against-abortion

pianoplayersara  asked:

Do you have any non religious arguments against abortion?

Yes!

Current biology research shows us that, once fertilization takes place in humans, the resulting zygote is an individual organism and a member of the human species. This organism is self-directed, which means it develops from within using its own unique DNA (as opposed to, for instance, how a car is put together one piece at a time).

In fact, for the first week (prior to implantation), the human embryo is not directly connected to the mother, but continues to grow and develop from a single-celled organism to a blastocyst with hundreds of cells that at this point begin to differentiate (different cells are going to develop into different body systems).

The development is gradual and continuous, which means there is no definite point after fertilization where we can say that the human embryo/fetus has become something different that it wasn’t before. All of our descriptions of stages of development and the terms we use are arbitrary and only for our own benefit in understanding what happens.

Birth itself is simply a change in location for the fetus. We change our terminology, but the fetus/newborn doesn’t change in any significant way.

If this is the case, we can easily say that the fetus is a member of the human species.

However, this means nothing if we don’t know how to treat members of the human species. Science cannot answer that question - it can only tell us what the fetus is and what it does. At this point, we have to turn to philosophy and ethics.

Most people can agree that all human adults and human children have human rights and deserve equal treatment.

Most people also agree that while animals should not be abused or neglected, they don’t deserve equal treatment with humans. If they did, the punishment for a hit-and-run would be the same whether the victim was a squirrel or a human toddler.

But why?

We have to have a consistent explanation for equal treatment that tells us, without ambiguity, who does and doesn’t have rights.

Our explanation must include human adults and human infants, but exclude animals.

If we base our explanation on ability, such as self-awareness, sentience, verbal ability, etc. we run the risk of either excluding some human adults or infants or including squirrels.

However, if we base our explanation on the common humanity shared by human adults and human infants, we satisfy all three requirements with an explanation that should make sense to us.

This explanation, that all humans deserve equal treatment regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or ability, means that a human fetus (or even a zygote) deserves equal treatment because it is human.

This means that if it is wrong to intentionally kill a 2-year-old, it is wrong to intentionally kill a fetus, regardless of the fetus’s stage of development. Therefore, if we agree that it should be illegal to kill 2-year-olds, it should also be illegal to kill fetuses.

A law based on this fact would simply be the existing murder statute applied to all human beings equally, as the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already requires.

This would mean that it would be illegal for abortionists to kill preborn children. The mother of the preborn child would be considered a second victim of a medical professional who chose to violate the law and medical ethics.

tl;dr: Fetuses are biologically human. All human beings have equal rights. Fetuses have the same rights as everybody else.

Against Abortion

A worried woman went to her Gynaecologist and said:

‘Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I’m pregnant again. I don’t want kids so close together.’

So the Doctor said: ‘Ok and what do you want me to do?’

She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this.’

The Doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.’

She smiled, thinking that the Doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.’

The lady was horrified and said: 'No Doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child!’

'I agree’, the Doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.’

The Doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.

He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that’s already been born and one that’s still in the womb.
The crime is the same!

nature.com
How an abortion saved millions of lives
In 1962, Leonard Hayflick created a cell strain from an aborted fetus.

The woman was four months pregnant, but she didn’t want another child. In 1962, at a hospital in Sweden, she had a legal abortion.

The fetus — female, 20 centimetres long and wrapped in a sterile green cloth — was delivered to the Karolinska Institute in northwest Stockholm. There, the lungs were dissected, packed on ice and dispatched to the airport, where they were loaded onto a transatlantic flight. A few days later, Leonard Hayflick, an ambitious young microbiologist at the Wistar Institute for Anatomy and Biology in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, unpacked that box.

Working with a pair of surgical scalpels, Hayflick minced the lungs — each about the size of an adult fingertip — then placed them in a flask with a mix of enzymes that fragmented them into individual cells. These he transferred into several flat-sided glass bottles, to which he added a nutrient broth. He laid the bottles on their sides in a 37 °C incubation room. The cells began to divide.

So began WI-38, a strain of cells that has arguably helped to save more lives than any other created by researchers. Many of the experimental cell lines available at that time, such as the famous HeLa line, had been grown from cancers or were otherwise genetically abnormal. WI-38 cells became the first ‘normal’ human cells available in virtually unlimited quantities to scientists and to industry and, as a result, have become the most extensively described and studied normal human cells available to this day.

Vaccines made using WI-38 cells have immunized hundreds of millions of people against rubella, rabies, adenovirus, polio, measles, chickenpox and shingles. In the 1960s and 1970s, the cells helped epidemiologists to identify viral culprits in disease outbreaks. Their normality has made them valuable control cells for comparison with diseased ones. And at the Wistar Institute, as in labs and universities around the world, they remain a leading tool for probing the secrets of cellular ageing and cancer.

theverge.com
An artificial womb successfully grew baby sheep — and humans could be next
Inside what look like oversized ziplock bags strewn with tubes of blood and fluid, eight fetal lambs continued to develop — much like they would have inside their mothers. Over four weeks, their...
By Rachel Becker

Inside what look like oversized ziplock bags strewn with tubes of blood and fluid, eight fetal lambs continued to develop — much like they would have inside their mothers. Over four weeks, their lungs and brains grew, they sprouted wool, opened their eyes, wriggled around, and learned to swallow, according to a new study that takes the first step toward an artificial womb. One day, this device could help to bring premature human babies to term outside the uterus — but right now, it has only been tested on sheep.

Instead, the point of developing an external womb — which his team calls the Biobag — is to give infants born months too early a more natural, uterus-like environment to continue developing in, Flake says

 Apparently there’s some confusion about my stances on abortion.  So I figured I’d take this article as a clear example of my hopes and to clarify confusion.

Currently, I am pro-choice.  I am in favor of a woman’s rights to control her body and her bodily autonomy.

In a few years where the technology described above is commonplace and practicable for the average woman to access and utilize, I will switch to being against abortion in favor of putting the fetus in an artificial womb to develop normally.

The woman is no longer pregnant and can choose whether to keep the fetus or put it up for adoption.  In the latter case it would be put into the adoption pool.  But the pregnancy, sex, and parenthood are related but not dependent processes.

You have the right to bodily autonomy and to support, or not support, any fetus or child you wish.  However, you do not have the right to unnecessarily kill that person or person-to-be.

Fees and minutiae I have no particularly feelings on, but that is my view of Abortion and the future of abortion.

Honestly I don’t understand conservatives at all.

They’re against sex ed, against birth control, against abortion, against welfare programs, against raising the minimum wage to a living wage, against assisting low income students with college tuition.

How the FUCK can you be against all those things and still believe somehow that you have the moral high ground.

TEEN MOM RANT

I’M TIRED OF PEOPLE GOING ON AND ON ABOUT HOW TEEN MOMS ARE “WHY AMERICA IS FUCKED UP” are you kidding me? i’ve been told by TOO many people to have an abortion. so, i’m a bad person and a fuck up because i’m fighting to take responsibilities for my actions ? i’m NOT KILLING MY BABY. i’m raising it. going to be a good mom. i’m very happy i’m pregnant. get THE FUCK over it. it isn’t your life. it’s mine, don’t like how i run it? okay, you don’t have to deal with it. leave me alone and stop judging me and telling me to kill my baby. at least i’m not going to be a murderer . do what you want . but stay out of my fucking life and choices. 

KTHANKS. 

The 5 biggest lies/misconceptions about the pro-life movement:

1. That we’re filled with old, white, republican men. Not that there’s anything wrong with old, white, republican men but our movement is filled with such a diverse group of people, of all ages, race, creed, and political backgrounds.

2. That we care more about the child than the mother. We care equally for both and only want what’s best for both mother and child. We see the wrongness of abortion and how horribly it can possibly effect the mother while always harming the child. There are better options available and some “choices” should never be legal or made.

3. That we are anti-women or misogynistic. This is such a broad and completely baseless assumption. There are actual pro-life feminists in our movement. Women also make up a good, large portion of our movement as well. Let’s not forget that gendercide amongst unborn females is something that is going on right now as we speak. Abortion has allowed sexism against females to flourish in countries such as China, India, and even our own. Our position on abortion has nothing to do with some “hatred” against women and everything to do with the fact that abortion unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being.

4. That pro-life arguments stem from religious beliefs. There are currently 6 million secular, agnostic, and atheist pro-life Americans right now. This is a huge and ever growing number. I, myself, am an atheist pro-life female and I don’t need religion to tell me that ending life is wrong. Actually, most arguments against abortion that I’ve ever read are completely secular and make no mention of religion at all.

Science tells us that life begins at conception, it also tells us that once egg and sperm unite a new human with it’s own set of unique DNA is now in existence and growing.

5. That once the child is born we stop caring. The pro-life movement doesn’t just want to protect the mother and child from abortion but also improve the quality of life and make sure every basic need is met before, during, and after pregnancy. We do this by donating our time or money to charities, becoming sidewalk counselors, volunteering at CPCs, etc. I’ve even seen the pro-life tumblr community come together and support pregnant mothers in need through donations. It just wouldn’t make sense for someone to be pro-life but be insensitive towards a new mother in desperate need of support.

Being pro-life doesn’t just mean caring for unborn life, it means caring for ALL life in every stage.

A popular right-wing complaint about immigration is that the left doesn’t want immigrants to integrate. I don’t think this is true. Both the left and the right want new arrivals to their culture to share their values, they just aren’t on the same page about which values. 

I’m not actually sure where the misunderstanding comes from. You see a lot of conservatives making claims like ‘liberals think that beating your spouse should respected if it’s part of your (minority) culture’ and I’ve yet to run across a single liberal saying such a thing. Maybe they mean something more like ‘liberals think that diversity is great and more important than actual correctness, so when they embrace diverse viewpoints they end up embracing abhorrent ones’. Only elsewhere conservatives (reasonably) make the complaint that the left is not remotely concerned with viewpoint diversity, just with the ‘different sets of oppressions’ kind, and accordingly is hostile to underrepresented perspectives like the evangelical one or the Appalachian ex-coal-miner one. Do they think that the left is more tolerant of ‘sometimes beating your spouse is okay’? or ‘being gay is okay unless you’re Muslim’?

I think that’s part of it; the left is definitely less viscerally mad about Muslim oppression of LGBT people, mostly because how mad we are is related to our own experiences and most of us have dealt with intolerant Christians in positions of structural power and not with intolerant Muslims in same, and the right is right here passing laws right now while ISIS is very far away and everyone agrees they’re terrible so they’re hard to get too worked up about. 

But maybe most of the difference is in where the attribution lies for the bad beliefs. The left will tend to say that the beating spouses is patriarchy and the oppression of LGBT people is homophobia and transphobia, and the conservative will say they are both Islam. Then the liberal interprets the conservative as trying to dodge responsibility for the much more rampant sexism and homophobia and transphobia of the Christian right, and the conservative interprets the liberal insistence that it’s nothing to do with the actual religion which the people in question would cite as the  basis for their beliefs as proof they don’t actually care about fixing those things, or why would they ignore the obvious cause staring them in the face?

And the difference lies in which things they want erased by integration: conservatives want immigrants to have conservative values, like learning English and being a reliable voting bloc against abortion and not relying on handouts and not wearing hijabs and eating American food, and liberals want immigrants to have liberal values like diversity of foods and clothing styles and languages and supporting Palestine and hating the right.

But there’s still a problem. As far as I can tell, Hispanic immigrants are that ideal conservative immigrant: Christian, socially conservative, no hijabs, integrating fast, and so forth. And conservatives can’t stand them either. I’m not sure if that means that integration is a red herring and not actually what anyone cares about, or if it’s another weird artifact of the way the American immigration debate borrows talking points from the European one despite totally incomparable situations or what. But I think firm commitment to immediate total integration would do very little about conservative opposition to immigration.

aven-rave  asked:

When it comes to abortion, I'm kinda both pro-life and pro-choice. Like, I'm personally against abortion in most cases, but I also respect your choice if it's something you really want to do (or have to do, in the case of the mother's life being in danger). Also, if you are gonna get an abortion, I'd recommend doing it at an early stage, since fetuses are able to feel pain at a certain point of development, and the abortion process is painful for the fetus at that point.

Being personally against abortion and respecting someone’s choice to make that decision for themselves actually just makes you pro-choice. That’s the beauty of allowing people to choose for themselves: it doesn’t really matter what your personal choice is.

But yes, earlier is better of course.

I don’t get people who ask others to give them money to get an abortion (in the situation where the only reason why they want an abortion is because they don’t want a baby). Like I understand that you don’t have the money to rise a baby but guess what, if you don’t get abortion you can give a baby up for adoption, and you don’t have to beg people to give you money to kill someone.

“Perfect,” Graves says, “absolutely perfect. Just hold still a little longer.” Credence tries to nod his head but it ends up lolling to the side. The drugs Graves gives him to keep the obscurus under control makes him groggy. Of course, he holds still. He can’t do much on his own anymore, but Percival is there and Percival will take care of him. He feels the older man drag the bright red color across his plump lips. He’s been in this room for hours now; Graves dressing him up, dressing him down, trying to find the perfect outfit for his boy, his pet. Now, Credence sits on his little plush bench in front of his vanity, facing away from the mirror. All he’s wearing is a pair of red, lace panties.

While Percival paints his doll’s face with one hand, he uses the other to trail the lines of Credence’s body. He traces along his ribs, no longer protruding; his chest and jaw that Graves takes great care to keep totally smooth; the tips of his fingers run down the boy’s thighs which minutely twitch. Percival feels a little pang of guilt, he misses the days he could have the young man trembling at his touch; totally dismantled, lost in lust, beneath him. But Credence is so loose and malleable like this, and Graves thinks he sees him smile once or twice, so the boy must be happy.

Graves caps the lipstick and puts it back on the vanity. He grabs a compact and sits down next to Credence on the bench. “Look at you, look how pretty you are.” He says, raising the mirror so the younger man can see. Credence takes in the splash of color that makes his lips look like blood. His long hair is pulled into a half-ponytail and flared at the top of his head, the dark locks flow down like a fountain, curled into soft ringlets past his shoulders. The eyeliner makes his already feline eyes more prominent, Percival is getting quite good at it. He’s never considered himself handsome and he never considered wearing makeup before, he had no desire to, but he’s getting used to it. He looks at himself and he knows he’s never looked more beautiful, he knows Percival loves this, and that makes it all worth it.

Graves replaces the compact and spins so he’s kneeling in front of the younger man, Credence imagines if he had been wearing his coat it would have swooped around him like when he used to apparate into their alley.

“Oh, my boy,” he says, his voice low, “you’re so beautiful with your red lips and your red lace.” Reverently, his hands are roaming over the boy’s skin again. He brings them up to Credence’s nipples and he hears a small huff of breath from above him. He leans in close, whispering into his ear, “Let’s see if we can’t get these to match too.” Percival starts assaulting his nipples with his fingers and his teeth, alternating between sucking and licking and biting and pulling and rubbing and Credence is lost in sensation; it’s too much and not enough, too fast and too slow.

Graves dives in and captures those pretty red lips in a crushing kiss, ruining his hard work. He pulls away and looks into the hazy brown eyes, trying to see what was going through his pet’s mind. Percival brings his thumb up and smears the lipstick across Credence’s face, messing up the powder and blush on his cheeks. He slips two fingers into the pliant mouth and pushes inside. He feels the ridges of his teeth and the younger man’s tongues give little aborted licks against Graves’ skin. He presses his fingers as far down as he can go and Credence gags around them, tears start to form in his eyes, but Percival pays it no mind. He’s not really hurting the boy and he always looks even prettier when he cries.

Graves sweeps his pet into his arms, one hand under his thighs, taking the weight and pressing him to his body. The other hand cradles the back of his neck, not wanting him to hurt himself if his head falls, as it tends to do. He lays Credence gently onto the pillows of their bed and he rips the panties open. The boy’s cock hangs flaccid from the tattered remains of red lace. Graves starts stroking it, he knows he can’t get the boy hard enough for him to actually come when he’s in this state, but he’s pleased when a bit of blood rushes down and his member stiffens a little in his hands. He focuses on the tip, tugging and twisting while his boy breathes heavily above him. Percival can tell that he’s over stimulating the young man, if the streaming tears are anything to go by. He’s a tenacious man, and a perfectionist, so he doesn’t stop until the head matches the color of his nipples.

Once he’s satisfied he plunges his fingers back into the wet heat of his mouth, fucking in and out until he has enough slick to twist two and then three fingers into the boy’s loose hole. He leans down and bites into the soft skin of the young man’s collarbone. Credence keens high at the pain and clenches around Graves’ fingers. Percival is mesmerized at the dark red imprints from his teeth on the porcelain skin. He frees his cock and with a whispered word to lube it up he’s pressing into the velvet lining of the lithe body beneath him. Percival starts fucking into him, hard, at a pace that’s just too rough.

Credence tosses his head back and forth, doing his best to get away, to beg him to stop; but Graves doesn’t relent. He reaches down and adds a finger next to his cock, pulling and tugging at Credence’s hole until it’s puffy and swollen. The boy is sobbing in earnest now and Percival takes him in. His lips, nipples, cockhead, panties, hole, and the bite mark are bright red, shining like beacons on his body; displaying that he is Graves’ and belongs to no one else. Percival comes with a low moan, burying his head into his pet’s shoulder, giving chaste kisses to the bits of skin he could reach.

“My boy, you unman me.” He whispers, and there’s a tenderness that makes Credence forget about the way he didn’t want it. He turns and meets the man’s eyes, opening his mouth slightly, asking for a kiss that Percival is all too happy to give. Their lips are languid as they move against each other, tongues intertwining. Percival pulls away and Credence gives him a soft smile. Graves reaches down and scoops his boy up bridal style and heads towards the bathroom, “Come on doll, let’s get cleaned up.”

@credencecries

3

The Federal Correctional Institution, Waseca (FCI Waseca) is a minimum security federal prison for women, located in the small town of Waseca, Minnesota. The facility opened in 1995 as a penitentiary for men on a former University of Minnesota campus, and was converted to a women’s prison in 2008. Roughly 960 inmates are housed together in a dormitory-style setting, and range in age from 18-71. Most inmates are doing time for drug-related offenses, but the facility also houses inmates who were convicted of serious federal crimes. In 2014, FCI Waseca built a full-scale beauty salon for inmates, complete with styling chairs, dryer chairs, mani/pedi stations and a shampoo station. The construction of the beauty salon (which cost about $30k) caused a bit of controversy amongst Waseca city officials and Corrections Officers unions, but it was later revealed that the salon was part of a larger effort to introduce an accredited cosmetology program for inmates, which provided them with employment opportunities after their release.

Notable inmates at FCI Waseca have included:

Catherine Greig - The longtime girlfriend of Whitey Bulger, former boss of the Winter Hill gang in Boston, who was a fugitive from justice for 16 years. Greig lived with and protected Bulger during his years on the run, until his capture in 2011. Greig was sentenced to eight years in federal prison for harboring a fugitive and identity fraud. She was later charged with contempt for refusing to testify before a grand jury about who had protected or assisted Bulger during his years on the run, and was given an additional year’s worth of confinement. She is due to be released in late 2020, when she will be almost 70 years old.

Shelley Shannon - In 1993, Shannon shot Dr. George Tiller outside his clinic in Wichita, Kansas. Tiller’s clinic was one of three nationwide which provided late-term abortions, and was frequently the subject of protesting, picketing, vandalism and firebombing by extremist abortion groups. Tiller survived Shannon’s attack, but was shot to death in 2009 by Scott Roeder. During her years in state prison, Shannon joined the “Army of God”, a violent extremist group that commits acts of violence against abortion providers. Two years after beginning her sentence in state prison, Shannon was indicted and pled guilty for 30 counts of arson and butyric acid attacks on abortion clinics in Oregon, California and Nevada. She was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison, to be served after completing her state prison sentence for the assault on Dr. Tiller. She is expected to be released in November of 2018.

Kristen Parker - A former surgical tech at Rose medical center in Denver, Parker was sentenced to 30 years for stealing liquid painkillers from patients, injecting herself with the drugs and refilling the syringes with water or saline. The patients from whom she stole the drugs woke up from surgery in immense pain, and 18 of them are confirmed to have contracted Hepatitis C from the dirty needles. Eight additional patients are suspected to have contracted the disease from Parker. The judge assigned to her case tossed out a plea bargain that would have sentenced her to 20 years in prison, and remarked that “She didn’t quit; she got caught.” In court proceedings, when asked why she did it, Parker answered “I won’t sugarcoat it. I was a drug addict.”

Attention

If you say things like “I don’t care if someone else gets an abortion, but I would never get one myself,” you’re not as pro-choice as you think you are. Saying things like this still contributes to the stigma against abortion, and you really never know what kind of situation you might be in. Also, abortion is a medical procedure, and just like any other medical procedures, you may need one in a certain situation. Don’t be shitty and self-righteous and put yourself on some kind of moral high ground just because you “would never get an abortion yourself”