Slog
News & ArtsFriday, April 20, 2012
The Ladies Do Women Have Too Many Rights?
Posted by Cienna Madrid on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 3:50 PM
That's the title of a May 3 University of Washington talk hosted by former Planned Parenthood worker turned anti-abortionist Abby Johnson. The preview for this talk posits:
The right to abortion is considered a “reproductive right” by many. They say it is the right of a woman to exercise control over her body, but is that what the issue is really about? What if in this case, human rights and women’s rights conflict? Is the woman’s right to her body more important than the child’s right to life?
While I know that I proudly, loudly disagree with Johnson on this subject, what bugs me most about the talk is its bullshit, demeaning title, and how Johnson frames her personal opinion like it's a scientific hypothesis she's systematically exploring. Because reframing opinions as open-ended questions—Are women even human? Hey, I'm just asking questions here!—is cowardly and insulting.
I mean, I could ask, Is Abby Johnson really Rush Limbaugh in a pushup bra? But it would be more honest to simply declare, Abby Johnson is Rush Limbaugh in a pushup bra! and let people argue with me about it.
My point is, Johnson isn't searching for answers. Her answers are: No, women's bodies are not their own and yes, women have too many rights. What she's trying to do is convince everyone stupid enough to attend a talk called Do Women Have Too Many Rights? that she's right.
2
Yeah, it reminds me of when that fuckstick Martin Luther King published Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? As if there were any doubt which one he would choose!
3
Johnson has a right not to get an abortion. She has a right to believe it's wrong. Nobody is forcing her to get an abortion. Even if the fetus inside her were killing her she has the right to die. That's not enough for her, though. No, she has to have the right to deny other's the right. She wants the right to tell women they should die. She wants the right to tell women they can't have a medical procedure. Maybe she wants too many rights.
4
If Cienna is forced to attend and report, maybe she should demand Abby Johnson, who is two weeks away from pregnancy, to explain why she’s straining her motherfucked self by giving a talk instead of resting safely at home and protecting her child.
5
So, yes, the title is stupid. But have we officially declared that any debate about the subject of abortion is pointless and insidious? There's a valid concern here: if and when you do consider a fetus a human being with rights, does the woman's right to govern her own body override the fetus's right to exist?
It feels like debates about abortion rights have devolved to the point where neither side even hears the other's message. Everyone's either trying to control women's bodies or trying to kill unborn children and no one actually talks about anything.
Take #3's comment for instance. This argument is made entirely from a single perspective - that abortion is all about the mother's rights to her own body. But from a pro-lifer's point of view, the only right they're restricting is the right to kill your child. So the whole 'if you don't like it don't do it' argument falls flat, because that doesn't really apply... if you think abortion is murder.
It feels like debates about abortion rights have devolved to the point where neither side even hears the other's message. Everyone's either trying to control women's bodies or trying to kill unborn children and no one actually talks about anything.
Take #3's comment for instance. This argument is made entirely from a single perspective - that abortion is all about the mother's rights to her own body. But from a pro-lifer's point of view, the only right they're restricting is the right to kill your child. So the whole 'if you don't like it don't do it' argument falls flat, because that doesn't really apply... if you think abortion is murder.
6
So how would you help to bridge this obvious, well-documented disconnect between the two sides Hover Dog?
8
I predict that 85% attendance will be male, the other 15% is self-loathing women misogynists.
The fact that not a single anti-choice group has ever put any money or research into artificial wombs or even standing outside clinics with checkbooks bribing the women to carry to term tells me they only care about control of women not actually "saving the babies".
The fact that not a single anti-choice group has ever put any money or research into artificial wombs or even standing outside clinics with checkbooks bribing the women to carry to term tells me they only care about control of women not actually "saving the babies".
9
@5 You can argue that all you want, but it's still not your body. I'm guessing your a man and won't have to go through the pregnancy and birthing process in order to produce said human. Now, I think that it's fair to say that maybe about 6 months, you shouldn't be able to have an abortion. Still, there is no scientific evidence that a fetus feels anything in the womb or even has conciousness. Are saying that a thinking, feeling, established living adult has less rights than the cells in her womb? because that's what the anti-choice people are saying. They are saying that even if the woman dies, this unborn creature has more rights than her. They also don't actually give a damn about what happens after the baby is born, as evidenced by their love of cutting programs/healthcare to single mothers. This change a woman's entire life. Do not get that?
Abortion is not murder in my opinion, because a baby can feel like parasite inside of you if you don't want it. My own mother was continually raped by her father who drove her to get three abortions because they were his. One at 11, one at 13, and one at 17. Then later life she got pregnant but she had MS and the birth would have killed her. What about abusers who control with pregnancy? There are just too many reasons to have it legal besides the fact that it's our fucking bodies. Ours. Period.
Abortion is not murder in my opinion, because a baby can feel like parasite inside of you if you don't want it. My own mother was continually raped by her father who drove her to get three abortions because they were his. One at 11, one at 13, and one at 17. Then later life she got pregnant but she had MS and the birth would have killed her. What about abusers who control with pregnancy? There are just too many reasons to have it legal besides the fact that it's our fucking bodies. Ours. Period.
10
Imagine you are living in Berlin, Germany in 1930. Take the title of this 'talk' and substitute the word 'Jews' or 'Blacks' or 'Homosexuals' or 'Roma' for 'Women.' This is an exercise that clarifies the intent of this event. Clearly, this event is a tool of fascist oppression of women.
11
How does it fall flat? Parents have huge amounts of control over their own children. It may not be legal per se for parents to kill their children, but parents who do abuse, neglect, and/or murder their children are not punished to the same degree they would be had they harmed complete strangers. There's an often unacknowledged belief in our society that parents have the right to treat children however they see fit, and, if that results in a child's death, that's just because the parent took things a little too far, making the charge a lesser form of manslaughter, not murder in the second degree, kind of like if you beat your slave just a little too much and the slave dies.
That girl in Carnation who was locked up and starved and dehydrated nearly to death by her stepmother? The stepmother was charged with first-degree criminal mistreatment and sentenced to 41 months in prison. Could you imagine her getting off so easily if she had kidnapped, imprisoned, and nearly killed a complete stranger? No, you can't, because she wouldn't have. Kidnapping and imprisonment alone would have landed her in prison for a couple dozen years.
So, no, we can't agree that "if you don't like it, don't do it" argument falls flat, because, in this country, children have no rights.
So the whole 'if you don't like it don't do it' argument falls flat, because that doesn't really apply... if you think abortion is murder.
How does it fall flat? Parents have huge amounts of control over their own children. It may not be legal per se for parents to kill their children, but parents who do abuse, neglect, and/or murder their children are not punished to the same degree they would be had they harmed complete strangers. There's an often unacknowledged belief in our society that parents have the right to treat children however they see fit, and, if that results in a child's death, that's just because the parent took things a little too far, making the charge a lesser form of manslaughter, not murder in the second degree, kind of like if you beat your slave just a little too much and the slave dies.
That girl in Carnation who was locked up and starved and dehydrated nearly to death by her stepmother? The stepmother was charged with first-degree criminal mistreatment and sentenced to 41 months in prison. Could you imagine her getting off so easily if she had kidnapped, imprisoned, and nearly killed a complete stranger? No, you can't, because she wouldn't have. Kidnapping and imprisonment alone would have landed her in prison for a couple dozen years.
So, no, we can't agree that "if you don't like it, don't do it" argument falls flat, because, in this country, children have no rights.
12
@6: Simply understanding valid points made by the opposing side makes discussion possible. Most of the arguments made by either side evade one of the core questions of abotion: how does a fetus compare to a fully born child? What comparative rights do they have, when, and why?
@9: You are correct, I am male, and I have never and will never experience pregnancy. That's relevant to the discussion, because the experience of pregnancy is an important element of abortion discussion, but I don't think that invalidates my point.
You say 6 months should be the cutoff, but why? What is the criteria? You also call the fetus 'cells in [the mother's] womb', but again, that's skipping a step and making an assumption. The personhood of an unborn child is critical to the discussion.
Yes, fetuses are essentially parasitic. However, if we were to assume that a fetus had all the rights of a fully born person, then killing it for involuntary parasitism seems extreme. And, if we're still making that assumption, then if becomes about more than the woman's body. It becomes about the woman's body AND the child's life.
You make a lot of arguments about the life of the mother being endangered, but I think you're making the question easier on yourself. Those edge cases are simpler. Of course an abortion is the correct procedure if the mother's life is in serious danger. But the harder question is: if the mother's life isn't in significant danger, and the fetus is a person (big assumption, but again this matters), then what's allowed?
@11: Children do have some rights, including the right to life. Saying otherwise is, I think, overly cynical. It would be considered infanticide and murder to kill a newly born child. When I ask what the difference is between that child and an unborn fetus, the question isn't rhetorical.
More...
@9: You are correct, I am male, and I have never and will never experience pregnancy. That's relevant to the discussion, because the experience of pregnancy is an important element of abortion discussion, but I don't think that invalidates my point.
You say 6 months should be the cutoff, but why? What is the criteria? You also call the fetus 'cells in [the mother's] womb', but again, that's skipping a step and making an assumption. The personhood of an unborn child is critical to the discussion.
Yes, fetuses are essentially parasitic. However, if we were to assume that a fetus had all the rights of a fully born person, then killing it for involuntary parasitism seems extreme. And, if we're still making that assumption, then if becomes about more than the woman's body. It becomes about the woman's body AND the child's life.
You make a lot of arguments about the life of the mother being endangered, but I think you're making the question easier on yourself. Those edge cases are simpler. Of course an abortion is the correct procedure if the mother's life is in serious danger. But the harder question is: if the mother's life isn't in significant danger, and the fetus is a person (big assumption, but again this matters), then what's allowed?
@11: Children do have some rights, including the right to life. Saying otherwise is, I think, overly cynical. It would be considered infanticide and murder to kill a newly born child. When I ask what the difference is between that child and an unborn fetus, the question isn't rhetorical.
13
I think, Hover Dog, that the debate has gone this way for the simple reason that there is no way of debating the issue...but since each side think they are right* and that the issue is important, everyone still has to say _something_.
(A friend claims that a bishop of his [non-Roman] church claimed that the sect have literally no opinion on the issue.)
In the absence of an objective and accurate Soul Detector or Humanity Meter, I don't see a way for this to be resolved.
*If you care to know...my side is actually right.
(A friend claims that a bishop of his [non-Roman] church claimed that the sect have literally no opinion on the issue.)
In the absence of an objective and accurate Soul Detector or Humanity Meter, I don't see a way for this to be resolved.
*If you care to know...my side is actually right.
14
@5
"But have we officially declared that any debate about the subject of abortion is pointless and insidious?"
Nope. But they do tend towards the "pointless and insidious". Probably because there isn't any DEBATE. Just people repeating their opinions without being able to answer any of the oppositions points.
"There's a valid concern here: if and when you do consider a fetus a human being with rights, does the woman's right to govern her own body override the fetus's right to exist?"
How is that "a valid concern"?
Simply stated, you're claiming that a woman loses the rights to her own body once she becomes pregnant.
How about if she becomes pregnant from rape?
I'll take support the rights of the woman to her own body over the options.
"Everyone's either trying to control women's bodies or trying to kill unborn children and no one actually talks about anything."
Actually, they do. It's just that they disagree with you. You can tell that by your comment about "trying to kill unborn children".
"This argument is made entirely from a single perspective - that abortion is all about the mother's rights to her own body."
Already addressed.
"But from a pro-lifer's point of view, the only right they're restricting is the right to kill your child."
Even if that child was conceived via rape?
Otherwise you're rather specific on what "rights" a "child" has.
"So the whole 'if you don't like it don't do it' argument falls flat, because that doesn't really apply... if you think abortion is murder."
Nope. Again, people have addressed this but you won't hear it if you don't listen.
The point is that the people who claim "abortion is murder" are happy to restrict the rights of the living women who have been alive long enough to hit puberty and now have fewer rights than other members of society.
Fuck that. I'll support the rights of the women who are alive and making their own decisions right now over the rights of "unborn children". Anything else is simply slavery.
More...
"But have we officially declared that any debate about the subject of abortion is pointless and insidious?"
Nope. But they do tend towards the "pointless and insidious". Probably because there isn't any DEBATE. Just people repeating their opinions without being able to answer any of the oppositions points.
"There's a valid concern here: if and when you do consider a fetus a human being with rights, does the woman's right to govern her own body override the fetus's right to exist?"
How is that "a valid concern"?
Simply stated, you're claiming that a woman loses the rights to her own body once she becomes pregnant.
How about if she becomes pregnant from rape?
I'll take support the rights of the woman to her own body over the options.
"Everyone's either trying to control women's bodies or trying to kill unborn children and no one actually talks about anything."
Actually, they do. It's just that they disagree with you. You can tell that by your comment about "trying to kill unborn children".
"This argument is made entirely from a single perspective - that abortion is all about the mother's rights to her own body."
Already addressed.
"But from a pro-lifer's point of view, the only right they're restricting is the right to kill your child."
Even if that child was conceived via rape?
Otherwise you're rather specific on what "rights" a "child" has.
"So the whole 'if you don't like it don't do it' argument falls flat, because that doesn't really apply... if you think abortion is murder."
Nope. Again, people have addressed this but you won't hear it if you don't listen.
The point is that the people who claim "abortion is murder" are happy to restrict the rights of the living women who have been alive long enough to hit puberty and now have fewer rights than other members of society.
Fuck that. I'll support the rights of the women who are alive and making their own decisions right now over the rights of "unborn children". Anything else is simply slavery.
15
Also, @11, the reason I say the argument 'falls flat' is because it doesn't apply to the pro-life perspective. Pro-lifers (as long as they're not being disingenuous) come from the perspective of protecting an unborn child's right to live, not from mere disapproval of the mother's choices. Therefore, 'if you don't like it don't get one' gets zero traction with the pro-life crowd, because it completely misunderstands their argument.
16
There's a reason fundies don't engage in honest discourse, especially in the issue of abortion: their opinions get completely dismantled (as seen above).
17
@15
"Pro-lifers (as long as they're not being disingenuous) come from the perspective of protecting an unborn child's right to live,"
Does that also apply to pregnancies that result from rape?
What if the woman had just entered puberty and was saving herself for marriage and was gang raped?
Does the "unborn child's right to live" change due to the circumstances of its conception?
"Pro-lifers (as long as they're not being disingenuous) come from the perspective of protecting an unborn child's right to live,"
Does that also apply to pregnancies that result from rape?
What if the woman had just entered puberty and was saving herself for marriage and was gang raped?
Does the "unborn child's right to live" change due to the circumstances of its conception?
18
While I do appreciate the rape pregnancies argument, which is significant to the woman who has been raped, it's not the majority experience of women seeking abortions. There doesn't need to be an unwanted sexual experience to make the argument for abortion valid (the woman is still pure in thought!). I think not wanting to be pregnant for any reason is a good one. It's also a private one, and something for you to justify to your god, if you feel there's a need. Abortion happens. It always has happened, it always will happen. More women than you think do not want this experience. We do not know what fetuses are capable of "thinking" or "feeling" (assuming they are able to do either). But we do have the real life thoughts and feelings of the human in front of you to guide the decision. Maybe we could take that into account first.
19
@14: For the record, my personal opinion is that abortion should be a legal right, pretty much without restriction, during the first trimester of a pregnancy. After that first trimester, when brain development begins in the fetus, I become a little less sure of the answer. I in no way identify myself as "Pro-life", but your assumption isn't surprising. It's not common for someone that supports abortion to talk about pro-life arguments.
@16: I am neither a fundie, nor do I believe that I have made an argument that's been 'completely dismantled'. In fact, I haven't made much of an argument at all, other than saying that we should have more reasonable discussions about the issue. #13 seems to be the only one who has made a genuine attempt to answer my question about a fetus's rights, and even then the answer was basically "I don't know."
@14 and 17, re: situations of rape - I'm not sure. Bearing a child conceived during rape would be (and, I'm sure, is for many women today) a terrible ordeal. Yet, if a fetus has the same rights as an adult, would it necessarily have less of a right to exist if it were conceived during rape? I guess I would say that the fetus's rights (whether they exist or not) would remain unchanged by a situation of rape, but the mother's case for abortion and control over her body would become a much stronger argument. Still, I'm not in a position of certainty on the issue.
@16: I am neither a fundie, nor do I believe that I have made an argument that's been 'completely dismantled'. In fact, I haven't made much of an argument at all, other than saying that we should have more reasonable discussions about the issue. #13 seems to be the only one who has made a genuine attempt to answer my question about a fetus's rights, and even then the answer was basically "I don't know."
@14 and 17, re: situations of rape - I'm not sure. Bearing a child conceived during rape would be (and, I'm sure, is for many women today) a terrible ordeal. Yet, if a fetus has the same rights as an adult, would it necessarily have less of a right to exist if it were conceived during rape? I guess I would say that the fetus's rights (whether they exist or not) would remain unchanged by a situation of rape, but the mother's case for abortion and control over her body would become a much stronger argument. Still, I'm not in a position of certainty on the issue.
20
@18
"While I do appreciate the rape pregnancies argument, which is significant to the woman who has been raped, it's not the majority experience of women seeking abortions."
Yep. The point was that the "pro-life" segment wants to move the "rights" issue from the woman to the child (or fetus or whatever).
So if it is about the rights of the child, then every child should have the same rights, correct? Regardless of the circumstances of that child's conception.
And that is the point where most of the "pro-life" people start to make exceptions (except for people like Santorum). Which shows the flaw in their position. Why does Baby A have different rights than Baby B?
"While I do appreciate the rape pregnancies argument, which is significant to the woman who has been raped, it's not the majority experience of women seeking abortions."
Yep. The point was that the "pro-life" segment wants to move the "rights" issue from the woman to the child (or fetus or whatever).
So if it is about the rights of the child, then every child should have the same rights, correct? Regardless of the circumstances of that child's conception.
And that is the point where most of the "pro-life" people start to make exceptions (except for people like Santorum). Which shows the flaw in their position. Why does Baby A have different rights than Baby B?
22
@19
"I guess I would say that the fetus's rights (whether they exist or not) would remain unchanged by a situation of rape, ... "
So far so good.
"... but the mother's case for abortion and control over her body would become a much stronger argument."
Nope. If it changes at all based upon whether the woman wanted the sex or not then it is based upon the woman's actions and not the rights of the fetus.
"I guess I would say that the fetus's rights (whether they exist or not) would remain unchanged by a situation of rape, ... "
So far so good.
"... but the mother's case for abortion and control over her body would become a much stronger argument."
Nope. If it changes at all based upon whether the woman wanted the sex or not then it is based upon the woman's actions and not the rights of the fetus.
23
Uh, if this is in line with Oxford style debate, the resolution is intended to be deliberately provocative. You can find a host of these types of resolutions debated with fervor and intensity on both sides at Intelligence Squared and other venues. Some of the resolutions you'll find will be cheeky assumption-laden prompts like "Is California the first failed state?" or "Are men finished?"
This prompt will directly address the assumption embedded in EVERY anti-women measure we're so burdened with in the news these days -- namely that women already have too much and it's not only time to stop giving women rights, but that it's time to actually turn the dial back, that WOMEN HAVE TOO MANY RIGHTS. This is exactly the basis for these GOP and right wing legislative efforts around the country, but it's never spoken out loud...until someone gets ornery about it.
So let's fight the real battles please? Not made up battles?
This prompt will directly address the assumption embedded in EVERY anti-women measure we're so burdened with in the news these days -- namely that women already have too much and it's not only time to stop giving women rights, but that it's time to actually turn the dial back, that WOMEN HAVE TOO MANY RIGHTS. This is exactly the basis for these GOP and right wing legislative efforts around the country, but it's never spoken out loud...until someone gets ornery about it.
So let's fight the real battles please? Not made up battles?
24
Like @18 said, abortions will always be performed, whether we approve of them or not. They happened before Roe vs. Wade and they will continue to happen as long as women are desperate not to carry the pregnancy through, for whatever reason. (And these are not light, arbitrary decisions. I don't think anybody enjoys going out and getting an abortion.). So either the procedure will be legal, accessible, and safe, performed by highly trained professionals who know how to care for the patient, or it will be performed under suspect quality control, highly expensive, possibly very medically risky, and done under the pressure of the shadow of illegality. Or maybe the desperate mother will "abort" the fetus into a garbage can after he/she is born, or we can go back to the days of squalid group homes where mothers deposit their newborns in designated spots outside the building. I'm waiting for the first story out of Kansas where a woman nearly dies in an ER after a botched improvised abortion because a professional procedure wasn't available.
And all this pretense of caring for the fetus's - sorry, baby's life? Sure, as long as it's in the womb. But as far as helping that newborn thrive into a healthy member of society or avoid being conceived in the first place? Forget it. That's why I call shenanigans on pro-lifers, because they're full of crap.
And all this pretense of caring for the fetus's - sorry, baby's life? Sure, as long as it's in the womb. But as far as helping that newborn thrive into a healthy member of society or avoid being conceived in the first place? Forget it. That's why I call shenanigans on pro-lifers, because they're full of crap.
25
How the fuck did we ever let the religious right get away with perverting the language of the debate with phrases like "right to life" and "life begins at conception."
Hell, life began with bacteria and amoebas.
When to celebrate bringing a new human life into the world is a cultural construct. While we in the pre-neofucktard western world generally went with that first cry after the airways of the newborn were clear, other cultures were a little more reticent to make an emotional commitment right away. Why? Because of both superstition and the fact that some newborns aren't strong enough, or lucky enough, to survive. So, in some cultures, it's 30 days after the birth. In others, the first Lunar New Year. In another, a full year. If the kid survives the first year, he's likely to stick around, you see?
If you compromise between science and religious fanaticism, you get religious fanaticism.
Hell, life began with bacteria and amoebas.
When to celebrate bringing a new human life into the world is a cultural construct. While we in the pre-neofucktard western world generally went with that first cry after the airways of the newborn were clear, other cultures were a little more reticent to make an emotional commitment right away. Why? Because of both superstition and the fact that some newborns aren't strong enough, or lucky enough, to survive. So, in some cultures, it's 30 days after the birth. In others, the first Lunar New Year. In another, a full year. If the kid survives the first year, he's likely to stick around, you see?
If you compromise between science and religious fanaticism, you get religious fanaticism.
26
The complete lack of nuance on the pro-choice side sounds just like the complete lack of nuance of the pro-gun crowd. Any mitigation of rights, however slight, no matter how reasonably argued, is the first step on the slippery slope and must be shouted down at maximum volume and with extreme prejudice.
I vote pro-choice right down the line and am appalled at the anti-women tenor of this election cycle, but I do expect people on both sides to favor intellectual honesty over ideological purity.
I vote pro-choice right down the line and am appalled at the anti-women tenor of this election cycle, but I do expect people on both sides to favor intellectual honesty over ideological purity.
27
HooverDog, you start w/ a flawed premise, "debates about abortion rights have devolved to the point where neither side even hears the other's message." Your speculation from there reaches into absurdity.
Those who are Pro-Choice do not believe there is any moral or ethical debate required. The life of the mother takes precedence over the life of the fetus is every & all cases. End of story.
The problem issues from the basic moral stance of each side. The Pro-Choice stance starts w/ the assumption that each person has the right to make choices about their personal lives. The Anti-Abortion crowd (who have never been "Pro-Life,") begin w/ the assumption that personal choices must answer to an outside authority. They are diametrically opposed stances, and will never be reconciled. The place where they will be decided is in the legal code. The Western legal system, and specifically the American, are based on the assumptions of personal liberty, ie. the Pro-Choice stance. The Anti-Abortion folks have subverted that code, using the power behind their stance, the power of the collective. The history of abortion is the story of forcing legally the basic tenets of the American justice system onto an organized group that is opposed to it.
The Anti-Abortion crowd will never 'understand' the Pro-Choice, because they'd have to admit that their stance is thoroughly un-American. The Pro-Choice crowd understands all too well where the opposition is coming from.
Those who are Pro-Choice do not believe there is any moral or ethical debate required. The life of the mother takes precedence over the life of the fetus is every & all cases. End of story.
The problem issues from the basic moral stance of each side. The Pro-Choice stance starts w/ the assumption that each person has the right to make choices about their personal lives. The Anti-Abortion crowd (who have never been "Pro-Life,") begin w/ the assumption that personal choices must answer to an outside authority. They are diametrically opposed stances, and will never be reconciled. The place where they will be decided is in the legal code. The Western legal system, and specifically the American, are based on the assumptions of personal liberty, ie. the Pro-Choice stance. The Anti-Abortion folks have subverted that code, using the power behind their stance, the power of the collective. The history of abortion is the story of forcing legally the basic tenets of the American justice system onto an organized group that is opposed to it.
The Anti-Abortion crowd will never 'understand' the Pro-Choice, because they'd have to admit that their stance is thoroughly un-American. The Pro-Choice crowd understands all too well where the opposition is coming from.
28
@8: The most telling thing is that the anti-choice movement, virtually without exception, opposes easy availability of contraception and comprehensive sex ed. If they really wanted to stop abortions from happening, they'd try reducing the demand for them. A few groups opposing abortion on moral grounds have wised up and thrown their weight behind sex ed programs rather than aggressive legislation against abortion.
29
10
ooooh.
that's scary.
and Hitler even murdered,
like,
6 million people in the camps from 1939-45.
a million a year.
horrifying.....
what kind of monstrous society would MURDER a MILLION innocent souls every year.....
ooooh.
that's scary.
and Hitler even murdered,
like,
6 million people in the camps from 1939-45.
a million a year.
horrifying.....
what kind of monstrous society would MURDER a MILLION innocent souls every year.....
31
I'm pro-choice, but I feel like I understand the perspective of some pro-life people and find it difficult to discount some of their arguments. I agree with Hover Dog that the "if you don't like it, don't do it (and don't pay attention to those who do)" argument doesn't make sense in the context of an abortion debate the way it does in a discussion of, say, gay marriage, which doesn't have to affect anyone other than the two people agreeing to get married. From a pro-life perspective, the unborn child is being adversely affected by having its supposed right-to-life ignored, so suggesting that anyone who "doesn't like" our failure to recognize the baby's rights should just stop paying attention to what's happening really doesn't address the problem.
Unlike Cienna Madrid, I wouldn't say I'm "loudly and proudly" pro-choice, since I realize that my pro-choice stance is arrived at from a place of emotion, not logic -- just like many pro-life stances. I strongly feel that a woman should have a right to choose whether or not she carries a pregnancy to term. Pro-life people strongly feel that the baby has a right to exist, to have a chance at life. None of us actually knows when life begins and what's most moral, we're all just going by our gut feelings.
Unlike Cienna Madrid, I wouldn't say I'm "loudly and proudly" pro-choice, since I realize that my pro-choice stance is arrived at from a place of emotion, not logic -- just like many pro-life stances. I strongly feel that a woman should have a right to choose whether or not she carries a pregnancy to term. Pro-life people strongly feel that the baby has a right to exist, to have a chance at life. None of us actually knows when life begins and what's most moral, we're all just going by our gut feelings.
33
Last I checked, a women's right to an abortion centered around the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution and the implied right to privacy therein.
I don't mind the fact that the author of this short used their words to denigrate this obvious idiot, but using abortion, and using the argument for/against it improperly kinda bugs me. Privacy rights are being tossed out with the rest of The Bill of Rights (except for the 2nd Amendment - THANK YOU NRA!! <-that was written with complete sincerity, by the way), and abortion rights are the next one that's gonna get tossed.
I don't know if women have too many rights, or if anyone does, but they're about to have one fewer, so everyone better get their wire coat hangers out to prepare for this eventually.
I don't mind the fact that the author of this short used their words to denigrate this obvious idiot, but using abortion, and using the argument for/against it improperly kinda bugs me. Privacy rights are being tossed out with the rest of The Bill of Rights (except for the 2nd Amendment - THANK YOU NRA!! <-that was written with complete sincerity, by the way), and abortion rights are the next one that's gonna get tossed.
I don't know if women have too many rights, or if anyone does, but they're about to have one fewer, so everyone better get their wire coat hangers out to prepare for this eventually.
34
Oh, God. I just read through the comments. Of course this turned into an abortion debate...
Abortion is the destruction of life, plain and simple - any scientist worth their weight in salt will tell you this. Is it murder? Of course not. It's a clump of cells dividing that, in no way rises to the level of human being, being flushed out of the uterus.
But, because of that, it's a lose/lose argument when framed as a moral debate. Focus on the real issue (the government controlling EVERYONE'S bodies...ya know, just like with so-called Obamacare), or it doesn't matter what the other side is saying, both sides lose the argument, and I lose my right to privacy.
This is the kind of shit they use to obfuscate the real issues and problems on which you probably agree, for the most part, with the other side. Engaging them as they do that is dumber than their argument is.
Abortion is the destruction of life, plain and simple - any scientist worth their weight in salt will tell you this. Is it murder? Of course not. It's a clump of cells dividing that, in no way rises to the level of human being, being flushed out of the uterus.
But, because of that, it's a lose/lose argument when framed as a moral debate. Focus on the real issue (the government controlling EVERYONE'S bodies...ya know, just like with so-called Obamacare), or it doesn't matter what the other side is saying, both sides lose the argument, and I lose my right to privacy.
This is the kind of shit they use to obfuscate the real issues and problems on which you probably agree, for the most part, with the other side. Engaging them as they do that is dumber than their argument is.
35
@27 -- Except that a person doesn't have to be religious to feel conflicted about abortion. Look at Christopher Hitchens' stance on abortion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8HhTKzmv…
Or even Bill Maher's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeGBmCOF9…
@34 -- You're oversimplifying. To parents who want the unborn child, it's much more than a clump of cells dividing that in no way rises to the level of a human being. Even to those who don't want it, it does evolve past being a clump of dividing cells at some point, doesn't it? And if that clump of dividing cells isn't human, what is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8HhTKzmv…
Or even Bill Maher's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeGBmCOF9…
@34 -- You're oversimplifying. To parents who want the unborn child, it's much more than a clump of cells dividing that in no way rises to the level of a human being. Even to those who don't want it, it does evolve past being a clump of dividing cells at some point, doesn't it? And if that clump of dividing cells isn't human, what is it?
36
@35 - it's a comment section. There's not a lot of room for the entire nuanced position. My point was that it's a lose/lose argument that always heats up around election season because that's what everyone running for office likes - you and the other guy hating each other, wasting time on an argument that gets both of you nowhere while achieving the maximum hatred for each other, thus gauranteeing that you remain divided and they needn't actually address any of the issues that are actually achievable.
Plus, it's a privacy issue, not a moral one. Framing it as a moral issue is ridiculous, and trying to legislate it as one is even more ridiculous.
(Also, many pregnancies end in miscarriage. The fetus is only what it is at any moment in time, so while your argument isn't oversimplified, it is completely specious.)
Plus, it's a privacy issue, not a moral one. Framing it as a moral issue is ridiculous, and trying to legislate it as one is even more ridiculous.
(Also, many pregnancies end in miscarriage. The fetus is only what it is at any moment in time, so while your argument isn't oversimplified, it is completely specious.)
37
If you read my comment, you'd see I'm a pro-choice person who's able to see some value in certain pro-life positions, so the fact that an abortion debate exists hasn't made me hate the other side. And I think most people would disagree that abortion is a non-issue with no moral dimension, which is why this discussion will never go away, dumb as that may seem to someone who's mind is so made up about it.
38
The "pro-life" people should be called "anti-choice" since that's what they are. Furthermore, are they against the death penalty, wars, etc.? Probably not.
And what do "pro-life" people do once the fetus is born? Do they push for programs that help poor mothers/families?
I am pro-choice because I respect a woman's choice to choose whether or not she wants to carry a pregnancy to term. And I am pro-life because I believe that society should help poor families raise the children brought into the world.
And what do "pro-life" people do once the fetus is born? Do they push for programs that help poor mothers/families?
I am pro-choice because I respect a woman's choice to choose whether or not she wants to carry a pregnancy to term. And I am pro-life because I believe that society should help poor families raise the children brought into the world.
39
I really hate having abstract arguments about abortion "rights", we really need to shift the debate as to how the government reacts to it IF AT ALL. Abortion is a medical procedure, it's a moral choice, it's absolutely not the government's business or right to step in 2 days after a potential pregnancy and tell that woman and her doctor what to do with it, I don't care how extreme of an anti-abortionist you may be, if you're judging life based on the day after unprotected sex you're not actually talking about the issue you're talking about the actions you would personally take. You can have the most extreme personal views on abortion all you want, but when you go around telling everyone else they have no right to it because of your personal moral choice you're abusing the power of the government for your personal attacks. I do not see that life inside the womb as exactly equal to every single other child on the planet, I'd call it human starting at the 3rd trimester. WE DO NOT LIVE IN A WORLD THAT VALUES ANY LIFE, PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO VALUE A LIFE THAT ISN'T EVEN LIFE YET. This whole idea that "actions have consequences" so "you have to carry the baby to term because you made the stupid decision to have unprotected sex" as if that's the only way you could ever get pregnant was to be careless... so like why the fuck do we act like human biology is that complicated? You know how easy it is for girls in puberty to get pregnant. HELLO THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF HUMANITY.
In conclusion ABORTION IS NOT A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL, however it's none of the government's business how other people want to use or abuse the service. In my life events I can say with 100% certainty if a woman was ever stupid enough or unlucky enough to choose abortion SHE WILL NEVER WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER ABORTION AGAIN. Abortion is the best 'be careful' ad, you don't need to shame them with telling them they're no different than a murderer. Please stop acting like women want abortions, it's pretty damn insulting to assume women want this service because they want to use it. Women who get abortions get it mainly because they need it. Because they already have too many kids. Stop using the government as some kind of moral tool. Please start encouraging condom use and anal sex.
More...
In conclusion ABORTION IS NOT A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL, however it's none of the government's business how other people want to use or abuse the service. In my life events I can say with 100% certainty if a woman was ever stupid enough or unlucky enough to choose abortion SHE WILL NEVER WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER ABORTION AGAIN. Abortion is the best 'be careful' ad, you don't need to shame them with telling them they're no different than a murderer. Please stop acting like women want abortions, it's pretty damn insulting to assume women want this service because they want to use it. Women who get abortions get it mainly because they need it. Because they already have too many kids. Stop using the government as some kind of moral tool. Please start encouraging condom use and anal sex.
40
@38 The pro-life crowd doesn't push for programs that help poor mothers/families because they don't actually give a shit about protecting babies, born or unborn. That's just something they say to make their hateful beliefs more palatable to mainstream voters. What they really want to do is to punish women for having pre-marital sex by saddling them with an unplanned pregnancy and then condemning them to a life of poverty. Limiting access to birth control, banning abortion, and not helping single mothers all advance that agenda.
41
@ Hover Dog I too am pro choice but I share your opinion that folks on both sides of the issue would be well served if they viewed those on the other side as having a point. Some issues really have only one reasonable side: there is no legit way to oppose gay marriage, for example. But abortion is not one of those slam dunks. Folks who consider it as such are, in my view, making a mistake. The world is a complicated place and some issues have serious trade-offs, even if in the end one decides to support one side. Not recognizing these trade-offs as such suggests shallow thinking or an unacceptable amount of bias.
42
All interesting points, mostly recycled. I can't say for sure "when life begins," that's a philosophical argument (or a religious one) and so I don't even believe such a question should enter the political sphere when taking a stance on the legality of it. Frankly, I don't give a shit when life begins and I literally have no opinion on that matter.
I am a pragmatist. I like things that work. And I believe our laws should also be based on that which works in real life, not in our precious little sensitive hearts who can't even handle an ASPCA advertisement without crying. When abortion is illegal, that doesn't work. Women still find ways and it's awful for them and their spouses don't always support them and can you imagine having to go to jail after going through a severely physically draining procedure that sometimes lasts *for days?!* Some women died that way! Doctors went to jail over that shit. Criminalizing abortion is a disaster and it creates so many more health problems than it solves.
I am pro-choice, but I oppose abortion; I think it's a damn shame not every girl is made aware of her contraceptive choices and/or doesn't readily have access to it and has to go through the pain and emotional turmoil of having the procedure. And yes, that cluster of cells had massive potential and if you think about it that way, it's too bad. But having it be illegal is for sure a fail; it just doesn't fucking work.
I don't even care if one's position is religious or not, I think philosophy in general should be kept out of politics. Keep abortion legal because otherwise it's much worse; it's that simple.
I am a pragmatist. I like things that work. And I believe our laws should also be based on that which works in real life, not in our precious little sensitive hearts who can't even handle an ASPCA advertisement without crying. When abortion is illegal, that doesn't work. Women still find ways and it's awful for them and their spouses don't always support them and can you imagine having to go to jail after going through a severely physically draining procedure that sometimes lasts *for days?!* Some women died that way! Doctors went to jail over that shit. Criminalizing abortion is a disaster and it creates so many more health problems than it solves.
I am pro-choice, but I oppose abortion; I think it's a damn shame not every girl is made aware of her contraceptive choices and/or doesn't readily have access to it and has to go through the pain and emotional turmoil of having the procedure. And yes, that cluster of cells had massive potential and if you think about it that way, it's too bad. But having it be illegal is for sure a fail; it just doesn't fucking work.
I don't even care if one's position is religious or not, I think philosophy in general should be kept out of politics. Keep abortion legal because otherwise it's much worse; it's that simple.
43
I believe that people are misunderstanding the nature of the question; it is meant to shed light on the difference between actual human rights and those which are currently recognized by our government. For example, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are commonly agreed-upon human rights. However, the currently recognized 'right' to abortion treads upon the right to life of the pre-born.
46
The comments on this page are repulsive. The church and the 'pro-life' crowd spends millions of dollars helping the poor, single mothers and babies through adoption. It makes me sick to see the biased uneducated comments on this page.
48
Hover Dog may be right that pro-choicers come off as having a singular perspective, but I find it hard to be accommodating when people refuse to recognize my basic bodily autonomy and advocate forced birth. I shouldn't have to argue for basic human rights. It is emotionally exhausting.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Not A Prude... And Not Just Not That... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (48) RSS