My first born was guessed to be a down syndrome baby at the 16 week blood tests of pregnancy. The genetic "experts" told me I should "delete" him. I did not, the punks; who do they think they are. He is a short bit from a doctorate in piano performance, a talented and sensitive musician and poet, newly married and a joy to everyone who meets him.
I skipped the 16-week test for my 3 following children and suggest everyone else do as well. I consider my offspring as gifts from God and could not express the joy of wonderment that they have brought onto the world in the years that have followed.
Please do not believe the lies of inhumanity and the conviction for death that the enemy has for life.
Tanya Davies Liberal MP put up a significant fight against these laws in 2019... that also included abortion of unwanted sex... ironically for feminists that is mostly females ..
what i learnt was that it is obvious in all these immoral death, or life killing laws along with euthanasia, (even promoting LGBT. can be seen as population controls etc )are drafted overseas by the UN and introduced to Australia... as part of the global agenda.. yes to reduce population and to profit from it..ie we know abortion yields body parts that are sold for profit..
the media are always complicit in portraying it as a local movement and that the “victims” need these laws...
the media operate under orders to present only one side.. it’s always based on manipulation of peoples emotions and the use twisted half truths or outright lies..eg or it’s only cells...
For every stage in growth there are clear biological markers... eg teeth emerging, physical signs of puberty, grey hair at 40, menopause in women .... there is no marker for when a child becomes a child other than fertilisation...
that’s the only thing to consider... if a child is a child at conception then its life has the same worth as at any time afterwards...
It’s a simple moral decision... but based on empirical evidence.. the child is alive from conception and abortion at any stage kills the child..that too is a physically verifiable consequence..
At its heart abortion is premeditated murder.. I tell my boys if they get a girlfriend pregnant it is their child and my grandchild..
the figures you quote on suicide after an abortion stack up.. and there are many other mental health issues documented as well.. men suffer too.. for years.. it is a horrible selfish thing to do ...and hard to come to terms with..although there is forgiveness...
I detest abortion but I also detest the lies that beautiful girls are told that there child is not a child and can be disposed of..that accepting the child can be incredibly rewarding fulfilling and is the higher decision..
Maturity can be defined as being willing to take responsibility for your actions... men need to be taught that to have sex has consequences, and they are responsible for the child ... in that context abortion is being irresponsible and immature.. it is trying to escape the consequences of your own actions...
and the emphasis should be on men not to have sex without accepting responsibility to support the mother and to be a father for the child’s entire life....
Goodness me I did not know this about Australia’s laws. I knew it had been discussed but I didn’t know it had been passed and implemented. I’m stunned. Thank you for alerting us.
I am one of "those narrow minded" people who believes that love is action not sentiment and that a well lived life is based on principles. We are not unthinking animals we should not misuse our bodies; that flows into not misusing our progeny's bodies. Ultimate right and wrong, not mind games or high blown debates. We sacrifice ourselves for our children, families and fellow man. Simple when you want better for others and that flows into a better world. God have mercy on us all.
I too just started thinking about this subject in the last few years. (I would have considered myself pro-choice most of my reproductive years, but never really thought about the details.)
Here is whole 'nother angle to that subject, an even darker one:
There is a very lucrative market for fetal parts. (Look up what fetal brains, and other parts sell for.) The demand for a "parts supply" includes, interestingly enough, biolabs and medical research. The fetal parts are used for making humanized mice among other things. Contracts have been traced to the FDA, so it's not just a black market operation.
Thank you for this. I have always asked why a woman is allowed to legally kill her unborn baby, but if she’s murdered and pregnant the assailant is charged with 2 murders.
In California they’ve been considering a law that would allow a woman to decide AFTER birth to have the baby “aborted” retroactively.
How can this be? Respect for human life is very low, as evidenced by the behavior of the medical community over the last few years. It’s all connected.
Do the unborn have rights? I believe life begins at conception. Once life has begun, who has the right to end that life?
The baby being in someone's body, is very different from the born. You are one of the born. Once born, we are independent of breathing through the mother. If someone outside of that bond comes into it and decides the baby has the right to continue life in the mother, then the mother has no rights over her body. So the baby essentially has rights at the expense of the mother. Now if society were to take the baby and give the mother incentives to deliver the baby, then that would at least be fairer. But our society is not fair - it is based on someone bossing someone else and having no accountability. If you want mothers to keep their baby would you help fund the mother's recompense for doing things your way? See then it becomes more equalized, but you don't want responsibility for that do you? You just want to have your say over someone else's body. And thus is the way of this cockeyed world, this hierarchical lens that society view everything through.
When I was young I worked with a young girl who became pregnant with her boyfriend. She wasn’t sure she could rely on him to help her, so she considered abortion. I told her that if she waited and still didn’t want the baby after it was born I would adopt her child. She went through with the pregnancy, and when that baby was born she was so glad she hadn’t given in to her fear and killed him. She sent me a picture every year and called me his godmother for saving his life. The boyfriend didn’t support her and she had a harder life alone, but she loved that child
Oh you are a gem. If the world made sense, you would be highly regarded for what you did. But the world doesn't make sense and the reason is because it is solely male-designed.
I’m content with men in charge. There’s enough for women to be successful at without being in charge of the world. I want to be heard and respected, and I got that from my husband.
The world doesn’t make sense because many humans are incapable of thinking beyond their own personal pride and doing what’s best for others, and that personality flaw takes them to positions of leadership and power
No you don't see that it's all only a man's perspective and women have another kind of wisdom. In fact it's just toxic for everyone going only by male perspectives. It's toxic for the earth and the source of life. I have nothing against men, but women need to see what is real because women are totally hoodwinked into the man's system. Men can't see it because it's all through their lens. But women ought to be able to see it. There is no need for poverty. There is no need for wars. The idea of countries and laws and religion - all of it is male derived. I know you can't see it, it's conditioned into everyone. The reason i can see it is because I got off the hamster wheel. It is very strong programming. Why is violence always seen but breastfeeding is considered obscene and mothers have to hide themselves? That tells us everything. But that's just one stark point, there are so many more. Hierarchy itself is man-made. It is not how matriarchies conducted themselves. They were peer to peer. And that is what we must move to. Nobody should rule anyone. That is preposterous. Adults ruling adults/ Crazy. Insane. Just give it some thought. Why would you want to be bossed around?
I have no problem being told what to do when I respect the one doing the telling. It’s a matter of respect going both ways. And the maturity to recognize that everyone has a place and purpose, and it doesn’t make sense to want someone else’s.
A mother who murders her unborn child is bossing someone else without accountability too.
Women can control their bodies so they don't get pregnant. They don't have a right to commit murder to exercise control over their bodies. Unborn babies have rights at the expense of the mother because life is a greater right than short-term "control of your body" (in other words, convenience).
Women have become disgustingly immoral in their attempt to assert their rights to convenience and whoredom.
Yes I know but we just have to suck it up. What do you suggest that the woman be jailed? Then women would be jailed for miscarriages. We don't blink at miscarriages do we? So what if the woman makes a decision herself? It just causes too many ridiculous perturbations to consider a fetus as having the right over the body that feeds it. It just doesn't make sense. And where is the man's involvement here? That too is completely ignored. If he has sex he has to bear the consequences that a child may come of it. But nobody talks about that responsibility and as we see with the porn industry and trafficking, it's perfectly acceptable because we talk about abortion ad infinitum but not about pron and trafficking. In fact those two subjects are smartly brushed under the carpet. There is no extra value either attributed to women spending 9 months carrying the fetus. The man has equal rights to the baby once it's born. It's a man's world darling. But it needn't be. All it takes is for women to speak.
A baby dying from miscarriage is different than a baby being killed by abortion, just like a person dying from a heart attack is different than being stabbed in the chest (or choking on a chunk of food vs. being strangled, etc etc) Intent matters.
And I totally agree with you than the man should bear more responsibility - even in pregnancy. In fact, so much focus is on the "woman's choice" that people often forget abortion is an easy out for deadbeats and abusers, who often force their women to get them.
And lastly, just a reaction to the fetus feeding on the mother's body "it's a parasite" kind of mindset - did you know that if the mother is injured, the baby sends stem cells to help repair damaged tissue? That's something I learned more recently, and I thought it was amazing.
Yes the whole birthing/living thing is amazing. Everything is really amazing. There is nothing we can do about women who want to abort their fetus except make economic standards good for women. But the economic standards are all laid out by men though now it's up to women to make them differently. It just has to be sucked up that the woman has the responsibility for the fetus. Nothing else would work. This subject needs to conclude because we need to stop killing children from bombs and poverty before we go telling women what to do with their unborn babies. It's just another excuse to lord it over someone. Nobody has jurisdiction over another's body. That means your body is safe too. Any other way and nobody's body is safe.
You're still speaking as if pregnancy is a parasite you catch as opposed to a natural consequence of, in most cases, the woman's own choice. Yes, I know rape is tragically a real thing, but abortion doesn't heal the trauma - it just adds to it. Abortion harms babies AND women. And since rape accounts for a tiny fraction of abortions, that's not what most pro-choice people are arguing for anyway.
And conflating what is in a woman's control (not getting pregnant in the first place, what to do with the defenseless baby under her protection, etc) with things she cannot control (children being bombed and poverty) doesn't make any sense. It's a cop-out. That is literally like me saying "people shouldn't care if I feed my kids or not until there is no starvation anywhere in the world!"
Every time I hear someone asking if the unborn have any rights, I ask "do the born have any rights?" Do the children being bombed daily have any rights? Do the children that are starving have any rights? In other words do the unborn children have more rights than the born children? Nobody wants to answer this. The born children are powerless and voiceless too. In fact anyone being bombed is powerless and voiceless. Look at the thousands being bombed right now in countries like Gaza and Yemen. So when does a human have any "rights"? And what are "rights" and who grants them? Do you have rights? You who are reading this? Who grants you those rights?
It’s not about rights. From the point of view of law, how can you think about rights if these rights cannot be exercised by the group to whom they are attributed?
According to the same law, young people up to the age of about 18 years are not “mature” and have no rights in the same sense as “adults”. It is a huge part of the population, and they cannot actively seek justice and exercise their “rights” - because they have none. They are “represented” by their “agents”, or custodians, who may decide to follow up with some charges or not, and who may decide how far they will go. The “agents” have rights and the general right to use the legal system autonomously. Children (minors, kids, teenagers, newborns, infants, you can choose the name) are not welcome by the legal system as autonomous subjects.
If we have not managed to regulate the rights of such a huge part of the population - who can listen, understand, speak, object, refuse, rebel, disobey, and more - how are we to regulate the rights of beings who are invisible, who cannot use any of the above faculties, and are not even aware of the construct called “law”?
The situation could be different if we approached it in the same way as we approach the relationship od parents (custodians) and their children. There is “responsibility”. Parents are responsible for their offspring and for what they do or don’t do. This responsibility extends to paying financial penalties for damages or being subjected to legal procedures in cases when injury or harm occurred.
Maybe it is not a perfect solution, but it works, is common, and is well understood by everybody. Why not extend this solution to cover unborn beings? Responsibility of the stronger party (a party who has more control over the situation) - a universal concept all over the world.
Shifting the balance from responsibility of the custodian (guardian, parent) to rights of the unborn opens a huge undefined territory where only lawyers and enforcement personnel will feel at home. They will rule to protect the rights of the beings who have not yet arrived and to cause harm to those are here to welcome and host these travelling beings. Those unborn beings won’t have a home here, courtesy of suppressing the concept of being responsible for others in favor of fighting for powers of those who are absent.
It’s not an easy subject. However, there has been no problem with it for thousands of years. We have survived. Our families have survived. Suddenly, it erupted some 10-20 years ago. What happened? The change was not a natural one, because it was not a gradual evolution of views. Who caused that change? Why? For what purpose?
Okay. I have to correct you here. I think you write some pretty great stuff. But, as a woman who is in the legal field, and presented on the holocaust and other issues relating to states' rights vs people's rights, including sterilization, abortion, adoption, and birthing, there are additional things to consider.
In the realm of birthing vs non-birthing options, the elites are looking to make decisions about who is "fit" to have children, and who is not "fit" to have children. It is the State that makes that decision. (Whether we mean country, province, or in the US, individual states). States will often create a measurement or weighing pros and cons, but the ultimate decision is a factor of economics. Those with the greater access of economics are most likely to be able to breed. There are a number of cases in the US that have determined this.
Right now, states have the right to determine that any person is eligible for sterilization. This could be due to disability, "intelligence", past reproductive history, etc. But, ultimately, it comes down to economics. If someone is "smart" enough, they'll be rich enough, etc.
Right now, states have authority to classify whether children should be removed from their parents based on whether the parent issues gender conforming drugs, etc. Depending on what state you are in, this could go either way. If you are in CA / NY, if you fail to support your child's gender identity, you are abusive or neglectful or risk losing custody to another parent. If you support your child's gender identity, states like FL will remove your child for child abuse / neglect. So, it isn't about abuse / neglect, it is about the corporate media lying to the public about the harms of these treatments (some being sterilizing) and blaming parents, and giving control over to the state, which is ultimately controlled by the oligarchs.
In terms of adoption, there is a term used in Nazi Germany of the Lebensborn (or "well born"). This was a program that started off ensuring thousands of years of Aryan children of supreme well born traits. It didn't work out, so, Hitler sent people around Europe to find children who "looked" Aryan enough. It was their parents who were less than and worthy of camps and of killing. These children were Germanized, and made into Aryans. Much like Native Americans and Black children were done in the US.
In terms of abortion, there are two sides based on the States' rights consideration. In Nazi Germany, they forbade Aryans women to have abortions, because they wanted to ensure the proliferation of the Aryan race. However, they promoted non-worthy women to have abortions. In the US, it isn't so different. It is up to the State to determine whether a woman has the right to abortion. While it isn't specifically stated that Aryans cannot have abortions and all other non-worthy's can have abortions, historically abortion access has been in urban cities, where non-white women live. Further, there is almost no access to abortion services in white rural areas, which are usually poor, and not able to get transportation. Further, it is common knowledge that many black women have high rates of deaths and complications. So, denying black women access to early abortions in certain situations can result in both the mother and baby dying.
The bottom line is that the oligarchs that control the state gets to decide who gets to breed and who does not under the auspices of States rights. Who is the state? Who gets to make these laws? Why are they so contrary to each other? I believe it is by design, to give the State complete control over who has children and who doesn't, who gets to parent and who doesn't. There are so many other factors in the US that actually inspired Hitler in Nazi Germany. The Eugenicists actually worked along Nazis and other pro-Nazi / pro-Eugenic movements all over the world, but those never got adequately exposed. Instead, Germany was the scapegoat.
In terms of children being raised by people who adopt, that is all state sanctioned too. I am leery of a state that removes children from one set of "bad" parents and places them with others who conform to the states' regulatory restrictions. Gender identity is just one element that these parents will have to obey. It also includes these new school systems, drugging these children, and so on. People who foster or adopt have less parental rights than parents, and will have to obey the states' abuse / neglect codes, which are completely arbitrary when compared to other states. And, when talking with parents who either voluntarily or involuntarily lose their children to foster / adopt, like with the Lebensborn who were stolen and Germanized, these parents and families suffer the rest of their lives for the loss of that child.
I am still pro-choice, but with a huge caveat. I believe that a woman should get to make an informed decision, knowing that there will be harms to herself and society with the absence of that child. With the informed decision that these oligarchs are encouraging certain births, and discouraging others for their own purposes. But, I also know that life can be made to be worse than death, and I would never want to stop a woman from making that decision either. I can imagine how bad things are going to get for people, and if the people don't win this war. I wouldn't want to force a woman to give birth in that kind of world. But, for now, I will do everything to make sure she doesn't have to make that decision.
We don't as a society work out why the economy discriminates against some people in favor of others. That all goes by the by. We rarely even take note that all of our structures were designed exclusively by men. Even if 100 women were involved, it still would not be equal balance. So all we live by is by hierarchical thinking of which money determines who's on top and who's on the bottom. Again a system designed exclusively by men, including law and religion. Women who work within these structures don't give equality to themselves, what they do is capitulate to the order set out not by women but only by men.
I would add that as a result of this hierarchical thinking, or perhaps biology or perhaps some other reason, women think differently than men (or may than men who built these structures). However, in this hierarchical structure, women must conform to men's thinking, because it was men's thinking that constructed these systems and structures (legal, social, political, educational, religious). As a result, women must re-learn how to listen to her own thoughts and re-program how to conduct her own way of thinking in order to be at an equal balance of even having a conversation. Otherwise, it is just women either thinking like men, or thinking how men expect women to be / think, in order for women to survive in a literal man's world.
I also want to point out that while there are laws to "protect" against many types of discrimination, there are no laws to protect against economic discrimination.
Brilliantly said. The idea of law itself is a male construct. So too with religion. I totally agree that women think very differently than men do. But we need both kinds of thinking. What we don't need is only one-sided thinking and this is why we have any kind of toxicity - imbalance. Men think in the short term,, women think in the long term. Men think in measurements, women think in design. This is due to our physical nature. Men ejaculate therefore they have immediate needs. Women get pregnant which takes 9 months and then the nurturing of the child to adulthood. Therefore women are long-term thinkers. Women see the big picture, men see the details. Because men are the builders and women are the architects. There are overlaps and intertwinings however that is basically it. And if we understand the anatomy of our thinking differences, we would be so much better off. Women shouldn't have to think like men but now that's all women do - so much so that they have almost totally forgotten how to think as women. I appreciate your comment!
Interesting (on another subject) how here in the West parents are told if they don't affirm their trans kids they will commit suicide. Maybe pregnancy centers need to adopt that tactic as a message to those intending to abort.
Are they adoption agencies there like here in the US that can somehow get involved in this and save the children?
My first born was guessed to be a down syndrome baby at the 16 week blood tests of pregnancy. The genetic "experts" told me I should "delete" him. I did not, the punks; who do they think they are. He is a short bit from a doctorate in piano performance, a talented and sensitive musician and poet, newly married and a joy to everyone who meets him.
I skipped the 16-week test for my 3 following children and suggest everyone else do as well. I consider my offspring as gifts from God and could not express the joy of wonderment that they have brought onto the world in the years that have followed.
Please do not believe the lies of inhumanity and the conviction for death that the enemy has for life.
Beautiful. Thank you.
Tanya Davies Liberal MP put up a significant fight against these laws in 2019... that also included abortion of unwanted sex... ironically for feminists that is mostly females ..
what i learnt was that it is obvious in all these immoral death, or life killing laws along with euthanasia, (even promoting LGBT. can be seen as population controls etc )are drafted overseas by the UN and introduced to Australia... as part of the global agenda.. yes to reduce population and to profit from it..ie we know abortion yields body parts that are sold for profit..
the media are always complicit in portraying it as a local movement and that the “victims” need these laws...
the media operate under orders to present only one side.. it’s always based on manipulation of peoples emotions and the use twisted half truths or outright lies..eg or it’s only cells...
For every stage in growth there are clear biological markers... eg teeth emerging, physical signs of puberty, grey hair at 40, menopause in women .... there is no marker for when a child becomes a child other than fertilisation...
that’s the only thing to consider... if a child is a child at conception then its life has the same worth as at any time afterwards...
It’s a simple moral decision... but based on empirical evidence.. the child is alive from conception and abortion at any stage kills the child..that too is a physically verifiable consequence..
At its heart abortion is premeditated murder.. I tell my boys if they get a girlfriend pregnant it is their child and my grandchild..
the figures you quote on suicide after an abortion stack up.. and there are many other mental health issues documented as well.. men suffer too.. for years.. it is a horrible selfish thing to do ...and hard to come to terms with..although there is forgiveness...
I detest abortion but I also detest the lies that beautiful girls are told that there child is not a child and can be disposed of..that accepting the child can be incredibly rewarding fulfilling and is the higher decision..
Maturity can be defined as being willing to take responsibility for your actions... men need to be taught that to have sex has consequences, and they are responsible for the child ... in that context abortion is being irresponsible and immature.. it is trying to escape the consequences of your own actions...
and the emphasis should be on men not to have sex without accepting responsibility to support the mother and to be a father for the child’s entire life....
Goodness me I did not know this about Australia’s laws. I knew it had been discussed but I didn’t know it had been passed and implemented. I’m stunned. Thank you for alerting us.
This Bill has also been passed by the Queensland Labor party with the support of the Greens.
😧
I am one of "those narrow minded" people who believes that love is action not sentiment and that a well lived life is based on principles. We are not unthinking animals we should not misuse our bodies; that flows into not misusing our progeny's bodies. Ultimate right and wrong, not mind games or high blown debates. We sacrifice ourselves for our children, families and fellow man. Simple when you want better for others and that flows into a better world. God have mercy on us all.
I too just started thinking about this subject in the last few years. (I would have considered myself pro-choice most of my reproductive years, but never really thought about the details.)
Here is whole 'nother angle to that subject, an even darker one:
There is a very lucrative market for fetal parts. (Look up what fetal brains, and other parts sell for.) The demand for a "parts supply" includes, interestingly enough, biolabs and medical research. The fetal parts are used for making humanized mice among other things. Contracts have been traced to the FDA, so it's not just a black market operation.
Thank you for this. I have always asked why a woman is allowed to legally kill her unborn baby, but if she’s murdered and pregnant the assailant is charged with 2 murders.
In California they’ve been considering a law that would allow a woman to decide AFTER birth to have the baby “aborted” retroactively.
How can this be? Respect for human life is very low, as evidenced by the behavior of the medical community over the last few years. It’s all connected.
Do the unborn have rights? I believe life begins at conception. Once life has begun, who has the right to end that life?
The baby being in someone's body, is very different from the born. You are one of the born. Once born, we are independent of breathing through the mother. If someone outside of that bond comes into it and decides the baby has the right to continue life in the mother, then the mother has no rights over her body. So the baby essentially has rights at the expense of the mother. Now if society were to take the baby and give the mother incentives to deliver the baby, then that would at least be fairer. But our society is not fair - it is based on someone bossing someone else and having no accountability. If you want mothers to keep their baby would you help fund the mother's recompense for doing things your way? See then it becomes more equalized, but you don't want responsibility for that do you? You just want to have your say over someone else's body. And thus is the way of this cockeyed world, this hierarchical lens that society view everything through.
When I was young I worked with a young girl who became pregnant with her boyfriend. She wasn’t sure she could rely on him to help her, so she considered abortion. I told her that if she waited and still didn’t want the baby after it was born I would adopt her child. She went through with the pregnancy, and when that baby was born she was so glad she hadn’t given in to her fear and killed him. She sent me a picture every year and called me his godmother for saving his life. The boyfriend didn’t support her and she had a harder life alone, but she loved that child
Oh you are a gem. If the world made sense, you would be highly regarded for what you did. But the world doesn't make sense and the reason is because it is solely male-designed.
I’m content with men in charge. There’s enough for women to be successful at without being in charge of the world. I want to be heard and respected, and I got that from my husband.
The world doesn’t make sense because many humans are incapable of thinking beyond their own personal pride and doing what’s best for others, and that personality flaw takes them to positions of leadership and power
No you don't see that it's all only a man's perspective and women have another kind of wisdom. In fact it's just toxic for everyone going only by male perspectives. It's toxic for the earth and the source of life. I have nothing against men, but women need to see what is real because women are totally hoodwinked into the man's system. Men can't see it because it's all through their lens. But women ought to be able to see it. There is no need for poverty. There is no need for wars. The idea of countries and laws and religion - all of it is male derived. I know you can't see it, it's conditioned into everyone. The reason i can see it is because I got off the hamster wheel. It is very strong programming. Why is violence always seen but breastfeeding is considered obscene and mothers have to hide themselves? That tells us everything. But that's just one stark point, there are so many more. Hierarchy itself is man-made. It is not how matriarchies conducted themselves. They were peer to peer. And that is what we must move to. Nobody should rule anyone. That is preposterous. Adults ruling adults/ Crazy. Insane. Just give it some thought. Why would you want to be bossed around?
I have no problem being told what to do when I respect the one doing the telling. It’s a matter of respect going both ways. And the maturity to recognize that everyone has a place and purpose, and it doesn’t make sense to want someone else’s.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
Good luck with your point of view
A mother who murders her unborn child is bossing someone else without accountability too.
Women can control their bodies so they don't get pregnant. They don't have a right to commit murder to exercise control over their bodies. Unborn babies have rights at the expense of the mother because life is a greater right than short-term "control of your body" (in other words, convenience).
Women have become disgustingly immoral in their attempt to assert their rights to convenience and whoredom.
Yes I know but we just have to suck it up. What do you suggest that the woman be jailed? Then women would be jailed for miscarriages. We don't blink at miscarriages do we? So what if the woman makes a decision herself? It just causes too many ridiculous perturbations to consider a fetus as having the right over the body that feeds it. It just doesn't make sense. And where is the man's involvement here? That too is completely ignored. If he has sex he has to bear the consequences that a child may come of it. But nobody talks about that responsibility and as we see with the porn industry and trafficking, it's perfectly acceptable because we talk about abortion ad infinitum but not about pron and trafficking. In fact those two subjects are smartly brushed under the carpet. There is no extra value either attributed to women spending 9 months carrying the fetus. The man has equal rights to the baby once it's born. It's a man's world darling. But it needn't be. All it takes is for women to speak.
A baby dying from miscarriage is different than a baby being killed by abortion, just like a person dying from a heart attack is different than being stabbed in the chest (or choking on a chunk of food vs. being strangled, etc etc) Intent matters.
And I totally agree with you than the man should bear more responsibility - even in pregnancy. In fact, so much focus is on the "woman's choice" that people often forget abortion is an easy out for deadbeats and abusers, who often force their women to get them.
And lastly, just a reaction to the fetus feeding on the mother's body "it's a parasite" kind of mindset - did you know that if the mother is injured, the baby sends stem cells to help repair damaged tissue? That's something I learned more recently, and I thought it was amazing.
Yes the whole birthing/living thing is amazing. Everything is really amazing. There is nothing we can do about women who want to abort their fetus except make economic standards good for women. But the economic standards are all laid out by men though now it's up to women to make them differently. It just has to be sucked up that the woman has the responsibility for the fetus. Nothing else would work. This subject needs to conclude because we need to stop killing children from bombs and poverty before we go telling women what to do with their unborn babies. It's just another excuse to lord it over someone. Nobody has jurisdiction over another's body. That means your body is safe too. Any other way and nobody's body is safe.
And I agree that people's bodies should be safe from other people - that includes the baby whose body would be poisoned and dismembered.
You're still speaking as if pregnancy is a parasite you catch as opposed to a natural consequence of, in most cases, the woman's own choice. Yes, I know rape is tragically a real thing, but abortion doesn't heal the trauma - it just adds to it. Abortion harms babies AND women. And since rape accounts for a tiny fraction of abortions, that's not what most pro-choice people are arguing for anyway.
And conflating what is in a woman's control (not getting pregnant in the first place, what to do with the defenseless baby under her protection, etc) with things she cannot control (children being bombed and poverty) doesn't make any sense. It's a cop-out. That is literally like me saying "people shouldn't care if I feed my kids or not until there is no starvation anywhere in the world!"
And I am Arnold Snyder's wife, using his account. I am a woman writing this.
Thanks for explaining that.
You make some excellent points, ones I wholly agree with.
Every time I hear someone asking if the unborn have any rights, I ask "do the born have any rights?" Do the children being bombed daily have any rights? Do the children that are starving have any rights? In other words do the unborn children have more rights than the born children? Nobody wants to answer this. The born children are powerless and voiceless too. In fact anyone being bombed is powerless and voiceless. Look at the thousands being bombed right now in countries like Gaza and Yemen. So when does a human have any "rights"? And what are "rights" and who grants them? Do you have rights? You who are reading this? Who grants you those rights?
A different view of the subject.
It’s not about rights. From the point of view of law, how can you think about rights if these rights cannot be exercised by the group to whom they are attributed?
According to the same law, young people up to the age of about 18 years are not “mature” and have no rights in the same sense as “adults”. It is a huge part of the population, and they cannot actively seek justice and exercise their “rights” - because they have none. They are “represented” by their “agents”, or custodians, who may decide to follow up with some charges or not, and who may decide how far they will go. The “agents” have rights and the general right to use the legal system autonomously. Children (minors, kids, teenagers, newborns, infants, you can choose the name) are not welcome by the legal system as autonomous subjects.
If we have not managed to regulate the rights of such a huge part of the population - who can listen, understand, speak, object, refuse, rebel, disobey, and more - how are we to regulate the rights of beings who are invisible, who cannot use any of the above faculties, and are not even aware of the construct called “law”?
The situation could be different if we approached it in the same way as we approach the relationship od parents (custodians) and their children. There is “responsibility”. Parents are responsible for their offspring and for what they do or don’t do. This responsibility extends to paying financial penalties for damages or being subjected to legal procedures in cases when injury or harm occurred.
Maybe it is not a perfect solution, but it works, is common, and is well understood by everybody. Why not extend this solution to cover unborn beings? Responsibility of the stronger party (a party who has more control over the situation) - a universal concept all over the world.
Shifting the balance from responsibility of the custodian (guardian, parent) to rights of the unborn opens a huge undefined territory where only lawyers and enforcement personnel will feel at home. They will rule to protect the rights of the beings who have not yet arrived and to cause harm to those are here to welcome and host these travelling beings. Those unborn beings won’t have a home here, courtesy of suppressing the concept of being responsible for others in favor of fighting for powers of those who are absent.
It’s not an easy subject. However, there has been no problem with it for thousands of years. We have survived. Our families have survived. Suddenly, it erupted some 10-20 years ago. What happened? The change was not a natural one, because it was not a gradual evolution of views. Who caused that change? Why? For what purpose?
Okay. I have to correct you here. I think you write some pretty great stuff. But, as a woman who is in the legal field, and presented on the holocaust and other issues relating to states' rights vs people's rights, including sterilization, abortion, adoption, and birthing, there are additional things to consider.
In the realm of birthing vs non-birthing options, the elites are looking to make decisions about who is "fit" to have children, and who is not "fit" to have children. It is the State that makes that decision. (Whether we mean country, province, or in the US, individual states). States will often create a measurement or weighing pros and cons, but the ultimate decision is a factor of economics. Those with the greater access of economics are most likely to be able to breed. There are a number of cases in the US that have determined this.
Right now, states have the right to determine that any person is eligible for sterilization. This could be due to disability, "intelligence", past reproductive history, etc. But, ultimately, it comes down to economics. If someone is "smart" enough, they'll be rich enough, etc.
Right now, states have authority to classify whether children should be removed from their parents based on whether the parent issues gender conforming drugs, etc. Depending on what state you are in, this could go either way. If you are in CA / NY, if you fail to support your child's gender identity, you are abusive or neglectful or risk losing custody to another parent. If you support your child's gender identity, states like FL will remove your child for child abuse / neglect. So, it isn't about abuse / neglect, it is about the corporate media lying to the public about the harms of these treatments (some being sterilizing) and blaming parents, and giving control over to the state, which is ultimately controlled by the oligarchs.
In terms of adoption, there is a term used in Nazi Germany of the Lebensborn (or "well born"). This was a program that started off ensuring thousands of years of Aryan children of supreme well born traits. It didn't work out, so, Hitler sent people around Europe to find children who "looked" Aryan enough. It was their parents who were less than and worthy of camps and of killing. These children were Germanized, and made into Aryans. Much like Native Americans and Black children were done in the US.
In terms of abortion, there are two sides based on the States' rights consideration. In Nazi Germany, they forbade Aryans women to have abortions, because they wanted to ensure the proliferation of the Aryan race. However, they promoted non-worthy women to have abortions. In the US, it isn't so different. It is up to the State to determine whether a woman has the right to abortion. While it isn't specifically stated that Aryans cannot have abortions and all other non-worthy's can have abortions, historically abortion access has been in urban cities, where non-white women live. Further, there is almost no access to abortion services in white rural areas, which are usually poor, and not able to get transportation. Further, it is common knowledge that many black women have high rates of deaths and complications. So, denying black women access to early abortions in certain situations can result in both the mother and baby dying.
The bottom line is that the oligarchs that control the state gets to decide who gets to breed and who does not under the auspices of States rights. Who is the state? Who gets to make these laws? Why are they so contrary to each other? I believe it is by design, to give the State complete control over who has children and who doesn't, who gets to parent and who doesn't. There are so many other factors in the US that actually inspired Hitler in Nazi Germany. The Eugenicists actually worked along Nazis and other pro-Nazi / pro-Eugenic movements all over the world, but those never got adequately exposed. Instead, Germany was the scapegoat.
In terms of children being raised by people who adopt, that is all state sanctioned too. I am leery of a state that removes children from one set of "bad" parents and places them with others who conform to the states' regulatory restrictions. Gender identity is just one element that these parents will have to obey. It also includes these new school systems, drugging these children, and so on. People who foster or adopt have less parental rights than parents, and will have to obey the states' abuse / neglect codes, which are completely arbitrary when compared to other states. And, when talking with parents who either voluntarily or involuntarily lose their children to foster / adopt, like with the Lebensborn who were stolen and Germanized, these parents and families suffer the rest of their lives for the loss of that child.
I am still pro-choice, but with a huge caveat. I believe that a woman should get to make an informed decision, knowing that there will be harms to herself and society with the absence of that child. With the informed decision that these oligarchs are encouraging certain births, and discouraging others for their own purposes. But, I also know that life can be made to be worse than death, and I would never want to stop a woman from making that decision either. I can imagine how bad things are going to get for people, and if the people don't win this war. I wouldn't want to force a woman to give birth in that kind of world. But, for now, I will do everything to make sure she doesn't have to make that decision.
We don't as a society work out why the economy discriminates against some people in favor of others. That all goes by the by. We rarely even take note that all of our structures were designed exclusively by men. Even if 100 women were involved, it still would not be equal balance. So all we live by is by hierarchical thinking of which money determines who's on top and who's on the bottom. Again a system designed exclusively by men, including law and religion. Women who work within these structures don't give equality to themselves, what they do is capitulate to the order set out not by women but only by men.
I agree 100%.
You touched upon the equal balance issue.
I would add that as a result of this hierarchical thinking, or perhaps biology or perhaps some other reason, women think differently than men (or may than men who built these structures). However, in this hierarchical structure, women must conform to men's thinking, because it was men's thinking that constructed these systems and structures (legal, social, political, educational, religious). As a result, women must re-learn how to listen to her own thoughts and re-program how to conduct her own way of thinking in order to be at an equal balance of even having a conversation. Otherwise, it is just women either thinking like men, or thinking how men expect women to be / think, in order for women to survive in a literal man's world.
I also want to point out that while there are laws to "protect" against many types of discrimination, there are no laws to protect against economic discrimination.
Brilliantly said. The idea of law itself is a male construct. So too with religion. I totally agree that women think very differently than men do. But we need both kinds of thinking. What we don't need is only one-sided thinking and this is why we have any kind of toxicity - imbalance. Men think in the short term,, women think in the long term. Men think in measurements, women think in design. This is due to our physical nature. Men ejaculate therefore they have immediate needs. Women get pregnant which takes 9 months and then the nurturing of the child to adulthood. Therefore women are long-term thinkers. Women see the big picture, men see the details. Because men are the builders and women are the architects. There are overlaps and intertwinings however that is basically it. And if we understand the anatomy of our thinking differences, we would be so much better off. Women shouldn't have to think like men but now that's all women do - so much so that they have almost totally forgotten how to think as women. I appreciate your comment!
Interesting (on another subject) how here in the West parents are told if they don't affirm their trans kids they will commit suicide. Maybe pregnancy centers need to adopt that tactic as a message to those intending to abort.
Are they adoption agencies there like here in the US that can somehow get involved in this and save the children?