Thursday, March 22, 2012

Woman's rights vs. Human rights

I came across this Huffington Post "article" (more of an op ed)  and I would encourage you to read it before reading the rest of my opinion piece.

10 Reasons the Rest of the World Thinks the US is Nuts  (a pro-abortion piece)


Point-for-point this is a ridiculous opinion piece.  It starts and continues on the basis that all these issues are made by men and that women know their uterus’ best and does not even attempt to acknowledge the millions of women who are for many of these bills.  The thought that having ownership of a uterus means you are wholly qualified to know everything about it and it’s contents.  That would be as absurd as me saying “I have a heart, I know how the blood pumps through it, I know the way a beat feels, I’m not going to let a doctor who doesn’t have my same heart that pumps the same way tell me if something is wrong with it or if I am in need of surgery.  I’m educated, I’ll take care of it myself.”  The fact of the matter is, very few of us have 10+ years of solid medical training and can give answers for why everything operates as it does or know all the intricacies that come with that base of knowledge.
For the record, I also gestate humans.  2 to be exact.  Doe this mean women who have not been pregnant cannot have knowledge of human life or what occurs within their bodies?  Again, ridiculous.
I agree, women should not have to carry children to tern that have already died in the womb.  This is not a pro-life or abortion issue.  Abortion is the ending of a life.  If the life is already over, it is not an abortion.  A baby that could potentially die is, however, still alive and should be given the chance of life just like any other human being. 
Woman’s mortality rate in pregnancy/childbirth as of 2007 (last year the cdc has full data for) 12.7 out of 100,000 births or far less than 1%. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology did a 13 year study involving death surrounding childbirth and death surrounding abortion and found that the death rate in woman was nearly 3x more surrounding abortion than those that had childbirth. Put another way: the maternal mortality rate associated with abortion is 195% higher than the maternal mortality rate associated with pregnancies carried to term. Non-pregnant women had 57.0 deaths per 100,000, compared to 28.2 for women who carried to term, 51.9 for women who miscarried, and 83.1 for women who had abortions. Meaning women who carried a child to term had the lowest instance of death when compared with non-pregnant women and those who had abortions. (Citings: http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/290/26/
Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier-Colle MH, Buekens P. Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000. Am J Ob Gyn 2004; 190:422-427.
Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren F, Cougle J, Coleman PK, Strahan TW. Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. South Med J 2002 Aug;95(8):834-41.)
All humans have the right to life.  Saying one woman’s right to sight is more important than another’s right to live is cruel.  If we have a food crisis and there is only one loaf of bread at the store do I have a right to murder the other person who reaches for that loaf so that I won’t go hungry that day?  This argument could also be used by those who think certain classification of people are unequal (i.e. based on race or religion, Jews being the most notorious example) and not deserving of a quality life.  If one person who thinks they are “superior” needs a new kidney and an “inferior” person has a perfectly healthy kidney does the “superior” person have the right to murder the “inferior” one to make their life easier?  This is the exact argument the author of this piece is making, saying one human life is less important than another.  It’s uncomfortable to hear, but that was the exact attitude of those who started the Nazi party and those committing genocide all over the world right now.
“Dr. Bernard Nathanson, cofounder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), who helped legitimize the claim that 10,000 women were dying each year from illegal abortions admitted years ago that the number was completely fabricated for PR purposes. He writes in his exposé Aborting America (193):
“How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L., we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”
Dr. Christopher Tietze, then acting as the chief statistician for Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the world) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), also addressed the exaggerated claim of 5,000 - 10,000 abortion related deaths per year. He writes in 1969 edition of Scientific America (Vol. 220, p. 23):
“Some 30 years ago it was judged that such deaths (from illegal abortion) might number 5,000 to 10,000 per year, but this rate even if it was approximately correct at the time, cannot be anywhere near the true rate now. The total number of deaths from all causes among women of reproductive age in the U.S. is not more than about 50,000 per year. The National Center for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965. Total mortality from illegal abortions was undoubtedly larger than that figure, but in all likelihood it was under 1,000.”
In the year prior to Roe v. Wade (1972), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Sept. 4, 1992, Vol. 41, No. SS-5) that 39 women died from illegal abortion in the U.S (24 more died that year from legal abortions). That is a far cry from 10,000, and 10,000 speculative deaths is farther still from the 1.21 million actual deaths that are already happening each year through legal abortion.
The increased "safety" of abortion in modern times owes not to its legality, but to improved medical technology. Mary Calderon, former director of Planned Parenthood, estimated in a July 1960 article from the American Journal of Public Health that 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. She writes the following:
“Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths, In 1951 there were only 15; and , while the abortion death rate was going down so strikingly in that 30-year period, we know what happened to the population and the birth rate. Two corollary factors must be mentioned here: first, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come in, benefiting all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is...abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous.”
In the end, the back-alley, coat-hanger abortion is nothing more than a convenient myth aimed at sparking emotions and arousing public sympathy. If abortion is outlawed in the future, some abortions will still take place, but just like illegal abortions before Roe, they will not be self-induced nor will they be performed by back-alley butchers. If abortion remains legal, however, millions of innocent human beings will continue to die, year after year, and this is both a tragedy and a huge injustice.
Rape is an abhorrent, tragic event in someone’s life.  Less than 2% of all abortions are performed due to a rape or incest.  We’ve learned our whole live that “two wrongs don’t make a right”; I do not have the right to kill someone because I endured an amazing pain.  Many murderers have used that excuse in court and while it may reduce jail time, I have yet to see a court say that the murder was 100% a-okay.
Now, we keep saying “human life” and the argument the author of this article is making is saying that the life inside the womb is not a human being and not deserving of the same rights as the female carrier (not a mother yet to them, of course).  Here is the scientific definition:
“There is a tremendous consensus in the scientific community about when life begins.  This is hardly controversial.  If the claim were made that life was discovered on another planet, for example, there are well-defined criteria to which we could refer to conclusively determine whether the claim was accurate.  How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?
A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte.  From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species).  Non-living things do not do these things.  Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.
Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human.  A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens.  Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg).  When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing.  Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not.  Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.
Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body.  Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, four kidneys?  The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it.  Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.
As for the right for all women to have access to contraceptives, I am all for that.  However, there are some religious institutions that believe conrtaceptives as detrimentally against their faith.  I do not believe that they should have to pay for medical care that provides for those things.  That is not to say that those women are not allowed to purchase those things for themselves or purchase supplimental insurance.  Contraceptives are not a basic human right and you are not being denied access to those things, you are being denied having them at free or low cost to you.  If you are working for a religious organization that should not be a surprise to you.  I myself have had insurance through non-religious companies that did not cover contraceptives.  Why is this just now an issue?

All this piece was was an opinion without any backing and no scientific basis.  This is “woman power!” gone awry.  We have no right to expect our lives, whether female or male, to be more important that one another.  That is real feminism- to want ALL to be equal and none above another.  To put women above all is not feminism, it’s ego and vanity.  It’s, sadly, our generation.  We care far more about ourselves than anyone or anything else in the world.