A frequently heard mantra among pro choicers is that women have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies, including having an abortion. I have a few questions for people who share this view.
1. At the moment of conception, a new and genetically unique human organism has been formed. What part of the woman's body is this?
2. At about 4 weeks, there is a heart beating inside the womb, and this can be heard through doppler at about 6 weeks. Has the woman developed a second heart?
3. At 5 weeks, the embryo has discernible arms and legs, with feet and hand areas visible and individual digits starting to form. Would we say this woman now has 4 arms, 4 legs, 4 hands, 4 feet, and 40 combined fingers and toes?
4. By weeks 7-9, the fetus has a well-formed face. So do we now have a 2-faced woman?
5. By week 13, ultrasound can predict the sex of the baby at nearly 100% certainty. If it's a girl, is the woman now 2 females? If it's a boy, is the woman a kind of boywoman?
6. By week 16, the fetal heartbeat can be heard through a stethoscope. When the doctor hears the heartbeat, does he ask the woman, “Would you like to hear your newly developed 2nd heart beating?"
7. At 28 weeks, the fetus shows brain wave activity that indicates differing sleep cycles, including REM dreaming. Whose brain are these brain waves found in? If the fetus has a thought or an awareness of something, is the woman using a second brain to think?
8. Throughout the pregnancy, the fetus is absorbing nutrients ingested by the mother through the umbilical cord, allowing the fetus to grow and develop. Are these nutrients feeding and growing a new part of the woman's body? If the woman is ingesting drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes, is there damage being done to this new part of her body?
9. If the fetus develops a birth defect or has a genetic disorder, is it really the woman who has the medical issue? Is it the woman who has the defective heart valve? Has the woman suddenly developed Down's Syndrome?
10. During birth, is the woman ejecting part of her body from herself? As the baby comes out, does it stop being part of the woman's body one part at a time, as the various parts emerge? Is the woman a mother of the parts that have been born, but the parts still inside her are still part of her body? Is it still part of her body when completely out but while the umbilical cord is still attached?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ah, a classic example of someone who really doesn't get it. You're a guy - women's rights (and the rights of an unborn child) aren't really your area of specialism. I'm not going to go through each point and explain why you're wrong - especially 9 which is just plain offensive. Just know that you have a lot to learn about the real world and being a woman.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I dont agree with your anatomy facts. I have been a ultrasonographer for over 20 years and your information is sided with the prolife rhetoric.Second the fetus is part of the womans body both by DNA and genetic code so as to say it is a seperate life seems pretty far fetched it needs the womans uterus to host it which clearly is part of her body to thrive otherwise babies would be developed in petri dishes. Even when it is born living and breathing on its own it is still part of the womans body.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous...could you be more specific? Something more than name-calling would be helpful.
ReplyDeleteSteve - How is #9 offensive? Who am I offending? If you disagree, then explain how. When people refer to problems in the health of a fetus, they refer to the baby's health, not the mother's health. That's my point. Refute it rather than being offended by it.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Steve, you're not a woman either, unless I'm wrong about your name being a man's name. I also don't go for this idea that men have nothing to say about issues that affect women, anymore than I believe that women can't give their thoughts about things that primarily affect men.
ReplyDeleteWendie - Perhaps I'm off on the timing, but I know that ultrasound can tell the sex of a fetus at some point fairly close to 13 weeks. Even if I'm off, the point I made stands, even if it's at 14 or 15 weeks. Also, what do you mean that the fetus is part of the woman's body by DNA? The baby has DNA from the mom and dad, and is a unique individual genetically. And your last sentence is pretty hard for me to comprehend - are you saying that the baby is still a part of the mother's body even after it is born? Are you still part of your mother's body? I'm genuinely confused (literally) by what you meant in your last sentence.
ReplyDeleteYour list misses the point of the mantra. Because the fetus lives inside the woman's body, it is her choice to:
ReplyDeleteDecide to have sex or not have sex
Decide to use contraception or not use contraception
If she gets pregnant:
Decide to keep the pregnancy or end the pregnancy
If she decides to keep the pregnancy:
Decide to adopt the child out, or raise the child.
I think you and a lot of other men out there, might have more sympathy for the "my body, my choice" mindset if something was growing in your penis, and women told you, that no matter what you must let it continue to grow until it is born, and that there is no other way.
Just food for thought.
ok i am a female and i think this is awesome! especially #10. you make some interesting points. i cant wait to reas the rest.
ReplyDeleteI am a woman and I don't understand why people get so upset when men speak out on this subject! Maybe men don't carry the child, but they have a part in creating the baby, so why shouldn't they speak out? I don't understand why people refuse to acknowledge that a precious baby is developing. It's not just "Something" growing inside a woman's body. It's a living human being!
ReplyDeleteKate, I agree with you. I've seen this argument used a good deal lately and it saddens me. What about the dads?
DeleteSome dads insist that if their girlfriend or wife were pregnant, it would be completely her choice whether to carry the baby to term or to abort. How tragic for a dad, if he wanted to have that child, that he would have to grieve it instead. Or more likely, he would just never know there was a pregnancy in the first place. To me this is, if not technically criminal, seriously bad treatment.
Dave I appreciate this line of questions. To me it could have been shorter. But it reminds me of the diyanu.
I find it funny, that the same people who rail on us prochoicers for telling men it's none of their business, rail on men who say it's none of their business what their gf/wife/daughter does with her body. Hypocrisy much?
ReplyDeleteFYI, I'm not against men making statements about this issue. I am however against a group of men trying to impose their views on all women.
Mr Jesmer. Now that some time has passed and I have been able to process your point of view I have to wonder if you consider a woman as a uterus or a whole person. For over 20 years I have witnessed the emotional,physical and financial burdens of many women who have been faced with the decision to end her pregnancy and I can tell you they don't do it without thought,sadness and greif. They don't do because it's fun or to take care of a mistake.I have been there when the 11 year old child ( yes child ) is pregnant by her church's pastor. The 24 year old mom with 4 children already and no support. the 30 year old women who desperately wants to parent but found out her fetus has a lethal anomaly.So many sad stories but no one has ever said my body my right its much more complex then that. The only ignorant reason I have heard is from a protestor that her termination was different it was a exception. Yes even the so called prolife women terminate their pregnancies. If abortion was not legal whats the solution to care for all the unwanted pregnancies? With 3 million cildren world wide on the adoption roles that's not the answer. Social services are being cut so no help. Not everyone has the same moral compass or regilious theory. That does not make them bad just different. So I ask again what's the solution to provide for all of the unwanted children born to mothers not equiped to care for them.
ReplyDeleteIf this miniature human being really is a person all its own then why not just take it out of the woman hosting it and let it live on its own with someone who IS willing to care for it? Oh that's right, because it needs the WOMAN to survive! No woman, no miniature human being. When else in the human world does it occur that one particular human being is FORCED to support the life of another human being? NEVER! It is a basic right for ALL people to have domain over their own bodies, this includes the fetus as well but sadly they cant survive outside the woman till after 22 weeks, and usually much later than that
ReplyDeleteTHAT FACT DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO STRIP THE WOMAN OF HER BASIC RIGHTS TO HER BODY!
The fact that the fetus needs the woman to survive would seem to be an argument against abortion, not for it...a 3 month old baby needs its parents to survive...does this argue for the right to end that baby's life? I do not understand the argument that the fact that the fetus depends on the mother for its life provides a justification for ending that life.
ReplyDeleteA 3 month old needs SOMEONE to support it, not necessarily the mother...and outside the woman's body its not affecting HER health. BIG prolife fail. Do you support forced organ donations? When else is a person FORCED to give of THEIR body to keep another human alive
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that a 3 month old baby does not need the mother specifically to care for him/her...but in nearly all cases, it is the child's parents who care for him/her, and failure to do so would be viewed as neglect...the parents can't plead to the court that the government can't force them, specifically, to care for the child...in fact, that is exactly what we expect the parents to do, to take care of their child.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your question about when else is a person forced to give their body to keep another human alive, in the most literal sense, you are correct, there are no (or few) other cases...but that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate demand...it is illogical to conclude that just because a situation is unique, it is therefore not subject to societal and moral laws...but in a more practical sense, a child is completely dependent on a specific person or people, namely his/her parents, to keep them alive, and often in ways that profoundly affect the physical, emotional, mental, and financial health of the parents.
In fact, they can, by putting the child up for adoption...that is the alternative to PARENTING. Unless you support all people being forced to give up an organ to someone who would die without it you have no moral or legal grounds to stand on since it would be hypocritical. If you wouldn't demand that of anyone other than a pregnant woman you are morally in the wrong since you would ONLY be infringing upon HER rights
ReplyDeleteActually people can plead for the government to take care of their child, it's called putting it up for adoption.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but you can't kill your child.
DeleteYou can, however, exercise your right over your own body and refuse to host another human. Just as YOU have the right to say no if someone requests you donate them an organ. Killing the fetus is not the intent, the intent is to remove it from the already born human being.
DeleteI'm curious, do you support affordable healthcare for all and welfare?
I am for affordable healthcare for all, but I do not believe that government solutions such as Obamacare or single payer makes healthcare more affordable or better...I believe that the welfare reforms worked out by Congress under Gingrich and President Clinton are a good policy.
DeleteBy the way, Ange#39, I'm curious if I know you from outside this conversation...if you want to keep your anonymity, I respect that too.
DeleteThis is my name on Facebook. I also go by Angie Abunga. I started out pro-life and still am in my mind but not by typical definitions. I recognize the need to keep it legal and believe in working towards taking away the NEED for abortion. I've spoken to too many "pro-lifers" who stop at supporting life after the refuse is born and they frustrate me because that's counterproductive to their cause. Being truly pro-life takes a whole lot more than trying to take away the right to abortion
DeleteI agree with Obamacare but that's because it's an improvement to what we've got now. If and when something better comes along I'll support that too...
And I don't know why my name shoes up like this on here but its Angelee Jean
DeleteMr Jesmer I am still waiting for your preceived solutions to my question on july 7th
ReplyDeleteWendie - Sorry, things have been busy...I agree with almost everything you said as far as the heartbreaking, unbelievably difficult situations many women find themselves in that often result in them having abortions...without a lot of time right now to give a very involved answer, the bottom line for me is this - if the life inside the woman's womb is a human being, that has to take precedence over any other consideration...in other words, no matter how tough life is, if an already born baby's death would make the situation easier, we don't even think twice in saying that, of course, the child must live...I think it is easier to deny the humanity of an unborn child, since it is out of sight and not fully developed, but that is why I approached my original blog the way I did, by demonstrating (however successfully) the variety of ways in which the unborn baby is manifestly human...I am not pretending that it's not immensely difficult, in some circumstances, for a mother to care for a new child...rather, I am saying that human life is so precious, that ending even nascent (not fully developed) human life is a moral wrong that should be avoided at almost any cost.
ReplyDeleteUnless you support all people being forced to give up an organ to someone who would die without it you have no moral or legal grounds to stand on since it would be hypocritical. If you wouldn't demand that of anyone other than a pregnant woman you are morally in the wrong since you would ONLY be infringing upon HER rights. THAT is the bottom line and why abortion rights are necessary
ReplyDelete