“My Body, My Choice”
— Posted by Annie (April 18, 2006 at 8:16 am)
I just finished reading a Mary Higgin’s Clark book – a little light reading before bed. Part of the plot involved an embryo mix up at an in vitro clinic which got me thinking about the logic behind, “my body, my choice.”
Let’s say there was a mix up at an in vitro clinic where a woman found out that she was not carrying her own baby. Could she have an abortion if she decided she did not want to carry someone else’s baby? Or should the biological mother have a say in the life or death of her own child?
Similarly, would a surrogate mother have the right to abort the baby in her womb if decided she didn’t want to be pregnant anymore? What if the pregnancy was making her ill? Or what if her life was “at risk” because of the pregnancy? After all it’s her body. Or what if the biological mother of the baby decided she didn’t want her baby anymore. Could she force the surrogate mother to get an abortion?
Planned Parenthood says, “Every Child A Wanted Child.” But wanted by whom?
It gets complicated. But it helps to bring up the ultimate question: Is an embryo a separate human being? If not, who has rights to it? If yes, then should it be protected?
This entry is filed under Abortion, Life Before Birth. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Phil says:
Very good point! If only people would expand their minds to include a more broad definition of what human life is….rather than the closeminded views that already exist.
Comment posted April 18th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Sufficient Scruples » Blog Archive » Lost Generation says:
[...] “My Body, My Choice” [...]
Comment posted April 18th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Lauren says:
1. Laws against abortion kill women.
To prohibit abortions does not stop them. When women feel it is absolutely necessary, they will choose to have abortions, even in secret, without medical care, in dangerous circumstances. In the two decades before abortion was legal in the U.S., it’s been estimated that nearly a million women per year sought out illegal abortions. Thousands died. Tens of thousands were mutilated. All were forced to behave as if they were criminals.
I heart planned parenthood.
Anyways, I’ve started a little debate on my blogsite.. feel free to join.. About your cute little protest…
http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/laurenpatrizi/C3MS
Comment posted April 18th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Phil says:
Lauren, you didn’t address what she blogged about…..
Comment posted April 19th, 2006 at 11:08 am
John says:
Lauren,
For reasons that should be fairly obvious, I don’t know how many abortions were performed in the U. S. before it was legalized.
You don’t know how many abortions were performed in the U. S. before it was legalized.
No one knows how many abortions were performed in the U. S. before it was legalized.
Can’t we leave the tired old myth of dangerous back-alley abortion alone?
“Laws against abortion kill women.”
Try telling that to the Irish:
Comment posted April 19th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Lauren says:
i refuse to read anything that comes from “lifesitenews.com” lol.
Comment posted April 19th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Lauren says:
Phil.. tell me what you want me to address that deserves thought, i will do that.
Comment posted April 19th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Annie says:
I second that, Phil. Lauren you totally avoided the questions. Can’t you answer them?
Comment posted April 19th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Lauren says:
ANSWER WHAT QUESTION DAMN IT.. I will answer whatever you please.
Comment posted April 19th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Phil says:
Annie noted that allowing someone to dictate when the post-fertilization/pre-birth human is worthy of being born, and when it is not, would run into problems in some areas….
Comment posted April 20th, 2006 at 7:47 am
Phil says:
There’s no question needed to be asked….Annie blogged about something, and responded with stuff unrelated to it. You’re a blogger, you know that the common courtesy of addressing the issues brought up by the blog should be done before going off on tangents.
Comment posted April 20th, 2006 at 8:58 am
Joe says:
John,
Nice note on Ireland… Here is one on Poland:
Poland started severely limiting abortion on January 7th 1993. Abortion supporters have all sorts of made up statistics that they use to justify abortion, like back alley abortions will increase. The REAL statistics are out and it turns out abortion supporters are dead wrong! A copy of the report can be found here http://www.hli.org.pl/en/wd/statement_2003.doc
The fun statistics are here:
1) All abortions happened in hospitals. There are / were no “back alley” abortions.
2) The rate of abortions dropped from 59,417 in 1990 to 174 in 2003.
3) Spontaneous marriages continued to decline despite the decrease in abortions.
4) The number of miscarriages had declined from 59K to 41K.
5) The number of women’s deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth went down from 70 in 1992 to 23 in 2003.
6) The number of sill births has continually dropped from 7.3 per 1000 births to 4.86 per 1000 births.
7) Infanticide and Abandonment with the result of death also dropped from 53/1 in 1991 to 25/0 in 2003.
The most important fact as stated on the second page, “It might be then stated that during the law’s functioning women have not provoked miscarriages with the aim of abortion. The opponents of the law were afraid of such phenomenon done on a massive scale.”
Joe
P.S. – I heart Poland.
Comment posted April 20th, 2006 at 10:36 am
John says:
“ANSWER WHAT QUESTION DAMN IT.. I will answer whatever you please.”
Lauren,
I really have to wonder if you actually read Annie’s post, in which she poses ten — count ‘em, ten — questions.
First you bring up tangential points, then, when Phil calls you on it, you snidely reply that you see nothing in Annie’s post worth addressing.
Then, when I actually speak to your tangential points, you reply that you refuse to read the article I included.
I’m left scratching my head, trying to make sense of it all.
Comment posted April 20th, 2006 at 11:05 am
John says:
“i refuse to read anything that comes from “lifesitenews.com” lol.”
Lauren,
Shooting the messenger usually isn’t a good idea. Nonetheless, have it your way.
As mentioned in the referenced article in comment #5, the findings on maternal mortality LifeSite reported on were taken from data gathered by the United Nations Population Division.
It shouldn’t be too difficult to find the same information on the UN’s website.
Comment posted April 20th, 2006 at 11:06 am
John says:
Joe,
Thanks for providing the stats on Poland.
Comment posted April 20th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Lauren says:
Your drawing conclusions John that you aren’t in any place to make.
Comment posted April 20th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Lauren says:
Ten Questions.
“Could she have an abortion if she decided she did not want to carry someone else’s baby? Or should the biological mother have a say in the life or death of her own child?”
I will not respond to ridiculous hypotheticals that she has gotten out of pulp fiction. This isn’t even a real-life question. We don’t live in a vaccum people.
Similarly, would a surrogate mother have the right to abort the baby in her womb if decided she didn’t want to be pregnant anymore?
Contractually, no. And who would become a surrogate mother if they didnt want to carry a baby? Seriously. Dumb question.
Or what if her life was “at risk” because of the pregnancy?
Well then, yes. What do you think? No? Sounds good, let her die then.
Or what if the biological mother of the baby decided she didn’t want her baby anymore. Could she force the surrogate mother to get an abortion?
Who in their right mind would do this after seeking out a surrogate? Come on, until this is a real life case with real individuals this issue doesnt even deserve attention.
Is an embryo a separate human being?
No.
If not, who has rights to it?
The mother.
If yes, then should it be protected?
__Does not apply.
My question: Fire starts in a labratory. There’s a two-year-old and an embryo. You can only save one. Who do you save?
You want to pose ridiculous hypothetcials, so will I.
Comment posted April 21st, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Joe says:
Lauren writes “My question: Fire starts in a labratory. There’s a two-year-old and an embryo. You can only save one. Who do you save? You want to pose ridiculous hypothetcials, so will I.”
Actually this type of questioning is not so ridiculous. It is a technique used by many educators to destroy the consciences of their students, making them practical sociopaths.
The idea is to take a normal child who knows the difference between right and wrong. They are taught this difference by their parents. The questioning is meant to separate the child from the morality learned in the home.
My favorite story like this was one where a priest and old lady a young couple are in a boat that is sinking. One of the people needs to get out to save the rest. It is up to you to save as many as possible. Who would you make leave the boat?
You would be forced to answer for a grade. If you give any static, they tell you there is no wrong answer and encourage you to go along with them.
Values clarification is an important element in the social constructionist weaponry. The end goal is to have a population that strictly adheres to norms perpetuated by the state. You can’t have that pesky morality getting in the way when you want an entire population to do your bidding.
Comment posted April 22nd, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Lauren says:
The end goal is to have a population that strictly adheres to norms perpetuated by the state. You can’t have that pesky morality getting in the way when you want an entire population to do your bidding.
Sirens blaring.. conspiracy theorist on board.. How about this… maybe I dont think the way I do because the state says so..
Comment posted April 23rd, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Joe says:
Every thing that is taught in school is taught for a reason. It is the interest of the state and big business to mold a population that will pursue interests that are state friendly. The public school systems main goal is to make effective citizens out of their students. It is important that as they grow into adulthood they will do and believe whatever the state wants them to. It is not a conspiracy. They freely admit that they are doing this. For example here is a school motto from a high school I am vaguely familiar with. Mission of Argo Community High School is to build intelligence and character by providing an education that prepares students to be effective citizens, able to succeed in a global society.
People with morals are not and never have been effective citizens. The thing that governments know best is this: People with high moral standards make trouble for the government. This is why the first thing Nazi’s and Communist do is get rid of priests. Our governments way of doing the same thing is to break down the morality of the family, then mold their minds to believe a new morality that it defines.
Comment posted April 23rd, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Lauren Patrizi says:
Our governments way of doing the same thing is to break down the morality of the family, then mold their minds to believe a new morality that it defines.
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!? I thought 4/20 ended.
Comment posted April 24th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Lauren Patrizi says:
Again, sirens blaring, conspiracy theorist is now turned whackjob. This man joe has no point whatsoever.. AND IF YOU THINK YOU DO, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?!
Comment posted April 24th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
joe says:
The nice thing about liberals is that they all argue the same way. When you bring up something that is complicated or make a point that hurts their feelings they resort to name calling or virtual shouting.
Lauren’s insults remind me of my participation in a blog site filled with pro-aborts (They preferred the term pro-choice, but I didn’t care). They were mostly guys on the site, so instead of just calling me a whackjob, they would say sophomoric things like I had mental constipation. For some reason they really liked analogies that included a persons head and a persons rear. I still haven’t figured that out because most guys grow out of that by the time they are fifteen.
I argued with the people on the site for months and months. In the end I posted the fact that artificial contraceptives can actually cause abortions because they keep the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Basically bringing to light all the pro-contraceptive folks may have unknowingly murdered their offspring. This didn’t go over very well, as the site owner shut down the site the very next day. I thought this to be quite profound because most liberal prefer denial to running away from their problems.
Because Lauren can’t use facts that sting, she has to use insults like whackjob. Although it is shallow, I must admit it is a cut above the insults that I have gotten used to. Lauren has proved herself to be slightly more mature than her male counterparts. She continues to be an example of many stereotypes as she continues her participation in this virtual society.
Comment posted April 24th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Lauren says:
Make a logical statement that I can refute and I will. bring it!
She continues to be an example of many stereotypes as she continues her participation in this virtual society.
Dude, you make no sense.
Comment posted April 28th, 2006 at 1:33 am