Most abortions (and the ones this guy performed) are illegal in India, so how exactly does this show that "abortion is a shady business"?

You realize you have the answer to your question in your question, right?

Is pub-owning a shady business because alcohol is forbidden in Saudi-Arabia and bars that serve alcohol there will be (by definition) shady?

Look at the nature of the illegal things being done.

Illegal abortion sure is a shady business, but then the 'illegal' part of that would tend to imply the shadiness.

I *wonder* why it's illegal. Hmmm....

The notion that the GOP thinks most women are sluts is ridiculous.

And trying to rebrand women as "sluts" is even dumber.

It's like "slut walk" or "slut shaming". It's all about trying to conflate slutty behaviour with normal behaviour and sluts with normal women.

My point still stands. Calling average women "sluts" is dumb.

I use Tumblr, Twitter, Prolifebook and Google +. Though I think I'm going to keep my facebook.

You realize that by saying that I'm judgemental, you're being judgemental?

And do you realize you're making this about me, not the subject under discussion?

you know, *supposed* to have some investment in the whole "Judge not lest ye be judged" credo,

"Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged." The real meaning of that verse.
http://www.bigbluewave.ca/2009/04/judge-not-lest-...

If you argue that it won't, you're only arguing that fetuses have equal human rights, but please only in theory, that you don't want those rights to actually be protected.

What equal right am I not looking to protect?

You make a habit of accusing pro-choicers of not owning up to what they're fighting for (The right of a woman to kill a human being). Well, here's your chance to own up to what you're fighting for.

That's true for any crime. So what? We don't have to enable them.

The abortion rate does not drop when abortion is illegal. (In fact, see recent studies by the World Health Organization confirming that in areas in which abortion is illegal, abortion rates are in fact higher. So, of course, are maternal death rates.)

Except that nobody has studied the effects of enforcement on those rates. Find me a country that enforces its abortion laws stringently, and we'll talk. When North America criminalizes abortion, the pro-life movement is going to make sure those laws are applied. Whereas in most countries in the world, there's no real pro-life movement to speak of.

So, of course, are maternal death rates.)

Maternal rates are low in Chile, Ireland and Poland where abortions are illegal.

The reason why maternal mortality rates are high where abortion is illegal is that there does not exist a proper health care system to assist in births.

. Long before abortion as we know it now was around, self-induced miscarriages were commonplace.

This is a myth. I refer you to Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History by Joseph Dellapenna.. Abortion was fairly rare. If such abortion was so common and abortions effective (which they were not) then why all this fuss? The truth is, they were not rare, and many women who attempted abortion either did not succeed in aborting the pregnancy or died from the effects.

In fact, studies show that plenty of anti-choice people -- even anti-choice activists -- *also* get abortions when they do not want to be pregnant; the difference is that they think their circumstances are exceptional, so they are "allowed" to have an abortion. Subtext: all the other women who get abortions are wanton sluts who terminate pregnancies every other month.

I'm sure there are hypocrites in any movement. So what? The truth is fetuses are human beings and their lives should be respected.

REALITY TELLS US that abortion happens, and will continue to happen. It also tells us that without access to legal, safe abortion, women who do not want to be pregnant WILL access unsafe care.

It is their personal responsibility to save their own lives. It is their personal responsibility to not engage in criminal activity. It is their personal responsibility to protect their unborn children. If they die from an abortion, it's nobody's fault but their own. Nobody has to enable their irresponsible behaviour.

Criminalizing abortion is a condemnation of desperate women to death

Desperation does not absolve you from personal responsibility. If you're desperately poor, that doesn't give you the right to commit infanticide, for instances. Desperation is no excuse to deny the rights of children to their parents' care.

It is a way to kill women.

Criminalization does not kill women. Where are the millions of women dying in Ireland, Poland and Chile? Answer: they don't exist.

And it is a condemnation authored by those who call themselves pro-life.


No, it's transfering the responsibility of the woman for her own actions to the law and ultimately to pro-lifers.

Pro-lifers' message is : hey DON'T HAVE THAT ABORTION! IT WILL KILL YOU!

We can't help it if people will not take responsibility for their own lives and that of their children.

Upon further reading, I've edited the text.

My reading was influenced by a previous discussion in which a pro-abort that fetuses WOULD own women.

Every woman would be criminally liable for the outcome of her pregnancy

No. They weren't when abortion was illegal pre-1968. They're not in the Us. You're not responsible for the death of your child

You don't say "I'm not going to give rights to human beings because I don't like the consequences."

That's discrimination.

You acknowledge the humanity of the human beings in question. You acknowledge their rights. Then you work out how the rights of all can be respected, while not absolving people of responsibility.

White supremaciststs could have easily argued that blacks should not be freed otherwise the white majority would be forced to accommodate blacks someday.

Should that have been an argument on their part?

No.

Why?

Because blacks are human beings. They have rights. Period.

You don't deny rights just because the consequences are socially undesirable.

Women who abort their fetuses, women who try to kill themselves, women who intentionally do something that results in harm to the fetus would have to be prosecuted for GBH and murder. Women who unintentionally do something that results in a miscarriage would have to be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter.

Well, was that the case before abortion was legalized? No. Were women prosecuted for miscarriage? No.

If you believe in the equality of all human beings, then you acknowledge the rights of all human beings, and the responsibility of parents toward their children.

Otherwise, it's discrimination.

You make a habit of accusing pro-choicers of not owning up to what they're fighting for (The right of a woman to kill a human being). Well, here's your chance to own up to what you're fighting for.

I am not fighting for women to be jailed for smoking a cigarette. I am fighting for the acknowledge of the humanity of the unborn child, so that human beings do not have to die in the name of someone else's power.

Women who are unfairly charged have lawyers and other advocates on their behalf.

Fetuses who are destined to be abortion have no such advocates. The only thing protecting them is the law.

There are 100 000 dead human beings as a result of abortion in Canada. Even if there were 100 000 women charged every year (which we both know will not happen) that would be a lesser evil, and I strongly suspect that a legal framework would be established so that no such thing happens.

A dead human being is a worse evil than a woman charged with a frivolous crime.

Arthur contends that the anti-choicers want to subordinate PREGNANT women to their childbearing function (i.e., force them to continue being a vessel for the fetus regardless of their own priorities, and in denial of their liberty as humans to decide their priorities).

No, she means that pro-lifers want to reduce women to their childbearing role in general, not just pregnancy.

First of all, there is no metaphor here.

So the fetus would literally own a woman?

the fetuses would be granted legal protection as human beings, and women's legal protection as human beings would no longer apply.

The only legal protection that would not longer apply is that women would not be allowed to kill their own unborn children, they would have the legal responsibility to take care of them.

Sorry, but the notion that "women's legal protections as human beings would no longer apply" is overblown rhetoric.

We are asking only that you refrain from imposing yours on us.

Fetuses are human beings. I wish poor-choicers would stop imposing *their* reality on them.

Very simply, fetuses are human beings who deserve not to be killed.

Do you mean feticide? I think that's what you mean.

It's pretty difficult to survive an injection of potassium chloride to the heart.