Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, May 18, 2009
The Ladies "Common Ground"
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Mon, May 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM
There are people who believe that women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies (whether that choice means birthing 18 children, having an abortion, giving a baby up for adoption, spending a fortune on fertility drugs when thousands of living babies go unwanted, or becoming pregnant at 66), and there are people who do not believe women have that right.
And between those two groups, there is no room for "common ground"—any more than there is room for "common ground" between those who support marriage equality and those who believe gay people are condemned to hell. We don't sit down and dialogue with gay-bashers racists or any other kind of bigot—we pass laws that prohibit their bigotry from infringing on the rights of others. This is a basic tenet of rights-based democracy. Why, when it comes to women's right to choose, is this so hard to understand?
1
There are also people who believe a woman's right to choose what she does with her body does not supersede the right of an unborn child to live.
Not everything fits into a binary system.
In fact, most things don't.
Not everything fits into a binary system.
In fact, most things don't.
3
You sound like the defense department circa 2004 - with us or against us. Maybe the best policy is action while keeping invitations to dialogue open, but the invitation/dialogue part is important.
4
What about a woman's right to steal wine from a local Cap. Hill business and advertiser QFC, am i right, Erica?
You know, when you -- the news editor of the Stranger -- was caught red handed (it was a red, GET IT?!?) with a sub-$10 bottle, I was really inspired.
You know, when you -- the news editor of the Stranger -- was caught red handed (it was a red, GET IT?!?) with a sub-$10 bottle, I was really inspired.
5
We don't sit down and dialogue with infanticidal killers or any other kind of murderer—we pass laws that prohibit their evil from infringing on the rights of others. This is a basic tenet of rights-based democracy. Why, when it comes to childen's right to live, is this so hard to understand?
9
Fetuses have no rights. They are tumors. They cannot live without the support of the woman whose rights you wish to take away.
10
@5 that has got to be the most tired form of internet argument there is. You know damn well that the issue hinges on when and whether or not a fetus can be considered a human (hint: a fetus is definitely not a child or an infant, as you imply) with the full rights accorded to a human. It's an issue that divides perfectly reasonable people and warrants discussion, not your dismissive copy-paste antics.
11
Because when a woman (or a man) decides to have 18 children, it is very often the other members of that democracy who have to foot the bill for raising (and, in some cases, incarcerating) the majority of those children. In any true society worthy of the term, we all help each other carry the collective load but that also all have an individual responsibility to not excessively & deliberately add to that burden.
I also find it interesting, Erica, that you include post-natal adoption as part of a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. we may (or may not) agree that a fetus is not a person under the law, but surely a newborn is.
Or is this really just about abortion, and not the much broader "reproductive rights."
I also find it interesting, Erica, that you include post-natal adoption as part of a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. we may (or may not) agree that a fetus is not a person under the law, but surely a newborn is.
Or is this really just about abortion, and not the much broader "reproductive rights."
12
Personally, I myself can agree to disagree with somebody on one issue and work with him or her on an issue we have in common.
If Geithner can fix the economy, I really don't give a shit one way or the other what he thinks about reproductive freedom.
If Hilary can restore America's prestige on the world stage, I really don't give a shit one way or the other what she thinks about marriage equality.
If Geithner can fix the economy, I really don't give a shit one way or the other what he thinks about reproductive freedom.
If Hilary can restore America's prestige on the world stage, I really don't give a shit one way or the other what she thinks about marriage equality.
13
Oh! I understand now -- your side is completely right and the other side is totally wrong! It makes so much sense; why didn't anybody tell us this before? I mean it really makes sense now that I think of it, considering the historically infallible effectiveness of asserting one side's correctness and the other side's idiocy. Holy crap, Erica, it's such a relief to have this question settled for all time. You = savior of humanity. *showers you with flowers and aborted fetuses*
14
All I know is that the world would have been a better place if some of these numbnuts religious freakazoids on Slog today had been aborted.
15
Comparing Pro-lifers with racists and homophobes doesn't really add up. I'm sure SOME are sexist or mysogynists... but many aren't, after all there are A LOT of women in the pro-life movement, and I'm sure most aren't driven by self hatred.
Pro-lifers belive that the fetus is a life. So to them saying it it "a woman's right to choose" to destroy the fetus makes as little sense as saying it is a "woman's right to choose" to kill their 1 week old, 6 year old, or 12 year old.
And that cliche' "if you think it is wrong don't do it" is weak. You could apply that to anything- rape, child molestation, murder, slavery. The south could have used that "if you think slavery is wrong then don't do it, it's our right to choose!"
That said, I'm not totally pro-life, but saying their goal is to impede on women's right's is weak. Since they believe the fetus is a life for them to remain silent is, in their minds, like looking the other way while someone kill a child.
Pro-lifers belive that the fetus is a life. So to them saying it it "a woman's right to choose" to destroy the fetus makes as little sense as saying it is a "woman's right to choose" to kill their 1 week old, 6 year old, or 12 year old.
And that cliche' "if you think it is wrong don't do it" is weak. You could apply that to anything- rape, child molestation, murder, slavery. The south could have used that "if you think slavery is wrong then don't do it, it's our right to choose!"
That said, I'm not totally pro-life, but saying their goal is to impede on women's right's is weak. Since they believe the fetus is a life for them to remain silent is, in their minds, like looking the other way while someone kill a child.
16
I'd have more sympathy for people who fight for the "rights" of a fetus, if they were also equally adamant about defending the right of a born child to live a happy, healthy life.
Unfortunately, most of them could give a shit less about a child after it leaves the womb, so I give their position the same amount of consideration I would to a big steaming pile of dog poop on the sidewalk. I step around it, and leave it behind.
Unfortunately, most of them could give a shit less about a child after it leaves the womb, so I give their position the same amount of consideration I would to a big steaming pile of dog poop on the sidewalk. I step around it, and leave it behind.
17
"There are also people who believe a woman's right to choose what she does with her body does not supersede the right of an unborn child to live."
Those people are wrong. Let's follow this logically:
Assume an embryo or fetus is a person, and has all the rights thereof.
If the State forces a woman to carry a fetus to term it is (presumably) doing so for the purpose of saving the life of a person.
Thus, the State would be allowed to force people to use their bodies against their will for the purpose of saving another person's life.
Thus, the State would be allowed to force people to register as bone marrow, kidney and other living donors, as well as force them to donate any and all organs upon their deaths, all for the purpose of saving another person's life.
However, the State is not allowed to do the above, and thus can not be allowed to force a woman to carry a fetus to term for the purpose of saving another person's life.
Those people are wrong. Let's follow this logically:
Assume an embryo or fetus is a person, and has all the rights thereof.
If the State forces a woman to carry a fetus to term it is (presumably) doing so for the purpose of saving the life of a person.
Thus, the State would be allowed to force people to use their bodies against their will for the purpose of saving another person's life.
Thus, the State would be allowed to force people to register as bone marrow, kidney and other living donors, as well as force them to donate any and all organs upon their deaths, all for the purpose of saving another person's life.
However, the State is not allowed to do the above, and thus can not be allowed to force a woman to carry a fetus to term for the purpose of saving another person's life.
18
The first sentence is a class false dilemma. There are actually lots of positions in between. For example, I know people who believe that women should be able to get an abortion whenever they want, but do NOT think that women have a right to have an unlimited number of children. (After all, the latter, more than the former, affects other people.) I also know people who think that women should be able to get an abortion whenever they want, but also think that there are special occasions when women are morally OBLIGATED to get an abortion. (E.g., certain fatal genetic diseases that will cause the baby enormous constant pain and it will only live for a year or two before it dies.)
These "either you're with us or against us" arguments just turn off people that would otherwise be on your side.
These "either you're with us or against us" arguments just turn off people that would otherwise be on your side.
19
ECB is talking about the minority extremes in groups. I would not say "gay-bashers racists or any other kind of bigot" is a good overall description of the opposing side of the issues. Just because emotions cloud the middle ground doesn't mean that it isn't there. As paulus in post #1 says, it isn't binary, it isn't black and white. Pushing it as one or the other is a disservice to everyone.
20
@16 Very well put
@17 - As well, though it happens far less with modern medicine, woman do still die in childbirth. Therefore the argument comes back around that the state should be forced into aborting the fetuses of those woman "unfit" to carry a child to full term.
Which is all assed backwards.
@17 - As well, though it happens far less with modern medicine, woman do still die in childbirth. Therefore the argument comes back around that the state should be forced into aborting the fetuses of those woman "unfit" to carry a child to full term.
Which is all assed backwards.
21
It sounds like you are simply saying that you belong to a group who don't believe there should be a debate about this. That position is so far off the table it's in the yard. Any debate is going to happen roughly within the confines of Roe v Wade jurisprudence - i.e. exactly how do we adjudicate between the rights of the mother and the rights of the potential child? Then how do we decide which rights are fuzzy enough to be left up to the states and which are clear enough to be specified federally.
It's hard to see how your position squares with any even recognizable minority though since it would also mean mothers were allowed to poison their children with drug abuse and alcohol abuse and such, and that is generally considered to be something the state has some say over. It's a pretty darned small and insignificnat minority that would go so far as to say it's the woman's body so anything goes.
It's hard to see how your position squares with any even recognizable minority though since it would also mean mothers were allowed to poison their children with drug abuse and alcohol abuse and such, and that is generally considered to be something the state has some say over. It's a pretty darned small and insignificnat minority that would go so far as to say it's the woman's body so anything goes.
22
Addendum to sarcasm: I should point out that I am plenty pro-choice, just sick to death of both sides yelling louder and louder as if that would get us anywhere.
24
Do you think they would stop at abortion rights? What next? the religious fanatics that think all that matters is their religion won't be happy until everyone but them is murdered or tortured or suffering. Just look at the behavior of their counterparts in the Islamist world. They simply don't have the capacity to embrace a free society. No, there is no compromise.
25
Abortion isn't the only "right to choose what to do with your own body" argument going on out there. Ask the men and women at NORML how they're getting on with their right to choose what to do with their bodies? It's not just about sex.
26
17
The state did not force the woman to engage in behavior that created a new human life.
She made that decision and acted on it and has now incurred moral responsibilities. (wow- that's a word you never hear on slog: 'responsibility')
All the state is doing is intervening to keep her from killing an innocent life in order to dodge the responsibilities she incurred.
Don't want to be pregnant?
Then don't CHOOSE get pregnant.
The state did not force the woman to engage in behavior that created a new human life.
She made that decision and acted on it and has now incurred moral responsibilities. (wow- that's a word you never hear on slog: 'responsibility')
All the state is doing is intervening to keep her from killing an innocent life in order to dodge the responsibilities she incurred.
Don't want to be pregnant?
Then don't CHOOSE get pregnant.
27
@17, I've never heard that argument before; it's pretty compelling and I like the construction, my only quibble being that both terminating or continuing the pregnancy are positive action.
In your given case, it would amount to state coercion on one's person, as stated. However, in the case of allowing abortion, it would amount to murder (like pulling the plug on a family member without being able to secure consent or a directive)
Since neither direction seems particularly legal or morally acceptable, where do we go from there? This makes it seem like the problem is intractable...
In your given case, it would amount to state coercion on one's person, as stated. However, in the case of allowing abortion, it would amount to murder (like pulling the plug on a family member without being able to secure consent or a directive)
Since neither direction seems particularly legal or morally acceptable, where do we go from there? This makes it seem like the problem is intractable...
29
The last paragraph puts po-life people in the catagory of "bigots". The idea that if you think life begins at conception (and therefore abortion is murder) is akin to prejudice against women, gays, minorities, etc doesn't make too much sense or seem honest.
30
I think, in some ways, the vitriol contained in these comments (on both sides) validates Obama's approach, which is one that promotes moderate discourse. Some people in this country are "pro-life"; more people (thankfully) are pro-choice; but what we can all agree on is that having an abortion, while sometimes the best option, is never a picnic in the park. If we can get right wingers to work with us to reduce abortions (promoting and making more accessible contraception, for example), isn't this a positive thing?
31
@26, not a good tack to take. If you'd prefer to see abortion outlawed, you're gonna have to take that argument to rape victims, and I don't think they'll be happy about it.
33
"The state did not force the woman to engage in behavior that created a new human life.
She made that decision and acted on it and has now incurred moral responsibilities."
Another example, somewhat contrived but still possible:
Person A and B are in a car wreck because Person B is driving drunk. Person A will die unless Person B is forced to donate part of his/her body for Person A to survive (let's say the local blood bank is out of the types of blood that Person A can receive, and Person B is the only donor immediately available).
In this situation, Person B is wholly responsible for Person A's situation and STILL the State can't force Person B to donate blood.
"Taking responsibility for your own actions" does not trump bodily autonomy.
She made that decision and acted on it and has now incurred moral responsibilities."
Another example, somewhat contrived but still possible:
Person A and B are in a car wreck because Person B is driving drunk. Person A will die unless Person B is forced to donate part of his/her body for Person A to survive (let's say the local blood bank is out of the types of blood that Person A can receive, and Person B is the only donor immediately available).
In this situation, Person B is wholly responsible for Person A's situation and STILL the State can't force Person B to donate blood.
"Taking responsibility for your own actions" does not trump bodily autonomy.
34
@26: A fetus has no biological value unless it's capable of being born without complication, and until then, it has no social value for at least a decade and no reproductive value until it's into its teens.
The mother on the other hand is free to choose to give birth, pay taxes and fight wars for that entire time.
Yet another case of weepy conservatives attaching a face to an issue in order to feel so much better about their sorry lives. You know, like they do when they choose religion.
The mother on the other hand is free to choose to give birth, pay taxes and fight wars for that entire time.
Yet another case of weepy conservatives attaching a face to an issue in order to feel so much better about their sorry lives. You know, like they do when they choose religion.
35
Common ground = work to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, prolifers don't actually care about doing this, for the most part. But it is relevant common ground between the two positions.
36
@30, exactly!
People are gonna have sex. I've been doing it for 12 years, had multiple partners, and never been pregnant or gotten an STD (knock on wood). You know why? Because my momma always said that being dumb will get you dumb results.
Let's try some education out there people.
Liberal peeps want less abortions too! But we acknowledge that you cannot place circumstance on these things and that in a society so afraid of showing their teenagers how to treat sex responsibly "accidents" do happen.
People are gonna have sex. I've been doing it for 12 years, had multiple partners, and never been pregnant or gotten an STD (knock on wood). You know why? Because my momma always said that being dumb will get you dumb results.
Let's try some education out there people.
Liberal peeps want less abortions too! But we acknowledge that you cannot place circumstance on these things and that in a society so afraid of showing their teenagers how to treat sex responsibly "accidents" do happen.
37
My favorite abortion stories: The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. Personally, I find it pretty offensive that these people think they have the right to make my medical decisions for me.
38
@33, I'm not well-acquainted with the subtleties of the law, but person B could be charged with vehicular manslaughter or even murder if person A die, right?
39
31
I'd prefer to see human life respected.
I will gladly concede rape and incest ant cases where the life of the mother is (actually) at risk if you concede the other 99.9% of abortions performed in America.
I'd prefer to see human life respected.
I will gladly concede rape and incest ant cases where the life of the mother is (actually) at risk if you concede the other 99.9% of abortions performed in America.
40
The lines drawn in the sand have been there for decades now. I am confident that abortion will remain legal in the United States. Now we need to expand the dialogue on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies through education on safe sex practices, birth control, family planning, masturbation and, yes, even abstinence. If pro-choice advocates can gain even a few allies in the "pro-life" camp (not all are right-wing, religious nutjobs) to advocate for effective strategies for avoiding unwanted pregnancies, that is a good thing. We can even find common ground on supporting young mothers, single parents, and improving adoption policies. (Would a pro-life person prefer a baby to be adopted by a gay couple or aborted? You would have disagreement there.) The either/or game of rights (mother vs. fetus) is a false choice, and it plays into the hands of extremists on both sides. In matters of health, we need ambassadors who can reach every kind of person in America. Perhaps this "common ground" approach should be called the pro-responsibility movement, because it is about trusting women (and their loved ones) to make informed choices.
42
34
I know it may seem quaint but some believe people who are unable to yet pay taxes or serve in the military still deserve the right to life.
I know it may seem quaint but some believe people who are unable to yet pay taxes or serve in the military still deserve the right to life.
43
The exceptions point out the inconsistency of the "sometimes" argument. If the fetus is a separate person with the right to life is that life less valuable because it was created by rape or incest? Does that less valuable status extend past birth? Can a 6 year old who was conceived during rape or incest be killed? Or is a fetus not really the same thing as a child after all, and subject to fewer protections under the law? I find it hard to see anything but an either/or here.
Either a fetus is a person and not to be terminated under any circumstances or a fetus is an anatomical structure within a woman's body and whose continued existence is subject to the will of the woman.
Any middle ground is the result of rationalization ad absurdum.
Either a fetus is a person and not to be terminated under any circumstances or a fetus is an anatomical structure within a woman's body and whose continued existence is subject to the will of the woman.
Any middle ground is the result of rationalization ad absurdum.
44
I'll be against abortion when alcohol and drugs don't result in unwanted pregnancy. I'll be against abortion when people's instincts are overcome by "moral purity" as dictated by religion.
I'll be against abortion when women don't die because of all the medical problems pregnancy can cause.
I'll be against abortion when all the deperate unwanted babies of the world have loving homes. In other words I'll never be against a women's right to choose.
I'll be against abortion when women don't die because of all the medical problems pregnancy can cause.
I'll be against abortion when all the deperate unwanted babies of the world have loving homes. In other words I'll never be against a women's right to choose.
45
"In your given case, it would amount to state coercion on one's person, as stated. However, in the case of allowing abortion, it would amount to murder (like pulling the plug on a family member without being able to secure consent or a directive)"
Some would say that, morally speaking, we are all accomplices to murder when we do not voluntarily sign up to be living organ donors, post-death organ donors, donate all of our extra money for humanitarian efforts, etc etc etc because all such actions (or in these cases, inactions) will result in the deaths of actual living humans.
Modern society does a good job of shielding us from the consequences of our inaction.
Some would say that, morally speaking, we are all accomplices to murder when we do not voluntarily sign up to be living organ donors, post-death organ donors, donate all of our extra money for humanitarian efforts, etc etc etc because all such actions (or in these cases, inactions) will result in the deaths of actual living humans.
Modern society does a good job of shielding us from the consequences of our inaction.
46
God Americans are so boring.
Just move to a single payer nationalized health care plan like the rest of the Free World and tell Obama to sign it or he gets squat.
Do that and this whole "debate" will disappear within 2 years.
Just move to a single payer nationalized health care plan like the rest of the Free World and tell Obama to sign it or he gets squat.
Do that and this whole "debate" will disappear within 2 years.
47
@ 32, a question:
Although I'd understand an exception for a pregnancy that puts both the mother's and the fetus' life in jeopardy, since at least one life can be saved by an abortion whereas both would otherwise be lost, how exactly have you come to the conclusion that a mother's life alone carries more moral weight than a fetus' life? Put another way, what suddenly makes the fetus less of a person than the mother in a case where the fetus could be viably carried to term?
Although I'd understand an exception for a pregnancy that puts both the mother's and the fetus' life in jeopardy, since at least one life can be saved by an abortion whereas both would otherwise be lost, how exactly have you come to the conclusion that a mother's life alone carries more moral weight than a fetus' life? Put another way, what suddenly makes the fetus less of a person than the mother in a case where the fetus could be viably carried to term?
48
oh, and statswise, high correlation between pro-torture and pro-life views. kind of sick if you ask me ...
49
The abortion issue is difficult by its nature. At 9 months we all agree the fetus is human. At conception most people agree it is not. Where does the transition happen, and how is it defined? It seems to me there is not an easy answer, and that finding middle ground is possible and necessary for everyone but the extremists.
50
"I'm not well-acquainted with the subtleties of the law, but person B could be charged with vehicular manslaughter or even murder if person A die, right?"
My point(s) concern bodily autonomy, not the legal consequences for Person B or women who get abortions. Of course they would be charged with manslaughter and/or homicide.
The analogy for women who get abortions would be to prosecute them for murder, yet you rarely hear of any but the most rabid pro-lifer suggest that. I suspect it's because once they are confronted with the logical outcome of their position (forced organ donation, women jailed for murder) they backpedal.
My point(s) concern bodily autonomy, not the legal consequences for Person B or women who get abortions. Of course they would be charged with manslaughter and/or homicide.
The analogy for women who get abortions would be to prosecute them for murder, yet you rarely hear of any but the most rabid pro-lifer suggest that. I suspect it's because once they are confronted with the logical outcome of their position (forced organ donation, women jailed for murder) they backpedal.
51
Between Erica and reality, there is indeed no common ground.
The "rights based democracy" in which Erica lives does not recognize the rights she seems to think it does. In the first tirmester, it privleges a woman's right to control her body above the rights of the fetus. In the third trimester, it privleges the right of the fetus not be to destroyed above her rights. And in the second trimester, it recognizes a constitutional gray area. That is what Roe v. Wade said; it did not say, as Erica appears to have deluded herself into believing, that the woman's right to self-determination always trumps the fetus' right to survival.
And setting aside abortions-are-cool crazies like Erica on one side and rifle-toting anti-abortion militants on the other, that constitutional framework enjoys broad consensus in the general public. Most laws aiming to restrict abortion have been about that second trimester, and the supreme court has been pretty clear over the last 30 years that there are few constituional rights issues involved; it's basically a political/legislative issue about what laws people want to live under.
The "rights based democracy" in which Erica lives does not recognize the rights she seems to think it does. In the first tirmester, it privleges a woman's right to control her body above the rights of the fetus. In the third trimester, it privleges the right of the fetus not be to destroyed above her rights. And in the second trimester, it recognizes a constitutional gray area. That is what Roe v. Wade said; it did not say, as Erica appears to have deluded herself into believing, that the woman's right to self-determination always trumps the fetus' right to survival.
And setting aside abortions-are-cool crazies like Erica on one side and rifle-toting anti-abortion militants on the other, that constitutional framework enjoys broad consensus in the general public. Most laws aiming to restrict abortion have been about that second trimester, and the supreme court has been pretty clear over the last 30 years that there are few constituional rights issues involved; it's basically a political/legislative issue about what laws people want to live under.
52
Lets touch on the simple realities of the situation-
Abortion was around long before Roe v Wade, and it would still occur long after... There is absolutely no way to stop it. The only difference then, is the option of using safe means rather than ethically challenged doctors with sub standard equipment, or a coat hanger. (Which was pretty standard in the 50's)
Untold women's lives have been lost in these back alley procedures, so I ask you: What is more important- a woman's life, or the cells she carries inside her? Can you still call yourselves proLIFE if you'd happily condemn a woman to death for being unable or unwilling (for whatever reason) to carry a child to term?
Abortion was around long before Roe v Wade, and it would still occur long after... There is absolutely no way to stop it. The only difference then, is the option of using safe means rather than ethically challenged doctors with sub standard equipment, or a coat hanger. (Which was pretty standard in the 50's)
Untold women's lives have been lost in these back alley procedures, so I ask you: What is more important- a woman's life, or the cells she carries inside her? Can you still call yourselves proLIFE if you'd happily condemn a woman to death for being unable or unwilling (for whatever reason) to carry a child to term?
53
Common ground for both groups could be in providing the means to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
The Catholic Church's position on birth control leaves them out of that group.
Most of the opposition to choice is a desire to punish woman for being sexual. Look at "mommy's" comments above. Since they believe a fetus is a human being their argument boils down to "if your father is a rapist then we can kill you." Yikes.
The Catholic Church's position on birth control leaves them out of that group.
Most of the opposition to choice is a desire to punish woman for being sexual. Look at "mommy's" comments above. Since they believe a fetus is a human being their argument boils down to "if your father is a rapist then we can kill you." Yikes.
54
Most so-called "pro-life" zealots have no problem with prisoner execution, carpet bombing cities, torturing captives, hunting, factory farming, nuclear weapons, toxic pollution etc. Why should I even entertain their stupid pre-scientific myths about conception. Typically, it seem that these are people that don't want chubby white girls fucking without first being placed in the stable of a older taller white guy.
This issue will never go away because right wing politicians want to milk it for every last dollar in donations. You'd think that during the last 12 years of Republican rule there might have been one single real debate in congress about overturning Roe v Wade, but there wasn't.
This issue will never go away because right wing politicians want to milk it for every last dollar in donations. You'd think that during the last 12 years of Republican rule there might have been one single real debate in congress about overturning Roe v Wade, but there wasn't.
57
@53 I think you've totally misinterpreted mommy's comments. she was saying that in the cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother, abortions should be okay.
58
@52
But if you start with the premise, as the other side does, that the fetus is human, then its rights must be protected under the law.
But if you start with the premise, as the other side does, that the fetus is human, then its rights must be protected under the law.
59
'common ground' = birth control. there is plenty of overlap between pro-choice and pro-life in this regard -- once the pro-lifers accept they are not going to stop people from having recreational sex, they will find there is plenty they can do to reduce the number of abortions.
obama just called pro-lifers out on their bluff. don't like abortion? it's not going to be made illegal anytime soon, so then -- what are you doing to minimize the number of abortions? there are plenty of practical options at your disposal, but sorry, calling people 'babykillers' does not count.
obama just called pro-lifers out on their bluff. don't like abortion? it's not going to be made illegal anytime soon, so then -- what are you doing to minimize the number of abortions? there are plenty of practical options at your disposal, but sorry, calling people 'babykillers' does not count.
60
54, weak argument. You can be pro-life and still find that executing a murderer is justifiable. A murderer's life (or deer, enemy soldier, etc) is less valuable than a baby's life. It's not that big of an intellectual leap.
Simply reverse it to illustrate the simple-minded argument: You are against hunting, executing murderers; but support the killing of "innocent life." So, you value the life of a deer or a murder over that of an innocent child! Not very persuasive.
Simply reverse it to illustrate the simple-minded argument: You are against hunting, executing murderers; but support the killing of "innocent life." So, you value the life of a deer or a murder over that of an innocent child! Not very persuasive.
61
@58, it's not in the same vein as 52's argument, but read lrb @17 and 33. regardless of abortion's existence (odd argument - murder's always existed too), the status of the fetus doesn't make too much of a difference.
@50 - I think I agree with you, but within your framework, wherein the government can't force an expectant mother to bring the child to term, it also must punish her for getting an abortion, arguments about the relative morality of positive action and inaction aside.
This suggests to me that the life-from-conception view - besides invalidating the pro-life argument which is based on it, as you pointed out initially - isn't worth considering beyond using it to note that it doesn't actually support pro-life positions. It's just incorrect from the outset and we need to look at this from a different light.
@50 - I think I agree with you, but within your framework, wherein the government can't force an expectant mother to bring the child to term, it also must punish her for getting an abortion, arguments about the relative morality of positive action and inaction aside.
This suggests to me that the life-from-conception view - besides invalidating the pro-life argument which is based on it, as you pointed out initially - isn't worth considering beyond using it to note that it doesn't actually support pro-life positions. It's just incorrect from the outset and we need to look at this from a different light.
62
I think what the religious nuts don't seem to get is that they live in a pluralistic society. Some of us simply do not agree with them that a large bearded man in the sky inserts a tiny soul in a zygote the instant it is conceived. Some of us do not agree with them that the state has the right to effectively invade a persons body with its laws. They have to live in the same society with us. They have to learn to deal with this.
63
If we don't start considering the implications of overpopulation (accelerated by prolifers if they had their way) I think everyone will be sadly surprised when "mother earth" aborts the entire human race. ha!
64
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.
I don't know about you ECB, but that sounds like "common ground" to me.
I don't know about you ECB, but that sounds like "common ground" to me.
65
Society has such a strong interest in birth control, as well as women needing to control their bodies, I welcome Obama's attempt to shift the whole debate onto the subject of reducing abortions a/k/a reducing unwanted pregnancy, where hopefully we can get a majority to publicly fund birth control.
If to do that, we have to talk with, sit down with, shake hands with antiabortion folks and groups, let's do it.
As to the black and white approach, um, we worked with Stalin, right?
If to do that, we have to talk with, sit down with, shake hands with antiabortion folks and groups, let's do it.
As to the black and white approach, um, we worked with Stalin, right?
66
I think this post may just be an attempt for ECB to muscle her way into Dan's reign on "Most Commented On".
I wish there was a better forum to discuss this and other issues. Slog comments just doesn't work for me. I have looked across the internets for such a place but one does not exist that is good enough.
I wish there was a better forum to discuss this and other issues. Slog comments just doesn't work for me. I have looked across the internets for such a place but one does not exist that is good enough.
67
Uh oh.
Obama is naming Bill Clinton special envoy to Haiti. The feared Clinton takeover is imminent....
Obama is naming Bill Clinton special envoy to Haiti. The feared Clinton takeover is imminent....
69
Yeah, that's kind of bullshit. Did you hear the rest of the statement? The point is: People who are pro-choice aren't pro-abortion. I'd rather see birth control and sex ed than an abortion, but I'm pro-choice.
70
@59 - birth control is the common ground. However, few people in the anti-abortion camp are also in the 'widely available and free birth control along with comprehensive education' camp.
I'm pretty sure we all know why.
I'm pretty sure we all know why.
71
FWIW. It's not just extremes. There are limits on abortion (i.e. you can't abort at 8 months without major cause), and there should be. Everyone should want fewer abortions, and I would prefer that happen through comprehensive sex education.
However, to frame abortion only as a "woman's right to choose" issue always seemed a little disingenuous to me. Yes, it should be available for some circumstances, but pregnancy is a risk of sex. Take the pill, blah blah blah. The players know the risks going in (or should if sex ed gets improved). Obviously the woman is the one who ends up with the baby, but shouldn't the argument in that case be to require more from the father, not to say, "Well men don't HAVE to do anything, so the women shouldn't either." That argument always seemed a little backwards to me.
However, to frame abortion only as a "woman's right to choose" issue always seemed a little disingenuous to me. Yes, it should be available for some circumstances, but pregnancy is a risk of sex. Take the pill, blah blah blah. The players know the risks going in (or should if sex ed gets improved). Obviously the woman is the one who ends up with the baby, but shouldn't the argument in that case be to require more from the father, not to say, "Well men don't HAVE to do anything, so the women shouldn't either." That argument always seemed a little backwards to me.
72
"shouldn't the argument in that case be to require more from the father,"
It could be, if men had to undergo a risk-filled biological process that permanently changed their body to produce a baby .
It could be, if men had to undergo a risk-filled biological process that permanently changed their body to produce a baby .
73
@60, Executions kill people, and abortions don't. Nobody is for killing children. And, it's dangerous to try to assign comparative "value" to human life.
But, ECB, it IS a tough issue, and that shouldn't be too difficult for you to understand. Religion clouds the opinions of even smart people.
But, ECB, it IS a tough issue, and that shouldn't be too difficult for you to understand. Religion clouds the opinions of even smart people.
74
I am pro-choice and pro-adoption. But I'm scratching my head over the inclusion of adoption as an example of women controlling their own bodies. Surely, when a woman gives a baby up for adoption, she is not controlling what happens to her own body at all, but what happens to another human being. Right?
75
David Wright said it well @51. A woman does not always have the right to choose what to do with her body in the case of abortion -- 1st trimester the woman's rights take precedence, 3rd trimester the fetuses, and 2nd it's gray. Nor should she always have that right -- unless, I guess, you are in favor of 3rd trimester abortions for non-medical reasons.
It's actually a really interesting scientific and philosophical debate to talk about when does a fetus gain the full rights of personhood -- just calling someone who thinks differently on that topic a bigot is sort of bullshit. Is it possible to be pro-life for bigoted, misogynistic reasons? Of course. But, it's also possible to have a rational pro-life stance (and therein lies the difference between racism and the pro-life movement -- it's really not possible to have a rational racist stance).
Anyways, I thought Obama's speech was excellent -- really great stuff on not demonizing the other side of the debate and trying to figure out how to work towards the goal of reducing the number of abortions while respecting the equality of women. Since Erica seems to think that all pro-lifers are bigots, I think, she, as much as all of the pro-life protesters on campus, was the intended audience.
It's actually a really interesting scientific and philosophical debate to talk about when does a fetus gain the full rights of personhood -- just calling someone who thinks differently on that topic a bigot is sort of bullshit. Is it possible to be pro-life for bigoted, misogynistic reasons? Of course. But, it's also possible to have a rational pro-life stance (and therein lies the difference between racism and the pro-life movement -- it's really not possible to have a rational racist stance).
Anyways, I thought Obama's speech was excellent -- really great stuff on not demonizing the other side of the debate and trying to figure out how to work towards the goal of reducing the number of abortions while respecting the equality of women. Since Erica seems to think that all pro-lifers are bigots, I think, she, as much as all of the pro-life protesters on campus, was the intended audience.
76
Erica, the reason we do is because we live in a pluralistic society that will have to live with the ambiguity of neither side being fully proven as right or wrong. If you do not strive for common ground, even though you know it's not likely, and just walk away from the table convinced of your rightness, you become, as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it (def 2) a bigot: "A person considered to adhere unreasonably or obstinately to a particular religious belief, practice, etc." Then, you don't get to take the fun moral high ground of being better than your opponent :).
77
Being gay does not--in and of itself--do any harm to society. Having multiple premature births does. Octocunt is going to cost you and I a whole lot of money (8 kids 1 700 dollar shot per month during the flu season times at least 10 years, off the top of my head).
78
Well, true, births are pretty darned expensive. Plus, once they're born, for the first few years it demands a lot of resources taking care of them - you can't even get day care for them under one year old without shelling out a lot of cash.
79
Pro-life fights dirty, and science isn't on their side.
What if having an abortion means THE BABY NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE!
And it would blow your mind.
Having a baby isn't like flipping on a fucking light switch. And if someone did the research, they can find so much detail and gray area of what a life is and isn't ...
I would have to accuse the pro-lifers of having NO respect for life, or at least don't give it as much of an appreciation as it deserves.
In the meantime, we have people among the living who are wasting life. Beit on slog or growing up and/or raising children under depolorable conditions on an overpopulated planet.
I just think it's so narrow minded. Are pro-lifers
a) obnoxiously defensive about their poor life choice and secretly want everyone else to be miserable and conflicted on the inside?
b) Truely overwhelmed with joy and can't for the life of them understand why no one has the capasity to feel the same exact joy that they feel by excreting another being onto this planet?
c) Secretly wanting more souls to convert?
I used to grow catholic, pro-life. I used to think that the unborn suffered. I also believed in Santa Claus and one time I thought I saw the tooth fairy. Somewhere in my adolescents, where I saw people TRUELY suffering (me included apparently) from being brought up in a forced family and others forcing families ... I guess I started to believe that choice is truely the way to go.
What if having an abortion means THE BABY NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE!
And it would blow your mind.
Having a baby isn't like flipping on a fucking light switch. And if someone did the research, they can find so much detail and gray area of what a life is and isn't ...
I would have to accuse the pro-lifers of having NO respect for life, or at least don't give it as much of an appreciation as it deserves.
In the meantime, we have people among the living who are wasting life. Beit on slog or growing up and/or raising children under depolorable conditions on an overpopulated planet.
I just think it's so narrow minded. Are pro-lifers
a) obnoxiously defensive about their poor life choice and secretly want everyone else to be miserable and conflicted on the inside?
b) Truely overwhelmed with joy and can't for the life of them understand why no one has the capasity to feel the same exact joy that they feel by excreting another being onto this planet?
c) Secretly wanting more souls to convert?
I used to grow catholic, pro-life. I used to think that the unborn suffered. I also believed in Santa Claus and one time I thought I saw the tooth fairy. Somewhere in my adolescents, where I saw people TRUELY suffering (me included apparently) from being brought up in a forced family and others forcing families ... I guess I started to believe that choice is truely the way to go.
80
47
If the life of the mother is put at risk by the pregnancy she should have the option to end the pregnancy. It is tragic but both mom and child may be lost if the pregnancy continues. The fetus is not less valuable than the mother and many mothers will choose to carry the pregnancy to term and take the chance.
If the life of the mother is put at risk by the pregnancy she should have the option to end the pregnancy. It is tragic but both mom and child may be lost if the pregnancy continues. The fetus is not less valuable than the mother and many mothers will choose to carry the pregnancy to term and take the chance.
81
@63: Too many pregnancies in the US ain't really the issue with global population. if you want to bite that one off, you are going to have to look a little further afield...
82
Another funny peculiarity. The abortion rates in China are astronomical. Not just because their sexual education is abysmal, or the fact that they want boys more than girls, but because it is more SHAMEFUL to have a child out of wedlock than an abortion (funny how it works the other way around in the states).
I guess it reminds me of something I heard in one of these forums. Evolution has less interest in the survival of the young, they are easily replaceable. Evolution has more interest in viable breeding pairs.
My best friends mother, came from a dutch catholic family. At one point durring their childhood, they decided they hit a rough patch and sent 5 of the the 8 children to an orphanage, they didn't see them for years ....
I guess I mention this because abortion supposedly used to be a catholic issue (as well as birth control), the protestants were more or less indifferent about it until the sexual revolution which timed itself very well with Roe V Wade.
I guess it reminds me of something I heard in one of these forums. Evolution has less interest in the survival of the young, they are easily replaceable. Evolution has more interest in viable breeding pairs.
My best friends mother, came from a dutch catholic family. At one point durring their childhood, they decided they hit a rough patch and sent 5 of the the 8 children to an orphanage, they didn't see them for years ....
I guess I mention this because abortion supposedly used to be a catholic issue (as well as birth control), the protestants were more or less indifferent about it until the sexual revolution which timed itself very well with Roe V Wade.
83
Erica - I hope you read these comments and are able to think about things rationally.
When you say there is no common ground you are alienating a lot of people who would like to build bridges on the common ground you are dismissing.
I think abortion is wrong
I don't know when human rights should begin
I think abortion should be used as little as humanly (or fetusly) possible
I am an athiest so therefore i cannot be a religious zealot.
I think abortion should be legal
If you believe life begins at birth then here are a few hypotheticals:
A woman is 9 months pregnant. Another woman punches her in the stomach. The unborn dies. What was the punchers crime? Simple assault? Manslaughter? Murder?
A woman has an infant. A man breaks into her house and kidnaps her but knowingly leaves the infant behind. Infant dies. Mother is returned. Is the only crime kidnapping?
Woman is in labor and a psychotic from three floors above rushes in and pokes his finger through the head's soft spot while it is still several inches inside the birth canal. The thing hadn't been born, so is that just a collection of cells and the psychotic is not guilty of any crime?
When you say there is no common ground you are alienating a lot of people who would like to build bridges on the common ground you are dismissing.
I think abortion is wrong
I don't know when human rights should begin
I think abortion should be used as little as humanly (or fetusly) possible
I am an athiest so therefore i cannot be a religious zealot.
I think abortion should be legal
If you believe life begins at birth then here are a few hypotheticals:
A woman is 9 months pregnant. Another woman punches her in the stomach. The unborn dies. What was the punchers crime? Simple assault? Manslaughter? Murder?
A woman has an infant. A man breaks into her house and kidnaps her but knowingly leaves the infant behind. Infant dies. Mother is returned. Is the only crime kidnapping?
Woman is in labor and a psychotic from three floors above rushes in and pokes his finger through the head's soft spot while it is still several inches inside the birth canal. The thing hadn't been born, so is that just a collection of cells and the psychotic is not guilty of any crime?
84
"We don't sit down and dialogue with gay-bashers racists or any other kind of bigot."
We don't, but we could:
http://www.bestcyrano.org/terkelEllisInt…
We don't, but we could:
http://www.bestcyrano.org/terkelEllisInt…
86
The problem is that "Pro-Life" folks really aren't pro-life. After all they don't care about the child once it pops out of the vagina ("Can't feed 'em, Don't Breed 'em. Why the hell should I give money to welfare whores?"), they are perfectly happy supporting war and torture and the death penalty. Clearly they aren't pro-life.
What these people really are "anti-woman". They want to force women into giving birth to punish them for having wicked, dirty sex (with whomever they want without the permission of a father, husband, male politician, or male religious leader). That's why they are against real comprehensive sex-ed and condoms and birth control pills. Contraceptives and condoms protect women from the consequences of sex (unwanted pregnancies and STDs).
"So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term."
What these people really are "anti-woman". They want to force women into giving birth to punish them for having wicked, dirty sex (with whomever they want without the permission of a father, husband, male politician, or male religious leader). That's why they are against real comprehensive sex-ed and condoms and birth control pills. Contraceptives and condoms protect women from the consequences of sex (unwanted pregnancies and STDs).
"So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term."
87
Thanks for all the rich comments.
I have to say, I see a lot of contridictions within my pro-life friends who support the war, the use of torture and the death penalty. I'm guessing my pacifism, anti-death penalty, and pro-choice stance confuses them as well. I sincerely hope that the number of abortions can be reduced in this country, but I believe we have to provide comprehensive sex education, affordable birth control, maternal and prenatal health care, and secured maternity leave in order to reduce the numbers.
I have to say, I see a lot of contridictions within my pro-life friends who support the war, the use of torture and the death penalty. I'm guessing my pacifism, anti-death penalty, and pro-choice stance confuses them as well. I sincerely hope that the number of abortions can be reduced in this country, but I believe we have to provide comprehensive sex education, affordable birth control, maternal and prenatal health care, and secured maternity leave in order to reduce the numbers.
88
@ 60 "A murderer's life (or deer, enemy soldier, etc) is less valuable than a baby's life."
Says who? Besides, every heinous murderer was once a cute cuddle bouncing ball o' joy!
Says who? Besides, every heinous murderer was once a cute cuddle bouncing ball o' joy!
90
I just wanted to say that commenter Irb (@17, 33, 45, etc.) in this post has made a few of the most logical and sound arguments I have EVER read about abortion.
Thank you Irb!
Thank you Irb!
91
@90, I agree, lrb is well-reasoned, insightful, but still, pregnancy is a risk of sex. Women and men are different, it sucks that women have to carry preganancy, but there it is.
Contraception, morning-after, all fine. Abortion in case of rape, incest, medical necessity, of course. But otherwise? You have sex, you take precautions, you still get pregnant? Tough cookies. You smoke and you get cancer? tough cookies. You go sky-diving and the chute fails to open? tough cookies. You knew the risks, you did it anyway, deal with the consequences. Do what you can to make it unlikely, but you are taking a risk. If you get pregnant, have the kid. When is it human life? dunno. But I'd rather not see it killed.
And yes, I am anti-death penalty, pro-gay marriage, generally liberal, blah blah blah
Contraception, morning-after, all fine. Abortion in case of rape, incest, medical necessity, of course. But otherwise? You have sex, you take precautions, you still get pregnant? Tough cookies. You smoke and you get cancer? tough cookies. You go sky-diving and the chute fails to open? tough cookies. You knew the risks, you did it anyway, deal with the consequences. Do what you can to make it unlikely, but you are taking a risk. If you get pregnant, have the kid. When is it human life? dunno. But I'd rather not see it killed.
And yes, I am anti-death penalty, pro-gay marriage, generally liberal, blah blah blah
92
@91 ... I would be more than happy to let the person suffer the action of their consequences ...
but the person who truely suffers is the kid! Who had nothing to do with their parents indescretions!
Yes, I love my life (finally!). But damn ... I'm more than well aware that the deck was stacked against me growing up in a forced family.
but the person who truely suffers is the kid! Who had nothing to do with their parents indescretions!
Yes, I love my life (finally!). But damn ... I'm more than well aware that the deck was stacked against me growing up in a forced family.
93
@91, You go skydiving, and the chute fails to open, and you break a leg. Ouch. You go to the doctor and get it fixed.
You go to the doctor and get it fixed.
You go to the doctor and get it fixed.
94
well, MR. Language Person, guess that means that us ladies will just have to abstain from male-female intercourse altogether to be 100% safe. tough cookies for you. (apologies if assumptions of heteronormativity are unfounded).
95
Wow, even Mudede has never written such an overwrought, underthought post. Your attitude is exactly the sort that prevents any kind of rational discourse on abortion in this country. In a way, though, I'm glad to hear you say it. I sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that only the strict anti-abortionists are prone to knee-jerk, one-dimensional my-way-or-the-highway thinking. But obviously both sides can be stupid about it in their own ways. That's really depressing.
96
there is a whole generation of young people, including myself, that never witnessed life before legal abortions. we missed out on the joys of the back-alley abortion; death, botched jobs and shame. all kinds of people reconsider their position as soon as it effects their own lives and suddenly want to CHOOSE for themselves.
similar to gay marriage- if you don't believe in it, don't get one.
similar to gay marriage- if you don't believe in it, don't get one.
98
@91: Oh yeah. Try selling that to straight men: Women worldwide have decided not to abstain from sex until they are fully financially and emotionally committed to having children, as sex comes with the risk of pregnancy -- even if that risk is almost completely eliminated with the use of both birth control and condoms, because we're still responsible for that 2-3% chance of something (not us!) fucking up.
If you, as our partners, want to have sex with us, you also need to be fully committed to having children, because that is the risk when you have sex with us.
That reminds me. Has anyone compiled numbers on whether the male partners involved in many unwanted pregnancies want children at the time? I'd be interested in hearing how much of the decision to abort or not abort was shared by the partner without whom the pregnancy would actually not be possible.
Honestly, if we had the funding to do it, I'd love to see everyone's ova and sperm frozen, and tubes snipped, for until they decide to have children.
If you, as our partners, want to have sex with us, you also need to be fully committed to having children, because that is the risk when you have sex with us.
That reminds me. Has anyone compiled numbers on whether the male partners involved in many unwanted pregnancies want children at the time? I'd be interested in hearing how much of the decision to abort or not abort was shared by the partner without whom the pregnancy would actually not be possible.
Honestly, if we had the funding to do it, I'd love to see everyone's ova and sperm frozen, and tubes snipped, for until they decide to have children.
101
@91 Are you a virgin? Or just fully prepared to take on the emotional and financial responsibilities of having sex?
Christ these assholes really do just want to punish us whoreish woman for daring to enjoy our bodies. I mean, fuck, you get to participate. If a woman is taking all precautions and shit happens, then shit happens and you go to the doctor and take care of it. That IS taking responsibility dumbass.
And why do YOU get to outline the circumstances in which abortion is okay? Why are those circumstances any different from a woman both on the pill and using condoms and yet still there is an accident? Or what about that 15 year old girl whose parents and schools failed her in the teachings about sex and believed that she couldn't get pregnant the first time?
Do you know how many grandparents are raising grandchildren these days?
The instances in which birth control fails are RARE, but they do happen. Accidental pregnancies are caused far more often by a lack of sex education. Increase the education, make birth control readily available, and there will be less abortions in this world as well as less teen pregnancies and less grandparents raising grandchildren.
Don't act so high and mighty just because you don't have to carry the weight of pregnancy.
Christ these assholes really do just want to punish us whoreish woman for daring to enjoy our bodies. I mean, fuck, you get to participate. If a woman is taking all precautions and shit happens, then shit happens and you go to the doctor and take care of it. That IS taking responsibility dumbass.
And why do YOU get to outline the circumstances in which abortion is okay? Why are those circumstances any different from a woman both on the pill and using condoms and yet still there is an accident? Or what about that 15 year old girl whose parents and schools failed her in the teachings about sex and believed that she couldn't get pregnant the first time?
Do you know how many grandparents are raising grandchildren these days?
The instances in which birth control fails are RARE, but they do happen. Accidental pregnancies are caused far more often by a lack of sex education. Increase the education, make birth control readily available, and there will be less abortions in this world as well as less teen pregnancies and less grandparents raising grandchildren.
Don't act so high and mighty just because you don't have to carry the weight of pregnancy.
102
@85 lrb - Here is your rational pro-life stance:
I believe that human life begins at conception - arguable but rational.
I don't believe anybody has the right to take a human life.
I am therfore pro-life and rational.
I'm not actually pro-life but i am capable of empathy...you should try it sometime
I believe that human life begins at conception - arguable but rational.
I don't believe anybody has the right to take a human life.
I am therfore pro-life and rational.
I'm not actually pro-life but i am capable of empathy...you should try it sometime
103
When people say, "I will allow abortion in the case of rape, incest, or harm to the mother," then you are saying that a young girl who has been molested by a family member has to get up in front of a bunch of strangers, tell them what happened, and wait for a judge to decide whether she was sufficiently traumatized to deserve an abortion.
The "only in these instances" position makes no sense. Is it wrong to abort a fetus, or isn't it? If it is, then the circumstances shouldn't matter. If it isn't, then let the woman make the decision privately with her doctor. If you are going to be anti-choice, then at least be anti-choice in a committed way.
There were over 24,000 abortions performed in Washington State in 2007 (the most recent year I could find statistics for). Do anti-choicers really want to add the burden of the cost of all those court dates to our state budget?
The "only in these instances" position makes no sense. Is it wrong to abort a fetus, or isn't it? If it is, then the circumstances shouldn't matter. If it isn't, then let the woman make the decision privately with her doctor. If you are going to be anti-choice, then at least be anti-choice in a committed way.
There were over 24,000 abortions performed in Washington State in 2007 (the most recent year I could find statistics for). Do anti-choicers really want to add the burden of the cost of all those court dates to our state budget?
105
103
"There were over 24,000 abortions performed in Washington State in 2007 (the most recent year I could find statistics for). Do anti-choicers really want to add the burden of the cost of all those court dates to our state budget? "
Are you claiming all 24,000 women were molested by a family member?
"There were over 24,000 abortions performed in Washington State in 2007 (the most recent year I could find statistics for). Do anti-choicers really want to add the burden of the cost of all those court dates to our state budget? "
Are you claiming all 24,000 women were molested by a family member?
106
103
"then you are saying that a young girl who has been molested by a family member has to get up in front of a bunch of strangers, tell them what happened, and wait for a judge to decide whether she was sufficiently traumatized to deserve an abortion. "
The family member who molested a young girl needs to go to jail and the young girl will need to tell her story to a judge anyway.
If instead Planneed Parenthood quietly sneaks her off for an abortion she (or some other relative) will be victimized again (and again and again).
"then you are saying that a young girl who has been molested by a family member has to get up in front of a bunch of strangers, tell them what happened, and wait for a judge to decide whether she was sufficiently traumatized to deserve an abortion. "
The family member who molested a young girl needs to go to jail and the young girl will need to tell her story to a judge anyway.
If instead Planneed Parenthood quietly sneaks her off for an abortion she (or some other relative) will be victimized again (and again and again).
107
"Are you claiming all 24,000 women were molested by a family member?"
No, I am claiming that all 24,000 would have gone in front of a judge to plead their case.
"The family member who molested a young girl needs to go to jail and the young girl will need to tell her story to a judge anyway.
If instead Planneed Parenthood quietly sneaks her off for an abortion she (or some other relative) will be victimized again (and again and again)."
Do you know how long a trial takes? Would a woman have to wait for a molester or rapist to be convicted before she could have her abortion?
Oh, wait... now I see the plan. Forcing a woman to take her right to an abortion to court would mean that the baby would be born way before she ever got in front of a judge. Tricky, tricky.
No, I am claiming that all 24,000 would have gone in front of a judge to plead their case.
"The family member who molested a young girl needs to go to jail and the young girl will need to tell her story to a judge anyway.
If instead Planneed Parenthood quietly sneaks her off for an abortion she (or some other relative) will be victimized again (and again and again)."
Do you know how long a trial takes? Would a woman have to wait for a molester or rapist to be convicted before she could have her abortion?
Oh, wait... now I see the plan. Forcing a woman to take her right to an abortion to court would mean that the baby would be born way before she ever got in front of a judge. Tricky, tricky.
108
@ 105 and 106 you are, conveniently, overlooking the point here.
Either you are morally opposed to abortion, or you are not. The circumstances should not matter. If you see wiggle room, than you are not morally opposed to abortion.
Period. End of sentence.
Either you are morally opposed to abortion, or you are not. The circumstances should not matter. If you see wiggle room, than you are not morally opposed to abortion.
Period. End of sentence.
109
@107 ... funny that's what happened in Roe v Wade. The baby was born WAY WAY WAY before the trial ended.
The common ground? ... I don't think it exists. The pro-choice is PRO-CHOICE. It's a discussion, a dialogue, an opportunity to explore all your moral, social, and personal obligations (which inherantly is so fucking much better for society!). Whereas the pro-life stand is doggishly imposing their dogma on someone else (dogma which is unfounded scientifically and has surprisingly changed much throughout history). Dogma that HARMS SOCIETY!
People are fucked, having a child should not be treated as a right or a command, it should be treated as a privelage. In order for this to work in modern society, we have to accept that people are going to have sex for enjoyment, and accidents will sometimes happen. Let us not all suffer because of this.
The common ground? ... I don't think it exists. The pro-choice is PRO-CHOICE. It's a discussion, a dialogue, an opportunity to explore all your moral, social, and personal obligations (which inherantly is so fucking much better for society!). Whereas the pro-life stand is doggishly imposing their dogma on someone else (dogma which is unfounded scientifically and has surprisingly changed much throughout history). Dogma that HARMS SOCIETY!
People are fucked, having a child should not be treated as a right or a command, it should be treated as a privelage. In order for this to work in modern society, we have to accept that people are going to have sex for enjoyment, and accidents will sometimes happen. Let us not all suffer because of this.
110
@108 - Bad argument.
Extenuating circumstances have a long legal precedent. We can all pretty much agree that killing people is wrong but what if that person breaks into your house and is coming at you with a knife. If you shoot that person it's not a crime and no longer wrong because of the circumstances involved.
Extenuating circumstances have a long legal precedent. We can all pretty much agree that killing people is wrong but what if that person breaks into your house and is coming at you with a knife. If you shoot that person it's not a crime and no longer wrong because of the circumstances involved.
111
flounder courts are slow.
And to be honest, exception for rape and incest? From the perspective of a pseudo pro-lifer, it's a mercy killing. It's basically a person who is wrestling with one complicated moral conundrum over another.
It's another conflict of personal dogma, and most of us feel that inbreeding and children of rape are best left without having to start life with all that shame and baggage.
And we ALREADY compromised, we gave the choice to people in the first trimester and most of the 2nd. To be honest, most people should have figured out whether or not they wanted to keep the child by then. It was a fair compromise.
And to be honest, exception for rape and incest? From the perspective of a pseudo pro-lifer, it's a mercy killing. It's basically a person who is wrestling with one complicated moral conundrum over another.
It's another conflict of personal dogma, and most of us feel that inbreeding and children of rape are best left without having to start life with all that shame and baggage.
And we ALREADY compromised, we gave the choice to people in the first trimester and most of the 2nd. To be honest, most people should have figured out whether or not they wanted to keep the child by then. It was a fair compromise.
112
@109 - I can only assume you are saying there is no common ground with extremists. I can agree with that, but you really need to understand that there are people out there who are moderate.
Abortion is offensive to a lot of people and it should be, but not all of those people are incapable of level-headed discussion.
If you continue to buy into this us vs. them thinking eventually a Republican will be in power that will have the opportunity to place three supreme court justices and roe v wade will be overturned.
BUT if you engage in meaningful dialogue when that time does come we might get results which both sides can live with, but neither loves, which is what compromise is all about...right?
Abortion is offensive to a lot of people and it should be, but not all of those people are incapable of level-headed discussion.
If you continue to buy into this us vs. them thinking eventually a Republican will be in power that will have the opportunity to place three supreme court justices and roe v wade will be overturned.
BUT if you engage in meaningful dialogue when that time does come we might get results which both sides can live with, but neither loves, which is what compromise is all about...right?
113
@110 How is it a bad argument?
In the case of rape or incest the pregnant woman's life is not expressly in danger. So is that any different than someone who just oops, got pregnant? Only the conception is different, the pregnancy and life of the fetus are no different.
Removing the fetus because a woman is going to die because of it otherwise? What if the fetus had a chance to live despite that? In this instance you are saying it is okay to value the woman's life over that of the fetus, instead of just letting "nature take it's course" as they say?
If you say that "sometimes" it is okay, then you are admitting that it is OKAY, you are saying "IT IS OKAY" ... therefore, you have overlooked your supposed moral opposition because you have placed a value judgment on the circumstances of conception.
In the case of rape or incest the pregnant woman's life is not expressly in danger. So is that any different than someone who just oops, got pregnant? Only the conception is different, the pregnancy and life of the fetus are no different.
Removing the fetus because a woman is going to die because of it otherwise? What if the fetus had a chance to live despite that? In this instance you are saying it is okay to value the woman's life over that of the fetus, instead of just letting "nature take it's course" as they say?
If you say that "sometimes" it is okay, then you are admitting that it is OKAY, you are saying "IT IS OKAY" ... therefore, you have overlooked your supposed moral opposition because you have placed a value judgment on the circumstances of conception.
114
@111 - I'm not arguing for or against. I'm just saying that the following is a bad argument:
"The "only in these instances" position makes no sense. Is it wrong to abort a fetus, or isn't it? If it is, then the circumstances shouldn't matter. If it isn't, then let the woman make the decision privately with her doctor. If you are going to be anti-choice, then at least be anti-choice in a committed way."
I just wanted to point out that legally there are different definitions and repercussions based on circumstance.
"The "only in these instances" position makes no sense. Is it wrong to abort a fetus, or isn't it? If it is, then the circumstances shouldn't matter. If it isn't, then let the woman make the decision privately with her doctor. If you are going to be anti-choice, then at least be anti-choice in a committed way."
I just wanted to point out that legally there are different definitions and repercussions based on circumstance.
115
@113
Extenuating circumstances aren’t limited to mortal threat. If a man walks in on his wife with another man and kills that man the husband will normally be charged with manslaughter and not murder. So the reason it is a bad argument is because circumstance dictates legal definitions and repercussions.
“Removing the fetus because a woman is going to die because of it otherwise? What if the fetus had a chance to live despite that? In this instance you are saying it is okay to value the woman's life over that of the fetus, instead of just letting "nature take it's course" as they say?”
I’m not saying either, but there is a significant argument for the mother because she is actual life whereas a (viable) fetus is only potential life
“If you say that "sometimes" it is okay, then you are admitting that it is OKAY, you are saying "IT IS OKAY" ... therefore, you have overlooked your supposed moral opposition because you have placed a value judgment on the circumstances of conception.”
Not true – IF I was making that argument I would say that it is ok SOMETIMES. Just like it is SOMETIMES ok to kill another person...Remember the whole coming at you with a knife thing?
Extenuating circumstances aren’t limited to mortal threat. If a man walks in on his wife with another man and kills that man the husband will normally be charged with manslaughter and not murder. So the reason it is a bad argument is because circumstance dictates legal definitions and repercussions.
“Removing the fetus because a woman is going to die because of it otherwise? What if the fetus had a chance to live despite that? In this instance you are saying it is okay to value the woman's life over that of the fetus, instead of just letting "nature take it's course" as they say?”
I’m not saying either, but there is a significant argument for the mother because she is actual life whereas a (viable) fetus is only potential life
“If you say that "sometimes" it is okay, then you are admitting that it is OKAY, you are saying "IT IS OKAY" ... therefore, you have overlooked your supposed moral opposition because you have placed a value judgment on the circumstances of conception.”
Not true – IF I was making that argument I would say that it is ok SOMETIMES. Just like it is SOMETIMES ok to kill another person...Remember the whole coming at you with a knife thing?
116
Take it all in.
Pro-choice, and unfortunately Obama's position on it, is a very emotionally mature stance to take. It's one that, well ... I'm sorry, but most pro-lifers lack the understanding, empathy, and complexity (and it's really not that complex) of making a morally conflicting choice.
Sure you can turn to the bible and say "no sex until marriage". But those were the days, before college, before a decade of education and experience before one was even able to contribute to socity. Also the days were ... people were more or less expected to be married and on with life by their teens OR their daughters were sold off to older men who scratched their itches at the local brothel until they could afford their own personal slave. Not to mention that life expectancy was short back then. In order to get offspring, you had to get knocked up, survive, and raise yourself family before you died yourself.
Mind you the personhood of the fetus was suspect many times over ... and it depended on who you asked ...
Got to love the bibles relevancy to modern life.
Now, we live forever, in an overcrowded planet, and raising a family "right" is difficult and expensive as fuck! The last line of defense we have is pro-choice, yet people want to use some fictious antiquitated moral code. In reality, we are on our own. When someone says, I'm only for abortion in cases of ... they are doing their hypothetical "pro-choice" argument. They are saying to themselves, this is where I value personhood begins and apparently most importantly ... the quality of life vs. the sanctity of life.
It truely is an emotionally complex argument, that well ... it's NOT black and white.
Pro-choice, and unfortunately Obama's position on it, is a very emotionally mature stance to take. It's one that, well ... I'm sorry, but most pro-lifers lack the understanding, empathy, and complexity (and it's really not that complex) of making a morally conflicting choice.
Sure you can turn to the bible and say "no sex until marriage". But those were the days, before college, before a decade of education and experience before one was even able to contribute to socity. Also the days were ... people were more or less expected to be married and on with life by their teens OR their daughters were sold off to older men who scratched their itches at the local brothel until they could afford their own personal slave. Not to mention that life expectancy was short back then. In order to get offspring, you had to get knocked up, survive, and raise yourself family before you died yourself.
Mind you the personhood of the fetus was suspect many times over ... and it depended on who you asked ...
Got to love the bibles relevancy to modern life.
Now, we live forever, in an overcrowded planet, and raising a family "right" is difficult and expensive as fuck! The last line of defense we have is pro-choice, yet people want to use some fictious antiquitated moral code. In reality, we are on our own. When someone says, I'm only for abortion in cases of ... they are doing their hypothetical "pro-choice" argument. They are saying to themselves, this is where I value personhood begins and apparently most importantly ... the quality of life vs. the sanctity of life.
It truely is an emotionally complex argument, that well ... it's NOT black and white.
117
Pro-life, pro-gay marriage position: Encourage pregnant mothers to have their kids (with funding and other forms of help from the state), then if they choose, give the children up for adoption. Lots of gay couples out there would be more than willing to give those babies a home.
118
I am pro-choice. I would like there to be less abortions in this world and would like that to happen through sex education (less unwanted pregnancies in the first place).
Do you not feel that in pointing out circumstances in which you (or the law or any bible thumper) finds an abortion acceptable as saying that "in these circumstances outlined by me it is okay to have an abortion" ?
I am not denying the incredible emotion that is involved in this argument and I would definitely stand up and work with ANYONE who is willing to increase sex education, make birth control readily available, etc. as a means of decreasing the number of abortions (through decreased unwanted pregnancies).
Just because the topic is difficult and just because it is difficult for someone to admit that even these proposed circumstances are "okay" does not negate the fact that you are placing value judgments upon the CONCEPTION and not the fetus or possible life that comes from it. In choosing the life of the woman over that of the fetus you are negating original cries of "all life is equally valuable." And allowing someone who is a victim of rape or incest to have an abortion, whether they are healthy enough to endure the pregnancy or not, does not fall under the "it's me or the dude with the knife" argument.
I don't think that woman should use abortion as a means of birth control, I believe that woman should take means to prevent pregnancy rather than dispose of it afterward. But I also believe that it is not for me to decide that for another woman. It is for her to decide. And I find it hypocritical that you can say that under some circumstances she has the right to decide what happens to her own body and other under circumstances she does not.
Do you not feel that in pointing out circumstances in which you (or the law or any bible thumper) finds an abortion acceptable as saying that "in these circumstances outlined by me it is okay to have an abortion" ?
I am not denying the incredible emotion that is involved in this argument and I would definitely stand up and work with ANYONE who is willing to increase sex education, make birth control readily available, etc. as a means of decreasing the number of abortions (through decreased unwanted pregnancies).
Just because the topic is difficult and just because it is difficult for someone to admit that even these proposed circumstances are "okay" does not negate the fact that you are placing value judgments upon the CONCEPTION and not the fetus or possible life that comes from it. In choosing the life of the woman over that of the fetus you are negating original cries of "all life is equally valuable." And allowing someone who is a victim of rape or incest to have an abortion, whether they are healthy enough to endure the pregnancy or not, does not fall under the "it's me or the dude with the knife" argument.
I don't think that woman should use abortion as a means of birth control, I believe that woman should take means to prevent pregnancy rather than dispose of it afterward. But I also believe that it is not for me to decide that for another woman. It is for her to decide. And I find it hypocritical that you can say that under some circumstances she has the right to decide what happens to her own body and other under circumstances she does not.
119
@117: There are 10,000+ children in the foster care system in Washington State. Nowhere, including the gay community, are there enough people interested in adopting the surplus of unwanted children.
120
I kind of figured that common ground might include things like comprehensive sex ed and readily available birth control to prevent the necessity for abortion in as many cases as possible.
Right?
I don't agree with a number of things President Obama has done since he took office, and I don't like the way he's left a number of pre-campaign statements and campaign promises unfulfilled, but I am with him at least in spirit on this... polarizing this argument, stating that there can be no common ground and no compromise, only ends up ensuring that one side or the other will always torpedo any attempt to make things better in real ways as a way to punish their perceived enemies. When we supporters of abortion rights demonize its opponents and lump them all together as woman-hating, bible-thumping, frothing zealots, all it does it help normalize the woman-hating, bible-thumping, frothing zealot demographic. This results in a larger number of people who might otherwise be all for sex education and birth control being lumped into a "side" which opposes anything and everything to do with making the world safer for anyone who chooses to be sexually active in any way, even if that opposition results in massive, unconscionable harm.
Stop being a goddamned zealot. You're only alienating everyone who isn't just as zealous as you.
Right?
I don't agree with a number of things President Obama has done since he took office, and I don't like the way he's left a number of pre-campaign statements and campaign promises unfulfilled, but I am with him at least in spirit on this... polarizing this argument, stating that there can be no common ground and no compromise, only ends up ensuring that one side or the other will always torpedo any attempt to make things better in real ways as a way to punish their perceived enemies. When we supporters of abortion rights demonize its opponents and lump them all together as woman-hating, bible-thumping, frothing zealots, all it does it help normalize the woman-hating, bible-thumping, frothing zealot demographic. This results in a larger number of people who might otherwise be all for sex education and birth control being lumped into a "side" which opposes anything and everything to do with making the world safer for anyone who chooses to be sexually active in any way, even if that opposition results in massive, unconscionable harm.
Stop being a goddamned zealot. You're only alienating everyone who isn't just as zealous as you.
121
@118, here is another fun conundrum though, if a woman did look at abortion as if it was birth control, would you want her to be a parent?
122
@120 ... but that's where I'm dissappointed about the whole contraception thing. So many pro-lifers pay lip service to contraception and I hear so much misinformation out there just to undermine the USE of contraception. It distorts this picture that pro-lifers really just want us all to be illiterate, knocked up, and tied down.
I hear stories from people who believe that just having ONE abortion will make you sterile. Arguments from people trying to undermine the pill by saying taking the pill would make it so a potentially fertilized egg would fail to implant and thus be an abortion. Then there are people who adamantly believe the morning after pill IS effectively an abortion.
What it truely is ... I don't give a fuck anymore. By making people "feel" better and assuaging their moral infancy societ must pay dearly for it.
I personally like Obama's stance, because it's honest, sincere, from the heart, and real. But what frustrates me is that emotionally complicated stands like that show very little traction with time. Black and white fundalmentalism and blatant fear seems to be historically what drives this planet. It's quite easy to disect, by describing something as difficult and complex ... people can just pick it apart with easy half assed answers.
I hear stories from people who believe that just having ONE abortion will make you sterile. Arguments from people trying to undermine the pill by saying taking the pill would make it so a potentially fertilized egg would fail to implant and thus be an abortion. Then there are people who adamantly believe the morning after pill IS effectively an abortion.
What it truely is ... I don't give a fuck anymore. By making people "feel" better and assuaging their moral infancy societ must pay dearly for it.
I personally like Obama's stance, because it's honest, sincere, from the heart, and real. But what frustrates me is that emotionally complicated stands like that show very little traction with time. Black and white fundalmentalism and blatant fear seems to be historically what drives this planet. It's quite easy to disect, by describing something as difficult and complex ... people can just pick it apart with easy half assed answers.
123
@121 Well, no, but that is not a value judgment for me to make either, man, if I chose who was allowed to breed I probably would not have chosen my own parents, but I turned out pretty fucking okay.
Maybe I stated that wrong initially, I would rather she use the pill or something like that as a means of birth control and resort to an abortion when all else fails. But, were it up to me, I would still not deny her the abortion (no matter circumstance). I am just saying that I am all for educating people to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. I am on the pill and I use condoms and if, despite those efforts, I got pregnant, I would have an abortion, and I have made my partner aware of that. But I never have been, because if there was one thing mom did right it was to tell me how not to get pregnant.
But no matter, it is her choice to make, not mine.
Maybe I stated that wrong initially, I would rather she use the pill or something like that as a means of birth control and resort to an abortion when all else fails. But, were it up to me, I would still not deny her the abortion (no matter circumstance). I am just saying that I am all for educating people to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. I am on the pill and I use condoms and if, despite those efforts, I got pregnant, I would have an abortion, and I have made my partner aware of that. But I never have been, because if there was one thing mom did right it was to tell me how not to get pregnant.
But no matter, it is her choice to make, not mine.
125
No Take it all in, you stated it exactly right. I just took this extreme view to maybe make a point that there are people out there who feel that way, and you know ... maybe making them parents is a bad bad idea.
126
Former tri-state, I am so confused :( I am sorry, I think I must have gotten lost somewhere along the way ...
I think that woman should be allowed to get abortions.
My views on the circumstances or how I feel about the reasons for which they do it don't matter because it is none of my business why they do it.
Forcing a woman to get an abortion because you don't feel that she would be a good mother is just as awful as forcing her to go through with a pregnancy because you have placed some inexplicable value on the non-viable thing growing within her.
Wouldn't it be better to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?
I understand that you are trying to show me something here, but I am sorry to say that I fail to see what it is ...
I think that woman should be allowed to get abortions.
My views on the circumstances or how I feel about the reasons for which they do it don't matter because it is none of my business why they do it.
Forcing a woman to get an abortion because you don't feel that she would be a good mother is just as awful as forcing her to go through with a pregnancy because you have placed some inexplicable value on the non-viable thing growing within her.
Wouldn't it be better to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?
I understand that you are trying to show me something here, but I am sorry to say that I fail to see what it is ...
127
Also forcing a woman to have an abortion because you don't think that she should breed is a not even an extremist "pro-choice" statement to make ...
128
Take it all in ... maybe my allergies are getting the better of me.
I think in all honesty pro-choice is the best way to go, the best thing we have.
I also know many forced fathers who didn't exactly have the choice, but given the threat of having one person to decide to chose, vs. no choice whatsoever ... Accidents do happen, and well ... some women do sabotage their birth control. In a perfect universe, we would be telepathic and one with all our sexual partners ... but whatever. Self righteous shoulda woulda fucks get over it! That world doesn't exist.
How about this. I agree with pro-choice. I agree with Obama that it is personal moral dilema. But at the same time, it infuriates me because it is a personal moral dilema. Personal moral dilemas are very unpopular in this country, and get picked apart by nitwits such as fox news etc. etc. As a result there is so much misinformation that gets fed into the populace, it starts to debase birth control.
So in my opinion, I felt Obama took a very dangerous stance. It would just be easier to say to people, fine ... life begins at 24 weeks or whatever, because that is easy to understand. Because, obviously science is against life beginnig at conception, it's whatever moral attachment the individual has to the developing fetus, embryo, zygote, whatever.
And personally, I find that infurriating and frustrating and why pro-choice and pro-life don't see eye to eye. One is desperate for a clear cut answer, and the other offers MANY answers.
And what scares me the most, is that in this culture, it seems that if you don't use your abortion card, you lose it! So yes, I do agree reducing abortions is a great and noble cause, but in this culture of ADD history of sexuality, Back ally and botched abortions are becoming a thing of forgotten lore. Now, while we have people undermining the validity of birth control, we have others that strive to take plan B (and C) away.
More...
I think in all honesty pro-choice is the best way to go, the best thing we have.
I also know many forced fathers who didn't exactly have the choice, but given the threat of having one person to decide to chose, vs. no choice whatsoever ... Accidents do happen, and well ... some women do sabotage their birth control. In a perfect universe, we would be telepathic and one with all our sexual partners ... but whatever. Self righteous shoulda woulda fucks get over it! That world doesn't exist.
How about this. I agree with pro-choice. I agree with Obama that it is personal moral dilema. But at the same time, it infuriates me because it is a personal moral dilema. Personal moral dilemas are very unpopular in this country, and get picked apart by nitwits such as fox news etc. etc. As a result there is so much misinformation that gets fed into the populace, it starts to debase birth control.
So in my opinion, I felt Obama took a very dangerous stance. It would just be easier to say to people, fine ... life begins at 24 weeks or whatever, because that is easy to understand. Because, obviously science is against life beginnig at conception, it's whatever moral attachment the individual has to the developing fetus, embryo, zygote, whatever.
And personally, I find that infurriating and frustrating and why pro-choice and pro-life don't see eye to eye. One is desperate for a clear cut answer, and the other offers MANY answers.
And what scares me the most, is that in this culture, it seems that if you don't use your abortion card, you lose it! So yes, I do agree reducing abortions is a great and noble cause, but in this culture of ADD history of sexuality, Back ally and botched abortions are becoming a thing of forgotten lore. Now, while we have people undermining the validity of birth control, we have others that strive to take plan B (and C) away.
129
Former Tri-State ... well I don't believe I disagree with you at all actually. Maybe that is where my confusion came from.
130
@ 98, @101 @ the people mentioning me @91.
...and thanks for making me into the straw man pro-life naive nut-job @101.
You use the pill AND condoms PROPERLY, your odds drop to almost nil. Yes, still there, just like any other activity. Also, yes, I understand the odds I'm taking. I'm not sex-phobic, I don't believe we are destroying society with sexuality or female equality... What I'm saying is fewer abortions overall is a good thing. I don't have a clearly defined position on this. I'm bringing up points that bother me.
...and yes, a 15 yr old pregnant naive girl... That's why we need (I'm sure you agree with this point) better sex ed. But we're still gonna get pregnant 15 yr olds. It sucks, it makes her life significantly more difficult than the boy who impregnated her. I realize that. But does it ruin her life? No. Does it make 9 months suck? Does it make high school embarrassing? You bet. Can she move on from it? Can't we all from punishments from young stupidity?
I'm also not going to sit here and pretend that teenagers are all well-adjusted, or from functional families. So no, they're not completely responsible for a poor choice. But a criminal is often the result of poor parenting, etc, and he/she suffers time in jail/juvie. Bad background is not an excuse for him/her.
By the way, I don't know if abortions should be illegal in all but some circumstances. In fact, I'm pretty sure that would be a bad thing. However, this is an issue on which there must be discussion.
...and thanks for making me into the straw man pro-life naive nut-job @101.
You use the pill AND condoms PROPERLY, your odds drop to almost nil. Yes, still there, just like any other activity. Also, yes, I understand the odds I'm taking. I'm not sex-phobic, I don't believe we are destroying society with sexuality or female equality... What I'm saying is fewer abortions overall is a good thing. I don't have a clearly defined position on this. I'm bringing up points that bother me.
...and yes, a 15 yr old pregnant naive girl... That's why we need (I'm sure you agree with this point) better sex ed. But we're still gonna get pregnant 15 yr olds. It sucks, it makes her life significantly more difficult than the boy who impregnated her. I realize that. But does it ruin her life? No. Does it make 9 months suck? Does it make high school embarrassing? You bet. Can she move on from it? Can't we all from punishments from young stupidity?
I'm also not going to sit here and pretend that teenagers are all well-adjusted, or from functional families. So no, they're not completely responsible for a poor choice. But a criminal is often the result of poor parenting, etc, and he/she suffers time in jail/juvie. Bad background is not an excuse for him/her.
By the way, I don't know if abortions should be illegal in all but some circumstances. In fact, I'm pretty sure that would be a bad thing. However, this is an issue on which there must be discussion.
131
@130
1) Read Voodoo economics
2) The one who suffers the most is not society, BUT THE CHILD.
From personal experience it SUCKS watching your parents grow up. Had they waited a while, I perhaps would have been better adjusted and not so god damn anxious, frought with survivor syndrome, and in ASS LOADS of debt building my life up when my parents had nothing to offer me.
Sure I could have been given up for adoption, but that is just not emotionally possible for most people given 9 months of gestation and pregnancy induced hormones. My mother had to love me or die, fine ... but most people in my situation didn't come out so lucky. Most people in my sitution go absolutely bat shit crazy when the new baby smell wears off around adolescence and life gets really real! (Read voodoo economics) They have chemical dependency issues, they can't hold down jobs, finish school, let alone get a god damn Ph. D.!!! I was the lucky liberal bi product, one of the few that makes it your pell grants, loans, welfare, student lunch programs. I feel forcing people to become parents, because you feel it is just ... is an abomination and a crime.
1) Read Voodoo economics
2) The one who suffers the most is not society, BUT THE CHILD.
From personal experience it SUCKS watching your parents grow up. Had they waited a while, I perhaps would have been better adjusted and not so god damn anxious, frought with survivor syndrome, and in ASS LOADS of debt building my life up when my parents had nothing to offer me.
Sure I could have been given up for adoption, but that is just not emotionally possible for most people given 9 months of gestation and pregnancy induced hormones. My mother had to love me or die, fine ... but most people in my situation didn't come out so lucky. Most people in my sitution go absolutely bat shit crazy when the new baby smell wears off around adolescence and life gets really real! (Read voodoo economics) They have chemical dependency issues, they can't hold down jobs, finish school, let alone get a god damn Ph. D.!!! I was the lucky liberal bi product, one of the few that makes it your pell grants, loans, welfare, student lunch programs. I feel forcing people to become parents, because you feel it is just ... is an abomination and a crime.
132
@130 "But does it ruin her life? No. Does it make 9 months suck? Does it make high school embarrassing? You bet. Can she move on from it? Can't we all from punishments from young stupidity?"
If you think that is all the repercussions that come from pregnancy and child birth/rearing then you are in for a serious shock should you decide to have children. Having a child because you got pregnant is not a punishment for getting pregnant. You are bringing another life into this world and if you are not ready (which, trust me, no 15 year old is) then you should take responsibility and end the pregnancy. What happens to said child after the birth? And yes I am referring to the baby and the 15 year old girl.
Yes my preference is less unwanted pregnancies in this world, but don't act like it is something that you can so easily shake off. It is not a broken bone where once you remove the cast you are healed.
I volunteered in a daycare for babies of teen age mothers and trust me those children were not punishment and their lives were living Hell. If you would wish that on an innocent child with no choice who raises them then you are seriously lacking in empathy.
Do not be so naive. Have your opinions, but at least make sure they are well researched.
If you think that is all the repercussions that come from pregnancy and child birth/rearing then you are in for a serious shock should you decide to have children. Having a child because you got pregnant is not a punishment for getting pregnant. You are bringing another life into this world and if you are not ready (which, trust me, no 15 year old is) then you should take responsibility and end the pregnancy. What happens to said child after the birth? And yes I am referring to the baby and the 15 year old girl.
Yes my preference is less unwanted pregnancies in this world, but don't act like it is something that you can so easily shake off. It is not a broken bone where once you remove the cast you are healed.
I volunteered in a daycare for babies of teen age mothers and trust me those children were not punishment and their lives were living Hell. If you would wish that on an innocent child with no choice who raises them then you are seriously lacking in empathy.
Do not be so naive. Have your opinions, but at least make sure they are well researched.
133
@132. I was not offering teenage motherhood as an option, but adoption. 15 yr old girl has baby, gives it up for adoption, and goes back to school. hormones etc certainly make it difficult, but recovering from an abortion can't be easy either. And you and @131 have a good point. I'm NOT coming from that experience, I do NOT have much education on the adoption process.
These are my thoughts as they stand, and this is a forum on a weekly, not an academic panel.
Which brings me to your "have opinions, but make sure they are well-researched" attack. Stupid, or you can only have opinions on a small number of genres. We all make opinions on what facts we have and lack and search out new information and continue to learn and perhaps CHANGE our opinions when the information warrants. That's why they're opinions and not facts. I'm sure you have an opinion on social issues, economic policy, diplomacy, foreign policy, domestic policy, historical relativism, science ethics, literature, or any other number of subjects in which you do not have a doctorate. In other words, you could stand to do more research on some opinions you have. That's why forums are so much fun. Ideally, people exchange ideas and point out weaknesses in lines of reasoning so one can learn more, and either strengthen or weaken his/her opinion. Some opinions need no research (i.e. Shooting your neighbor because he allowed a dandelion to grow is bad), but obviously there are many that do. End of off-topic soap-boxing.
These are my thoughts as they stand, and this is a forum on a weekly, not an academic panel.
Which brings me to your "have opinions, but make sure they are well-researched" attack. Stupid, or you can only have opinions on a small number of genres. We all make opinions on what facts we have and lack and search out new information and continue to learn and perhaps CHANGE our opinions when the information warrants. That's why they're opinions and not facts. I'm sure you have an opinion on social issues, economic policy, diplomacy, foreign policy, domestic policy, historical relativism, science ethics, literature, or any other number of subjects in which you do not have a doctorate. In other words, you could stand to do more research on some opinions you have. That's why forums are so much fun. Ideally, people exchange ideas and point out weaknesses in lines of reasoning so one can learn more, and either strengthen or weaken his/her opinion. Some opinions need no research (i.e. Shooting your neighbor because he allowed a dandelion to grow is bad), but obviously there are many that do. End of off-topic soap-boxing.
134
@133 I give you that on the opinions vs. well researched, you are entirely correct and it was an emotional blow-off thing to say. For that I apologize.
135
People can try to find common ground all they want, however, they must always remember that pregnant women's bodies are not common property and their rights should never be compromised on common ground. Furthermore, it is important for common grounders to remember that many women are not interested in any common ground with the world’s terminal paternalists for good reason; women’s lives are none of their damned business in the first place.
If common grounders really want to reduce the numbers of abortions they would move on to sexually active men who don’t like abortion. They need to convince these guys to only have sex with women who definitely want their children, even if it means some men might never get laid.
If common grounders really want to reduce the numbers of abortions they would move on to sexually active men who don’t like abortion. They need to convince these guys to only have sex with women who definitely want their children, even if it means some men might never get laid.
136
@134. Thanks. And I don't mean to make pregnancy and kids into a "punishment," but to make a point. I don't want to minimize what those kids go through, wherever they end up. Abortion bothers me. I know, "don't have one." But murder bothers me, too. NO, they are NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing, in my mind, but still - it bothers me that it has to happen.
Fuck.
It bothers me that cancer has to happen, too... So that point doesn't work.
I don't know exactly where I'm going with this...
The "rational" argument laid out by @102 seems to lay it out somewhere I would put myself, but not quite. "Human life" isn't what I would call it at conception...
I think the point I'm making here is that it's a complex issue with lots to work with. Those of us not entirely comfortable with abortion aren't necessarily fighting Roe v Wade, and the recent survey probably reflects some of that. This is an issue I have never voted on, simply because I HAVE felt my opinion didn't have the strength of facts behind it to use I feel the way I do, my thoughts are about as clear as I can make them in these posts, and ... Fuckit. I'm tired and going to bed.
Fuck.
It bothers me that cancer has to happen, too... So that point doesn't work.
I don't know exactly where I'm going with this...
The "rational" argument laid out by @102 seems to lay it out somewhere I would put myself, but not quite. "Human life" isn't what I would call it at conception...
I think the point I'm making here is that it's a complex issue with lots to work with. Those of us not entirely comfortable with abortion aren't necessarily fighting Roe v Wade, and the recent survey probably reflects some of that. This is an issue I have never voted on, simply because I HAVE felt my opinion didn't have the strength of facts behind it to use I feel the way I do, my thoughts are about as clear as I can make them in these posts, and ... Fuckit. I'm tired and going to bed.
137
@134 This is an issue I have never voted on, simply because I HAVE felt my opinion didn't have the strength of facts behind it to use I feel the way I do, my thoughts are about as clear as I can make them in these posts, and ... Fuckit.
My two closest friend who have told me about their abortions were both married and in their late twenties when they had the abortion. They were NOT the naive 15 year old so often waved in our faces: they were on the verge of divorce, had serious financial issues, and both of my friends ALREADY HAD A CHILD.
Ok: think about that: if you have a toddler it is not only virtually impossible but IRRESPONSIBLE and even selfish to consider going through a full term pregnancy and giving a child up for adoption. That real child is going to see you as a someone who gives away children. You cannot do that to a child. It is absolutely responsible to have an abortion in those circumstances and many others.
But those are not the circumstance that we're really ever given to contemplate in these debates, it's always some drunken giggling 15 year old who comes to stand in for all women.
Beyond that, 85% of birth mothers grieve terribly after relinquishment, many feel coerced into it, even today, because of this prolife stupidity combined with the real driver: a very powerful market for healthy newborn infants that demands a supply, and will do so as long as there are upper middle class people who feel entitled to a baby--and women who have been trained to think of abortion as murder and their own sexuality as deserving punishment.
Adoption is not some simple hearts and flowers thing that makes it all better.
My two closest friend who have told me about their abortions were both married and in their late twenties when they had the abortion. They were NOT the naive 15 year old so often waved in our faces: they were on the verge of divorce, had serious financial issues, and both of my friends ALREADY HAD A CHILD.
Ok: think about that: if you have a toddler it is not only virtually impossible but IRRESPONSIBLE and even selfish to consider going through a full term pregnancy and giving a child up for adoption. That real child is going to see you as a someone who gives away children. You cannot do that to a child. It is absolutely responsible to have an abortion in those circumstances and many others.
But those are not the circumstance that we're really ever given to contemplate in these debates, it's always some drunken giggling 15 year old who comes to stand in for all women.
Beyond that, 85% of birth mothers grieve terribly after relinquishment, many feel coerced into it, even today, because of this prolife stupidity combined with the real driver: a very powerful market for healthy newborn infants that demands a supply, and will do so as long as there are upper middle class people who feel entitled to a baby--and women who have been trained to think of abortion as murder and their own sexuality as deserving punishment.
Adoption is not some simple hearts and flowers thing that makes it all better.
138
@137 was that really meant for me @134? Because I am entirely pro choice.
Whether I have any adverse feelings towards anyone's reasoning behind getting an abortion doesn't matter, not to me, because the fact of the matter is that it is none of mine or anyone elses business why a woman gets an abortion. It is her body, her life, her decision. So you don't need to convince me otherwise.
I also entirely agree that he is taking the idea of adoption as an option far too lightly.
My apology was merely for saying that he should research his opinions before opening his mouth. It was an emotional outburst because I feel that he can never truly understand the argument.
Whether I have any adverse feelings towards anyone's reasoning behind getting an abortion doesn't matter, not to me, because the fact of the matter is that it is none of mine or anyone elses business why a woman gets an abortion. It is her body, her life, her decision. So you don't need to convince me otherwise.
I also entirely agree that he is taking the idea of adoption as an option far too lightly.
My apology was merely for saying that he should research his opinions before opening his mouth. It was an emotional outburst because I feel that he can never truly understand the argument.
139
Oops--sorry. That was a typo; I meant to type @136. I agree that a woman's reasoning should not matter in any of these situations. I just also wanted to make it clear that many women get abortions in very complex life situations, but the anti-choice contingent hide that complexity by creating a *mythical* ditzy 15 year old stand in for all women that is both sexist and insulting.
140
Yeah, I think I tend to attach to the 15 year old gone wrong scenario because I have a sibling who had a child at that age. But there are far more complex reasons for getting abortions, I certainly agree with you. Putting "pending circumstance" on abortion rights is a dangerous, painful and unfortunate way to think about abortion, or a woman's right to take care of her own body as she sees fit in general.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (140) RSS