Voices of Choice -- Dr. Mildred Hanson on Pre-Roe Abortions

[EricMarinelli]

I think abortion should be legal for the majority of the gestation period for two reasons:

- The fetus cannot feel pain until relatively late in the pregnancy.

- By having an abortion, another person is prevented from coming into the world, but that is true anytime a woman chooses not to be pregnant.

Since the woman is causing no one any pain and to commit her to bringing the fetus to term would mean women are wrong whenever they choose to not be pregnant, abortion should be generally legal.

[TheAmazonwoman2]

Thank you, Dr. Hanson!!

[willowmarian]

Dr. Hanson, thank you so much for protecting our rights to safe, legal choice over our reproductive health. You are a beautiful, strong woman. Thank you.

[angelshoulders]

For goodness sakes, do some research. Google Kansas abortion facts or statistics!! Tiller was a very busy & wealthy man. He got rich off these mothers killing their babies. So they paid Tiller to murder their baby, that way he could send his children to the best schools.Nothing was too good or good enough for his children. Poor, stupid mothers of dead babies!! Hope you enjoyed paying him as much as he enjoyed the money!!

[randycrawford]

Yes, abortion is all about selfish convenience and excuses.If somebody stuffs you into a sack, feeds you oxygen & food down a tube, holds you underwater for weeks--then they come by with a machete to hack you to pieces for money--what would you want done to slow them down?If somebody did that to thousands of your friends, would you want them coddled so they keep doing it? If Tiller for instance were in jail where he belonged, he wouldn't have been shot. Neglectful prosecutors helped kill him.

[Bumblybee256]

@2000yrCatholic Get. Bent.

[2000yrCatholic]

Abortion kills innocent babies.

An abortion committee, how sick!

Doctors got together to discuss killing

babies. Repent and stop killing babies.

[YourHumanRights]

Since abortion has caused countless preterm births due to the damaged uterus and compromised cervix it creates - and thus a whole host of birth defects - how many has it been worth to this cruel woman in the video? or you?

How many cases of cerebral palsy - entirely needless - is it worth to the children who have to endure a lifetime of it - just to facilitate the convenience of their mother to be able to kill their older brother or sister earlier in life?

12? 200? 12000?

how many?

[Bumblybee256]

Lol, police. ffs. Legislating the uterus. Dammit I thought my body and all it's organs belonged to me, but how foolish. They just exist for the use of others. Far be it from me to speak up....

Fucking hell. Nazis.

[YourHumanRights]

No woman ever grew an extra head, hands, feet or heart beating a different blood type than her own as spares, killer. Never had 2 kinds of DNA either, 23 chromosomes of which from a third person not her mother or father.

You're nevere going to make human rights vanish for your blood soaked convenience any more than you can medical science.

duh !

[Bumblybee256]

Okaaaay, your first sentence did not make any sense. I never said the baby was the mother, I know it isn't, but it is her uterus the baby uses and noone has the right to use anothers body without permission.

What rights? Noone has the right to be born. How ironic your username is.

[YourHumanRights]

Not your DNA. Not your head. Not your hands. Not your heart. Not your blood type. Not your body.

So you are against all laws making it a double felony to assault a pregnant woman?

The United Nations Declaration of The Rights of the Child, as enshrined in the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"WHEREAS the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth"

[Bumblybee256]

I Never Said The Baby Was My Body. It doesn't matter, it has no right to use my body to grow if I don't want it to. I'm for that because if a woman is pregnant she must want the child (in my happy pro-choice world).

What safeguards does an unborn child need when within a WILLING mother?

Here's a question: someone needs a kidney or they will die, you are the only one who can give it- do they have a right to your kidney?

[YourHumanRights]

You are using the correct terms BABY and CHILD, I'll give you that. And it is not an it - but a HE or a SHE. In your cruel pro choice world, you have just conveniently decided that a child must die simply because he or she is an inconvenience to you - even though you created him or her thru your own free will. This is the mentality of the slave traders and concentration camp guards.

[Bumblybee256]

Correct terms would also be zygote, embryo or fetus.

Pregnancy and childbirth are not mild 'inconveniences'. Nobody has the right to use another's body without their permission. Neither slave traders nor camp guards were being used by their prisoners. Women OWN their own bodies and as such will make decisions about what uses it, or not, themselves.

[YourHumanRights]

But the slaves and the holocaust victims were being used, abused and killed by their captors in spite of their innocence - because their captors decided they were subhuman and facilitated them being used and killed for their own profit and convenience..

Just like abortion.

[Bumblybee256]

In what way are aborted fetuses being 'used and abused'?

I don't think they are subhuman, I never said so.

What woman profits from her abortion?

You silly fool.

[YourHumanRights]

Parents (not just women) get to spend money on themselves instead of their dead child - and planned parenthood profited $55 million in one year despite being a "non-profit"

killer.

Note how you can't and don't even try to answer my question regarding cerebral palsy below.. Are you going top raise all the kids born preterm with birth defects because you like killing?

[Bumblybee256]

That's not WHY women get abortions and in any case why shouldn't they spend teh money on what THEY want? They earned it. No, I'm not a killer, dearest, I haven't killed anything. What question regarding cerebral palsy, I never got any reply concerning it. Top raise???

When children are born they are no longer within the mother, they can be taken care of by another if needs be, so no I would kill them.

[YourHumanRights]

Yes, you are, and you can't anwswer the question that you claim you can't find on this same exact page!

LOL

[Bumblybee256]

What have I killed? Incidently, are you vegetarian?

I did answer it, thought my answer contained a typo, I said no- I would not kill them as they are independent of the mother

[Bumblybee256]

I asked how do WOMEN profit because women choose to get the abortion and spending money on one thing instead of something else is not profit, she would not have made money from getting an abortion.

[YourHumanRights]

An abortion will cost far less than a child.

duh.

Just like slave was much more profitable than setting him or her free.

Your opposition to human rights and your embrace of cruelty is here for all to see. Your sis the way of blood and death and dismemberment. You are the salve owner and concentration camp guard of today..

[Bumblybee256]

although you didn't even ask me that question to start with. Now answer me on the kidney.

[YourHumanRights]

I answered by telling you that I would even give YOU my kidney of you needed it. you CAN read posts - right ?

You are just avoiding the question. How many cases of cerebral palsy is it worth to be able to have their older brothers or sisters killed in utero ?

How many ?

[YourHumanRights]

Whether their mother is ready or not does not effect the scientific facts one iota. A useless bundle of meaningless cells (a tumor ?) does snot magically become a child based on someone else's decision. This is biology, not ideology.

As for my kidney, in my situation, yes - they can have it. It is best for both of us. I am on the national marrow donor database as we speak. I would gladly fly anywhere on earth and endure that very painful process - even for you.

[Bumblybee256]

What scientific facts did I argue against? I don't actually need to. You sound very very cold about women.

Well, actually, a clump of cells does become a child. When it develops (and no, tumour cells are a different kind of cell).

No, that is not answering the question. You ALL do this. I did not ask would you be willing to - I asked does that person have the RIGHT to use your body, regardless of your wishes?

[YourHumanRights]

You cannot argue the scientific facts - NONE of which are behind you and your killing lobby. Agreed. You created that person, you are responsible for that person. That person has the exact same human rights as YOU do. You can become unwanted or a burden to somebody anytime they choose also. Ask Dr. Tiller.

[Bumblybee256]

I'm not arguing against scientific facts 1. Because you never brought any up 2. Because I don't need to, they are not relevant- these elusive 'facts'.

What rights? There is no such thing as the right to be born. Er, no I can't- I don't feed off someone elses body. Why aren't you answering my kidney question? I cannot, because pro-life nutbars are vicious murderers. Just out of interest- will YOU ever be pregnant?

[Sukov]

We should not have the right to demand a kidney from someone against their wishes. However, there is a difference with the unborn: their mother's womb is exactly where they naturally belong.

[Bumblybee256]

So? A tumour is exactly where it naturally belongs. The woman's uterus belongs to her, and it is her decision what remains or does not remain there.

[Sukov]

Your argument about a kidney is addressing a human using another human's body - a tumor is not a human so that's not relevant here. There is a difference between an outsider demanding artificial use of someone's body and an unborn child naturally living in their mother's body exactly where they belong.

[Bumblybee256]

Why does being human matter? A tumour has pretty much the same cognitive capacity that a fetus does. It's the mother who decides if it 'naturally belongs there', or does her body exist to be used regardless of her feelings?

[Sukov]

If a dog has more cognitive capacity than a newborn this does not mean the dog should be valued more. And shouldn't we value a newborn human the same as an adult human even though their current cognitive capacities are far from equal? The developing newborn's natural, inherent capacity for future advanced cognitive function is more important than it's current capacity. Why not the same for the developing human in it's mother's womb? Why suddenly ignore the future?

[Bumblybee256]

Valued more by who? The mother will indefinately value the child more, that's fine. There's no reason to kill either since if she doesn't want to look after it she can give it away. It's no longer dependent on only her. I didn't dish out 'value' based on cognition, I am reminding you, since you talk of fetuses as if they are people. You didn't answer me- why does being human matter? Because the future is not certain. You don't know for sure what it holds, all you have is now.

[Sukov]

It sounded like you were basing value on cognition when you said "A tumour has pretty much the same cognitive capacity that a fetus does". If that's not the case then please explain what you are basing human value on.

I do not claim that merely having human DNA makes something valuable. But one reason humans themselves are valuable is that they are a personal species by nature.

[Bumblybee256]

No, I was just hoping it would kill any 'a fetus is a PERSON' argument bubbling beneath the surface. I base human value on personhood.

How on earth does that make us 'innately valuble'? And regarding what you said about the fetus being 'where it belongs'- you conveniently ignore that the owner of the uterus has thoughts.

[Sukov]

Are you asking me why we should value members of a personal species? Please elaborate.

I understand that a mother has thoughts. Both the mother and the unborn have to be taken into account if they are both humans with human rights. However this does not change the fact that there is only one place that an unborn human naturally belongs. Conjoined twins might be a better parallel rather than someone needing an artificial kidney transplant.

[Bumblybee256]

A 'personal species' meaning what?

Lol, no the unborn do not have rights. They have what value the mother gives them. The mother is a PERSON, a person who owns her body and controls what goes on therein. A fetus does not have the right to use the mother/be born. We are lucky our mother's sacrifice for us, it's not our right. You can only have human rights when you are born. I still don't see why you repeat the naturally belongs argument. It's completely irrelevant as I demonstrated (tumour)

[Sukov]

A "personal species" meaning a species which performs personal acts.

I'm not sure on what you are basing the claim that a fetus has no human rights until born.

And how does the tumour answer the naturally belonging argument when it is less than a human? Obviously we can kill a tumour. But the kidney scenario I was responding to assumes that we are talking about two humans so argument has to stay within that limit.

[Bumblybee256]

That's hardly unique to humans now, is it?

I'm basing it on logic. NOONE has the right to use another's body without continuing consent, therefore no one has the 'right' to be born. Birth is something a mother gives willingly, it isn't your right. 'Les's than a human' in what way? Actually a tumour is human cells.

[Sukov]

The level of personhood in humans surpasses any species that we know of. In that regard we are unique.

Even if we do not grant the right to use someone's body in OTHER situations that does not prove there is no right in THIS situation unless it does not differ in any relevant way.

It is not in the nature of tumors to perform any personal acts. Human DNA does not automatically make something a human.

[Bumblybee256]

How does it? There are plenty of animalls that show evidence of thought, emotion, planning, compassion, individuality - in what way do humans show 'more' personhood. How is a fetus more of a person that a dolphin, or elephant?

Well, actually, yes it does. There aren't exceptions to bodily autonomy- otherwise why just pick this situation? In any case YOU cannot grant the use of someone else's body. That person owns their body, not you. And it's in the nature of a fetus to perform personal acts?

[Sukov]

Don't know that I really need to defend human value vs. animal value for this discussion.

I have given a reason for exception to bodily autonomy. And no, the tumor response does not work because I am arguing that we shouldn't kill a HUMAN that is where it naturally belongs. Furthermore, it is the mother's own child, not a stranger.

And yes, it is in the nature of a human fetus to perform personal acts although it might lack the current capacity.

[Bumblybee256]

You do if you use the fetus being 'human' as an argument. I asked you why species matters, and you can't answer me.

Additionally, just saying there are exceptions to bodily autonomy does not make it so and you didn't answer my question- why choose pregnancy to be that exception? Why not rape? And how do you gain the right to grant the use of someone elses body? Why does blood relation matter?

So many questions, so few answers.

[Bumblybee256]

You have no idea what could be in the nature of any given fetus, why assume it all must be good?

[Sukov]

I gave a reason why species matters and that is that humans are personal. Even if all animals are equally personal that does not refute human value.

And I already gave reasons for an exception to bodily autonomy in this case. Identifying one case does not require me to defend all other possible cases. Blood relation matters because if the recognized responsibility between parents and their children.

I have never said the nature of the fetus is all good. I have only said it is personal.

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov Yes it does- if other species are personal it still begs the question why saying a fetus is human matters. Species is irrelevant. I didnt ask you to give more reasons, I asked you why this case should be exceptional.

and why does being 'personal' matter?

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov WHY does where the fetus naturally belongs matter? We aren't debating where it belongs. The idea that you would equate an adult woman's personhood with that of a fetus with NO cognitive capacity for consciousness is laughable and insulting to women.

[Sukov]

That humans are valuable and worthy of rights should be self-evident. This case should be exceptional because the restriction on bodily autonomy is a lesser evil than allowing a mother to kill her own child who has done nothing wrong and is in fact exactly where he/she belongs - it is not trespassing. And finding someone's views "laughable" does not disprove them.

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov why are humans specifically valuable and more worth of rights than other life forms?

The restriction of bodily autonomy is NOT a lesser evil than death and using the word 'allowing' is entirely wrong because YOU cannot regulation someone else's body. No- the fertilisation was not trespassing but it turns into trespassing if the mother does not give continuing consent for the use of her body. Do you support forced organ donation? I didn't say it did, I'm allowed to express myself.

[Sukov]

One reason humans should be specifically valued is the degree of their personal nature. This does not mean there are no other personal life forms.

You are free to your opinion about whether violating bodily autonomy or killing your child is a lesser evil.

No, I don't support forced organ donation. Do you support late-term abortions which are for non-medical reasons?

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov In what way does a fetus have a 'personal nature' and if other species have a personal nature how can we be specifically valuable?

I support choice- if the mother no longer wants to be pregnant then you are nobody to say she should be. If you don't support forced organ donation then you can't logically support the forced use of a woman's uterus.

[Sukov]

Having a personal nature does not require current personal functionality. Humans are by nature bipedal and that applies even to infants who cannot walk.

I've already addressed how abortion restriction and forcing organ donation are not the same. However to add to that, abortion involves directly killing a human who is not already dying.

So you support freedom to kill the unborn for any reason however trivial right up to the moment of birth?

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov Yes it does, otherwise it's irrelevant. What does your 'nature' matter if it's not expressed?

I support the woman's right to end her pregnancy whenever SHE decides.

[Sukov]

Are you telling me then that a human infant does not have a bipedal nature? How about a reproductive nature?

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov every animal has a reproductive nature, what on earth is your point? Why would being bipedal mean a thing?

And no actually, it's not in the nature of a fetus to be bipedal or reproduce at that stage.

[Sukov]

I did not say it's in the nature of a fetus to reproduce "at that stage". The logic is sound:

Humans are reproductive by nature.

Infants are humans.

Therefore infants have a reproductive nature.

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov No, it's not really. I think you're getting a bit confused. And you didn't tell me how it's relevant.

[Sukov]

Yes the logic is valid: X has Y, Z is X therefore Z has Y. So if you disagree with the conclusion you must find a problem with the two premises, not the logic.

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov It's not really, but in any case - you still haven't told me how it's relevant.

[Sukov]

It's relevant because it shows a human fetus has a personal nature.

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov Lol, no it doesn't. You were just talking about a fetus having a reproductive nature. Are you now claiming that if something has a reproductive nature it must have a personal nature?

[Sukov]

No, the argument for personal nature follows the same logic - just change the word "reproductive" to "personal". And if you think the logic is invalid, simply saying "it's not really" doesn't cut it.

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov Lol, you still haven't even DEFINED 'personal nature'. It's a concept that you just made up. Even if it were something you were actually able to define you couldn't prove that the animals ou eat don't have a personal nature.

I think I summed up my disagreement pretty well actually.

[Sukov]

By "personal" I mean higher-level self-awareness, rationality and other attributes that distinguish us from other animals. "Nature" refers to certain attributes that belong to some thing.

You're right, I can't prove that the animals I eat don't have a personal nature. Doesn't matter.

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov and what test can be done to ascertain whether an animal has this 'personal nature'? Many animals display high levels of self awareness, social interactions, emotions etc.

Why don't those animals matter and yet a fetus with no capacity for consciousness yet, does?

I think you mean personhood, which clearly a fetus does not have.

[Sukov]

I did not say that animals do not matter. And a fetus does have an inherent capacity for consciousness, just not a present capacity. And if by "personhood" you are referring to a person as something separate from a human then please explain the difference.

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov Do you eat them?

The present capacity is what matters, if there is no suffering going on by killing the fetus then what does it matter?

You can be human and not have the qualities of a person, like a fetus, or someone severely handicapped. You can be non-human and have the qualities of a person.

[Sukov]

I eat some animals.

Why does only present capacity matter? Should we value infants and adults differently due to their differing present capacities? And no, killing is not ok just because there is no suffering - there is a difference between hurt and harm.

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov So why then do you deem it ok to kill them?

Only present capacity matters because the present is all that currently exists to go on. This isn't even about valuing humans differently, it's about choosing between the 'rights' of a fetus and the actual rights of the woman- you cannot compare the two. When an infant is born there's is no longer a need for this as another could take care of it.

What's that difference and why does it not apply to your dietary habits?

[Sukov]

I do not consider the personal nature of animals to be equal to personal nature of humans. They do not function at the same level.

If present capacity is all that matters are we then free to kill humans in comas? Have they ceased to be persons?

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov No, because they did develop into persons. They have lives they could potentially go back to. A fetus loses nothing,

What do you mean by 'they do not function on the same level'- who says so? Couldn't you be a tad biased?

Also: Humans ARE animals.

[Sukov]

@Bumblybee256

So if a girl is born in a temporary coma which she will recover from in 5 years it would be ok to kill her the day before she recovers? That's ridiculous.

If your common sense is so shot you can't see the serious differences between humans and other creatures on this planet then maybe I should just leave that one alone. Yes I'm "biased", that does not prove I'm wrong.

[123cmcg]

@Sukov well no, She's no longer using another's body so the act isn't self defence as it is in abortion. She will develop the brain structures necessary for conscious and may become so, even while in a coma.

I'll take that to mean you just can't explain the difference to me- possibly because there isn't one. You're an animal yourself and a very hypocritical one at that. An embryo is more of a person than dog is? please.

[Sukov]

@ Bumblybee256

You can't just jump to the self-defense line when the personhood argument starts taking on water.

And not sure the burden of proof is on me to defend the higher personal nature of humans over other creatures - it's pretty self evident. However you are welcome to show me a species that matches us in art, architecture, music, philosophy and literature. I've heard we have similar DNA to monkeys so perhaps start with them.

[Bumblybee256]

@Sukov that last reply from 123cmcg was me using a diff account.

[YourHumanRights]

Abortion pioneer nazi Doctor Mengele would be very proud of this ghoulish monster.

"I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of its conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity; I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity.

Declaration of Geneva

[Bumblybee256]

'from the time of conception'

lmao

[2Kind2UUUU]

Anyone remember the inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? So why not protect the unborn's right to life? Libs argue that unloved, unwanted and abused children would be better off if they had been aborted. Wouldn't it make more sense to let them live long enough (5 or 6 years) to be sure that they are unwanted, unloved and abused THEN smash their skulls and suck their brains out.

[Bumblybee256]

You have the right to life when you are born, no one has the right to be born.

[cruwysgirl]

why is this even a topic...it is legal and will stay that way...I hate pro lifers with there radical views....I hope one day they or someone they love is a terrible psosition...

[notthelastword]

She is so ugly, almost justifies abortion!(joke)

[Countmatthew]

The womans life is important and that is the only case when the women can decide. but mate its just that women who want to keep their beutiful slender shape have abortions. and women who think that they are being punished. another human life is a punishment?

[poseyblue]

I guess women's lives don't count to so-called pro-lifers. More like pro-forced birth.