I see in the news that anti-choice organizations are planning demonstrations today at Planned Parenthood facilities around the US to support GOP plans to defund PP.
Of course, my first thought was to grab a sign (and my, ummm, "kittyhat"!) and head for my local facility to show my support for PP, but I also see in the news that PP offices are asking that supporters not show up at the facilities to counter-protest (because they don't want the crowds of protesters any larger or more chaotic than necessary as women are trying to get in and out for services).
Some communities are planning counter-demonstrations in other venues, but I haven't been able to find any information about any events planned in my city.
So, I've decided to set aside the time planned for the anti-choice demonstration in my city today to contact all my elected representatives, from the White House down to my state legislators, and Tom Price at DHHS, to remind them that I support PP and am strongly opposed to any efforts to restrict women's reproductive rights or Planned Parenthood's access to public healthcare dollars as a legitimate healthcare provider.
I hope PP supporters here will consider doing the same, and spread the word to people you know. I hope people all over the country will have the same thought. Wouldn't it be great if, while comparatively small groups of protesters are standing out in the cold and snow with their signs, huge numbers of Americans were flooding mail boxes and switchboards around the country with messages of support for PP, women's health, and reproductive rights?
And if I believed in abortion I would probably agree with you.
Here's what I don't understand...correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that you are for abortion because of the belief in a woman's right to do what she will with her own body? If a woman has a right to choose, why wouldn't that right extend to the entire pregnancy? Why stop with viability? I do realize that some take this stance, but you have not. So what makes the difference for you?
Good question. IOW, when does a fetus become a separate person. I would love to see the thinking of those who are ok with abortion up to the point of actual birth. Haven't heard that particular assertion prior to this thread. But i've been out of the activist branch of the pro-choice movement for some time, so I guess anything's possible.
To answer your question, the difference is between being a potential vs an actual separate person. The point of extrauterine viability is the only objectively observable evidence of that transition I can think of. All other definitions of separate personhood are either matters of faith, cultural tradition or personal intuition/perception, meaningful only to the individual woman.
This is why it's imperative, to me, that all women have access to reproductive healthcare, including but not limited to abortion. Ideally all pregnancies would be wanted, whether deliberate or accidental. This is the mission of the pro-choice movement, including Planned Parenthood. In my view, efforts to restrict or distort information and block access to resources needed for women to determine their own reproduction are profoundly immoral.
"So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12 KJV
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36 KJV
"I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right." Isaiah 45:19 KJV
"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." Isaiah 45:22-23 KJV
"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:10-11 KJV
"For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." Romans 14:11 KJV
Either these statements are true or they are not. It is impossible for them to be both true and untrue at the same time. I get that you don't claim them as truth for yourself, but unbelief does not make something untrue.
And your believing those statements, likewise, does not make them true.
Good question. IOW, when does a fetus become a separate person. I would love to see the thinking of those who are ok with abortion up to the point of actual birth. Haven't heard that particular assertion prior to this thread. But i've been out of the activist branch of the pro-choice movement for some time, so I guess anything's possible.
To answer your question, the difference is between being a potential vs an actual separate person. The point of extrauterine viability is the only objectively observable evidence of that transition I can think of. All other definitions of separate personhood are either matters of faith, cultural tradition or personal intuition/perception, meaningful only to the individual woman.
This is why it's imperative, to me, that all women have access to reproductive healthcare, including but not limited to abortion. Ideally all pregnancies would be wanted, whether deliberate or accidental. This is the mission of the pro-choice movement, including Planned Parenthood. In my view, efforts to restrict or distort information and block access to resources needed for women to determine their own reproduction are profoundly immoral.
I agree that ideally all pregnancies should be wanted. I have some thoughts on that that I may go into another time.
The question that I asked earlier actually has nothing to do with viability of a fetus. What I'm asking is, if indeed a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body during pregnancy, why does that right end just because a fetus has been determined to be viable? My conjecture is that either she has a right to choose or she does not. Viability of a fetus, since it is still a part of the mother's body until it is born, does not determine a woman's right to choose.
If we say that a woman has a right to abort until a fetus is viable but can then no longer choose, then it is no longer an issue of choice and it becomes a moral question of killing a human life. I also contend that if this is the case, then it was never an issue of choice because if it were, a woman's right to choose to rid herself of a fetus that is dependent upon her does not end just because it is possible the fetus might live outside her body.
Again, that is yourbelief, based on a book that you consider to be true, which is a far cry from a "surety."
Belief in the Bible hinges on believing that God exists, else it has no meaning. Many would say that there is no evidence that God exists or that the Bible is true, but there actually is. I cannot post it here as it would be too lengthy and some of it is in video form (not to mention that it would be getting WAY off topic for this thread) but I could lead someone to if they were interested. However, the problem becomes whether or not a person is truly seeking truth, regardless of whether or not it supports current beliefs, or whether that person is just seeking to discredit what the Bible says. I have not yet met a person online that is interested in seeking the truth and would be open to changing their mind when presented with it.
I agree that ideally all pregnancies should be wanted. I have some thoughts on that that I may go into another time.
The question that I asked earlier actually has nothing to do with viability of a fetus. What I'm asking is, if indeed a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body during pregnancy, why does that right end just because a fetus has been determined to be viable? My conjecture is that either she has a right to choose or she does not. Viability of a fetus, since it is still a part of the mother's body until it is born, does not determine a woman's right to choose.
If we say that a woman has a right to abort until a fetus is viable but can then no longer choose, then it is no longer an issue of choice and it becomes a moral question of killing a human life. I also contend that if this is the case, then it was never an issue of choice because if it were, a woman's right to choose to rid herself of a fetus that is dependent upon her does not end just because it is possible the fetus might live outside her body.
Again, whether the point of viability is when a fetus becomes a "person" deserving of the legal protections afforded to actual people is an individual moral, philosophical position, not some kind of objective fact. Lots of people feel lots of different ways about that question. I'm interested in having women's right and freedom to exercise control over their reproductive lives limited as little as possible by the individual moral, religious, philosophical beliefs of others. Whatever my personal belief may be about when a fetus becomes a "person" and when abortion may or may not be a moral choice, I don't think I (or anyone else) have any right to make those decisions for others who may not share my views.
Again, whether the point of viability is when a fetus becomes a "person" deserving of the legal protections afforded to actual people is an individual moral, philosophical position, not some kind of objective fact. Lots of people feel lots of different ways about that question. I'm interested in having women's right and freedom to exercise control over their reproductive lives limited as little as possible by the individual moral, religious, philosophical beliefs of others. Whatever my personal belief may be about when a fetus becomes a "person" and when abortion may or may not be a moral choice, I don't think I (or anyone else) have any right to make those decisions for others who may not share my views.
But what I am proposing is that, IF abortion is an issue of CHOICE, it DOESN'T MATTER when viability occurs or when a fetus "becomes a person." If a woman truly has a right to choose in the matter of pregnancy and abortion, that right does not end just because a fetus may be "viable." Either they have the right to choose or they don't. And it becomes contradictory to say that they have a right to choose during some part of the pregnancy but not during another part because it is still their body and the fetus is still a part of it.
ETA: So to take it one step further, why don't proponents of abortion just advocate for it at any stage of pregnancy? Why confer rights on a fetus at viability if it is still attached to a woman's body until it is born?
But what I am proposing is that, IF abortion is an issue of CHOICE, it DOESN'T MATTER when viability occurs or when a fetus "becomes a person." If a woman truly has a right to choose in the matter of pregnancy and abortion, that right does not end just because a fetus may be "viable." Either they have the right to choose or they don't. And it becomes contradictory to say that they have a right to choose during some part of the pregnancy but not during another part because it is still their body and the fetus is still a part of it.
Your proposal is wrong. All rights end somewhere. The rights of your fist end at the bridge of my nose. That is why the question of when a fetus becomes a separate person is central to the moral choice to abort and, since the answer is different for each woman, the decision to proceed is nobody's business but her own.
The SJC held that the State has a compelling interest in protecting individual human life. The point of extrauterine viability is the only available objective signifier of when that separate and individual life exists. It does not depend on individual belief and is, therefore, the only limitation permissible in civil law.
But what I am proposing is that, IF abortion is an issue of CHOICE, it DOESN'T MATTER when viability occurs or when a fetus "becomes a person." If a woman truly has a right to choose in the matter of pregnancy and abortion, that right does not end just because a fetus may be "viable." Either they have the right to choose or they don't. And it becomes contradictory to say that they have a right to choose during some part of the pregnancy but not during another part because it is still their body and the fetus is still a part of it.
ETA: So to take it one step further, why don't proponents of abortion just advocate for it at any stage of pregnancy? Why confer rights on a fetus at viability if it is still attached to a woman's body until it is born?
Not sure I will get to actually answering these comments today but for clarity purposes can someone please tell me how to separate out part of a quote as in post #164?
heron, ASN, RN
4,661 Posts
Good question. IOW, when does a fetus become a separate person. I would love to see the thinking of those who are ok with abortion up to the point of actual birth. Haven't heard that particular assertion prior to this thread. But i've been out of the activist branch of the pro-choice movement for some time, so I guess anything's possible.
To answer your question, the difference is between being a potential vs an actual separate person. The point of extrauterine viability is the only objectively observable evidence of that transition I can think of. All other definitions of separate personhood are either matters of faith, cultural tradition or personal intuition/perception, meaningful only to the individual woman.
This is why it's imperative, to me, that all women have access to reproductive healthcare, including but not limited to abortion. Ideally all pregnancies would be wanted, whether deliberate or accidental. This is the mission of the pro-choice movement, including Planned Parenthood. In my view, efforts to restrict or distort information and block access to resources needed for women to determine their own reproduction are profoundly immoral.