June 17, 2019 · OPINION
Women shouldn’t give up their right to consent
By Tina Nagy
While philosophers are still debating the meaning of life, there are a great deal of politicians today who want to philosophize about the beginning of life. But why do we keep having these nonsensical arguments about when life begins, when what is up for debate here isn’t really life?
Of course, a fetus is alive. We are arguing about life when what we should be arguing about is does a woman have a right to determine when she will risk her own life to carry a life to term?
Clap your hands now because I’m going to say it: Yes, a fetus is alive. But sperm from ejaculate is also alive. So is a pig or a chicken. So is a cockroach. Even a cancer cell is alive. A parasite in your intestines also has life – and a fetus acts in exactly the same way as a parasite.
But, to attempt to compare a fetus in the womb to a living breathing baby, one finds obvious pitfalls. A fetus doesn’t breathe on its own. It isn’t viable outside the womb. A fetus attaches itself to a woman’s oxygen and blood supply and uses her body like a fly laying eggs on dung.
A baby cooing in its crib doesn’t subject the body of the mother to numerous potential health problems. A babbling baby is an independent being; it isn’t forced on someone like an unwanted pregnancy. And a woman doesn’t sign a contract consenting to pregnancy every time she enjoys intimacy any more so than a man consents to parent a child every time he has sex with a woman.
Saying a woman gives consent to a potential pregnancy every time she allows penetration is basically akin to saying that sex is only for procreation and accidents never happen; birth control never fails. We know that’s not true, no birth control has ever been fail-safe. So, then from where comes this moral superiority in insisting that pregnant women carry every single conception to birth? Why this relentless insistence that, “Every baby wants to be born,” when an embryo is in no way comparable to a baby and has no consciousness or intent, or even a spinal cord?
If a young man in college gets some random woman pregnant, we don’t see his mother telling him, “Drop out of college and marry this girl, because you brought this on yourself.”
Neither do we see fathers telling their sons to force women to have sex. But do we tell our sons to use condoms every time they have sex? No, we assume that birth control is solely the responsibility of the woman. How is that fair when we consider how we are educating our daughters?
Can we at least just admit that while we were campaigning so vehemently on the steps of the Capitol that “All babies should have a chance to be born!” that we never once considered where the father was in this picture, or IF he was in the picture at all?
And if we believe there should be exceptions for rape and incest, then why is a fetus not a life when the father is a rapist but it suddenly becomes a life as soon as you learn that the woman consented to the sex? And why is it OK to force a woman into giving birth if you don’t believe it’s OK to force her into having sex? It should be apparent from the cries during contractions and the blood and the vaginal tearing that giving birth is 10 times more excruciating than being raped!
All of these things are self-evident, if we are honest with ourselves — that is, if and when we are finally able to talk frankly about sex with our daughters in the same way that we talk to our sons. The only thing in question then is whether a woman is forced into using her body as an incubator or whether she gives her CONSENT.
Consent really is everything. Therefore, the question here isn’t about life. It is, and has always been, about CHOICE.
Tony Bentley · July 14, 2019 at 1:57 pm
Agree with Jim and Rusty - Donkey Farmer may be a donkey but is definitely not a farmer. Farmers help with growth, Donkeys just kick at nothing.
Jim Griffin · July 13, 2019 at 6:33 am
RW appears to be a person of few words, an example you'd do well to consider.
Spelling and grammar? You could use a few lessons.
"Hyprocracy"? You can't spell the word, but you sure do exemplify it.
DonkeyFarmer · July 12, 2019 at 11:27 pm
I need a decoder ring to understand your posts. I don't speak broken english or teenage text language. Grow up.
Rusty Wheel · July 12, 2019 at 10:56 am
no advice, just comment ... esp about ignorant commenter
disagree, fine ... disagreeable, see top line above
DonkeyFarmer · July 11, 2019 at 11:45 pm
Rusty Wheel - you are barely coherent in your grammar or spelling.... Why would anyone listen to your advice? And just like the others you have nothing to add to the debate, you only insult and name call. Because you cannot defend your position of being fine with killing a baby right up to birth. Name call, obfuscate, attack the messenger... but never admit a life is being ended. I don't want to control another person. I am for the government staying out of my business, but just as i would report a neighbor abusing their child, there is a place for the government to protect a viable life.
I don't post here to change your mind Rusty Wheel, that won't happen, you are too consumed by hate to see any other virwpoint. I post here so that others that may think similar to me knows that there are others out there in the community that think like them and that they are not alone.
Rusty Wheel · July 9, 2019 at 8:46 am
we seen this donkey f-er b4 with differ names ignore it always burns out disappers n returns with new name
Tony Bentley · July 6, 2019 at 4:12 pm
No one has any authority to tell women what to do with their own bodies anymore then they have a right to tell them what religion to follow, or what political party to vote for, it's none of anyone's business but the people concerned.
Tony Bentley · July 6, 2019 at 12:42 pm
Donkey - Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
DonkeyFarmer · July 5, 2019 at 9:05 pm
Tony you add nothing. Just insults.
Tony Bentley · July 3, 2019 at 7:41 am
Donkey - Like ANYTHING you say adds to the conversation....lolololol.
DonkeyFarmer · July 2, 2019 at 9:47 pm
Tony - That comment does not even make sense. You sound like a 5 year old. Try adding to the conversation instead of juvenile insults.
Tony Bentley · July 2, 2019 at 7:31 pm
DonkeyFarmer - Too bad you don't have a brain so you can decide how to be more ignorant, guess it just comes naturally to some people.
DonkeyFarmer · June 29, 2019 at 8:58 pm
Silli has a uterus so she can decide who lives and dies.
DonkeyFarmer · June 29, 2019 at 8:57 pm
Silii · June 26, 2019 at 6:43 am
I wish Sheriff Mosier would be sent to the border to clean up the horrific mess with immigrant children. Somebody needs to save those children and the Trump administration is totally incapable of doing so. And, please, no hate comments. Those children, the youngest just 5 months old, have heartbeats, they have souls, they have families.
Silii · June 28, 2019 at 5:09 pm
Not one of you men commenting has a uterus, vagina, or ovaries. You will never be pregnant, you will never have to deliver a dead fetus, you will never bleed from a uterus, you will never have a c-section, you'll never breast feed. So, butt out of the conversation about a woman's right to reproductive freedom.
DonkeyFarmer · June 18, 2019 at 9:56 pm
Go to bed Tony
Tony Bentley · June 18, 2019 at 9:55 pm
Mind not "name".
DonkeyFarmer · June 18, 2019 at 9:55 pm
Jim I don't think anyone is against access to excellent health care. Kind of a strange thing for you to be repeating. And I'm fine with the morning after pill, most people are. As I understand it prevents the egg from attaching to the uterus. Good. If a woman does not want a baby I'd rather it stopped before development than when it has a heartbeat and fingers and can feel pain. My problem is with the current crop of Democrats that want abortion on demand at any stage up to and including after birth. And that's not me being histronic. They are passing laws RIGHT NOW that allow killing a full term baby. It is now law in New York State. Kathy Tran from Virginia introduced the law here. The slim Republican majority here stopped it. You say its not a Republican vs Democrat issue but it is. Democrats want abortion up to birth and even after birth. This is not some bombastic ranting. This is true. Our governor Ralph Northom did a radio interview where he said after the baby is born the doctor would have a discussion with the mother if she wanted to kill the baby. This is crazy. How can anyone support this?
Tony Bentley · June 18, 2019 at 9:54 pm
Yawn....same old story. No on is going to change the other ones name. This issue is getting really tiresome.
Jim Griffin · June 18, 2019 at 9:33 pm
Not a law enforcement matter. Neither is second-guessing legal gun choices. When law enforcement shoots, it is properly handled differently, likewise licensed health professionals. I favor privacy for the medical staff and family involved. Yes, we need to draw the line between the state and the individual and this is one example of it.
Another is access to contraceptives and health care. Common contraceptives can act post-fertilization. Ban them? Can we agree all deserve access to excellent health care? Where do you draw the lines?
I will assert this: It's not a partisan issue. Good people on all sides of it. Not Dem v Rep, right against blue, left versus right. It is legitimately conservative to think this an area properly outside the purview of government.
DonkeyFarmer · June 18, 2019 at 9:28 pm
Adam do you believe in abortion under any circumstances? I ask this as a father of a girl and husband of a woman. If my daughter was raped and impregnated do you believe she must under the gun of the State be required to bring that baby to term? I ask this because I believe abortion to be disgusting when used as birth control but how can you make a girl carry a baby in her body she had no say in?
DonkeyFarmer · June 18, 2019 at 9:18 pm
I want the government involved in my private life as little as possible. Where the government does have a role is protecting those that can't protect themselves. A mother cannot kill her 3 month old baby for example. There are many women in prison for giving birth then throwing that baby in the garbage to die. My issue is why is it okay for a "doctor" to induce labor, then kill a full term baby? Why is that not murder that a mother would be charged with? Add to that the "doctor" is profiting from the killing? We have to draw the line somewhere as a society or we are just lost.
Jim Griffin · June 18, 2019 at 9:15 pm
"Jim is definitely the kind of person who would've been arguing in favor of slavery ... Obviously Jim, and the author of this piece, think that it is (right/just/moral/okay/etc. to kill another innocent human being). I'm not willing to just look away while millions die."
That's a professional fundraiser for you!
AdamCassandra · June 18, 2019 at 9:10 pm
"personal views of science"? Good grief. These are facts, not feelings. Jim is definitely the kind of person who would've been arguing in favor of slavery because the Court didn't dictate that slaves were human beings deserving of the same dignity and rights as the rest of us, no matter what science or people's own eyes said differently. I believe in the rule of law, but not in blindly following unjust laws. This is a global human rights issue that transcends the Constitution. Either it's right/just/moral/okay/etc. to kill another innocent human being or it's not. Obviously Jim, and the author of this piece, think that it is. I'm not willing to just look away while millions die.
Jim Griffin · June 18, 2019 at 8:45 pm
Privacy is the point. We should keep out. Licensed medical professionals treating patients in certified facilities deserve medical privacy.
Where we can agree is that all deserve access to excellent health care at all times. I think we also agree on the first trimester -- or at least it seemed we might -- but it is my read that Adam does not.
An analogy to gun rights: Terrible things happen but it doesn't change the US Constitution, which is clear. Bad things find their way to publication, but it doesn't change the near limitless protection of the 1st Amendment. Likewise medical privacy.
DonkeyFarmer · June 18, 2019 at 8:34 pm
Jim, I think what you are saying is the late term abortions are done on severly defective babies. Babies that would not live long outside the womb in any case. I think some of them are. But some are also done when a woman finds out her baby has down syndrome or other undesirable traits. Kermit Gosnell was killing healthy full term babies. He is in prison now but that is just one "doctor" And as far as questioning financial interests in this area consider abortion providers and their interests. They are making money off of killing fetuses and babies. They are selling organs of these babies. There is video of abortion providers offering organs for money. This is some really sick stuff. We are better than this. Im glad there are people like Adam keeping an eye on this industry. Someone needs to
Jim Griffin · June 18, 2019 at 8:15 pm
DF: Of course that may be true, and probably is, but as Republican Charlie Munger notes, it is always best to reconsider advice from someone who benefits from your following it.
We do not disagree on the choices as you see them, but I want privacy for the choice, regardless of outcome. I also agree with you that the outside interest grows as does the fetus, but the rare specific examples encountered in the full-term are truly sad cases that do not bring to mind a need for protection by the state -- indeed, they are much closer to end of life choices than they are those typically assigned to the beginning of life.
What I will concede is that there may be specific examples worth further examination, but they are fewer and further between than we are led to believe. Doctors and their patients regularly face many tough choices. This is one of them.
We can, of course, take it a step further in both directions. Just as you rightly cite the examples you do, we are now seeing common contraceptives defined as abortifacients with the accompanying threat they too should be banned. At what point will we acknowledge the hand of the state often reaches much too far?
DonkeyFarmer · June 18, 2019 at 8:04 pm
Jim, you keep bringing up Adams fundraising or financial motives, but did it occur to you that maybe he feels strongly on this issue and that its the reason he works for Human Life International? I don't think he's gonna become a millionare doing it. Maybe he believes in the cause?
As far as the courts and the law, I am a freedom loving American. I don't want the government in my business or my daughter or wife. I believe abortion is wrong at any stage but if the fetus is not viable it is essentially living off of the mother and it is her choice if she wants to end that life. She has to live with that decision. I have a real problem with killing viable babies. There is little difference between a 28 week fetus and a full term baby yet you would be charged with murder for killing a newborn and a "doctor" is allowed to kill a baby born alive during a botched abortion. Gosnell, an abortion "doctor" in PA was killing full term babies for years.
I think the issue here is when it is a life that the state must protect. Science has shown us now that there is a heartbeat at 8 to 10 weeks. At 20 weeks the fetus can feel pain. You have to be a pretty sick individual to have an abortion at that point.
Jim Griffin · June 18, 2019 at 7:44 pm
Your comments, Adam, reflect your personal views of science and what you believe to be physical reality. Do you seriously now claim title to "arbiter of truth"?
What unites us as Americans is a common belief in the rule of law. You may be a self-declared exception, Adam, one whose financial self-interest coincides with his claims to the contrary of the law and science.
AdamCassandra · June 18, 2019 at 7:40 pm
Jim, my comments reflect science and physical reality, not a flawed body's interpretation of the law.
Jim Griffin · June 18, 2019 at 6:42 pm
Where you've gone wrong is substituting your judgment for that of the US Supreme Court, which is consistent as regards the rights involved. Your judgment is not "factually accurate" as it disregards the definition applied by the court.
I respect the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court empowered to interpret it. Theirs is the rule of law; I cherish every right assigned to the people, especially those that protect the people from an overzealous state. Those civil rights include the 14th Amendment's right to privacy, the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms, the 1st Amendment's right to freedom of association and free speech, etc.
"The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:
The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."
"This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments."
"The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing."
"For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception."
"The court ruled in 1969 that the right to privacy protected a person's right to possess and view pornography in his own home. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Stanley v. Georgia that, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."
"The controversial case Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest."
"In 2003, the court, in Lawrence v. Texas, overturned an earlier ruling and found that Texas had violated the rights of two gay men when it enforced a law prohibiting sodomy."
"Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."
AdamCassandra · June 18, 2019 at 4:13 pm
Again invoking the Supreme Court, which upheld slavery, Jim Crow, etc., as I already mentioned. To say that abortion kills a human being is factually accurate based on our scientific understanding of what a human being is and our understanding of what killing is. Where I have gone wrong?
Jim Griffin · June 18, 2019 at 3:59 pm
Neither does the constitution mention semi-automatic or automatic weapons. The supreme court protects that anyway, a decision with which I agree.
The constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court is the law of the land. In this matter, a Republican-majority court decided Roe v Wade, and another Republican-majority supreme court recently decided another case that affirms it.
Agreed re: first trimester. States have discretion so long as they do not violate the constitution. These are extremely rare procedures. Those involved should receive flowers, not a visit from the sheriff.
This is a privacy matter. The Supreme Court says it is between the patient and her doctor, as it should be.
Adam, your continually repeated claim that this involves "killing another innocent human being" is false. You may not know that, though Supreme Court justices have continually made it clear, but doing so benefits your pocketbook because you are a professional fund raiser who feeds his pocket from the misery generated in these unfortunate circumstances.
AdamCassandra · June 18, 2019 at 3:26 pm
This isn't a privacy issue. This is a human rights issue -- a human rights abuse that has led to 60 million deaths in the U.S. alone. Even in private, killing another innocent human being is wrong.
DonkeyFarmer · June 18, 2019 at 3:22 pm
First of all Jim, there is nothing in the constitution about privacy. The supreme court created that.
Second, if you read Roe v Wade it is clear the court felt only 1st trimester that the mother had the exclusive right to an abortion. Democrats are now advocating abortions up to birth and even killing a born alive baby. They have passed this law already in New York. They are pushing for it now in Virginia.
Jim Griffin · June 18, 2019 at 2:58 pm
I did not declare it okay, nor is this a political decision. It is clearly a privacy issue. The US Supreme Court affirmed this recently, with the current Supreme Court deciding.
I respect the US Constitution, which declares this a privacy right. Apparently, you do not respect the US Constitution. Your call. It is what it is.
AdamCassandra · June 18, 2019 at 2:25 pm
I'm asserting facts: the life in the womb is a human being at a stage of development, just like you and me. #Science. An abortion kills that human being.
The Supreme Court has gotten things disastrously wrong in the past, just as it has with abortion. I wonder if Jim would've been one of the people saying slavery, or Jim Crow, or the internment camps were "okay" because the Supreme Court said so.
DonkeyFarmer · June 18, 2019 at 2:21 pm
So much wrong in this piece I wouldnt know where to start. The left will never stop. They will never relent. They have made it their goal in life to have the freedom to kill babies. Our governor has said you can even kill a baby AFTER it is born! Del. Kathy Tran introduced legislation that would allow killing the baby while the mother is dialating and giving birth. The writer of this article calls a fetus not much more than a fly laying eggs on dung. These are not people that can be reasoned with. Something went horribly awry in their life for them to think this way. They must be ridiculed and then defeated. Vote them out
Jim Griffin · June 18, 2019 at 2:05 pm
So much twisted thinking asserting this before viable outside the womb. Until then, the Supreme Court affirms it is none of your business, that a woman's right to privacy prevails.
AdamCassandra · June 18, 2019 at 12:27 pm
So much twisted thinking to justify killing an innocent human being.
Enter your email address above to begin receiving
news updates from FauquierNow.com via email.
Tuesday, July 16
Postal worker Samantha Haines plans to make down payment on new family home
Tuesday, July 16
Long dormant projects begin to stir, restarting discussions about effects on Fauquier roads
More Fauquier news
Tuesday, July 16
North Carolina-based BB&T accepts $2.3-million offer; deal could close by the end of this year