Valerie Tarico Talks About Pro-Choice And Pro-Abortion

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Interesting article. Personally I think being pro-choice is the most important thing. I'm only pro-abortion when a woman chooses to have one.  Her choices are not my business or anyone else's.  I just want to make her choice as easy as possible for her.

 

I don't use, respect or recognise the term "pro-life" in relation to abortion, because I am pro-women's lives... they are the legal, sentient person and they have rights over their body.  For me, it is not possible to be pro-women's lives and also be pro-fetus.  That is a violation of her bodily autonomy.

 

 

http://valerietarico.com/2015/04/26/why-i-am-pro-abortion-not-just-pro-choice/

[older]

It is for the woman and it is for the child as well. This planet has too many children who will suffer severe life-long pain from debilitating afflictions and deformities, and who will die horrible deaths as a result. Their pain should have been stopped before it began.

[Castiel233]

Good article and thanks for sharing it.

[seven77]

Pro-fetus, is that what they're calling themselves these days? 

[Fweethawt]

Pro-fetus, is that what they're calling themselves these days?

And it all started with the biblical pro-semen movement...

 

Movin' right along.

[CharethCutestory]

There's no reason to necessarily tie the anti-abortion stance to religion. Hitchens was virulently anti-abortion, as are many many non-theists. To some it's a murder issue, not a Jesus one.

[CharethCutestory]

BTW, I'm new here. Howdy! And I'm unsure why I've still got a Believer tag. I'm irreligious and anti-abortion.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Well, to many, it's not a "murder" issue... it's a bodily autonomy issue.  You don't get the right to tell me what medical procedures I can or can't have.  End of story.

[CharethCutestory]

Well, to many, it's not a "murder" issue... it's a bodily autonomy issue.  You don't get the right to tell me what medical procedures I can or can't have.  End of story.

With all due respect, if I believe you're killing another person I have every right to advocate for that person.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Well, to many, it's not a "murder" issue... it's a bodily autonomy issue.  You don't get the right to tell me what medical procedures I can or can't have.  End of story.

With all due respect, if I believe you're killing another person I have every right to advocate for that person.

 

No you fucking don't.  And don't try to use the word "respect" when you say such things.

[CharethCutestory]

 

 

Well, to many, it's not a "murder" issue... it's a bodily autonomy issue.  You don't get the right to tell me what medical procedures I can or can't have.  End of story.

 

With all due respect, if I believe you're killing another person I have every right to advocate for that person.

No you fucking don't.  And don't try to use the word "respect" when you say such things.

I absolutely fucking do, thanks. If you truly want all opposing viewpoint squashed because You Win, then this free speech society might not be your cup o' tea. And the word "respect" was used as a formality in this case, I assure you.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

Well, to many, it's not a "murder" issue... it's a bodily autonomy issue.  You don't get the right to tell me what medical procedures I can or can't have.  End of story.

With all due respect, if I believe you're killing another person I have every right to advocate for that person.

No you fucking don't.  And don't try to use the word "respect" when you say such things.

I absolutely fucking do, thanks. If you truly want all opposing viewpoint squashed because You Win, then this free speech society might not be your cup o' tea. And the word "respect" was used as a formality in this case, I assure you.

 

Um, I never said you weren't allowed to voice your opinion. You're free to say whatever you like about violating women's rights to bodily autonomy.  And I'm free to think of you as a misogynistic asshole for it.  You made the mistake of referring to a fetus as a "person", when legally they are not.  So, it's not "killing another person", so you don't get the right to advocate on behalf of the body part of anyone.  Luckily for women, your opinion is not likely to take away their legal right to reproductive health, but plenty of people who share your opinion try to make life as difficult as possible for women faced with an unwanted and/or unsafe pregnancy.  Which is why so many people advocate against your opinion.  I'm a humanist and I believe in supporting the human rights of all legal persons, including women.  I guess you're not, because you don't.

[CharethCutestory]

 

 

 

 

Well, to many, it's not a "murder" issue... it's a bodily autonomy issue. You don't get the right to tell me what medical procedures I can or can't have. End of story.

 

With all due respect, if I believe you're killing another person I have every right to advocate for that person.

No you fucking don't. And don't try to use the word "respect" when you say such things.

I absolutely fucking do, thanks. If you truly want all opposing viewpoint squashed because You Win, then this free speech society might not be your cup o' tea. And the word "respect" was used as a formality in this case, I assure you.

Um, I never said you weren't allowed to voice your opinion.

You told me I "fucking don't" have the right to advocate for someone I feel is being wronged. And your definition of personhood is whatever our legislative leaders decide, a definition I disagree with. I assign personhood to any human organism that exists independently of another (regardless of whether it's inside it's mother through ZERO action of its own) with a full chromosomal set. You don't. Guess I'd better throw a condescending hissy fit and presume to know your deepest internal beliefs, eh?

 

Ah, but I don't want to violate women's autonomy, bullshit generalizations aside. If that were the case I'd be against birth control as well, when I'm actually a staunch proponent of it. Our only difference here (aside from you being judgmental, impulsive, and intolerant of disagreement) is at what point we assign personhood. You strangely rely on the winds of the current political climate, and I don't.

 

You don't know any of my beliefs, stances, opinions toward women, etc. I get the sense "misogynistic" is your catch-all term for anyone who pisses you off. That's unfortunate; it greatly waters down the real impact of the term and undermines those who actually suffer at the hands of it. Opposing abortion doesn't necessarily make any statement at all about one's views on feminism, any more so than being anti-union makes one hate plumbers.

 

There was a time when a black American was also denied legal personhood status, another when Japanese Americans were herded into enclosures against their will. You'll forgive me, I hope, if I don't bow wholly and blindly to governmental definitions of who matters and who doesn't. Honestly, using our goddamned legislative branch as a measuring stick for morality is a pretty laughable move.

 

Again, if you want to jump to that misogynism nonsense, go nuts. This is not a misogyny issue, no matter how much you want it to be. I'd be against male abortions as well, but human biology being what it is I can't prove that to you.

 

So would Chris Hitchens, by the way.

[SilentLoner]

There's no reason to necessarily tie the anti-abortion stance to religion. Hitchens was virulently anti-abortion, as are many many non-theists. To some it's a murder issue, not a Jesus one.

No reason? LOL. Im sure even you are well aware that it is overwhelmingly tied into religious groups and reasoning. Though there are quite a few pro choice religious people/groups (Catholics for Choice, etc)

 

Sure you'll find atheists that oppose abortion rights, after all, you can find atheists that are against gay rights, atheists that are sexist, racist, etc.

[SilentLoner]

I assign personhood to any human organism that exists independently of another (regardless of whether it's inside it's mother through ZERO action of its own) with a full chromosomal set.

Embryos dont exist independently. Without the woman its nothing.

 

Guess I'd better throw a condescending hissy fit and presume to know your deepest internal beliefs, eh?

Try not to lecure about hissy fits if youre going to throw one.

 

You don't know any of my beliefs, stances, opinions toward women, etc. I get the sense "misogynistic" is your catch-all term for anyone who pisses you off. That's unfortunate; it greatly waters down the real impact of the term and undermines those who actually suffer

It is misogynistic to hold the belief that women should be one birth control failure or rape away from second class citizenship. Even if you choose to be in denial about it.

 

There was a time when a black American was also denied legal personhood status, another when Japanese Americans were herded into enclosures against their will. You'll forgive me, I hope, if I don't bow wholly and blindly to governmental definitions of who matters and who doesn't. Honestly, using our goddamned legislative branch as a measuring stick for morality is a pretty laughable move.

The funny thing here is that all the examples you cited have way more in common with denying women abortion rights rather than trying to claim fetuses are the same as born people.

 

And dont pretend that if the government declared tomorrow that fetuses were people with full rights you wouldnt be singing the government praises and throwing it into everyone's face.

 

This is not a misogyny issue, no matter how much you want it to be.

Actually it is, no matter how much you want it not to be.

 

So would Chris Hitchens, by the way.

This may shock you, but not all atheists care about Christopher Hitchens. I was never a fan of his, and even if I was, he's not a prophet I need to obey.

[TrueFreedom]

http://valerietarico.com/2015/04/26/why-i-am-pro-abortion-not-just-pro-choice/

 

She makes valid points:

 

I’m pro-abortion because...

 

....being able to delay and limit childbearing is fundamental to female empowerment and equality

 

....well-timed pregnancies give children a healthier start in life

 

....I take motherhood seriously

 

....intentional childbearing helps couples, families and communities to get out of poverty

 

....reproduction is a highly imperfect process

 

....I think morality is about the well-being of sentient beings

 

This is the only point that I think most anti-abortionists will take issue with.  It's a question of personhood, which 

sylensikeelyoo and mymistake recently debated in The Arena.

 

....contraceptives are imperfect, and people are too

 

....I believe in mercy, grace, compassion, and the power of fresh starts

 

....the future is always in motion, and we have the power and responsibility to shape it well

 

....I love my daughter

[CharethCutestory]

 

I assign personhood to any human organism that exists independently of another (regardless of whether it's inside it's mother through ZERO action of its own) with a full chromosomal set.

Embryos dont exist independently. Without the woman its nothing.

 

Guess I'd better throw a condescending hissy fit and presume to know your deepest internal beliefs, eh?

Try not to lecure about hissy fits if youre going to throw one.

 

You don't know any of my beliefs, stances, opinions toward women, etc. I get the sense "misogynistic" is your catch-all term for anyone who pisses you off. That's unfortunate; it greatly waters down the real impact of the term and undermines those who actually suffer

It is misogynistic to hold the belief that women should be one birth control failure or rape away from second class citizenship. Even if you choose to be in denial about it.

 

There was a time when a black American was also denied legal personhood status, another when Japanese Americans were herded into enclosures against their will. You'll forgive me, I hope, if I don't bow wholly and blindly to governmental definitions of who matters and who doesn't. Honestly, using our goddamned legislative branch as a measuring stick for morality is a pretty laughable move.

The funny thing here is that all the examples you cited have way more in common with denying women abortion rights rather than trying to claim fetuses are the same as born people.

 

And dont pretend that if the government declared tomorrow that fetuses were people with full rights you wouldnt be singing the government praises and throwing it into everyone's face.

 

This is not a misogyny issue, no matter how much you want it to be.

Actually it is, no matter how much you want it not to be.

 

So would Chris Hitchens, by the way.

This may shock you, but not all atheists care about Christopher Hitchens. I was never a fan of his, and even if I was, he's not a prophet I need to obey.

 

 

Embryos exist within the mother, yes. But it is still an independent being in that it contains its own chromosomal set. Furthermore, it never asked to be placed there.

 

The fact is that you're using your own arbitrary point (being born, or having a heartbeat) to justify yourself. But there are numerous hypotheticals that blow that away. A conjoined twin exists only when connected to its twin's body, and neither twin has the right to murder the other one because it accidentally infringed on its convenience level. A person living on breathing machines cannot synthesize its own oxygen, but is still a person.

 

Please, please don't tell me "how I would feel" if the government declared abortion illegal. I would no more use CONGRESS as a morality measuring stick than I do now, which is 0%. If you're more comfortable letting the government determine your code of ethics, then have fun, though I suspect this is the only issue you feel that way about.

 

On what level is it necessarily an issue of misogyny? Please, tell me more about my disdain for women. Why do you assume I would be in favor of male abortions? Sorry, but that card doesn't work here. Misogyny is one of the factors that has moved me away from Christianity. I simply don't feel ANYONE has the right to kill a human organism without its consent. Our quibble here isn't one of women's rights; it's a disagreement on when personhood begins. And that has zero, nada, zilch to do with which gender can biologically carry a child.

 

Hitchens was brought up for two reasons only: A because his quote is in FreeThinker's signature, and I found it ironic that she has a despicable misogynist adorning her every post; and B because the ignorant like to believe that abortion is strictly a religious issue and only fundies are against it.

 

Hitchens despised religion AND despised abortion, and he's far from the only one. A recent Gallup poll showed that 19% of the irreligious were against it.

[mymistake]

"Embryos exist within the mother, yes. But it is still an independent being in that it contains its own chromosomal set."

 

Chromosomal sets are irrelevant.  When you exist inside somebody else then by definition you are not independent.

 

 

 

"A conjoined twin exists only when connected to its twin's body, and neither twin has the right to murder the other one because it accidentally infringed on its convenience level."

 

Apples and oranges.

 

 

 

"A person living on breathing machines cannot synthesize its own oxygen, but is still a person."

 

And a non-person living on a breathing machine is still a non-person.

 

 

 

"On what level is it necessarily an issue of misogyny?"

 

Because forcing women to give birth against their wishes oppresses women.  

 

 

 

"I simply don't feel ANYONE has the right to kill a human organism without its consent."

 

And yet the fetus was made alive without consent.  

 

 

 

"Our quibble here isn't one of women's rights . . . "

 

Oh yes it is.  Women should have the right to do whatever they want with things growing inside their body.

 

 

 

" . . .  the ignorant like to believe that abortion is strictly a religious issue and only fundies are against it."

 

Well in that case, let's hear your non-religious justification for forcing women to give birth against their will.

[mymistake]

 

Well, to many, it's not a "murder" issue... it's a bodily autonomy issue.  You don't get the right to tell me what medical procedures I can or can't have.  End of story.

With all due respect, if I believe you're killing another person I have every right to advocate for that person.

 

 

 

Have you had much correspondence with your client?

 

 

 

Now imagine somebody came up to you and told you that they were an advocate for the non-person they

 

believed you were murdering.  That would be kind of weird, wouldn't it?

[Thackerie]

 

 

 

Well, to many, it's not a "murder" issue... it's a bodily autonomy issue.  You don't get the right to tell me what medical procedures I can or can't have.  End of story.

With all due respect, if I believe you're killing another person I have every right to advocate for that person.

No you fucking don't.  And don't try to use the word "respect" when you say such things.

I absolutely fucking do, thanks. If you truly want all opposing viewpoint squashed because You Win, then this free speech society might not be your cup o' tea. And the word "respect" was used as a formality in this case, I assure you.

 

 

Obviously only a formality with you. You obviously have no respect for people who have opinions different from yours. That makes you a fundy.

[Lilith666]

FreethinkerNZ: Yes, CharethCutestory and everyone else have the right to fight for something they believe, just as others do.

 

Chareth: Have you thought about why women may want abortions? I used to be anti-abortion/choice because I thought it was for women who are too irresponsible to use birth control and too selfish to put aside their wants and needs to raise a child that they conceived. Since then, I learned: that birth control doesn't always work. That some women and/or their families aren't well-equipped for a child, and so the birth would be in no one's best interest. That sometimes the fetus is in such bad condition that forcing it to exist would irresponsibly cause it avoidable pain. That so few people agree on when a collection of human cells becomes a sentient being that debating about it before the fetus is actually formed is pointless. That for some women and families who want a child but can't afford to have that particular one, for whatever reason, ending the fetus's life is extremely painful. That the decision of whether to carry the fetus to term is filled with so many factors, situations, and grey areas that it should be left to the woman/her family to make: not any outside party, including a person or the government.

[mymistake]

FreethinkerNZ: Yes, CharethCutestory and everyone else have the right to fight for something they believe, just as others do.

 

 

I believe that was a misunderstanding.  CC does not have the right to control what NZ does with her body.

 

However CC does have the right to express powerless opinion.  CC and NZ were talking past each other.

 

NZ: You cannot tell (order) me what to do with my own body.

 

CC: Yes I can tell (inform) you what I think.

 

 

 

Have you thought about why women may want abortions? I used to be anti-abortion/choice because I thought it was for women who are too irresponsible to use birth control and too selfish to put aside their wants and needs to raise a child that they conceived. Since then, I learned: that birth control doesn't always work. That some women and/or their families aren't well-equipped for a child, and so the birth would be in no one's best interest. That sometimes the fetus is in such bad condition that forcing it to exist would irresponsibly cause it avoidable pain. That so few people agree on when a collection of human cells becomes a sentient being that debating about it before the fetus is actually formed is pointless. That for some women and families who want a child but can't afford to have that particular one, for whatever reason, ending the fetus's life is extremely painful. That the decision of whether to carry the fetus to term is filled with so many factors, situations, and grey areas that it should be left to the woman/her family to make: not any outside party, including a person or the government.

 

^^^^^^^^

So much this!

[CharethCutestory]

"Chromosomal sets are irrelevant."

Why?

 

"When you exist inside somebody else then by definition you are not independent."

 

When you exist attached to someone else you are also not independent. Hide the conjoined twins from this guy.

 

"Apples and oranges."

 

Why? Is "apples and oranges" all you care to contribute here?

 

"And a non-person living on a breathing machine is still a non-person."

 

You have yet to say anything here.

 

"On what level is it necessarily an issue of misogyny?"

 

"Because forcing women to give birth against their wishes oppresses women"

 

If you think any rule or regulation placed upon someone who happens to be female is necessarily misogynistic and evil, sure. Here in reality, misogyny requires the intentional holding down of women based entirely on prejudice against their gender. I frankly don't give a shit which gender is pregnant; I disagree with their right to kill a child.

 

"And yet the fetus was made alive without consent."

 

An interesting philosophical point indeed. I still don't see that as justification for killing it.

 

"Oh yes it is.  Women should have the right to do whatever they want with things growing inside their body."

 

...to me, those rights stop at killing an innocent. You and I disagree on personhood here, nothing more. Don't paint me as some woman-hater just because you have little else to contribute.

 

"Well in that case, let's hear your non-religious justification for forcing women to give birth against their will."

 

Read this very thread.

[CharethCutestory]

 

FreethinkerNZ: Yes, CharethCutestory and everyone else have the right to fight for something they believe, just as others do.

 

 

I believe that was a misunderstanding.  CC does not have the right to control what NZ does with her body.

 

However CC does have the right to express powerless opinion.  CC and NZ were talking past each other.

 

NZ: You cannot tell (order) me what to do with my own body.

 

CC: Yes I can tell (inform) you what I think.

 

 

 

Have you thought about why women may want abortions? I used to be anti-abortion/choice because I thought it was for women who are too irresponsible to use birth control and too selfish to put aside their wants and needs to raise a child that they conceived. Since then, I learned: that birth control doesn't always work. That some women and/or their families aren't well-equipped for a child, and so the birth would be in no one's best interest. That sometimes the fetus is in such bad condition that forcing it to exist would irresponsibly cause it avoidable pain. That so few people agree on when a collection of human cells becomes a sentient being that debating about it before the fetus is actually formed is pointless. That for some women and families who want a child but can't afford to have that particular one, for whatever reason, ending the fetus's life is extremely painful. That the decision of whether to carry the fetus to term is filled with so many factors, situations, and grey areas that it should be left to the woman/her family to make: not any outside party, including a person or the government.

 

^^^^^^^^

So much this!

 

 

That's inaccurate. My initial statement was "I have the right to advocate for those I feel are being wronged." Her verbatim response was "No you fucking don't."

[CharethCutestory]

FreethinkerNZ: Yes, CharethCutestory and everyone else have the right to fight for something they believe, just as others do.

 

Chareth: Have you thought about why women may want abortions? I used to be anti-abortion/choice because I thought it was for women who are too irresponsible to use birth control and too selfish to put aside their wants and needs to raise a child that they conceived. Since then, I learned: that birth control doesn't always work. That some women and/or their families aren't well-equipped for a child, and so the birth would be in no one's best interest. That sometimes the fetus is in such bad condition that forcing it to exist would irresponsibly cause it avoidable pain. That so few people agree on when a collection of human cells becomes a sentient being that debating about it before the fetus is actually formed is pointless. That for some women and families who want a child but can't afford to have that particular one, for whatever reason, ending the fetus's life is extremely painful. That the decision of whether to carry the fetus to term is filled with so many factors, situations, and grey areas that it should be left to the woman/her family to make: not any outside party, including a person or the government.

 

Applying our own predictions and biases of potential life quality is awfully arrogant and short-sighted to me. "I think he'd grow up poor or unhappy, so he'd probably rather be dead" is just icky to me.

 

To me, this is on the same level as the rape/incest argument against abortion. Yes, some babies are born in extreme pain and with severe deformities. But this happens such at such a small clip in relation to healthy births that I don't think we need to entertain it in a general discussion. It's a point with some merit, but we're talking about the general idea of abortion, not examining each ultra-rare possibility.

 

What I can't seem to get across here is that I see no difference between a fertilized embryo and a five-year-old. The mother can't kill the five-year-old out of financial or emotion hardship, so I apply that same rule to the embryo. Again, the disagreement here lies ENTIRELY in our opinions on personhood, not on whether women deserve rights. Of course they do, but I don't include willful killing as an inalienable right, and that's what I consider abortion to be.