induce labor, and the mother could decide at the last minute that she wants an abortion. Because she wants it, not getting it would logically have a negative emotional effect. By this poster's logic, killing a 42-week fetus would count as "therapeutic".

Why do people laugh at Roebots?

Only Roebots don't understand why.

How is babby formed?

Again, I'm not important enough to hack. But Roebots seem to be clueless as to how girl get pragnent.

When I point out that banning aborion doesn't give the unborn more rights than the born, they say [crap] like "give me your kidneys then". They seem to be under the impression that fetuses just walk around the streets looking for women to "glom onto", and that having an abortion is just refusing permission.

But I hope anyone arguing on the internet knows where babies come from, so I'll spare you another Post 239.

The offspring in no way chooses his position; it is forced upon him by the mother. And abortion occurs after implantation, and is performed by actively killing the prenate, not merely "unplugging". To have an abortion is therefore analogous to bringing someone onto a cruise in their sleep and dropping them in the middle of the ocean. After all, who are we to force you to carry him on your ship to Bermuda.

But I guess this is all irrelevant since granting the unborn their human rights and insisting women take responsibility for your actions is just a punishment for sexuality.

For more, see Libertarians for Life's article "Abortion and Thomson's Violinist: Unplugging a Bad Analogy, Comments on why the prenatal child has the right under individual liberty to be in the mother's womb".

Interesting conversation

I'm okay with ZJemptv on most things, but we're having an interesting conversation at this video's comments.

He seems to think that customers have a right to force their morality upon business owners and that not wanting to kill another human being is a "completely arbitrary and unnecessary basis" upon which to decide how to excercize your liberty.

Let's say there's a restaurant that refuses to serve veal for ethical reasons. What do you do if you want veal? Don't eat there! You have no right to force anyone to sell a product that they do not want to sell, regardless of the reason they refuse to sell it. You have no right to force them to comply to your morals.

Them not selling BC is no more forcing their morality on you than a store closing on Sunday forces their religion on you.

If I run any sort of business, I have the right to choose what products to sell. I could open a candy shop and refuse to sell Jujubees because I think they're part of an evil plot to turn toddlers into smores. You still have no right to tell me what products to carry. If I'm looking for jujubees, I loose you as a customer.

I could sell clothes and arbitrarily not carry blue socks.

I could close on Sunday even if "cultural homogeneity" means every other business in town is closed on Sunday too.

Gush time!: Roebots

Sometimes, I get tired of pointing out logical fallacies in "arguments" against prenatal rights and politely deconstructing them. Sometimes I just need to vent. But I'm sure you all don't want to hear me at my worst, so I've set aside this post to come back and add to when I need to vent.

Edit: As my venting will likely be quite vile, I will be doing it at my daughter blog.

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.

Choice over Children

The title has a double meaning. The pro-abortion side often claims to only support "the right to choose if and when to have children". Thus choice over whether and when to have children.

However, what this amounts to in their ideology is the right to choose not to have children, after you already have a child. The only way to do this is by homicide. Thus, supporting said choice above the rights of said child.

I support your right to choose to not have children. However, I do not hold said choice over the children themselves, should they be conceived.

Jon Stewart: I think that's definitely where it's dug in from on the pro-life movement and I think on the other side it's "does the government have the right to tell a woman that she cannot make decisions about her reproductive health that she believes are in the best interests of her family?"

Mike Huckabee: She can, but once the decision has been made that results in another human life, then I think that now you have to consider both of those lives: hers and the child's.

I love this response from gomtuu77 of differhonestly.com:

Answer: Yes, government has the right and the duty to tell a woman that she cannot make “certain decisions” regarding her own reproduction. As I’ve said previously, “human beings have equal rights as human beings, and as such, it is reasonable for a society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience or hardship if the only alternative is to kill the unborn child.” We do this kind of thing all the time (i.e. restrict the freedoms of other human beings when not doing so would result in the loss of another human being’s life). This is utterly non-controversial in every other area, and quite frankly, it shouldn’t be controversial in this one. Unfortunately, this answer was never given, and they ended up accomplishing almost nothing in the discussion for the reasons I gave previously.

Um, what?

I agree with most of it {though I'm not sure Blue Dogs oppose health care reform because they get contributions [it's probably the other way around (using the method of concentric brackets used in math - how nerdy!)]).

However, skip to 1:18.

See the problem?

He could've pointed out that the insurance companies already put in bureaucrat. Bureaucrats that decide whether you're worth treating. The public option, if it can even be said to be adding bureaucrats at all, is at least adding ones accountable to the people and not merely corporate bourgeois greed.

Sadly, he doesn't take this route. Instead he basically says "So, you're opposed to a panel of people appointed by a democratically elected government deciding whether to provide care based on cost and social utility? Well, then you must support a more dire life-or-death decision being made by a single person on nothing more than a whim, or, at most personal convenience."

Also, I would be remiss in point out that, in addition to a non sequitur, this is an ad hominem tu quoque.

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.

"People-seeds"

Libertarians for Life have a great article debunking Thomson's violinist argument. I will now tackle her much weaker "People Seeds" argument:

Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don’t want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root.

The analogy is very laughable, but let's consider it at face value. You open the window, well aware of the risk. Then, the "people-seeds" take root.

Here comes the problem. Thomson says you would then have the right to remove them from your home. She made the same mistake in the violinist argument; she confuses negative rights with positive rights. Following this analogy, all that could be done is induced labor. For an argument against induced labor before viability, see the boat analogy.

So, to imporve the analogy, let's say that the people seeds plant, and one comes up to you asking for food. You then proceed to poison her, or dismember her, or burn her, or... you get the point. You would then rightfully be charged with murder.

"Slut-punishing" cont.

I feel I should expand upon Post 59. Pregnancy is not a punishment. It doesn't even happen randomly.

When a woman gets pregnant, just like anyone else in any other situation, she may react the situation in any way that does not violate someone else's rights.

I have been told that banning abortion somehow harms women, banning rape and murder doesn't hurt people, and that it should therefore be legal. But what that basically says is, regardless of its morality, homicide should be permitted if it allows one to excape an inconvenience or a responsibility.

Abolition harmed plantation owners. Does that make slavery okay, regardless of its morality?