I've been following a thread on the socialist message board en masse about a pregnant woman who shot herself in the abdomen on the day she was going to give birth, thereby killing her unborn child. She is charged with giving herself an abortion.
We don't know all the details of the story, but the fact that a full term baby died inside her mother's womb as a result of her mother's action does not seem to morally faze the socialist posters at en masse. Oh sure, it's not the same thing as killing a "clump of cells" [sic!] but the woman had every right to kill her baby.
Here's one exchange:
morningstar: my uterus, my fetus, my body--it's not a separate being until it's born.
Senor Magoo: What about the science of biology? Does it get an opinion?
morningstar: no
Wait, wait, wait a minute-- I'm the religious right-wing nutjob, here. I'm supposed to believe science doesn't matter.
[Lightbulb moment]
Oooooh! I get it! When science favours the unborn child, it doesn't matter any more. It's another tool of patriarchal oppression.
Hey! Don't confuse her with the facts, her mind is made up!
Senor Magoo writes:
I can't think of a single pro-choice organization that would define that line at nine months, nor am I aware of any country that permits legal abortions at nine months, nor have I ever heard anyone (prior to today) suggest that an abortion at nine months is a woman's right, feminists and women included.
Anyone who doesn't know feminists support abortion until birth is grossly out of the loop. Read the feminists on the forum. Not one of them is saying it wasn't okay for the child to die. A lot of people think the way they day. What a day it will be when Canadians learn the facts.
Another quote:
Infosaturated: As long as a fetus remains inside of a woman, anything she does "to the fetus" she is doing to herself, to her own body. She cannot affect the health of the fetus without affecting her own health. The fetus cannot be "protected" without infringing on a woman's right to control her own body.
That statement is so unbelievably illogical, a high school student can find the flaws in that one.
When a fetus has a cancer, it's not the mom who has the cancer. The cancer will not spread to the mother. If the fetus is operated on, it's not the mom who is operated on. Her body, while it is open, is not the one being repaired. Whether or not she allows the fetus to be operated or not, has zero effect on her health. She can let him die, or she can have him operated.
I love this. The baby is hours away from being delivered, and they're worried about the "woman's right to control her own body". They hold their opinion to the extreme end. All the mom had to do is give birth to the baby and give the baby up for adoption.
The feminist position on fetuses is sheer lunacy, and it's really too bad many Canadians have not sat down and thought about it. Equating a full-term fetus to a "woman's body part" is ridiculous. At least one of the posters had the acumen to see through that blatant lie. A fetus may be inside the woman's body, englobed, and kept alive by it, but he is not part of her body. Let's stop using biologically inaccurate descriptions.
At least one poster had some sense:
Senor Magoo: Suggesting that she has some absolute right to do anything at all with her body, no matter what the outcome for her baby, is a little much, in my opinion. Again, we're not talking about a clump of cells here, we're talking about a healthy, viable baby.
I'd also like to add that I'm not discussing this with an eye to sending her off to prison for life (to be honest, I'm not sure what punishment, if any, is called for here).
On the legal status of the fetus it is written:
Infosaturated wrote: In Canada that line is drawn at the moment of a live birth, although I think the term is "infant", and not a second before.
As a matter of fact "unborn child" is a legal term. However, he's not considered a person. He's a child and everyone in Canada regards a full-term baby as a child but legally, and in the mind of militant feminists, he's a non-person, a nobody, a non-equal. He's a nothing. I even wonder how feminists can love their unborn children, as they are only "body parts". I guess they don't want to sort out that contradiction.
Tehanu writes:
Which is why, in my opinion, this should not be classified as an abortion-related issue. Because it is a slippery slope to start defining "viability" and how that could or should affect women's rights over their bodies.
That sounds like someone who is not confident of her case. Abortion is not the only fetal rights issue. Fetal victims of crime, IVF, Fetal health care, stem cell research, these are all areas where fetal rights need to be addressed.
Check out the Big Blue Wave Message Board
