Do you really think it would be right for me to demand that a woman agree with me before I would give her the right to control her own body? Get real! A woman deserves the right to control over her own body regardless of what any man thinks.
I can almost hear Rand Paul, speaking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
"Do you really think it would be right for me to demand that a property owner agree with me before I would give him the right to control his own property? Get real! A property owner deserves the right to control over his own property regardless of what any man thinks."
Getting back to your position:
"A woman deserves the right to control over her own body regardless of what any man thinks."
I totally agree. Where we differ is the definition of a human body. My body is defined by a unique DNA fingerprint, unlike anyone else's in the world, including my mother's.
I've said before that you and I have a very different concept of reality, and this is a classic example of it. I look at a sonogram of a fetus, swimming around in the amniotic fluid, sucking its thumb, and I see a human - not fully developed, but certainly fully human. With 46 chromosones (or 47, if it has Down Syndrome), what else could it be? I've heard that sharks have 46 chromosones, but I've never seen a shark suck its thumb (if, in fact, in even had thumbs to suck).
When my stepdaughter was pregnant with her daughter (who's now 2 and a half), I was there when we found out from the doctor that "it" was a girl. Was he mistaken? What was it if it wasn't a girl? And if it was a girl, didn't she "deserve the right to control over her own body"?
Statistically, about half of all of the fetuses that are aborted are female. Aren't their rights being violated?
So tell me, Ted - What do you see when you look at a sonogram? Or do you avoid viewing that kind of evidence?
If you believe it's only human after the doctor cuts in umbilical cord, that sounds eerily like the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation: the wafer and the wine only become the body and blood of Christ after the priest blesses it.
You're not getting all spiritual on us now, are you Ted? :)
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.
Found at the fun blog of the great Yellowdog Granny.
How can a fetus be gay? It is not a person.
ReplyDeleteThat's right, it is not a person. But it is a person once it's born, and if it's gay, the right-wing no longer cares about it's rights.
ReplyDeleteA question for Left-Wingers:
ReplyDeleteIf "the gay gene" is ever discovered, will you fight for a woman's right to "terminate the pregnancy" before "it" becomes a person?
CT-
ReplyDeleteI will always support the right of every woman to have control over her own body.
Even if she's motivated by homophobia?
ReplyDeleteI think your orthodoxy in the area of "reproductive rights" is not unlike Rand Paul's orthodoxy in the area of property rights.
It's pretty hard to fight for the gay rights of someone who never makes it through the birth canal alive.
Do you really think it would be right for me to demand that a woman agree with me before I would give her the right to control her own body? Get real! A woman deserves the right to control over her own body regardless of what any man thinks.
ReplyDeleteI can almost hear Rand Paul, speaking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
ReplyDelete"Do you really think it would be right for me to demand that a property owner agree with me before I would give him the right to control his own property? Get real! A property owner deserves the right to control over his own property regardless of what any man thinks."
Getting back to your position:
"A woman deserves the right to control over her own body regardless of what any man thinks."
I totally agree. Where we differ is the definition of a human body. My body is defined by a unique DNA fingerprint, unlike anyone else's in the world, including my mother's.
I've said before that you and I have a very different concept of reality, and this is a classic example of it. I look at a sonogram of a fetus, swimming around in the amniotic fluid, sucking its thumb, and I see a human - not fully developed, but certainly fully human. With 46 chromosones (or 47, if it has Down Syndrome), what else could it be? I've heard that sharks have 46 chromosones, but I've never seen a shark suck its thumb (if, in fact, in even had thumbs to suck).
When my stepdaughter was pregnant with her daughter (who's now 2 and a half), I was there when we found out from the doctor that "it" was a girl. Was he mistaken? What was it if it wasn't a girl? And if it was a girl, didn't she "deserve the right to control over her own body"?
Statistically, about half of all of the fetuses that are aborted are female. Aren't their rights being violated?
So tell me, Ted - What do you see when you look at a sonogram? Or do you avoid viewing that kind of evidence?
If you believe it's only human after the doctor cuts in umbilical cord, that sounds eerily like the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation: the wafer and the wine only become the body and blood of Christ after the priest blesses it.
You're not getting all spiritual on us now, are you Ted? :)
CT-
ReplyDeleteA fetus doesn't have constitutional rights -- only people do.