Skip to main content

I've come to notice that some arguments that are thrown around by "Pro-Lifers" are actually completely irrelevant, and therefore unnecessary arguments, of their stance.

Fetal Pain

The debate and even the concept of fetal pain is completely irrelevant to the Pro-Life stance. It doesn't matter if the fetus can or can not feel pain. If fetuses were anesthetized prior to an abortion, Lifers would still be upset because the abortion was happening in the first place. It doesn't matter if the fetus can feel pain or not; their main issue is with abortion, not fetal pain. Fetal pain is irrelevant. Even if we could prove that fetuses never ever feel pain, that wouldn't stop them from attempting to achieve their goal. They use fetal pain despite its irrelevance to their actual stance to ban abortion (their main goal) after a certain number of weeks. They make it appear relevant to their stance, when it isn't.

Late-Term Abortions

Again, this is also used as a way to gather sympathy for the fetus, just as the fetal pain argument does. But it is still irrelevant to the Pro-Life stance. If abortion were illegal after, say, 12 weeks, Lifers still wouldn't be satisfied. Nope. Their goal is to ban all abortions at all stages. The development of the fetus and the age of its gestation at the time of abortion is completely irrelevant to their stance.

It has eyes and fingers and toes and can suck its thumb

As mentioned in the previous bit, development of the fetus doesn't matter. That the fetus has arms or legs or a brain or any organ doesn't matter. If the fetus had no brain, they'd still want a woman to birth it than abort it. I don't know what kind of defect the fetus would have to have that Lifers would actually support abortion for. It'd have to be pretty damn serious with a -5 percent survival rate. I don't know.

The "Pro-Life" goal is to ban all abortions regardless of stage of development, regardless of capacity to feel pain, regardless of organ function or lack thereof, regardless of the woman's health, regardless of anything that the woman might have to do, regardless of what she thinks or feels, unless the woman's physical life is in immediate jeopardy and both fetus and woman cannot be saved. Period. Everything else, fetal pain, development, etc. is irrelevant to their stance.

Or at least that is what I've noticed.

Just ranting. What have you noticed?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good job, Roni. One thing I just happened (9+ / 0-)

    to notice was this gem on twitter:

    Kelly ‏@CamelotK
    This whole contraception thing is NOT about abortion, it's CRAZY. I SWEAR they are trying to force up the birthrate of whites. #GOPinsanity
    Kelly may have a point there. What if it turns they don't h8 women after all, they're just skairt of not having enough white babies to go around ....

    Nah. They hate woman, and they're prolly trying to force the white baby births.

    •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight, quill
      Nah. They hate woman, and they're prolly trying to force the white baby births.
      The whole "be fruitful and multiply" schtick is all about breeding boatloads of cannon fodder and serfs, always has been, ab initio, in every culture that heads in that direction. The more the culture heads down that road, the more we hear about "kinder, kuchen und kirchen".

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:34:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nicely done. Forced birthers love being called (6+ / 0-)

    pro-life; they ain't and I won't give 'em the satisfaction.

    Good read (pssst, there's a typo in the title)   ;)

    Occupy- Your Mind. - No better friend, no worse enemy. -8.75, -6.21<> Bring the Troops Home Yesterday

    by Thousandwatts on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:21:05 PM PDT

  •  You're giving them too much respect (6+ / 0-)

    They aren't pro-life.  They're anti-choice, as you observe in the last paragraph. Otherwise, absolutely correct.

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:13:46 PM PDT

  •  This Is What I Noticed Roni (0+ / 0-)

    I have a penis and not a uterus. I tend to differ to women on issues related to their bodies.

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:43:32 PM PDT

  •  They offer no post natal support whatsoever (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Pre-natal: "Have the kid, have the kid, have the kid..."

    Post-natal: "Tough luck, you're on your own"

  •  Simple proposition. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, nextstep

    They believe that a fetus is a human life, separate from the life of the woman.  

    You don't. You believe there is only one human life involved - the woman.

    That's the difference.  

    IF -- big if -- a fetus is a separate human life, then there is not one person involved -- there are two.  Then it is logical to argue that one human being (the woman) does not have the unilateral right to deliberately end the life of another human being (the fetus).

    If a fetus is not a human life, then it's nobody's business but the person whose body is affected.  Then it is logical to argue that nobody gets to weigh in but the woman and her doctor, because there's only one person involved -- the woman -- not two.

    It all goes back to how you define human life.  And that's why  it is almost impossible for the two sides to reach consensus on this issue.  Because defining when a human life begins is a moral/philosophical/religious issue, not a scientific issue.  

    •  Recced for civility as this topic seldom (0+ / 0-)

      Includes this factor.

      Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

      by Smoh on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:20:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ensoulment (0+ / 0-)

      It really comes down to the question of ensoulment.  At what point does the fetus become a living person with a soul?  As you observe, this is a moral and a religious issue and not a scientific one.

      The reason they don't use that word is because they want to obscure this distinction.  Saying "Life begins at conception" sounds like something a scientist could determine with a microscope.

      "Fetal Pain" and "Ooo!  Look!  He's sucking his little fingers!" are emotional appeals to emphasize the similarities between the fetus and a "post-born" -- (gah, that phrase sounds bad; need to find a better expression).  So from the anti-abortion point of view, they are not irrelevant.

      But really the core of the argument is "Is this a person?  Does it have a soul?  While I can understand the point of view that we should give the unborn the benefit of the doubt on this, I don't think the concept of ensoulment is a good basis for law.

      "All the World's a Stage and Everyone's a Critic." -- Mervyn Alquist

      by quarkstomper on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:11:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it's not only a religious question (0+ / 0-)

        as you framed it -- "ensoulment."  That's a religious concept (and certainly the basis of the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion.)

        But in addition to a religious issue, it's also a moral/philosophical issue.  Even if you put religion aside, it's also based on what you believe makes us human -- different from other forms of life.  For example, is our unique DNA?  That would argue for recognition of human life at conception.  Is it our brains?  Then does human life begin with brain activity (about 6 weeks into a pregnancy)? and end when brain activity ends?  Is it autonomy -- ability to survive physically without relying on the woman?  then does human life begin at viability (sort of the underlying premise of Roe v. Wade)?  and does it end when someone's body is incapable of surviving on its own -- like it needs assistance to have the heart beat or the lungs breathe?  In the Middle Ages, it was generally considered "quickening" -- when fetal movement could be felt. That was the milestone when the fact of the pregnancy was generally recognized.

        These are not questions that are easily answered, nor easily dismissed, I think.  

    •  But if they are two human beings... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...does one have the right to grant consent or withdraw consent from the other one occupying her body?  

      •  Difficult question, of course (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bill W

        Since the "host" usually created the situation where another "human being" relies on the host.  Again, it's a moral/philosophical/religious question, which means there's no "correct" answer.  You can argue that, even if the "host" (the woman) voluntarily and/or intentionally created the situation, the woman can withdraw consent at any time, even if consent means the death of another "human being."  Or, you can argue that, having created the situation, the woman cannot with draw consent because of the dire consequences of that -- i.e., the death of another human being -- and that, once the situation is created, the life of one human being takes precedence over the temporary issue for the woman.  That's also an argument for allowing abortion to save the life of the woman.

        Again, I can see the arguments on both sides, depending on how your moral/philosophical/religious beliefs about the fetus.  If you believe that "withdrawing consent" is just a euphemism for killing another human being, you are less likely to argue that, if a woman originally "consents" (causes the situation) she cannot "withdraw consent" if that means the death of another human being.  

        Look at it another way.  We impose moral/philosophical/religious AND legal obligation on the woman after the child is born.  After a woman gives birth, she cannot "withdraw consent" for her obligation to support the life of the child.  She cannot simply put it aside somewhere, not provide food, clothing, etc.  She has, at the very least, an obligation (in all senses of the word) to get the child to a situation where it will be cared for (see the various child abandonment laws).  If you believe that a fetus is a human life, you are thus extending the woman's obligation to that human being back before birth, rather than beginning at birth.  

        The problem with this issue is that everything revolves around that initial moral/philosophical/religious question.  

    •  It is not wise (0+ / 0-)

      I suppose, to assume what I believe without actually asking me yourself. You'd be surprised about my beliefs, perhaps.

      It is possible to define life beginning at the moment of conception and still be Pro-Choice

      But I am not Pro-Choice anymore. And I'm not Pro-Life either. I am "on the fence" shall we say, and it's not because I'm undecided. :)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site