For over twenty years the abortion debate
has raged, with each side entrenched in
unyielding positions. This book breaks the
impasse by using pro-life premises to
reach pro-choice conclusions. While it is
commonly assumed that state protection of
the fetus as a form of human life
undermines women's reproductive rights,
McDonagh instead illuminates how it is
exactly such state protection of the fetus
that strengthens, rather than weakens, not
only women's right to an abortion, but
even more significantly, women's ability
to call on the state for abortion funding.
McDonagh's approach, by bridging the
divide between pro-life and pro-choice
advocates, revolutionizes the abortion
debate in a way that opens up a whole new
avenue for resolving the abortion conflict
and advancing women's rights.
McDonagh reframes the abortion debate by
locating the missing piece of the puzzle:
the fetus as the cause of pregnancy. After
exposing the myths on this subject, her
exacting analysis presents the scientific
and legal evidence that the ultimate
source of pregnancy is the fetus. The
central issue then becomes what the fetus,
as an active agent, does to a woman's body
during pregnancy, whether that pregnancy
is wanted or not. McDonagh graphically
describes the massive changes produced by
the fetus when it takes over a woman's
body. As such, pregnancy is best depicted
not as a condition that women have a right
to choose but rather as a condition to
which they must have a right to consent.
Abortion, therefore, does not rest on the
intensely debated principle, stated in Roe
, that women have a right to be free from
state interference when choosing privately
what to do with their own bodies. Instead,
as McDonagh's book explains, abortion
rights flow inevitably from women's more
established right to consent to what
another agent does to their body.
Specifically, women have a right to resist
an unwanted intrusion by a fetus as well
as to receive help from the state to stop
such an intrusion.
Moving abortion rights from choice to
consent has broad legal and cultural
ramifications tapping into the very
cornerstone of the American political
system: consent. McDonagh unravels the
consequences of extending to pregnant
women the same guarantees of bodily
integrity and liberty possessed by others
in our society. Specifically, she shows
why a woman who does not consent to be
made pregnant by a fetus, not only has a
right to terminate pregnancy, but why the
state violates constitutional due process
and equal protection guarantees when it
fails to provide her with the same
protections against nonconsensual
intrusions by a fetus as it provides
against nonconsensual intrusions by other
parties. This book pivotally strengthens,
therefore, not only women's right to
abortion but also abortion funding. By
providing new grounds both for the public
funding of abortion and for the removal of
government restrictions on abortions, it
lays the foundation for enhancing women's
rights through major policy changes in
legislatures and courts.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 09-08-07 12:33pm
That's very excellent! Wonderful points
that I think we've stated on here, but
never so succinctly or clearly.
|
Georgia59
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 5557 Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 90
Thanked:32
Posted: 09-09-07 14:17pm
That actually really makes me think about
it in a different way.
Hmm.... I like it.
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
Posted: 10-03-07 19:45pm
i am about halfway through the book right
now. It is excellent. The bottom line
is, if pro-lifers want the zef to be
considered a person, then the zef can be
held accountable for it's actions,
precisely because it's a person. It would
be the equivalent of a mentally impaired
person.
A mentally impaired person cannot rape,
homicide, kidnap, or impose bodily harm on
another person just because they are
mentally challenged.
One person can use lethal force against
any person, mentally impaired or not, to
stop them from doing the above things.
Causing someone to be pregnant against
their will constitutes grievous bodily
harm, and a zef, if it is a person, can be
stopped by lethal force from doing that to
a woman.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 10-03-07 21:59pm
Well yes, that's a point I think I've come
across before: Person or not, the fetus is
using the woman's body without her
permission.
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
Posted: 10-17-07 23:47pm
Eiri
wrote:
Well yes, that's a point I
think I've come across before: Person or
not, the fetus is using the woman's body
without her
permission.
Exactly, and over turning that law (as in
McFall v Shimp http://peopl
e.brandeis.edu/~teuber/lawmcfall1.html) would be fundamentally changing the very
principles upon which our republic (U.S.)
is founded. A.K.A., that will never
happen.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 10-18-07 00:21am
futureshock
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
Well yes, that's a point I
think I've come across before: Person or
not, the fetus is using the woman's body
without her
permission.
Exactly, and over turning that law (as in
McFall v Shimp http://peopl
e.brandeis.edu/~teuber/lawmcfall1.html) would be fundamentally changing the very
principles upon which our republic (U.S.)
is founded. A.K.A., that will never
happen.
I'm not so sure; they just banned Mom and
Dad in California All joking aside,
it really does freak me out and make me
worry.
If "states rights" could remain far more
individualized then I wouldn't have as
much of a problem. But it seems when one
state makes a law, all the others follow
suit, if slowly. I HOPE to god that
doesn't happen with this.
By the way, new Icon! Made by me, photo
and all! There was a gorgeous flower
growing outside of my dorm tonight!
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3795 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 87
Thanked:70
Posted: 10-18-07 01:56am
It's lovely Eiri! Very mellow...
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
Posted: 10-18-07 02:11am
It's pretty, but I thought you were
nightangel at first...
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3795 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 87
Thanked:70
Posted: 10-18-07 03:27am
futureshock
wrote:
It's pretty, but I thought
you were nightangel at
first...
Insults like that will get you banned
Future!
(J/K nightangel )
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2131 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 10-18-07 08:37am
I ike it too Erir.. No offense but the
other one" dragon fly reminded me of a
tampon for some reason..
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 10-18-07 08:54am
I know it did, remember? Lol.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2603 Location: ,
Thanks: 17
Thanked:13
Posted: 10-19-07 23:10pm
Hey ladies check this out what control is
about..lol!!
|
Sandbox Party
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posts: 7276
Posted: 10-19-07 23:14pm
LMFAO.
OMG thats hillarious.
and so so tru
|
KIrving
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 19 Oct 2007 Posts: 21 Location: , CO United States
Posted: 10-19-07 23:45pm
We have something in our constitution
called an amendment that protects us from
cruel and unusual punishment. If you
consider the fetus growing in a womens
womb the womens right to consent, then
KILLING the fetus would in fact be
considered cruel and unusual. Of course, I
guess you wouldn't send a fetus to prison
for 15 years for rape.
|
Sandbox Party
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posts: 7276
Posted: 10-19-07 23:47pm
KIrving
wrote:
We have something in our
constitution called an amendment that
protects us from cruel and unusual
punishment. If you consider the fetus
growing in a womens womb the womens right
to consent, then KILLING the fetus would
in fact be considered cruel and unusual.
Of course, I guess you wouldn't send a
fetus to prison for 15 years for
rape.
um..
a fetus cant rape anyone.
a fetus cant even feed itself, much less
force sex on anyone.
that was a little over dramatic.
|
KIrving
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 19 Oct 2007 Posts: 21 Location: , CO United States
Posted: 10-19-07 23:52pm
rainfire1424
wrote:
KIrving
wrote:
We have something in our
constitution called an amendment that
protects us from cruel and unusual
punishment. If you consider the fetus
growing in a womens womb the womens right
to consent, then KILLING the fetus would
in fact be considered cruel and unusual.
Of course, I guess you wouldn't send a
fetus to prison for 15 years for
rape.
um..
a fetus cant rape anyone.
a fetus cant even feed itself, much less
force sex on anyone.
that was a little over
dramatic.
Sarcasm. I like to use it.
How can you say a fetus is violating a
womens right to consent when the fetus had
no choice in the matter.
|
Sandbox Party
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posts: 7276
Posted: 10-19-07 23:55pm
KIrving
wrote:
rainfire1424
wrote:
KIrving
wrote:
We have something in our
constitution called an amendment that
protects us from cruel and unusual
punishment. If you consider the fetus
growing in a womens womb the womens right
to consent, then KILLING the fetus would
in fact be considered cruel and unusual.
Of course, I guess you wouldn't send a
fetus to prison for 15 years for
rape.
um..
a fetus cant rape anyone.
a fetus cant even feed itself, much less
force sex on anyone.
that was a little over
dramatic.
Sarcasm. I like to use it.
How can you say a fetus is violating a
womens right to consent when the fetus had
no choice in the
matter.
what if the woman didnt either?
|
KIrving
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 19 Oct 2007 Posts: 21 Location: , CO United States
Posted: 10-20-07 00:01am
rainfire1424
wrote:
KIrving
wrote:
rainfire1424
wrote:
KIrving
wrote:
We have something in our
constitution called an amendment that
protects us from cruel and unusual
punishment. If you consider the fetus
growing in a womens womb the womens right
to consent, then KILLING the fetus would
in fact be considered cruel and unusual.
Of course, I guess you wouldn't send a
fetus to prison for 15 years for
rape.
um..
a fetus cant rape anyone.
a fetus cant even feed itself, much less
force sex on anyone.
that was a little over
dramatic.
Sarcasm. I like to use it.
How can you say a fetus is violating a
womens right to consent when the fetus had
no choice in the
matter.
what if the woman didnt
either?
If a woman becomes pregnant against her
will, she should get an abortion before it
becomes a living fetus, an abortion being
the same as if she didn't even become
pregnant. Seems reasonable to me, but if
it is a living fetus, then the right to
live would always outweigh the right to
consent.
|
AyaMiyaki
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 8338 Location: Floating on a cloud, United States
Thanks: 185
Thanked:15
Posted: 10-20-07 00:08am
Why is it more okay to kill an embryo than
a fetus? They're both alive. They're both
developing human offspring.