And here is her response where feminism clouds judgement:

"What then, would you base the legal question on? The legality of any issue, not just abortion, is based upon those first three questions."

Sorry, I may not have been clear enough - I meant the specifics as indicated in my examples, based upon what you had said previously. For example, it shouldn't be based upon the social question of abortion being an answer to overpopulation and poverty as you had stated previously. It IS a social issue, of course, but not the one previously cited. That was all I meant by those particular comments.

"The term "equal rights under the law".....why is this a reason for women to deny equal protection to another group of individuals, namely the unborn?"

My point was that only recently are all adult humans in the U.S. offered "equality" (on paper, of course, not yet in practice...but I digress), and that the threat of total autonomy with regards to women fully governing their own bodies, including their reproduction, is primarily what is creating this backlash anti-choice movement. Women themselves are not immune to this line of thinking. The nature of feti has not changed, but the prospect of changing the status of feti as possibly the only way to turn the tide is appealing.

"As to the issue of "reproductive rights," (and by this I'm assuming you mean the ability to determine whether you will have children or not), women are the only ones who have reproductive rights at this point. Men have no reproductive rights whatsoever."

Sadly, that's a misnomer. Men have total reproductive rights and are under no obligation to have sex with women without first discussing and understanding each others' intentions, nor are they required to use (or not use) birth control, such as vasectomies and condoms. For that matter, men are not required to have sex at all. If men want to have children, I'm sure there are plenty of women out there who want the same thing. If men don't want to have children, they can certainly take steps to prevent it.

I can't muster any sympathy for a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman whom he knows nothing about in regards to her feelings on becoming pregnant by him, then feeling he should have control over the issue when she becomes pregnant (e.g., "that's my child, it must be born", or "I didn't want a kid, you're on your own"). (As well as the reverse - women ought to be acquainted with the men they're having sex with as well)

"If a woman wants to abort his child and he doesn't, tough beans. And if she wants to have the baby and he doesn't, he is forced to pay child support."

Funny how nature has provided this. I think it's a shame that both sexes can't become pregnant. It would be wonderful if a man could conceive and endure pregnancy and childbirth; he could have complete control over what he does with his body. At that point, he might even understand a little bit about what that sort of autonomy means. Or, he might just think having a woman make his reproductive decisions for him is easier and safer. Who can tell?

I don't mean to sound flippant, but the point is, since men cannot conceive, it is not up to them. Good, bad or indifferent, only a woman is capable of being pregnant.

"Leaving aside one's personal feelings for the male gender in general, this cannot be viewed as fair or just, i.e one gender having to submit his reproductive will to the arbitrariness of the other's."

I agree, it's not fair. Life isn't fair. Nature isn't fair. But it is what it is. For a very, very long time now, women have had to submit their reproductive will to the arbitrariness of men's will - fathers, husbands, doctors - and it wasn't fair. But it was what it was, an accepted part of life, for hundreds of years. It is only because we have moved away from that forced dependency that these issues have surfaced and created friction. It is less about the viability of life or the rights of a fetus than it is about who has "control".

"The time to exercise one's reproductive rights is before pregnancy, when both procreating genders have a say."

If only... I really wish that people were simply more diligent about their actions, but unfortunately that is not the case.

"You also mentioned the birth control issue. It is extremely farfetched to suppose that if abortion were made illegal, we would go so far as to make birth control or penile ejaculation illegal."

I agree - that is totally farfetched. But there was a time when it seemed farfetched to try a juvenille as an adult, to make birth control available to women without a husband's consent, to pay women the same rate as a man for the same job, to allow blacks to vote, etc. My point is, as farfetched as anything may seem to you or me, anything is possible (although I doubt that ejaculation without intent to procreate will ever be deemed illegal - it is, after all, primarily men who make the laws).

"But while we are on the subject of religion, let is take in your argument..."The government doesn't have the right to tell me that my religion's tenets relative to abortion are outlawed..." In answer to the last part, yes it does. The law negates people's religious and personal beliefs all of the time because there is no legal establishment of any one religion or personal belief system. For example, under Islamic law, a man may kill any female family member for "dishonoring" the family. We don't allow that in America because we believe that human lives take precedence over religions. Therefore, these men are not free to practice their religion and murder their girls."

The government cannot dictate religious ideals (or prevent them) when it's personal - for example, certain Native Americans use peyote within their religious practices. I would not be afforded such an allowance of behavior - I would be arrested if found in possession of peyote. In other words, peyote is illegal, but it's ok for certain people who practice certain religions.

I wasn't referring to something that obviously affects another person, such as murder. You and I both agree that taking the life of my neighbor, for example, is "murder", as would the overwhelming majority of people. However, you and I do not agree that terminating a pregnancy is "murder". While neither of us is alone in our beliefs, neither of us is in the overwhelming majority of said beliefs either.

My point pertained to religious practices that don't infringe on others. If a religious practice includes cutting off the heads of all blond men under the age of 25, for example, that's not going to be allowed. But when it comes to the subject of abortion and one's religious beliefs on that, the government cannot say, "this religion is right - therefore you must have an abortion if you're not married,(or whatever)", nor can they say, "this religion is right - you can never have an abortion, regardless of the circumstances". If the government decided to base abortion legislation upon one or another religious belief, then all hell would break loose. It should be a choice issue.

"And speaking of men, let's move on to Bill the kidney guy. First off, I dislike this argument because it deals in an impossible hypothetical situation."

I'm glad you mentioned that. This argument is no more an impossible hypothetical situation than the idea that some other being must be afforded rights that supercede an entire group of people. By affording priority rights to feti, one is revoking priority rights to all women who become pregnant. If we must give the priority of rights to only one entity - and in the issue of abortion, this applies - then I've yet to hear why the rights of a being not yet fully formed, not yet born, are more important than the rights of a fully formed woman with a life, goals, etc.

"And Bill, even though he is not allowed to be hooked up to your kidneys, would still be given every other shot at remaining alive. We wouldn't just sit idly by and watch him die without medical intervention."

In my example, though, I explained that the ONLY way to keep Bill alive is by being hooked up to my kidneys (or use the concept of transplants, it doesn't matter). It won't kill me to "help" him, it won't even affect me. He will die without me, regardless of other medical intervention. Yet the law allows me to, in essence, "kill" him by refusing to help. Why is it not possible to view abortion as a refusal to help another being survive?

"An unborn baby whose mother has chosen to abort it is given no such consideration. No effort is made to save his or her life because there is no other way to sustain that life."

Amazing how modern technology provides so much, yet has done nothing on this front. We can have surrogate mothers, in vitro fertilization, pretty much anything we want...but we can't do a "fetus transplant"? Perhaps that would give women too much autonomy?

"Now despite my vigorous defense of the unborn, I am not immune to the plight of women in the situation. Does it suck to have to give birth to an unwanted baby? Yes it does."

I'm not really sure why so many people get focused on the idea that abortion is for women who think it would "suck" to have a baby. Sometimes abortions are performed on "wanted" babies. This "plight" you refer to is only one of many possible reasons for abortion.

"But it sucks more to be vacuumed out of your mother's womb, pureed, and dumped out with the garbage."

How can you truly "know" this? (just curious)

"Pregnancy is a temporary situation,"

You don't think pregnancy can affect a woman's body and mind permanently?

"Abortion is permanent."

I think that's the point.

"There is no bringing that baby back if you have second thoughts."

No one should have second thoughts, really, not about this issue. No one should make such serious decisions - e.g., having sex without proper precautions, terminating a pregnancy, continuing a pregnancy - without serious forethought. That being said, if someone later (post-abortion) decides they would have liked having a baby, they can make another one. Or adopt.

"Your best argument is: "The whole point of leaving abortion up to the individual involved (i.e., the pregnant person) supports that very question, that ALL opinions are weighed equally by allowing for the option of abortion." The problem I have with this is that the outcome is never equal. What happens is that some babies leave the womb alive, others are destroyed and the choice is still arbitrary."

I wasn't specific enough. The outcome wouldn't be equal anyway, even without considering the fetus. Someone else will be affected - perhaps the sperm donor, the woman's family members, a doctor, an employer who must allow the woman a couple of days off. Whatever way you look at it, the issue is solely up to the pregnant woman.

Again, life isn't "fair", things aren't always "equal". Some babies leave the womb alive, but are so plagued by physical and mental defects that they are miserable for decades. Others are "destroyed" through no deliberate intent of the pregnant woman. Life isn't fair.

"Our laws are based on moral absolutes (don't confuse morals with religion - completely different things). Why is murder illegal? NOT because it says so in the 10 Commandments, but because it is based on the idea that if there were no rule of society to govern, then we would have no security upon which to improve our lives."

Right, but abortion is not murder. That it is, is an opinion.

Seriously. My personal belief system says that the slaughter of any mammal is murder - that includes steer, pigs, etc. That's my belief (opinion) and I hold fast that it is murder. But I respect that other people don't embrace my belief system. (I would never throw paint on someone wearing fur, for example, nor move for legislation preventing people from consuming mammalian meat - that's just not right, no matter how disturbing it is to me)

"You see making abortion illegal as a slippery slope that will lead to the repeal of all the rights that have been granted to women. I see the legalization of abortion as a slippery slope that is already beginning to undermine the value of life in general. First we kill off the useless unborn,"

Abortion is not predicated on the idea of feti being "useless".

"then euthanasia, then assisted suicide, then the mentally handicapped, then the physically handicapped,"

Those are all individual, separate issues, that have nothing to do with abortion, as none of these issues requires inhabiting the body of another living being for a specific length of time for the sole purpose of survival.

"then before you know it we are clearing out the ghettos all in an effort to sanitize our society of the people who may cause us problems."

I can't see us ever rallying behind the cry of "kill the lawyers". ;^)

Those who may "cause us problems" are different to each of us. I might think the media causes problems, you might think right-wingers cause us problems.

Again, a woman may not seek an abortion because she feels the fetus causes problems. There can be any number of reasons.

"I sympathize with my fellow women in The Situation. I've been there myself. But I find myself sympathizing more with the babies who are not given any choice whatsoever in a situation that they had no part in no part in creating."


I think individually, women must ultimately make their own choices based not upon what is "popular" nor what someone else tells them, but upon their own gut instinct. It may happen that they change their minds, have regrets, further down the road, but that is what life is...a series of choices, some of which improve our lives, others of which haunt us.