Now, I don’t want to go into a diatribe, but I do want to add to what I was talking about in my post about abortion yesterday. Basically, this desire to continue what I was saying, came from the news coverage of the anti-abortion rallies going on all around the country, right now; but more specifically, it was a comment that I read on Joseph’s blog last night. A blogger commented that he was adopted, and was therefore against abortion, because if abortion were legal, then he may not have been born. Now, I don’t want to single this person out, and I don’t want to say that they are not entitled to there opinion; an old roommate of mine was in the same situation, and held the same point of view. But, I do believe that line of thinking is both misinformed and dangerously ignorant. See, saying that you are for abortion laws, does not mean that you want everyone to get an abortion. Just because people have the right to have an abortion, doesn’t mean they necessarily will; but if they do, it is a decision that they should make, not the government. Many women have the option of abortion right now, and still choose to carry a pregnancy to term, and use adoptive services. The adoption services of this country are overflowing with children right this very moment because of these countless examples of choosing to carry the pregnancy to term; so I believe it is unfair to place the imposition of “abortion right = abortion practice”, on the right to choose. In my opinion, that is taking it a little too far.
When someone says that they are pro-choice, it means that they are for the woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body. They agree with the rights of privacy and freedoms granted to all citizens, and believe they should be extended to women and their bodies. They believe that women should be given the option of making the decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy; not the government.
I am not a woman, so I cannot tell you what I would do if I were faced with pregnancy. But I can tell you what it is like to be without certain civil rights. And based on that, I believe with all of my being, that the right to choose is fundamental and essential.
What many people do not consider, and that which may be the greatest mistake of all, is that every situation, and every pregnancy is different. Many are wanted. Many are joyous and wonderful. Many are healthy and thriving. But many are not. Many are the product of rape. Many are the product of physical and mental abuse. Many are the product of sexual abuse. Many are the product of child abuse. Many are unhealthy and unsafe for both the mother and the baby. So the question becomes, “Should these cases be forced to carry a pregnancy to term?” Should a woman who is brutally raped be forced to bear an unwanted pregnancy, just because the government has more control over her body than she does? Should a little girl be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, that was forced on her by her sexually abusive father? I don’t think that any of these are right, and that is one of the main reasons, why I am pro-choice. But extreme circumstance or no, I believe a woman deserves the right to make the decision herself.
Being pro-choice means that you believe in the woman’s right to choose which option is best for her. She can choose what she believes is best for her, her body, and her pregnancy. For many women, ending that pregnancy is the best option for them; and I believe that in a country that touts freedom and liberty, denying women these rights is pure and utter hypocrisy. Believing abortion is right or not is NOT the issue. Believing in a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body and her own life, is. Don’t choose to be pro-life, just because you don’t believe in abortion; know that you are going against the freedoms and liberties we, as Americans, are promised. And know that if these rights are taken away, many of which many have been restricted or taken already, that it is only the beginning of the improper use of governmental control over the citizens of this country.
[pic above is from indybay.org]
oy, the traffic today. and the roaming packs of pre-teen pro-lifers. i find nothing more distasteful than exploiting impressionable adolescents for political gain. that, and jesus-freaks all up in my uterus. blech. can’t wait for today to be over.
I try to explain this to people all the time. Being pro-choice does not mean you are pro-abortion. But for people who are fanatically pro-life they can not or will not make the distinction.
I agree. I think that it is a common thread in North America that people believe that once something is on the table, it is mandatory. The other thing is, some say that women should carry to term because adoption is so easy?!?!? Or some lackluster asshole of a sex partner is somehow going to become a good person because suddenly he’s a father?!?!? I also really dislike how women are painted as “non-women” if they don’t want to become mothers. As if knowing that you don’t want a child or cannot economically/emotionally/physically have a child makes you not a mother and therefore a bad person. Why isn’t a bad father a bad person? (And they aren’t - we know… the jig is UP!) I say when penis-owners/holders actually take responsibility for the population of our nations, then perhaps we can begin negotiations about whether or not they are allowed to discuss policy around the uterus. But until then, stay out. As for anti-choice women, I’m not sure that a non-democratic (i.e. non-choice) method is very American. That’s right - I’m nailing you on your damn patriotism. You want to pick between green or red ketchup? You want to flip channels between Oprah and Tyra? Some of you say that’s America - not being forced into anything. That’s why those Puritans came over in the first place. That’s called choice. You lose one, and the next thing you know it’s a slippery slope for the rest.
I saw some of those pre-teen anti-choice “activists” at Starbucks (how cliche American is that?) this morning, whering cutesy baby blue and pink shirts with little graphics of paper dolls, where some were cut out and it said, “Aborted.” The GDBF suggested I announce to them that I’ve had 4 abortions in the past 3 years and if I have one more I’ll get a free coffee maker. I’ve been meaning to blog about this as soon as I have time. It just irritated the hell out of me to see these sheltered rich white 13-year-old girls protesting abortion. A true WTF moment.
I chose to abstain from commenting on your post yesterday because I know that you and most of your readers would undoubtedly slam the shit out of anything I had to say, but today is different and I feel compelled to comment. I absolutely and whole-heartedly agree that no gov’t should make ANY law that prevents me, you, or anyone else from doing anything we want to our bodies. It’s not their business, it’s ours. Abortion, however, is that insanely sticky issue whereby what you do to your body will have an effect on another body. I think you trivialized the point your commenter and ex-roommate made about being pro-life because they were adopted. I know being pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion, but in a society where abortion were legal, I suspect there would be far fewer women that would take their pregnancy to term knowing they were going to give their child up for adoption. I don’t support the pro-choice position because I (PERSONALLY) consider abortion murder and I don’t support any law that allows the murder of an innocent human being… hell, I’m not even a fan of capital punishment which deals with the murder of guilty humans… I expect a full bashing now, you may commence.
One of my biggest problems with many members of the anti-choice movement is that these are the same people who are opposed to sexual education in schools. Having volunteered with “at risk” youth, if I had a nickel for every time that I heard a young woman (the youngest being 13) say, “I didn’t realize you could get pregnant the first time”, or “I was too embarrassed to buy condoms”, I would be a fairly rich woman. I once saw a bumper sticker that pretty much summed it up for me, “Against abortion? Don’t have one”.
Since you asked for a bashing… Just KIDDING!! Dave, the only thing I have a problem with is this:
I don’t think that I trivialized the issue, because they are here, and if they were born after 1973 (and I know for sure at least one was), then abortion was legal, and their mothers had the opportunity to get one. Just because women can have abortion, doesn’t mean that they will. In fact, as I mentioned, there are TONS of kids in the adoption services system of this country right now, and more enter the system every day, because women are still carrying pregnancies to term. So, that is just an imposition extremism and personal views onto this arguement. Abortion is not the issue here, it is choice. Choice is what you agreed with, and that choice should not be made by me or you, it should be made by the woman that needs to make it for herself.
Also, check out what Katie said; I have to say, I specifically did not include that in my post because I felt it would go WAY to long, but I think that it is of the utmost importance. Many of these people that are against abortion, are the same people that are against sex education. That doesn’t even make sense.
A-fucking-men.
I have no issue with sexual education in the classroom if it’s taught with a purpose. The sex-ed classes I had were led by one of the gym instructors and you could obviously tell this was not a subject he was really all that comfortable with. Teach it all … I fully back that.
Question for you… you’re against circumcision on babies because the baby has no say in the matter although it is their penis that is being snipped. You’re against abortion because it’s the woman’s body being affected… isn’t it also the baby’s body that is being affected? I haven’t heard you say one thing about what abortion means for the child… it means death. Should we not make every effort to protect that innocent child’s life? That’s the issue for me and why I cannot support abortion…. unless the kid scribbles down a suicide letter in the womb… but then suicide is illegal and that’s whole other issue…
Dave, the reason why I did not address the child’s rights in the womb, and also, if you notice, I specifically used the term “pregnancy”, was to clarify that it is not a “child” that you are “killing”. Legal and safe abortion has limits, you cannot have one after a certain period of time in the pregnancy, at which, the child has begun to develop. Abortion removes masts of cells that will eventually become the child, if given the opportunity to grow and develop. That is why I see it as an issue of a woman’s body vs. the “child”.
This leads to another point of, what if abortions weren’t legal? Then, you would see more women having abortions in unsafe ways, and in many instances, you would see women having abortions beyond the threshold I described. THEN, it would be “killing the child”; but it would only be that way if abortion was illegal, and they did not have the option and guidance of having it safely and legally. Kind of a conundrum, eh?
Please provide statistics/data/research to back up this “hunch” of yours.
Also, no need to use the subjunctive (”…in a society where abortion were legal…”) - have you forgotten that abortion is legal in the U.S.?
Duane, your last point hit spot on with what I was going to contribute. Outlawing abortion will not result in fewer abortions; it will only drive abortion back into the most unsafe of conditions because safe and sanitary conditions will be rendered “illegal.” For a group of people (anti-abortionists) who purport to care so much about “life,” they don’t seem to take into account the fact that women’s lives will likely be endangered in this way if abortion is made illegal.
Another point I wanted to make is one that another blogger I read has raised many times: if “life” is the true impetus for anti-abortionists, then what leap of logic justifies the fact that almost all proposed abortion laws contain exceptions for rape and incest? *IF* we accept that abortion ends a “life,” are these activists really saying that a “life” concieved as the result of rape or incest is less worthy of protection than one conceived as the result of a broken condom?
Duane, I guess it all comes down to when you consider a batch of cells a life. My personal opinion is that it’s a life once the little spermie squiggles its way into the egg. I know there is all types of scientific evidence that swings one way or the other on the subject, but I haven’t seen anything that made me feel any different. If you’ve got anything, I would be happy to review it.
Amber… ahh, Amber. I wa’s waitin’g for you to chime in. I kne’w you would
When you to’ok the time to qu’ote my s’tatement, you should have paid’ more attent’ion to the phr’ase, “I suspect…” I don’t have statistics on this as it is my suspicion, or as you said’ it, a “hunch”.
“were” vs. “is” Onl’y one can win, th’e battle is on!
Is the’re an end to the apos’trophe abuse???
Not more than 2 weeks ago did I get into a politcal debate with some friends of mine about this issue. On the pro-life side? 2 guys. Pro-choice? 2 girls - myself included, and my friend was adopted.
I wasn’t there (or here) to say that the idea of someone having an abortion is something that makes me smile and say “oh, joy!” I have taken appropriate measures (i.e. education, protection) in life to make sure that an abortion is not something I would have to consider, as it is not a decision I would want to make.
However, knowing that I have that freedom to choose - I can make up my own mind without someone with an agenda that does not have my best interests at heart - makes it a little easier to sleep at night.
It is my body and my choice.
ok, this might sound weird coming from a chick who is both adopted AND pro-choice, but i think what those of us who are militantly pro-choice tend to lose sight of when criticizing the pro-lifers (or anti-choicers, whathaveyou) is that IF you truly and deeply believe that life begins at the moment of conception, ergo abortion IS the taking of a life, then i think it’s pretty clear that the murder is the greater crime than infringing on a woman’s right to control her body. The rub of it is that we’ll never be able to see eye to eye. Even those of us who do not believe that a two month old fetus is deserving of full legal rights in part because it is not a viable life, would not deny the mother who has miscarried at that same two months the legitimacy of her grief. We’ll never really be able to answer the only truly pertinent question here of when life actually begins, but I think we should be able to agree that the answer is more emotional and complicated than we often want to admit.
here here FAB. I agree with you … You’re absolutely right. It’s all a matter of when is a life a life? If both sides could ever agree on that, I think we could settle the debate about abortions.
Fat Asian Baby, brilliantly put. This really is something that will always divide society, and it transcends political and religious beliefs. I even find myself disagreeing with myself about it, and I’m a gay man who will never father a child, let alone a woman who might conceive one.
i myself am deeply unresolved on the issue and where i stand personally. five years ago, i’m fairly certain i would’ve had an abortion without much hesitation. I’m sure i would have been depressed and all, but i don’t think I would seriously have even entertained the idea of the alternative, carrying a child to term. however, now that i’m a bit older and could theoretically give a child a real life, i would hesitate for a very long and pregnant (no pun intended, seriously) moment to think about what i would be doing if i decided to end the pregnancy. i would most likely have the abortion in the end, but within that moment of pause before making the decision you’d find the hesitation and uncertainty of one who acknowledges that she wouldn’t just be killing a clump of inviable cells. And to those in the Pro-Life camp I’d say, this isn’t a life i am killing. And to my friends in the Pro-choice camp I’d say, but this isn’t not a life either. So God help us, we don’t know. And I would thank God that I have the choice to make this decision, but I also thank God that in a context of an abortion rate of 83 per 1,000 women, some South Korean woman chose life for me.
Fat Asian Baby: while I do not necessarily want to argue your personal feelings on the subject of what constitutes a life vs. not a life; I do want to address something in what you said:
I, in fact, have not lost sight of that at all. I have illustrated that abortion and pro-choice are separate, but related issues. Being pro-choice means having the right to choose what you do with your body, and for many women, that choice would be to carry the pregnancy to term, many of which would do so without the hesitation or even thoughts of abortion that you yourself describe as a potential feeling you may possess. I think that the real issue here is preventing the government from making that choice for you; not determining what you believe to be the beginning of “a life”, and then going from there. Without the right to choose, you would lose the ability to make that determination for yourself, and thus lose any choice in the matter, personal feelings or not. While I do think that you are right about your personal feelings, and that this is what many people see as the issue; I don’t believe that this is what everyone things is so. I think that the issue is over civil rights, and this is why it was tried in front of the Supreme Court. Determining whether it is life or not, and then making the decision on how to proceed once you discover that you are pregnant, are the actions that come out of that legal decision that developed a law for you to legally make that choice.
And with regards to “murder” and “killing the life” that abortion is supposedly doing, while it may be up for discussion and difference of opinion, the right to choose, within certain parameters, should not. I wholeheartedly believe throughout every fiber of my being that this issue tends to become misconstrued as a battle over defining life and determining the importance of conception; while it should be focused more clearly on civil rights, liberties, and freedoms. A woman should be able to do with her body what she chooses, within reason, and I don’t think that it will ever be okay for the government to tell her what to do, or how she should, or as the case may be should not, proceed.
As said before, and as you illustrated perfectly; if you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. If you think that you are killing a life, then don’t do it. But, if you believe that all women deserve the right and the consideration to make the decision for themselves, because God knows many do not share the same opinions, then I believe it should be given to them. Once the government starts governing the womb, scary things will come about. Mark my words.
All banning abortion will do is force helpless teenagers to go to dirty backroom abortion clinics that put them in harm. Just because abortion is made illeagle does not mean it will end, so lets keep it leagle and insure that it is done in safe environment.
The government should have absolutely no right to tell a woman what can and can not be done with her body.
I hate the conservative, right wing, evangelical fanatics that demonize any one who may hold a different view than them.
Alright Matt S., as the only anti-abortion guy contributing to this discussion, I feel like your last line was somehow directed to me. To that I have to say, I agree with you. I hate anyone that cannot constructively listen to the viewpoint of another. I hope I didn’t give you the impression that I was that type of because I’m not. I do think abortion is wrong and I have no issue defending my opinion, but that doesn’t mean I’m demonizing anyone. You’ll even note that I asked Duane for more information so I could review it…
Maybe you weren’t calling me out, but if you weren’t, why bring it up in this discussion where it doesn’t apply?
Anyways, I have no sympathy for anyone that has any medical procedure performed in a dirty backroom clinic. That’s their own damn fault and they deserve whatever the outcome may be. The purpose of government isn’t to protect the stupid from making stupid decisons, but this a whole other conversation…
uhuh. my point is that if abortion is murder, then it damn right is the government’s job to step in and make sure you’re doing murder. the violation of a woman’s right to control her body will also be the lesser crime to murder. And for those who believe that it is, then it really isn’t something that is “up for discussion” or a “matter of opinion.” my point is that while for those of us who don’t believe that a fetus carries equal legal rights to us from the moment of conception, the abortion rights question is a complex one of rights and controlling your body. However, if you take as your starting point that abortion is murder equal to any other murder, then to engage in a discussion about reproductive rights and the freedom of choice in the face of such a crime becomes morally repugnant and ultimately irrelevent and compromise impossible. This is kind of weird to be defending a position I don’t actually hold. My point is that I think given the reality that this whole argument centers around but a central disagreement of fact that is fundamentally unanswerable, the two camps will probably never be able to agree.
and dpb, surely you don’t really believe that any woman would submit herself to a backroom abortion out of choice, do you?
“Anyways, I have no sympathy for anyone that has any medical procedure performed in a dirty backroom clinic. That’s their own damn fault and they deserve whatever the outcome may be. The purpose of government isn’t to protect the stupid from making stupid decisons, but this a whole other conversation…”
I have to respond to this (and I usually don’t respond…). This isn’t a whole other conversation. This IS the conversation. I’m so “glad” that it’s a woman’s fault that a MAN may have been too stupid to be responsible and use a condom or that a MAN deposited sperm inside her body or that a MAN insists that she carry the baby to term. We argue over what is a baby, and this really is a result of the medicalization of birthing, a move that occured in around the 1700’s, along with the introduction of the forceps (also the introduction of men into the birthing situation which was historically done only by women). Previously to this, mother and child were not perceived as two individuals. The introduction of men into the birthing situation is what created a system for us to even be having this discussion. It is really patriarchal and sexist to discount the mother in all this - we are once again only valuing women for their reproductive “value” and ability and denying them status as individuals with agency and validity.
As for being forced into situations, one must beg the question of WHO is being forced into a situation. Why is the woman forced into it? As per your statement of the government no protecting people from stupid decisions, I suppose that all those stupid middle class white suburban boys that injure themselves imitating Jackass should just live with their potentially life threatening injuries because it was their own stupidity. I suppose we should eliminate all forms of health care if we determine that we are the experts and have the authority to say what is right and what is not - in other words, for any of use who have ever breathed in cigarette smoke, taken an illegal drug, or eaten a Krispy Kreme donut, it’s really our own fault that our health is failing.
What I think prompted me to respond is that we are all talking as if abortions are easy decisions. I also think we have been extremely insensitive to readers who may have had abortions - why are we attempting to demonize these women? I know of several individuals who have had abortions, and none of them treated it like a trip to the zoo. Yes, they may downplay the feelings about it later, but it’s not an easy decision. Also, pregnancy is a status that affect individuals in such different ways - how do we know whether or not they have economic support? How do we know that they have family support? And I’m not talking about poor people. I’m talking about rich people like daughter-denying Dick Cheney. So (finally) in closing, I’m saying that we cannot have this discussion without including the women who are pregnant. If we do, we have just rendered them inhuman - and no one deserves that.
clearly i was distracted in the second line of that last diatribe. what i meant was “my point is that if abortion is murder, then it damn right is the government’s job to step in.”
Byron, I thought you were going to explain how having backroom medical procedures was the issue? I still see no argument that addresses that.
If a woman’s argument for having an abortion is that her man was “too stupid to be responsible and wear a condom” then I say the fault lands on her. Apparently she was too stupid to tell him to do so. Hell, I may even approve abortion in this case… obviously the kid will be the offspring of two nimrods and we sure as hell don’t need morons like that reproducing. Abortion is not a form of birth control. Also, how can you put blame on the man when the man has no say-so in the matter? Half of that kid’s DNA comes from the father, but when it comes to abortions, the father doesn’t even have to be made aware. That’s a crock of shit. I don’t know what I would do or how I would react if I found out that someone I knocked up got an abortion… I’m sure as hell not ready for fatherhood, but I don’t think I could live knowing my child was killed before it could even take its first breath.Medicalization (nice word) of birthing? 1700s? Are you telling me women are better off giving birth the way it was done in the 17th century? Hell, why go back that short? Why don’t we ask women to have kids like they did back in the cavemen days. Squeeze the kid out and use a rock to cut the umbilical cord. We were morons in the 17th century compared to where we are now. And we’re morons compared to the people that will be around in the next 300 years. To me, this argument just doesn’t hold water.
Yes I do. But for the record, are you comparing an abortion to mending a broken leg?
Uh, yeah? Duh. I’ve got no tolerance for fat people, smokers, or druggies. Well, not the person per say, but for the outcome of their decisions. Each one of those people recognized the consequences of their action when they picked up that first cigarette, snorted their first line, or ate that Krispy Kreme donut.Insensitive to women who’ve had abortions? Yeah… maybe… you’re absolutely right this isn’t an easy decision and if I have to worry about offending someone by what I say, I won’t be able to make a legitimate argument because I’ll be censored. Look, I feel bad for any chick that has been faced with the question of having an abortion regardless of their decision. It’s quite possibly one of the hardest decisions to make. FAB said it best. There are two crimes being committed. The first is the government telling a woman what she can or can’t do with her body. The second is the woman or doctor killing a child. How about this one for you? Abolish all laws that specifically address abortion and then prosecute any doctor that performs one for murder. After that’s over, let’s prosecute the mother for child abuse/neglect whatever…Listen, this is a very unique and difficult problem with which to be faced. On the one hand, I don’t support any law that prevents me from doing whatever I want to my body. At the same time I feel that government is here to protect us from endangerment beyond our control (murder, theft, etc…) Abortion is the one topic (I think) where these to things conflict. What makes it worse is that only women are forced to deal with it. I really wonder what the consensus would be if men were faced with the same problem…. Who knows for certain? Until someone can show me where I’m wrong, I feel like a child is a life at conception. Because of that I feel abortion is wrong. Does that mean I am demonizing or demoralizing women? Maybe… do I hate women that have had this done? Not any more than I hate anyone. Will I shun them and rebuke them and tell them how horrible of a person they are? No. Will I support any anti-abortion legislation? Yes.Will I keep an open mind to what others have to say? Yes.FAB,
What other reason would it be? If abortions were legal, she would have a choice of a.) carrying the child to term or b.) getting a backroom abortion
Two points:
1. I mentioned it earlier but it seems to have gotten missed: if abortion is murder, then why does every remotely viable abortion law contain exceptions for rape and incest? Murdering children conceived out of rape or incest is okay?
2. Re “no sympathy for people who make stupid choices”: Wow, is it that black and white? A girl gets pregnant and *wham!* you know she’s a stupid slut who had sex without protection? Has no condom ever broken? Has no pill ever failed?
WOW, I missed a doozy of a debate.
.Hmm sounds like a pretty conserative point of view and I agree. I just like pointing out that it’s funny how inconsistent they are. They want a Supreme Court decision on abortion by passing outright abortion bans in State legislatures in very conservative States, hoping they will make it to the Supreme Court where they will rule with their new justices, thus legislating from the bench; and that is something conservatives supposedly are against. They usually say they want the States to decide (which is conservative POV). But then most States won’t make abortion illegal and those States that don’t make it illegal will have women go to them from abortion ban States. Then they will want a Federal law on abortion to stop the State-jumping for abortions. Conservatives are so very circular in their reasoning and just like anyone else, fit their arguements to suit their agenda which is generally Christian.
Jay, admits just using this issue to take pot-shots at conservatives, Jay
Is it me, or is it getting hot in here?! LOL no seriously, I think that this discussion is proving a good point; it isn’t so cut and dry.
Dave, I do have to say that making abortion illegal, and forcing women to resort to dangerous “backroom abortions” is just wrong. People will do what it takes in many circumstances to do what is necessary to survive. If you can’t afford to have a child at risk of being homeless, many girls do what they have to in order to survive. I think that the reason Byron and FAB mention this, is that it is a huge argument for abortion; rather than force people to take matters into their own hands, and risk hurting themselves or killing themselves, why not have it be a legal, and safe process that they can get if they choose to do so?
Throw some more kindling on the fire… this thing is just getting going bitches! LOL!
Because they need to be to get bipartisan support. I disagree with that. I think all abortions are wrong.
Don’t put words in my mouth. The ’stupid decision’ I was referencing was the decision to get any backroom medical procedure.It’s been a pleasure.
Here’s your kindling…
I see these backroom medical procedures as a completely different topic. But since everyone insists… Should we protect people from doing anything damaging or harmful to themself? The government is not a baby-sitter. We have to be conscience of our own decisions and make them intelligently. It’s like having a kid that really wants a cookie off the table. He reaches for it, you tell him no and smack his hand. He reaches for it again, so you smack his hand again. He reaches… you finally give in because you don’t like hurting your kid so you let him have the cookie. Is that right? No. Teach the kid to live within the parameters of society. It’s pretty simple really. Don’t kill anyone.
There is always an option. Adoption.
I’m a firm believer that no woman really knows what they would do faced with that decision until they are in it…not that I’ve ever been but I’ve seen so many women make decisions they never thought they would. I’m very pro choice and I hope I never have to make such a tough decision.
Oooh this is fun…
First off, I was not suggesting that we go back to homebirths only. Not that there’s anything wrong with homebirths. North American society tends to only value their own ideas. It’s the conceit that’s in us. As for why I brought this point up of the historical entry of men into birthing practices, this is more about the philosophy of how we treat one another. About how we value our bodies and how we take ownership of bodies besides our own - i.e. the pregnant body. We all take such ownership and claim over someone else’s body. It’s like the baby within is no longer the mother’s - it is society’s. This argument was not about technology and sanitation during birthing. I’m sorry that you misunderstood my point.
“There is always an option. Adoption”
What about the nine months before this point? As per my previous comments - who takes care of the finances of a person eating for two? If the woman is single, can she survive in the current labour market? What if she has no one to fall back on? I suppose she could become homeless and if you’re in a cold enough climate, you’ll have two dead people, mother and child. What about all the unwanted waiting for adoption babies in the USA right now? The USA exports black babies like China does little girls right now. How do I know this? My friend just got one. He (the baby) is extremely cute. But you must love a governmental system that creates a lovely poverty stricken social group to sell their babies to the outside world.
And finally, if we are going to put back pregnancy and babies as one of life’s little consequences, (like Republicans/Conservatives use AIDS for gay men), then we return back to the SEX IS BAD idea that was debated earlier. Because really, isn’t learning that the real solution??? No sex, no babies, no abortion. Problem solved. (please understand the dripping sarcasm…)
1. I direct you to Nikki’s post.
2. The analogies used herein are topical and relevant. I often equate major life decisions (such as whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term) with giving a whiny kid a cookie.
Okay Byron, I guess my point is not coming across. It seems like everyone is bashing the anti-abortionist as being people that want control over another person’s body. That is not it. All we, I, want to do is to protect the life of the child. It is a sad consequence that in doing so, another person’s body is affected/violated. I wish it weren’t the case, but I can’t ignore that these women are killing these children. I do not want to tell anyone what they can or can’t do with their body … I just want to tell them they can’t kill an innocent unborn child.
As for the finances of a pregnant woman, I think you are looking at an extreme case. Yes, there are women out there whose finances would be busted if they got pregnant and carried the child to term. I don’t know the numbers, Amber, but I’m sure that the number of women that couldn’t make it over the number that could is very very small. Irregardless, when do finances become a basis for determining the value of life? If it is murder, it is murder plain and simple. Does it royally suck for the woman involved? Hell yes! Is it the right (no pun) thing to do, an emphatic YES!
The issues with adoption are tragic. I agree that these need to be reformed as well but whatever the adoption issues are, they don’t change the fact that murder is murder. It’s another issue entirely.
I hate it when people bring up totally irrelevant issues to deal with the one at hand. Yes, I may be conservative in my beliefs but that does not mean that I believe that AIDS is God’s way of punishing gay men. Hardly. AIDS, HIV, and any terminal illness is something we must deal with as a society and not something that is localized to one demographic. Pregnancy is not always a consequence just like it’s not always an action. Abortion (in my opinion) is murder no matter how you look at it.
Amber, missed ya darling. What took you so long? Waiting for me to f’up with something before you chimed in? Glad you could make it.
1. I agree with just about everything Nikki has to say with the exception of what she says about the universal access to birth control and nonsense… I don’t support universal healthcare so how can I support that? Whether we provide healthcare to everyone or not does not change the fact that murder is murder (said it once, or twice, and I’ll say it again). Everything else she says, I wholly endorse but feel has no bearing over whether abortion is wrong or not.
2. Is this what it took to get you to reply, I’ll keep this in mind for future posts. I tried pretty hard to come up with an analogy to fit, but I couldn’t because (in my opinion) abortion stands out as one issue that stands alone it its complexity. I do, however, feel my point was made no matter how poor the analogy may have been.
All I’m looking for is some kind of evidence that will prove to me that a collection of cells, a zygote, a fetus or any term that defines an unborn child is not a human being deserving of life. If you can do that, I would be happy to reverse my opinion… until then, I’m sorry, but I’ll have to take the position that preventing a woman/doctor from killing her unborn child is more tragic than making a law that prevents her from doing so.
I would, but I have more pressing matters to which to attend, including 1) work; 2) sleep; 3) eating; 4) fucking; 5) sticking a coat-hanger through my cervix because I think it’ll be a fun alternative to going to a boring, sterile health clinic.
Re: “rape and incest exception for bipartisan support”: I can’t adequately stomach the thought that pro-life people are willing to sacrifice some “lives” to save others. Listen to the rhetoric, and you’ll hear no exceptions: life is important, valuable, etc. etc. On general principle alone, then, all conceived fetuses should be valuable and protected, and anyone, R or D, who opposes abortion rights should recognize the value of all life, including those created from rape or incest.
(BTW, the “value to all life” rhetoric of the republicans also doesn’t extend so far as people on death row. It does apply to people in persistent vegetative states whose brains are mush.)
In America in 2002, 1.29 million abortions took place, down from an estimated 1.36 million in 1996. (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html. Latest numbers I could find.) The abortion rate (these numbers are derived from clinics performing abortions) is in decline (http://www.agi-usa.org/media/nr/2005/05/19/), so apparently, having a choice does not mean that women are running to the abortionist every chance they get.
However, in America today, 17% of children live in poverty (12 million) (http://www.nccp.org/pub_cpt05b.html), 5 million of these in extreme povery. The consequences of poverty are devastating for children. These numbers are rising, and make the child poverty rate in America the worst in the developed world.
If only we could put as much energy and passion into ending child poverty for living, breathing, valuable children in America as we do for the blastocysts and unformed fetuses carried by teenage girls. It underscores the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement and the Bush administration/neo-conservatives.
There is a bumper sticker that sums it up nicely for me:
If you cannot trust me to make a decision, how can you trust me to raise a child.
Keep them coming! Deb, fantastic point!!!
Deb, I agree. Let’s just take the abortion approach to our problem with children living in poverty. Let’s just murder them like we do the unborn child.
I didn’t mean for that to come across as cynical as it sounds, but think about it for a second. I agree there is a problem with the number of children living in poverty but that has nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong.
Dennis, you bring up the “typical” conflicts within the Republican’s stance on abortion, but that has nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong. It only addresses whether Republicans are right or wrong.
The issue is abortion and no one in this discussion has brought up the claims you mention.
dpb - I merely think the furor over devisive issues like abortion distract us from dealing with the real social issues of our times, child poverty being one on a laundry list. I certainly do not imagine we would choose infanticide.
All this talk about killing babies disguises the real issue: stripping women of the right to choose, devaluing women, creating a second-class citizenry, where women simply must have the babies that men impregnate them with (legally - we all know women will continue to make choices, most of them dangerous), no question, no choice, no voice.
It’s a little Orwellian for me. This is, as I read it, the crux of Duane’s post. It’s not that I am pro-murder for innocent babies. I am pro CHOICE for American women (the alive and kicking kind).
Deb, I get the “keep your laws off my body” rhetoric that keeps coming up, but I seriously have an issue with
For me, abortion is not a law stating what a woman can do to her body. Instead, abortion is merely a subsection of the law that states it’s illegal to kill. I just don’t get it. I recognize that gov’t shouldn’t make laws that tell anyone what they can and can’t do with their body but I honestly can’t see how Pro-Choicers don’t see abortion as murder. The intent of anti-abortion laws are not to degrade or devalue women thereby making them second class citizens. It’s not. It’s not implied and it’s not true. Would it make you feel better if part of the anti-abortion law also prevented men from getting some kind of surgery as well? What would it be? A ban on hair transplants? A ban on prostate surgery? What would it take so that women would not feel like ‘da man’ is keeping her down?
dpb - fundamentally, I cannot believe that you would value the rights of a mess of cells over a woman. Hair transplants? You think a 9-month potentially life-threatening ordeal is similar to a hair transplant?
Oh man (and you are a man, right, I mean, how could any of this come from a woman), how about (in a world where abortion was murder and a fetus given the protections of a living person, not in order of importance):
- financial support for the fetus (and the mother forced to carry said pregnancy) from the male, legally enforceable (liens on wages, etc.)
- state welfare for qualified single mothers when the male fails to provide fetus support
- laws requiring biological fathers to take responsibility for unwanted babies
- universal healthcare for the fetus (I’m guessing that bad prenatal care would constitute aggravated bodily assault or some such thing)
- mandatory smoking and alcohol cessation treatment and support programs to protect the fetus’ right not to be born with birth defects, fetal alcohol syndrome, crack addiction, or increased risk of SIDS
- mandatory paternity suits in cases where the man denies paternity of the child, enforcible by law (arrest if fail to comply)
- vascectomy or forced sterilization for men who impregnate multiple women or who refuse to take responsibility for birth control
- refusing to wear a condom, tampering with condoms, or selling defective or damaged condoms punishable by law - maybe a prison sentence or a hefty fine
- if a woman gets pregnant and can prove that she expressed a desire not to be pregnant, then she can sue the male partner for damages to her body during the 9 month ordeal (cosmetic surgey to rectify stretch marks, tearing, nasty scars from c-sections, etc.)
-legal recourse for women who suffer pre-eclampsia, pregnancy related life- threatening disorders, or who carry children with special needs or birth defects caused by male chromosomal damage or just plain bad DNA…
…shall I go on?
Deb, I never said I valued a “mess of cells” over a woman. I simply said I find value in those cells and since those cells have no voice, I feel someone should speak for them. If a mother’s life was endangered from the pregnancy, I would regretfully approve of an abortion to save the mother’s life. And no, I don’t find hair-transplants equal to a pregnancy. I was merely trying to make the offer to ensure men and women were of the same class by not allowing a medical procedure for men. In fact, I asked if hair transplants was satisfactory. You were able to make another suggestion.
Agreed.
Don’t support welfare, can’t support this.
Agreed.
You may sell me on this one if you can find a way of preventing just anyone from taking advantage of the system. Maybe if you sign your kid up for adoption while still pregnant, all bills are taken care of??? Would have to give this more thought.
Don’t support “treatment or support programs” because smoking and drinking are choices being made… I do support the mother being charged with child abuse/neglect if it can be proven that she smoked and/or drank during the pregnancy thereby causing birth defects in the child.
Agreed… if there is probable cause, ie. woman is not a nut-job.
You could probably sway me on this one, too.
Absolutely for tampering or manufacturing defective goods. Not so much for refusal to wear … except in the case of rape, of course, but that brings up bigger issues obviously.
Nah… accidents happen on both sides. It’s much more difficult for a man to get a woman pregnant when she doesn’t want to than it is vice versa. In the case of rape, yeah, I could probably go for this.
Again, in the case of rape, maybe. Otherwise, I’ll have to dissent.
Please do, I’m enjoying this!
By the way, I just love how women must make a statement that Pro-Life is a “male” perspective or that it is only because of religious ideologies. It’s like playing that trump card that no male or religious person can rebut. And of course you realize that when you make the statement. Hell, that’s WHY you make the statement, isn’t it? For the record, I am male but my opinion is not based on religion. I look forward to seeing more of your comments!
dpb. I don’t think I’m making a statement that pro-life is a male p.o.v. or a specifically religious one - you just happen to exude uber-hetero-maleness in your responses. But you have to admit, some of the most vocal pro-lifers happen to be male and/or religious conservatives. And pro-choice liberal-lefties abound, I know (I marched on Washington about this very issue with NOW back in the early 90s!).
Should I go on? You know, I think probably not. You get the idea. Plus, I don’t enjoy the thought of a world without a right to choose, especially I am raising two beautiful little girls and want them to experience every freedom possible, including the right to make the difficult and emotional choice to have an abortion. I guess in your ideal future I will be taking a trip to Canada with them if the need arises. I will be happy to do so.
Deb, I have to admit the religious fanatics give the Pro-Lifers a bad rap. Oh well… every position has their extremist who oddly enough always make their side look bad, but what can ya do?
What I get is that Pro-Choicers ignore the thought of whether abortion is murder and instead come up with 100s of other reasons why abortion should be legal: adoption practices, health care, stretch marks, sexual education, etc… On the other side of the line, Pro-Lifers recognize all these problems but believe that killing an unborn child outweighs each and every one of them.
The right to choose is the biggest reason why the US totally kicks ass, but from my perspective, saying that abortion removes a woman’s ‘right to choose’ is the same as a murderer saying a law against killing removes his ‘right to choose.’
I don’t ignore the concept of murder here. It just does not apply here. I do not take abortion lightly and do not agree with partial-birth abortion (except where medically warranted). I recognize that abortion is the termination of the potential for a child (why I am not pro-death, as I think Duane was trying to point out in the original argument). I simply do not think that this is ‘murder’ or that it is of equal gravity to the erosion of civil rights for existing persons (already birthed).
Abortion is the termination of potential life. A fetus cannot exist outside of the uterus (not until 24 weeks). It therefore, is not an individual life, but part of the body of the woman. Therefore, an abortion is a decision about a woman’s body. And here we are, full circle once again.
If it ever gets to the point that an enbryo can thrive outside of a woman’s body, I will revise my views on abortion.
This is probably one the best things I have read in this entire debate. Wonderful.
Why can’t we just stone children like the old days?
As I was explaining to my dear ol’ Mom this weekend, I am Pro-Choice, but it doesn’t mean I am Pro-Abortion. She did not “get it,” so I explained thusly:
Making something illegal does not mean that no one is going to do it.
If abortion is illegal, women are STILL going to get them- only it will be in back alleys and unclean/unsafe places with “doctors” who may or may not be qualified or even have medical degrees.
Basically, by making abotion illegal, the government would be losing the right to place certain requirements on clinics for such things as: Proper equipment and inspections of the equipment and clinics, doctor education and qualifications, etc.
If women are going to do it anyway, I would MUCH rather they did it safely than go to some dangerous back-alley clinic and get butchered.
Besides, the REALL