2006-03-14 - 2:32 p.m.

For the record, I hate the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice'. Most 'pro-lifers' only advocate the right to life for a zygote/embryo/foetus 1 second to 10 months old. Once it's born they don't give a fuck; most of them don't fight for proper health care plans, family support, drug programs, they don't fight against war or the death penalty or those sorts of things. 'Pro-life' suggests anyone who ISN'T pro-life is against life, which is normally not true. (Especially as those who hate life normally call themselves 'anti-life' or 'pro-abortion' rather than 'pro-choice'.) I hate 'pro-choice' just because of that annoying arguments pro-lifers have: "They had the choice not to have sex!" Which, even ignoring incest/rape, completely misses the point. The point is this (and I will do it by way of allegory and example, as those are quite fun):

Say Lynne gets raped. Lynne is so emotionally scarred by this that when she finds herself pregnant, she decides her best choice is to abort it, for her mental health. It would be too mentally scarring to have that baby, even if it were adopted out. She 'kills' her child.

Okay, now change the situation. Years ago, Brandy's biological father (the puntz) raped some poor girl, and the girl got pregnant. Brandy's mother, compassionate soul that she is, took in the girl in her ninth month of pregnancy and agreed to adopt it. Brandy's half-sister's biological mother shot off the second she had given birth, and obviously, Brandy's father is not welcome anywhere near their home. Unfortunately, Brandy is a bitter bitch who can't deal with her half-sister. She believes it will be psychologically scarring to stay in the same place as her little sister.

Does this mean Brandy kills her sister? No. BECAUSE (and THIS is the point, NOT the "no" part) - Brandy could easily move away. She can easily ignore her little sister. She can get her own place, she can go out shopping, she can permanently estrange herself from her half-sister (even thought that'd be kinda cruel seeing the kid probably has a connection to Brandy by now). She doesn't have to kill her sister to save herself from further psychological scarring because there are other options.

A pregnant girl who wants to be away from that foetus, NOW, has no option other than abortion. The only way to quickly remove herself from that foetus is to have an abortion. The foetus cannot be removed and reimplanted somewhere else. If zygotes that had already wedged themselves in the uterine lining could be removed, and place in another woman's uterus, provided there was some girl who wanted to house that little thing, most would probably elect to do this. I know I would. But at this point, that's not possible. For girls who need it removed, now, there is no choice other than to kill it. That's it. There is NO OTHER CHOICE.

The point is not "Parents should be able to murder unwanted children."
The point is that people have a right to their body.

The second that child is born, it is no longer a part of its mother's body and she has NO RIGHT to kill it. It is the government's prerogative to make sure those born, unwanted children will be provided for.

The most irritating argument I've ever heard is that in which someone describes a parent killing a newborn child and saying "Oh, but of course they had a RIGHT to do that, didn't they, because it's not a REAL PERSON". That's not the point. The point is that no woman should be forced to give up her body for any person. If a man's son is dying, and it turns out Daddy's kidney is perfect, PERFECT, and it is the only thing that will save Billy - Daddy has no legal obligation whatsoever to give up his kidney. Even though he's got another one. Even though it's his own child. Even though he's the only possible candidate. Even though the child is dying. He can't be forced to give up part of his body for another human being, not even his own kid.

Mummy does not have to give up a kidney and recover for a few weeks to keep little blastocyst alive. She needs to give up her uterus and work twice as hard as usual for nine months, bare minimum (unless it's premature). She then needs to recover from whichever birthing procedure she elects (or whichever one the government forces on her) for anywhere between two and five months. This is, of course, assuming there weren't any extra health risks. But never mind if there were - after all, the whore should have thought of her potentially-fatal eclampsia risks BEFORE she had sex!

I'm not saying abortion is cheerful, or great, or the best choice for all, or all-around just plain swell! (Because pregnancy involves more 'swelling' anyway! [Sorry.]) No person should be forced, coerced or bullied into having a abortion. Likewise, no person should be forced, coerced or bullied into a full-term pregnancy. The uterus might be its home, but the body belongs to the mother. The idea of any child or woman being forced to carry a parasite that saps so much of her energy and could kill her is absolutely disgusting. I'd like to think we don't live in that sort of society.

(Of course, others are far more articulate, and make better points. This is just a sort of a basic overview because I felt like rambling.
and referring to junior as 'little blastocyst' and 'zygote' and 'parasite' doesn't mean I hate him/her, or any child! I'm just acknowledging the fact that THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE. Unborn children leach the strength of one person, feeding on their bodies: they are parasites. I don't mean it in the 'eww, icky-poo' sense of 'what disgusting organisms.' I mean that they are draining little things. Any person capable of keeping both themselves, and their baby/babies healthy through that exhausting however-many-months process has won my admiration for that, at least, in my book. Pregnancy is incredibly difficult.)

(here, if you want it, is a legible argument about it concerning a specific aspect.)