Prochoicer Eileen McDonagh:
“Some might suggest that the solution to coercive pregnancy is simply for the woman to wait until the fetus is born, at which point its coercive imposition of pregnancy will cease. This type of reasoning is akin to suggesting that a woman being raped should wait until the rape is over rather than stopping the rapist…. the fetus is not innocent but instead aggressively intrudes on a woman’s body so massively that deadly force is justified to stop it.”
She acknowledges:
“Few people are going to be comfortable with the idea.”
Eileen L. McDonagh, Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 7, 11–12, 192.
Is this a rapist?
Sorry to disappoint you, but McDonagh is correct.
She is right to point out that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. If the zygote were to be accorded the status of a person, this would be particularly true, because the woman’s consent to sex would be consent to the particular man’s body part, not consent to this completely different person.
She is right from a scientific perspective. The AMA and its British equivalent acknowledge that pregnancy begins at implantation, not fertilization. And all the evidence points to the blastocyst invading the woman’s bodily tissue, not the woman’s body making the blastocyst enter her tissue.
In fact, research on other placental mammals shows that the female’s immune attack T-cells would cause spontaneous abortion of all pregnancies save those where the embryo is a product of identical twin in-breeding if the embryo did not cause the placenta it makes to starve those T-cells into latency.
A microorganism, too, might not look very forceful, yet some can kill.
So the anti-abortion people need to wake up and face reality.
“She is right to point out that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.”
Why is it that so many pro-choicers throw out this sentence as if it makes sense. It is like saying: Consent to swimming is not consent to getting wet.
The stupidity of “pro choicers” is appalling. That baby is not a rapist, and that baby is not “intruding” on anything. It’s pregnancy. It’s natural—that’s how more people are made. Pro aborts act as though pregnancy is a crippling disease when it is one of the most natural things in the world.
The baby is not a rapist, no- it is being compared to a rapist. AKIN to it, is the phrase used.
Pregnancy does not seem natural or fine if it is unwanted. What if a woman had been raped? Or found out the baby had a genetic disability, possibly fatal anyway? Or simply if her birth control failed? She should not be forced to carry to term- in the same way that a woman should not be forced to have sex.
“Pro aborts” (lol..your phrase, not mine) believe that a woman has the right to make choices for her own body. If she sees the fetus as an intrusion or simply has a medical need for abortion, she has the right to terminate.
We are fortunate enough to live in an age when a woman do not have to worry about bearing the child of a man who brutalized her. There are some in America who would force woman to bear that child, in the name of some warped God-directed concept of respect for life
I ask you this: What God deserves worship who would “bless” a violent, soul-destroying act with an unwanted living reminder? What nation would allow a religion to write law that dehumanizes a woman into nothing but a vessel, as rapist see women?
If your ovum is polluted by combination with the sperm of your rapist and a zygote forms, grows into a blastocyst, and implants, that blastocyst is 50% rapist chromosomes. If this pregnancy is allowed to continue to the point that embryonic chromosomes begin to leak across the placenta into your bloodstream, your very blood will be polluted by the rapist’s chromosomes and travel throughout your body, even into your heart and brain. A rape pregnancy is nothing but a continuation of the rape.
If an impregnated rape victim chooses to let that happen, then if those chromosomes make her susceptible to even lethal diseases years later, that is a result of her own choice and it is her responsibility.
But if the law prevents her from having a abortion in time to prevent the rape-caused pollution of her blood, then the anti-abortion lawmaker and every voter who voted for him or her is a rapist’s accomplice. Because as long as even one of the rapist’s chromosomes remains inside that victim without her consent, the rape has not ended, and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.
And if she goes through childbirth when she doesn’t want to, since she cannot regain the exact body she had before, then the lawmaker is responsible for every inconvenience, pain, injury, and deleterious change to her body. That lawmaker and every voter who voted for him or her are a rapist’s accomplice.
Every anti-abortion voter who votes for anti-abortion legislators honestly deserves to be found guilty as an accomplice in rape and put in prison.
I