Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Fetal rights

June 22, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

In the June 9 Journal-World, there was a commentary about abortion rights.  As usual, when a person is arguing for abortion rights, he or she refers to the choice of the woman. However, the real problem with abortion as a choice is that abortion always pits the rights of a woman to choose with the rights of her unborn child to live.

I contend that the rights of the unborn child should supersede those of the woman simply because the woman does have the ability to choose whereas the child does not. The only time when the woman should be allowed to kill her unborn child is when she is raped.  That is because rape takes away her right to choose. So, the only kind and civil decision and action when a woman chooses to have sex and becomes pregnant is to carry the child to delivery.

Comments

whats_going_on 1 year, 9 months ago

Why do we still argue over this stuff? No one is going to change the minds of others regarding this issue.

0

kuguardgrl13 1 year, 9 months ago

A man and a woman have sex. An egg is present, and is fertilized by one of the millions of sperm.
That fertilized egg begins to divide into more and more cells. That small ball of cells lacks a few crucial elements: a heart, a brain, lungs, all crucial to being alive and human. This is what is considered to be an embryo. A fetus is when the unborn begins to resemble something like a human. Fetuses are not considered viable until about 7 months (that being they have the potential to survive after spending the first few months after birth in NICU. That is how our laws stand. If the fetus is beyond the viability point, in most cases it is too late for an abortion. Before then, there is still a risk of miscarriage (which still happens and is usually an accident). Of course, there is a risk of miscarriage throughout a pregnancy, but it lessens over the course of the 9 months. A baby born at about 7-8 months can usually survive if given the proper care. My own brother was a premie through no fault of my mother's. It happened, and he has been very lucky to be alive. However, an embryo cannot survive on its own. Even a fetus in the early stages has a very slim chance of survival. So an abortion is the death of something that some consider to be a form of a parasite. I've heard that from women after they've had children, so don't jump down my throat. An embryo pulls nutrients from its mother (effectively a host) ,even stripping calcium out of a woman's teeth and bones if she does not have enough on reserve. Unborn children will suck their mothers dry without so much as a tear thanks to nature. You try to protect something that kills without thinking? There is absolutely nothing wrong with pregnancy and having children (I myself plan to be a mother someday in the future), but you have to look at the biological facts. Have no fear that enough children will continue to be born to perpetuate the human race. Abortions have not slowed that, and there's nothing to say that they will. If made illegal, women who are desperate enough will leave the country or go into a back alley. It's ok to abort an animal's pregnancy to save the mother, why shouldn't it be the same for humans? Women also shouldn't have to give birth to children that won't be well cared for and educated. If you don't want abortions, you better be prepared to support welfare and public schools.

0

Centerville 1 year, 9 months ago

And it's too bad we're still getting so visceral over this. After all, abortion has served it's purpose of funding Pro Kan Do and and the person who benefitted most has moved on to the coctail bars of Washington.

0

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 9 months ago

The fact is no one knows when an embryo/fetus becomes a human being.

It is probably some time in the early third trimester.

This is why I support restrictions on late term abortions (there already are, as evidenced by Neuhaus having her license revoked), and also support free an accessible abortion for embryos early in pregnancy.

2

werekoala 1 year, 9 months ago

I know no one will read this, this late in the game, but I just wanted to say that this letter is a perfect demonstration of the selective morality that anti-abortion activists like to use.

The man starts off by saying that every fetus had a right to life, and that the mom had a choice as to whether or not to have sex, no backsies. While I personally disagree with this opinion, it is a valid and internally consistent belief structure.

But a few sentences later, he says it is okay to revoke that fundamental right to life, if the mom was raped. He justifies this because she didn't have a choice in the conception. WTF? Does not compute!

since you can't have rights if you don't exist, the right to life has got to be paramount. So if you are going to say that an embryo deserves the same exact rights as the mother, then the embryo's right to life outweighs any right the mother may have to not be forced to carry herr rapist's baby to term.

Instead, by admitting that there are certain situations in which abortion is an acceptable decision, the author has accidentally argued the opposite of what he intended. Once he admits that abortion can be justified for reasons other than life-threatening medical conditions, the noble talk about the sanctity of life is exposed for the hyperbole that it is. We are just arguing over the details.

It comes down to the fact that this guy and his ilk don't care about saving fetuses, but about punishing chiices

3

ivalueamerica 1 year, 9 months ago

I will never understand this bizarre and controlling behavior to try and force women to breed against their will.

Then to go to the extreme and force them to do it if their baby will be born dead, if it might kill the mother, if it is the product of rape or incest rape..if the mother is 10 years old...

Nothing Christian, nothing compassionate, nothing American in that.

and while religious arguments are not relevant as they hold no legal standing in US law, even religious arguments are flawed because in Numbers 5 God instructs priests to give bitter herbs to adulterous women to flatten and rot their bellies. It is pretty clearly God endorsed abortion.

2

FalseHopeNoChange 1 year, 9 months ago

As 'long' as complex nuanced Liberal females want the 'procedure', what's the big deal?

0

tange 1 year, 9 months ago

You, mortal, are not qualified to render the mortal judgment—you, who can no more account for your own form and associated experiential modalities than you can fathom the (begin- and) endpoints of your existence—you, who by virtue of your deconstructed, atomistic universe with its deciphered laws and delineated processes are self-exalted to tearing the very fabric from which you are fashioned—you, who find solace in your smattering of knowledge, bolstered to arrogance by transient consensus.

The universe you know could play itself out in its conserved and balanced dance of energy propagated through the cold, dead stuff of which it is composed without ever giving rise to (life and) sentience, consciousness, and reflection But your very existence contradicts so scant a cosmology. Your evolving world has a moral dimension, said morality perhaps as lawfully governed and governing as the physical underpinnings you take for granted.

...

"That's enough, now. I'm tired of singing."

1

ljwhirled 1 year, 9 months ago

I think a little levity is in order:

As we all know, every sperm is sacred: http://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk

0

verity 1 year, 9 months ago

Since every argument has been stated many times on these threads, all I'm going to say it that---whether legal or not, whether you agree or disagree, women will continue to have abortions. Some women may use them as birth control, I don't know. Some will have them because it's inconvenient to have a baby at that time for whatever reason. Some will have them for medical necessities (yes, I said medical necessity). Some percentage will be because they were having sex outside of marriage (and sex outside of marriage is nobody else's business as far as I am concerned).

If women can't obtain abortions legally, they will have illegal and often dangerous abortions. Many will die.

If you are truly pro-life, you will support thorough sex education and ready access to birth control. This is the only way to lower the number of abortions, not by trying to outlaw them.

3

Dignitas 1 year, 9 months ago

The Latin word fetus means 'off-spring, little one, child ' I was always wondering the difference between a innocent helpless not born baby and an ax murder... o I think it might be culpablity for own choice or Killing willingly or being killed unwillingly might separate abortions and capital punishment. In 1973 the federal government thru the branch of the supreme court made killing not yet born humans legal. I'm thinking the folks that used the poor women Roe (who is now prolife), to force everyone to support this heinous crime began the governments forcing people to accept the horrors of abortions. The prolife people are only in support of people being allowed to live. Why that is so lost to everyone that is already born I don't understand. Honoring life is much easier then supporting death. Imagine that not yet born but alive human as a sweet little puppy.. maybe you'll care for that life more.

1

Pywacket 1 year, 9 months ago

Nobody's killing children, Wentz. They're aborting unwanted embryos and (in a very small percentage of cases) fetuses. You wrong-headed control freaks and religious nuts skew the argument every time you use incorrect and incendiary terminology.

If you believe that a 3-wk embryo is a "child," and should have rights that outweigh those of a fully developed, sentient woman or teen, you're cordially invited to build a tree house in/on an acorn--which you are also welcome to call an "oak tree."

4

SnakeFist 1 year, 9 months ago

The notion that men should have no say on the issue of abortion is ridiculous. It takes a man and a woman to reproduce, and both men and women should have reproductive rights (and if you say simply that the man's choice ends when he has sex and conceives a child, then I reply equally simply that the woman's does as well).

Yes, the woman has to carry the fetus in her body for 9 months, but the man is legally and morally obligated to support the resulting child for the next 18 years. So it is irrational to suggest that the man is unaffected by the pregnancy and therefore should have no say in whether it continues or ends - men are equal stakeholders in reproduction.

1

Steve Swaggerty 1 year, 9 months ago

Is it just me or have you noticed how many Right Wing "Christian" Conservatives are ProLife and Pro Death Penalty?

1

tange 1 year, 9 months ago

Abortion exists largely to preserve lifestyles... by those who would end a life to preserve their style. Own it.

/ and be owned by it

1

Dignitas 1 year, 9 months ago

Try to change the mind of people that live in the culture of death is like trying to pick up a turd by its clean end. Rape isn't an acceptable reason for abortions either. Every child is conceived with a right to life!!! I cannot comprehend how anyone can put the life of a child in the hands of murders. When you accept that an abortion ( which is killing someone) is ok when do you stop. Especially when the consequences to the women's health are all put into far more danger of cancer alcohol and drug abuse inability to conceive again when the child is wanted etc etc etc..53000000 million people have been murdered since 1973 in America alone by abortions (those that are known about anyway). Who are you missing? Anyone who needs help in healing their heart from loss of motherhood / fatherhood 'Rachel's Vineyard ' is a wonderful program. Also to meet others that no longer can defend their abortion. There is WWW.silentnomore.com We were all once unborn.

0

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 9 months ago

Every sperm has a little, fully formed human being inside that takes up residence in the uterine lining.

Inside that little fully formed human in the sperm are more sperm with little fuly formed humans which in turn are filled with sperm with little fully formed humans.

If this idea of infinite divisibility was good enough for the 17th century, its good enough for today.

Homunulus sperm

Homunulus sperm by yourworstnightmare

0

Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago

Next thread... tapeworm rights.

2

pizzapete 1 year, 9 months ago

I'm all for forcing women to have children, but what about the rights of the sperm? Why all this talk about embryos? Let's get to the source and save the sperm. Doesn't the bible say it's a sin to spill ones seed? How many lives are being lost to masturbation?

2

labmonkey 1 year, 9 months ago

Gaaaa...

Dear Conservatives... people who aren't married to each other will have sex. There is nothing you can do about that. Birth control should be widely available and cheap. (I would go a step further and say that if your receive a welfare check, you also get a mandatory birth control shot, males and females). The morning after pill should also be available (not OTC but with a doctor's instructions due to the havoc it puts a woman's hormones through). Those who limit birth control negate any argument toward being pro-life as birth control prevents abortions. And beware unattended consequences of rape or incest only abortions... how many men will be wrongly be accused of rape because of this?

Dear Liberals... In the over 90% of abortions that are out of convenience and not rape or mother's life in danger, you are killing another life and it isn't just the woman's right you are talking about but an unborn baby. You are against any reasonable restrictions on abortion such as third trimester and partial birth abortion (and now there is a paper in Europe calling for after birth abortions. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108433/Doctors-right-kill-unwanted-disabled-babies-birth-real-person-claims-Oxford-academic.html I am sure this will make it into Cait48 arguments in the next few years). And what about a father's rights? Someone very close to me found out about an abortion after the fact and he treated it as losing a child. It was consensual sex and the woman was a willing participant. Why didn't he get the chance to raise that child?

Dear both sides and those in the middle... why not work to make it not so GD hard and expensive to adopt an American baby. The quicker a child makes it to his/her's adoptive parents and out of the foster system, the better off he/she will be. Also, make it very, very hard for a father to be a deadbeat dad.

0

Kirk Larson 1 year, 9 months ago

Boy, how many times do we have to go over this? If you are opposed to abortion then promote comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraception. Otherwise, YOU have no right to make reproductive decisions for a woman about HER body. Period.

5

Patricia Davis 1 year, 9 months ago

I love that republican men seem to think women get pregnant by themselves. In the same manner of Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal, I say we simply castrate republican men. If a republican woman wants to have a baby, she'll have to mate with a democrat. Diversity in the gene pool is a good thing.

The republicans have been brilliant to use these wedge issues to cover up their real slash and burn economic policies which do not work. This is the follow-up to the dixiecrat move that turned southern democrats into republicans because race.

Our brilliant governor is on the fast track to have his name and stupid economic policies that should be banned forever intertwined. Republican theory: ban abortions, make contraception difficult to afford will force poor people not to have sex, not to have children. Biology is a bigger force than ideology.

2

Agnostick 1 year, 9 months ago

Hugh gets one thing correct: The fetus has no choice. Largely because the fetus has no concept of choice... it's questionable if it even has sentience. If the fetus has concept of choice, and sentience, then should it also have a measure of self-responsibility? We could find out. Bring it out, cut the umbilical cord. let it make a case for itself.

Absurd yet? Of course. Because arguing about abortion is always absurd.

The only way out is to reduce the numbers. The only way to reduce the number of abortions, is to eliminate the number of unwanted pregnancies. My position remains unchanged.

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/agnostick/2012/jan/1/abortion-a-logical-approach/

3

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 9 months ago

No one loves abortion more than Republican politicians and this is a big reason why they will never be able to solve the problem. In fact, their policies greatly increase the problem of poverty and the number of single mothers in this country.

This is a reality that voters probably never consider as they view the propaganda regarding abortion in this country.

In fact, it is Democrats who have done more to reduce the number of abortions in this country and it is the Republicans who have exploited the issue to benefit the very wealthy who are the ones who benefit the most from the Republican legislative agenda, much of which is crafted by right wing think tanks such as ALEC.

2

voevoda 1 year, 9 months ago

Mr. Wentz's logic is flawed, on several accounts: 1) Why does Mr. Wentz presume that the only inalienable right a woman has is to have or withhold sex from a man? He makes all her other rights, including the right to life, subservient to those of an embryo. 2) If a woman's life is at risk by pregnancy, why shouldn't her life take precedence over that of the unborn fetus? Often, women don't know in advance the pregnancy would be dangerous. 3) If, according to Mr. Wentz, a woman is still entitled to abortion if her "ability to choose" was violated, what if she chose to use birth control but got pregnant anyway? In that case, she made a deliberate choice not to get pregnant, and it happened without her consent and against her will. By Mr. Wentz's logic, then she would be completely justified in reiterating her original choice through abortion. 4) If Mr. Wentz's rules became the law of the land, wouldn't that require that women abstain from sex whenever they did not want to risk an undesired pregnancy (not trusting birth control--see No. 3 above)? No sex except when both parties plan to use it for reproduction. Does Mr. Wentz think that is a logical solution?

3

Liberty_One 1 year, 9 months ago

No, the fetus's rights do not supersede the rights of the mother. You have an absolute right to control over your own body. To grant the fetus rights over the property of the mother is no different than granting one person the rights over the body of another person.

2

weiser 1 year, 9 months ago

If everyone who advocated abortion would have one themselves; eventually the world would be a better place.

0

sourpuss 1 year, 9 months ago

I think what the letter-writer does not realize is that a child born into a world that doesn't want it is an unhappy fellow. By forcing a woman to bear a child she does not want, you are not punishing the woman. She dumps the kid in a orphanarium and goes on with her life. The child, on the other hand, gets to roll the dice and hope for a nice family to adopt it. If that doesn't happen... well, good luck to you, kid.

1

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

Hugh is frustrated about things outside his realm of control. Poor guy ~ I'd advise that it's a sign of maturity to accept that there are things in this world you cannot control. But make this your sole issue and you'll find you are simply out of step with the fact that a woman's body is her own domain, and there's nothing you can do about it. Control freak men need to realize that women aren't their chattel to lord over, and that when others hear of their agenda they reject it in its entirety ~ not just the abortion part.

5

classclown 1 year, 9 months ago

Don't want an abortion, don't have one. On the other hand, don't want to be pregnant, don't get yourself knocked up.

1

Topple 1 year, 9 months ago

And I was worried there wouldn't be any controversial articles on LJW today...

0

mom_of_three 1 year, 9 months ago

So this letter writer would like to go back to the times when women risked their lives with back alley abortions, putting their lives and future reproductive rights in danger?

"when a woman chooses to have sex? So only a woman is involved? uh huh. He definitely wants to go back to the times when "sex" was just about having children (although it never really has been for hundreds of years). And then men will be back to marrying only the "good" girls and having "fun" with the type "you don't bring home to mother."

Hey, let's outlaw viagra and see where that goes!

7

Mike Ford 1 year, 9 months ago

as the rest of this spectrum goes amuck...what we really need is a total destraction away from real issues because someone is still hating on roe v wade 39 years after the fact. thank you churchlicans for that much needed escape from real issues. now let the rest of the house burn.

2

grammaddy 1 year, 9 months ago

If you're against abortions, don't have one. It really IS that simple. If you're a man, you don't get to have ANY say over my "lady-parts". Just as I don't want any say over your "manly-parts".

8

hujiko 1 year, 9 months ago

If you have a Y chromosome your opinion is inconsequential regarding abortion. It's the right of every individual woman to decide if she will bring a pregnancy to term. Forcing pregnancy basically tells women that their right to autonomy means nothing, and in my opinion is akin to slavery.

10

Mercy 1 year, 9 months ago

Why should the crime of a person committing rape, justify the commission of another act of violence by their victim? While the first crime is indeed a tragedy, two wrongs don't make it right to kill.

0

Michael LoBurgio 1 year, 9 months ago

We really need to get over this love affair with the fetus and start worrying about children.

15

pusscanthropus 1 year, 9 months ago

Another man after control of women's bodies. Question, Mr Wentz: how many unwanted, abused, or neglected children have you adopted? Or are you uninterested after the child is born?

5

Katara 1 year, 9 months ago

So, Mr. Wentz, what do you suggest should happen when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy? Or a molar pregnancy? Should we force a woman to carry a pregnancy to birth even though the outcome is not a live birth? That is not a kind and civil decision and action.

Does the unborn's right to life mean that it must be granted even though it means a short life of only pain? That is not a kind and civil decision and action.

Mr. Wentz, your thinking is incredibly simplistic and assumes a positive outcome for every pregnancy. If only it worked that way...

2

Commenting has been disabled for this item.