Melissa Harris-Perry: Life Begins When the Parents Think it Does

[All Along The Watchtower]

How about we talk about how right-wing policies have made the lives of millions of people-people who absolutely, no debate, exist-utterly miserable, rather than being all outraged about women having control over their own bodies.

I see very little outrage from those on the "family values" Right about how "free market" capitalism actually does more to ravage families and communities than any number of abortions or gays getting married ever could.

[Lief 🗽]

This post demonstrates a lot of what is wrong with political discourse in the US, both on the left and the right. Lief knows that people who disagree with him are sexist! How? Clearly because he is telepathic. Or maybe he says so because he knows it's easier to build up strawmen rather than to debate an issue on its own terms.

Obviously I can't read their mind. But one can make conclusions based on their actions. And when the only scenario in which they care about the well-being of babies is one in which they can also restrict the rights of women, while not caring at all about the well-being of babies in scenarios where they cannot restrict the rights of women, it's pretty clear what's happening. Returning to the Texas example, the same government on the one hand dramatically curtailed the rights of women in order to "protect unborn babies", while at the same time refusing essentially free money from the federal government that would have protected the health of born babies and their mothers.

[barfbag]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another comment by the anti-science left. This is truly a monstrous view that allows for infanticide both before and after birth. In Ms. Perry's eyes, it's ok to smother an infant if Mommy & Daddy don't want the child.  For many on the pro-choice side, this is ultimately what abortion is all about; not cases of rape/incest, not the mother's life, but rather they do not want anyone to be inconvenienced by the consequences of their actions and are prepared to snuff out the most vulnerable among is to achieve that end.

Kyrie eleison

You can watch the clip here

If only Democrats followed their thoughts to conclusion. This would lead to life ends when the parents say it ends. Uh oh, now we can allow parents to suffocate their children under the age of 2 because they're less cognisient than an adult ape or dolphin. Tell me there isn't a single liberal out there who doesn't think such things? Van Jones seems to agree with this notion of backwards thinking.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Oh MHP? That's Snowstalker's girl.

So she is the cougar the IRC has been all over?

[Old Man Svensson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another comment by the anti-science left. This is truly a monstrous view that allows for infanticide both before and after birth. In Ms. Perry's eyes, it's ok to smother an infant if Mommy & Daddy don't want the child.  For many on the pro-choice side, this is ultimately what abortion is all about; not cases of rape/incest, not the mother's life, but rather they do not want anyone to be inconvenienced by the consequences of their actions and are prepared to snuff out the most vulnerable among is to achieve that end.

Kyrie eleison

You can watch the clip here

If only Democrats followed their thoughts to conclusion. This would lead to life ends when the parents say it ends. Uh oh, now we can allow parents to suffocate their children under the age of 2 because they're less cognisient than an adult ape or dolphin. Tell me there isn't a single liberal out there who doesn't think such things? Van Jones seems to agree with this notion of backwards thinking.

I'm trying to be respectful here, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous strawmen I have ever heard in my life. Yes, Perry's comments are vague and unfortunate, but there is a very fine line between giving women control of their own bodies and constantly thinking of strangling children, and I would seriously hope you're intelligent and mentally healthy enough to understand that.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Uh oh, now we can allow parents to suffocate their children under the age of 2 because they're less cognisient than an adult ape or dolphin.

Other way around, bru.

[barfbag]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another comment by the anti-science left. This is truly a monstrous view that allows for infanticide both before and after birth. In Ms. Perry's eyes, it's ok to smother an infant if Mommy & Daddy don't want the child.  For many on the pro-choice side, this is ultimately what abortion is all about; not cases of rape/incest, not the mother's life, but rather they do not want anyone to be inconvenienced by the consequences of their actions and are prepared to snuff out the most vulnerable among is to achieve that end.

Kyrie eleison

You can watch the clip here

If only Democrats followed their thoughts to conclusion. This would lead to life ends when the parents say it ends. Uh oh, now we can allow parents to suffocate their children under the age of 2 because they're less cognisient than an adult ape or dolphin. Tell me there isn't a single liberal out there who doesn't think such things? Van Jones seems to agree with this notion of backwards thinking.

I'm trying to be respectful here, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous strawmen I have ever heard in my life. Yes, Perry's comments are vague and unfortunate, but there is a very fine line between giving women control of their own bodies and constantly thinking of strangling children, and I would seriously hope you're intelligent and mentally healthy enough to understand that.

You might be taking me out of context. I'm arguing that there is a fine line, but we can't just make things up as we go by saying things like "life begins when parents say." The law needs to be clear and apply to everyone. All I was saying is how absurd her comment was.

[Gass3268]

That's ridiculous and selfish.

It is not. It's ridiculous to think that public policy once forced women who did not have the experience, resources, or desire to have children give birth to a child. That such women should not have children, and if they do certainly shouldn't be tasked with raising them, seems to me pretty common-sense.

If a women gets impregnated and she doesn't want it the least she should do is give the baby up for adoption after birth. Its her responsibility (and the father, if one) to take care of the baby after she gives birth, what I was saying was it is selfish to have an abortion on a baby because they made an irresponsible choice at a bad time. An increasing amount of people have irresponsible pregnancies leading to abortions of children that could have been viable people. Its really more of collapse of personal responsibility than anything, and that's my opinion.

I do agree with that first statement you made, but people who have abortions simply because they don't have the experience/skills to have a baby should give birth and give it up for adoption, an abortion is pretty much killing the baby because they themselves made a bad decision, and instead of taking it out on themselves they take it out on the baby they kill, and that in my opinion is selfish. I respect your opinions and understand where your coming from, but I just wanted you to understand my view.

I get that, but it is her body and it is up to her. No person or government should get in her way. 

[ElectionsGuy]

That's ridiculous and selfish.

It is not. It's ridiculous to think that public policy once forced women who did not have the experience, resources, or desire to have children give birth to a child. That such women should not have children, and if they do certainly shouldn't be tasked with raising them, seems to me pretty common-sense.

If a women gets impregnated and she doesn't want it the least she should do is give the baby up for adoption after birth. Its her responsibility (and the father, if one) to take care of the baby after she gives birth, what I was saying was it is selfish to have an abortion on a baby because they made an irresponsible choice at a bad time. An increasing amount of people have irresponsible pregnancies leading to abortions of children that could have been viable people. Its really more of collapse of personal responsibility than anything, and that's my opinion.

I do agree with that first statement you made, but people who have abortions simply because they don't have the experience/skills to have a baby should give birth and give it up for adoption, an abortion is pretty much killing the baby because they themselves made a bad decision, and instead of taking it out on themselves they take it out on the baby they kill, and that in my opinion is selfish. I respect your opinions and understand where your coming from, but I just wanted you to understand my view.

I get that, but it is her body and it is up to her. No person or government should get in her way. 

Yes it is up to her and she should do what she wants and nobody should have control over that, I was expressing my opinion on why abortions can be selfish options for a person who was irresponsible.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If a pregnant women thinks that giving birth to the child will be an incovience to her, that is just as a valid excuse to have an abortion as rape, incense and her health. I applaud the great Melissa Harris-Perry on this segment , she is always brilliant and thought provoking.

That's ridiculous and selfish.

Not if the fetus is not a life.  Once you believe that life begins at birth, not conception, there's little reason why the government should restrict abortion, unless you buy the "The government has a valid interest in preserving society and the future of humans" argument, in which case, there's a reason to outlaw abortions after the point of viability.

[Ogre Mage]

I am friends with a married couple who recently had an abortion.  They already have two kids, one of whom has had significant medical problems which required multiple surgeries.  And my friends are not in the best financial position.

This third pregnancy was not planned.  After both crunching the numbers and doing some soul searching, they decided to terminate the pregnancy.  They just didn't feel they could take it on and they wanted to be the best parents they could to the two kids they've got.

I suppose you could say that the decision was made for the sake of convenience.  But I did not think it was ridiculous and selfish.  I think it was responsible.

The physical, emotional and financial costs of pregnancy and parenthood are not insignificant.  In my opinion, it is too great a burden to be borne unconsenting.

[Jordan]

I am friends with a married couple who recently had an abortion.  They already have two kids, one of whom has had significant medical problems which required multiple surgeries.  And my friends are not in the best financial position.

This third pregnancy was not planned.  After both crunching the numbers and doing some soul searching, they decided to terminate the pregnancy.  They just didn't feel they could take it on and they wanted to be the best parents they could to the two kids they've got.

I suppose you could say that the decision was made for the sake of convenience.  But I did not think it was ridiculous and selfish.  I think it was responsible.

The physical, emotional and financial costs of pregnancy and parenthood are not insignificant.  In my opinion, it is too great a burden to be borne unconsenting.

Obviously if they didn't want (or couldn't afford) another kid, then they should have only had sex twice in their entire lives.

And when they did have sex, it could only be when they were married and the man had to be on top in the missionary position.

After that, they were supposed to become celibate monks and nuns.

That is the conservative solution.

[badgate]

How are people supposed to celebrate without sex?

[Smash255]

Anti-science left? Yeah, you're not going to be able to flip that one around, nice try though. The abortion argument needs to stop, pro-lifers need to get a life and get over it.

A sound argument. I especially liked the part where you addressed my argument instead of just stating you are correct and going ad hominem.... Oh wait.

When you start off by LYING and trying to state she is in favor of a mother smothering her infant in a crib you should expect that kind of response.

[barfbag]

I am friends with a married couple who recently had an abortion.  They already have two kids, one of whom has had significant medical problems which required multiple surgeries.  And my friends are not in the best financial position.

This third pregnancy was not planned.  After both crunching the numbers and doing some soul searching, they decided to terminate the pregnancy.  They just didn't feel they could take it on and they wanted to be the best parents they could to the two kids they've got.

I suppose you could say that the decision was made for the sake of convenience.  But I did not think it was ridiculous and selfish.  I think it was responsible.

The physical, emotional and financial costs of pregnancy and parenthood are not insignificant.  In my opinion, it is too great a burden to be borne unconsenting.

Obviously if they didn't want (or couldn't afford) another kid, then they should have only had sex twice in their entire lives.

And when they did have sex, it could only be when they were married and the man had to be on top in the missionary position.

After that, they were supposed to become celibate monks and nuns.

That is the conservative solution.

No it's not there are other forms of protection.

[DC Al Fine]

Anti-science left? Yeah, you're not going to be able to flip that one around, nice try though. The abortion argument needs to stop, pro-lifers need to get a life and get over it.

A sound argument. I especially liked the part where you addressed my argument instead of just stating you are correct and going ad hominem.... Oh wait.

When you start off by LYING and trying to state she is in favor of a mother smothering her infant in a crib you should expect that kind of response.

The implication of Ms. Harris-Perry's views* is support for post-natal infanticide, but trust me, I have no illusions about Ms. Harris-Perry's mental gymnastics abilities.

*
1)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2) Parents can believe that the child isn't alive/isn't wanted long after birth
3) Ergo, infanticide is morally acceptable so long as the parents don't feel the child is wanted and/or alive.

[barfbag]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another comment by the anti-science left. This is truly a monstrous view that allows for infanticide both before and after birth. In Ms. Perry's eyes, it's ok to smother an infant if Mommy & Daddy don't want the child.  For many on the pro-choice side, this is ultimately what abortion is all about; not cases of rape/incest, not the mother's life, but rather they do not want anyone to be inconvenienced by the consequences of their actions and are prepared to snuff out the most vulnerable among is to achieve that end.

Kyrie eleison

You can watch the clip here

I guess if Melissa Harris Perry said it, then it must be true. Folks this is the liberalism we're dealing with. Now I've started a partisan rant. Whose in?

[BluegrassBlueVote]

To set the record straight, I am very much against dolphin smothering of any kind.

[emailking]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another comment by the anti-science left. This is truly a monstrous view that allows for infanticide both before and after birth. In Ms. Perry's eyes, it's ok to smother an infant if Mommy & Daddy don't want the child.  For many on the pro-choice side, this is ultimately what abortion is all about; not cases of rape/incest, not the mother's life, but rather they do not want anyone to be inconvenienced by the consequences of their actions and are prepared to snuff out the most vulnerable among is to achieve that end.

Kyrie eleison

You can watch the clip here

I don't agree with that position, but it's not anti-science. Science can inform this issue but it will always remain subjective when life starts, just like it will always be subjective what life is in the first place.

[Smash255]

Anti-science left? Yeah, you're not going to be able to flip that one around, nice try though. The abortion argument needs to stop, pro-lifers need to get a life and get over it.

A sound argument. I especially liked the part where you addressed my argument instead of just stating you are correct and going ad hominem.... Oh wait.

When you start off by LYING and trying to state she is in favor of a mother smothering her infant in a crib you should expect that kind of response.

The implication of Ms. Harris-Perry's views* is support for post-natal infanticide, but trust me, I have no illusions about Ms. Harris-Perry's mental gymnastics abilities.

*
1)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2) Parents can believe that the child isn't alive/isn't wanted long after birth
3) Ergo, infanticide is morally acceptable so long as the parents don't feel the child is wanted and/or alive.

There is no implication of any kind.  You are simply making crap up.

[DC Al Fine]

Anti-science left? Yeah, you're not going to be able to flip that one around, nice try though. The abortion argument needs to stop, pro-lifers need to get a life and get over it.

A sound argument. I especially liked the part where you addressed my argument instead of just stating you are correct and going ad hominem.... Oh wait.

When you start off by LYING and trying to state she is in favor of a mother smothering her infant in a crib you should expect that kind of response.

The implication of Ms. Harris-Perry's views* is support for post-natal infanticide, but trust me, I have no illusions about Ms. Harris-Perry's mental gymnastics abilities.

*
1)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2) Parents can believe that the child isn't alive/isn't wanted long after birth
3) Ergo, infanticide is morally acceptable so long as the parents don't feel the child is wanted and/or alive.

There is no implication of any kind.  You are simply making crap up.

At least try to address the logic I stated. Sticking your fingers n your ears and going "La La La La La" isn't doing anything. What exactly about my argument is incorrect?

[DemPGH]

Seems to me to be carrying it pretty far to say that she was advocating post birth abortion or "infanticide." She was actually acknowledging that aborting a pregnancy is a difficult, personal decision to be left to no one's morality but the couples'. She was also differentiating between being scientifically alive and functionally alive. I have no issues with what she said at all.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Do conservatives think that the decision to abort a baby is something people make lightly on a whim? I get that feeling all the time when I read anti-choice screeds on here.

[barfbag]

Do conservatives think that the decision to abort a baby is something people make lightly on a whim? I get that feeling all the time when I read anti-choice screeds on here.

You don't feel passionate about the issue for your side? When humans feel passionate about something, they get emotional so words aren't always in the best order and many humans say things they don't mean or say things in a way that sounds condescending. It happens and we're humans. I don't see the need to demonize other humans by raising the question of whether or not they think people take abortion lightly. Some may think that about women who have had abortions, but most humans who are pro-life are against killing an unborn human and there's not much more to it. I know it's not as fun as demonizing other humans, but sometimes it's very simple and things aren't that exciting.

[Smash255]

Anti-science left? Yeah, you're not going to be able to flip that one around, nice try though. The abortion argument needs to stop, pro-lifers need to get a life and get over it.

A sound argument. I especially liked the part where you addressed my argument instead of just stating you are correct and going ad hominem.... Oh wait.

When you start off by LYING and trying to state she is in favor of a mother smothering her infant in a crib you should expect that kind of response.

The implication of Ms. Harris-Perry's views* is support for post-natal infanticide, but trust me, I have no illusions about Ms. Harris-Perry's mental gymnastics abilities.

*
1)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2) Parents can believe that the child isn't alive/isn't wanted long after birth
3) Ergo, infanticide is morally acceptable so long as the parents don't feel the child is wanted and/or alive.

There is no implication of any kind.  You are simply making crap up.

At least try to address the logic I stated. Sticking your fingers n your ears and going "La La La La La" isn't doing anything. What exactly about my argument is incorrect?

I don't know hmm, perhaps LYING.  She made no such implication, you are making just utterly absurd reaches.