Abortion is a right. At any and all times. (or, American Principles 101)

This post is brought to you by some schmuck who took it upon himself during an abortion debate, in which he was distressed that I would legalize late-term abortions, to inform me that there is no such thing as inalienable rights, and that rights are “whatever humans decide they are” and therefore I cannot assert that a mother has rights to a fetus over the fetus itself and over the would-be father. Resisting the urge to tell him to get the hell out of the country, I instead redirected my horror to suggesting that he read the Declaration of Independence.

Let’s get some things straightened out first:

  1. Fetuses are not aborted. Pregnancies are aborted. [will be explained]
  2. Giving birth is a method of abortion. The pregnancy is aborted.
  3. When a woman who is 8 to 9 months pregnant arrives at a doctor’s office and says, “I don’t want to be pregnant anymore. Make me not pregnant anymore,” the doctor who agrees to abort the pregnancy, whether by triggering an early birth or by surgically removing the baby from the mother, is obligated to abort the pregnancy in such a way that does not interfere with the inalienable right to life of this (newly) independent life-form. The baby can be placed in an incubator and may survive. If it does not, the woman is even less responsible for its death than the doctor. She merely separated the fetus from her body, the same way a doctor can decide not to provide resources to sustain the child’s life if, for example, finances are inadequate.
  4. That is why it matters whether a life-form is independent: the method of abortion comes into question. When the life cannot survive outside the womb, the doctor may abort the pregnancy in any fashion. When the life can survive outside the womb, the doctor is obligated to abort the pregnancy by removing the life without harming it. As medical advancements are introduced, this window will become smaller and smaller. The question of whether the life can survive outside the mother does not interfere with a woman’s right to separate a fetus from herself.
  5. If you can’t identify the difference between a woman arrested for not feeding her child and a woman not providing for her child by aborting her pregnancy, you’re an idiot. In the former scenario the enforcement of the law does not result in forcing the woman to feed her child—it results in taking the child away and providing it with a guardian who consents to sustaining its life. Likewise in the latter, the child is separated from the woman and cared for by someone—or something—else, like an incubator.

Speaking of consent, its involvement is the definition of an inalienable right. There are two types of rights: inalienable rights and civil rights. Inalienable rights include but are not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Sound familiar?) You are screwing over your own argument by denying the existence of inalienable rights, like the right of the fetus to live independently. Inalienable rights do not come from government. Civil rights are protected by government.

The right to life is inalienable, but the definition of an inalienable right is one that does not require the consent of another. If it requires consent, it’s not a right. You have the right to live–you do not have the right to survive at the expenses of someone else. Once you are enforcing a right by encroaching on another person, you are no longer practicing an inalienable right but infringing on the rights of that other individual. A civil right may require consent on the most fundamental level, but does not remove the right of the person from whom it requires consent to deny that consent without consequence. (You don’t want to count someone’s vote [civil right] on the basis of sex, race, class, or religion, then [consequently] find another job.)

When the fetus is living off the body of a woman, it is not protected by its inalienable right to life because it is DEPENDING on the woman and on her consent. *Removing* it from her is not *killing* it; it dies on its own because it cannot live. That is why pregnancies are aborted, not fetuses.

And no, having sex is not consenting to being pregnant for nine months. That is not a contract. (You asshat.)

The rights of the father begin at delivery, not conception.

Who’s to say that woman is any more responsible of a fetus dying once she separates it from herself than the person who neglected to invent an incubator that can sustain it? Or refuses to provide it?

Anti-choicers are, because as far as they are concerned, women ARE incubators. Anti-choicers are so sexist that they have INFUSED a woman’s ability sustain life to her person and reduced her to that ability. It is an essentialization of feminine capabilities. Men on the other hand are not reduced to their ability to sustain life—whether monetarily or through organ donations or by providing medical expertise—because anti-choicers are bigots who can only distinguish between a man and his “functions.”

The right to life does not mean someone else sustaining that life. The distinction is only made when the human in question is of the male variety. No one is ever like, “That guy refused his ability to give his organs and totally aborted that patient!” No one ever collapses a man’s abilities with his person.

Just because someone has the ability do so something does NOT mean you can FORCE her to do it and USE that ability for your own purposes. This is true regardless of sex.

Do American women understand the *fundamental level* at which their rights are being violated when the right to an abortion is attacked? If the bodily resources of men were redistributed for the sustenance of others it would be recognized at once as communism.

Anti-choicers are communists, traitors, and a threat to this nation at the most fundamental level–but none of it is viewed truthfully because they only enslave women to the government.

At any stage of a pregnancy it is okay to remove the fetus (or baby) from the womb. That means at nine months, that is *still* okay. The child is likely to survive outside, or it may die, but either outcome is irrelevant: at no stage of a pregnancy is the child *entitled* to the bodily provisions of the mother. You need a person’s consent to live off of them, and when you need consent that means it’s not an inalienable right.

Whether or not you believe it is moral or immoral for a woman to abort a pregnancy at nine months is irrelevant to the foundational principle that she has that right. But I guess no woman ever had her rights recognized without some schmuck crying about how it was right or wrong as if the entire sex with the ability to give birth were long overdue that lecture and it’s his good grace to present it to them. (“Don’t get me wrong he shouldn’t have raped you but it was totally immoral to lead him on like that…”)

The fact that I believe it’s immoral to abort a pregnancy after 120 days when the life of the mother is not in danger (and if the mother is not providing an incubator for the life to continue) is IRRELEVANT to her right to abort the pregnancy or *separate the child from herself* and to whether the government can interfere with that inalienable right.

The next time you are giving birth announce to the medical staff, “I am aborting the pregnancy now.” Because you are.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

^Look at that; I guess they have an excuse.

Also this.

Protecting our RELIGIOUS RIGHT to an Abortion

from the “religious” Right.

As you all must have heard by now, Michigan state representative Lisa Brown was censored and barred from speaking during a debate on an abortion bill because she had the audacity to utter the word “vagina”—at which point all the Republican men in the room gasped and clutched their pearls in horror, despite the fact that they’re legislatively raping yours with unnecessary highly intrusive transvaginal probes.

“What she said was offensive,” said Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville. “It was so offensive, I don’t even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company.”

Oh spare me, you cunt. (What the hell is “mixed company”? Is this the 1800s?) I’m not a delicate fucking flower. I thought women were supposed to be the ones who talk too much? God, men canNOT shut up about things that don’t concern them.

Brown was not the only woman silenced, and it was obviously not her utterance of the female genitalia that sentenced her to an infringement on her first amendment rights. As the Detroit News reports, “Byrum, D-Onondaga, caused a disturbance on the House floor Wednesday when she wasn’t allowed to introduce an amendment to the abortion regulations bill banning men from getting a vasectomy unless the sterilization procedure was necessary to save a man’s life.” Conservative men are deliberately silencing any woman who opposes them, for the same reasons they are against women’s suffrage—preserving their blasphemous privilege. They don’t want you to debate the issue; these pricks, who are in favor of small government, want to tell you what to do with your body, and what they want to do with it is to penetrate as deeply as possible regardless of how loudly and clearly you scream for them to stop. But don’t you dare try to suggest the same policing and intrusion of autonomy for them and demand proof of life-threatening conditions for a vasectomy! They will push their hands over your mouth.

While Lisa Brown’s words, “I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to adopt yours? And finally, Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no.’” are currently what is receiving the most attention, I’d like to direct it back to her primary point:

“Judaism believes that therapeutic abortions, namely abortions performed to preserve the life of the mother, are not only permissible, but mandatory. The stage of pregnancy does not matter. Wherever there is a question of the life of the mother or that of the unborn child, Jewish law rules in favor of preserving the life of the mother. The status of the fetus as human life does not equal that of the mother.”

Indeed, Judaism—as well as Islam—has legalized abortion in cases in which the mother’s life is in danger, and in cases of rape. In Islam abortions are also allowed in the first 120 days of the pregnancy, before a soul is Given to the fetus. Additionally, much like the attitudes of the Aztec toward women who died in childsbirth as warriors who have died in battle (and those who survived honored as victorious warriors), Medieval Judaism viewed the fetus, had it been implanted by a rapist, as a pursuer that seeks to destroy the woman’s life as an enemy against her on a battlefield.

But despite the fact that in early periods of its existence even the Roman Catholic Church allowed abortion in specific cases, even something as obviously permissible as birth control has come into question. Because birth control, you see, interferes with God’s plan for woman, which in Christianity evidently was to suffer in delivery forever because Eve took the apple. Any innovation to impinge on this pain or to ameliorate it—such as birth control—is blasphemy. Adam’s punishment, however, which was to toil physically and tend the Earth, has had no such issue obstructing it from alleviation off the shoulders of man through advancements in labor.

But advancements in birth? Hell no.

Aside from this hypocrisy, how much longer are the same people who most often cry about forcing religious organizations to cover something that is against their beliefs–the “religious” Right–going to infringe on your religious freedom?

P.S. VAGINA VAGINA VAGINA VAGINA VAGINA VAGINA VAGINA VAGINA VAGINA

not your fucking incubator

UPDATE:

From the Detroit News (via Feministe commenters), “Speaker Pro Tem John Walsh, R-Livonia, gaveled Brown out of order for saying “no means no” — because it suggested Brown was comparing the abortion legislation to rape, House GOP spokesman Ari Adler said. “It has nothing to do with the word vagina,” Adler said.”

And, as I typed there: This always pisses me off–when S.E. Cupp was photoshopped into that HORRIFIC PICTURE by Hustler, conservatives had no problem calling it DIGITAL RAPE.

But I suppose this isn’t LEGISLATIVE RAPE?

Legislation referenced will force women to actually undergo unnecessary penetration with a medical device.

The hypocritical inconsistencies are stunning.

They also had no problem saying that Herman Cain was enduring a “high tech lynching.” I would hope no white person on the Left would say something so disastrously appropriative, but if they did, can you imagine how outraged conservatives would be? “EVERYTHING is racist nowadays, just like EVERYTHING is rape.”