Should the Pro-Life States Secede from the Union?

I suppose it’s conceivable that Trump will be elected in November and miraculously, within a few years, give us a pro-life Supreme Court while not bringing on the end of civilization in some way. If we are not so lucky, the pro-life cause in the United States seems doomed for another couple of decades at least. It is hard to see how even a nominally pro-life Senate could resist the extreme pro-choice Supreme Court picks to be expected of a President Clinton. We will see, if not the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act, then the equivalent by judicial fiat, sweeping away the best efforts that can be made at the state level.

The pro-life cause in the United States may be doomed. But is the United States our only option?

The first time I floated the idea that the pro-life states might peacefully secede from the Union, the response was an expression of doubt that for the pro-life states to do so would actually save lives. And in the short run, considering that the legal-abortion states would not be far away from the pro-life states, and that travel would probably be easy, and that laws only deter a certain percentage of abortions even where they are in effect, secession might not save many lives.

But I don’t think of secession first and foremost in terms of lives saved in the short run. I think it all starts with a question of moral integrity. If Kansans, for example, are pro-life and are free to live, if they wish, under laws that protect unborn life, and opt not to do so, how much of their moral integrity on that issue can they preserve, and what message do they send to others?

I ask myself, if the Hyde Amendment is repealed and tax money starts flowing for abortions, will pro-lifers dutifully line up and pay their taxes?

But at this point, let’s get real and admit that presently there would be nowhere near enough popular support for the pro-life states to actually secede. Surveys show that there are not a great many single-issue voters on the abortion issue, and it is doubtful that even a majority of those single-issue voters are ardent enough to let go of their loyalty to the United States, even if that loyalty is no longer deserved; to embrace the security and economic uncertainties of such a move; to embrace possible complications in traveling to see friends and relatives; and to embrace the unknown in general.

What I would really propose, though, is to start a long-term movement, aimed at eventual secession, right now. (Or in November.) The original feminists did not live to see women’s suffrage in the United States, but suffrage would not have been won had someone not taken the first step. As pro-lifers we often tell ourselves that the real war over life is not a political war, but a cultural war. Yet how can a cultural war be won if the warriors do not walk their talk and put their politics where their professed values are? It is a question of moral integrity, and moral integrity shows. By showing just how serious we are within a peaceful framework, an ardent secessionist movement will be a jolt to everyone’s minds that will help us to win the cultural war in all states. This will be particularly so if secularists are prominent, visibly so, in the leadership of the movement. It will be important also that African-Americans are prominent among the leadership, so that this present secession movement cannot be painted with the brush of the secession in 1861.

There is no need to mention the importance of leadership by women, since women are already leading the pro-life movement.

A dynamic secessionist movement with visible secular leadership will force pro-choicers to ask, many of them for the first time, why these people are so passionate. The national discourse will for the first time attain the intense focus on a philosophical question – “What is the nature of the unborn?” – without which a decisive shift, for the better, in the balance of the cultural war will never be possible. A secessionist movement will be the evidence, that is now lacking, that we are serious in our assertions that abortion is a serious wrong.

If such a movement succeeds in creating a Pro-Life States of America, well and good. And if before that happens, it succeeds in jolting the United States enough, bringing people to their senses enough, to form an effective pro-life majority (“effective” meaning reflected in the Supreme Court and all branches of government), so much the better.

With modern communications ideas travel faster than they used to, and unlike the first feminists, some of us who take this initiative may actually live to see a culture of life and the consequent legal concern for life, whether within the political framework of a new country or of the one we have known.

The pro-life cause in the US has somehow come to be called “conservative,” despite its seemingly greater affinity, as pointed out by Charles Camosy and others, with some values that the Democratic Party champions or once championed. And the fact is that the pro-life states are conservative in many ways. I personally see this as a downside to secession. In particular, I think that governments, as representatives of our human family, should help pregnant women, mothers, and children without waiting for the market and the private sector to do it (which I think would be the approach of most conservatives). I oppose the death penalty, which many conservatives support. If I had to label myself in terms of political and economic thinking with just one conventional word, the word would be “socialist.” So I do not advance the idea of a Pro-Life States of America, and the free hand it might give to conservatives in those states on other issues, without trepidation. But in balance I would be ready to try it and face what might come in that regard.

So should we at least start a movement for secession? If Trump is elected (no thanks to us) in November, and if the world survives, let’s wait a bit and see. If Clinton is elected, let’s start a movement immediately.

Though I have lived most of my adult life in India, some of my ancestors came to America from Britain long before 1776, and I recognize the contributions that the United States as a country has made. I wouldn’t take lightly the fragmentation of that remarkable country. But nothing lasts forever. National states should serve their citizens, and not vice versa. If pro-lifers have the will, they can have a country that represents their values. The unborn can have a country where they belong, and which does not throw them under the bus. If things don’t, somehow, immediately start getting better in November, let’s strike a blow for the most victimized members our human family, and for our own psychological and moral health, and draw a real breath of fresh air.

© 2016

 

Should the Pro-Life States Secede from the Union? can be shared on Facebook here, and retweeted on Twitter here.

 

You may leave a reply, if you wish, without giving your name or email address. If you do give your email address, it will not be published. Back up your work as you type, in case of accidents.

Some future posts:

Life Panels

A Trade-Off of a Sensitive Nature

Unborn Child-Protection Legislation, the Moral Health of Society, and the Role of the American Democratic Party

The Motivations of Aborting Parents

Why Remorse Comes Too Late

The Kitchen-Ingredients Week-After Pill

Unwanted Babies and Overpopulation

The Woman as Slave?

Abortion and the Map of the World

49 thoughts on “Should the Pro-Life States Secede from the Union?

    • I wrote “peacefully secede from the Union.”

      If you post again and provide an email address — whether or not the address is real — then once that post is approved, any further posts with the same address will not need approval.

  1. There is no peaceful secession from the Union. If the events of the 1860s tell us anything, they tell us that. For starters there is no way the US would allow a nuclear Alabama or Texas to share its borders. Seriously, a nuclear Texas is scarier than North Korea. Plus, nobody is going to let the succeeding states leave with any of the US’s stuff. So no federal land, no military bases, no tanks, etc. If your suggestion is just blowing off steam (and I can respect that) or a thought experiment (and I can respect that), you can disregard my response, which is based on the practicality of the proposal. But if you think there is such a thing as “peaceful” succession, I recommend that you google “William Tecumseh Sherman.”

    • “There is no peaceful secession from the Union.”

      You mean that the US govt. would reveal its true colors as anti-choice?! Why do they always want to control people and interfere in private decisions?

      “nuclear”

      The first time I floated the secession idea, I joked, “There would be practical problems with secession, such as how to divvy up all the nuclear missiles, but the former Soviet states came to a happy solution about that, didn’t they? (?!)”

      I thought of it as a joke because the solution left a nuclear-armed Russia in place, which isn’t completely happy (nor is a nuclear-armed US – it’s all an accident waiting to happen), but let’s look at what did happen:

      At the meetings [not battles] . . . the leaders of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine formally dissolved the Soviet Union. . . .

      After the dissolution of the Soviet Union [1991], Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] While Ukraine had physical control of the weapons, it did not have operational control, as they were dependent on Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Linksand the Russian command and control system. In 1994 Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

      Do I think Ukraine should not have caved? Not necessarily. Do I think the new pro-life country I propose should not cave? Not necessarily. There are countries of the world that are somehow muddling through without owning nuclear weapons, such as Japan and Germany. The new country’s taking a hard line on the nuclear issue might not be necessary for the country to succeed in establishing a better civilization than has ever been seen before. If it does find that it needs nuclear arms, it can build them later.

      “I recommend that you google ‘William Tecumseh Sherman.’”

      Exactly! Without even clicking any of the search results, Google says that he died in 1891. Times have changed.

      Scotland lost several wars of Independence to England, shooting wars, before winning in 1306. Since then, I believe, there have never been military solutions to their disputes. Eventually they reunited by political means. Then in 2014 there was a democratic referendum. I don’t know whether the British government made any guarantees of non-violence in the event of a vote for independence – probably they did – but can you imagine Cameron would have become violent? The world has changed since 1306.

      Can you imagine Obama, who has only now put a few boots on the ground in Syria, deciding to invade Kansas and Texas? Obama doesn’t want to fight the IS. Not that I necessarily criticize that policy, but I can’t imagine he would want to fight Kansas and Texas. Doing so might be more in the national interest, somehow defined, than to fight the IS, but I can’t imagine he would try to convince his military boys and girls, so many of whom (maybe the majority?) are from the pro-life states, to invade their home territory and violently quash a secession. If it would only involve killing a few Americans, he might put down some secession, but not if it’s tens of thousands.

      I know it won’t be Obama that this movement will face, but it won’t be Lincoln and Sherman either, who besides living in a more militaristic era, had the moral high ground, which the pro-choice side doesn’t.

      “federal land”

      I don’t know how far the US govt. will be willing to go, or, at this point, how far the new country should be willing to go. Let’s just say for now that I think the new country could, if necessary, succeed without federal land.

      “If your suggestion is just blowing off steam . . . or a thought experiment”

      I’m serious. I don’t think pro-lifers are making the difference that the gravity of the carnage demands, or are about to with their existing strategies. But remember that my proposal involves two possible positive outcomes, not just one, and secession is not the preference I indicated:

      If such a movement succeeds in creating a Pro-Life States of America, well and good. And if before that happens, it succeeds in jolting the United States enough, bringing people to their senses enough, to form an effective pro-life majority (“effective” meaning reflected in the Supreme Court and all branches of government), so much the better.

      It need not come to secession. It would not require so many changes of heart to “form an effective pro-life majority.”

      I’m sorry my antiquated software here doesn’t automatically notify you of replies to you. If you reply now and would like me to email you if I reply, let me know.

  2. “such as how to divvy up all the nuclear missiles” Sorry, bro. No way can the US allow a nuclear Texas or Alabama to share its borders. That is an existential threat. I can see how the US could let Alabama et al leave. But the only way that could possibly happen is if Alabama doesn’t try to take the US’s stuff with it (especially any military stuff).That, tho, has nothing really to do with the abortion issue. Regardless why states might choose to leave, the US isn’t going to let them rob the US doing it. And, I have to say, you probably get civil war within a state as soon as they left. Even in MS or AL, you’d have a large contingent of US citizens that would not just peacefully accept succession. And that is before we get to the economic consequences. We’re talking poverty that most Americans have only seen on the TV and maybe not then. I bet people won’t like that.

    Federal funds from Medicaid and defense spending make up something like 30% of state revenue. People are going to freak out when that spicket turns off. And I haven’t even gotten to Medicare or Social Security spending. It goes without saying that the federal government isn’t going to be sending all that money to your pro-life confederacy. You leave, you are on your own. And without Medicare and Medicaid ALL of you hospitals go bankrupt in less than six months unless you can raise a boat load of foreign investment. Good luck with raising money to fix that problem, what with your new currency and all (no we aren’t going to let y’all print American currency). I assume you are going to want to have teachers, a military, etc. Again, good luck paying for that without the full faith and credit of the US government.

    There would be no reason to invade the pro-life states (provided that y’all aren’t looting the defense department as you leave). As long as states leave without taking our stuff with them, simply cut off the flow of federal money and impose trade sanctions. That would be harsh enough. We’re talking Thomas Hobbes harsh.

    You know, I’m kinda warming up to your idea….

    • “Sorry, bro. No way can the US allow a nuclear Texas or Alabama to share its borders.”

      Please read carefully. I had made it clear that one way of divvying up the missiles would be a way that left the new country without any, and that that could be acceptable to the new country.

      ”And, I have to say, you probably get civil war within a state as soon as they left. Even in MS or AL, you’d have a large contingent of US citizens that would not just peacefully accept succession.”

      If Scotland had voted for secession (which would certainly have left a 49% contingent disappointed), would there be a significant civil war going on there now?

      “Federal funds from Medicaid and defense spending make up something like 30% of state revenue. People are going to freak out when that [spigot] turns off. And I haven’t even gotten to Medicare or Social Security spending.”

      And where does that money come from in the first place? Doesn’t a good amount of it come from taxing the rich and corporations, which there are some of in pro-life states also? Couldn’t a good amount of current federal spending in the pro-life states be legitimately analyzed as just redistributing money within those states? The new country will be capable of doing that redistribution, also. It seems to me you would only have a point if the present situation amounts to the pro-choice states subsidizing the pro-life states — which it may, but I don’t think it’s to a huge extent. If it were, we would hear more about it.

      “simply cut off the flow of federal money and impose trade sanctions. That would be harsh enough.”

      Whether or not harsh in effect, it would certainly be harsh in attitude. You’re saying that the US would want to turn the new country into an enemy — for what reasons, I haven’t understood — and do so in a way that would hurt its own economy as well as the new country’s. Would England have done that with Scotland?

      The new country would have a lot of inspiration deriving from moral integrity that would be a huge value in itself, and would also go a long way toward overcoming material problems and eventually establishing a better civilization, even materially, than has ever been seen before.

  3. The US isn’t going to unilaterally disarm so unless you get every other country to disarm (North Korea, Pakistan, Russia China, etc) so, again, if this is a practical solution, rather than a thought experiment, it is a non-starter. Let’s be clear about one thing, if states were to seceded, the US’s response would be about the US, not what the seceding states would want. That would be their problem, not ours.

    As for cash, a couple of things that are facts (not opinions). First, you need some start up capital and you are not going to get it from the federal government. Think of all the money and expertise that is housed in the federal government. You won’t have that (e.g., the medicare trust fund). You’ll need to raise a military force (can’t have ours) so you’ll need money to do that. Where are you going to get it?

    Second, the states likely to secede tend to be poorer (e.g., MS) and those states are currently subsidized heavily by states that are unlikely to leave (NY, CA, NJ). The only major US cities that you’d likely have in the pro-life territory would be in TX and, maybe, NC and GA (although the business community and the people who live in Atlanta are going to have their pitchforks out if rural GA ever tried to vote GA out of the Union). Cities drive the economies in first world countries. You have Jackson, MS and Montgomery, AL. Is that going to cut it?

    The US would act in its own interest (just like every other country does). If you form your own country then, well, you have your own country. Its not in our interest to have nuclear power on our borders (and it is not, unfortunately, in our interest to disarm unilaterally). It is not in our interest to transfer our money or expertise to your country. It is not in our interest to let you print our currency (so if you want to print currency, you’ll have to have your own currency). Are you going to prevent pregnant women from leaving the country? If not, you can guess what will happen right across the border. As you can see from that question there are obvious places where our national interests and your conflict. You can expect us to act only in our interests (we’ll expect that you’ll act likewise).

    Here is some info on the what states pay in compared to what they get from the federal government. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-states-the-most-and-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government-2015-7

    And, to be clear, your biggest hurdle would be the start up costs. You wouldn’t have a military and you need to pay folks (and you need a whole lot of expensive stuff); you have less higher education (particularly at the elite level). You do not have a medicare trust fund or a social security trust fund. You need those things. And those things are crazy expensive. Where are you going to get the money? Even if you took all of the money in the US floating around, you might still not have enough (its taken us 200 years to get where we are). You’d have to start at the beginning. And its not the 14th century. Modern life, and our significantly longer life span and qualitative different standard of living, are WAY more expensive. Heck, the confederacy couldn’t afford secession and they had the single most valuable asset in the US (slaves) that was essential to the most important product (cotton) that drove the industrial revolution. What do you have now?

  4. Well, fun times. Its an interesting thought experiment but nothing more. In all likelihood the supreme court is likely to move toward more pro-choice positions in the near future and, given the new trend on nominating younger judges, likely to stay that way for a generation at least. I get it that y’all are not going to be happy about that. Blow off all the steam you need to. But you are not taking our ball and going home.

    The non-violent response to the changing legal landscape, therefore, is going to have to be a policy one. And while I know the idea of compromise makes everyone (on both sides of the issue) gnash their teeth, that is the only option on the table (if there is actually options on the table). The question, then, is really whether there are compromise positions that both sides could accept. I think there are some, at least at the periphery, but I am far less certain about that than I used to be (in no small part because of conversations I’ve had a SPL). Perhaps I will be more optimistic after this dreadful election is over. Perhaps.

  5. Also, the format here could be better. In particular, it would be great if it was possible to edit my response for things like grammar and spelling after I’ve posted my response. I mean, I’n not that concerned about it but I could at least go back and fix the obvious stuff like subject verb agreement, there v. their, spelling, etc. Oh well.

    • I’ll reply only to this point for now. Yes, very sorry about the software, I’ve been meaning to upgrade it but just haven’t had the time. Meanwhile, you could email me a revised version of any or all of your posts, and I will replace the old text with the new (without changing the date of the post).

      Also, I never said that the US might disarm. I said that the secession might occur in “a way that left the NEW country without any [nuclear arms].” I didn’t say the US would be left without any. So if you send me rewrites, you might take that fact into account while rewriting.

  6. I doubt the efficacy of any such movement. I don’t think that this would make pro-choicer more likely to take prolifers seriously. (More like kooks who want to form some fascist state and deprive women of their rights. Or at least that’s how it is sure to be characterized.) However, voting, demonstrations, scholarship, etc. might. (But the world is full of Katha Pollitts, so that might not be enough.)

    • “I doubt the efficacy of any such movement.”

      Any efficacy could show up in one of two ways: making pro-choicers take pro-life ideas seriously, or actually resulting in a pro-life country. Do you doubt the efficacy in both ways?

      But let’s look at the option you have looked at: making pro-choicers take pro-life ideas seriously — which, yes, would require some degree of respect for the pro-lifers personally. In terms of images of pro-lifers held by the typical pro-choicer, something might be lost. But the hope would be to affect the thinking of the most thoughtful pro-choicers, which would trickle down. It seems to me that if the secession movement has impressive leaders who are following a course that their moral integrity demands and that at least is not a proven failure, thoughtful people will recognize that — rather, those people might feel it’s kooky to continue with a strategy in which pro-lifers’ moral integrity doesn’t so clearly show, and which has been followed for decades with little effect on the carnage. (Abortion rates have declined somewhat, and pro-life strategies probably get SOME credit for that, but it’s not enough.)

      Though written by a pro-lifer, this article –

      The Professional Pro-Life Movement Has A Lot In Common With Donald Trump
      http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/09/19/professional-pro-life-movement-lot-common-donald-trump/

      – may indicate what image thoughtful pro-choicers have of pro-lifers now.

      I mentioned above: “the hope would be to affect the thinking of the most thoughtful pro-choicers, which would trickle down.” And replying to Max, I had quoted these lines from my article –

      If such a movement succeeds in creating a Pro-Life States of America, well and good. And if before that happens, it succeeds in jolting the United States enough, bringing people to their senses enough, to form an effective pro-life majority (“effective” meaning reflected in the Supreme Court and all branches of government), so much the better

      – and had commented, “It would not require so many changes of heart to ‘form an effective pro-life majority.’”

      “(More like kooks who want to form some fascist state and deprive women of their rights.”

      The movement would be led prominently by women. I myself worry about the right-wing tendencies, so can’t deny that problem. Now, can wanting to secede per se necessarily be painted as kooky? Would anyone have to be kooky, by definition, to want to leave the US? Was Lithuania kooky for wanting to leave the Soviet Union? Was Slovenia kooky for wanting to leave Yugoslavia? Of course these are different situations, but the question needs to be asked.

      “However, voting, demonstrations, scholarship, etc. might.”

      How many babies do you expect will be aborted before existing strategies succeed?

  7. I have been reading your posts here and on the Clinton Wilcox site. I’am a Christian, but i’am pro-choice. Now I want to clarify, i’am not an absolutist on this issue. My position is the following:

    1st trimester- woman’s wished bodily autonomy comes first

    2- trimester- abortions should be restricted to medical/health conditions, or severe mental trauma

    3-trimester- unborn has a right to life (not personhood) unless dire grave medical issues.

    I don’t know how often you encounter someone with my position. I do believe the current supreme court ruling is fair up to 24 weeks or vialibity, though I am confortable with a 20 week ban. My reasons for being pro-choice are the following:

    1. women’s bodily autonomy, I believe that if we lose our bodily autonomy (even during pregnancy) we are nothing but slaves (2nd class citizens).

    2- I don’t believe in giving zygotes, embroyos personhood rights, to do that you have to take away a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, you just can’t have personhood without taking away the woman’s right, their is just no way around that.

    I have been pondering this issue now for 2 years or so, I have read many pro-life blogs, philosophy,and at times have felt on the fence about it. I do believe both sides extremes are wrong. I do find that my position above is reasonable and wish that such middle of the road positions were considered by both sides more, but we see to be in a very extreme environment for both sides.

    I will not deny that my sense of bodily autonomy is probably more exaggerated than others, I do find pregnancy and childbirth quite abhorrent at times. But I do believe bodily autonomy does trump right to life in the first trimester. My moral intuition, is I don’t find abortion to be such a tragedy at this stage. I see zygotes, embroyo or blastocysts and potential persons only ( not trying to be callous that is just my moral intuition) . I do believe a woman’s life is of more importance than a potential person. Her hopes, dreams, circumstances matter to me more.

    I do wish passionately pro-life people would understand that their are women out here that our bodily autonomy is very important.

    I am willing to risk going to prison if abortion were illegal, and do a self-abortion or illegal abortion, that is how much this matters to me, and their are many other women that feel this way. All we want is for it to stay legal and for each woman to make the CHOICE theselves and do not impose your moral intutions on us. I don’t believe in coercing anyone in having in abortion nor do I believe in coercing or guilt tripping someone to give birth.

    I believe forcing someone to have an abortion is as abhorrent as forcing someone to give birth.

    • Thanks for your very thoughtful and heartfelt comment.

      First two remarks about the antiquated blog software here, which I will upgrade when I get time: 1) Now that I have approved this comment of yours, future comments giving the same email address will appear immediately and will not need approval, unless they contain 10 or more links. 2) When anyone replies to you, the software will not automatically notify you by email, but if the reply is from me, I could notify you if you wish, so you will not have to keep checking.

      Probably you came here because you saw a reply that I first posted to you on the CW site, which began “As mentioned, my understanding is that the bodily rights that society recognizes, or at least any legitimate bodily rights that society should recognize, stem in the first place . . .” Since it failed ever to appear there, I posted it to you recently on a New Wave Feminists page, but soon, mysteriously, it disappeared from there also, but probably reached your email before it disappeared. Since you haven’t mentioned it, I’m not completely sure you saw it. If you didn’t, please let me know.

      In that reply I referred to my blog post “Bodily Rights & a Better Idea,” in which I tried to undermine the bodily-rights argument for abortion rights. Have you seen that post and do you now express support for that argument in spite of having seen the post? If so, how did that post fail, for you, to undermine the bodily-rights argument for abortion rights?

      Your “my sense of bodily autonomy is probably more exaggerated than others” is significant to me in light of my having written And of course the strength of the sense of body ownership itself must vary from person to person and from culture to culture. A society’s laws and customs must reflect its perception of a kind of average strength for that society. (A few further thoughts on this can be found by searching “average”) What did you think of that “average” idea? (If you would like to comment, better to comment under that post rather than under this “Secede” post.)

      “I see zygotes, embroyo or blastocysts [as] potential persons only”

      If I saw them that way and did not see them as full-fledged members of my human family, my little sisters and brothers, deserving protection in proportion to their helplessness, I would also find the pro-life position abhorrent. I think that differences in that perception are the main source of the big divide on the abortion issue. Regarding this, I’d like to invite you to see another brief blog post and one paragraph in yet another post. The brief blog post:

      “Only a Potential Person?” At that link, which is on this blog of mine, all you will find is another link to where the post actually appears on the Secular Pro-Life blog. However, if you wish to comment, better to comment at the first link where I will see it, because I am no longer visiting that SPL blog page.

      The paragraph: In “What’s in It for the Born?,” search for “Even if the unborn are fully human”

      “I do find that my position above is reasonable and wish that such middle of the road positions were considered by both sides more,”

      At first sight your position might give the impression, “Oh, only one third of all abortions (first trimester) are unrestricted and two-thirds are restricted, so those who care about the unborn should be satisfied.” But of course it’s not like that. Even at present, 91% of abortions are in the 1st trimester, and if your proposal were in effect, the remaining 9% of women would be more careful about not missing the cut-off date. A proposal that saves the lives of virtually no babies doesn’t seem middle-of-the-road to us.

      “do not impose your moral intutions on us.”

      I think that in order for any society with any diversity to hold together, the moral intuitions of one group must prevail over the moral intuitions of another. For instance, presently in the US, some pro-lifers believe they should stand in the doorways of clinics and block them, but pro-choicers impose their moral intuitions on those pro-lifers. This resolution is one way of holding the society together. For some analysis of “imposing moral intuitions,” please see:

      https://prolife.stanford.edu/qanda/q3-1.html

      • What is your response to the consequence of giving zygotes, embroyo and blastocyst personhood, would take a woman’s bodily autonomy away? You do realize that women would become 2nd class citizens with no right to their bodies as soon as the sperm fertilized the egg? do you find that objectionable at all ?

        You see my moral intuition says that is akin to slavery to force a woman to gestate against her will, as I stated, I would be willing to risk jail time to defy such law if it ever that 1st trimester abortions would become illegal.

        What about the issue of if abortion is made illegal, does that mean miscarriages will be looked as suspicious and or if women self abort, will they be arrested. Have you thought thru the ramifacations of giving personhood to zygotes, embroyos?

        • I only have a moment free to begin a reply right now. More later.

          “You do realize that women would become 2nd class citizens with no right to their bodies as soon as the sperm fertilized the egg? do you find that objectionable at all ?”

          Comparing your view and mine, my view is that a woman should have somewhat less rights when she’s an adult, but your view is that she should have seriously less rights when she’s preborn. Unfortunately, there’s no way she can have full rights during all phases of her life.

          It’s not like she didn’t benefit from unborn child-protection laws when it was her turn. They may be the only reason she is now here.

          • What you said is incorrect. A fetus is not a person, even if it is a female, it does not possess bodily autonomy the way a newborn, child, or adult has, not the same comparison.

            Again you are reducing a woman to a 2nd class citizen and to an incubator. Now you as a man will never have to face that, so I guess it is not something that matters to you.

            We women are vulnerable when we are pregnant and puts us at a disadvantage in this world. How would you like it if a fetus was implanted in you and you had to give up your bodily autonomy for 9 months, and be forced to endure childbirth and all that comes with that.

            You really don’t realize the great sacrifice a woman goes thru in pregnancy and childbirth, not just physically, mentally, financially, it is a life changing and life disrupting event.

            Here is a list of possible effects of pregnancy and childbirth:

            extreme nausea
            kidney failure
            uncontrolled bleeding, may need bed rest, blood clots, gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, ruptured uterus duing labor, post-partum depression after birth (cannot be predicted or prevented)

            So, you are for forcing a woman to endure all of this (possibly) for 9 months or longer, depending on any residual conditions left over after pregnancy. Tell me how forcing a woman to go thru this is not inhumane.

            When I weigh this against the life of a zygote or embroyo that has no sentience, dreams, aspirations, probably not even aware of its own existence, to me no brainer I choose the woman each time, it is the more humane position about a breathing, autonomos sentient person

          • you did not answer my question about a woman going to the hospital because of bleeding over a miscarriage, in a world where personhood is given to an embroyo? how is that going to play out?

            You probably don’t see it but you are reducing US women incubators for 9 months by giving personhood to zygotes and embroyoS. If you don’t see the inhumanity of this than I don’t know what to say.

  8. you said “At first sight your position might give the impression, “Oh, only one third of all abortions (first trimester) are unrestricted and two-thirds are restricted, so those who care about the unborn should be satisfied.” But of course it’s not like that. Even at present, 91% of abortions are in the 1st trimester, and if your proposal were in effect, the remaining 9% of women would be more careful about not missing the cut-off date. A proposal that saves the lives of virtually no babies doesn’t seem middle-of-the-road to us.

    My reason for the middle of the road position is that we must be able to balance a woman’s bodily autonomy with at the same time not causing suffering to the unborn at a later term. As I stated my moral intuitions is that a fetus at 3rd trimester should have more rights, than 1st trimester, that may seem odd to you since you see the unborn in a continuous development and the stages don’t matter to you. I do not see it that way, I see the unborn gaining more rights the closer to viability, in so that a woman can maintain her bodily autonomy, I do not see this as an all or nothing proposition.

    pro-lifers want to save all even a blastocysts, I get it, I just don’t, I cannot value a blastocysts, zygote or embroyo, as much as a woman, their is no way, she is more valuable, for she has dreams aspirations and autonomy, to me this is as plain as day. I’am sorry but I don’t feel any touch feely emotions about zygotes, if they die, but I do about a woman dying in a botched up self abortion, or being hospitalized for severe morning sickness, a woman just has more value.

    My sister had an abortion at 7 weeks, you know I did not feel sad about it, not at ALL. she was very sick constantly throwing up. Her health and bodIly autonomy come first. No woman should have to risk her health, life future for a potential person.

    • “we must be able to balance a woman’s bodily autonomy with at the same time not causing suffering to the unborn at a later term. . . . a fetus at 3rd trimester should have more rights, than 1st trimester. . . . I do not see it that way, I see the unborn gaining more rights the closer to viability”

      Does it gain more rights only because it can feel more pain?

      • Sure why not? their are other factors, like brain waves are probably already present at 22-24 weeks, and viability outside the womb in another consideration.

        If one is serious about both the unborn and the woman’s bodily rights, than such line being drawn is reasonable. As I stated i’am comfortable with 20-22 week bans (with exceptions for health or defects) because it gives plenty of time for the woman to decide to either terminate or gestate, at the same time recognize that at 3rd trimester the unborns life should carry more weight than at 1st trimester because it is further developed.

        You might not agree but level of development is something that also matters to me as a pro-choicer, how far along and how developed the fetus is matters in my moral intuitions about abortion

  9. you said to to respond to you here about “the unborn benefiting from personhood laws”

    That is irrelevant in my opinion, fetuses, embroyos don’t ask for protection, cannot ask for rights, they are not aware of their existence. If my mother would have aborted me, I would never have known, I would lose nothing, I don’t see the harm really in never coming into sentient existence, and I would not be here, so I lose nothing. I honestly don’t understand why pro-lifers care so much about bringing every non-sentient embroyo and zygote to term, does this issue really keep you all up at night that potential sentient beings are not being brought to term and deny them a potential future, just curious why this is vexing?

  10. continuing my thought:

    I want to clarify that it is not that I am not trying to be cold or callous to the unborn, I just find that their is real tangible suffering of people that are already born that are aware, sentient that goes on in this world, and I find the pre-occupation with abortion such a non issue in comparison to so much suffering in this world.

    • Replying to your January 2, 2017 at 11:11 pm and at 11:14 pm comments together:

      “If my mother would have aborted me, I would never have known,”

      If someone kills you in your sleep now, you will never know, but does that mean it was okay?

      “fetuses, embroyos don’t ask for protection, cannot ask for rights, they are not aware of their existence. . . . I honestly don’t understand why pro-lifers care so much . . .”

      Please see “What Babies Don’t Know Can’t Hurt Them, Right?”

      “I don’t see the harm really in never coming into sentient existence”

      If you never experience tomorrow’s sentient existence because someone kills you today, do you see any harm in that?

      “I find the pre-occupation with abortion such a non issue in comparison to so much suffering in this world.”

      As I said at the outset, “If I . . . did not see them as full-fledged members of my human family, my little sisters and brothers, deserving protection in proportion to their helplessness, I would also find the pro-life position abhorrent. I think that differences in that perception are the main source of the big divide on the abortion issue.”

      But you said on my “Only a Potential Person?” page that you could see the point of that post, so you are capable temporarily of imagining that the unborn are persons. If you think of them that way, then the next question is, Is suffering/pain the only kind of harm that can be inflicted on a person? If someone deprives you of the future that you would otherwise have, and does it ever so painlessly, is there no harm in that?

  11. you asked: If you never experience tomorrow’s sentient existence because someone kills you today, do you see any harm in that?

    That is actually a good question, if you think about it since death is a mystery and unknown existence, to answer your question I don’t know, if I go be with God it would be for the better not harm, though my loved ones would miss me though. You are asking a question that can’t really be answered without knowing what happens to us at death? I guess the question is what is the difference between dying today or dying 10, 20 years from now, good question?

    Your appeals to fear of death is in my opinion a non-start because we all will die eventually.

    • It seems to me that in your 2nd paragraph you are questioning — questioning about the significance of death. But in your last para you answer the question by concluding there is no harm in death.

      If there’s no harm in death, then why should we worry about all the suffering of women that you talk about? A woman could just kill herself. The suffering would be gone in a way that would not have caused her any harm.

      • Well let me ask the question back to you, why concerned about a potential person’s death that has no sense of self-awareness or sentience, where is the harm?

        A woman does NOT have to endure the potential harm and suffering of gestation by terminating her pregnancy, so that answers your question. She does not have to kill herself. Have you thought that maybe the woman has other children or a husband or family, she is more valuable than just an incubator for 9 months.

        Are you really arguing that a woman’s quality of life while she is here alive does not matter? I guess not.

        • “Are you really arguing that a woman’s quality of life while she is here alive does not matter?”

          I was arguing that according to your idea (there is no harm in dying sooner, because we’ll die later anyway), her quality of life would not be a problem. “Her quality of life would not be a problem” seemed to be the consequence of your idea, not of any idea of mine.

          “why concerned about a potential person’s death that has no sense of self-awareness or sentience, where is the harm?”

          My reply has two parts:

          1. you’re saying “potential” again. Whatever it may be now — person, potential person, blob — it has a future. You use “potential” to imply that its future doesn’t matter. Yet you think a woman’s future matters very much.

          2. Please see “What Babies Don’t Know Can’t Hurt Them, Right?”

          • Yes, a pregnant woman’s future matters more, for she is here now, autonomus, sentient with desires, hopes, dreams. Her quality of life matters, and how it will be affected by being forced to gestate.

            I think we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. I guess the divide is great between us on this issue.

    • “I do have a question, not trying to be mean or disrespectful, but why is it the most aren’t pro-lifer’s I have encountered are men? , as a man, you will never have to carry that burden of pregnancy and go thru childbirth. Yet you want to impose a burden on one gender, yet you will not have to endure yourself. If the rolls were reversed and a man gestated, I would never try to force that on a man and violate his bodily autonomy, and everything that comes with pregnancy, I simply would not. I would respect the man’s choice.” (from the “Open-Minded and Confident?” page)

      “Again you are reducing a woman to a 2nd class citizen and to an incubator. Now you as a man will never have to face that, so I guess it is not something that matters to you.”

      Thank you for trying not to be mean or disrespectful. I will try to emulate that. (Saying “it is not something that matters to you,” however, was unwarranted.)

      “why is it the most aren’t pro-lifer’s I have encountered are men?”

      I don’t know why your luck was like that, but that was just you. Surveys don’t show any gender divide on abortion. Most Americans support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, but even more women than men. So far as I can understand, the key leaders of the pro-life movement in the US are all women. Several women have been my pro-life mentors.

      “as a man, you will never have to carry that burden of pregnancy and go thru childbirth. . . . Now you as a man will never have to face that,”

      You probably don’t know how to do bypass surgery, where the heart is actually stopped for a while, and you will never have to face doing that. But if a surgeon left the room and did not restart the heart, you would probably be indignant, even if he had a stomach ache. You would probably say his license should be taken away, if not that he should be sent to jail. You would impose a burden on him (staying and completing the operation) that you will not have to endure yourself..

      Regarding “incubator,” I replied under “Only a Potential Person?”

      “We women are vulnerable when we are pregnant and puts us at a disadvantage in this world.”

      That disadvantage has to be compensated for so that women will be equal. Please see “Next Steps for the Pro-Life Feminist Movement.”

      “How would you like it if a fetus was implanted in you and you had to give up your bodily autonomy for 9 months, and be forced to endure childbirth and all that comes with that.”

      Once there is an unwanted pregnancy, there is rarely going to be any perfectly happy outcome. We have to choose among the evils. But those who don’t see killing unborn children as an evil at all naturally will be unable to understand how it might be the greater evil.

      “Here is a list of possible effects of pregnancy and childbirth:

      “extreme nausea
      “kidney failure
      “uncontrolled bleeding, may need bed rest, blood clots, gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, ruptured uterus duing labor, post-partum depression after birth (cannot be predicted or prevented)

      “So, you are for forcing a woman to endure all of this (possibly) for 9 months or longer,”

      No, I’m not. I never said I was. Please don’t make stuff up. In “Bodily Rights and a Better Idea” I only said, “A woman whose risk of grave loss of well-being is small should not be allowed to kill her unborn child.”

      “My sister had an abortion at 7 weeks, you know I did not feel sad about it, not at ALL. she was very sick constantly throwing up. Her health and bodIly autonomy come first. No woman should have to risk her health, life future for a potential person.”

      That may have been a case where abortion was justified. But that would not mean we should allow the unborn to be killed when it’s not justified.

  12. “she is here now, autonomus, sentient with desires, hopes, dreams.”

    Right, but what does that have to do with the question of whether her FUTURE is greater than that of the child? Actually the child’s future is likely greater. It includes all the experiences of childhood, which for the woman are already over.

    “Her quality of life matters,”

    Right, but all that matters is –

    “how it will be affected”

    – in other words, her future. Can’t you see anything unfair in caring about her future and disregarding the child’s?

    Will reply to a couple more of your points in about half an hour.

  13. you said:
    You probably don’t know how to do bypass surgery, where the heart is actually stopped for a while, and you will never have to face doing that. But if a surgeon left the room and did not restart the heart, you would probably be indignant, even if he had a stomach ache. You would probably say his license should be taken away, if not that he should be sent to jail. You would impose a burden on him (staying and completing the operation) that you will not have to endure yourself.

    Your reasoning is flawed, if the surgeon becomes sick or incapacitated, another surgeon can take his/her place, you cannot re-implant a fetus into another person, so a pregnant person’s burden cannot be transferred to another person, NOT EVEN A close comparison.

  14. you said:
    No, I’m not. I never said I was. Please don’t make stuff up. In “Bodily Rights and a Better Idea” I only said, “A woman whose risk of grave loss of well-being is small should not be allowed to kill her unborn child.”

    That is not for you or a panel of bureacrats to decide, that is for the woman herself to decide that. It is her life, it is her that is taking the risk, not the people deciding on panel, or anybody else for that matter. That is all i’am fighting for is for the choice to stay legal, for women to make that CHOICE THEMSELVES, nothing more.

  15. I also want to stay what you or other people may measure as being a small risk, maybe a big risk for the woman, she is best to determine that, since she is taking the risk.

    • “NOT EVEN A close comparison.”

      I shouldn’t expect anyone to do something I wouldn’t do myself, but I certainly at times expect people to do things that, for this reason or that, I will never happen to face. And I’m sure the same is true for you, and that you could think of some examples if you tried.

      • Actually i can’t think of any right now. And no i don’ feel comfortable telling someone to risk their bodily autonomy, health, whatever, by force of law, which is what would happen if abortion were to be outlawed. As i stated before I would NOT force anyone by law (men or women) to do anything that violated their bodily autonomy for the sake of another life, so to answer your question NO!

    • “middle of the road position”

      “Sure why not? their are other factors, like brain waves are probably already present at 22-24 weeks, and viability outside the womb in another consideration.

      “If one is serious about both the unborn and the woman’s bodily rights, than such line being drawn is reasonable. As I stated i’am comfortable with 20-22 week bans (with exceptions for health or defects) because it gives plenty of time for the woman to decide to either terminate or gestate, at the same time recognize that at 3rd trimester the unborns life should carry more weight than at 1st trimester because it is further developed.

      “You might not agree but level of development is something that also matters to me as a pro-choicer, how far along and how developed the fetus is matters in my moral intuitions about abortion”

      “. . . why concerned about a potential person’s death that has no sense of self-awareness or sentience”

      But then wouldn’t you have to give more value to the life of a 10-year-old than to the life of a 5-year-old, and more to the life of a 25-year-old than to the life of a 10-year-old? The brain doesn’t develop completely until 25. And at some later point it starts to deteriorate, so you would have to give less value to old people also.

      You seem to be arguing that only people between about 25 and 50 have full worth, while the young and the old would be expendable. And wouldn’t you say that a 5-year-old, and a 90-year-old who is like a 5-year-old are equally expendable? Or have I misunderstood something? But that would completely ignore the fact that a 5-year-old still has its 25-50 period ahead of it, while a 90-year-old has nothing ahead.

      “it gives plenty of time for the woman to decide”

      Exactly. So it would prevent almost no abortions. You can call your position middle-of-the-road. I don’t want to argue semantics. But it is only in the middle between two concerns of yours. It is not in the middle between your concerns and those of pro-lifers.

      • This comparison of 25 year olds, 10 year ords , or 90 year old people, is irrelevent to the conversation, all of these people are autonomous people living outside the wombs of other people.

        Lets stay with the issue at hand which is pregnancy, gestation, childbirth, that is what we are talking about isn’t it?

        The forcing by law of gestating against a person’s will, that is what pro-life people want , to me talking about these other scenarios does not advance the conversation, let stick with subject at hand. Pregnancy, childbirth and the REAL world everyday effects for women TODAY in their lives, not hypotheticals. How such laws of personhood or banning abortion would do to women and their bodily autonomy, the disruptions in their lives, and or the effects of such laws on women trying self-abort at home, or the possible development of a black market of abortions going underground, because women would still seek out abortions.

        Hypotheticals, theories are great, but i’am a realist and care about real world consequences of things more than imaginary scenarios. Because usually theories and hypotheticals do not work in the real world as well as we think.

    • “That is all i’am fighting for is for the choice to stay legal, for women to make that CHOICE THEMSELVES, nothing more.”

      You make it sound as if you don’t ask much, but that means zero protection for the babies.

      “what you or other people may measure as being a small risk, maybe a big risk for the woman, she is best to determine that,”

      Do you have evidence that she can typically determine that better than doctors?

      • She is the one that has to carry it in her body, she is the one that has to sacrifice (possibly) her heath, finances, employment, so YES she is the one that gets to decide whether to take that risk or not. A doctor can sure counsel her on the risks, but it still HER decision!

        you said: You make it sound as if you don’t ask much, but that means zero protection for the babies

        Well as I stated my position, I believe woman’s well being and rights come first.

        • “She is the one that has to carry it in her body, she is the one that has to sacrifice (possibly) her heath, finances, employment”

          Those are all possible arguments you can try, but they are different arguments than saying that she knows best whether there’s a big risk or a small risk.

          • Do you believe that the one taking the risk, should be the one to decide if to take on that risk? especially if that risk can be life altering, and or it violated bodily autonomy, i would think the person taking the risk should get to be the one to make the ultimate decision.

            Let me ask you, if someone takes you on a plane and wants to make you go skydiving, they say to you well the risks are minimal that your parachute won’t open, do you think it is fair to have someone else make that decision for you, or should YOU, since you are the one jumping out of the plane?

            Very simple the person taking the risk gets to weigh the costs, consequences, etc.. not anybody else!

            This is not a an alien concept you know.

  16. “Do you believe that the one taking the risk, should be the one to decide if to take on that risk? . . . parachute . . .”

    You have used a hypothetical where only one person’s risk is involved. If you want to use a hypothetical, please give me one where risks for two people are involved and the risks are interrelated.

    But basically I would say this regarding your insistence on total, unilateral power for yourself and others of your group:

    An unwanted pregnancy is a situation of opposing interests between two persons. In every other situation in human society where there are opposing interests between two parties, both of the parties are allowed a voice, and if one of them cannot speak, then that one will be represented by someone who can. In no situation except the situation of unwanted pregnancy is the dispute resolved by appointing one of the two disputing parties to be the judge, jury and executioner. To do so goes against a fundamental principle of justice. To do so IS an alien concept that should shock people.

    Any such situation calls for impartial decision-making. The decision-makers should of course not ignore the woman’s bodily autonomy. They should give appropriate weight to the woman’s bodily autonomy (that is, to her psychological sense of body ownership), along with all other factors involving potential harm for either of the two parties.

    “Actually i can’t think of any [examples] right now. And no i don’ feel comfortable telling someone to risk their bodily autonomy, health, whatever, by force of law, which is what would happen if abortion were to be outlawed. As i stated before I would NOT force anyone by law (men or women) to do anything that violated their bodily autonomy for the sake of another life, so to answer your question NO!”

    If you consider bodily autonomy to be absolute, without exception, then of course abortion should be unrestricted, and there was no need for you to bring up the “potential persons” argument, “I would never have known,” “level of development,” “miscarriages will be looked as suspicious,” or whether men should voice their opinions.

    However, in “Bodily Rights & a Better Idea,” please search for the text –

    Among pro-choicers who concede

    – in order to check whether bodily autonomy should really be absolute. (If you wish to respond, better to respond there.)

    “This comparison of 25 year olds, 10 year ords , or 90 year old people, is irrelevent to the conversation, all of these people are autonomous people living outside the wombs of other people.

    “Lets stay with the issue at hand which is pregnancy, gestation, childbirth, that is what we are talking about isn’t it?

    “The forcing by law of gestating against a person’s will . . .”

    For myself I don’t mind staying with that issue, that is, bodily autonomy. But you were the one who said things like “You might not agree but level of development is something that also matters to me as a pro-choicer.” You brought up your logic about level of development and seemed to think that that helped your case, so it was legitimate for me to bring up 90-year-olds, etc., just to show you where your logic leads.

    If we’re going to focus on bodily autonomy, better to do it under “Bodily Rights & a Better Idea.”

    “Hypotheticals, theories are great, but i’am a realist and care about real world consequences of things more than imaginary scenarios.”

    But if we basically agree on what the reality is, yet have different intuitions as to what moral principles should apply to the reality, then hypotheticals might help. Hypotheticals have been called “intuition pumps.”

  17. you said:

    An unwanted pregnancy is a situation of opposing interests between two persons. In every other situation in human society where there are opposing interests between two parties, both of the parties are allowed a voice, and if one of them cannot speak, then that one will be represented by someone who can. In no situation except the situation of unwanted pregnancy is the dispute resolved by appointing one of the two disputing parties to be the judge, jury and executioner. To do so goes against a fundamental principle of justice. To do so IS an alien concept that should shock people.
    Any such situation calls for impartial decision-making. The decision-makers should of course not ignore the woman’s bodily autonomy. They should give appropriate weight to the woman’s bodily autonomy (that is, to her psychological sense of body ownership), along with all other factors involving potential harm for either of the two parties.

    Ok, so every woman that wants an abortion has to go before this panel, you suggest. Do you know how many unplanned pregnancies their are in the U.S do you actually think we have the resources for such a bureaucracy to be created, which would need to have a lot of people to staff it and use up a lot of resources each and everyday.

    What is the criteria for permitting an abortion and can that decision be appealed, and or were their be standard exceptions or case by case? You say (impartial people), you would not be able to find anyone impartial on this topic of abortion, most likely the people who would serve on this panel will have strong opinions either way and will NOT be impartial, so that scenario would not lead to a fair decision. Now if a panel adheres to set of standard exceptions or criteria , will their be in investigation to see if the woman is lying about her circumstances or will they take her word for her situation? How long will each panel take to make a decision?

    Who will make up the panel, doctors, pastors, legal experts, who exactly?

    Also if a woman is denied an abortion say at 6 weeks, and if she does a self-abortion, will she be arrested and charged or murder or manslaughter?

  18. I just want to add that I do understand that you feel the fetus/embroyo, zygote is not being represented and that you feel that is unjust. I have to say that I do understand that you feel someone should speak for them. I am not callous, I get it I really do

    The problem is that the fetus/zygote/embroyo’s only case it can make is to NOT to be aborted, which in turn forces the woman to stay pregnant against their will.

    The problem is their is NO other way for a woman to become unpregnant, abortion is the only way, unless one day we have artificial wombs where the embroyo, fetus could be transferred and gestated, which I would be for very MUCH FOR ! so this debate would come to an end.

    • The questions in your 2017/01/05 at 9:06 pm post, about what I would call “life panels,” are all good. Again I will be tied up for a while, but expect to reply within a couple of days. My reply will follow this outline:

      1. The “life panels” approach deserves significant resources. I think there are resources available that are being used for less deserving things, such as Superbowls.

      2. The case-by-case approach of life panels at the neighborhood level would be ideal, but would indeed demand resources. That approach might not strain resources too much after abortions have been reduced, but if it would strain resources at first, it might be necessary at first to take a short-cut approach of employing more generalized guidelines.

      3. The membership composition of a panel would be agreed upon by both a specified umbrella group of pro-life organizations and a specified umbrella group of pro-choice organizations.

      4. We should experiment at first with no penalties for aborting women, or only symbolic penalties, and instead lock up abortionists and those involved in distributing abortion pills; and see how much of the problem still remains.

      What you say about “The problem” is unfortunately true for now. If an embryo, fetus could be transferred to an artificial womb with little hassle for the woman, would you support legally preventing her from killing it?

      “I do understand that you feel the fetus/embroyo, zygote is not being represented and that you feel that is unjust. I have to say that I do understand that you feel someone should speak for them. I am not callous, I get it I really do”

      Do you mean that you have a slight bit of feeling for the fetus/embroyo, zygote, even a zygote, yourself, or do you mean that you have understood how I might have such feeling?

      I also mean to reply at some point about the implications of legal personhood.

  19. I understand how you feel about the embroyo/fetus, I just DON’T to share that sentiment. I still believe the woman’s rights/wishes outweigh.

    Yes I would definitely for artificial wombs, my issue is with forced gestation which at this time their is no alternative but abortion.

    Now those panels that you wish for, sounds good in ideal world, but in the real world it will never happen, and i’am right when I say you will NOT find in impartial panel, this issue is too charged and emotions run high on both sides. Truthfully this would be a waste of resources that could be used for other social ills.

    The other issue is just like 1920′s prohibition, abortions would just go underground and you will have more botched abortions, and more women being harmed by this. read or watch a documentary on prohibition, now imagine that with abortion. I will tell you this, if abortion were illegal and I wanted one, I would find a way to have one done illegally, that is how much I value this freedom, and their are many like me.

  20. i think I’am finished with this discussion, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Though you did give me some things to ponder, I still believe Pro-choice is the better position on bodily autonomy and freedom of choice for all women.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>