The reality of sex

The reality is this: the sperm itself enters the ovum (no one place it there). The fertilized ovum (also called an embryo at this point) moves down the fallopian tube and into the woman's uterus. No one forces it into the uterus. The fertilized ovum implants itself, actively, to the wall of the uterus. No one attaches it to the wall. It does this all on its own. In fact, it releases a hormone that tricks the woman's immune system into thinking it is not foreign so that the immune system won't kick it out (and often times, it fails....which results in a miscarriage early on). A woman does not have control over the blind mechanics of her uterus and therefore cannot consent to this usage, condition, health alteration, medical risk and harm. Unless she was trying to get pregnant, of course.

Self-defense

The law dictates that when two rights are competing, the one who creates the first violation forfeits his/her rights to a certain extent. This is why a woman being hit by her husband can hit her husband back and while her actions are legal, his are not. Her right to self-defense outweighs his right not to be hit as long as he created the first violation. You see, a person gives up their right to not be harmed the second they harm another person, intentionally or non-intentionally. In other words, a person's right to their body doesn't mean that they can't legally be harmed if that harm is a result of self-defense. Whether or not the user is aware of his/her actions or can aide in their own defense is irrelevant to whether or not a person has a right to stop the use of their body by that person. This is a fundamental tenet to self-defense laws. All that mattes is that the use of the body is NOT consented to and that explicit non-consent is present. When in a position that you must use self-defense, the least amount of force necessary to stop the unwanted use of your body must be used. Each situation is probably a little different. In the case of pregnancy, that would be the simply removal of the fetus. The fact that the fetus cannot survive the separation has no bearing on the woman's right to that separation because there is no other method that will have a different result.

Murder

“Murder” is a legal term, and if you wish to use the word “murder” in its literal context, you need to adhere to its legal definition. There is, of course, the colloquial use of “murder”, as in “meat is murder”, “this traffic is murder”, or “the Broncos got murdered during the Super Bowl”. But this is not the context people are speaking in when they refer to abortion being “murder”. And, in the legal context, “murder” is the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought. Abortion is not unlawful. Abortion does not kill something legally or philosophically recognized as a person. And abortion does not, except in rare cases I suppose, involve malice. So, abortion does not fit the definition of “murder” any more than it fits the definition of “jaywalking.”

Do women have the right to have an abortion?

Everyone should have a right to control what uses their body, why it uses their body, how long it uses their body, as well as determine how much medical risk and harm they are willing to take as a result of that usage. A woman should not be treated differently just because the one doing the using is less than 0 minutes born. Why a woman wants to end a pregnancy, ie. end the usage of her body, should always be irrelevant, just like it is irrelevant in every other similar legal scenario.

There is a difference between the kind of dependence the fetus has on the mother (using her body, her organs, her life basically) , and the kind of social dependence a born infant has, that any other individual could feasibly care for it. At that point, the mother could wash her hands and put it up for adoption and be done with it if she should so choose. Once born, it's no longer an issue. The infant is socially dependent, not biologically dependent upon the mother alone. She can relinquish her responsibilites and rights (provided she fulfills her social-contract derived duty to ensure it can be cared for by another) and move on. So long as the actions you take are to defend your body, your life, your autonomy, or your mind, it is not an immoral action. A man raping a woman is immoral; he is taking away her right to choose for herself what to do with her body. Forcing a woman to gestate is accomplishing that same thing..you are taking away her right to choose for herself what to do with her body.

The theory of natural rights that was utilized by our forefathers requires that we own our bodies. It is because we own our bodies, that we have these rights. Once you take away that ownership of your own body, then the basis of natural rights disappears. A fetus cannot have any body of its own. It can "claim" the body at birth, once it becomes an independent biological entity, using its own whole metabolism and its own homeostasis to regulate its own body. Then, it can claim natural rights.

Consent

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, just as initial consent is not the same thing as continued consent. If two people begin having sex but during the act one asks the other to stop, and that other forces them to keep going, that's considered rape. It is important to remember that continued the initial consent of ones body being used for what ever reason does not guarantee the continued consent of her body being used. Just because sex has the possible consequence of pregnancy, that does not mean that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. This is the very point that many pro-lifers continue to attempt to make, but can not. One might personally feel that it does, and would act accordingly in their personal life but this is not a true logical rule that all others must follow.

The woman gives consent to the man to use her body, for the purpose of sex; not for any other purpose (unless that was her intent, of course). Now, the sperm is put into the body by the male via consent (hopefully) of the woman. Conception is the result of a natural process, and the combined spermeggcell moves into the uterus, where if conditions are idea it'll implant and will be the official beginning of a pregnancy. The basic biology lesson was just to emphasize how the fetus winds up there not directly placed by the woman, but by the blind mechanisms of the body. The intent is sex, and the consent is for that; anything beyond that point, is blind mechanics, which is not performed by any conscious intent of the woman. She doesn't have control over the mechanical process of pregnancy, and thus can not give consent to it. If it can occur without her consent, then she has the right to her bodily integrity, and to revert back to her state of normalcy: not being pregnant.

One situation pro-lifers bring up, is drinking and driving. So I shall address that issue. There's a difference between drinking one or two, or drinking a lot (possibly with intent to get drunk). If the person drinks in the latter manner, then their intent is certainly to get drunk. Consent to drinking is not consent to driving, and that would be reckless endangerment of other people. We do not punish people for being drunk if their actions do not endanger other people's lives or property.

There are differences between a cause having a one-time effect (ex: failing a test), a temporarily-irreversible physical effect (ex: drunkenness), and the permanent consequence of pregnancy. Weight gain is a potential consequence of food, but one is not obligated to remain fat. A low grade is a potential consequence of failing to study, but one is not obligated to live with low grades. As for drinking..well, that was the intent. In none of these situations is there an obligation to remain with those consequences if it is possible to avoid. One can acknowledge the risk, but not consent to the state of it. Just like you know you risk a cold if you go outside in the rain, but then if you get a cold do you take medicine or do you let it worsen? By that logic, people who get into car accidents wouldn't receive treatment because they knew the risks when they got into the car. Or people with unhealthy eating habits should be denied heart bypass surgery if they have health problems because they knew the risks when they kept eating red meat.

Consent to an act means acknowledging the possible consequences. Should pregnancy follow, you 'accept that' by not ignoring it, but by acknowledging that now any course of action you take must pertain to the causal framework of being pregnant. This opens the doors to any other possible path of causality. You could abort; you could carry it; you could adopt it out, or raise it. There is nothing inherent in the nature of causality that obligates any individual to adhere to one specific mode of action. Period. Anyone that insists otherwise is claiming so arbitrarily.

A rant about rape

A slut is simply defined as a sexually promiscuous person - not someone who deserves to be raped. To imply that being treated “like a slut” is synonymous with getting raped (and then to further imply that it’s not proper rape since they were kind of asking for it) is ridiculous. Little girls get raped by their step-fathers/fathers/brothers as well. Were THEY dressing in thongs or getting wasted? No. A rape victim is a rape victim, and that other people are no more deserving of forced sex than she is. It can happen to anyone, regardless of moral standards. If seeing an enticing woman led men to conclude, “I’ve got to rape her,” most men would be rapists. Yet few are. Some rape to feel powerful, others gang rape to demonstrate their “manhood” (powerful, dominant, violent, virile, and not gay) to each other and fraternally bond, some become aroused by sadistically bringing sex and violence together, others seek to harm an entire race, community or nation by using sexual assault as a political weapon, still others seek revenge against someone other than the rape victim. And some misread cues. The number of assaults will not go down if women made sure to cover up.

Ignorance

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or understanding of an idea, situation topic, etc. Just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn't necessarily make them ignorant. For all you know, that person could be equally as or more educated on that topic than you. Telling someone they're ignorant isn't going to make them see your side or change their mind, either. I don't understand how people throw that word around as if it's an insult, when it is actually, by definition, an unavoidable human condition. I would go out on a limb and say that roughly 90% of the decisions people make throughout the day are based off of generalizations, or predetermined opinions, based on previous experiences, or hear-tell. Think about it. How does one choose to go to work? You make a decision based on generalizations. How do you choose where to eat? You make a decision based on a generalization. The list goes on. Now when it comes to generalizing people or groups of people, this poses a problem. Generalizations about groups of people only creates barriers and breeds more ignorance. Please don't generalize people for holding certain beliefs.

On a side note: It turns my stomach to think that there are parents that tell their kids that they have souls that will live eternally in heaven, but that their gay family friends are abusing their children just by existing and thank god they are not like that, and a good thing they're going to heaven. I'll be teaching my kids to think critically and to ask difficult questions and come to answers through reason, instead of being satisfied with answers they've been told but that can't be coherently explained to anyone outside of their worldview. I think they'll turn out just fine.

A perspective on pro-life abortion photos

I recently stumbled upon a photo posted on a pro-life facebook page which said, "if abortion is so morally correct, why do photos of it make "pro-choicer's" so angry?"

Well, here's what I think of it. Photos don't make me angry at all. It is bothersome that many pro-life individuals resort to intimidation, scare tactics and misleading information in order to try to sway someone's view of the topic, instead of using logic. Using propaganda to pass off the very limited number of late term abortions as representative of all abortions is one thing I commonly see. The vast majority of abortions occur in first trimester at a time when the embryo/fetus is tiny and has very little brain development. Sadly, we do not live in a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every unwanted pregnancy is the result of irresponsible sex (or even consent, for that matter), and certainly not where every woman has access to all the resources required so that motherhood is not an immense burden. Making abortion illegal doesn't stop it from happening, and we have plenty of research from countries that have done so (and our own country’s past) that show that the rates remain relatively stable regardless of legality. There is no country where abortion is illegal and its rates are low. The plain fact of the matter is this: everybody has seen the pictures. We have all driven by a rally, or a billboard, or clicked on a pro-life website. It’s not that people are ignorant of the realities of abortion; it’s that they hold no efficacy. If showing people pictures of aborted fetuses worked, we wouldn't have any more abortions in our global society. But we do. Instead of posting pictures, take steps that actually help

The Holocaust

The Holocaust is unique in its horror, and to compare anything to it is to diminish the actual atrocities the victims endured. There is no greater insult to those victims, especially when it comes from a generation so far removed from Nazi Germany. Some people can’t fathom the significance of the insult they so cheerfully throw around. Those who died in the Holocaust were fully human and independent persons who were conscious of themselves, others, and their surroundings. With abortion, the life that dies is an embryo or fetus, on the road to becoming a person but not there yet, not able to feel pain, not aware of its surroundings, and not able to think. Further the fetus and embryo are physically linked to the woman whereas those who were murdered during the Holocaust were independent in this regards. The U.S. government also does not mandate that women have abortions, as the Third Reich ordered the extermination of Jews and other classes of people. The systematic slaughter of an entire race of people connected by characteristics, community and culture is actually 180 degrees the opposite of randomly unconnected women choosing to exercise their legal right to terminate a pregnancy that they neither want nor can emotionally or financially support. These are significant differences. Significant enough that I do not see how one can rationally compare the Holocaust to abortion. Genocide is not a one-size fits all term. Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a people, and the Holocaust was a transgression against humanity which has never been equaled. Nothing in America can be compared to the Holocaust; not taxes, not the president’s bills and not abortions.

6 Ways we can reduce the number of abortions

What we know from plentiful studies and countless horrific tales is that women who don’t want to be pregnant will do anything to not be- they will throw themselves down stairs, have people beat their stomachs, drink bleach and other caustic substances, stick coat-hangers and pencils into their cervices, commit suicide.

The funny thing is, we know how to reduce the number of abortions!

How can we do this? Allow me to explain.

1) It requires de-stigmatizing single motherhood, because if you know you will be constantly vilified, called a welfare queen, blamed for all of society’s ills, and condemned to raising children who will be worse off than those with two-parent homes, why would you want to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term?  It requires not excusing men from fatherhood by eliminating the burden of disproportional responsibility for childcare and challenging the stereotype that men are naturally poor at it (because every burden placed on being a mother is one less reason to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term.)

2) It requires assuring women and enshrining in law that their health and life is not less important than that of their fetus, because women who want children but may face life-threatening complications with their pregnancies will terminate if doctors are going to let them die (or will terminate if they know they will be vilified and shunned for choosing a life-saving abortion rather than sacrificing themselves.)

3) It requires addressing the vast and endemic poverty in our nation, because pregnancy, birth, and child-rearing are so expensive that even women who want children are often hesitant to carry a pregnancy to term when they are not financially stable, if not well-off (in 2004, 73% of women who aborted said they did so because “I can’t afford a baby right now”). This requires lobbying for better, cheaper, and more expansive health care, universal coverage, and access to cheap or free prenatal care.  It can mean the promotion of home birthing (given that the average cost of giving birth in a hospital without insurance is about $8,000). It requires supporting a vast array of legislative and non-governmental aid measures that help poor mothers and families clothe, feed, house, and educate their children so that she can be confident that carrying to term will not negatively affect her life or that of her other children.  It requires vast funding, resources, and support structures for the disabled- because a fetus with disabilities is one many women know they cannot give an adequate future. And beyond poverty, it requires ensuring our collective fate- because women with unwanted pregnancies worried about war, global warming, etc. are those most likely to ask themselves “Is it right to bring a child into a world so full of violence and pain?”  It also requires acknowledging that it is wrong to force or manipulate women into giving up their children for adoption (given the excess of children to open homes and the psychological toll of adoption compared to the opposite in abortion), but still working to make the process easier (90% of potential parents who express interest in adopting children from foster care do not wind up doing so because of frustrations within the system) and de-stigmatizing giving your child up for adoption (more than a third of women who aborted in this study volunteered that adoption was “a morally unconscionable because giving one’s child away is wrong”.)

4) It requires re-shaping society so that women need not choose between children and the various forms of fulfillment currently offered to the child-free (namely, but not solely, career).  And that requires having a child be manageable by demanding paid maternal (and paternal) leave, flexible work schedules, and affordable or free childcare.  If a woman has to fear that she will lose her job (or not get hired in the first place) as a result of having children, then she has a strong incentive to terminate any unplanned pregnancy that threatens her livelihood and creative fulfillment in her profession. 74% of women who aborted in 2004 reported that one of their reasons was because it would dramatically change their lives, including interfering with their education or jobs.

5) It requires fighting and overturning legislation that makes early abortion harder to obtain. Considering that 58% of women seeking abortion (and 91% of those seeking it in their second trimester) report that they would have preferred to have their procedure earlier, the vast number of laws that make doing so more difficult are nonsensical.  Part of turning the images from graphic rally signs into the petri dish is to stop tactics that delay abortion (like mandatory waiting periods,unnecessary clinic visits, etc.) and to ensure access through more providers (88% of counties do not have one, meaning that burdensome travel is required) and unique solutions like telemedicine.

6) It requires mandating and providing quality, comprehensive sex education that teaches how pregnancy happens, and all the various and diverse ways of how to avert it (i.e. not just condoms). It requires abolishing abstinence-only education, because not only does it have a failure rate between 26% and 86%, but it has been proven to make students less likely to use birth control when they have sex. It requires getting rid of the stigma that surrounds sex (especially very stigmatized sex like that between teenagers, pre-marital or non-marital couples, casual sex, etc.), because such stigma forces people to not use or readily have available birth control (lest someone see the condom in their wallet or the pills in her drawer and find out their “shameful secret” of having sex; society is far more forgiving of those who say “I was trying to wait and abstain, but I just got swept away and it happened.” than those who say “Yes, I am having sex and I’m not sorry about it, and I am taking precautions to protect myself.”). It requires encouraging everybody- teens and adults alike- to always keep [valid, non-expired] birth control in their homes or even on their person, for those times when they are, in fact, swept away. It requires acknowledging valid sexual desires and sexual rights of our youth, while still educating them about self-esteem, and providing and adequately funding support structures and necessary programs that are often cut, like sports, music, and art.

It’s clear, and I think I’ve demonstrated this more than adequately above, that our ideal (pregnancy is easily avoidable for the vast majority, motherhood/parenting is appealing rather than prohibitively burdensome) does not yet match our reality. 

What is a 'person'? (Philosophically)

Regarding the word "Person", I take this etymology from merriam-webster.com :
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosōpa, plural of prosōpon face, mask — more at prosopopoeia. Date: 13th century

The term "person" (the definitions of which say nothing about genetic or physiological structure) has to do with an individual personalty, which can only be had by a conscious individual with the capability of consciousnesses  Since a fetus is not a conscious individual, is not individual/distinct from the mother until viability at the earliest, and has no such personality, it can't be said to be a "person."

"Person" is also a legal term: "In contemporary global thought, once humans are born, personhood is considered automatic via Legal fiction created by a Birth certificate."