This is a bad analogy. When someone is dying for lack of an organ transplant, and I don’t donate an organ, my inaction is contributing to their death. In the case of abortion, the unborn child is dying through action–the abortion.

actually it’s a very good analogy. In both cases, one being is completely reliant on use of the body of another being in order to live. In the case of a blastocyst/embryo/fetus, is long term use of a host body to aid/perform physiological processes in order to develop to the point it can sustain itself, additionally the birth proces itself requires the host body to undergo considerable physiological stress to provide an avenue to independent living. It’s equally a consent to use argument, the donor/host must consent to use of the organ or body. In organ/tissue donation, there may be more than 1 potential donor; in pregnancy, there is only one potential host post implantation.

You make the assumption that if a pregnancy is not terminated, it is very likely to go to term and result in live birth. Some organ/tissue donations have significantly higher good outcome stats (FYI donation of blood products would be as applicable as an organ; there may be little risk to the donor but the donor can not be compelled to donate even if they are the only match and the potential recipient must have the transfusion to live).

A person who needs an organ transplant is also not able to survive on their own. No one is forced to donate one–they don’t even take organs from dead people unless the person gave permission while living! Survival at someone else’s expense is a privelege, not a right.

This is a bad analogy. When someone is dying for lack of an organ transplant, and I don’t donate an organ, my inaction is contributing to their death. In the case of abortion, the unborn child is dying through action–the abortion.

To make the anology even worse, it could easily be applied to a woman who decided to stop feeding her already-born infant because it’s an expense she’d rather not deal with. After all, that infant is living at her expense, which is a privilage, not a right.

I am not a lawyer, but
if memory serves, the Texas statute invalidated in Roe v. Wade did not punish the women at all and was only aimed at doctors, so at very least there’s a legal precedent for the inconsistency in not throwing so-called murderers in jail. Up here in Chicago, in our dizzying Senate race, Alan Keyes brought this up routinely to cast his lot in pretty much the very debate(s) we’re having here, namely that overturning Roe would not, given the nature of the previous anti-choice statutes, translate to throwing women in jail.

My own feeling is that the other side is more in favor of punishment than criminalization per se, and that makes it a whole dif’rent can of worms. I think it’s a mistake to focus on jail as the only way of making people hurt through policy.

Isn’t that the fundamental point that we need to make? They are arguing that abortion should be illegal, we need to point out that illegal = punishment.

Anything else is being pro-choice. “Between the woman and her God”. I think that actually sums up what pro-choice means.

It sounds like we’ve internalised their characterisation of us as pro-abortion so much, that this isn’t immediately obvious. Our response should be “That’s exactly what we’ve been trying to make you understand. You are pro-choice, too.”

http://tinyurl.com/d2kre

Marksman and various other misogynists who use the term “baby killer”—The death of the “baby” in question is not the point but a side effect. Women have abortions because they don’t want to be pregnant. For them to not be pregnant, the fetus or embryo has to come out. It is a simple fact of life that said embryo/fetus is not able to survive on its own.

A person who needs an organ transplant is also not able to survive on their own. No one is forced to donate one–they don’t even take organs from dead people unless the person gave permission while living! Survival at someone else’s expense is a privelege, not a right.

Deal with it, Marksman. It IS my body. Nobody else has a right to use it. And for the record, I don’t give a damn what your belief system is. Being something other than right-wing Christian didn’t make communism any less tyrannical. It is being anti-choice and otherwise intolerant and restrictive that makes conservative Christianity a bad thing, and the same goes for you.

Reasoning out the logical end of anti-abortion activism leads to unpleasant realities, like jailed women and coat-hanger abortions, and that’s why the protesters don’t have answers to the question. They have their heads stuck in their essentialist clouds (or elsewhere), and they’re pretending that if abortion were outlawed, then no one would do it anymore. That’s naive ,and again, not realistic.

To dismiss their ignorance by saying you’ve got video of dumb leftist protesters is just playground “I know you are but what am I…” I’m sure the interviewer talked to some less moronic protesters, but chose not to include them in order to make a stronger video. That’s the sorry state of media in our culture (which the amateurs were emulating). The video demonstrates (perhaps melodramatically) a lack of attention (willful disregard?) paid to the role of women in anti-abortion politics.

such essentialization is dangerous on any front.

I’m glad we agree about the above, but I can’t agree with this one. Sometimes, things are just wrong, and you have to take a stand on them–sometimes by essentializing what it is, exactly, that’s wrong about them.

If that happens, all women will be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

…And speaking of feeble arguments, here is a perfect example of how anti-choicers don’t base their opinions on logic and reason and in fact don’t really think their arguments through. Watch the video on Goddess Musings (via feministe).