Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.

Pro-Choice and Pro-Voice

Posts tagged Questions

Sep 2 '11
Sep 2 '11
Sep 2 '11
Aug 19 '11

home-of-amazons:

bebinn:

home-of-amazons replied to your post: I’m 100% pro-choice, but honestly I think that if a woman has made the major life decision of continuing a pregnancy full term and she’s doing things that could have a major negative effect on the child once it is born (excessive drinking, addictive drugs) then she should be charged with child endangerment. I think it’s every woman’s choice to decide whether or not they want to bring life into the world, but once you’ve made that choice you have to accept the responsibility.

But that would be inconsistent with the belief that a fetus is not a person and should not have human rights, including the right to not be harmed in any way during pregnancy.

Plus you open the door to criminalizing pregnant women who drink too much coffee or eat very unhealthy foods, both of which can be harmful to a developing fetus.

In reply to the first: I don’t think so, since the damage can extend past the fetal period to the point where it does become a person.

In keeping with your second reply, I don’t think I agree with charging pregnant people with criminal activity if they engage in destructive behaviors, but I don’t know where that would leave the future child, since, as I said before, those behaviors can lead to serious damage that occurs in the womb, and continue to affect the born person’s life.

Addiction is very different from willful criminal activity, so I would think that in the case of alcoholism and addictive drugs, they would need to be treated similarly to how I believe regular ol’ non-pregnant addicts and alcoholics should be - that is, rehab/detox/support system/eliminating enabling factors.

But yes, your second reply is what I think could happen, should more states pass fetal personhood bills. Two rights in one body is very tricky, if not downright illogical, so I’m not sure whose rights would then take precedence, and how.

Judging from this, it looks like it could happen. Obviously, engaging in risky behaviours whilst pregnant is irresponsible and should be discouraged. But charging pregnant women for child abuse because what they’re doing may affect the child when it’s born is a bad idea. Honestly, I think giving birth to a child that turns out to be deformed or mentally retarded is punishment enough.

I mostly agree with you again! Argh! But the thing about your last line is that the child is not just an object of punishment, it’s a separate being with a life of its own, no longer uniquely bound to yours. I stand by what I said earlier (personal beliefs, mind you, not what I think would or could actually happen), that pregnant people with addictions should be required to go to rehab/detox, and have access to a support system, instead of being charged with criminal behavior. Everyone should be educated with the best medical knowledge we have of pregnancy today, and should have access to decent prenatal care and nutrition.

Ah, perfect world.

Aug 19 '11

home-of-amazons replied to your post: I’m 100% pro-choice, but honestly I think that if a woman has made the major life decision of continuing a pregnancy full term and she’s doing things that could have a major negative effect on the child once it is born (excessive drinking, addictive drugs) then she should be charged with child endangerment. I think it’s every woman’s choice to decide whether or not they want to bring life into the world, but once you’ve made that choice you have to accept the responsibility.

But that would be inconsistent with the belief that a fetus is not a person and should not have human rights, including the right to not be harmed in any way during pregnancy.

Plus you open the door to criminalizing pregnant women who drink too much coffee or eat very unhealthy foods, both of which can be harmful to a developing fetus.

In reply to the first: I don’t think so, since the damage can extend past the fetal period to the point where it does become a person.

In keeping with your second reply, I don’t think I agree with charging pregnant people with criminal activity if they engage in destructive behaviors, but I don’t know where that would leave the future child, since, as I said before, those behaviors can lead to serious damage that occurs in the womb, and continue to affect the born person’s life.

Addiction is very different from willful criminal activity, so I would think that in the case of alcoholism and addictive drugs, they would need to be treated similarly to how I believe regular ol’ non-pregnant addicts and alcoholics should be - that is, rehab/detox/support system/eliminating enabling factors.

But yes, your second reply is what I think could happen, should more states pass fetal personhood bills. Two rights in one body is very tricky, if not downright illogical, so I’m not sure whose rights would then take precedence, and how.

Aug 19 '11

I’m going to keep reposting these until someone answers them

Questions for pro-life people! As I stated before, I don’t need any snarky comebacks from pro-choice people; these are sincere questions that no pro-life blogger (or just anyone who identifies as pro-life) has taken the time to answer…yet.

I’ve linked to the original posts. Feel free to reblog this or either of them, or answer in my ask box any/all of the questions.

Here goes!

Questions

You say that embryos/fetuses deserve the full rights and protections of born human beings….

If this unborn person is to be treated as a born person, say, a child, they would be protected legally as a child, correct?

So, if a person was to have a miscarriage, would they need to be investigated for manslaughter, the crime of killing a human being unintentionally/without malice aforethought?

If a person engaged in activities deemed risky during pregnancy, would they need to be investigated for child abuse/endangerment?

If a person didn’t get prenatal care, or ignored/couldn’t comply with their doctor’s advice, would they need to be investigated for neglect?

If a person physically unfit to be pregnant (with some sort of illness or disability) became pregnant, would they need to be investigated for abuse, neglect, or something else?

If a pregnant person became suicidal, how should the government respond to ensure the person inside them would be safe?

Since a large percentage of zygotes, or fertilized eggs, are lost before they get a chance to implant in the uterine wall, would we need to check everyone’s period to be sure there is not a dead person in there? I know it sounds silly, but if it’s a person from the moment of conception, or fertilization, then millions of people are dying every day because they aren’t able to implant.

Will we need to issue “conception certificates,” or any kind of legal documentation, once a pregnancy occurs? If they are a person, shouldn’t we have a record of them?

Should pregnant people have the right to sue for child support? They need prenatal care just as much as born children need to be fed and clothed, if they are to keep this person inside them healthy.

Could pregnant people list their fetuses as dependents?

Could pregnant people collect welfare for their fetuses?

Could the father of this unborn person sue for custody?

Will these regulations apply to frozen embryos in fertility clinics? If a fertility clinic is damaged by a natural disaster, who will be held responsible for the deaths of the embryos?

More questions on autonomy and “right to life”

Here’s something I’ve been wondering about, and since I’m not a legal expert, I don’t have an answer.

If we were to treat embryos and fetuses as people, with a right to life and all that, what would we do about the fact that they are using someone else’s body against their will? Can abortion be justified as self-defense? There is no intent on the part of the embryo/fetus, since it is not sentient, and I imagine that would affect how they are treated legally.

Would their right to life trump the pregnant person’s right not to have their body used against their consent? If so, could that precedent be used to erode other bodily autonomy issues? This relates back to my questions on fetal personhood.

If their right to life didn’t take priority over bodily autonomy, then what? Would physicians be restricted to only performing inductions, no matter at what stage of development the fetus was? That is, would the fetuses have to be surgically removed or birthed, so as not to commit murder? Would letting them die be infringing on their right to life? Would it be more cruel to keep a severely underdeveloped baby alive, knowing it had little to no chance of survival, but was in great pain and anguish, or would likely suffer severe developmental problems?

These are questions we need to ask. There has to be a solid reason for outlawing abortion, and the most common reasoning I’ve seen is this “right to life.” I think that the treatment of uterus owners pre-Roe would not be as accepted today (though stranger things have happened), so old justifications wouldn’t hold much water. So, what happens when two people with equal rights are residing in one body?

Aug 17 '11

mstashers asked:

Your questions still haven't been answered?

:(

One pro-choice person did answer them, and you can find the exchange under the #questions tag.

I’ve sent four pro-life blogs two asks each (one original, one follow-up). Two responded the second time, saying they hadn’t gotten my original message, but none of them have actually answered the questions. I’m kind of wondering if it’s because they only like answering asks, since they can pick and choose which ones people see, and you can’t reblog asks. Catholic Lifeguard only posts pictures, so I’m assuming there’s not a whole lot of thought going on over there in the first place.

I’m not going to keep bugging them, so I’m chalking this one up a stalemate. It’s no fun if nobody plays!

Aug 10 '11
Aug 9 '11
Aug 9 '11

Disappointing

So far, no pro-life blogger (or otherwise) has answered any of my questions about the consequences of granting embryos/fetuses the rights and protections of born people. Well, one person tried to, I guess, but apparently failed at reading comprehension…or reading at all…

Since no one answered, I can’t say what their reasons were for not answering. I assume they’re similar to the reasons they rarely respond to reblogs, or any difficult questions. I have noticed that pro-lifers stop talking when I start asking questions like these, or when I start giving them statistics and facts that directly contradict what they’re saying.

It’s too bad, because I like being challenged, and I think the questions are interesting, no matter what side of the debate you’re on.

So, the offer still stands: if anyone wants to answer any or all of the questions, feel free to reblog or message me!

Aug 6 '11

More questions on autonomy and “right to life”

tyerae:

“If the unborn IS NOT a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary. If the unborn IS a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate.”

Here’s something I’ve been wondering about, and since I’m not a legal expert, I don’t have an answer.

If we were to treat embryos and fetuses as people, with a right to life and all that, what would we do about the fact that they are using someone else’s body against their will? Can abortion be justified as self-defense? There is no intent on the part of the embryo/fetus, since it is not sentient, and I imagine that would affect how they are treated legally.

Would their right to life trump the pregnant person’s right not to have their body used against their consent? If so, could that precedent be used to erode other bodily autonomy issues? This relates back to my questions on fetal personhood.

If their right to life didn’t take priority over bodily autonomy, then what? Would physicians be restricted to only performing inductions, no matter at what stage of development the fetus was? That is, would the fetuses have to be surgically removed or birthed, so as not to commit murder? Would letting them die be infringing on their right to life? Would it be more cruel to keep a severely underdeveloped baby alive, knowing it had little to no chance of survival, but was in great pain and anguish, or would likely suffer severe developmental problems?

These are questions we need to ask. There has to be a solid reason for outlawing abortion, and the most common reasoning I’ve seen is this “right to life.” I think that the treatment of uterus owners pre-Roe would not be as accepted today (though stranger things have happened), so old justifications wouldn’t hold much water. So, what happens when two people with equal rights are residing in one body?

Aug 2 '11

Questions

To start off, I want to say that I am asking these questions of pro-lifers. I am not asking for snarky comebacks from pro-choicers.

You say that embryos/fetuses deserve the full rights and protections of born human beings. I’d like to pose some hypotheticals, and I’m being sincere. These aren’t intended as gotchas - I would truly like to know what you think of them. I have been thinking about them for a while and am still unsure of what the answer might be. Feel free to reblog, answer in my inbox, or answer down below any or all of the questions. Thanks!

If this unborn person is to be treated as a born person, say, a child, they would be protected legally as a child, correct?

So, if a person was to have a miscarriage, would they need to be investigated for manslaughter, the crime of killing a human being unintentionally/without malice aforethought?

If a person engaged in activities deemed risky during pregnancy, would they need to be investigated for child abuse?

If a person didn’t get prenatal care, or ignored/couldn’t comply with their doctor’s advice, would they need to be investigated for neglect?

If a person physically unfit to be pregnant (with some sort of illness or disability) became pregnant, would they need to be investigated for abuse, neglect, or something else?

If a pregnant person became suicidal, how should the government respond to ensure the person inside them would be safe?

Since a large percentage of zygotes, or fertilized eggs, are lost before they get a chance to implant, would we need to check everyone’s period to be sure there is not a dead person in there? I know it sounds silly, but if it’s a person from the moment of conception, or fertilization, then millions of people are dying every day because of menstruation.

Will we need to issue “conception certificates,” or any kind of legal documentation, once a pregnancy occurs? If they are a person, shouldn’t we have a record of them?

Should pregnant people have the right to sue for child support? They need prenatal care just as much as born children need to be fed and clothed, if they are to keep this person inside them healthy.

Could pregnant people list their fetuses as dependents?

Could pregnant people collect welfare for their fetuses?

Could the father of this unborn person sue for custody?

Will these regulations apply to frozen embryos in fertility clinics? If a fertility clinic is damaged by a natural disaster, who will be held responsible for the deaths of the embryos?

Jun 29 '11
"A whole bunch of men telling women what they should do about unwanted babies that they helped create and are not willing to help raise. Questions to the self-righteous among us: If you want to ban abortions, are you going to pay 100 percent of the health care costs for the pregnant woman? Are you going to pay the hospital delivery costs, including $100,000 complications, for young women who may have no medical insurance? Are you going to pay the funeral costs for the women who die in childbirth? Yeah, it does happen, even in America. Are you going to support her other children if she dies? Are you really going to track down the father, and make him help pay for the kid he helped create? Really? We do such a good job now of collecting from deadbeat dads — and those men were involved in consensual sex acts. These goofy Ohio laws would deny abortions even in cases of rape and incest. Many rapists never get caught, much less convicted. How will the rape victim and the child forced upon her be supported? Will the self-righteous pay? Meanwhile, it is proven fact that incest leads to serious health problems for the children born from it. Are you going to guarantee health coverage for those children as they live out lives of misery and (some) die young of horrible conditions? No. You simply want to say. Well, don’t have a baby if you cannot support it yourself. Wouldn’t it be nice if things were that simple? But it never has been. And it never will be."
“thelastmoderate,” commentator cincinnati.com (via brittanyschray)
Jun 26 '11

Things Bébinn Doesn’t Understand

How is a baby simultaneously a punishment and a blessing?