Ashley Pierce is a political science freshman and Mustang Daily conservative columnist.
The other day my liberal friend posted another liberal Facebook post. He wrote: “What if the cure for cancer is trapped inside the mind of someone who can’t afford an education?” Well, then they can take out a loan like the rest of us or get a job to save up for an education, I thought, but let it go.
Later, my boyfriend commented on the same post, “What if the cure was trapped in the mind of an unborn baby?” That hadn’t even crossed my mind and it made me all the more frustrated with the abortion debate.
Conservatives are portrayed as evil by the left and the media for being pro-life: We want to take away womens’ rights to their own bodies, we’re pushing religious beliefs on others, we’re encouraging the government to invade people’s privacy, etc.
But there is a time and place for government to intervene in personal lives, and that is when a crime takes place or someone is harmed (I can sense all the eye rolls I’m causing already). Conservatives, and even some liberals, believe life begins at conception and abortion is harming the life of the unborn baby.
The typical argument I hear from pro-choice advocates is that “a woman can do what she wants. It’s her body.” What constitutes one body? DNA. Every person on this planet has their own unique DNA code. None are the same. That’s why on all those fancy crime shows, if the murderer leaves a strand of hair, skin fragment or nail fragment, their unique DNA code is found and they go to jail.
A women’s baby, on the other hand, does not have the same DNA. It’s an entirely different code. Yes, the baby is in the woman’s body, but it is not a part of it like her arm or leg. It is a separate entity and a separate life. Yet Roe v. Wade still stands and abortion is still seen as a woman’s right.
MSNBC reported Friday that what could become one of the “strictest” abortion laws in the country is being voted on in Arkansas. The law would ban abortions on women more than 12 weeks pregnant if a fetal heartbeat could be found.
That would be our country’s strictest abortion law? That’s it? That’s three whole months into pregnancy. At three months, the baby’s ears are formed and their eyelids are developed, their fingers have been in existence for a couple of weeks and fingernails have begun to grow. The baby can suck its thumb and even get the hiccups, but it’s not really alive yet, right? We can still get rid of it, surely.
The thing I find so silly about my friend’s Facebook post is his obvious concern for the poor and their future. How sad, he thinks, that a poor student can’t afford college (even though there are options for him or her). He pictures all the potential wasted because the government won’t pay for them to go to school. Meanwhile, he is completely fine with the government paying for an innocent unborn baby losing his or her life before birth. Apparently, they lack all potential.
There is a loss of responsibility in today’s society. If you have sex (an act that is meant to cause pregnancy) and you get pregnant, you can just get rid of it. In reality, if you are choosing to engage in that activity, then you are choosing to risk getting pregnant. Even with birth control, they all say 99.9 percent effective, so there’s still that known risk.
This generation thinks if something bad happens because of their actions, they can just wave it away. A human life cannot be waved away — actions have consequences. If someone can’t take care of the baby, then adoption should be an option.
As for women who have the horrible misfortune of being raped, my heart goes out to them as I could not even imagine the amount of pain and suffering they endure, and heaven forbid a pregnancy follows. While I do not think two wrongs make a right, I don’t know where I stand on this issue. With cases of rape, states should be able to decide on their own if it’s legal.
I sympathize with those who get pregnant in their teens, in poverty and in any unwelcome circumstance — and I certainly don’t think that people who have abortions are evil people. Innocent blood, however, shouldn’t be shed for their mistakes.
It’s selfish. Abortion is, in essence, an act of selfishness.
I’m sorry but PLEASE take an economics class an educate yourself about the uneven distribution of wealth in this nation. You make it sound SO easy for poor people to just simply take out a loan and go through college. It angers me when overly privileged people like you think its so easy for poor people to simply step out of their socioeconomic class. Read stuff by Krugman and Bernstein and you’ll realize what you’re saying is all a load of crap.
In terms of what you wrote on abortion, I respect your opinion, but I’m willing to bet everything I have that if you were raped, you’d want to get an abortion? Why? Simply because you wouldn’t want a baby to financially ruin the rest of your life.
I’d appreciate if when commenting on these articles people at least do not assume things about me which seems to be a trend.
Over priviledged? My father has been out of work for almost my entire teen years and my mother brings home just enough to get by. I’m here on loans and scholarships. No, I’m not the poorest person out there and I’m still way more priviledged then most – but whatever image you have of me being some little rich girl who doesn’t understand other people’s strife please erase. Thanks.
As far as rapes go – I addressed that. No, I’d like to hope I wouldn’t get an abortion if I got raped but as I said I can’t even imagine that situation so I wouldn’t pretend to know. That should be decided by individual states.
Sorry, but the state should be the ones “deciding” if a woman is able to get a rape pregnancy aborted.
First of all, the same people who are for these laws are the same ones crying because taxes are what they are and raging about the government infringing upon their rights to have guns and land and things. Which I completely understand. But how is the government telling what someone can and cannot do with their own body okay?
If someone gets raped THEY should be the ones choosing what to do with the pregnancy, not some doctor, not some govt agency. The state should have no right to take away someones right to access medical things.
I also wonder where you stand on people whose “babies” develop with absolutely no brain matter. There was a case of a catholic couple, deeply involved in their church being completely ostracized and attacked because the woman got what is considered an abortion. Her baby developed with no brain and the fetus was going to start rotting and be rejected by her body. It would have killed her to deliver that “baby”, so the doctors told her and her husband that she had to have it removed in order to live.
The thing is, abortion is not a black and white issue. If you don’t want one, fine, but don’t take rights away from people.
As far as school goes, equating school funding with abortions is ridiculous. It doesn’t work that way. If they cut abortions, that doesn’t mean school loans get that money at all. You’re also speaking for your friend and imposing what you believe their opinions to be instead of having them interviewed and asked about it.
should NOT be. Sorry, messed up that first sentence there.
Krugman and Bernstein? You mean two ardent leftists? Of course they are going to say that the idea of a self-made man or woman is a load of crap, that socioeconomic advancement doesn’t happen. That’s because they are too busy trying to foment the masses with erroneous and idyllic assertions. People like this have perverted the theories of Marx into ideological demagoguery.
PS-Spare us the “overly privileged” remarks–quite frankly, by virtue of your attendance at Cal Poly, YOU are overly privileged, as are we all. Poor people can’t afford $10k a year in education, $20k a year in housing, never mind all other fees, all while attending one of the most difficult schools to be accepted into. Cal Poly students who rage as if they are one of the oppressed proletariat have to be one of the more peculiar spectacles of hypocrisy that I can imagine.
Exactly. Also, the author is white, which automatically affords them far more privilege in life. People don’t treat white people like they’re some thug criminal, or tell them they deserve to be poor because of their race. Both of which are things that have happened to my non-white friends.
The whole “boot straps” argument for not being poor is a load of bs.
First of all, the job market is absolute shit right now. If you don’t have a college degree, good luck getting jobs. If you do have one, be prepared to wash dishes or be a mail courier, because that’s pretty much what is out there unless you know someone, get really lucky, or have a family member somewhere that can give you an in.
Telling people to just suck it up and “Work hard”…well that’s all well and nice, but what about people who are mentally ill who end up homeless? What about war vets who have stress syndrome and should be on meds but can’t be forced to take them, so they end up homeless too? What about people who get evicted because their family member got cancer, the medical bills got to be too much, and they are living out of their car and then lost their job? Those are all real scenarios. Blanket statementing “poor people” does not do them any services. Your mom bringing home “just enough to get by” is far more than those people had, so yes, you are still privileged. You had a family unit, a house, money coming in, and have gotten into college. Talk to a homeless person and see how “easy” it is to get a job and then come talk to us about privilege. Also, I have a degree from Poly. It took me 2 years after graduating to get a job washing dishes in this area. That’s how shitty the job market is right now. All those people talking about “getting a job” can go such a big one because obviously they haven’t been actually job hunting themselves. It’s soul crushing right now.
Melissa in response to both of your comments and another one somewhere else on here, I was not using my friend as a source. It was an anecdote to begin the story and explain what brought the abortion debate to my head in the first place. This isn’t a news story, it’s an opinion piece, therefore an anecdote or citing things from my personal life is okay.
I also was not referring to the mentally ill or veterans – that was not the topic of this article. I notice a large amount of people commented more on my comment about poor students getting loans. It was a blanket statement to show that I didn’t agree with what my friend was inferring so I could move onto the actual topic at hand. Obviously my intention was to quickly move on and it failed as that’s all a lot of people have been looking at.
I’m sorry if you feel that white people are more privileged than others. That shouldn’t be the case and if that’s been seen in your life I’m sorry because that’s disgusting for people to put one race above another. I’m also sorry that you are having a hard time finding a job. I hope you find one soon and I sincerely hope the economy turns around for us all to be able to do so.
I have a job, but thank you for the well wishes.
White people ARE privileged. It’s not something I “feel” it’s a proven fact.
Look up White Privilege and research it yourself. People put white people above others regularly, and you get the benefits of that from being white. I’m white myself.
As far as your friend not being a “source”…they are a source.
Just because it’s an “opinion” piece does not excuse you from doing actual research on things, ESPECIALLY because you are a journalism major.
I would hope that they teach critical thinking, but apparently not judging from this piece and the pieces going a few years back.
Wow. Forget the abortion debate, the first paragraph of this article just screams of ignorance. Sure, you’re not rich or anything, but you clearly don’t understand that a) there are people in the world other than Americans, and b) that there are many people in the world so poor that they couldn’t even afford an elementary school education, let alone the interest on a loan for a college education. That these people’s entire existence goes towards just getting enough food to survive.
It is not as easy as just getting a loan or a job. There are no government loans to give these people, no unemployment plans to get them back on their feet. Their government doesn’t care about them. That may sound like an excellent thing to you, but if you asked them, they’d tell you that they wished someone listened to their needs and stopped the things that get in the way of being more successful people.
And back in the US, it’s becoming painfully obvious that even getting loans for college means lifelong debt for many people. Hundreds of thousands of lives, if not millions, suffering or living below the poverty line for what? To get a job that disappeared after 2008?
I disliked your stances on women’s rights issues before, but now I cannot respect anything else you say in your column. Get a world view before you spew BS like this.
Daniella,
*I* was referring to the poor in *this* country. Not others. Perhaps my friend on Facebook was talking about those in other countries – I honestly don’t know, but the point of introducing his quote wasn’t to talk about other countries but our messed up views here in America. How so often people are able to be sympathetic toward one thing but ignore the unethical practice of abortion.
And yes, I’m painfully aware of the debt I myself will be in after college especially when my degree will be in journalism. I’m well aware of that issue but that wasn’t the point of this article.
Daniella,
*I* was referring to the poor in *this* country. Not others. Perhaps my friend on Facebook was talking about those in other countries – I honestly don’t know, but the point of introducing his quote wasn’t to talk about other countries but our messed up views here in America. How so often people are able to be sympathetic toward one thing but ignore the unethical practice of abortion.
And yes, I’m painfully aware of the debt I myself will be in after college especially when my degree will be in journalism. I’m well aware of that issue but that wasn’t the point of this article.
Ashley,
First off, I’d love to have a debate with you sometime in the public sphere, to see how you look without prepared material.
Secondly, your reasoning is all over the place. You begin by saying life being with conception. For some clarification, life does not BEGIN. Life BEGAN, but life simply continues. During conception, an alive sperm cell infiltrates(good euphemism) an alive egg cell, creating yet another alive zygote. No LIFE begins there, it simply continues. The debate should be where HUMAN LIFE begins, ‘human life’ being a legal term completely made up for purposes of law and societal conduct. A human life is legally responsible, has a social security card, and a birth certificate to show that they are, indeed, alive.
Enough with your purported misconception, your argument is that HUMAN LIFE should begin at birth. I have a few questions for that: how would a pregnant woman wear two seat belts? Would we hold funerals for miscarriages? Instead of saying,”I have two kids with one on the way,” would we have to say, “I have three kids?” If the baby causes the mother’s death through complications, would we hold a trial for murder? When the baby is three months BORN, would we say it’s one year old?
Next, you go on to say that, and I quote, “sex (an act that is meant to cause pregnancy)”. Sure, in every animal other than us and dolphins, sex is merely to cause pregnancy. But in a world such as ours(overpopulation, cost of kids, not yet married), sex has a primary function of pleasure. Now, for some reason, you seem to look down upon sex for pleasure, probably because of religion, but that is unimportant. What is important is that almost no people in the entire world have sex for the sole means of reproduction, and I’m pretty sure there’s some statistic to support that.
Lastly, oh man, you say that a person is identified by their DNA(not mentioning the fact that chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with us). Well, don’t dead people have the same DNA? Oh, I guess we should specify that a human person must be alive and have the same DNA. Back to the question of what ‘alive’ means, I see. So, same DNA is not adequate for HUMAN LIFE. What about someone with Down’s Syndrome? Surely they don’t have the same DNA as us, they have less chromosomes! But no one says that a person Down’s Syndrome is not a HUMAN LIFE, or is that what you are suggesting?
Please, don’t regurgitate the same arguments from decades ago, they didn’t work for a reason. Life does not begin, it continues. There are obvious problems for saying that a conceived zygote is a person. Sex is not for reproduction alone. Finally, DNA is not sufficient grounds for personhood.
Alex,
You’re right. Sex isn’t for reproduction alone, but when one has sex they *know* that pregnancy could be a possible consequence. And for the record my religious background doesn’t make me look down on sex for pleasure. What I’m saying is that if people choose to have sex they should be responsible about the consequences – one of them being a baby.
Human life is defined by a birth certificate and social security card? How far our society has crumbled then.
Your questions about seat belts, and two kids on the way, are completely irrelevant as they are ridiculous which I assume is your point. No the baby is not a child yet, they are not fully formed either, but he or she is still alive and functioning. They move and kick and recognize the parents voice. They are every bit entitled to life as are the rest of us.
You mention overpopulation, cost of kids, and not yet married – I offer yet again adoption. Obviously adoption won’t help the overpopulated issue but a life is a life. We wouldn’t kill off anyone just to help overpopulation so I see no difference in that and killing a still growing baby.
As far as DNA I was talking about the baby being *separate* from the woman’s body. NOT about he or she being alive. I never used DNA to prove that the baby was alive – just that it was NOT a part of a woman’s body the way that is argued so much of the time. I at no point ever said anything about people with less DNA being less of a person than any of us. You have taken my words out of context.
I was making a point that DNA differs by person and that a babies’ DNA is separate from the mother’s. I see no logical bridge between that and your Down’s Syndrome accusations.
As far as the public sphere, you think that little of me that I would be unprepared for debate without having done research for my articles? Yes, I’m sure I would be lacking some facts to back me up, but I think I can handle myself.
Let’s do a debate then! That’d be fun!
“Human life is defined by a birth certificate and social security card? How far our society has crumbled then.”
That is exactly what a PERSON is defined as. A legal person. Murder can only exist between two legal persons. For your objection that abortion is murder to hold up, an unborn baby would have to LEGALLY be considered a person.
As I was reading your article title, “Abortion comes down to selfishness” I thought to myself, “Yes, the act of abortion is a selfish act; all the more reason why abortion should not be banned.”
Most argument related to abortion, people tend to focus only on the morality issue when in fact there are more issues connecting to abortion (like poverty and rape which you have mentioned). One issue you neglected to mention was the unsafe abortion which, needless to say, is more common in countries where abortion is illegal.
Back to my point on selfishness, what scares me about human being is that they are capable of partaking themselves in the most unethical act when they get cornered by their troubles. Selfishness is a product of our free will and no matter how you may think it is unethical, society cannot get rid of selfishness just as we cannot get rid of abortion (at least not the unsafe ones) as a whole. Incorporating moral standards with law does not work as proven by US Prohibition.
Lastly, I do not approve the act of abortion, no matter how unfair it may be for mother with unwanted child. However, if any Pro-Lifers were to say that any mothers who have lost her life by performing unsafe abortion (an issue likely to increase if abortion was to be banned) deserved what they got, then that would be the highest form of hypocrisy.
As I was reading your article title, “Abortion comes down to selfishness” I thought to myself, “Yes, the act of abortion is a selfish act; all the more reason why abortion should not be banned.”
Most argument related to abortion, people tend to focus only on the morality issue when in fact there are more issues connecting to abortion (like poverty and rape which you have mentioned). One issue you neglected to mention was the unsafe abortion which, needless to say, is more common in countries where abortion is illegal.
Back to my point on selfishness, what scares me about human being is that they are capable of partaking themselves in the most unethical act when they get cornered by their troubles. Selfishness is a product of our free will and no matter how you may think it is unethical, society cannot get rid of selfishness just as we cannot get rid of abortion (at least not the unsafe ones) as a whole.
Lastly, I do not approve the act of abortion, no matter how unfair it may be for mother with unwanted child. However, if any Pro-Lifers were to say that any mothers who have lost her life by performing unsafe abortion (an issue likely to rise if abortion was to be banned) deserved what they got for her irresponsibility, then that would be the highest form of hypocrisy. Parenthood is something to be encouraged, not enforced.
As I was reading your article title, "Abortion comes down to selfishness" I thought to myself, "Yes, the act of abortion is a selfish act; all the more reason why abortion should not be banned."
Most argument related to abortion, people tend to focus only on the morality issue when in fact there are more issues connecting to abortion (like poverty and rape which you have mentioned). One issue you neglected to mention was the unsafe abortion which, needless to say, is more common in countries where abortion is illegal.
Back to my point on selfishness, what scares me about human being is that they are capable of partaking themselves in the most unethical act when they get cornered by their troubles. Selfishness is a product of our free will and no matter how you may think it is unethical, society cannot get rid of selfishness just as we cannot get rid of abortion (at least not the unsafe ones) as a whole.
Lastly, I do not approve the act of abortion, no matter how unfair it may be for mother with unwanted child. However, if any Pro-Lifers were to say that any mothers who have lost her life by performing unsafe abortion (an issue likely to rise if abortion was to be banned) deserved what they got for her irresponsibility, then that would be the highest form of hypocrisy. Parenthood is something to be encouraged, not enforced.
Whoops, they keep telling me I got the invalid code
This article honestly makes me sick. How are you not embarrassed after broadcasting your arrogance and unbelievable ignorance to the entire school? This makes the journalism department at Cal Poly look horrible.
I’m not even going to bother outlining all of the fallacies in this article; most of the other commenters have done a great job with that already. Grow up, and try to see the world from other peoples’ perspectives. It will help you go a lot farther in life. Unless, of course, you’re planning on being Ann Coulter’s understudy.
Also, you might want to try proofreading your articles before you publish them. At least make them sound like they were written by someone over the age of 5. Ugh.
I’m not sure exactly what the purpose of your article is, but if you’re looking to constructively add to the public discourse on abortion, and possibly educate or even persuade others of a differing opinion, you might consider a less confrontational and/or judgmental title and/or thesis next time. Your article deals with a very sensitive topic, and you actually seem to be a fairly level-headed person, but that sort of title can make people defensive right out of the gate and turn them off to your message.
In the interest of doing my best to add to this constructively, here’s my reaction:
1. If someone * genuinely* believes that life begins at conception, then that person, as a consequence, believes that abortion is murder. (Both sides use the phrase “abortion is murder” to shock or mock the other, but it’s actually a logical phrase to anyone who considers that life begins at conception.) Bearing that in mind, asserting that abortion is okay in X, Y, or Z case seems silly. Take rape or incest, for instance. Say scientists were able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that after someone was raped, if they killed another person (let’s go with a fully grown, born person for the sake of argument) that the memory and trauma of the experience would be completely mitigated. Would anyone condone the murder of that person? Doubtful. So to me, I’ve never been able to wrap my head around people who simultaneously believe abortion is murder but it’s okay when… . It would seem the only time abortion would be even an *option* for someone who believes that, would be if the life of the mother were in verifiable danger (either physically during gestation/childbirth, or mentally, due to severe trauma of being forced to carry a rapist or family member’s child to term). Even then, you would have to evaluate it under the same criteria you would use if an innocent, fully grown person’s life was at stake. Tough call all the way around.
2. Nobody is okay with murdering people. Liberal or conservative, you’ll find that %99.9999 of the population are against murder in pretty much all circumstances. (For the sake of argument, let’s assume my definition of murder does not include executions, which of course are performed only in response to a suspected crime, which, naturally, a would not apply to an unborn child.)
3. The only relevant argument, then, is when life actually begins. The only important argument that I can see in the abortion debate is: When does life begin? If you want to change someone’s mind about abortion, you have to change their mind about that. If you can convince someone that a baby is a baby at the moment of conception–I mean REALLY convince them to where they give it the same weight as a born person–then I *guarantee* you they wouldn’t even consider abortion–rape, incest, poverty, etc aside. Because, again, nobody wants to kill people. The only reason people get abortions is that they do not believe that unborn children are children/people.
But convincing someone that an unborn child is a real person will be difficult, especially if they do not share your religious beliefs. What exactly constitutes life/a child/a person is a very complicated question. We face the difficulty of these question not just during the beginning of life, but near its end as well. Many people believe that absence a functioning brain that is capable of forming thoughts, life does not exist. Others believe life exists so long as there is a heartbeat. And others still believe life is life so long as there is any living biological matter arranged in a cohesive pattern that resembles a person. Ultimately, it’s very difficult to convince someone else of your way of thinking.
I can understand why someone who believes life begins at conception would want to legislate that. Frankly, EVERYONE should understand that, and they should stop giving pro-life people such a hard time–again, if you believe that life begins at conception, you believe abortion is murder, and that makes abortion horrifying to you and of course you would want to stop it. However, I would ask you to consider the difficulty in legislating an end to abortion. Can you prohibit medical abortions? Sure. Can you attempt to punish people and/or try them for murder if they commit an at-home abortion? You can try. But can you make someone take care of their baby before it is born? Can you keep them from drinking? From doing drugs? From being malnourished? From doing any of the myriad things that can irreparably damage a baby? Unfortunately not. And the sad fact is, while most infants *are* adopted in this country (as babies only–older children rarely procure long-term adoption and often suffer from severe emotional issues), the infants who are not adopted are the ones most in need–the handicapped and disabled children, who often are born that way because of improper care of their mothers.
Moreover, what about mothers who then keep their children, and decide to take their frustrations about being tied down with children out on their children? The government can only do so much to police parenting.
Ultimately, when you consider that what defines life, in absence of hard scientific evidence, is a deeply personal choice (in many cases as personal as one’s religion), and further consider that attempts to force others to abide by a life-only belief system will result in its share of tragedy, the debate is more complicated than you could hope to answer in an article–or than I could hope to answer in a comment on an article–and perhaps even more complicated than our legislatures could hope to answer in a law.
I understand your beliefs, but would ask you to consider those ideas as you form your opinions and share them with others, and especially as you vote.
There are two main issues I take with this article, the first being that there are legitimate scientific debates as to whether or not the beginning of human life actually begins at conception. Pregnancy is actually an incredibly complicated process that I won’t repeat here (but those really interested in constructive debate should review it). The highlights of the process are that there are several definable points where you could define the beginning of life: for example if you define the beginning of life at conception then common medications like the Pill would instantly become illegal because they don’t prevent conception, they prevent implantation.
The other issue is that by calling abortion “selfish” I firmly believe that you oversimplify an issue that is extremely difficult for most people. I’m sure there is someone out there who treats an abortion like a walk in the park but most women who make that decision agonize over it. It’s not easy and they don’t brush it off, it haunts them even if they believe they made the right choice. You said in a comment that you don’t like people making assumptions about you but you make huge assumptions about the women who make that decision. Please attempt to talk to a woman who’s made the decision or read a couple of interviews before you shrug it off.
I should mention that while I myself couldn’t imagine myself making that decision I do not think that I should have the power to make it for someone else. It’s not my place to make decisions for other people. Just because I wouldn’t have an abortion doesn’t mean that I can make that choice for other women.
Ashley — your parents must be extremely proud of you. One would never know be reading these comments that the GOP is the party of hate. Your article is excellent but the grace you have expressed in responding to several of these posts is amazing. There are three constructive results that can come from your efforts here. First, your ideas may help one of your readers to challenge their thoughts. Second, in the process of writing an article like this you become more aware of all the aspects of the debate and improve your thought process and make sure that your ideas are rational and consistent. Third, you learn a lot about the other side by their responses.
I have no interest in insulting anyone here. I just wanted to thank you for having the courage to stand up for your convictions. You will be blessed not by the number of people who call you their friend but by the quality of those who are indeed your friends. Do right, fear not. Thank you.
Jim Stock,
This is not Ashley’s journal. This not a space for her to explore her own beliefs and grow as an individual. She is supposed to be a journalist. She is providing a service to Cal Poly and the student body. When she writes purposefully inflammatory articles in which she quotes her boyfriends facebook post she is damaging the reputation of the journalism department and pissing off the school. I am sure her parents are proud of her but as a portion of this school I am not proud of her representing me this way.
This simplistic and self-righteous attitude exemplified the straw-man I have created for conservatives. You try to define a person as the sum of the genetic code that they inherit. Forensics can definitively say that a person was at a certain location based on the unique genetic sequence they left behind; however forensics never defines the murderer as the sequence of base pairs ATGC. That is the crux of your argument, that because the child inherited 50% of its genome from the father that it is a separate person and beyond the mother’s control. Unique genetics does not necessarily mean that the cell containing that sequence is independent of the organism. Genetic mutations cause cells to occasionally become cancerous. Are you making the argument that a mother can’t control the fate of the cancer cells because they have a unique genome? Are they not still part of the mother? Not every cell in your body has identical genetic codes so we do not define personhood based on your genes. In fact the vast majority of cells in your body are not mammalian. There are more bacterial cells in your body than any other. But we still define them as a part of your physiology. They are mutualistic symbiotes which are necessary to your survival.
But it was in the opinion area of the newspaper where she is entitled to an opinion. This wasn’t a news story. I’m often aghast at the hate that presents itself through comments. I’m not going into whether I agree or disagree with Ashley’s opinion, but I do respect her opinion. I like and respect everyone’s opinion even if it differs from mine or I find it immature. A good debate does not start by insulting an opinion. And anyone at Cal Poly or the surrounding community can send in an opinion piece to be published.
I apologize if my post was hateful. I do not hate Ashley and appreciate her bravery that she is willing to publish her ideas on controversial issues. That being said I certainly do not respect her opinion. She is entitled to an opinion and has the right to voice it but isn’t respect earned? There is nothing commendable about this article. She just regurgitated Fox news talking points and facebook posts. There is no merit in that. There is a valid argument to be made against abortions, which does not involve god or selfishness, and I would have enjoyed reading it.
Most things a person does can ultimately be defined as selfish. There are finite resources on this planet and by consuming them you are preventing others from using them. If your litmus test for whether to take an action is based on whether it is self –serving or not than you shouldn’t drive, use disposable plastics, or eat meats. All of these are selfish acts, which have negative effects that could ultimately be avoided. So I ask why have the arbitrary line where some selfish acts are ok but others are not? Your existence has very real negative consequences on the global environment (see reference) so couldn’t it be argued that any act that prevents global overpopulation is a selfless one? Your negative impact on the world is measurable and quantifiable; the act of aborting a fertilized egg that has no nervous system is not.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007940
Thank you for speaking up on the subject of Abortion. I noticed many people voiced their negative opinions. My opinion is that you have some very valid points. Indeed Abortions are primarily selfish. Less than 5% of all abortions are medically necessary and or are the result of rape. So the other 95% of the abortions are simply done out of self interest.
you seem selfish. you make mustang daily look bad.
Miss Pierce,
I make no assumptions about you or your behavior. I also do not accuse you of majoring in journalism, since it clearly states that you are a poly-sci major above your article … not that being a journalism major prevents you from holding conservative views; after all, Sarah Palin was one.
My issue is with how you conflate belief and opinion, as frequently happens in conservative circles; the difference being, as Doctor Laura was so fond of pointing out, that beliefs have consequences.
Strictly speaking, abortion is not limited to elective procedures, but also include spontaneous abortions, known as miscarriages or stillbirths depending on when they occur.
How do conservative women treat the remains of spontaneous abortions? Are there stately funerals, family gatherings around a coffin the size of a cigarette pack? At least in my limited experience, there are not. I have never seen a section of any cemetery reserved for unborn babies … have you? In fact, the remains are generally disposed of with no more ceremony or dignity than would be given to a dead goldfish; either flushed into the sewer, thrown into the landfill, or incinerated with mixed medical waste. It is difficult to reconcile this behavior with an sincere belief that those remains were a “baby”, don’t you think?
I invite you to revisit the topic at some future date, and give an outline of what sort of framework you would use to protect the unborn, given the ability of a state (however unlikely it is to be California) to put into its constitution that life begins at conception. Would you make all medical personnel mandatory reporters to the civil authority? Would you place restrictions on travel? Wold you have the police investigate all miscarriages as suspicious deaths? How would you prevent Tiffany Trustfund from taking care of her little “problem” on a snowboarding vacation in Whistler, thus making a mockery of the concept of equal justice? Would the state be justified in incarcerating a women who drank during pregnancy, or failed to take her vitamins?
If you are going to advocate for a political position, surely these are fair questions to ask. I also have to admit that I am puzzled by your position that you “don’t think that people who have abortions are evil people”. If elective abortion is a sufficient moral evil to be banned outright, how can you say that without buying into the patriarchal notion that women are inherently less responsible for their actions than are men? Surely you would say that a woman who contracted with an assassin to rid herself of an inconvenient husband was an “evil person”; what is the moral distinction?
Thank you for your time. I pray that you will keep an open mind while here at this distinguished institution, and feel able to modify your opinions as you learn.
Best wishes,
Mole
“If you have sex (an act that is meant to cause pregnancy) and you get pregnant, you can just get rid of it”
LOL. Yes that can happen, but no we primarily do it because it feels good. I feel very sorry for anyone who thinks having sex is just for making babies.
If a woman is raped SHE should decide not the state.
If I were raped and became pregnant – I’d be DAMNED if I let the STATE OF CALIFORNIA make a LIFE CHANGING DECISION for myself.
You conservatives who are SO AGAINST any form of government control are so hypocritical because you all are so for the government making that decision.
You know what Ashley, if YOU dont like abortions, then don’t have one. Get over yourself.
Hey Ashley – if I got pregnant, do you want to adopt my baby???? That seems to be your big solution for this issue!!!
Rhea,
I get what you’re trying to imply – that I wouldn’t want the baby so I shouldn’t talk. You’re right I’m 18 years old and don’t want children until I’m married. However there are families out there dying for the chance to bring home an adopted baby.
Great article. Abortion is the realide war on women. Imagine the selfishness of men that will use a woman for sex and then support tearing a life from her body at her most vulnerable point! Men have convinced women that “pro choice” is their right.
If a person wouldn’t kill a child outside a womans body, why would they ever dream of killing one inside? Rape is ugly but obviously we dont punish the innocent life inside. Adoption is there.