If you are a vegan/vegetarian fine- but trying to bully other people about it and acting superior and self-righteous isn’t going to make anyone sympathetic to your cause

“Even the “sex represents an agreement to let a fetus use your body” line of reasoning can equally be applied to forced organ donation, and still I’ve yet to encounter an anti-choicer who can satisfactorily address this argument. ”

I’m very curious as to how the “sex represents an agreement to allow a foetus to use your body” argument can possibly, possibly be applied to forced organ donation. Would you mind elaborating, please?

“Not really. After you’ve donated an organ, it’s no longer a part of your body; it’s inside someone else’s. You can ask for its return if you’d like, but to take it back by force would require invading its new owner’s body. ”

Pregnancy, is not organ donation, it is merely the use of a body’s organs. The comparison of it to organ donation is flawed for that reason, but the implication of “forced organ donation”; I.E. that consent was not given, is false. In my opinion, having sex represents that consent, and therefore abortion is effectively just forcibly taking back an organ you freely donated, if you want to continue that analogy.

As to your other points; You are perfectly correct in your assertions that sex has a number of uses other than procreation. But unless you are seriously, seriously misinformed you know full well that one possible result of sex is pregnancy. Clearly, since people continue to have sex, they are willing to accept that risk. The embryo shouldn’t have to pay with its life because people are beefed that this time, the risk came true. This stance isn’t anti-sex in the slightest, I’m not saying people should stop having sex at all, I’m saying they should be prepared to accept the consequences of it. And frankly, to say it’s anti-Human is the funniest argument I’ve heard in a long time. How one earth you could possibly conceive saving a Human life as “anti-Human” is beyond me.

I wouldn’t call it mysoginist either. True, the burden for that call falls heavily on women, but that doesn’t mean that I, or indeed any anti-abortionist, hates women in the least. I just don’t think abortion is fair, or even morally acceptable, except in specific circumstances.

Regarding your concern that this stance amounts to an inability to withdraw consent, that’s pretty much what abortion today is. The argument is basically whether you think it morally acceptable to withdraw that consent, knowing full well that in doing so you will end another human life.

As to your point about this stance meaning that women are essentially consenting to spend their lives pregnant, whilst technically true the fact that not all sex ends in pregnancy and the miracle of contraception means that, despite a lot of people having sex a damn sight more often than every nine months, they aren’t perpetually pregnant.

From your last paragraph, I’d like to correct two of your points. Firstly, there is literally nothing “pro-life” about supporting early abortions, to reduce the late ones. The majority of people who oppose abortion think life begins at conception, so early rather than late is frankly just as bad. Second, you make the point about anti-abortion legislation stripping women of their human rights, but I’d like to point out that pro-abortion legislation strips the foetus’ of their human rights. So really, you don’t have a moral high ground on that basis.

Finally, I’d like to stress that despite my anti-abortion stance, I am opposed to any further legislation restricting abortion do to the risk, as you say, of women resorting to highly dangerous “coathanger” abortions. In fact, I specifically voted against my MP (Nadine Dorries) because of her attempts to legislate abortion.

Sex isn’t just about procreation; in fact, a majority of sex that takes place between human animals isn’t meant to result in a pregnancy. Sex has a number of benefits and functions aside from the propagation of the species, such as enhancing emotional ties and the quality of the relationship between partners; increased physical health, including a lengthened life span; enhanced mental health, e.g., elevated emotional well-being, positive self-esteem, lower rates of depression, and the like; etc., etc., etc. Amongst both human and nonhuman animals, one can find numerous examples of non-procreative sex.

The idea that women who engage in sex are forever consenting to giving their bodies up to another being for nine months both overlooks sex’s other purposes and provides a rather significant disincentive to ever having sex (or at least one type of sex, i.e., vaginal intercourse) without the express purpose of procreation. Sex is part of the human experience; making the “price” of sex one’s very bodily autonomy is both anti-sex and anti-human. It’s also misogynist, as it’s a consequence that only women are expected to bear (again, returning to the argument re: parents having a responsibility to donate organs to their born children). Furthermore, the idea that consent can never be revoked (as with another type of bodily invasion, i.e., sex/rape) is…well, mind-boggling.

Finally, to carry this argument through to its logical conclusion: what proponents of the sex = consent line of reasoning are suggesting is, essentially, that women who engage in vaginal intercourse even just once every 9 to 12 months are agreeing to spend the entirety of their childbearing years pregnant, à la Michelle Duggar. That’s just preposterous (not to mention, economically and environmentally unsustainable).

Look, I’ve no issue with those who are personally pro-life; I may disagree with your rationale, but I support your right to do what you want with your own body, whether that’s terminating a pregnancy or carrying it to term. Rather, it’s legislating your beliefs on other women, thus stripping them of their own human rights, that is unacceptable to me. If you believe that abortion is A Bad Thing, then the best way to prevent abortions without reducing women to a lesser class of humans is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, e.g., by supporting universal access to contraception and sex ed, as well as a social safety net for impoverished women and their children. Additionally, rather than throwing up roadblocks to abortion, the truly pro-life approach is to support universal access to abortion so that pregnancies can be terminated early, before the tiny clump of cells develops into a late-term fetus which actually does start to resemble a mini-baby. Restricting access to abortion only pushes the date back, while outlawing it altogether results in dangerous, illegal abortions that cost the lives of both woman and fetus.

And I am seriously tired of arguing about abortion, at least for now. For further reading, I highly recommend:

www.rhrealitycheck.org

www.prochoice.org/blog/

shakespearessister.blogspot.com

pandagon.net

finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com

How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America by Cristina Page (2006)

Really, there’s a lot more to the issue than I can ever hope to cover here, on an animal rights blog, so homework is a necessity. Google, for example: medical rape; PTSD triggered by childbirth; the criminalization of miscarriages; forced sterilization vs. forced childbirth; the controversy surrounding home birth; the criminalization of drug addiction among pregnant women; and pro-life attempts to restrict/criminalize contraception and sex ed., for starters. The restriction/criminalization of abortion isn’t just about THE BABIES! – it’s also a matter of curbing women’s rights and controlling their sexuality.

Again, these same arguments can be used for infantcide. An infant is essentially a parasite albeit an external one.

The key word being external. Demanding that women give up control of their very bodies is a far cry from demanding that women and men provide food, shelter, etc. for their babies and children. (Bodily autonomy > money.) Furthermore, many countries have foster and adoption systems set up such that parents who cannot or do not want to care for their children can transfer guardianship to adults who do want them. Pregnant women have no such options.

Additionally – and as I argue above – parents are not forced to donate bone marrow, kidneys, and other expendable body parts to their own infants and children when the need arises. We recognize that, even though parents may have a moral responsibility to try to save their children, it would be a gross infringement on individual liberty and bodily autonomy to legally compel parents to give up pieces of their bodies, even when in their children’s best interests. I don’t see how pregnancy is any different. Even the “sex represents an agreement to let a fetus use your body” line of reasoning can equally be applied to forced organ donation, and still I’ve yet to encounter an anti-choicer who can satisfactorily address this argument.

That is why people that are vehemently for abortion use terms such as parasite, germ, creature, thing, to describe what is essentially a baby in its earliest and most vulnerable state.

You say “baby” as if it’s an established fact, rather than a matter of (scientific, religious, etc.) opinion. Is an unfertilized egg equivalent to a “baby”? (If so, certain methods of birth control are murder!) A blastocyst? An embryo? Are any of these deserving of greater rights than babies, infants, children and adults? Because none of these post-born humans can seize control of another human’s body in order to borrow pieces of it against the owner’s will.

Along these lines, @ Jeff -

An abortion is not, therefore, about stopping the “forced” donation of an organ, it’s far closer to donating that organ and then forcing the other person to give it back, despite knowing that you’ll kill them in the process.

Not really. After you’ve donated an organ, it’s no longer a part of your body; it’s inside someone else’s. You can ask for its return if you’d like, but to take it back by force would require invading its new owner’s body.

A woman’s womb stays inside her body for the duration of a pregnancy. Forcing her to continue a pregnancy and give birth = the invasion of her body. (i.e., it’s not so much about the organ as it is about violating the sanctity of one’s bodily boundaries)

I don’t see how baby can “hijack” your body.

It didn’t ask to be there or actively do anything to get there. That makes absolutely no sense and in essence seems more of an argument to dehumanize and create a monster out of something so that it is easier to destroy it without guilt.

That is why people that are vehemently for abortion use terms such as parasite, germ, creature, thing, to describe what is essentially a baby in its earliest and most vulnerable state.

Again, these same arguments can be used for infantcide. An infant is essentially a parasite albeit an external one.

I think pro-choice/life (though I detest both terms, as few “pro-choicers” are really interested in freedom of choice, and few “pro-lifers” are really interested in guaranteeing right to life) arguments really devolve down to when you consider whatever it is within a woman’s womb to be “human” and thus a recipient of “human rights”. In my opinion, that’s from conception, but others’ (obviously) see it somewhat differently. Honestly, that point of contention makes all other discussion on the topic relatively futile, as there is no argument that can “trump” that. But I digress

I see a lot of people arguing similar things to the following:

“(Really, not even living/”post-born” humans are allowed to “borrow” another person’s organs against their will.) ”

“it’s never okay to hijack a person’s body against her will. I don’t care if a fetus is a mini-baby from the get-go – s/he has no right to use my body without my consent.”

That goes with this argument:

“Interestingly, I’ve yet to hear a “pro-lifer” advocate for forced organ donation, even though their arguments in favor of forced birth logically lead to this conclusion”

In my opinion, having sex with the knowledge that what you are doing could very well (contraception or not) result in pregnancy ipso facto grants permission to that foetus (or whatever it’s called) to use your body. An abortion is not, therefore, about stopping the “forced” donation of an organ, it’s far closer to donating that organ and then forcing the other person to give it back, despite knowing that you’ll kill them in the process.

Obviously, that scenario does not apply to situations such as rape. If you havn’t guessed so far, my prevalent attitude is rather anti-abortion, but there are situations, such as pregnancy resulting from rape, or a threat to the womans life, in which I would not object to an abortion. Whilst I would value a foetus’ life more than a woman’s desire not to have a baby at an inconvenient time or something, I wouldn’t value it over her life, or over the anguish that would be caused from continuing a rape-induced pregnancy.

On the other hand, any change in the law now with the intention of making abortions harder to get, or shortening the time limit within which they can be permormed would, in my opinion, probably lead to an increase in dangerous “Alleyway” abortions that could kill a lot of people, so I am by no means in favour of changing the law at all. I would be unhappy if it were to get any more “liberal”, and I think it would be seriously dangerous, and highly irresponsible of the government, if it were to get any more “restrictive”

In regards to footnote number 1 (*), the analogy amused me, but it doesn’t really apply. Most aborted pregnancies are not induced by rape (as the Alien “pregnancy” is) and nor are most babies born by eating their way out of the chest, killing their mother (or “host”) in the process.

Anyways, I’m done with abortion. Feel free to go ahead and vent your dissaproval, but please be polite, I love debates, but hate flame wars.

As to veganism and being pro-choice, I really don’t see any contradiction there. I do not believe that all humans are of equal value, far from it, so I wouldn’t impose upon somebody to say that their taking an animals life to be of more value than a humans in foetus form is any sort of contradiction.

In regards to animals rights, I’m really neither here nor there. I vehemently oppose animal cruelty, and have rescued (and now care for) several mistreated animals (including a pig, which is bloody annoying, though the thing is remarkably clever). I am also opposed to hunting for sport. This extends to battery farming and similar practices. On the other hand, I greatly enjoy eating meat and would not consider an animals life as of greater value than that enjoyment. I have also myself hunted, though only for the express purpose of feeding myself.

Think I’m done, sorry if this seems disjointed.