Protecting Human Writes.

posted 25 Mar 2004, 5PM | 7 Comments

Both the Senate and the White House, it seems strongly support protection for unborn children. Great. Next, I propose that Congress passes a law protecting unconveived children. Are they not human? Kids that I think I might want have JUST as much of a right to exist as your wrinkled old granny, and the law should reflect that. And maybe then, at long fucking last, we will have paved the way for much needed legislation to protect the human rights of yet unborn parents. How else can we ensure the rights of their unborn granchildren? We need more advanced cultural, legal, and social structures to ensure the rights and lives of future generations, to whom we will present the beautiful world we've crafted. Population explosion? Maybe. As long as we're still cutting welfare!

You may continue shopping and working at Wal Mart! Thank you!

There are 7 Comments


6 Apr 04 at 08:10PM Chewbacca said:

Let me ask you this question since you incinuate that an unborn child is not a human - If a woman, six months pregnant, experiences a miscarriage, has she suffered any loss?

If an unborn child is not a human - deserving of the same rights as you and I - than no. Her only loss is that of a potential child. Imagine trying to explain this theory to a woman who has suffered a miscarriage.

Additionally, if an unborn child is not deserving of the same considerations and protections as a newborn child, then the crime of killing a woman in a late-term (or any stage) pregnancy would need not even mention the fact that she was pregnant, right? It would be no more relevant than the fact that she had herpes, brown hair or a tattoo. But, would you say that this is the case?

Often, it seems, that the abortion discussion wanders down the road of the "reproductive rights/freedom of choice" argument.

To those who would argue either, I would say to them that protecting unborn children from abortions or other terminal procedures is not an infringement of anyones reproductive rights. Every person in this country would, even if abortion was illegal, would still have the unabated ability to reproduce or to not reproduce. A law against abortion does nothing to infringe this right, it only says that you cannot begin a pregnancy by your choosing to have sex and then turn back once a child is involved. Your right to choose was waived once you "chose" to have sex in an unprotected or risky way.

I only propose these questions and opinions as food for thought. I realize how sensitive the abortion issue is. I, myself, have close friends and family who have chosen abortion. So, I would like to go on the record to state that I do not judge people who have had made this choice in their lives. But I do long for a more sensitive discussion about the moral and ethical implications of abortion. Ask someone you know who has chosen abortion if they feel any guilt for having made their decision. If they answer that they have, then ask yourself, "Why?". If it's not a human - deserving of the considerations and protections as every other child - then what do they have to feel guilty about?


7 Apr 04 at 10:55AM han solo said:

Dear Chewy,
when you said:
" A law against abortion does nothing to infringe this right,(reproductive rights) it only says that you cannot begin a pregnancy by your choosing to have sex and then turn back once a child is involved. Your right to choose was waived once you "chose" to have sex in an unprotected or risky way."

I was thinking... hmmm... well, this makes it really simple then. Supposing that all risky sex was purpously risky.
For instance, the time a girl has sex and the condom breaks... that was a choice? or the time when she is date raped and the guy does not even bother to use a condom.. that was a choice? or the time a 13 year old girl is coherced into sex by someone older, intimidating and controlling who says that condoms are uncomfortable and he can't use them and he promises to pull out!... that was a clear and responsible choice?

Point is, there are many cases here. If all of the circumstances were clear, and there was a law that could hold responsible adults with clear cases of neglegence responsible for the life they create - then great. However, things aren't always so clear.

Another point, but sort of different: if a woman gets preggers, decides she wants to abort, but can't because of a law protecting the life of that child there is yet one more child introduced into the world whose mother does not want them to live, that it would be better for the child and certainly better for her, to not go through with having the kid. For health reasons or for life reasons.

The world is being over run with people. Populations are steadily growing everywhere globally. Birth control is helping, but occasionally shit happens and people just keep birthing babies. Where is this headed? Nowhere. Eventually, statistically, the world will literally not be able to sustain its people. What is the solution?
Why should unwanted pregnancies be forced to go to term and deliver?
Argueably, most people who get pregnant, have the kid. In Africa, people have babies all over the place, with no BC - by choice... because the men see BC as a sign of weakness and disease and that condoms are only for people who have AIDS so wouldn't it be awful if it were to give them a bad reputation! Anyway, the babies are born, with or without HIV and then they struggle, and many die before they are 5 and then what? Why should this cycle continue?
If those women had access to BC pills, they would take them. They want it.
The culture is not supportive of abstinence. Men will have sex with women if they want to, through intimidation, or traditional courtship.

" The survey showed that young women are bearing the brunt of theHIV/AIDS epidemic. Of the 10 percent of the infected, 77 percent are women.

"The research shows one in four women aged between 20 and 24 isHIV positive, compared with one in 14 men of the same age," said health expert Sue Valentine.

"Almost one-third of sexually experienced young women reported their first sexual encounter had been unwanted and that they had been coerced by their male partner into having sex," she added.


Basically, I think that when pregnant women are killed or mamed, or injured, it may be relevant to prosecute for the death of the unborn child as a result of outside actions. But the specific cases for which this would be relevant are narrow. Since the law will protect a wide range of cases, I don't agree with it.


7 Apr 04 at 11:18AM Ryan said:

I'm really glad both of you have spoken up about this, because I've been feeling a bit silly about my short sarcastic rant since I put it up, and I've been thinking about adding a more rational sincere commentary. I'm busy at work today, but I'll get to it soon.


7 Apr 04 at 02:23PM nicole said:

The government needs to stay the hell away from my uterus.

45 years. That’s how long women had to fight to finally be granted the right to vote. 50 years after that, we were still fighting to have control over our own bodies.

Women (who do not want to be treated as incubators) are about to face the biggest fight ever. The fetus protection bill IS a step toward the elimination of a woman’s right to choice.

The idea of losing a child, born or unborn, is devastating. However, implementing a law, which may be used someday to make abortion illegal in this country, is destructive and rolls back women rights.

Imagine telling an 11-year old girl that she MUST have a baby, even if her own father raped her, because our government says so. (Oh wait, Dan Quayle actually DID say this to an 11-year old girl when ‘Big Daddy’ Bush was leading the country.)

“W” (being the good Christian that he is) seems to be passionate about expanding the legal rights of the unborn, yet has no qualms about executing retarded people and little old ladies. Strange. Don’t you think?

Something else to consider, this bill will also impede valuable fetal tissue, embryo and stem cell research. In the 1950’s, it was stem cell research that helped contributed to the defeat of disease (polio and rubella). Could we find the cure for Alzheimer’s? Could we prevent strokes?


14 Apr 04 at 08:09PM Chewbacca said:

Exceptions to the rule would require exceptions to be made. Date rape, Incestual rape, or any other kind of violence is an exception deserving of an abortion. A doctor should be allowed to perform an abortion in such situations because it's an act of violence, not poor judgement. Just like a doctor can perform open heart surgery on a patient who needs one, not on someone who just walks in and asks for one. Victims of violence did not choose to have sex and therefore are not responsible. Willing participants, however, do choose and are responsible for that choice. Even when condoms break. If you don't want a child, then take the pill AND use a condom. If you can't take the pill, then you run a greater risk by just wearing a condom (which everyone involved in casual sex ought to be doing to prevent disease anyway). But if that's the case, you are well aware that your actions may lead to pregnancy. It's your choice and your responsibility to choose to have sex. Own up to your actions.

And women without access to birth control are another exception. I'm talking about America, not third-world countries where women are still second-class citizens. Birth control is now free (health insurance) or extremely cheap (social orgs like Planned Parenthood) in America. So, it's not the same situation here. It's time people start taking responsibility and quit looking for a way to wish, litigate, cry, or abort their "problems" away.

Women having the right to vote and be treated equally has nothing to do with choosing to abort a child. I'm sorry but you're just wrong.

Women should be fighting stereotypes that allow men to be whores in our society while holding women to a different standard. Women ought to be fighting to remove barriers that prevent gays and lesbians from adopting. Women ought to be fighting for LOTS of other social issues, since they can relate to them, but abortion is not a "rights" issue, it's a life or death issue.

And I am opposed to the death penalty and entirely support Stem Cell research. An embryo in a petri dish has 0% chance of becoming human, therefore it should be treated differently. It's not the same as a fertilized egg in a woman that has gestated 4-6 weeks (usually the time a woman realizes that she's pregnant).

Ignorance is what is pushing support for anti-Stem Cell legislation. But what else is new? If the right wingers aren't getting it wrong about forcing their religion down my throat or State-sponsored executions, then it's the lefties getting it wrong with abortions and social handouts that don't require people to improve themselves (welfare). And before you criticize that point, let me point out that I spent 14 years on welfare and saw it from the inside - it was and still is a joke - a system built to entrench people in poverty. But keeping poor people around always give liberals a token social cause to pretend that they care about.


14 Apr 04 at 08:31PM Chewbacca said:

Oh, and I also watched my mother have two children while on Welfare. Would she/we had been better off if she hadn't gone through with these "unwanted" pregnancies and had had an abortion? Maybe, but better still, she should have kept her pants on. She should have been required to be on birth control while on welfare. She was endangering the three kids she already had by bringing more mouths to feed into an already bad situation. But she wasn't required to be held responsible, so she didn't think twice about it.

That's one of the problems with this country - no accountability. Whether it's Bush lying about the War, Ken laying stealing Billions from his employees and walking away from it or from irresponsible men and women who think they should be able to fuck now and ask questions later.

What should women do who find themselves in an "unwanted" pregnancy? Ever hear of adoption?


8 Jun 04 at 02:34PM Jager said:

The logic in that post should've been aborted.


Comments are now closed for this entry. May spammers burn in firey brimstone.

↑ Top of comments ↑ Top of page ↑ Top of site

About this page. presents expermients in writing, design, photography, and hypertext. This weblog entry was posted by Ryan, the site's author.

You are viewing entries within the Current Weblog archive. Explore the full archive, which includes plenty of older & non-webloggy stuff.