A Libertarian On The Anti-Abortion Arguments
While I would like to see abortion remain rare, I am pro-choice. Libertarian Wendy McElroy, always an incisive and interesting thinker, takes nine anti-abortion arguments to their logical conclusion on her ifeminists site. An excerpt:
Abortion is still hotly debated within libertarianism. This has always seemed odd to me since I believe libertarianism is based on self-ownership and that a pregnant woman has an unquestionable right to her own body, including the right to expel the fetus or have any other body part amputated. This right has been subjected to critical scrutiny by anti-abortionists in the movement who claim the fetus is a human being with full individual rights that are violated in an abortion. Basically, anti-abortionists pit the woman's rights against the alleged rights of the fetus, and give the latter priority.The argument is a weak one and open to attack from several directions. But my purpose here is a bit different. I want to explore some of the implications of the anti-abortion position because they are usually ignored even though they are vicious in nature.
Implication #1: If the fetus is accorded individual rights, then the aborting woman and anyone who assists her are murders and must be subject to whatever penalty society metes out for that crime, up to and including capital punishment. The punishment should be applied to past abortions as there is no statute of limitation on murder. If anti-abortionists shy away from this conclusion, then they do not really consider abortion to be murder. Note: it does not matter that the woman didn't view the fetus as a child; if her state of mind exonerates her, then it follows that a racist should be exonerated for killing blacks.
Implication #2: if a woman cannot 'kill' her fetus because it is a separate human being, then she also cannot injure it. If she does, she should be prosecuted in the same manner as if she assaulted an innocent bystander. If she ingests harmful substances, then the law should view the act as though she had strapped down a child and force-fed a toxin to it. Thus, the pregnant woman is vulnerable to criminal prosecution based on her diet, her lifestyle choices, etc. If anti-abortionists do not follow their own logic this far, it is not because the logic doesn't lead here. It is because the conclusion makes them uncomfortable.
...Implication #5: anti-abortionists are destroying the concept of natural righs itself which claims that every human being properly has jurisdiction over his or her own body. It is only because each human being is a self-owner that is is improper to initiate force against another. But if the fetus possesses the right to live off the pregnant woman's body functions -- to share the food she eats, the blood her heart pumps -- then this is tantamount to saying that one human being can properly own the body functions of another. It is tantamount to saying one human being can properly enslave another.
...Implication #7: anti-abotionists are claiming, "The fetus is an individual with rights" and, so, the onus of proof logically rests on the one who asserts a claim rather than upon those who see no evidence for the assertion.
Implication #8: if a pregnancy threatens a woman's life, anti-abortionists must legally require the woman to remain pregnant even if it means her death. Otherwise they do not take their own argument seriously. If the fetus is a separate individual with full rights, then the ill woman has no more right to kill it to save her life than a woman who needs a liver has the right to kill another person to secure a 'donor' organ. You cannot kill an innocent bystander just because your health requires it.
Implication #9: pregnancies that result from rape must also be brought to term. Anti-abortionists who make exceptions for e.g. a 12-year-old who becomes after being raped are saying that it is alright to kill an innocent baby under the 'proper' circumstances... which denies their entire argument, of course.
Well, what the hell do I know, but I find McElroy's arguments weak and unhelpful in that they leave to the reader the definition of anti-abortionist and even of fetus and do not take into account the changing nature of fetus over time.
So is McElroy arguing the same for a fetus of 1 week as she is for a fetus of 39 weeks?
If I support abortion in all cases for a fetus of 1 week but abortion only in cases to protect the health of the mother or for cases of ill health of the fetus in pregnancies of 39 weeks, am I an abortionist, or an anti-abortionist?
At FARK.com in a recent debate I said I favored free birth control, free pregnancy detection kits, free access to health care, RU-486, Plan-B, terrific sex education, abortion on demand up until viability, and a ban on the procedure except to protect the life of the mother or in cases of mal-development of the fetus after viability. For that position, I was told I was a misogynist who seeks to punish women and control their vaginas.
I think that banning the procedure when fetus and mother is healthy and fetus is viable is not some sort of punishment, but merely a natural consequence of getting pregnant AND not having an earlier abortion.
Anyway, I usually appreciate McElroy's writings but I find her arguments weak here. For example, Implication number 8 trivially fails the right of self-defense.
One thing I think science tells us is that there is nothing magical and life giving about the moment of birth. Is there really a difference between abortion at 39 weeks and abortion at 1 week post birth? Both entities are basically not viable.
(Sometimes I think the abortion debate is really about an insular group of Catholics arguing amongst themselves.)
jerry at June 15, 2009 1:56 AM
I am not catholic. I am anti-abortion. Actually, I consider myself pro-choice, as women have any number of choices in avoiding pregnancy prior to killing a fetus. And I would have to say that yes, I agree with all her statements. I don't find them compelling in showing anti-abortionists are illogical, but yes I think babies of rape should be carried to term, abortionists and abortion-seekers should be jailed, moms who do drugs or drink heavily should be jailed, etc etc.
And there is no-repeat NO-situation where the life of the mother depends on aborting a viable fetus. Late-term abortions ARE giving birth, it's just giving birth where the mom doesn't want a living baby at the end. It's no easier on the moms body. In fact, I am not aware of any condition a mom can have where an abortion is needed to save her life. You can undergo chemo while pregnant. You can have surgery while pregnant. Maybe pre-eclampsia if it develops early and is severe, but that is so rare as to be a nonargument.
Society has shown there are any number of situations where you do not own your body. Jail sentences, capital murder, involuntary psych holds, the illegality of suicide. Why should pregnancy-which involves another person-be different?
momof4 at June 15, 2009 5:10 AM
Implication #2 is already encoded in law. Both for the mother, and for third parties.
Implication #8 fails for several reasons, not the least of which is, as momof4 pointed out, there is no situation in which the abortion itself is required to prevent the death of the mother. I can believe that there are situations where the chances of both surviving are slim, in which case a decision needs to be made. Doesn't make it any better. Makes it kind of a "Sophie's Choice" situation.
In cases of rape, I'd find it more tolerable to bring the child to term, optionally place it for adoption, seize all assets of the rapist and put them in trust to compensate the victim and provide for the child, and kill the rapist. There are problems with this considering the definition of "rape" right now (i.e. consensual sex between 15 year-olds is legally rape.) but they can be dealt with.
brian at June 15, 2009 5:20 AM
I don't find her arguments compelling. Like momof4, I can feel comfortable with her conclusions. The issue is legal personhood, which is not (yet) granted to the unborn. Legally, abortion isn't murder because fetuses aren't legally persons. But in the past, blacks, women, and the mentally/physically handicapped weren't granted full legal personhood either. It doesn't mean that couldn't or shouldn't change.
I must also point out that a pro-lifer could just as easily take pro-choice arguments to their logical conclusions, and those are far less comfortable than this list (i.e., children being possessions rather than separate human beings - brings that slavery argument full circle, but instead of the worst penalty being inconvenience for a pregnant woman, it could easily lead to child abuse throughout the kid's life).
Clare at June 15, 2009 5:57 AM
as momof4 pointed out, there is no situation in which the abortion itself is required to prevent the death of the mother - brian, via momof4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy
lujlp at June 15, 2009 6:00 AM
lujlp, ectopic pregnancy can never result in a live birth anyhow. Does it really count as "pregnancy"?
brian at June 15, 2009 6:35 AM
ok, after reading the link, it's happened twice.
That's like lightning striking.
Hardly a valid comparison.
brian at June 15, 2009 6:40 AM
Abortion is the ultimate power for feminists.
If I want to kill something, in this case a baby I don't want, I will call it tissue.
Doesn't explain late term abortions.
My body my right. You didn't make the baby yourself. There are actually two other people to consider. The man who is part of the baby and the baby.
Abortion is the ultimate selfish act.
David M. at June 15, 2009 6:55 AM
It's interesting that each individual mother gets to decide if it is a baby or if it's tissue.
People have been convicted for double murder for killing a pregnant woman.
But if she decides to kill the baby it's okay.
If a pregnant woman is shot walking on the street by a stray bullet and both her and the child die, should the person be charged with double murder?
What if she had just gotten off the bus and was walking the remainder of the way to the abortion clinic? Double murder???
David M. at June 15, 2009 7:05 AM
David M points out that there is something being left out of the whole debate: what, if any, are the rights of the father in this process? Not to say that it would change the conclusions, but the debate is incomplete if the father's position isn't at least given some consideration.
Cousin Dave at June 15, 2009 7:09 AM
brian that is the catch 22, not pregnacy which would result in the death of the mother could ever be considered viable.
How about a woman 3 months pregnet who is told unless she has full body radiation, and a bone marrow transplant within the week she wont make it to her third trimester?
lujlp at June 15, 2009 7:09 AM
I rarely bother to get involved in the abortion debate because it's not really a debate at all: We have deeply emotional reactions to the issue that we justify with "logic" and "reason," disregarding the logic and reason of the other side in favor of what makes us feel better.
I find this article interesting:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion
Murder or an act of compassion?
I know I wouldn't want to strip a solid family of a wife and mother because she couldn't handle yet another child.
"Sorry, kids, that glob of tissue is more important than you are. Now press your lips against the glass and kiss mommy goodbye. Oh, and kiss Daddy goodbye, too, because he was an accomplice. Foster care will be just like day camp, I promise."
"I'm sorry, your child's life will be an unspeakable horror full of pain and futility that will bankrupt your family, but where there's life, there's hope, and all that."
MonicaP at June 15, 2009 7:17 AM
Abortion is the ultimate selfish act.
Suicude is the ultimate selfish act. Abortion runs a close second, though.
The problem is, is there are men who will insist that the woman abort, and then freak out when she doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
A friend of mine had a daughter who got pregnant when she was 15. Mother and daughter both agreed she was too young to have the baby, and she didn't want to go through the trauma of carrying the baby to term and giving it up for adoption. The young lady took it upon herself to go to the clinic for an abortion, and was met outside, of course, by the ant-abortionists who wanted her to not abort. And she looked one of the women right in the eye and said, "Okay, I won't abort if YOU agree to adopt the baby and take care of it as if it were one of your own." Well the woman was taken aback and started sputtering "well, no, I couldn't possibly..." and the girl said, "well then what the hell are you doing here? Who made it your business whether I carry this baby to term or not, unless you're going to be the one to care for it after I have it?" Left the woman speechless. Had the abortion. Young lady's 26 now, and happily engaged.
o.O
Flynne at June 15, 2009 7:26 AM
"I think babies of rape should be carried to term"
Just curious, is that true in all cases?
A girl is raped and immediately brought to a hospital. Would you be okay with the hospital giving her Plan B, emergency contraception?
Would you be okay with her being given an abortion with RU-486 or surgically within the first six weeks?
jerry at June 15, 2009 7:47 AM
lujlp:
I'll play your silly game.
In the case where the choice is one or none, the preference goes to the one who is already alive. If that was not obvious to you, then you've not given the issue sufficient thought.
brian at June 15, 2009 8:04 AM
Stupid question - did it ever occur to either of them that she was therefore too young to be fucking?
brian at June 15, 2009 8:05 AM
@Brian
"In cases of rape, I'd find it more tolerable to bring the child to term, optionally place it for adoption, seize all assets of the rapist and put them in trust to compensate the victim and provide for the child, and kill the rapist. There are problems with this considering the definition of "rape" right now (i.e. consensual sex between 15 year-olds is legally rape.) but they can be dealt with."
But does your argument go the other way as well? If a woman rapes a young boy and becomes pregnant as a result of that crime should the baby be carried to term and then the boy who was statutorily raped be saddled with child support to his rapist?
I know im splitting hairs here but I tend to take another view. In the cases where there is no rape,incest,coersion, or where there is no incresed medical danger to the mother I am of the firm belief that the father should have some input into the decision to abort or not.
It is not as simple a matter as people make it out to be. There are far reaching implications for and against abortion. I do not believe a woman should be made to bring the child of rape to term. She could never be expected to show that child the same sort of affection/love that she would under other circumstances and the baby would serve as an every day reminder of what happened to her.
In the cases of incest I also agree with abortion. There are too many medically documented dangers of medical problems and mental instability to make forcing the mother of an incestuous child to bring it to term.
I am however in favor of it being required in the cases where the woman is married or divorced within the term of the pregnancy to have to at least inform the husband if they plan to abort and/or give up the child for adoption so that the father has first right if the latter becomes true. This "her rights-his responsibility" mantra is plain bullshit.
Anti-abortionsits love to cling to the "You can put the baby up for adoption mantra" but the truth is that it is very difficult to adopt in the US (Which is why many go overseas) and many prospective parents dont want older children(Not all but a good many).As children get older their chances of adoption drop and eventually many will remain in foster homes or group homes until thier 18th Birthday. I used to live very close to one such homes and I had 2 school friends who lived in the home so I got to see first hand what sort of life they led. It is not pretty.
Too many of these activists want to chastize young girls and women for abortion but they are not willing themselves to assist in any way other then protesting.
TOMD
The Other Mike D at June 15, 2009 8:06 AM
Then there's the issue that making it illegal doesn't lower the abortion rate, according to this article in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html
If we really want to limit abortion, we need to give people better options.
MonicaP at June 15, 2009 8:11 AM
Monica -
First off, the story you linked is a one-in-a-million case. The law isn't really competent to handle edge cases like that.
Second, the comment:
is ridiculous. A truly civilized country would not need such a law because its citizens would not think it normal to rip a fully-formed human being from the womb just weeks before its scheduled arrival as a matter of psychological convenience for the mother.
There is such a chasm between Down's and hydrocephalus that a sane person wouldn't need to contemplate it. I've met people born with Down's. They are fully functional human beings. Granted, they are mentally stuck in a permanent adolescence, but they are functional, if inconvenient for the parents.
The "baby" referenced in the article had a slim chance of even surviving at all, and if so, would not be anything that we would recognize as human. That defect is something that if it had occurred earlier in the pregnancy would have probably resulted in miscarriage.
Like I said - an edge case. The moment you start writing laws with exceptions for edge cases, you get lawyers nibbling at the edges to broaden the law. There's really no percentage in writing such laws.
Abortion will not go away until humans have been convinced that it is unacceptable. No amount of law will accomplish that.
brian at June 15, 2009 8:16 AM
Brian, you're right: "Abortion will not go away until humans have been convinced that it is unacceptable." And that will never happen. Abortion is nearly as old as sex. As long as people are conceiving babies they don't want, some will choose abortion, whether it's legal or not. We need to be attacking the problem from a different angle.
MonicaP at June 15, 2009 8:21 AM
@MonicaP "If we really want to limit abortion, we need to give people better options."
Like what?
There are an insane number of ways to prevent pregnancies; patches, pills, IUDs, tubal ligation, vasectomies, hysterectomies, condoms, sponges, diaphragms . . .
There are "morning after" pills for the aftermath of a rape or drunken fun.
And in the event that the baby is carried to term there are safe have laws and even baby drop off points
I'm honestly curious about what more options you think we need.
Elle at June 15, 2009 8:25 AM
Mainly, I think we need to amp up sex education and awareness of birth control, in the lower grades and middle school, before hormones take over and make it too little too late. And we need to make BC ridiculously easy to get.
Adoption is an option, yes, and babies given up for adoption at birth have a pretty solid shot at finding families. But there's still a social stigma involved in adoption, at least for the mother, not to mention the trauma involved in carrying a baby to term and then giving it up.
Some might say, "You fucked. Deal with the consequences," but that suck-it-up approach doesn't work very well when people are desperate and scared. My own birth mother made the "compassionate choice," then tried to kill herself because sometimes all choices suck.
If we push for making abortion illegal, then we need to accept that many of these women are going to keep their babies and end up on welfare because they won't choose adoption. Even if we are not willing to take care of those unplanned babies, we will be taking care of them anyway.
MonicaP at June 15, 2009 8:39 AM
Elle -
I don't remember which shrieking harridan of the gender-feminist movement said it but it was one of the Catherine MacKinnon/Andrea Dworkin types:
Abortion is the only real power women have over men. The power to control men's procreation is the power to control men.
In other words, there exist a number of women who honestly believe that by having abortions, they are striking a blow against The Patriarchy™.
And there exist a number of additional women who accept the argument that "women need options" without knowing that this anti-male argument is part of the impetus for the "free abortion on-demand" movement.
brian at June 15, 2009 8:43 AM
Monica - how much more amped up do you want it? Kids are being given condoms at age 13. They are being told that the condom makes them invincible. Because Planned Parenthood (who makes money providing abortion services, natch) sues every school district that tries to teach kids that the safest method of birth control is the closed zipper.
After all, we wouldn't want to create a climate of fear around sex, would we?
brian at June 15, 2009 8:45 AM
Brian, you mentioned "edge" cases, and this applies. Maybe there are women who are aborting with a smile on their face as a "blow to the patriarcy," but I don't know a single one. Every woman I know who has aborted has done so because she wasn't ready for a baby. In about half of those cases, the baby daddy didn't plan to stick around.
MonicaP at June 15, 2009 8:46 AM
I don't actually know any kid who was given condoms at 13, but I'm all for that. I do, however, know kids who believe that if the woman stands on her head or douches with Mountain Dew after sex, she can't get pregnant. I want us to start teaching kids how their bodies work.
MonicaP at June 15, 2009 8:48 AM
Were they being prudent, they would have secured his place before making with the sexy, no? Emotion is not a sound basis for a relationship.
Given that nobody I grew up with 30 years ago "knew" such things, I can only surmise one of the following - sex education has gotten worse in the intervening time, or kids have gotten stupider.
I hope that the former is true, because you can't fix stupid.
brian at June 15, 2009 8:52 AM
Were they being prudent, they would have secured his place before making with the sexy, no? Emotion is not a sound basis for a relationship.
Agreed. But making a baby her punishment for imprudence hardly sounds fair to the baby.
And I suspect the Mountain Dew thing, and "facts" like it, are a result of all this sex being thrown at kids with no real information. Adults still don't want to talk about sex with kids, and they assume they'll learn everything they need to learn in school. What happens is they end up learning it from that dude in math class who's never even been laid.
MonicaP at June 15, 2009 8:57 AM
Article I saw the other day, regarding abortion & rape in a non-western society:
http://www.slate.com/id/2219840/
"Children of Bad Memories"
Photographing a generation born of rape during the Rwandan genocide.
"They call them "enfants mauvais souvenirs," children of bad memories."
"Some confess their inability to feel love or affection for children who are living reminders of the terrible ordeals they endured. Others say that their children are their only source of hope and consolation, that without them they wouldn't have the will to survive."
MeganNJ at June 15, 2009 9:17 AM
Abortions remain rare? How often are abortions? Please define rare. How often is something before it is considered common. Is pregnancy considered rare, or people having sex rare?
Wondering how many abortions there would have to be for you to not consider it rare.
I find Wendy very well thought and logical in most cases, but not so much in this one.
Case 1 and 2 is basically if you feel A then you should feel B as well. Many do feel that way, so...? As to punishment for past abortions, would be handled as other major changes were, how were former slave owners punished when slavery was abolished.
As to #7 I doubt I or most people would be able convincingly to argue that I am an individual with rights without it being defined as such.
As to 5 and 8, it begs the question, with modern technology, artificial woumbs and babies being able to survive at earlier and earlier premature dates. One could argue that the mother has the right to have the fetus removed, but not to have it desroyed, if it is viable.
As to #9. I have a counter hypothetical question. That unfortunately does have legal precidence. If a woman rapes a male child, and becomes pregnant, who has the right to decide on abortion or not.
Joe at June 15, 2009 9:28 AM
"And there is no-repeat NO-situation where the life of the mother depends on aborting a viable fetus."
Momof4 is right there, and I get so tired of hearing that justification for late-term abortions. People never stop to examine if it's even true. If they only think about it for a moment, they'll realise it isn't. C-sections are quick operations that can save the life of the fetus, even in most emergency medical situations involving the mother. Even when the mother is brain dead and on life-support, healthy babies are delivered that way. The mother's medical state rarely, if ever, calls for killing a viable fetus.
It is my thought that this issue will become much clearer if/when an artifical womb is developed. They're working on one now. So, within the next few decades, it may be possible for a woman not to carry the fetus within her body if she doesn't wish to. What then? Is that life - with nothing but potential for growth - still within her jurisdiction to terminate? If it can live outside the body, will she still get a say? Will the father have a say?
As it is, the law is extremely inconsistent. By McElroy's logic, the pro-choice people should also be able to follow their arguments to complete conclusions, which, if a fetus is never a life, then medical intervention of any kind for premature babies shouldn't be allowed.
One mother, carrying one fetus, shouldn't be able to cost the state and taxpayers tons of money saving her premature child, while another mother, carrying another fetus of the exact same gestation and viability, can willfully dispose of "the tissue". Which is it? A life worth saving or a life not important enough to save?
Add to that the double homicide charges, when a pregant woman is killed and you have major inconsistencies regarding how these two fetuses - arguably both "citizens" under the law - are treated.
What if a woman, on her way to an abortion clinic, gets into an accident, and is rushed to the hospital? Do you think the doctors there ask her whether she wants to kill the baby or save it? No, they are mandated to save it at all costs, even though she could have it killed elsewhere, maybe even by going through a different entrance of the same hospital.
Makes no sense whatsoever. Both sides here have inconsistency problems.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 9:38 AM
In the case where the choice is one or none, the preference goes to the one who is already alive. If that was not obvious to you, then you've not given the issue sufficient thought.
&
there is no situation in which the abortion itself is required to prevent the death of the mother.
-brain
Pick one, you cant have both
lujlp at June 15, 2009 9:46 AM
luljp -
You're conflating my argument about abortion in general (which you were arguing) and someone else's argument about late-term abortion.
You're comparing apples and 2x4s.
Please make another valid selection.
brian at June 15, 2009 9:54 AM
So, within the next few decades, it may be possible for a woman not to carry the fetus within her body if she doesn't wish to. What then? Is that life - with nothing but potential for growth - still within her jurisdiction to terminate? If it can live outside the body, will she still get a say?
No, but I'd be willing to bet she gets the bill
Will the father have a say?
No because allowing a man to make any decisions is really just the patriachy trying to reestablish it self as all men are abusive manipulative rapists, right?
On a more serious note, I'm supprised women arent trying to stop the creation of an artifical womb, if a guy can have a kid with out the ever present threat of losing his children on the whim of a jilted ex marrige rates will drop even faster then they are now
lujlp at June 15, 2009 9:55 AM
No, they'll just change the donor laws so that the egg donor gets first right of refusal on the baby's fate.
brian at June 15, 2009 9:59 AM
"If they only think about it for a moment, they'll realise it isn't. C-sections are quick operations that can save the life of the fetus, even in most emergency medical situations involving the mother."
I absolutely agree with this point. You can evacuate a fetus in less than 5 minutes, safely, if you have to.
I cannot imagine that a C-Section, to remove a live/healthy baby, is more traumatic on the mother than vaginally delivering a baby that had its skull crushed (or however they kill it before they take it out during the third trimester).
At that point just get the baby out and give it up...
But I think most people can agree that viability is a valid point to draw a line, as Roe v. Wade did and still does.
Isn't the real gritty argument when we talk about non-viable babies?
Gretchen at June 15, 2009 10:10 AM
Lujlp, an artificial womb won't allow for the creation of the baby, just its survival. There will still need to be an egg and sperm, male and female.
But I bet the father will have a say. What if he wants the baby placed in the artifical womb until viability, then in an incubator where he can nurture it, be responsible for it, even if the mom wants it to die? I think the weight of public opinion will shift then towards the life that's possible, not the mother's will and authority over that life.
Feminists will certainly hate this scenario, but they'll have a hard time arguing that the mother alone should get the choice to murder the child, just by virtue of it coming from inside her body.
I think they are on shaky ground as it is claiming she has that right just because the fetus is INSIDE her body, but the public, so far, has allowed for that discretion.
We also need to allow for personal choice with regards to deformities and quality of life issues. Most late-term abortions are performed for those reasons, not on healthy fetuses. And, although I morally believe those babies are alive, I also feel compassion for the parents, and the enormous responsibility of caring for a handicapped child. I've changed my mind on this since our last abortion debate.
Fact is, we don't have enough adoptive families for every unwanted Down's syndrome or severely handicapped child. And it's not fair to burden the state with these childen if the parents are ill-equipped or unwilling, not to mention what a poor quality of life the children would have being warehouse in institutions.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 10:14 AM
Ho hum. I'm not very interested in these arguments. The only thing I know or care about abortion is that I would have one if I got pregnant.
Pirate Jo at June 15, 2009 10:29 AM
To everyone who insists that there is no way a pregnancy can kill the mother, I say to you, Bullshit.
I know ten women have had such pregnancies. My own mother among them. Also, there ARE reasons why some women cannot take birth control or use condoms. It is more common than people like to think. (My case, I'm allergic to latex and BC pills make me batshit insane-Even the low does ones.) OH and for the smart ass that will say what about sheepskin- Spermicide won't work as well with it and can break down the condom making them practically useless. That's why they don't come w/ it.
You cannot have it one way or the other. It has to be legal or illegal and no law is going to make it ok with all of the people all of the time. (Or even the majority of the people) People are ALWAYS going to fight about it no matter what. There is no solution.
Make it illegal, and back alley abortions become prevalent and you've got people suing the system and you've got a whole host of other problems. It's legal now and we've got problems too, so it's a no win situation. Some group is screwed either way.
I keep my personal opinions about it to myself and that is how it should be w/ everyone. If a woman wants to have an abortion, she should be able to. She's the one who's got to live w/ herself. If a woman doesn't, well, she's the one who has to either raise the kid, or give it up for adoption. She's also got to live w/ herself and her decision.
The only person who should have ANY say in her (A healthy woman) decision making process is the father and that, in my opinion, should weigh heavily into it. (Yeah, I know, wishful thinking.)
I'm only making a comment here to tell the people who think that medical reasons for abortions just don't exist that they are wrong.
They do exist and they do happen. More often than you'd like to think. And no, I'm not going to get the facts for you.
DO your own research and draw your own conclusions from it.
I've got better shit to do today than sit around and argue with people who, even when presented w/ fact, still find away to argue or can find just as many facts stating the opposite of the facts that are presented. (Nothing personal, I really do have better things to do today.)
Also as an interesting fact- the body very often self aborts if the fetus is damaged or is damaging. THAT happens more than people like to think and there is NO way to gather accurate data on it. Many women think a miscarriage, esp early on, is just their period and don't even bother going in to be checked.
Truth1746 at June 15, 2009 10:32 AM
1. You rabid anti-abortionists might want to take your hypocrisy elsewhere. If you consider abortion to be murder, then you consider the owner of this blog a murderer. I know if, for example, OJ Simpson started a blog, I'd stay the hell away from it so as not to give him any hits/ad revenue, even though the law doesn't consider him a murderer.
2. If you really, really want to see women and those who help them seek abortions jailed, etc., you can check out what your ideal world would be like already, right in the here and now. It's a little place called El Salvador, and if you can point me to any other evidence that life in that country has gotten *better* since the advent of their draconian anti-abortion laws, I'd love to see it. This is what you'd sentence your fellow human beings to so gleefully: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html
Kim at June 15, 2009 10:40 AM
Truth1746, you're misunderstanding. No one is disputing that pregnancy can threaten a mother's life, only that such threats do not require terminating a viable baby's life in late pregnancy.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 10:43 AM
According to the CIA World Factbook and Wikipedia, there are about 2.5 million deaths and about 800,000 abortions in the US each year. So, if abortions were counted as deaths they would make up about 25% of the mortality rate.
Regarding implication #1: "If anti-abortionists shy away from this conclusion, then they do not really consider abortion to be murder." You can consider abortion to be murder and still be reluctant to prosecute millions of new cases. Besides, anti-abortionists are no less wishy-washy than anybody else in the general population. If abortion opponents got their way I would expect to see some kind of amnesty for past abortions.
Regarding implication #2: "If she ingests harmful substances, then the law should view the act as though she had strapped down a child and force-fed a toxin to it. Thus, the pregnant woman is vulnerable to criminal prosecution based on her diet, her lifestyle choices, etc." The second sentence does not follow from the first. Parents are not (yet, thankfully) prosecuted for diet or lifestyle choices that they make for their children. Forcing your children to use cocaine? Yeah, they'd be prosecuted, and with good reason. Too many cookies in their lunch? Not yet.
Regarding implication #5: if a fetus is a human being with human rights, and if a fetus destroys the concept of a mother's self-ownership, then that is the fault of nature, not the fault of anti-abortionists.
Regarding implication #9: this is absolutely true. One of my pet peeves is when someone claims to oppose abortion "except in cases of rape or incest." Whether or not abortion is ever acceptable (and I believe it sometimes is) does not depend in any way on the circumstances of conception. If a crime is committed, punish the person who committed it, not a third party.
Why did it have to be that particular woman? There are waiting lists of people who want to adopt healthy babies. There are adoption organizations that specialize in babies that would otherwise have been aborted; in some cases they even provide a place for young women to live (for example to help those who are kicked out of their home for getting pregnant).
Pseudonym at June 15, 2009 10:52 AM
I know no one here commenting is. (I'm sorry that I didn't clarify. Totally my fault!) BUT there are those out there that do and I'd bet that they'll show up before to long. (I'm surprised they haven't yet.)
Abortion discussion is like a pile of horse crap- You're going to have flies around it sooner or later.
Truth1746 at June 15, 2009 11:03 AM
Pirate Jo:
Tubal ligation removes the possibility without any messy moral dilemmas. Insurance will cover this procedure. What are you waiting for?
The same applies to you, Truth.
Kim - you should really learn to read before you accuse someone of being rabid. There are so many incidences of "facts not in evidence" in your first paragraph that, were you a lawyer, you would have been ejected from the courtroom, subjected to a disciplinary hearing, and disbarred.
brian at June 15, 2009 11:04 AM
Kim, I don't think anyone here is going that extreme. I personally believe abortions should be legal in the first trimester, and probably up to viability.
If you're too stupid or careless to know you're pregnant by then, I don't think a fully-formed healthy and otherwise viable baby should suffer for it.
Pro-life people need to compromise on early abortions. I think most would - all but for the extreme, religious zealots. Even many of us who have empathy for the pro-life position, selfishly want early abortion to remain legal.
I have a 15 yr old daughter, and I'll admit, as much as I have ethical qualms over abortion, I'd probably be the biggest hypocrite and rush her to the clinic if she became pregnant right now. And I think, deep down, many people who lean towards pro-life feel the same. They'd allow for it.
After viability is where abortion gets harder to justfify - accept, as I said, in cases where there are severe physical and mental handicaps.
I'd like to see a ban on late-term abortions of healthy fetuses. Forget the "psychological" impact on the mother, which is too vague and allows for almost any reason. If the baby is healthy and viable, it shouldn't be killed.
I think stricter laws and verifications for late-term abortions would pacify most pro-lifers into allowing for early-term abortions, and it would be great if we could find a reasonable compromise on this issue.
They say the best compromises are ones where neither side comes away completely happy, so that would be my proposal.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 11:05 AM
Lovelysoul, perhaps you weren't reading the earlier comments from momof4, brian, and others. They *do* feel comfortable w/the extreme conclusions drawn by the anti-abortion arguments, and it's those conclusions that have made El Salvador a new hell for women who become pregnant and neither want it or can afford it.
And yes, your hypothetical story about what you'd do if your teenager became pregnant is a common one. It's a well-documented phenomenon known as "The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion." And it's explained here: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
And I'm a big fan of keeping the law off my damn body. I don't care *how* far along a pregnancy is. And I don't care if a woman wants to abort for any reason. If she doesn't want a kid, that kid shouldn't be born to an ambivalent mother. Funny, it's usually the most rabid anti-abortionists who are also the biggest proponents of the two-parent family. While there's plenty of evidence to support the conclusion that two parents of any gender bode far better for a child's future than one, it's the rabid anti-abortionists who would force ever-increasing numbers of babies to be born into a world where NEITHER parent wants them, and often can't afford them. How empathetic and humanitarian.
Kim at June 15, 2009 11:18 AM
"Just curious, is that true in all cases?
A girl is raped and immediately brought to a hospital. Would you be okay with the hospital giving her Plan B, emergency contraception?
Would you be okay with her being given an abortion with RU-486 or surgically within the first six weeks?"
Yes, in all cases. If it's wrong to kill a kid, it's wrong to kill a kid. Period.
The morning after pill, if taken within about 48 hours, is not abortion. It merely brings on a period immediately and washes out the sperm. If you can't realize you were raped, or that the condom broke, within 2 full days, you get no room to bitch.
AS to the "making them illegal doesn't make them stop" argument-well we could use that to legalize anything, couldn't we? As long as there are adults and kids, there will be pedophiles, after all. Outlawing it doesn't stop it, so why bother?
"she didn't want to go through the trauma of carrying the baby to term and giving it up for adoption."
Selfish selfish selfish. It's too "traumatic" to let the kid live?? No, antiabortionists don't have to be willing to adopt the kids to say abortion is wrong. I don't have to drive every drunk home from the bar to say drunk driving is wrong, either.
momof4 at June 15, 2009 11:19 AM
"While I would like to see abortion remain rare"
Remain rare? How do you define rare? I don't see any standard of measurement by which current abortion rates could be considered rare.
momof4 at June 15, 2009 11:20 AM
Kim - please show me where I have taken an extreme position.
As far as your belief that it's ok to use abortion to prevent single motherhood, how about the simpler and less medically invasive method - keep your pants zipped and/or legs together until you're willing to accept all possible consequences of fucking.
brian at June 15, 2009 11:29 AM
"AS to the "making them illegal doesn't make them stop" argument-well we could use that to legalize anything, couldn't we? As long as there are adults and kids, there will be pedophiles, after all. Outlawing it doesn't stop it, so why bother?"
You're deliberately missing the point. Not only does outlawing abortion not make it stop, but it criminalizes an entire class of people who would almost certainly pose no threat to society otherwise. It also starts a dangerous underworld with attendant criminal activity that wasn't there before to take care of the new need of back-alley abortions. What you propose by outlawing abortion is as absurd, wrong, and wasteful as the war on drugs and its unintended consequences. And apparently you didn't read (or don't care) about what has happened in El Salvador now that the laws that you embrace have been codified and enforced with a vengeance there. Oh, Ceaucescu's government in Romania tried the same thing. It didn't work out so well for society at large over there, either.
"Selfish selfish selfish. It's too "traumatic" to let the kid live?? No, antiabortionists don't have to be willing to adopt the kids to say abortion is wrong. I don't have to drive every drunk home from the bar to say drunk driving is wrong, either."
How is having a wanted child NOT selfish? You could have adopted 4 unwanted kids, rather than having them all the old-fashioned way. Basically, you're saying you'd rather see a huge new underclass of unwanted and neglected kids than to have a pregnancy terminated in its early stages. Again, go visit some of these countries where the results of that social experiment run the streets as criminal thugs, and let me know how it works out for you when you're a victim of some serious crime. You can make the argument that drunk driving is wrong because of the impact on society in the form of preventable accidents, loss of life, property damage, and skyrocketing insurance rates. There is NO adverse effect on society by allowing abortion on demand, but there's a HUGE adverse effect on EVERY society that's demanded by law that a woman carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
By the way, you never addressed the question I posed earlier. What ARE you doing commenting so often and on so many disparate issues on the blog of a woman you view as a murderer? Is it because you find it fun? Isn't that selfish?
Kim at June 15, 2009 11:40 AM
Brian:
"In cases of rape, I'd find it more tolerable to bring the child to term, optionally place it for adoption, seize all assets of the rapist and put them in trust to compensate the victim and provide for the child, and kill the rapist. There are problems with this considering the definition of "rape" right now (i.e. consensual sex between 15 year-olds is legally rape.) but they can be dealt with."
One of many paragraphs where you've shown an extreme view on a procedure you view as "unacceptable," which comes from a man that has stated over and over on this blog (and I'm paraphrasing,) that he doesn't date because all modern women are wishy-washy man-hating bitches.
Oh, and another laughable extreme paragraph from you:
"Abortion is the only real power women have over men. The power to control men's procreation is the power to control men.
In other words, there exist a number of women who honestly believe that by having abortions, they are striking a blow against The Patriarchy™.
And there exist a number of additional women who accept the argument that "women need options" without knowing that this anti-male argument is part of the impetus for the "free abortion on-demand" movement.:
Really? I've yet to see "striking back against 'da man" as a measurable reason that women get abortions. Seriously, Brian. As far as "facts not in evidence" here, you might want to take a look in the mirror first.
And if you truly do believe that abortion is murder, and murder is immoral, and therefore all people who seek abortions are murderers and therefore immoral, what the hell are you doing on this blog all the time?
Kim at June 15, 2009 11:47 AM
Gretchen, I don't think the real gritty argument is for non-viable babies alone.
I consider myself pro-choice, and yet, because I see little difference between a baby one week before birth and a baby one week after birth, I do have problems with late term abortions for healthy fetuses of healthy moms. And in discussing this, I've found that many modern feminist women consider me to be a misogynist because of that -- in effect they do say that women should have the right to abort at at time regardless of viability.
However, I also find it equally bizarre to force a women to carry various very unhealthy babies to term as well, and given the choice of terminating it as early as possible or letting it live a short live or even a long life at the expense of the unfortunate parents, well, it's the sort of thing we wouldn't do to a dog. But somehow we need to do that to people.
Kim, you write, "And I'm a big fan of keeping the law off my damn body" and I agree whole heartedly with that. May I ask how you feel about making Gardasil a mandatory vaccination?
momof3, I agree with your position on plan b, but I do know some folks consider emergency birth control to be an abortifacient considering a fertilized egg to be about the same (I gather) as a fertilized and implanted egg, and doctors not knowing really what plan b does for a very recently implanted egg.
jerry at June 15, 2009 11:51 AM
Oh, and as for this quote, Brian:
"As far as your belief that it's ok to use abortion to prevent single motherhood, how about the simpler and less medically invasive method - keep your pants zipped and/or legs together until you're willing to accept all possible consequences of fucking."
Again, you deliberately miss the point. 1. It's not realistic, 2. Societies that have demanded this have wound up far worse off for it, and 3. It's hard as hell for a childless person (especially under 30) to get a sterilization procedure done if they don't want kids. It took me 5 years of doctor shopping from age 18-23 to find someone who would sterilize me so young, and even that took some convincing. AND I was lucky that my insurance paid for it; a lot of plans DON'T. Most of these same plans that don't cover sterilization, citing it as "elective", cover the far more expensive costs of of prenatal/maternity care, so if you're looking to the insurance industry for infallible logic, look elsewhere.
Kim at June 15, 2009 11:54 AM
Jerry:
"May I ask how you feel about making Gardasil a mandatory vaccination?"
No, I don't think that a vaccination for a disease that can't be spread by casual contact should be made mandatory. (I think it's a good idea to get it, but it should remain a choice of the girl/woman who wants to have it.) However, diseases like polio, rubella, etc. that can cause horrific effects and ARE spread via casual contact are rightly made mandatory for children, unless the kids are allergic to the vaccine itself.
If a.) the disease isn't deadly or crippling for the vast majority of people who catch it and b.) you can't catch said disease by casual contact, then yes, it's a horrid idea to make a vaccine a mandatory requirement; that opens up the slippery slope of government entities controlling your body.
Kim at June 15, 2009 11:59 AM
The problem with making abortion illegal is that it doesn't stop abortion. It just gives people a warm fuzzy about not condoning that sort of thing. If you what you want is a moral victory, then making it illegal is great. If what you want is to save babies, then you're wasting a lot of energy on pointless legislation.
As for the "just keep your damn legs closed" argument: This would work well if it weren't for the damn humans. Civilization and biology are misaligned. Our hormones tell us to start fucking at about 16, and those hormones are loud. We didn't get to the top of the food chain by NOT fucking. We are bumping up against a primal biological drive here. Unfortunately, in modern Western civ, we are often not fully prepared to take care of children until we are over 25. It's a pretty screwed up joke.
Telling people to just stop having sex until they're ready to have a kid is helpful only if we can get people to stop being human.
I don't expect anyone to change their mind in this debate. This isn't an argument that's won or lost, because it all turns on how you view a fetus. For me, a first-trimester clump of cells has the potential to be a person, but it isn't there yet, so I will never view its needs as more important than those of the mother. When you get deeper into the pregnancy, then it gets a little grayer.
MonicaP at June 15, 2009 12:00 PM
Uh... yeah. You've obviously confused me with someone else.
Reading comprehension, Kim. I didn't say that was why women had abortions. I said that's why the gender feminists want to make sure that abortion is not only kept legal, but the maximum number of abortions are performed.
It's because it's a stupid and infantile question. Why are you bothering to respond to someone you've branded an extremist?
Judging the past actions of an individual is above my pay grade. We're not talking about one person's behavior here. We're debating the libertarian schism over abortion.
But you're too blinded by your petty hatreds to see or discuss that. Absolutism will do that to a person.
brian at June 15, 2009 12:05 PM
MonicaP:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've said before that this issue will not be handled by legislation until the courts reverse Roe, and that is never going to happen. Part of the reason for the vitriol over the issue is the fact that the Supreme Court declared by judicial fiat that abortion is legal using the flimsiest of pretenses.
I also said here that abortion won't end until the American people are no longer willing to consider it OK.
Given that as recently as 100 years ago people were assuming adult responsibilities as early as 15 (probably earlier), I can't see where the joke is. We fucked up by creating extended adolescence. There is no reason that you cannot teach young adults to be responsible with their genitals.
brian at June 15, 2009 12:11 PM
Kim, that's uncalled for. People on this blog disagree on a variety of issues, often with Amy herself. I don't think Momof4 is calling Amy or anyone a murderer. Abortion is complex, and clearly, people have different views on when life actually begins.
If wombs were transparent, we probably wouldn't even be talking about this. I believe you might revisit your stance on abortion being ok in late stages. To me, that is no different than killing a baby outside of utero because physiologically they AREN'T different.
Early stages are at least ethically and scientifically debateable, though I think the weight of evidence leans towards life, or every way we legitimately measure life. The brain and heart is fully formed in the first 4-6 weeks. There's already substantial brain wave activity.
I didn't know that before becoming pregnant myself, and an ultrasound of my first baby at 13 weeks changed my view of what a fetus was forever. It's not just some tadpole-like peice of "tissue". And that was in the old days, before digital images. Now, you can basically see your fully-formed child like you would in a photograph, fine features and all.
That has an impact on most people. As a society, we should value life, and the ethics of killing a viable, fully-formed child differs from terminating an early pregnancy. It even differs from the assisted suicide of the elderly or terminally ill, which is much more valid from a quality of life perspective.
A healthy, viable fetus has an excellent shot at a fulfilling existence. There are many adoptive families longing for such children. Besides, who is anyone to say that he/she will have a bad life? No one can predict that. I know wanted children, who've been given every luxury who are miserable and on anti-depressants.
At a certain point, society does have to say, "This is selfish killing purely for the sake of convenience." Doing otherwise condones the irresponsible behavior that leads to unwanted pregnancies.
We already have a fail-safe stop gap. First trimester. Take care of it. I don't think that will ever go away because generations of women have now grown up having that convenience. It would be like taking the internet away from today's kids. Right or wrong, early choice is here to stay.
But, beyond that, I really think it's ethically wrong and unsustainable. Our laws are already in such conflict about late-term abortion that it won't take much of a case to put it before the supreme court. If pro-choice advocates don't want Roe v Wade revisited, you should compromise on late-term.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 12:17 PM
"What ARE you doing commenting so often and on so many disparate issues on the blog of a woman you view as a murderer? Is it because you find it fun? Isn't that selfish?"
Some of us don't like to insulate ourselves in groups who solely share our worldview. It's rather limiting, and one never knows when one might have an opportunity ti make an impact. You know, like the religious nutters that visit murders in jail??
What are you doing here? Looking for validation of your opinions? ANd how do you know mine aren't adopted? I don't recall seeing you around much here, so I doubt you know my life story. Again-one doesn't have to be willing to take the kids to want them allowed life.
momof4 at June 15, 2009 12:18 PM
"Reading comprehension, Kim. I didn't say that was why women had abortions. I said that's why the gender feminists want to make sure that abortion is not only kept legal, but the maximum number of abortions are performed."
Riiiight. Because a 100% abortion rate of wanted and unwanted fetuses alike, resulting in the eventual death of the human race if successful, is a well-used argument by people who aren't Dworkin/MacKinnon. The fact that you brought up what's ultimately a useless point (because you admit that nobody seeks abortions for that reason,) from known extremists, shows your true colors. And do tell; is there another Brian on this board with a similar posting style that laments his lack of a viable dating pool because of the feminist movement? And is also different from the guy who earlier stated that "emotion is not a solid foundation for a relationship," but also decries in different threads the ugly but logical practice of female gold-digging that he comes across on his rare forays into dating? If so, I apologize. If not, you're still an inconsistent twit.
Oh, and speaking of which:
"It's because it's a stupid and infantile question. Why are you bothering to respond to someone you've branded an extremist?"
First sentence: You're dodging the question. Second question: I'm bothering to respond to this issue because illogical extremists like yourself are gaining ground in the US, with predictably bad results. All that is required for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing.
"Judging the past actions of an individual is above my pay grade. We're not talking about one person's behavior here."
The decision to terminate a pregnancy IS talking about the behavior of one person. And you're branding the actions of people who seek abortions as "unacceptable", etc. throughout the thread here and elsewhere. And last I checked, nobody's paying anyone to comment here, so fuck your "pay grade" comment. Either you make a judgement that applies to everyone or you don't. Bad attempt at dodging.
"We're debating the libertarian schism over abortion. But you're too blinded by your petty hatreds to see or discuss that. Absolutism will do that to a person."
Really? Look in the mirror lately?
Kim at June 15, 2009 12:19 PM
"Pirate Jo:
Tubal ligation removes the possibility without any messy moral dilemmas. Insurance will cover this procedure. What are you waiting for?"
I had my tubal (the "Essure" procedure, actually) done five years ago.
Pirate Jo at June 15, 2009 12:20 PM
Brian: This is exactly my point. One hundred years ago, we didn't even expect everyone to finish high school. People got married in their late teens/early 20s, and they were expected to have kids right away. Social roles and biology aligned perfectly. People weren't any more responsible with their genitalia than they are today. They just got on with the business of families sooner.
Today, we expect people to graduate college, maybe get a master's degree and have their own place before they even get married. The joke is on us as a society. Unfortunately, the answer to this problem is to go back to a society in which people needed less education to compete. or we can accept that people have sex and make the consequences less devastating.
MonicaP at June 15, 2009 12:23 PM
Because it's nap time, and we all know this is my obsessive topic: baby # 4 is one month old. He was born at 38 weeks. Not term yet, although perfectly healthy. Within a day, he could let me know whether he was hungry, or cold, or scared, by different cries. He knew when I picked him up and calmed. Yet, had I not gone into labor that day, I could have had him killed. Unacceptable. He was a person that day as much as any of us are, and for many many many weeks and months prior.
momof4 at June 15, 2009 12:25 PM
Brian, you kinda-quote some gender feminist as saying "Abortion is the only real power women have over men. The power to control men's procreation is the power to control men." and follow that with yourself saying "In other words, there exist a number of women who honestly believe that by having abortions, they are striking a blow against The Patriarchy™." In a different post you say "I said that's why the gender feminists want to make sure that abortion is not only kept legal, but the maximum number of abortions are performed."
I'm going to have to ask you for a cite on your original quote. And not just that one sentence, because without context, that quote is essentially meaningless. It may be, as you seem to believe, an exhortation of joy that women can exert power (though I see no indication that there's even a vague suggestion that anyone "wants the maximum number performed"). However, I'm more likely to believe that, in context, it's an explanation of fact (as perceived by the writer).
I mean, if I say "harpoons are the only real power men have over whales. The power to have harpoons is the power to control whales", I'm sure as hell not saying "let's all get harpoons and kill as many whales as possible. I'm sure you can understand why I don't see your leap as logical.
So, if you would be so kind as to provide a cite from someone "reputable" (whether or not you, I, or Amy *like* their reputation isn't relevant. I just mean it can't be some random deranged blogger or crackpot who wants to have an all-wymyn island where they sing kumbaya and revel in their earth-motherliness) indicating that women should have abortions to demonstrate their power over men? Thanks.
Teresa at June 15, 2009 12:27 PM
"Some of us don't like to insulate ourselves in groups who solely share our worldview. It's rather limiting, and one never knows when one might have an opportunity ti make an impact. You know, like the religious nutters that visit murders in jail??"
Really? Again, what impact? If your desires came to fruition, the US would resemble El Salvador or Romania under Ceaucescu's regime. And there's a difference between people who share your worldview or not, and hanging out endlessly (and giving hits/ad revenue to) a woman you consider to be a cold-blooded killer.
"What are you doing here? Looking for validation of your opinions? ANd how do you know mine aren't adopted? I don't recall seeing you around much here, so I doubt you know my life story. Again-one doesn't have to be willing to take the kids to want them allowed life."
Actually, I lurk more than I post; I'm quite a frequent visitor to this blog. I used to rather like this blog's comments before the extreme right-wingers started shouting the loudest, and I happen to have the day off. And since I visit here so often, I happen to know ALL THE FUCKING DETAILS YOU'VE POSTED about all three of your pregnancies, the complications, the bedrests, etc. (Am I right that you've had three pregnancies here, and one was a set of twins? Because you repeat it constantly.) So yes, I'm quite aware that NONE of your four are adopted. Nice try. And again, you're deliberately missing the point of WHY women get abortions in the first place, and honestly looking for REALISTIC ways to help your point of view make abortion less of a default setting (i.e. taking the unwanted baby yourself,) rather than pontificating unrealistically about how everyone should either be perfect about birth control all the time or cross their legs if they don't want a kid.
Kim at June 15, 2009 12:27 PM
"Because it's nap time, and we all know this is my obsessive topic: baby # 4 is one month old. He was born at 38 weeks. Not term yet, although perfectly healthy. Within a day, he could let me know whether he was hungry, or cold, or scared, by different cries. He knew when I picked him up and calmed. Yet, had I not gone into labor that day, I could have had him killed. Unacceptable. He was a person that day as much as any of us are, and for many many many weeks and months prior."
So? That's YOUR view of what was obviously a wanted fetus from the start. If that baby had been a forced birth to a woman who didn't want it, couldn't stand it, and neglected it as a result, I don't think the mushy motherly feelings would quite be there. And something tells me that if your kid had been "born" at say, 12 weeks, he wouldn't be able to do any of the normal baby things he does now. Just because *you* feel an attachment to the fetus from the moment the stick turned blue doesn't mean every woman does. And when those women who don't want those fetuses are forced to carry to term, society suffers for it. The right to one's own body and the parasitic life inside for ~9mos or so is liberty of the highest order. And the predictable effects of ripping away a woman's liberty ensue when abortion is made illegal, and there's a passel of unwanted kids in the world as a result.
Kim at June 15, 2009 12:36 PM
Yeah Kim, really unrealistic of us "right wingers" (gee, I voted for Gore and Kerry and Clinton...but hey, me being right-wing is a good handle for you to use, no??) to expect adults to be responsible. Totally unfair, man. Having to think about birth control harshes the vibe, dude!
You want laws off your body? Take responsibility for your body then, and all the things it can do. Like making babies, and spreading disease, for starters. Woman the fuck up, and act intelligent, since you seem to want us to think you are. Isn't abortion the biggest admission of stupidity there is, that one can't even use basic birth control correctly? It's not hard.
Yeah, I fully believe Amy and millions of others will be answering for the death of their babies to God. One doesn't have to believe that to think they have the right to live though.
Lurkers don't get to bitch about what others post. Don't like reading fucking details about other's lives? Don't!
momof4 at June 15, 2009 12:41 PM
Also, regarding this comment:
"Tubal ligation removes the possibility without any messy moral dilemmas."
What messy moral dilemma? There is no moral dilemma as far as I'm concerned, let alone a messy one. I got my tubal to avoid hassle and it has been effective in that regard.
Pirate Jo at June 15, 2009 12:43 PM
"I'm bothering to respond to this issue because illogical extremists like yourself are gaining ground in the US, with predictably bad results. All that is required for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing."
Kim, have you considered that the pro-life perspective is gaining ground because people have become more educated about what really happens in the womb and what is truly involved in abortion? The numbers have grown because the public has come to understand that taking the life of a fully-formed, otherwise viable child solely because the mother wants him/her dead IS EVIL!
Especially when we have other alternatives, such as adoption, there's just no innocent "good" justification.
"A woman wants an abortion." That's it. Well, that's not a good enough reason when we're talking about a fully-formed baby that just happens to be in utero. One that a stranger couldn't stab to death without being charged with homicide. Why does the mother get to murder it? Are we just exempt from all responsibility and consequences because we're women?
And it's highly unlikely that women are going to go to back alleys for late-term abortions. Those are complex procedures, not something you can do with a coat hanger. They should only be performed when a child is severely deformed or handicapped, and a doctor would have to attest to that, which, if true, wouldn't be hard eveidence to get.
So, we're not going to become El Salvadore. This is, in fact, what our laws on abortion are already supposed to be. It's just they left the language so vague that even a healthy baby can be aborted late-term. It probably doesn't happen often, since early term-abortions are readily available for anyone who doesn't want a pregnancy, but it shouldn't happen at all.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 12:46 PM
"You want laws off your body? Take responsibility for your body then, and all the things it can do. Like making babies, and spreading disease, for starters. Woman the fuck up, and act intelligent, since you seem to want us to think you are. Isn't abortion the biggest admission of stupidity there is, that one can't even use basic birth control correctly? It's not hard."
No, but it's not failsafe, either. And even if someone makes a stupid mistake, punishing them w/a baby for the rest of their life is a bit like chopping someone's hands off for stealing a loaf of bread. A lifetime of misery is not something that society should punish a private act of stupidity with.
"Yeah, I fully believe Amy and millions of others will be answering for the death of their babies to God. One doesn't have to believe that to think they have the right to live though."
They have the right to live when they are independent of their mother's body. Parasitic life is at the mercy of its host. And again, society suffers when vast passels of unwanted kids are forced to be born to mothers who'd rather have aborted them.
"Lurkers don't get to bitch about what others post. Don't like reading fucking details about other's lives? Don't!"
And you have no right to snark on people knowing or not knowing your life story when you've broadcasted the details of it to anyone with a 'net connection. What's next, posting your SSN and then bitching when someone steals your identity?
Kim at June 15, 2009 12:51 PM
Kim
Really? With all the notes you've been taking, you come up with this shit:
Those weren't said by me, nor by someone named Brian (or brian). I think you'll find they tend to come from a Jeff, a Jay, and I think a few others.
My forays into dating haven't been encounters with gold-diggers, they've been with immature bitches and psychos.
Speaking of immature:
So you're telling me that you've concluded that it's not a human, and therefore not accorded rights, until it draws breath?
Oh, and the reason you couldn't find a doctor to surgically sterilize you at 18 - it's because at the age of 18 you're too immature to have a clue, regardless of what your eighth-grade health teacher told you about how girls mature faster than boys.
That's strictly from a physical perspective.
You're not making a libertarian argument, you're making a libertine argument. I want what I want, when I want it, and fuck anyone or anything that gets in my way.
Look, I've got more logic in my pinky finger than you have in your entire body. Show me where my logic has failed. You cannot.
No. Fuck you to hell. You want to know why I don't judge Amy? Because my name isn't God. I'm not in the business of shunning people who make decisions that conflict with my morality. That you would do such a thing tells me a considerable amount about your character. Or, more accurately, your lack thereof.
I've not called for criminal sanction for abortionists. I've not called for criminal sanction of women who have abortions.
I have however taken the position that abortion in and of itself is an illogical act and should be avoided by a civilized society.
If you want to take a position that values human rights against the government, then you must take the position that the government can neither end a life, nor allow policies that would allow a life to be intentionally ended.
Which means that my hypocrisy regarding the death penalty is on display for all to ridicule. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the government being allowed to end a life, but there are some crimes for which the only penalty is death, and we have, as a society, decided that it is the job of government to enact our will against those who transgress.
brian at June 15, 2009 12:53 PM
"Kim, have you considered that the pro-life perspective is gaining ground because people have become more educated about what really happens in the womb and what is truly involved in abortion? The numbers have grown because the public has come to understand that taking the life of a fully-formed, otherwise viable child solely because the mother wants him/her dead IS EVIL!"
Uh, no. Because this shit gains ground when people have been INSULATED for generations about what happens exactly when women are barred from seeking a safe and legal abortion. They get to think about these things from a more abstract perspective (i.e. projecting a personality onto a 3-month-old fetus,) rather than seeing the consequences up close and personal on a daily basis. Few people today can talk about knowing a contemporary that wound up in the hospital due to a botched abortion. But if you'd read either of the articles I'd cited above, you'd know that this is exactly what happens when abortion is made illegal. And when the reality of an unwanted pregnancy hits these same pro-lifers (whether they live here or in El Salvador,) in the face, all of a sudden "The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion."
And how do you figure that outlawing late-term abortion doesn't open the door to making us into another El Salvador/Ceaucescu's Romania? Slippery slopes, slippery slopes.
Kim at June 15, 2009 12:56 PM
"If that baby had been a forced birth to a woman who didn't want it, couldn't stand it, and neglected it as a result, I don't think the mushy motherly feelings would quite be there."
Statistically, that's not actually true. Studies of women who've had babies they didn't intially want show that generally they adapt and fall in love with the baby once it's here.
It doesn't really matter though. As someone who works with abused and neglected kids (most of whom were "wanted"), that's not a justification for killing a baby that's viable. Who are you to say that child will have a bad life? Plenty of kids survive unhappy childhoods with lousy parents to have very happy, productive adulthoods. Many of them do great things for society.
Momof4's point is valid. It would be no different than going into a hospital and murdering any premature baby born at 30-38 weeks. That's the point of development where it's unacceptable.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 12:58 PM
Theresa - I've already wasted too much time on this thread today. Take the few moments to educate yourself on the gender feminists and their radical positions on sex, marriage, and pregnancy.
I could give a fuck either way.
Here's a few names to start with. I'm relatively certain one of them said it in one of their books.
Andrea Dworkin
Catherine MacKinnon
Pat Schroeder
The other names escape me now, but it's kinda like a "six degrees of man-haters" game.
Oh, and Amy can correct me if I'm wrong, but MacKinnon is also the one who equated all sex with rape. These were some seriously fucked up women who have unfortunately had a lasting impact on the political landscape.
brian at June 15, 2009 12:59 PM
brian I knew at the age of 12 I was never going to have any kids, and the last 18yrs have done nothing to change my mind
lujlp at June 15, 2009 1:04 PM
What are you, 25? Have you studied civics, even a LITTLE?
There are nine people who prevent your nightmare scenario from coming to pass (not that it would, but I'll play your silly game).
Their names are Thomas, Ginsburg, Souter, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, and Stevens.
There was a landmark decision back in the late 70s. You might have heard one of your Women's Studies professors mention it: Roe v. Wade.
The Congress cannot pass a broad-based ban on abortion because of the ruling in Roe. See, that decision determined that abortion pre-viability is Constitutionally protected. And thanks to the 14th Amendment, all 50 states are bound by the same decision. All a reversal would do is throw the issue back to the states for their legislative consideration.
But a court of nine Thomases won't reverse that decision, so discussing it in your hysterical terms is a waste of time and energy.
brian at June 15, 2009 1:05 PM
"So you're telling me that you've concluded that it's not a human, and therefore not accorded rights, until it draws breath?"
Precisely. When it's no longer a parasitic organism, it attains the full rights of a citizen.
"Oh, and the reason you couldn't find a doctor to surgically sterilize you at 18 - it's because at the age of 18 you're too immature to have a clue, regardless of what your eighth-grade health teacher told you about how girls mature faster than boys."
Coming from someone who, just a wee bit upthread, mentioned that somehow people at 15 in the pre-industrialized world could be trusted with a CHILD, somehow you think an 18 year old woman couldn't be trusted w/a sterilization? Oh, where oh were do I start tearing apart the illogical crap of that statement?
"No. Fuck you to hell. You want to know why I don't judge Amy? Because my name isn't God. I'm not in the business of shunning people who make decisions that conflict with my morality. That you would do such a thing tells me a considerable amount about your character. Or, more accurately, your lack thereof."
Awww, how non-judgmental of you!
And God? Seriously? You're judging abortion as "unacceptable," you consider yourself uber-logical, and you throw that into the mix? Really? If you have to fall back on an unprovable, supernatural argument, your argument holds no water.
Oh, and this is funny:
"You're not making a libertarian argument, you're making a libertine argument. I want what I want, when I want it, and fuck anyone or anything that gets in my way."
Really? Where did I say that? I'm saying that taking away liberty from women and their bodies not only harms that half of the population, but harms society at large w/passels of unwanted kids roaming around. How libertinistic and illogical of me.
Oh, and "abortion is an illogical act?" Seriously? How is terminating a pregnancy that's either unwanted or unaffordable an illogical decision? Do explain.
Kim at June 15, 2009 1:06 PM
Luj, I said something similar at 15. Just because I'm 40 now doesn't mean I've necessarily become more mature.
brian at June 15, 2009 1:06 PM
Some commenters have asserted that there is no case where a late-term abortion is required to save the life of the mother. This is something I've also seen from anti-abortionists on other forums. Could we get an opinion on it from someone who's qualified to give one--an M.D., preferably a gynecologist?
And if late-term abortions aren't done to save the mothers, why are they done? I find it hard to imagine a woman passing up a quick and easy first-month abortion, going through eight and a half months of pregnancy, and then just deciding no, I don't want this baby after all.
Is there anyone here who actually had a late abortion, or who was personally involved with someone who did--involved enough to know why the abortion was chosen? I'd be real interested in learning the reason.
Rex Little at June 15, 2009 1:06 PM
"And how do you figure that outlawing late-term abortion doesn't open the door to making us into another El Salvador/Ceaucescu's Romania? Slippery slopes, slippery slopes."
Because I have more faith in our laws and procedures. We also have the death penalty here, but that doesn't mean we're open to mass executions. We're not lining people up in firing squads here.
The US has different legal and procedural protections in place and an entirely different form of government than El Salvadore.
As it stands now, a woman already needs approval from 2 different doctors to have a late-term abortion. The problem is that these doctors were working together, and the language needed for approval was so vague that theoretically a mother could just be lazy or change her mind at the last minute and kill a healthy baby at almost the point of birth.
In fact, some women actually spontaneously gave birth on the table prior to the procedure, and the babies were killed anyway.
That is clearly wrong and needs to be ended.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 1:08 PM
Rex, most late-term abortions are indeed done because the baby has been diagnosed with a severe deformity or abnormality, often one that would limit or end its life shortly after birth anyway. These are usually wanted babies, so it's a heart-wrenching decision, and you can find many moving accounts online.
Some are Down's syndrome babies, and that is a very sticky area, as many believe they have a good quality of life and shouldn't be terminated.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 1:13 PM
"What are you, 25? Have you studied civics, even a LITTLE?"
Actually, I'm 26. But thanks for playing. And yes, I have studied civics. Quite a lot.
"There was a landmark decision back in the late 70s. You might have heard one of your Women's Studies professors mention it: Roe v. Wade.
The Congress cannot pass a broad-based ban on abortion because of the ruling in Roe. See, that decision determined that abortion pre-viability is Constitutionally protected. And thanks to the 14th Amendment, all 50 states are bound by the same decision. All a reversal would do is throw the issue back to the states for their legislative consideration.
But a court of nine Thomases won't reverse that decision, so discussing it in your hysterical terms is a waste of time and energy."
Right; it's Constitutionally protected, but it's BEING NIBBLED AWAY BY LAWYERS, which is what you're so afraid of with all those other rights. Speaking of which, a big part of libertarianism is striking back against the unconstitutional shit that's gone on not only against Roe but against freedom of speech, unwarranted wiretapping/searches, suspension of habeas corpus, right to keep and bear arms, and a number of other rights that HAVE BEEN NIBBLED AWAY BY IDEOLOGUES AND THEIR LAWYERS who think they know how to live our lives better than we the people do. Even if they don't completely throw out the Constitution (i.e. illegal wiretaps,) to get what they want, they can still make it hard as hell to exercise your rights until it's nearly impossible. (i.e. gun acquisition in many blue states.) Get it now?
Kim at June 15, 2009 1:14 PM
"Statistically, that's not actually true. Studies of women who've had babies they didn't intially want show that generally they adapt and fall in love with the baby once it's here."
This you'll have to cite. It doesn't change the argument that single-parent families tend to produce far more criminals, etc. than children born to two parents that want it, nor does it change the argument that curtailing the autonomy of one's body is bad for society at large, but I'd like to see it anyway. Because while it admittedly wasn't a rigorous scientific study, Ann Landers asked her readership if they would have had kids, given the opportunity to do it all over again. 70% of her readership actually responded NO.
Kim at June 15, 2009 1:17 PM
"Because I have more faith in our laws and procedures. We also have the death penalty here, but that doesn't mean we're open to mass executions. We're not lining people up in firing squads here.
The US has different legal and procedural protections in place and an entirely different form of government than El Salvadore."
Really? And given all the unconstitutional stuff that's gone down here just in the last few years, what makes you think that we're so much better/more special than El Salvador? What makes you think it can't happen here?
Kim at June 15, 2009 1:20 PM
Kim:
You really ought to work on your reading comprehension skills. I'm not judging you, I'm mocking you. There's a difference.
The moment you used the word "parasite". You want to know why? Because that child is utterly and completely dependent upon you for at least one year after it emerges from your body. Which means that your argument extends at least one full year into infanticide territory. Your argument has all the qualities of being something parroted from an ideology-addled professor.
I will, however I don't expect it to have an impact. After all, one cannot be reasoned out of a position they have not been reasoned into.
It should be evident that interfering in reproduction is illogical. Not to say it doesn't have its place, but it's not logical.
In the grand scheme of things, there oughtn't be any such thing as unwanted pregnancy. That such an argument remains valid is a testament to the brute incompetence of the educational system on this matter. It doesn't hurt that Planned Parenthood has a hand in forming the curricula that are used, and also make a tidy sum performing abortions on young ladies with "unwanted" "punishment".
brian at June 15, 2009 1:21 PM
Dr. George Tiller, who was recently gunned down by a pro-life nutjob, was one of only 3 doctors (I believe) in the country who openly performed late-term abortions. He was kind of a heroic character in many ways. He'd already been shot years ago, in both arms, so he worked in a bullet-proof vest.
Reading the accounts of women who went to him to abort their deformed babies was what changed my stance on that. I really don't think we can judge a woman for making that truly painstaking choice.
I just don't think it should happen with healthy babies that have a reasonable chance at a good quality of life. It seems Tiller did kill babies, as late as 8 months, that were healthy. One, for instance, involved a retarded mother - a teenage girl. That isn't justifiable in my view. The baby was healthy and mentally ok and could've been adopted. The mother actually died in that instance.
That's why he was such a controversial figure, but it is tragic that he was killed.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 1:23 PM
Kim:
Great, and an idiotarian too. In a previous comment you spewed just about every MoveOn talking point against Bush (all of which are untrue, by the way) in support of unlimited abortion.
You need to get your ideology in check and do a serious rethink of your position(s).
Women who think as badly as you are why I'm not too thrilled about the dating scene. I prefer to have conversations with people who aren't shrieking falsehoods and slaughtering strawmen with every breath.
brian at June 15, 2009 1:25 PM
One last thing and I'm done for the day. I've gotta catch up on work.
Fascism is always descending upon America, but always seems to land in [South America].
brian at June 15, 2009 1:26 PM
FYP.
Precisely tragic, actually. He was the one being investigated for having a doctor related to his practice supply the second signature for late-term abortions, many of which were granted for "mental health" reasons.
If it took you eight months or pregnancy to realize you were crazy, you should have had your tubes tied while you were on the table.
brian at June 15, 2009 1:30 PM
It should be evident that interfering in reproduction is illogical. Not to say it doesn't have its place, but it's not logical.
In the grand scheme of things, there oughtn't be any such thing as unwanted pregnancy. That such an argument remains valid is a testament to the brute incompetence of the educational system on this matter. It doesn't hurt that Planned Parenthood has a hand in forming the curricula that are used, and also make a tidy sum performing abortions on young ladies with "unwanted" "punishment"
Sure, then how come for millennia before Planned Parenthood/womens rights/etc. were ever thought of, women were killing themselves to get rid of unwanted pregnancies left and right? Perhaps because in certain circumstances, reproduction is actually a negative? Primates are known for killing inconvenient offspring all the time, w/no signs of mental illness and no knowledge of "god." Seriously, use some logic here. And if reproduction is our highest calling, why aren't you surrounded by wee bundles of joy?
As for the word parasite, a baby is just that until it emerges from your womb. It meets all the definitions of it. When it is no longer PHYSICALLY ATTACHED to your body, and you can then give it to someone else to meet the infant's needs for the next few years, it no longer meets that definition.
Oh, and as for the unconstitutional shit? Who says that's all MoveOn.org/left wing stuff? How many left-wingers believe the second amendment to be a good thing? Seriously, grab a clue. You're attacking me/organizations you don't like rather than the arguments themselves. Try harder.
Kim at June 15, 2009 1:38 PM
No doubt, brian. But I don't see how murdering him helped the pro-life movement at all. The procedures need to be improved. We really don't want to prolong suffering for babies with severe abnormalities, nor do we want the state taking care of them. It's just not feasible.
But Tiller was acting basically at his own discretion. The recommendations need to be truly separate and independent, and we, as a society, need to grapple with what abnormalities justify abortion. That won't be easy, as there are a lot of gray areas, such as Down's Syndrome.
And then there's Helen Keller and others that throw all that into question anyway. What makes a fulfilling life? What makes a productive person?
Kim thinks she can predict a happy or unhappy life, but that's really not possible, and it's arrogant to believe so.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 1:40 PM
OK, so I lied. I need to get this one out of my brain.
Kim's argument style here is reminiscent of Alinksy. Rather than confront the issue and the positions head on, she prefers to dig through past commentary and deliberately misquote present commentary for the sole purpose of discrediting the people with whom she's arguing.
The purpose of this juvenile behavior is to get those who disagree with her to stop arguing out of frustration.
But just because everyone has stopped arguing with you, you cannot claim to have won.
brian at June 15, 2009 1:40 PM
But just because everyone has stopped arguing with you, you cannot claim to have won.
No one wins with this, because neither side can step back and acknowledge that the other side has a point. We're all afraid of the slippery slope, where babies are either being decapitated by doctors or women are bleeding to death in dark alleys. It's easier to think we're all extremist douchebags.
MonicaP at June 15, 2009 1:45 PM
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in...
How about because you can't fix crazy? How about because prior to the modern era the idea of another mouth to feed meant the reality of deciding who got to starve? You really need to go beyond first-order thinking.
Here you go, back to the misrepresenting. I used the name God only when saying I don't care to judge Amy's past behavior, and you've got me passing out bibles and laying on hands. Grow the fuck up.
You cannot seriously compare humans in civilization with lower primates. They do things that aren't logical all the time. Hell, we just had a chimpanzee here in CT rip a lady's face off. Logical? Fuck no! Primates are not reasoning beings.
I never said that everything logical HAD to be done. We'd be drowning in bodies if everyone had as many children as they could.
Logic is only the beginning of wisdom.
As to not being surrounded by children myself? I know that I am not parent material Children aren't likely to survive my attempts at fatherhood.
brian at June 15, 2009 1:47 PM
"Kim's argument style here is reminiscent of Alinksy. Rather than confront the issue and the positions head on, she prefers to dig through past commentary and deliberately misquote present commentary for the sole purpose of discrediting the people with whom she's arguing.
The purpose of this juvenile behavior is to get those who disagree with her to stop arguing out of frustration.
But just because everyone has stopped arguing with you, you cannot claim to have won."
I've answered your points and refuted them. You simply decide to attack me instead of making a better case. Nice try.
Kim at June 15, 2009 1:48 PM
Monica -
There is a difference between arguing in good faith, and deliberately misstating the arguments of others for the purpose of crushing dissent.
I await the opportunity to be convinced of the wrongness of my positions. I'm still a bit wobbly on the rape one because of the implications, rights-wise.
However, rather than try to elucidate on the possible issues, Kim declares me an extremist and moves on to take out the next windmill.
I wonder if her high horse is laughing at her yet.
brian at June 15, 2009 1:52 PM
Brian. So now you're "relatively certain" that someone said that in a book. But you don't wanna bother looking it up, because you don't actually care.
Okay, gotcha. You either made it up out of whole cloth, intentionally took it way out of context, or know you butchered the "quote" so badly that you just look dumb now. That's cool. It's not uncommon.
And I'm not denying that some of those whackadoo gals are, in fact, whackadoos. I do not subscribe to the women-are-victims/men-are-rapists philosophy in any way. The "all sex is rape" thing is completely ridiculous, and I wouldn't cross the street to spit on anyone who believed it, though I know that there are people who do believe it.
I simply do not believe that there is more than one or two *total* whackadoos who would believe that women should abort "as much as possible" as some sort of slap to men. Yeah, we can find someone out there who believes the moon is made out of compressed Cheez Doodles if we asked enough people, but that doesn't mean there's a Cheez Doodle Moon organization that has even an iota of credibility. Ditto women who recommend mass abortions to stick it to men.
Theresa at June 15, 2009 1:53 PM
"When it is no longer PHYSICALLY ATTACHED to your body, and you can then give it to someone else to meet the infant's needs for the next few years, it no longer meets that definition."
You are so misinformed about this, and even your own definition rebuts what you've said. The whole point of viability is that the child CAN be unattached to you. The baby can be removed from your womb and live...it can even be given to someone else (adopted) for them to care for...so it meets your definition.
And, you know, we didn't have birth control for centuries, other than some cow dung. No doubt there were child killings (there's child killings today of totally wanted children). Really, there's NO excuse for an unwanted pregnancy now that we have about 20 different forms of birth control. But, even so, if you find yourself having one, then terminate it before it's a fully-formed baby!
What is wrong with that? How many options should irresponsible people have? How ethically and morally degraded must society become to accomodate the wishes and whims of irresponsible people?
I may not want to care for my ailing grandmother. Ok, I can put her in a nursing home. Barring that, I can see if other relatives want her. Those are my options. But nowhere does society allow me to KILL her because she's an inconvenience to me.
Yet, that's what you are condoning doing to a fully developed VIABLE (UNATTACHABLE) baby. And, at that point, it is plainly WRONG.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 1:53 PM
How about because you can't fix crazy? How about because prior to the modern era the idea of another mouth to feed meant the reality of deciding who got to starve? You really need to go beyond first-order thinking.
That doesn't explain why affluent women would do the same thing. It also doesn't explain why poor women in places like Afghanistan who might be married to someone who can provide for them and a child that's wanted (by the father) sometimes seek an illegal abortion. And "crazy" and "illogical" are words you're throwing out without substantive arguments to poorly try to discredit the logic of abortion; i.e. preventing parenthood when (like you,) one is admittedly not parenting material, or preventing parenthood when one isn't financially prepared.
"Here you go, back to the misrepresenting. I used the name God only when saying I don't care to judge Amy's past behavior, and you've got me passing out bibles and laying on hands. Grow the fuck up."
Who's misrepresenting who here?
"You cannot seriously compare humans in civilization with lower primates. They do things that aren't logical all the time. Hell, we just had a chimpanzee here in CT rip a lady's face off. Logical? Fuck no! Primates are not reasoning beings."
You obviously haven't studied evolutionary psychology much, have you?
Kim at June 15, 2009 1:56 PM
Rex Little launches an appeal to reason. Amen, brother!
@MonicaP: "No one wins with this, because neither side can step back and acknowledge that the other side has a point." Amen, sister!
I've been lurking on this thread pretty much all day (so much for productivity), and it's been a real humdinger. I've never seen anyone "win" a thread, but I've learned something from nearly all of them. Time for some Kum Ba Yah now, kids.
old rpm daddy at June 15, 2009 1:57 PM
Why do people assume that Gardasil is just for women? Men don't want their partners to get cancer, and gay men in particular are at high risk for some of the other types of cancer that HPV causes. HPV also causes genital warts, which tend to be unpopular.
Pseudonym at June 15, 2009 1:59 PM
Excuse me? I think not.
From your first comment:
You don't walk into a room and throw a bomb like that without expecting a little blow-back. I've seen nothing from you except for trite fear-mongering that any talk of restricting abortion leads right to women being forced to carry every baby to term like in some repressive third-world hellhole.
Bullshit on stilts, and you know it. You need to dismiss the argument so you can feel better about not having thought about yours at all.
Doesn't surprise me at all. You'd be amazed at the number of women who bristle once they find out what Planned Parenthood's founder was on about. It's not like they talk about it in Women's Studies.
You build good strawmen, don't you. You champion a position that could be considered extreme, and the position shared by some very extreme people, yet you know precisely dick about those people and the arguments they presented. History did not begin with your birth, Kim.
This one bears repeating. That you believe this possible only underlies your fundamental misunderstanding of the way things work in this country. The anti-second-amendment crowd has been getting its ass handed to it every time they get to the supreme court. Which is why the last thing they wanted was for Heller to get there. The Supreme Court likes settled law. Roe is settled law barring some major breakthrough case that challenges the definition of "viable".
When you repeat their lies to bolster your own bad argument, you look like a tool.
In closing, it is not I who needs to try harder. It's you.
Ditch "Rules for Radicals" and try, y'know, THINKING FOR YOURSELF.
It hurts the first few times, but you get over it.
brian at June 15, 2009 2:04 PM
That's as may be. But it is those few whackadoos who are the ones directing policy.
brian at June 15, 2009 2:07 PM
Kum Ba Yah....lol
Kim, geeze, there was no birth control, so of course affluent women did it, poor women did it...lots of women did it. They had no choice in pregnancy, and they didn't have legal abortions.
But we don't have that situation now, and we're NOT going to have it. I guarantee this country won't stand for making first trimester abortions illegal.
Does anyone really believe that?
I think you guys are so worried about the "slippery slope" that you're allowing yourselves to defend actions that aren't defensible. We can protect babies after viability while still allowing early abortion. It doesn't have to be "either/or". That's a feminist/pro-choice scare tactic.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 2:07 PM
"You are so misinformed about this, and even your own definition rebuts what you've said. The whole point of viability is that the child CAN be unattached to you. The baby can be removed from your womb and live...it can even be given to someone else (adopted) for them to care for...so it meets your definition."
So what you're saying is that with modern medicine being able to keep increasingly premature c-sections (say, 4-5 month old fetuses) alive when they'd simply die with the host in the event of some traumatic injury, etc., that women should be condemned to be nothing but baby hosts if they find themselves pregnant, since medical technology can "unattach" fetuses at earlier and earlier stages of development?
"And, you know, we didn't have birth control for centuries, other than some cow dung. No doubt there were child killings (there's child killings today of totally wanted children). Really, there's NO excuse for an unwanted pregnancy now that we have about 20 different forms of birth control. But, even so, if you find yourself having one, then terminate it before it's a fully-formed baby!"
Most people do seek abortions soon after they know they're pregnant. Rarely do women who find themselves pregnant w/a healthy fetus and decide to keep it change their minds in the final trimester. Part of the reason people seek abortions is to keep one's life intact. Carrying a pregnancy that far along only to terminate it when it's most visible is going to raise a whole lotta questions that won't easily go away.
"What is wrong with that? How many options should irresponsible people have? How ethically and morally degraded must society become to accomodate the wishes and whims of irresponsible people?"
Again, cite the great numbers of irresponsible whores that zap the fetuses in the third trimester because of convenience issues. It's still their choice, as the fetus is still a parasitic life form, but those procedures at that stage for healthy fetuses with competent, healthy mothers are quite rare.
Kim at June 15, 2009 2:07 PM
Boy am I late to this party.
McElroy's being a little too cute with her logic. Her conclusions ring false in the following ways:
"The punishment should be applied to past abortions as there is no statute of limitation on murder."
*Untrue. There also exists a constitutional ban on the application of criminal ex post facto laws.
"If she ingests harmful substances, then the law should view the act as though she had strapped down a child and force-fed a toxin to it"
*Closer - but we don't prosecute Moms for smoking in a closed room with their already-born child.
"is tantamount to saying one human being can properly enslave another."
*Veering off again. This time into philosophy.
"if a pregnancy threatens a woman's life, anti-abortionists must legally require the woman to remain pregnant even if it means her death.
*We don't allow self-defense killings?
snakeman99 at June 15, 2009 2:10 PM
Kim:
I dunno, let's take the part of your quote that started to hack me off and look at it in context
Can you tell me how you got from my quote to yours? There's only one way, and it involves the deliberate intent to misrepresent.
That's the best you got? That's your fucking A-Game?
What is a man that he should not aspire to overcome his inner demons? Ought a man be a slave to his animal desires, or ought he overcome them, and attain something more noble?
If the best argument you have for eliminating "parasites" is "chimpanzees do it", well you might as well take off your clothes and shit in the street, sister.
brian at June 15, 2009 2:11 PM
Me: I simply do not believe that there is more than one or two *total* whackadoos who would believe that women should abort "as much as possible" as some sort of slap to men.
brian: That's as may be. But it is those few whackadoos who are the ones directing policy.
(back to me)
Please name for me a policy-directing individual who has promoted "as many as possible" abortions for the purpose of exerting power over men. I'll accept federal, state/provincial, or local policy, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to find, right?
If you can find reference to the policy they directed - perhaps the statute or similar? The bill submitted for debate? - that, too would be helpful. But I'll settle for the name.
Theresa at June 15, 2009 2:12 PM
Theresa:
How about Patricia Schroeder, past president of the National Organization for Women? Or Kim Gandy?
How about the bill that they got Joe Biden to sponsor, called the Violence Against Women Act.
How about the fact that on any law that involves reproductive rights in any way, the NOW is the first organization that both the Democratic caucus and the media go to for comment.
The fact that they fought against and urged Democrats to vote against the "Born-Alive Infant Protection Act"? And yes, it is precisely what it seems to be - a bill that would outlaw the intentional killing by neglect of infants that have the audacity to survive an abortion attempt.
Have I gotten radical enough for you?
You think that the radicals running NOW (which increasingly does not represent all women, but I digress (look up their membership numbers if you don't believe me, they're dropping)) aren't driving policy, I've got a bridge to sell you.
brian at June 15, 2009 2:17 PM
Oh, and "abortion is an illogical act?" Seriously? How is terminating a pregnancy that's either unwanted or unaffordable an illogical decision? Do explain.
--------------
It's not illogical it's immoral.
To kill a human because it causes me the mother inconvenience is just selfish and again immoral.
It is more convenient to go this route so that you "aren't punished with a baby"
That is an interesting way of looking at babies as punishment.
To step up and go to term and put a baby up for adoption shows a lot more responsibility and a lot less selfishness on the gender that is supposed to have some mythical maternal instinct.
David M. at June 15, 2009 2:19 PM
Late-term abortions of otherwise healthy, viable babies shouldn't be just "rare". You shouldn't have the right "to change your mind" up to the 39th week of pregnancy when you're carrying a healthy baby.
I mean, there's nothing wrong with society limiting SOME options, such as I can't kill my ailing grandmother. I could whine about it, but I have OTHER options, and I best use them, but if I don't, and I get stuck, well....who's fault is that?
You want a carte blanche, "women can do anything up to the day of delivery" kind of approach, and that's selfsih and unethical. Based on what we now know about babies in utero, you are committing murder.
The brain wave activity ALONE would qualify that child for life. You couldn't disconnect someone from life support if they still had that brain wave activity. Even if they were "inconveniently living", in a coma, they'd still be ALIVE.
We, as a society, must have some sort of standard criteria for life. And, once the criteria is met, options for ending that life must be limited. That is already the case now...that is already the standard in a lot of life/death areas, even those (especially those) dealing with "inconvenience". Abortion shouldn't be an exception to those standards. It simply needs to conform.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 2:25 PM
"You don't walk into a room and throw a bomb like that without expecting a little blow-back. I've seen nothing from you except for trite fear-mongering that any talk of restricting abortion leads right to women being forced to carry every baby to term like in some repressive third-world hellhole."
What, pointing out that giving the government power over people's bodies is a "trite scare tactic?" And again, what makes us so special that we can't turn into some third-world hellhole?
"They *do* feel comfortable w/the extreme conclusions drawn by the anti-abortion arguments"
Bullshit on stilts, and you know it. You need to dismiss the argument so you can feel better about not having thought about yours at all."
Really? Because your m.o. is typically to take an extreme position and only modify it when you're in trouble, calling anyone who took your words at face value any number of names before and after.
"Really? I've yet to see "striking back against 'da man" as a measurable reason that women get abortions.
Doesn't surprise me at all. You'd be amazed at the number of women who bristle once they find out what Planned Parenthood's founder was on about. It's not like they talk about it in Women's Studies."
Wow, you really think I came out of some gender studies classroom yesterday, don't you? Christ, no wonder you're only attracting walking stereotypical caricatures of women. Yes, I'm aware Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist with less than savory views. However, founding Planned Parenthood/helping get the ball rolling of safe and legal abortion was overall a benefit to society, as are all movements that ultimately expand liberty. Thomas Jefferson had more than a few ugly skeletons in his closet, too; he's a man who was rabidly pro-liberty while keeping slaves, some of which were his own children. While those actions were ugly, it doesn't change the fact that Jefferson was instrumental in crafting our founding documents and laying the foundation for a nation that has managed to avoid becoming a third-world hellhole... because those documents celebrated and codified liberty. It's today's lawyers that are nibbling away at it.
"You build good strawmen, don't you. You champion a position that could be considered extreme, and the position shared by some very extreme people, yet you know precisely dick about those people and the arguments they presented. History did not begin with your birth, Kim."
Really? History didn't begin in the 80's? I'm totally shocked, dude! Please, enlighten me further! One can agree (as cited above w/the Jefferson/Sanger argument,) with certain aspects of a person's philosophy (i.e. giving women access to abortion if they want it is a good thing,) while also mentioning that other parts of their philosophy frankly are sucky and illogical... and not shared by most people. Are we clear yet?
"This one bears repeating. That you believe this possible only underlies your fundamental misunderstanding of the way things work in this country. The anti-second-amendment crowd has been getting its ass handed to it every time they get to the supreme court. Which is why the last thing they wanted was for Heller to get there."
You need to dig a bit deeper beyond the headlines on Google News. Certain counties in NY state have passed laws demanding that every bullet sold within its borders be registered. I'm not kidding. And this was within the last two months, after Heller had already been decided. So yeah, it's quite possible to violate the spirit of a law while keeping the letter technically intact. See, that's how nibbling away at liberties starts.
"The Supreme Court likes settled law. Roe is settled law barring some major breakthrough case that challenges the definition of "viable".
In many cases, yes. But certain justices have pet issues, which is why I'm no fan of Sotomayor, who, while not confirmed yet, has admitted to an inability to be impartial based on race and gender. That's some pretty scary shit.
"When you repeat their lies to bolster your own bad argument, you look like a tool."
Again, you're assuming that these organizations are 100% wrong 100% of the time, and that they have zero good points. I don't like the general direction some of those organizations take, but that doesn't mean they don't occasionally make a point.
"In closing, it is not I who needs to try harder. It's you."
Not quite.
"Ditch "Rules for Radicals" and try, y'know, THINKING FOR YOURSELF.
It hurts the first few times, but you get over it."
Cute. Might want to put down the "Ad Hominem Shit-Slinging For Nutjobs" rag and do the same.
Kim at June 15, 2009 2:25 PM
brian, you're evading the question. I'm not denying - at all - that there are overly radical women's groups, and supporters thereof, out there.
What I want to see is evidence supporting a specific statement YOU made (well, two statements, now).
1) That there are any "legitimate" individuals who have stated that women should have "as many as possible" abortions for the purpose of exerting power over men.
2) That there are women (or men, what the hell) who are "directing policy" that recommends that women should have "as many as possible" abortions for the purpose of exerting power over men.
I'm not asking about any other aspects of loony feminism. I am asking about one specific subject - wanting women to have "as many as possible" abortions for the purpose of exerting power over men - and that subject only. You have asserted it, and I would like to see any evidence whatsoever that there is anything more than one or two complete lunatics who might believe that.
If you have no evidence because you completely bullshitted it, just say so. That's fine. But don't keep trying to dodge and weave. Just show me a shred of evidence for the statement you made.
Theresa at June 15, 2009 2:29 PM
"It's not illogical it's immoral.
To kill a human because it causes me the mother inconvenience is just selfish and again immoral."
Prove it's a non-parasitic human being (not attached physically to another person,) and therefore is not a threat to the livelihood of its host, and you'd have an argument.
"It is more convenient to go this route so that you "aren't punished with a baby"
That is an interesting way of looking at babies as punishment."
They *are* a punishment when they're unwanted and the mother is forced to carry to term.
"To step up and go to term and put a baby up for adoption shows a lot more responsibility and a lot less selfishness on the gender that is supposed to have some mythical maternal instinct."
Why is being "selfish" in this instance a bad thing? Bringing a kid into the world that you don't want/can't afford is a bad thing? Giving it up for adoption w/all the abandonment issues that adopted kids often face is a better thing? Overburdening the world w/another unwanted kid is desirable? And not all women have a mythical maternal instinct.
Kim at June 15, 2009 2:31 PM
My position that life begins at conception is documented well previously. I am not interested in restating previous arguments. However, I did find one argument on this thread new. That is the position that what happens when women are denied legal abortions is that that conditions get worse for women then the current law today. A good example of that position was stated by Kim:
"And how do you figure that outlawing late-term abortion doesn't open the door to making us into another El Salvador/Ceaucescu's Romania? Slippery slopes, slippery slopes."
referencing this article cited previously:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html
Let's explore slippery slopes Kim (and everyone else talking about the negative consequences of elimination of legal abortion). You see, there is another slippery slope that has resulted from the position that abortion is not murder and that a fetus has no right to life. That is China's "One Child" policy.
Back in the seventies, China facing overpopulation, decided that families should be limited in almost all cases to one child in urban areas and no more than two children in rural areas.
The result? China's population control is achieved via fetus control for the most part. What is the slippery slope that is so bad for women with abortions legal in China? When limited to a single child, Chinese parents choose MALES for the most part.
The policy has resulted in abuses including forced abortions and abandoning females at orphanages.
http://feministing.com/archives/008777.html
The easy response is that China's One Child law is the problem and not abortions. But we are discussing slippery slopes and the slippery slope I see is that if a fetus has no right to life and abortion is not murder, then the state can certainly decide to impose controls to limit family size since an easy method exists for controlling population. That method is not murder - it's called abortion. And if parents are limited to one child - does that result in better conditions for females over time? China's experience suggest no. If other countries start limiting the number of legal children as China has done, will that result in life for females getting better or worse? Is a legal abortion world over time better for women than one where abortions are not legal?
LoneStarJeffe at June 15, 2009 2:32 PM
That is an interesting way of looking at babies as punishment.
Unfortunately, offering the "that's what you get for having sex" argument presents babies as just that -- punishments for enjoying a basic biological function.
The fact that a decision is selfish is not enough to make it morally wrong. This morning, I decided to buy a pack of gum instead of give my dollar to the bum on the corner. That decision was selfish. I'm OK with that. Most of my decisions are selfish. They aim to improve my life and the lives of the people I care about. Your argument amounts to "good girls don't do that," and that's not good enough.
From the other side of the fence, abortion is indeed a responsible choice. If I don't want this fetus to develop into a human, I'd better do something about it instead of giving birth to a kid I don't want and expecting someone else to take care of my problem. And I fully realize that that argument falls flat if you see a fetus as a baby.
MonicaP at June 15, 2009 2:32 PM
There's nothing stopping the New York state legislature from passing a law tomorrow banning all abortions inside the state's boundaries.
That doesn't mean it would withstand challenge.
I would bet real money that the law in NY won't withstand challenge.
So far as I can tell, none of the Soros-funded organizations, nor any of the WWP front organizations has ever had a valid point on anything. Which means MoveOn, ANSWER, and their various compatriots.
Again, facts not in evidence. I am not a nutjob.
Although, if you are truly worried about the US turning into a third-world hellhole, you might want to talk to the imbeciles in Washington, D.C. about the shit they're doing to the currency. Because hyperinflation is a far more common trait of a third-world hellhole than abortion restriction.
brian at June 15, 2009 2:33 PM
Lovelysoul, honestly, why do you harp on the "39 week abortion" thing? The number of post-22-week abortions TOTAL is something like half of one percent of all abortions. I would venture to say that truly LATE term abortions (let's say 30 weeks or after) is so statistically insignificant, that keening over the fact that, in theory, somewhere, someday, it could happen, is a waste of effort for you.
Certain types love to imagine that cold-hearted yuppie women suddenly decide "Oh, right, I'm 8 months along now and this will interfere with my European cruise! I'll schedule an abortion for next Wednesday!" and freak out about it.
While I can't say it never, ever, ever, in a billion million years happens, it is literally so microscopic a possibility that it doesn't even bear worrying about. It's likely that more living, breathing babies are killed by inhaling Legos than are aborted at 39 weeks.
It's a non-issue. Really. Nobody should be getting angry about something that barely, if ever, happens.
Theresa at June 15, 2009 2:37 PM
Who's misrepresenting who here?
I dunno, let's take the part of your quote that started to hack me off and look at it in context
"No. Fuck you to hell. You want to know why I don't judge Amy? Because my name isn't God. I'm not in the business of shunning people who make decisions that conflict with my morality. That you would do such a thing tells me a considerable amount about your character. Or, more accurately, your lack thereof."
Awww, how non-judgmental of you!
And God? Seriously? You're judging abortion as "unacceptable," you consider yourself uber-logical, and you throw that into the mix? Really? If you have to fall back on an unprovable, supernatural argument, your argument holds no water."
"Can you tell me how you got from my quote to yours? There's only one way, and it involves the deliberate intent to misrepresent."
Uh, no. You, in characteristic fashion, dodged and weaved when the answer became uncomfortable for you, and finally spat out the equivalent of I'M NOT GOD, I CAN'T JUDGE!!! when cornered on what you're doing giving hits/ad revenue to people you consider immoral/evil. The one misrepresenting here is you. And I quoted your entire statement in context when replying. So please fuck off.
"You obviously haven't studied evolutionary psychology much, have you?
That's the best you got? That's your fucking A-Game?
What is a man that he should not aspire to overcome his inner demons? Ought a man be a slave to his animal desires, or ought he overcome them, and attain something more noble?
If the best argument you have for eliminating "parasites" is "chimpanzees do it", well you might as well take off your clothes and shit in the street, sister."
Again, it's you who are misrepresenting. If we all did what you're suggesting, which is keeping every damn fetus, wanted or not, to term, we wind up with what is ultimately a more miserable, less noble, less civilized society as the direct result. And it can all be traced back w/these evolutionary psych. roots; there's usually A LOGICAL REASON why women don't want a kid at a particular time, and so that's why reproduction isn't always the best idea for an individual member of a given species at a given time. Again, nice try, nice dodging, nice weaving, but try to do better next time when misrepresenting other people and then wrongly projecting that tendency back.
Kim at June 15, 2009 2:41 PM
Theresa:
I gave you everything you asked for. You don't want to admit that the NOW has far more influence than they ought to over women's issues, fine. Take it up with reality.
I can't find the precise quote at this moment, but it was one of the founding mothers of the second-wave feminist movement in this country that has abortion as its sole sacrament to the detriment of all other issues.
brian at June 15, 2009 2:43 PM
Then why waste so many column inches of ink on fighting a law that band something so rare?
You'd think that maybe it interferes with someone's profits or something.
brian at June 15, 2009 2:44 PM
"It's a non-issue. Really. Nobody should be getting angry about something that barely, if ever, happens." - Theresa
So is getting an abortion for the reason of rape. Let's be realistic why women choose abortions:
REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 1987 [3, 4]
reason % of abortions:
rape or incest 1 (0.4-1.3)
mother has health problems 3 (2.8)
possible fetal health problems 3 (3.3)
unready for responsibility 21
is too immature or young to have child 11 (12.2)
woman's parents want her to have abortion
has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood 12 (14.1)
husband or partner wants her to have abortion 1
has all the children she wanted or all children are grown 8 (7.9)
can't afford baby now 21 (21.3)
concerned about how having baby would change her life 16
doesn't want others to know she had relations or is pregnant 1
other 3
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
LoneStarJeffe at June 15, 2009 2:47 PM
Then why waste so many column inches of ink on fighting a law that band something so rare?
Or, one could ask, why have a law in the first place that bans something so rare? Do I need a law banning naked midgets from stealing my cheese?
MonicaP at June 15, 2009 2:47 PM
Let's explore slippery slopes Kim (and everyone else talking about the negative consequences of elimination of legal abortion). You see, there is another slippery slope that has resulted from the position that abortion is not murder and that a fetus has no right to life. That is China's "One Child" policy.
Back in the seventies, China facing overpopulation, decided that families should be limited in almost all cases to one child in urban areas and no more than two children in rural areas.
The result? China's population control is achieved via fetus control for the most part. What is the slippery slope that is so bad for women with abortions legal in China? When limited to a single child, Chinese parents choose MALES for the most part.
The policy has resulted in abuses including forced abortions and abandoning females at orphanages."
Yes, you're right; bad things usually happen when liberty of any class of people is restricted. There would have been more girls/normal gender ratios if the gov't of China had kept their nose out of other people's reproductive systems.
"The easy response is that China's One Child law is the problem and not abortions. But we are discussing slippery slopes and the slippery slope I see is that if a fetus has no right to life and abortion is not murder, then the state can certainly decide to impose controls to limit family size since an easy method exists for controlling population. That method is not murder - it's called abortion. And if parents are limited to one child - does that result in better conditions for females over time? China's experience suggest no. If other countries start limiting the number of legal children as China has done, will that result in life for females getting better or worse? Is a legal abortion world over time better for women than one where abortions are not legal?"
No, again; this is an argument that ultimately says that bad things happen when the state gets involved in people's personal decisions. I don't think the state should get to choose if you have an abortion or not. THAT'S the problem. The state should have absolutely zero input on whether you have no kids, 1 kid, or 15, provided you can pay for them all.
Kim at June 15, 2009 2:47 PM
"They *are* a punishment when they're unwanted and the mother is forced to carry to term."
Whine whine...I could say the same about my grandmother. Why should I have to care for her? Well, I don't actually...and neither does the mother of an unwanted child. There's adoption, for instance.
Government has always controlled our bodies to the extent that it doesn't allow us to kill other beings that meet our objective criteria for life.
It doesn't allow us to disconnect loved ones who still meet the criteria of brain wave activity from life support, for instance. Is that an affront to our liberties? Should we change that so no one should be inconvenienced...handle a situation they don't like?
A late-term, viable baby meets all objective criteria for life. We either honor that or we don't for the sake of giving women "special" liberties to kill. That is wrong...not to mention inconsistent with doctor's hippocratic oath to preserve all life that is viable.
Roe v Wade very well could be overturned because of that very inconsistency. It's not hard to imagine a case: The woman on her way to the abortion clinic who has an accident and is rushed to the emergency room, where doctors save her viable fetus that she didn't want.
She can sue because her "right to choose" has been denied. That's because our standard for life and viability is inconsistent with how we are handling abortion in the late stages.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 2:48 PM
If a fetus is a full individual human with rights, then it is basically 'trespassing' inside the mother's body against her consent and eating her food and so on. Perhaps being allowed to kill this other human is extreme, but clearly, as a human like any other, it should be punished for violating the rights of the mother - the most humane solution is thus, instead of aborting, it should be taken at birth, tried and put in jail for its crimes.
That is of course a sarcastic argument - just taking the anti-abortionist's stance to further logical extremes.
My own view is that once the fetus reaches a point where it has neural activity, it should be considered alive, and should then only be aborted in exceptional circumstances (for example if the mother's life is in danger unless she aborts). Before the fetus reaches that point, abortion should be OK because it cannot be considered a true living, thinking, feeling thing yet. If the mother waits too long to decide, well, not to decide *is* to decide - i.e. you've decided to keep it. That gives mothers the choice and enough time to decide --- you then have no legal argument against the human being taking up lodging inside your body and eating your food etc. because by not aborting you've given consent to letting it live the full term inside you.
xyz at June 15, 2009 2:52 PM
Kim, you ignorant slut.
That is NOT WHAT I FUCKING SAID
You really ought to take remedial English so you know the difference between CAN NOT and DO NOT.
I can judge Amy, I choose not to. And fuck you if you think I'm somehow obligated to. You don't get to make that call.
I don't judge Amy because I don't feel the need to. I never said I considered abortion "evil". I consider it unnecessary, uncivilized, base, and illogical. And none of these is a basis for shunning an intelligent and honest person.
You haven't cornered me. You've cornered an elaborate straw-brian of your own creation.
I'm not the one projecting here, kid. Absent an immediate resource shortage, there is no logical reason to not "want" a child. There are plenty of reasons someone could give that they don't want a child "right now", but they tend to involve an imposition on lifestyle, and not on survival. Emotion is not logic. "I want" does not equate to "it is logical."
No dodging, no weaving. You are spewing unadulterated bullshit in service to something that ultimately DOES become evil - the belief that a human life can be denied rights by virtue of where it falls on the timeline of its existence.
You want a slippery slope, that one's greased with Astroglide.
brian at June 15, 2009 2:52 PM
"There's nothing stopping the New York state legislature from passing a law tomorrow banning all abortions inside the state's boundaries.
That doesn't mean it would withstand challenge.
I would bet real money that the law in NY won't withstand challenge."
If abortion were outlawed in NY tomorrow, the electorate would be so pissed off, the courts wouldn't be needed to enforce the decision. The ammo law in various counties here on the other hand is gonna have to go through the courts, and probably end up more or less intact w/perhaps a caveat or two. Again, not all judges are impartial.
"So far as I can tell, none of the Soros-funded organizations, nor any of the WWP front organizations has ever had a valid point on anything. Which means MoveOn, ANSWER, and their various compatriots."
Right. They never are right about anything, ever. And you wonder why you look like an extremist?
"Cute. Might want to put down the "Ad Hominem Shit-Slinging For Nutjobs" rag and do the same."
Again, facts not in evidence. I am not a nutjob."
See above.
"Although, if you are truly worried about the US turning into a third-world hellhole, you might want to talk to the imbeciles in Washington, D.C. about the shit they're doing to the currency. Because hyperinflation is a far more common trait of a third-world hellhole than abortion restriction."
That's a different issue from what we're talking about here, and one I happen to agree w/you on. See? Even extremist nutjobs can have a point or two worth making!
Kim at June 15, 2009 2:53 PM
OK, Kim - name one issue that MoveOn was in the right about. Or ANSWER.
But the NRA are the vigilante, government-overthrowing nuts. Right.
Having gotten no actual work done today, I'm gonna go work on a house. Good night.
brian at June 15, 2009 2:56 PM
"They *are* a punishment when they're unwanted and the mother is forced to carry to term."
"Whine whine...I could say the same about my grandmother. Why should I have to care for her? Well, I don't actually...and neither does the mother of an unwanted child. There's adoption, for instance."
If you abandoned your sick grandma, it's not your responsibility. The state takes care of non-parasitic existing life. If you abandoned her helplessly on the road during a snowstorm, yes, that's a jailable offense. Leaving her in a state-run facility, while not morally (IMO) the best idea, isn't the same thing.
"Government has always controlled our bodies to the extent that it doesn't allow us to kill other beings that meet our objective criteria for life.
It doesn't allow us to disconnect loved ones who still meet the criteria of brain wave activity from life support, for instance. Is that an affront to our liberties?"
Right. We can't kill non-parasitic individuals that are already alive. Because that trespasses on the rights of other non-parasitic individuals that have the same rights we do.
"Should we change that so no one should be inconvenienced...handle a situation they don't like?"
Again, wrong argument to make.
"A late-term, viable baby meets all objective criteria for life. We either honor that or we don't for the sake of giving women "special" liberties to kill. That is wrong...not to mention inconsistent with doctor's hippocratic oath to preserve all life that is viable."
It's still a parasitic life form dependent on its host at that point, so its survival still does depend on the whim of its host. And again, most women don't abort healthy third-trimester fetuses.
"Roe v Wade very well could be overturned because of that very inconsistency. It's not hard to imagine a case: The woman on her way to the abortion clinic who has an accident and is rushed to the emergency room, where doctors save her viable fetus that she didn't want. She can sue because her "right to choose" has been denied. That's because our standard for life and viability is inconsistent with how we are handling abortion in the late stages."
That's somewhat possible, but highly unlikely to overturn a Constitutional amendment.
Kim at June 15, 2009 3:00 PM
brian, you bullshitted it. Just admit it. No woman of any degree of repute whatsoever has ever spoken out in favor of women having "as many abortions as possible" to exert power over men.
You can tapdance until Sammy Davis Jr. rises from the dead, but declaring that NOW has too much power, bla bla bla, is NOT RELEVANT TO THE QUOTE YOU PROVIDED.
I unreservedly acknowledge that there are women's groups with dumb ideas and dumb opinions on how to invoke them. This is not being debated. For good measure, I WILL acknowledge that NOW has more power and influence than they ought to. There, see?
So, I say again: Find me one tiny shred of evidence that, specifically, any person of any repute whatsoever has proposed that women should have "as many as possible" abortions in order to exert power over men.
(By the way, "abortion as sacrament" bears little relationship to "abortion as power trip over men". One is women having the right to control their reproduction, the other is to, well, exert power over men. But I digress. Not as much as you, but I digress nonetheless.)
C'mon, brian. Find me a quote, and/or a policy and/or policy maker that recommends "as many as possible" abortions to exert power over men. That's all I want from you.
Theresa at June 15, 2009 3:01 PM
"I don't think the state should get to choose if you have an abortion or not. THAT'S the problem. The state should have absolutely zero input on whether you have no kids, 1 kid, or 15, provided you can pay for them all."
I agree the state should not interfere about kids. But the state is not deciding how many kids you have. It is deciding how many fetuses are allowed to be born to meet the needs to the state. Women could choose before deciding to have to sex but according to many on this thread, "human nature" means that approach will fail. So the state has no choice but to force such laws over time as population grows. When the choice becomes breaking population laws or getting an abortion - where do you stand?
Before anyone says this is an ad hominem arguement, I remind you the question raised was about slippery slopes, not current state abortions. I believe there is just as much a slippery slope with the implications over time of abortions legal to be considered as others have raised the slippery slope arguement about the implications of abortions not being legal.
LoneStarJeffe at June 15, 2009 3:03 PM
brian: "I have however taken the position that abortion in and of itself is an illogical act and should be avoided by a civilized society." ... "You are spewing unadulterated bullshit in service to something that ultimately DOES become evil - the belief that a human life can be denied rights by virtue of where it falls on the timeline of its existence."
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but weren't you the one who was recently, on another thread here, basically suggesting parents should be allowed to let their sick / retarded / disabled children die and that it's nobody else's business to prevent that? (In response to some post by Amy about, if I recall, someone denying their 'special needs' child medical care that it needed, or something like that.) If you think it's OK to let parents kill children that are several years old already, surely killing a fetus is at least as acceptable? This seems incongruent with your views expressed earlier (unless there is indeed another 'brian' here).
On another point, it's fine and well to say "we" should teach adolescents to keep their legs closed, but who exactly is this "we" that is suddenly going to do that?
xyz at June 15, 2009 3:05 PM
Brian, at this point, you're going back and forth over points I've already refuted, sometimes more than once, and now again misrepresenting me by insinuating that I believe the NRA are a bunch of nutjobs, which I don't, and have made statements here to the contrary. So yes, your inconsistencies and lack of intellectual honesty have led me to quit arguing w/you. Nice try, though; don't let the house fall on you.
Kim at June 15, 2009 3:05 PM
"I agree the state should not interfere about kids. But the state is not deciding how many kids you have. It is deciding how many fetuses are allowed to be born to meet the needs to the state. Women could choose before deciding to have to sex but according to many on this thread, "human nature" means that approach will fail. So the state has no choice but to force such laws over time as population grows. When the choice becomes breaking population laws or getting an abortion - where do you stand?"
I think you're honestly misunderstanding me; the state should have ZERO say in how ANY pregnancy is carried. Zero. Ever. I'd rather let people figure out the consequences of overpopulation for themselves rather than allow the gov't to impose quotas from on high.
Kim at June 15, 2009 3:09 PM
Aha, I found it: These are quotes from brian on a May 21 2009 thread:
"Personally, I think the government ought to stay out of it at both ends. If people kill off their children, why should I care?"
"I'm advocating letting people not get their child treated for cancer"
"It's not that I think it's A-OK [for parents to murder their child], it's that I largely don't give a fuck unless it impacts society at large ... If the "magic" treatment fails, he dies. Nobody else is impacted. You could try to make the argument that his death denies society anything interesting or useful he may have accomplished, but you can use the same argument against abortion."
Unless I'm confused, you said "If people kill off their children, why should I care?" - why do you seem to care about abortion then?
xyz at June 15, 2009 3:12 PM
One more, since I just walked the dog and am waiting for my friend to finish dinner.
Theresa:
You'll need to wait until I have time to find it. I'm not making it up. Why would I make up something so incredibly insane?
xyz:
First, I'm not advocating making abortion illegal. Second, I basically don't give a fuck what you do with your life or your children's lives, just don't blow smoke up my ass about how it's neither stupid nor killing. Third, I fail to see how the referenced sentence is advocating letting parents kill their children, as opposed to letting them die needlessly. There's a difference between neglect and murder. I'm against coercive state power in any event.
xyz:
Ah, now I see the confusion. I use the words "kill off" once, where everywhere else I use things like "let them die", and you immediately translate that into "murder". Whatever. I have to say I admire your tenacity in attempting to discredit me by injecting your own meaning into my utterings.
Perhaps you could share your real name and perhaps a link to your own ramblings as well.
As for why I care about abortion? I don't, specifically. I care about bullshit. And the pro-abortion and anti-abortion sides are both covered in it.
The pro side is trying to convince everyone that a fetus at any gestational stage is either "a parasite" or "a non-viable tissue mass". The anti-side is trying to convince everyone that it's life when the man rolls over and falls asleep.
Here I am arguing that perhaps a human rights view is valid, and all that really remains is to determine when, exactly, the transition from "non-viable tissue mass" to "human" happens.
Since we already have an objective standard for determining when someone is legally "dead", could we not use the same standard in reverse to determine "alive"?
Basically, you need to have three things to be "alive", heartbeat, respiration, brain activity. All three can be observed in early fetal development. From the point that those criteria are met, any claim that abortion is not killing are inoperative.
Again, the interesting debate is what to do with the edge cases. So far as I'm concerned, both sides of the argument (the Kim side, and the side past momof4) are preaching to the converted, shouting past everyone who ought to care, and accomplishing nothing.
brian at June 15, 2009 3:38 PM
Dumbest. Argument. Ever.
Overpopulation is not a reasonable concern. We aren't even at half of the Earth's carrying capacity. Underpopulation is going to be a far more interesting problem to confront in the next fifty years though.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the student as to why.
I'm leaving, and this time I mean it.
brian at June 15, 2009 3:39 PM
"I think you're honestly misunderstanding me; the state should have ZERO say in how ANY pregnancy is carried. Zero. Ever. I'd rather let people figure out the consequences of overpopulation for themselves rather than allow the gov't to impose quotas from on high."
Hi Kim. I understand that is your position. And I agree with you on that position.
I believe that legalizing abortion enables governments like China to pass population laws forcing some women to choose abortion or break the law. Taking the position that such laws are wrong are strangely similar to taking the position that abortion laws are wrong. Because approval of abortion is passively approving population control laws since they are dependent upon the same premise. That premise is that fetuses are not human and have no right to life. The difference between the two are only in degree. And governments will say they are not "forcing" abortions since women have the choice of birth control and making a "choice" not to have sex or giving the child up for adoption to avoid breaking the population control law. Strangely, those arguements again echo the anti-abortion positions. But according to the pro-choice responses to those arguements - some abortions are inevitable. Therefore, some abortions will be forced on women.
LoneStarJeffe at June 15, 2009 3:43 PM
"I believe that legalizing abortion enables governments like China to pass population laws forcing some women to choose abortion or break the law. Taking the position that such laws are wrong are strangely similar to taking the position that abortion laws are wrong. Because approval of abortion is passively approving population control laws since they are dependent upon the same premise. That premise is that fetuses are not human and have no right to life. The difference between the two are only in degree. And governments will say they are not "forcing" abortions since women have the choice of birth control and making a "choice" not to have sex or giving the child up for adoption to avoid breaking the population control law. Strangely, those arguements again echo the anti-abortion positions. But according to the pro-choice responses to those arguements - some abortions are inevitable. Therefore, some abortions will be forced on women."
OK, but this argument is predicated on the supposition that the gov't must force people to do as they want with their bodies one way or another, which is something that ought to be opposed and actively rebelled against vigorously. Whether they call it population control, eugenics, or whatever, the government (again,) should have zero say in whether or not someone carries a pregnancy to term or not, nor what a consenting adult will do with their body. None. Zero. And as free human beings, we shouldn't settle for an either-or situation like that. Ever.
Kim at June 15, 2009 3:59 PM
Kim,
Sorry to take so long to respond, but regarding Gardasil, I think we actually agree pretty much.
I am opposed to gardasil as a mandatory vaccination, though I have no problem with it as a recommended vaccine.
I have my doubts on its efficacy and how well it has been tested. For more on that, see evilslutopia.
However, darn you, I find a lot of pro-choice folks these days are get the government off my body until it comes time for gardasil, and then they are all, mandatory injections and those opposed to mandatory injections just hate women!!!
I am very much in favor of keep the gov't off our bodies, and I think that goes to mandatory vaccinations except for ones like MMR that work against a disease, encephalitis, with immediate, 24 hour, fatal consequences.
Anyway, if you don't mind, let me continue...
Someone up above said, "They *are* a punishment when they're unwanted and the mother is forced to carry to term."
Ignoring (cause I ain't reading 150 messages) the actual context, let me repurpose this and ask:
If abortions in the first trimester are legal on demand for any reason, and abortions throughout the rest of the pregnancy are legal to protect the health of the mother, or in the case of fetal abnormality, if birth control is basically made free, along with pregnancy testing, then is it a punishment to ban abortions of healthy fetuses to healthy mothers past viability, or is it not a punishment, and just what parents are taught are "natural consequences." That is, get your abortion early, or have a baby. That's not a punishment any more than any deadline is.
jerry at June 15, 2009 4:40 PM
"It's still a parasitic life form dependent on its host at that point, so its survival still does depend on the whim of its host. And again, most women don't abort healthy third-trimester fetuses."
Your "parasitic life form" isn't a valid argument, as a simple 5-minute c-section resolves that issue immediately. You continually deny that point. This is a viable life we're talking about. Just because the mother has possession of it within her body at the moment doesn't give her the right to kill it.
That's where the artificial womb, if developed, will become very interesting because I suspect, if given the same argument you are making, you and others like you will then say that the mother has no obligation to relinguish the "parasite" from her body, even though it could continue to live outside the womb.
Who created this "parasitic life"? Didn't the mother at least have some choice in that matter? You make it sound like she drank bad water in Mexico and therefore shouldn't bear any burden for the consequence of creating this life form.
I have made two babies in my life, and I'm responsible for both of them. The first was unplanned, and I was unmarried at the time, but I didn't consider either of them "parasites". I made them. I had the option of abortion, early on, but, although I considered it, I didn't choose it. I figured out a way to afford my baby, and I do not regret that decision....though I believe I could've shown greater responsibility for birth control.
The point is that pregnancy doesn't just "happen" to a woman's body. It isn't some "parasitic condition" that she has no control over. Her decisions lead to that condition, and afterwards, her decisions lead to how humanely that life, or fetus, is treated. Women need to be aware and responsible for how their actions - or lack of action - effect this life that they've formed.
I don't think a woman, by sheer virtue of being a woman, gets to plead some sort of innocence and non-culpability for ending the life of a viable child. It should be a well-reasoned and humane decision. Murdering your husband is also relatively "rare," but we still want accountability - a woman still needs to justify that action somehow before a jury.
I think the women who choose late-term abortion to end or prevent the suffering of a child are noble. But the women who choose late-term abortion of a healthy, viable child because they can't decide are cowards and murderers.
Furthermore, doctors do not view an unborn life as "parasitic". Otherwise, they would let the child die with the mother after an accident. How do you even explain that discrepency? Do you not see the conflict? We cannot expect doctors to treat viable life as valuable, at the same time allowing women to treat it as "parasitic".
It's either a viable life or it isn't. You don't get a choice about that after a certain stage of development. Once the baby can live on its own, the mother should not be able to terminate its life for her own reasons.
lovelsyosul at June 15, 2009 4:53 PM
Ill give all of you some other food for thought.
The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on cases it agrees to hear in the order they are recieved. In 1973 BEFORE Roe vs Wade the Supreme Court ws supposed to have heard and ruled on Gomez v Perez which in a nutshell was about illegitmate children not being entitled to child support under Texas law at that time.
The court ruled on this AFTER RvW in direct contradiction to its own rules of conduct because by confirming RvW it was easier for them to sidestep a potential muddy issue.
heres an excerpt:
"Roe vs. Wade's Dirty Little Secret
This coming January 22 will mark the 25th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark decision of "Roe vs. Wade", and undoubtedly there will be parades and other festivities planned to celebrate the occasion. However, just five prior to "Roe vs. Wade", the Supreme Court ruled on another case having to do with reproduction that rarely, if ever, receives any mention. This is the case of "Gomez vs. Perez". In this case the Supreme Court elected to rule contrary to the concept of "freedom of choice" by overturning existing state law and ruling that illegitimate children were entitled to child support from their biological fathers.
The spirit in which "Gomez vs. Perez" was decided was certainly justified, being that a man who maintains a definable relationship with a woman, even outside the institution of marriage, must be required to support children born within that relationship. The problem with "Gomez vs. Perez", the Supreme Court ruling that states use to enforce child support laws on unmarried men, is that the law has evolved from it's original intent into a vehicle that is sometimes used to reap a virtual cornucopia of social welfare entitlements or a guaranteed percentage of a man's personal income.
The "dirty little secret" is that it appears that the Supreme Court did a sidestep around the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by deliberately manipulating the docket so as to comply to the politically correct definition of "freedom of choice".
A Supreme Court case consists of two phases, the argument and the decision. The case is first argued before the Court and the decision is usually rendered four to six weeks later. The general rule for Supreme Court cases in 1972-73 found the arguments and decisions falling in chronological order. The exception to the rule came in the cases of "Roe vs. Wade" and "Gomez vs. Perez". "Roe vs. Wade" was argued before the Court on Oct. 10, 1972 and decided on Jan. 22, 1973. "Gomez vs. Perez" was argued before the Court on Dec. 6, 1972 and decided on Jan. 17, 1973. While there does exist the occasional case that does not follow the rule of chronology, the close relativity between the two cases, and the unusual length of time between the argument and decision of "Roe vs. Wade", stretches the explanation of coincidence a bit thin. Were the Supreme Court to have followed the general rule of chronology, a problem would have existed for the court to have reached the same decision for "Gomez vs. Perez". How could the Supreme Court have rendered a decision that would deem a woman's pregnancy to be autonomous and affirm the concept of "freedom of choice" through the "right of privacy", and a week later render a decision that would deny the same "freedom of choice" to unmarried men? Obviously the answer was to delay the decision of "Roe vs. Wade" until after "Gomez vs. Perez".
Nowhere in the arena of political debate does the specter of hypocrisy rear it's ugly head more than with the issue of "freedom of choice".
A man cannot require the woman, with whom he is married, to bear his child to term, but a woman can require a man, with whom no relationship exists other than a casual sexual encounter, to support a child that she unilaterally chooses to have. The argument for the status-quo is; "It takes two to make a baby." That is just rhetoric designed to justify a means. The only thing that a man creates, as defined by the pro-choice movement itself, is an "unviable tissue mass". As a result of the "Roe vs. Wade" decision, it is solely the woman that makes the conscious and deliberate "choice" to cultivate that "tissue mass" into a living and breathing entity. If the woman has the right to excise that "tissue mass" from her reproductive system, without any regards for man involved, then the man should have the same right to disavow that "tissue mass".
(Writing Credit to http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/roevswades.htm David Allan Roberts)
Had they ruled on this case first RvW may not have even been heard or struck down.
The Other Mike D at June 15, 2009 5:44 PM
"Precisely. When it's no longer a parasitic organism, it attains the full rights of a citizen."
20/25/30 years of age?
jerry at June 15, 2009 5:48 PM
The Other Mike, I don't see any major conflict there. You cannot excuse a man's responsibility in making a baby, even if he does so with a woman he doesn't intend to marry, or is already married to someone else.
The woman still has that baby inside her body, and she is the only one that really faces the consequences of removing that baby, undergoing the physical removal via abortion. Because it is inherently physical and intimate, causing pain and bleeding, along with the risk of death to herself, it should naturally be the woman's choice. And she should also have the choice NOT to undergo such a painful and risky physical procedure.
Why should the male insist that she undergo an abortion, which could potentially kill her, for the sake of HIS convenience? Men should realize that they obviously assume the risk of potential child support if they get sexually involved with a woman. No birth control is foolproof, so if you don't wish to possibly have a child with this woman, DON'T DO IT.
What's wrong with getting to know and love someone first? This whole "I have no accountability for the child I create" is so bogus.
The court correctly decided that case. You make the child, you pay support. A woman doesn't have to risk her life having an abortion to erase the consequences of the poor decisions made by both parties.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 6:12 PM
lovelysoul, I think Mike's point is along the lines of:
1) What the couple "made" was not a baby, but an unviable tissue mass (that's the extreme pro-choice argument.)
2) pregnancies are dangerous to the mother, and fetuses are in fact parasites (see Kim above.)
3) If it takes two to make a baby, then both should need to consent. If one doesn't consent, then surely it is simpler, easier, safer to have an early abortion than to carry the baby to full term
4) If the male declines parenthood, no one is saying the female needs to decline parenthood, but if the male declines at a time when an unviable tissue mass is all that is present, at a time when the mother is hosting only a parasite, at a time when an early abortion is possible, then the mother may wish to consider that early abortion. Abortions are really not a big deal compared to actually giving birth.
5) If the female wishes to go forward anyway, that is fine, but she cannot make a monetary claim on the father. What would the grounds of such a claim be when she has been given ample notice and since getting rid of an unviable tissue mass and a parasite is so easy?
The claim that abortion is dangerous and messy to the female is interesting, but we have to contrast that with the damage from the intrusion of the state into the property rights of the male for a period of 18 or more years.
They are two competing claims, and I would suppose that if the pregnancy is caught early on, say at a time when RU-486 can eliminate the parasite, then I would say the state intrusion into the male's property rights against his consent for 18 or more years and to the tune of thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars is at least comparable to an RU-486 abortion.
And of course, the sooner the abortion is had, and the more medical science advances, and the easier removal of the parasite becomes, the more we need to consider the force used to penetrate the non-consenting father's wallet.
So to sum up: if the father declines to be a father early enough, the mother can still choose to be a mother, but there is no reason for her to have a claim to child support.
jerry at June 15, 2009 6:24 PM
Your "parasitic life form" isn't a valid argument, as a simple 5-minute c-section resolves that issue immediately.
And if you don't have that c-section, it remains a parasite, subject to the whims of its host. What part of "physically attached to the host" do you not understand?
"You continually deny that point. This is a viable life we're talking about. Just because the mother has possession of it within her body at the moment doesn't give her the right to kill it."
Exactly why not? Explain scientifically, please.
"Who created this "parasitic life"? Didn't the mother at least have some choice in that matter? You make it sound like she drank bad water in Mexico and therefore shouldn't bear any burden for the consequence of creating this life form."
Babies are burdens? Therefore, punishments meted out for sex, right?
"I have made two babies in my life, and I'm responsible for both of them. The first was unplanned, and I was unmarried at the time, but I didn't consider either of them "parasites". I made them. I had the option of abortion, early on, but, although I considered it, I didn't choose it. I figured out a way to afford my baby, and I do not regret that decision....though I believe I could've shown greater responsibility for birth control."
Fine, and that was *your* choice. That doesn't mean it should apply to everyone.
"The point is that pregnancy doesn't just "happen" to a woman's body. It isn't some "parasitic condition" that she has no control over. Her decisions lead to that condition, and afterwards, her decisions lead to how humanely that life, or fetus, is treated. Women need to be aware and responsible for how their actions - or lack of action - effect this life that they've formed."
Which is why some women choose abortion rather than bringing a child into what would be a shitty home life.
"I don't think a woman, by sheer virtue of being a woman, gets to plead some sort of innocence and non-culpability for ending the life of a viable child. It should be a well-reasoned and humane decision."
Again, you're trying to assign the rights of a born child to a parasitic fetus.
"Murdering your husband is also relatively "rare," but we still want accountability - a woman still needs to justify that action somehow before a jury."
Not the same thing. That's the murder of a born citizen.
"I think the women who choose late-term abortion to end or prevent the suffering of a child are noble. But the women who choose late-term abortion of a healthy, viable child because they can't decide are cowards and murderers."
So if you smother your born Down Syndrome child w/a pillow to prevent suffering it's ok? It prevents suffering, you know. Either it's murder or it isn't; you can't have it both ways.
"Furthermore, doctors do not view an unborn life as "parasitic". Otherwise, they would let the child die with the mother after an accident. How do you even explain that discrepency? Do you not see the conflict? We cannot expect doctors to treat viable life as valuable, at the same time allowing women to treat it as "parasitic"."
I'd argue that doctors should let the fetus die w/the mother, unless the father or next of kin expressly wishes to take care of it.
"It's either a viable life or it isn't. You don't get a choice about that after a certain stage of development."
Right. The stage called "birth."
"Once the baby can live on its own, the mother should not be able to terminate its life for her own reasons."
Right. If it's not a physical parasite anymore, then you'd be correct.
Kim at June 15, 2009 6:26 PM
"The claim that abortion is dangerous and messy to the female is interesting, but we have to contrast that with the damage from the intrusion of the state into the property rights of the male for a period of 18 or more years.
They are two competing claims, and I would suppose that if the pregnancy is caught early on, say at a time when RU-486 can eliminate the parasite, then I would say the state intrusion into the male's property rights against his consent for 18 or more years and to the tune of thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars is at least comparable to an RU-486 abortion.
And of course, the sooner the abortion is had, and the more medical science advances, and the easier removal of the parasite becomes, the more we need to consider the force used to penetrate the non-consenting father's wallet.
So to sum up: if the father declines to be a father early enough, the mother can still choose to be a mother, but there is no reason for her to have a claim to child support."
Yep, this is exactly what I believe should be done in the interest of equal rights/justice. Women should be allowed to carry to term if they want, etc., but a man should also have a window of opportunity between being notified of the pregnancy/child and being able to legally terminate his rights to said child if he expressly doesn't want it. He would get no visitation, but there'd be no support order, either. But if he should choose to support the child, visitation/support should be mandatory.
Kim at June 15, 2009 6:31 PM
There are two definitions for parasite, a scientific biological definition, and a social definition. There is no scientific biological reasoning to claim a fetus is a parasite:
This was written in 1974 to address that.
http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html
To the article above, I'd add there is plenty of research showing the benefits of pregnancy to a female, including a lowered risk of several forms of cancer, reduction in symptoms from forms of arthritis, and ms, asthma, Crohn's disease and colitis.
Can you point me to any well known biologists that would agree that a fetus is a parasite? (It would help if they were somehow neutral in the abortion debate.)
It seems to either a disingenous, dishonest, specious, or ignorant claim.
jerry at June 15, 2009 6:42 PM
They *are* a punishment when they're unwanted and the mother is forced to carry to term.
"To step up and go to term and put a baby up for adoption shows a lot more responsibility and a lot less selfishness on the gender that is supposed to have some mythical maternal instinct."
Why is being "selfish" in this instance a bad thing? Bringing a kid into the world that you don't want/can't afford is a bad thing? Giving it up for adoption w/all the abandonment issues that adopted kids often face is a better thing? Overburdening the world w/another unwanted kid is desirable? And not all women have a mythical maternal instinct.
Posted by: Kim at June 15, 2009 2:31 PM
----------
Being selfish is a bad thing because it takes a human life for an out for the woman and/or man if he is in on the choice.
As far as abandonement issues for adopted kids, I believe you are way off the mark. Many adopted kids are happy for a chance at life, and many thrive in homes where they are truly wanted. An adopted friends daughter had an abortion last year and was very upset with her daughter. She reminded her daughter that if she the mom had been aborted, rather than given up for adoption, there would have been no her.
I also have a Korean cousin adopted and thriving as a wife and mom.
You wouldn't be overburdening the world with an unwanted kid if you put it up for adoption. They are actually wanted kids.
As for the mythical maternal instinct I like to get feedback on that because women are often characterized this way by society and it seems as this carries over into our family courts. I don't understand this as these same women who are thought to be natures wonderful mothers are the same ones who ultimately decide to kill more babies than anyone can imagine,
David M. at June 15, 2009 6:43 PM
"So to sum up: if the father declines to be a father early enough, the mother can still choose to be a mother, but there is no reason for her to have a claim to child support."
Well, if you have that all in writing - like some sort of contractual form - I would say you're right. But it's like the liability forms guests of mine sign when they engage in risky behavior, like jetskiing. One assumes a certain risk for doing what's "fun". If you have a contract or a waiver, no problem, but unless you have it in writing, a man, as the father, doesn't get to claim, after the fact, that he only wanted responsibility of a "tissue."
That "tissue" still involves risk for the mother to remove, so it is not within the male's right to demand removal. And that's not even dealing with the fact that many people - including the woman you may be sexually involved with - do not consider an unborn life "tissue", and may, in fact, view it as a baby from conception. If you don't know what her thoughts are on the subject, perhaps you shouldn't be getting sexually involved with her.
At any rate, any child that is the result is your responsibility. Why should it be the state's responsibility because you had unprotected sex with a woman you didn't love? Why should we taxpayers pay for your misjudgement? And, furthermore, why should the child pay because you think it shouldn't exist? It takes TWO to create a baby. You have no right to demand an abortion when abortion is a highly emotional and physical procedure. Why didn't you have a vasectomy if you don't want to risk having children?
"I'd argue that doctors should let the fetus die w/the mother, unless the father or next of kin expressly wishes to take care of it."
OMG! Well, that will result in lots of lawsuits where no kin is present in an emergency to object or assent. Obviously, if a woman carries a pregnancy past the point of viability - past when she could legitimately have a LEGAL FIRST TRIMESTER ABORTION - it is assumed, by our medical professionals, that she views the child as viable. It is assumed she wants the child, or she could've terminated it earlier. I think that is the right assumption, rather than having the poor woman wake up and tell her, "we let your baby die". How cold. How immoral.
You would really deny life to a healthy child, already formed and able to live outside the womb?
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 6:50 PM
@lovelysoul
If you are a woman I would agree in your opinion that the case was decided correctly. To me though the fact that they sidestepped the orignal case in order to rule on RvW casts suspicion on the process.
I have NEVER disagreed with the fact that men are responsible for supporting thier children. What I have an issue with is the fact that there is now no laws REQUIRING a woman to disclose the birth. If a woman has a sexual relationship with a man that is not a one night stand or "drunken encounter" but is done with intent of producing a child then the woman surrender spart of her rights because she has given tacit approval to the man by agreeing in principle to bear a child with him.
Womens choices are far and away more then men yet groups like NOW firmly oppose goverment spending for medical research to further the cuse of an effective contraceptive for men OTHER then Vasaectomy or condoms.
Women have gotten away with preferential treatment in the cases of child support,paternity,abortion and divorce for so long that what used to contested is now accepted.
Stop safe haven laws, stop treating fathers as non essential and give them some say in the process and you might find a much more sympathetic ear. I see countless stories on how women are complaining men wont commit.
Well cases like this are a perfect reason why.
The Other Mike D at June 15, 2009 6:50 PM
Kim -
We have reached an impasse. You are not saying anything that will convince anyone here that a fetus is a parasite.
And clearly, we cannot say anything that will convince you otherwise. Appeals to human rights are wasted on you.
You are an ideologue. I don't even know why you attempted to engage us in conversation.
Oh, that's right. You didn't. May I remind you of your first comment? Great.
The very first thing you had to contribute to the thread was utterly devoid of substance, its sole purpose to denigrate those who comment here, and impose upon them your belief that we oughtn't to comment here or associate with Amy because her life choices may not align with our beliefs. And you did this with absolutely no clue as to those beliefs.
You essentially used the "chickenhawk" argument.
Well, guess what. You don't get to determine who we may associate with. You don't get to determine what opinions we may hold.
And you have to come up with something better than assigning other people's statements to me, and then using those statements in an effort to discredit what I've said here. And you NEVER get to twist my words into something they don't mean and then use that to turn me into some kind of bogeyman.
brian at June 15, 2009 6:54 PM
@Jerry: Here's an item that proves that indeed, fetuses do behave just as a parasite: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626284.500-parasitic-trick-helps-fetus-avoid-attack.html
@David M: You're assigning the rights of a born child to a parasitic fetus. They're not the same thing.
Re: Adopted kids/abandonment issues. You're right; not all adopted kids have those issues. But many do. See this item: http://www.internationaladoptionstories.com/abandonment-issues.htm
And re: the mythical mother instinct, if a born child is murdered, the most likely culprit statistically is the mother. Fathers second, parental lovers third. So no, while some mothers really do feel love, etc. for their kids (of course,) some don't.
Kim at June 15, 2009 6:57 PM
@Brian-Again, you're throwing out arguments that have already been addressed. Get something new or intellectually honest, and I might respond specifically to you again.
@lovelysoul-"OMG! Well, that will result in lots of lawsuits where no kin is present in an emergency to object or assent. Obviously, if a woman carries a pregnancy past the point of viability - past when she could legitimately have a LEGAL FIRST TRIMESTER ABORTION - it is assumed, by our medical professionals, that she views the child as viable. It is assumed she wants the child, or she could've terminated it earlier. I think that is the right assumption, rather than having the poor woman wake up and tell her, "we let your baby die". How cold. How immoral."
OK, apparently I misunderstood that part of what you were saying. I thought you were speaking of an instance where a woman was dead/brain dead, but the fetus was still viable. If both mother and fetus can be saved and it's an obvious pregnancy, I'd say to go for it. However, if it's a choice between the mother and the fetus, the mother's life must come first.
Kim at June 15, 2009 7:02 PM
And yes I do support a window where the father can decline parenthood.
But I also have to caveat that with post partum time limit as well since I believe it should be MANDATORY that a woman has to disclose the birth of child to the father if he is unaware of the pregnancy. He should then have a short window to say yes or no.
In the cases where the mother wants to give up the child for adoption...the biological father should have first rights regardless to take the child as his own. And in the interests of fairness the mother then has a right to decline her rights then and not be liable. But it must come with strict rules that he/she is to never attempt to exercise ANY maternal/parternal attempts. If she/he does so they are in violation of the agreement and can thereafter be held liable for child support.
There would need to be a very strict set of guidlines. I do not think however it would be unworkable.
The long term benefits is that women would no longer be able to have children as income sources and the financial rewards that exist now would be lessened to the point where the women who DO (Not all) engage in this type of behavior would find no further incentive.
Since NUMEROUS stats/reports/studies show that the child support epidemic is illusory I think a more fair system woul be a big step towards meeting the goals of both the pro-life and pro choice types.
The Other Mike D at June 15, 2009 7:06 PM
"And yes I do support a window where the father can decline parenthood.
But I also have to caveat that with post partum time limit as well since I believe it should be MANDATORY that a woman has to disclose the birth of child to the father if he is unaware of the pregnancy. He should then have a short window to say yes or no.
In the cases where the mother wants to give up the child for adoption...the biological father should have first rights regardless to take the child as his own. And in the interests of fairness the mother then has a right to decline her rights then and not be liable. But it must come with strict rules that he/she is to never attempt to exercise ANY maternal/parternal attempts. If she/he does so they are in violation of the agreement and can thereafter be held liable for child support.
There would need to be a very strict set of guidlines. I do not think however it would be unworkable.
The long term benefits is that women would no longer be able to have children as income sources and the financial rewards that exist now would be lessened to the point where the women who DO (Not all) engage in this type of behavior would find no further incentive.
Since NUMEROUS stats/reports/studies show that the child support epidemic is illusory I think a more fair system woul be a big step towards meeting the goals of both the pro-life and pro choice types."
Agreed w/all of the above, TOMD.
Kim at June 15, 2009 7:07 PM
There is a difference between comparing X to Y and equating X to Y.
We can compare ourselves to monkeys and learn all sorts of things about our behaviors, but we are not monkeys. We can compare ourselves to pigs and learn all sorts of things about how we breathe and pump blood, but we are not pigs.
It is possible for two biological entities to share common traits and common tricks and that can be due to an even older common ancestor, or parallel evolution.
The author of your piece compares a fetus to a parasite, he does not equate a fetus with a parasite.
Can you do better than that reference?
(Also since I pointed out some of the general benefits that come from being pregnant, it seems your parasite comparison fails to follow the rule of parasites do harm. Symbiotes benefit each other. Perhaps it is more accurate to say a fetus is a symbiote. Regardless, I think both such comparisons are semantic nonsense used only to bias an argument, and not to persuade through facts or logic.)
jerry at June 15, 2009 7:11 PM
"Womens choices are far and away more then men yet groups like NOW firmly oppose goverment spending for medical research to further the cuse of an effective contraceptive for men OTHER then Vasaectomy or condoms."
Why, exactly, are condoms such a bad choice?
For centuries, women have had to bear and care for children that we didn't want because there was NO contraception available to us. You men have contraception readily available, but it's been my experience that most of you don't want to use condoms, even when you are in a relatively risky situation with a woman you certainly aren't ready to procreate with. Yet, that woman is most likely having sex with you because she believes you genuinely care for her, or maybe even love her...usually because you've implied or said that.
Why should feminists have to come up with a better method for you? Why is that THEIR responsibility? You already have a rubber sheath that is quite effective, if used, but you refuse to use it. We women must take potentially cancer-causing hormones for years.
If there was money to be made, I'm sure the big pharma companies would be all over some male contraceptive pill, but my guess is that their studies show that guys wouldn't really take that either.
But no method is foolproof, so goverment is right in assigning accountabilty to both parties for an unplanned pregnancy.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 7:11 PM
Oh wow, Kim - your whole thing about single parenthood being bad enough to warrant abortion, and yet you're going to give guys a free "opt out" on any child they create? How hypocritical!
Just give guys a free ride, then. Let them screw their brains out and any child that results, they have no obligation to.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 7:16 PM
"Also since I pointed out some of the general benefits that come from being pregnant, it seems your parasite comparison fails to follow the rule of parasites do harm. Symbiotes benefit each other. Perhaps it is more accurate to say a fetus is a symbiote. Regardless, I think both such comparisons are semantic nonsense used only to bias an argument, and not to persuade through facts or logic."
Look at death in childbirth rates for pre-industrial societies; human women are poorly designed to bear our young, and die often w/o medical intervention. As has been stated by others upthread, many women risk death by carrying a fetus to term. And aside from the unpleasant side effects of a normal, healthy pregnancy (mood swings, swollen body parts, etc.) the fetus/parasite draws nutrients, etc. from its host body w/o providing much in return. And it indeed produces parasitic molecules in order to prevent rejection by the host. And then we get into the fun post-partum possible physical and mental effects on a new mom... Those possible benefits of pregnancy to the mother you cited are just that--possibilities. None of the diseases you cited are unheard of at all for women who have borne children. So no, I don't think it's correct to describe a fetus as a symbiotic organism when it fits the parasitic definition quite well.
Kim at June 15, 2009 7:18 PM
"Why, exactly, are condoms such a bad choice?
...You men have contraception readily available, but it's been my experience that most of you don't want to use condoms..."
I think you just answered your own question. You could also ask what is it about condoms that make it such that men don't want to use them? Or ask what is it about rubber or latex that might explain why you might now wish it wrapped around your clitoris during a time when you were seeking maximum sensitivity in order to achieve an orgasm.
Regarding male birth control, while men would probably take a male pill to avoid financial liability, would a woman trust a man who says, "Sure, sure babe, I took the pill today, now can we do it?" Or would a woman make the man use a condom anyway?
jerry at June 15, 2009 7:20 PM
"So no, I don't think it's correct to describe a fetus as a symbiotic organism when it fits the parasitic definition quite well."
Right then, well that's you who I am making the gross assumption is not a biologist making a biological decision.
That's my point.
I am not saying that carrying a pregnancy is not dangerous, or potentially harmful, or a drag, or that it does not fit loosely a social definition of a parasite.
I am saying it does not fit the biological definition of a parasite as decided by biologists, male and female.
And so I think that your continuing claims that it can be treated as a biological parasite fall short.
Anyway, I have to run.
jerry at June 15, 2009 7:24 PM
"why you might now wish it wrapped around your clitoris"
should be
"why you might not wish it wrapped around your clitoris"
jerry at June 15, 2009 7:25 PM
Oh wow, Kim - your whole thing about single parenthood being bad enough to warrant abortion, and yet you're going to give guys a free "opt out" on any child they create? How hypocritical!
In the interest of equal justice for all; if women can opt out, they don't get to drag men through 18 years of support for an unwanted child. It reduces the incentive to bear a child for economic/emotional reasons that the father didn't want, and therefore, fewer unwanted children would be born to single parents. If you're trying to say that I'm posing the idea that abortion on demand everywhere, no questions asked, would eliminate single parenthood, that's not true; there always have been and always will be single parents. But it's something that should be minimized as much as possible for the good of all involved.
"Just give guys a free ride, then. Let them screw their brains out and any child that results, they have no obligation to."
Right. Because guys who have kids as a result of these brief unions are known for sticking around emotionally and monetarily even now, when the law makes them do so. One would hope that any semi-sane woman who wound up pregnant by a brief, semi-anonymous one-night stand like that would scramble down to a clinic ASAP, rather than bring a kid into the world that would start off far behind the 8-ball already. But again, even in the most optimal circumstances, there'll always be idiots who make *poor* choices. Once again, it's about the right to choose what to do with one's own body, even if that choice is a stupid one.
Kim at June 15, 2009 7:27 PM
Jerry: Actually, according to this medical definition, fetuses *do* fit the definition of a parasite. Observe:
Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.
That would be a fetus, no? The definition goes on to mention parasitic diseases, but it states that various parasitic diseases include [but are not limited to] a number of common examples they go on to cite. So yeah, it's a parasite.
Kim at June 15, 2009 7:37 PM
Fuck you. You start with insults, then like a retarded stalker start accusing me of holding other people's positions, follwing that up with creating an elaborate strawman which you then proceed to knock down by merging my sentences into an incomprehensible mess.
And you have the fucking gall to accuse ME of intellectual dishonesty?
You haven't addressed one fucking thing. All you've done is stubbornly cling to your "parasite" defense, completely ignoring either the human rights aspect, the viability argument, or anything else. Your entire argument has been "why can't you idiots understand that it's a parasite".
So, here's a hypothetical that you won't answer because you have decided that I'm not worthy to be graced by your superior intellect:
What do you do with someone in a coma? Other than being physically attached to another human being, they met all your definitions of parasite. Should families have the option of snuffing them if they meet all the criteria for life other than consciousness?
brian at June 15, 2009 7:38 PM
Oh, look: Brian got somewhat with the program and got a new line!
"What do you do with someone in a coma? Other than being physically attached to another human being, they met all your definitions of parasite."
Then if they're not attached to another living creature, they're not a parasite by any medical definition of the term.
"Should families have the option of snuffing them if they meet all the criteria for life other than consciousness?"
It depends on whether or not they're brain-dead. If they're brain-dead, the family *does* get to decide whether or not to keep the turnip that looks like their loved one otherwise alive. But it's never going to be a functioning human being, since the brainwave activity is nonexistent. If they're not brain-dead, then on life support they stay, unless they've specifically requested otherwise beforehand in a living will or similar document.
Kim at June 15, 2009 7:43 PM
Pseudonym at June 15, 2009 7:47 PM
"Some mothers will undoubtedly disagree. Best to let them choose whether or not to give up their own lives."
Sure. And if they're conscious/able to consent, their wishes should be absolutely respected. Once again, it's about the right to do with your body what you will. If you'd rather sacrifice it, that's your call.
Kim at June 15, 2009 7:49 PM
Fuck you. You are one arrogant little bitch. When I won't allow you to get away with trying to cast me as someone I'm not you get all testy.
And your reading comprehension still sucks. Which would explain why in all of your note-taking of the regulars here (which is more than a little creepy, you know) you managed to get about four drive-by misogynists confused with me.
You didn't read my entire scenario. Brain dead doesn't meet the criteria for alive. At 18 weeks, a fetus (that you will only call "parasite") is more alive than someone who is brain dead.
Oh, and 170+ comments in and you still haven't addressed the insult you started with. Where the fuck did that come from? Where do you come off telling anyone that they have no right to comment here because of something Amy did?
OR are you just a garden-variety liberal bitch who thinks her opinions are the only ones that matter and everyone else should just shut up and get out of the way?
brian at June 15, 2009 7:54 PM
First, men need to be clear if they don;t want to have children, and if they're only having a "casual relationship" (that's such an aphrodisiac! Most women jump in bed for that line!), but secondly...who the ef cares? It's his child. A man has no right to demand a woman have an abortion, against her beliefs and at physical risk to herself, to cover HIS responsibilities.
And this whole "covered clitoris" thing - God, how selfish! We women cover our cervix, wear interuterine devices that give us infections, take hormones that will probably give us cancer....and then STILL can't orgasm because your unsheathed penis came in 10 seconds!
Oh, and even better, now we have to have an abortion so you don't have to suffer any consequences from having sex with us.
I'm adopted. That's officially "opting out". I still tracked both my parents down when I was older because I deserved to know them and my biological history. Are you gonna tell your offspring about the "unsheathed penis?" Are you gonna look that person in the eye and say, "I was such a selfish dickwit, I wanted to opt out after getting my rocks off....I figured your mom could just deal with the consequences and abort you....sorry, kid."
What an exemplary picture of a man. Excuse me, but I think a real man takes responsibility for his actions - including where he sticks his dick.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 7:56 PM
Hear hear!
Bartender, send that young lady a drink, put it on my tab.
brian at June 15, 2009 8:02 PM
:) Here's to you, Brian. Thanks.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 8:04 PM
"You didn't read my entire scenario. Brain dead doesn't meet the criteria for alive. At 18 weeks, a fetus (that you will only call "parasite") is more alive than someone who is brain dead."
And you didn't read my responses. Typical.
"Oh, and 170+ comments in and you still haven't addressed the insult you started with. Where the fuck did that come from? Where do you come off telling anyone that they have no right to comment here because of something Amy did?"
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of basically coming onto someone's blog, calling her a murderer based on what she's done, and expecting nobody to notice. I never said you didn't have the "right" to comment. I just said it was a more than a bit hypocritical to hang out and post incessantly on the blog of a woman you'd accuse of the most horrific anti-humanitarian crime like she's your buddy.
And note-taking on the regulars? See, this is why I remained a largely silent lurker 'til now. The commentary used to be from sane, smart people until a year and change ago, when "libertarians" with insane right-wing views started shouting on here. People can read the comments w/o participating, you know. You act as if I'd hacked your bank account. Many of the sane people who liked to post here (on both sides of a debate) left when the screaming loons like you took over. A few are still around, but while I really like Amy's content, the signal-to-noise ratio in the comments is weak.
And yes, this was my obviously failed attempt to inject sane rationality back into the discussion here. Apparently, the noise has overpowered the signal.
And good gracious me--are you going to claim you're "leaving" again this time, and actually stick w/it?
Kim at June 15, 2009 8:06 PM
@lovelysoul
Lets see now:
Men
Abstinence
Vasectomy
Condoms
Women:
Depo
BC Pills
IUD
Tubeligation
Spermicidal Pads
Morning after Pills
BC patchs and inserts
And No lovelysoul its not because big pharma knows that men wont take it anyway its because like any research some of it is goverment funded which you fems think i ok if its for female issues but when its something for men you scream to high heaven that its "UNFAIR". Again we see the examples of smorgasboard feminism (Sure ill take a little equality but ewww no paying for my own dates)
Again an example
"Despite this, it is women's health, not men's, which continues to receive government attention and funding. For example, the National Institutes of Health--the federal focal point for medical research in the U.S.--spends nearly four times as much on female-specific health research as on male-specific research. And though the average man is as likely to die from prostate cancer as the average woman is from breast cancer, the Department of Health and Human Services' National Cancer Institute spends three and a half times as much money on breast cancer research as on prostate cancer research.
In fact, prostate cancer makes up 37% of all cancer cases but receives only 5% of federal research funding. In addition, the breast cancer postage stamp has raised over $25 million for breast cancer research since it began in 1998, while a 1999 bill proposing a similar stamp for prostate cancer research was unsuccessful.
When Congress formed the Office on Women's Health in 1991, its goal was to improve women's health by directing and coordinating women's health research, health care services, and health education. Since then men's health advocates have been trying to create an Office of Men's Health, with the goal of duplicating the OWH's success. Yet while a new bill which will help to make the OWH's funding permanent was just passed by the House, the Men's Health Act of 2001 (H.R. 632) remains trapped in the House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on health. If not rescued soon, the bill will die when the 107th Congress adjourns this fall.
According to Tracie Snitker, director of public affairs for the Men's Health Network, "the number and quality of federally funded women's health education projects is outstanding. But while outreach programs teach women about breast cancer and cervical cancer, there are few if any programs which educate men about their own gender-specific health needs."
Do you really want to keep going down this road lovelysoul because its an argument you will lose?The numbers dont lie.
If a company came up with a mens birth control pill women would be screaming that men would have license to be perptual adolescants who dont want to settle down and they would take a HUGE weapon out of the hands of spiteful women...the ability to decide when and where they have children.
And last but not least paternity fraud would be a thing of the past because if a man is taking the male BC and his GF/wife becomes pregnant he has grounds and cause to take a paternity test and expose the lie.
The Other Mike D at June 15, 2009 8:09 PM
Technically a fetus is certainly parasite-like, but one crucial difference between a fetus and a parasite in the usual literal sense of the word intended here, is that true biological parasites are never there by the choice of the host, while virtually all pregnancies arise from a woman deliberately having unprotected sex with full knowledge that it could lead to a baby forming inside her. Even though there's 'no excuse' with modern contraceptives and knowledge etc., we do have abortion as an option, so further choosing not to abort early is also a *subsequent* conscious decision to keep it in your body, and thus a *commitment* to feed/host it. If something is in your body by your own choice, it's not truly a parasite. The woman *deliberately* enters into a *willing* agreement to host that little person for 9 months in her body, so the point is moot anyway. (Even if abortion wasn't allowed, getting pregnant is virtually always a deliberate choice on some level (except in rape cases), since nobody "accidentally" has unprotected penetrative intercourse, and virtually nobody can really plead ignorance of the consequences ... it's not quite like getting sneezed on and catching a cold.)
So from a purely biological simplified perspective, it can be regarded as a parasite, but it does not fit the *usual* definition of the word "parasite" in that a parasitic relationship is neither wanted nor chosen by the host.
Anything else is just semantics. Words usually have fuzzy meanings; in a debate like this, you need to either choose words with exact meanings, or clarify your definitions.
Similarly, when we use the word "parasite" to refer to, say, children living off their parents or welfare leeches living off others, we are *not* using the literal biological sense of the word, but more a figurative, metaphorical sense - and here things get much fuzzier even. The coma victim is not strictly a literal biological parasite, but unless they have loads of money in the bank to pay for their own life support machines, then they can certainly be seen as being parasites in the metaphorical sense, as they by definition can't pay their own way. But again, family members may be *choosing* to pay to keep them alive. Taxpayers may do so under socialized healthcare under a common agreement that it could benefit them should they be in a coma - again, not strictly parasitic.
As for whether men should have a say, I think that if they're expected to pay for the child, then they should. If women have the choice to opt out of having to care for the child for 18 odd years, so should the man, regardless of their state of mind at conception ('it takes two', as they used to say back in the day when we had personal responsibility as a cultural value).
xyz at June 15, 2009 8:11 PM
"It's his child. A man has no right to demand a woman have an abortion, against her beliefs and at physical risk to herself, to cover HIS responsibilities."
Women bear the children and have a choice in whether or not they come into the world. Men should have the same. Equal rights under the law.
"Oh, and even better, now we have to have an abortion so you don't have to suffer any consequences from having sex with us."
Right. Opting out of fatherhood = forced abortions.
"I'm adopted. That's officially "opting out". I still tracked both my parents down when I was older because I deserved to know them and my biological history. Are you gonna tell your offspring about the "unsheathed penis?" Are you gonna look that person in the eye and say, "I was such a selfish dickwit, I wanted to opt out after getting my rocks off....I figured your mom could just deal with the consequences and abort you....sorry, kid."
See, that's exactly why adoption is such an ugly prospect for many people. They don't often WANT someone showing up on their doorstep 18+ years later because they "deserved" to know about their bio history. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live my life constantly looking over my shoulder because someone I gave up to a family that wanted it thought I "owed" them anything. Go to 23andme.com. For $400, you can have your exact biological profile, including your own individual propensity for heritable diseases, and you don't have to disrupt someone's life in the process.
"What an exemplary picture of a man. Excuse me, but I think a real man takes responsibility for his actions - including where he sticks his dick."
That's just it. We're NOT talking about exemplary behavior. We're talking about what often happens when the OPPOSITE occurs, and the realistic consequences thereof.
Kim at June 15, 2009 8:15 PM
"First, men need to be clear if they don;t want to have children, and if they're only having a "casual relationship" (that's such an aphrodisiac! Most women jump in bed for that line!)"
If a man doesn't want children, he should wear a condom or abstain, simple as that. But similar arguments can be made for women - if they don't want babies, they shouldn't have unprotected sex. It takes two. Thus if a woman has the right to change her mind after the fact (while the fetus is still early stage), so should the man. Either both should have the decision, or neither. The kid is both of theirs, not just the mom's.
Having unprotected sex means that at the time of conception, both parties were OK with her getting pregnant (fraud aside - e.g. unless the woman falsely claimed that she would get an abortion if she got pregnant, in which case it's fraud and he should have no responsibility at all - but we're not talking about fraud cases, just the general right to choose to not become a parent after making a 'whoopsie').
You could say, well women should have the right because it's her body. I say, men should have the right because it's their wallet.
xyz at June 15, 2009 8:18 PM
It does not meet the definition of a "parasite". A parasite will die without its host, but a viable unborn child will grow into a complete, thriving human being WITHOUT its host.
An unborn child is not like some tapeworm you picked up on vacation. That's Kim's strange, deluded view of it, but, unlike a parasite, an unborn child is made up of stem cells, which are meant to grow and become independent. Once it grows to viability, it no longer wants or needs its host. It is ready to be a separate, independent, individual. That is NOT a parasite.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 8:19 PM
I read every fucking word. You keep saying "parasite" as though that invalidates every other piece of information presented.
Who called her a murderer? Oh, I get it. Does that mean I shouldn't have liberal friends too?
And it's awfully arrogant of you to assume you even have the right to make that judgment. Do you hold your friends to such lofty standards? If someone doesn't meet every one of your political and moral tests, do you abandon them?
I've been here far longer than that. And to insinuate that I'm either unintelligent or insane because you don't think my political viewpoint is worthy of discussion is even more arrogant than I had presumed you to be.
SANE? The only argument you have made in two dozen plus comments is "PARASITE!" and "WINGNUT!" Rational? Hurling insults based upon your twisted view of reality hardly counts as rational.
Fuck you. I helped a friend with some wiring. What did you do for someone else today?
Although I'm still irked that I wasted the day posting here when I was arguing with a disingenuous bitch rather than someone who was interested in an intellectual discussion.
For you there is no moral issue, no rights issue. There's no issue at all. It's a parasite, no different from a tick on a dog's back. And anyone who has a different position is either irrational, insane, or stupid.
brian at June 15, 2009 8:19 PM
Busy day for Amy! Hit the tip jar on your way out!
> And good gracious me--are you going
> to claim you're "leaving" again
> this time, and actually stick w/it?
Word, Sister! (or Brother! I haven't read enough of the comment thread to know.)
It's tremendously amusing to me when people come to a platform like this, the most casual, unpretentious forum in the world, and say things like "I am outta here!... As if the rest of us –isolated, anonymous, and distrustful– are supposed to feel the loss of the voice in our deepest conscience.
It's like the old Hollywood story of the aging starlet who scurries off to her trailer after a shouting fight with her director... I simply cannot work with that man!
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 15, 2009 8:20 PM
Kim is awfully bitter. I suppose I would be too, if I thought I was a parasite. Or a chimp. Maybe you need some self-esteem counseling?
Your obsession with the fetus/parasite analogy is really boring. Get with the program, dearie, and get a new line.
I'm off to feed my little parasite, who lives entirely off of me and my nutrients despite being-gasp!-born already. Guess I have the right to off him??
momof4 at June 15, 2009 8:21 PM
Haha! See, Crid--this is why I like you; I don't agree w/a lot of the stuff you say, but you're intelligent and relatively even most of the time when you disagree. :)
Kim at June 15, 2009 8:24 PM
"Oh, and even better, now we have to have an abortion so you don't have to suffer any consequences from having sex with us."
Women are the ones who get pregnant, so if anything they should be even *more* careful than men about having unprotected sex with no contraceptive. You're saying women should be able to enjoy no responsibility whatsoever (i.e. have choice to fool around then abort), and that the man should bear the responsibility if she gets pregnant and not her, but that men should not have that right. That's wrong. Either both have the right, or neither. A woman has just as much responsibility to a child as the man, and just as much culpability for the situation. Thus both should be given the same choices for opting out during early-stage pregnancy.
xyz at June 15, 2009 8:24 PM
Go back and read it. I wasn't having a hissy fit, I was leaving to honor a prior commitment.
I wish I could say I didn't waste my day arguing with a broken record and instead got some billable work done.
brian at June 15, 2009 8:27 PM
OK, Crid, were you masquerading as Kim today, just to be a punk?
Or is she just taking a shine to you because you decided to get a jab in on me too?
brian at June 15, 2009 8:29 PM
"What an exemplary picture of a man. Excuse me, but I think a real man takes responsibility for his actions - including where he sticks his dick."
You could make the exact same argument for women and thus for banning abortion: "A real woman takes responsibility for letting any old guy stick his dick in her, and thus should not be allowed to abort".
You seem to think that there is only one free-willed person involved in making a woman pregnant - that pregnancies are something that men unwillingly force on women against their will? Don't you think women have free will, or are you one of these feminists that believe all sex is rape?
xyz at June 15, 2009 8:29 PM
Uh oh, xyz is revving up the straw machine again...
brian at June 15, 2009 8:31 PM
"And yes, this was my obviously failed attempt to inject sane rationality back into the discussion here. Apparently, the noise has overpowered the signal."
The topic is *abortion*, I wouldn't have expected much else :)
xyz at June 15, 2009 8:33 PM
"Uh oh, xyz is revving up the straw machine again"
Want to be more specific about my alleged strawmen, or do you prefer vague allusions to rational, logical debate?
xyz at June 15, 2009 8:35 PM
"Thus if a woman has the right to change her mind after the fact (while the fetus is still early stage), so should the man. Either both should have the decision, or neither. The kid is both of theirs, not just the mom's."
Yes, exactly. The point is that the woman does have the right to make that decsion because the child is in her body (and likely her home and her heart for the next 18 plus zillion years). You act like the woman will have no other responsibility for this child except sponging off you. Please! She will probably be the one up at night, doing the major caregiving.
You both made the baby. If you didn't wear protection, then it's your screw up as much as hers, but if she decides to keep the child - which is a huge decision - then a real man stands by her and supports that choice. You know pregnancy is a possibility, especially if you don't use protection. I just have no respect for anyone who would walk away from his child because he doesn't agree it should be born.
No woman owes you abortion as a back-up contraceptive. How selfish of a man to fail to use protection himself, yet expect a woman to get an abortion if things don't go the way he "plans"...like a pregnancy doesn't disrupt her life as well. I swear, the height of narcissism and self-absorption in these arguments is amazing sometimes.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 8:35 PM
"It's tremendously amusing to me when people come to a platform like this, the most casual, unpretentious forum in the world, and say things like "I am outta here!... As if the rest of us –isolated, anonymous, and distrustful– are supposed to feel the loss of the voice in our deepest conscience."
I didn't interpret brian's statement that way, I thought he was merely saying he was leaving to go visit a friend or something and thus would be temporarily away from the discussion, but I suppose if you didn't read it all (it's a long thread) you might've missed the context.
xyz at June 15, 2009 8:38 PM
Well, we'll start with the one you used against me, deliberately misreading what I wrote in another thread. I figured you left in disgust after being called on it.
Now you're ready to brand LS a rape-fantasy feminist.
I prefer rational HONEST debate to the deliberate twisting of ones plain words for the purpose of discrediting them with things they never said.
And there's been enough of that in this thread to push me to the brink of physical violence.
brian at June 15, 2009 8:39 PM
"You both made the baby. If you didn't wear protection, then it's your screw up as much as hers, but if she decides to keep the child - which is a huge decision - then a real man stands by her and supports that choice. You know pregnancy is a possibility, especially if you don't use protection. I just have no respect for anyone who would walk away from his child because he doesn't agree it should be born."
OK, I can buy that, makes sense. What if the man decides he wants the baby though, but the woman doesn't want it? Does a "real women" stand by her and support that choice, or is it different?
xyz at June 15, 2009 8:41 PM
Are there two xyz's here? Seriously.
Kim would like nothing more than for me to leave. She cannot defeat my argument, because she doesn't actually have one of her own. She has her talking points, and does not know how to actually try to convince someone that her perspective is valid and correct.
Crid has a flair for melodrama. He particularly likes looking for ways he can attack my honor.
brian at June 15, 2009 8:42 PM
"I figured you left in disgust after being called on it"
No, I just had some work to do; came back and read the response, wasn't convinced but left it at that.
xyz at June 15, 2009 8:42 PM
xyz:
That depends. Legally, she is not bound by anything. Morally, there's some room for debate. If you want to look at it from a property-rights standpoint, an argument could be made that the woman at least owes the man compensation for his "contribution".
But I think the math on that would work out rather embarrassingly for the man.
brian at June 15, 2009 8:44 PM
You know about 4 hours ago this post made me feel like I had had a needle jabbed into my brain thru my left eye.
Anyone else get that effect?
lujlp at June 15, 2009 8:45 PM
"Does a "real women" stand by her and support that choice, or is it different?"
Two mistakes in one sentence, forgive my sloppiness, I meant: Does a "real woman" stand by him and support that choice, or is it different?
"Now you're ready to brand LS a rape-fantasy feminist."
Not really, I was asking a question, and I got an answer that basically made sense.
"I prefer rational HONEST debate"
Myself. It's not relevant to me who says something, only what they say and whether it's rational / logical / correct.
xyz at June 15, 2009 8:46 PM
"You're saying women should be able to enjoy no responsibility whatsoever (i.e. have choice to fool around then abort), and that the man should bear the responsibility if she gets pregnant and not her, but that men should not have that right."
I'm saying no birth control method is foolproof. They all fail. But a woman does not have to have an abortion just because a guy doesn't want a child. They BOTH will bear the responsibility of a failed contraceptive, but abortion should not be used and considered by men as a back-up contraceptive! Where do you get off thinking that? Just because abortion exists doesn't mean a woman must choose it or else you have no obligation.
Abortion is a much more invasive and personal decision than putting on a condom. You have no right to demand that as a condition, and when not getting your way, opt out of your responsibility for the child which has your genes, your DNA.
If you do, realize that you will probably have to answer to that abandoned child someday, and your answer isn't going to be an admirable or acceptable one.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 8:48 PM
xyz:
Then you can understand my anger when someone deliberately misrepresents what I have said in an effort to undermine my position on another issue. You can understand why I would be furious at attributing other's opinions to me for the purpose of discrediting me ad hominem.
If you intended so such thing, then I apologize for unloading on you. Kim, however, has repeatedly engaged in such chicanery, and I'll not have it.
brian at June 15, 2009 8:50 PM
I missed the "rape-fantasy feminist" (?), but I think xyz and I understand each other now (sorry, I posted before I read your last post, xyz).
To answer your question, I don't think it would be reasonable to demand a woman carry a child to term and risk her life for a baby she didn't want. The fact that it is in her body does make things different. You would feel the same if it was in your body and you were the one expected to endure any of these medical procedures.
lovelysoul at June 15, 2009 8:55 PM
"That depends. Legally, she is not bound by anything. Morally, there's some room for debate. If you want to look at it from a property-rights standpoint, an argument could be made that the woman at least owes the man compensation for his "contribution".
But I think the math on that would work out rather embarrassingly for the man."
Hmm, indeed. Having thought about it a few more seconds, men and women really do differ here in that case, so things can't really be entirely 'equal' .. a woman who is pregnant will probably have months or longer where she probably just won't be able to support herself, while the man can just keep on working. She is inextricably "in the situation" and needs to be supported, presumably by the person who "got her in the situation", so to speak, while he spent all of a few minutes making that baby. If she can't work and he wants the baby, he should I suppose at least pay her an income while she incubates his child.
xyz at June 15, 2009 8:56 PM
"If she can't work and he wants the baby, he should I suppose at least pay her an income while she incubates his child."
OK, that last sentence sounded a bit cold and patriarchal ... I actually meant, 'if she agrees to carry the child to term for him' ... but as LS says "I don't think it would be reasonable to demand a woman carry a child to term and risk her life for a baby she didn't want", I would have to agree to that, it is not reasonable.
xyz at June 15, 2009 9:00 PM
xyz:
Now this is what I thought we were going to have, an actual discussion. (no, you came here for an argument!)
Part of what you say was the genesis of marriage. The woman, while with child, is more vulnerable, less productive, etc. Binding a man to her who has a shared interest in her well-being and that of their shared offspring is certainly a benefit.
We have accepted (well some of us have) the inherent inequality in family court decisions partly because of the differences in the pregnancy arrangement.
To use a rather trite statement, the differences in the role of a man and a woman in pregnancy is kind of like breakfast. The chicken was involved, but the pig was committed.
brian at June 15, 2009 9:02 PM
"Then you can understand my anger when someone deliberately misrepresents what I have said in an effort to undermine my position on another issue."
Didn't mean to misrepresent anything, was just genuinely querying on what seemed like a bit of a contradiction in views between threads.
xyz at June 15, 2009 9:03 PM
lujlp:
That's the pollen. Try an antihistamine.
brian at June 15, 2009 9:05 PM
> because you decided to get a jab in
Don't pretend you didn't earn it!
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 15, 2009 9:15 PM
Crid, I'm not letting you get away with that until you've read the entire thread. Then you can decide who's argued in bad faith here.
It was not me.
brian at June 15, 2009 9:16 PM
xyz:
Ah. I thought I was pretty clear on that other thread. In that case, we were discussing withholding treatment. There are some interesting issues there too, but I don't think we got anywhere near them.
I was a bit contemptuous on that thread for personal reasons.
brian at June 15, 2009 9:22 PM
@lovelysoul
"Abortion is a much more invasive and personal decision than putting on a condom. You have no right to demand that as a condition, and when not getting your way, opt out of your responsibility for the child which has your genes, your DNA."
But you have every right to demand that a man be held in what amounts to financial servitude at your whims for 18+ years. You get to decide when you want to run back to court every time he makes an attempt to better himself(Every raise,bonus,disability and financial windfall you know of its back to court...at his expense of course). You get to decide when/if he gets to see his child subject to your moods or if you feel he is paying enough CS to make it worth your while. You get to have every weapon the state can wield against him just because you are having a bad day.
Im sorry but if YOU think you have the right to demand those things when a simple procedure..and yes it is very simple, can be used to release not just him but yourself from the demands of parenting which youre not ready for then which is the lesser of 2 evils.
If it was a procedure that was life threatening I could be sympathetic but with todays medical science the dangers have been GREATLY reduced.
But you obviously think its ok because you carried a child for 9 months that you can play judge,jury,and collection agent on a mans life driving him to fringes of society because of your rights.The evidence that the family court system is a money driven entity only out to take as much as possible to fill its own coffers (Mostly at the expense of fathers) is widely documented.
Thats about as hypocritical as you can get. The damage done is too far reaching.You speak of personal decisions.....How is having to decide to eat or pay CS not personal. How is having to know for the next 18-21 years you will be at the whims of some dipshit who by a computer keystroke can wipe your bank accounts,lien your property,attach your pay and use every income stream possible even those created after the dissolution of teh relationship to provide funds for your benefit. Complain if you want but there are far to many women who use child support for everything except the child.
So a $500 abortion seems a small price to pay.Is the mothers life during that period worth anymore then the fathers during the next 18 of being worn down by a system which will do its utmost to destory him in the name of whats in the 'best interest of the child".
I dont think so.
The Other Mike D at June 15, 2009 9:25 PM
TOMD -
One, why so bitter? Get burned?
Two, I don't think it's a $500 procedure. It is invasive, and I'd guess it involves anesthesia, which is inherently risky.
See, this is where the whole thing goes pear-shaped. Nobody is interested in avoiding the bad consequences, just in assigning blame, distributing misery, and imposing their will upon others.
If you are so convinced that you are gonna get hosed by a family court because you've chosen yet another inappropriate woman to mate with, then perhaps you ought to stop indiscriminately sowing your seed?
brian at June 15, 2009 9:36 PM
@brian
1. Not bitter.....Passionate about the topic.Although my oldest childs mother blew thru $72,000 in less then 18 months with her daughter turning 18 and heading for college less thena year later.
2. I work in the medical field and I did my homework.Its about $500 done as an outpateint procedure.Late term require a more extensive stay.
You assume to much and think too little.Not one of my children was unplanned except for the first and thats a long story that I wont get in too with you because frankly its none of your business. I have as much right as you to post my opinions here.
Save the personal attacks for someone who really gives a shit.
The Other Mike D at June 15, 2009 9:45 PM
Dude. Seriously.
You attack women on this issue with the violence of a trained pit bull. Personally, I find it a bit off-putting that you are advocating that you ought to have a right to demand that a woman undergo an invasive medical procedure so you might evade responsibility for causing a life to be created.
If you can conclude that after reading this thread, then you've not been paying attention.
brian at June 15, 2009 9:56 PM
Uh lets see I dont see any attacks I merely present another viewpoint which is the purpose of a debate.
When it comes to these topics yes I am a pit bull but no more the Andrea Dworkin,McKinnon,Gandy among a few others I can mention whos "Pit Bull" tactics have caused more harm then good over the past few decades.
I support women in thier endeavors but without the liberal rose colored view that they are entitled to anything more then what they have worked for and earned.
And youre right I havent read much of what you had to say because most of it was personal attacks on Kim and momof4.Who exactly is being a pit bull here?
I dont care if you find it off putting that I think that way. I dont think that anyone should have to go thru what I or MANY THOUSANDS of men have had to go thru simply because of someones elses choice.
Its obvious you never had to be subjected to it or you wouldnt be so put off by it. Amy has blogged on it many different times in the past about the injustices men face simply because they have a penis.
As I said earlier no woman can be forced to have an abortion but you seem to think its ok for that same woman to use the courts to control the next 18+ years of a mans.
9 months vs 18 years...Doesnt quite add up.
The Other Mike D at June 15, 2009 10:10 PM
The Other Mike D:
Look, douchebag, I don't know where you learned how to read, but if you found me attacking momof4 in this thread, you're either on something, or dreaming.
Hey, I'm not the schmuck that trusted her. YOU fucked her. You own the consequences too. You knew the law was stacked against you, and you fucked a psycho anyhow. No sympathy.
Hey, you'll get no argument from me there. But do you really think that demanding a woman undergo a surgical procedure for your financial gain is even remotely right? Seriously? Balance the scales with a gun to the head?
Is the system fucked? Yep. Can it be fixed? If anyone in politics actually had balls, sure. Maybe you should apply yourself there instead of going off on me after not even having a hint of what's been said in the past 16 hours.
brian at June 15, 2009 10:24 PM
I didn't say anybody argued in bad faith... I don't care enough to read the thread. Abortion has been boring for nearly 20 years, ever since the Silver Fox got real. Next!
I'm saying that prima donna behaviors deserve mockery.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 15, 2009 10:24 PM
Your aim's off. Unless you're saying that I should never have defended myself from Kim's initial scurrilous attack. In which case you might have a point.
I mean, her opening salvo was more of a carpet-bombing. Not really amenable to a good healthy discussion.
brian at June 15, 2009 10:34 PM
Scurrilous attack! Scurrilous! How dare she!
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 15, 2009 10:59 PM
I'm off to feed my little parasite, who lives entirely off of me and my nutrients despite being-gasp!-born already. Guess I have the right to off him??
No, because you have other options, which don't involve killing him, if you don't want him living off your nutrients. You can bottle-feed, or put him up for adoption. But the mother of a pre-viability fetus, if she wants it out of her body, has no way to accomplish that other than to abort. And she does have an absolute right to her own body--even if the fetus is a human being with full human rights, that does not include the right to live inside another person's body without her consent. And that consent can be withdrawn at any time.
Rex Little at June 16, 2009 12:19 AM
I agree with most of the arguments put by McElroy. But I don't really agree with Implication 8.
Many people generally value human life but accept that there are some situations where risking human life is defensible, such as in order to save more lives.
We would never send emergency service workers into burning buildings or fight wars (even of self-defence) if it was never morally defensible to sacrifice human life.
Nick S at June 16, 2009 12:20 AM
Rex - here's the problem with the "parasite" argument.
Other than cases of forcible rape, the child was INVITED. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.
When a man and a woman engage in vaginal intercourse, one of the likely outcomes is a child. By engaging in such an activity, regardless of intent, both are implicitly agreeing to create and bear forth a child and take responsibility for it.
I'm sorry if you, Kim and others find that arrangement inconvenient, but that is reality. If you fuck, you have implicitly agreed with your body to make another person.
It ain't a parasite if you put it there, intentionally or not. So long as neither force nor coercion were used to get you into the sex act, you consented.
And once that fetus meets conventional definitions for "alive", you ought not be killing it because it's inconvenient. After all, you aren't allowed to kill your brother-in-law because he's been crashed out on your couch for two weeks - no matter how much of a parasite he's become.
brian at June 16, 2009 3:05 AM
@David M: You're assigning the rights of a born child to a parasitic fetus. They're not the same thing.
-----------------
Parasitic fetus is away for women to maintain their stance that abortion is okay.
It gets them to think it is other than a child.
In society when someone kills a pregnant woman they get charged with double murder. Not one charge of murder and one charge of killing a parisitic fetus.
David M. at June 16, 2009 4:16 AM
That definition is inaccurate. A biological parasite must be a different species than its host. The mother-fetus relationship in question is symbiotic (both individuals benefit) rather than a parasitic (only one individual benefits).
If a fetus is a parasite or a symbiote, that differentiates it from the mother, making it no longer just a piece of the mother's body to be snipped like a fingernail. Is your appendix a parasite? Of course not; it's a part of your body.
This is a perfect example of talking past the opposing viewpoint. If you can't see it from their perspective, if you can't phrase your argument in terms that they accept, you will not convince anybody that your view is correct.
Accepting all of your premises (a fetus has no human rights, abortion is fine), it's not about the right to do with your body what you will: we accept, or at least society imposes, all sorts of limitations on things that we can do with our bodies.
Pseudonym at June 16, 2009 7:02 AM
I invite my friends over for drinks sometimes. After awhile, I just want them to fucking leave. Just because I invited them doesn't mean I can't kick their asses out.
After all, you aren't allowed to kill your brother-in-law because he's been crashed out on your couch for two weeks - no matter how much of a parasite he's become.
I can tell my friends (and my BIL) to leave. Killing them is unnecessary. We keep looping back to this because no comparison to a born person is going to convince me and others who share this position that a fetus is a person. (Just to be clear here, I think late-term abortions should be reserved for serious medical issues for the mother or child. Four months or so is more than enough time to decide whether you want to be a parent. I don't see a later-term fetus as = to a person, but that seems like a reasonable compromise.)
I know people have all kinds of mushy sentimentality regarding babies. It's the reason someone people think a zygote has the same status as a baby. We get wrapped up in the potential of a thing rather than what that thing really is. And that's often good. For the most part, we want people to have strong sentiment regarding their offspring. But not all of us share that sentiment for nonexistent people.
As another adopted person, I think it would have been better for my mother to have aborted. She would have had an easier time moving on than after the adoption, and she didn't owe me anything.
MonicaP at June 16, 2009 7:07 AM
TheotherMike, that is such a self-pitying, contemptuous argument. The whole scenario you describe could be prevented by:
a) wearing a condom.
b) getting involved with a decent woman to start with.
If you're having unprotected sex with a woman who is that vicious and calculating that every decision she makes is purely designed to fuck you over, well, then you need to ask yourself what the hell you're doing with your zipper down!
I got pregnant by a man, and I let him walk. I decided against abortion because I felt it was wrong. Nobody has the right to force me, or anyone, to make that decision. Contrary to your belief, not every woman makes her decisions based on ruining men's lives.
I've raised my son and never asked for a dime from his biological father. Not because I don't believe he was entitled, but because I didn't want to "force" a man to be a father if he was too big a jerk to step up to the plate on his own.
But it's HIS loss. As life turned out, he never had another son. No one to take fishing, camping. He missed that bond with his child.
I know he REGRETS not being a real a man, a real father. Occassionally, he sends me little messages reflecting that, but I don't answer. Someday, he may get a chance to explain why he never took part in his only son's life - why he's such sorry excuse for a man - and I would hate to have to be him that day.
You act as if this is all about YOU. The child has no right to exist because it inconveniences YOU. The mother only wants child support because she's out to get YOU. The mother doesn't choose to have her uterus sucked out for YOUR convenience because she's calculated ways to make YOU pay for all eternity.
Nevermind that her life is also effected by this unplanned pregnancy. Nevermind that she has the hard job of raising this child alone, while the self-absorbed, self-pitying father whines about himself.
I think you have a persecution complex or some sort of narcissism. You take no responsibility for your actions and blame everyone else.
You have no right to ask that a woman terminate the life of an unborn child because you're too dumb to wear protection or make good relationship choices. If you hate/fear a woman so much that you wouldn't want a child with her, you better keep it in your pants. That's the grown up perspective.
lovelysoul at June 16, 2009 7:10 AM
Okay, I could spend enough time on this to lose my job, but I just have a few points to make. I apologize if they've already been said.
1. I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that Brian and those that think people should just "not fuck" if they don't want a baby has only ever had sex for the purpose of procreation. In fact, it's more than extremely hard to believe...it is bullshit. It's like people who condemn people that make a huge mistake and drive drunk. Most people have driven over the legal limit at least once. It happens. People don't think clearly drunk....or when their hormones are raging. Doesn't the bible say something about he without sin casting the first stone?
2. Only a man or a woman who has never been sexually abused would expect a woman to carry the child of her rapist. Only a sick fuck would expect that of a rape victim. Answer me this, pro-lifers: What about a 13 year old girl that is raped by her brother? Should she carry that child to term? That should be fun to explain at the middle School dance. Plus, the kid will probably come out developmentally disabled. I'm sure people are just chomping at the bit to adopt special needs children. Regardless, unless you've been through it, you can't possibly know what it is like to be brutally raped. It's hard enough to get past it and move on with your life without the spawn of the monster that attacked you growing inside you. It's like a nine month long constant rape of this woman's body. Think about it. She was violated once and now she'll be violated in a whole host of other ways until she give birth...both by the fetus and her doctors. Ask someone recently raped how eager they are to lay on a table and spread em'. How about when this woman is just out and about in town? What do you think it will do to her every time a nice stranger comes up to her and inquires about her due date and what names she's picked out? I think the most disgusting thing I've read in this thread is that some people actually expect these women to go through with this. Nope, sorry...it's actually Brian thinking that arresting the guy and making him pay child support is the solution. What if they can't prove rape? What if the asshole goes free? What if said asshole somehow wins an injunction stopping her from having an abortion and then fights to have visitation? This woman should have to face her attacker at every little league game, chorus concert, graduation, etc for the rest of her life? Not only that, she'll have to smile the whole time...unless she wants to tell her child that they were the unwanted product of their father beating the crap out of and violating their mother. Who, exactly, wins in this situation? I mean, besides the holier than thou pro-lifers who go home after a long day picketing and judging people to slap themselves five while never having to see the consequences of their goal. Furthermore, if it were a serial rapist, he probably has a chemical imbalance in his brain...I mean, something is wrong with anyone that would do that to another person. Even without knowing their father, that kid could grow up with the same disposition. No one wants to give birth to a potential rapist.
3. I like it when pro-lifers try to say the morning after pill isn't an abortion. It's kind of cute. Like it's their one little loophole in case they ever "fuck" just for fun or their child has unprotected sex. What if the egg is fertilized? What if it is already attached to the uterine wall? Wouldn't it be a viable fetus at that point? I know not all pro-lifers use the "God's will" argument...but for those that do...wouldn't the morning after pill be going against God's will? Thought so. Pick a side and stick with it people.
And before anyone jumps down my throat without knowing where I'm coming from...obviously, I am pro-choice. I believe that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body and she is the only one qualified to do so. Men, sorry, when you start getting your period every month and carrying babies, you'll be able to say what happens to them. It's not fair, but it's life. I do wish there were a way to give men more say, but every time I think about it, I can't think of a single law they would write up that wouldn't give the man control over the woman and that's not acceptable. I believe that yes, a fetus should have some rights, BUT they should not infringe on the rights of the mother. As long as it's in her body, she's the boss. I am very much against late term abortions unless the fetus is going to be born severely handicapped or deformed. It's a quality of life thing. The quality of life for the child, the mother, the father and any other children in the family needs to be taken into consideration. I'll admit, though, my argument against late term abortions is pretty simple: It already looks like a baby and that creeps me out.
With all of that said: Unless I was raped or going to die without it, I would never have an abortion myself. Had I gotten pregnant at 15 or 16, I probably would have. My reasoning now is that I have a good job, a great man, a nice house and I know I could take care of the child. AT 15, I’d have nothing to offer my child but a lot of self pity, now I can offer a loving home. I don't want kids right now, but I'd deal if I got pregnant. Not wanting kids is sure as hell not going to stop me from making love to my soul mate.
Oh...one more thing: To the woman above that said birth control pills make her bat shit crazy...ME TOO! It's like months on end of the worst PMS I've ever had. I'm looking into being treated for PMDD, maybe you should ask your doctor about it. They usually treat it with low dose BC and a mild anti-depressant. I think most doctors use Yaz, which actually works really well for me once I get through the first three months of breathing fire. Good luck! :)
Another Kim at June 16, 2009 7:38 AM
There's no sentimentality here.
It's a simple matter of definitions. The pro-abortion crowd will resist any attempt to clarify the definition of what it means to be "alive" because it might not go their way. Really, you should read MacKinnon - she is quite straightforward about abortion being a way to liberate a woman's body from a man's control. As if the only reason women get pregnant is because men want to control them.
The question "when does life begin" doesn't have an easy answer. But I'm fairly certain it's some time before the baby emerges from the womb. Technology is moving that time further and further back towards conception.
I prefer to err on the side of caution, once it's implanted, it gets a chance to do its thing.
You had all the opportunity in the world to avoid it.
brian at June 16, 2009 7:43 AM
brian sez: ex - here's the problem with the "parasite" argument.
Other than cases of forcible rape, the child was INVITED. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.
When a man and a woman engage in vaginal intercourse, one of the likely outcomes is a child. By engaging in such an activity, regardless of intent, both are implicitly agreeing to create and bear forth a child and take responsibility for it.
Here's the problem with that argument. When a person engages in eating at a hotdog cart or corner store sushi tray, one of the likely outcomes is parasites. By engaging in such an activity, regardless of intent... are people implicitly agreeing to nurture hookworms or some other parasite?
No, of course not. The "invitation" argument is silly.
BTW, any luck finding a quote by anyone of any repute whatsoever who supports "as many as possible" abortions to exert power over men? Any "policy directors" who have put forth that recommendation? No?
Theresa at June 16, 2009 7:50 AM
The question "when does life begin" doesn't have an easy answer. But I'm fairly certain it's some time before the baby emerges from the womb. Technology is moving that time further and further back towards conception.
See, I don't think technically being alive is a good enough reason to make abortion illegal. Bacteria are alive. I'm fine with killing them. A fetus has the potential to be more than that, but it's not there yet. We need to find a definition of meaningful life, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
MonicaP at June 16, 2009 7:50 AM
Another Kim
uh... yeah.
If you are engaged in a long-term sexually active relationship and the only answer you have for "what happens if birth control fails" is "I'll get an abortion", then you should get yourself sterilized immediately. If you haven't even thought it through THAT far, then you really ought not be fucking.
What I'm saying is don't fuck unless you are willing to accept all of the possibilities. If you get herpes, do you expect me to have sympathy for you - 'coz I won't.
And how did the bible get involved here? Is there some requirement that I read the bible or be religious to oppose abortion? If so, I didn't get the memo.
Thanks for adding yet another name to the list of things I've been called this thread.
Rape is an edge case, and it's always trotted out as one of the primary reasons that "abortion rights must be protected".
I've been on both sides of the argument concerning rape. I still haven't figured it out yet. On the one hand, the rights of the victim have already been violated. On the other, the rights of the child in utero are going to be. Who gets to win?
If we could come up with a foolproof way of proving rape (i.e. we didn't have to deal with things like the Duke Rape Hoax) then the death penalty for forcible rape would probably put a bit of a damper on the problem.
But it still leaves the dilemma. Unless you have made the leap to totally denying the existence of rights for the child in utero.
brian at June 16, 2009 7:55 AM
Oh a couple more things then I really have to get some work done:
Whomever brought up the whole thing about it being double murder to kill a pregnant woman, but not murder to kill the fetus made a damn good point. I have to think on that one. Can we charge someone with 1.5 murders? Haha.
For the record: I know my grammar sucks when I post online. If I were writting an essay or something for work, it would be flawless. I just plain don't care that much when posting on the internet. I type the way I talk in casual conversation. So, if you're going to come back and pick apart my spelling and grammar without producing a valid talking point, don't bother wasting your time....I probably won't respond...and if I do, I'm gonn make you look stupid. ;)
Another Kim at June 16, 2009 7:55 AM
Another Kim,
I think part of the problem in the debates is all of the absolutes, including some of yours (men can have absolutely no say in this.)
When I argue your position, which is, abortion is pretty much the woman's choice however, "I am very much against late term abortions unless the fetus is going to be born severely handicapped or deformed" or risk the mothers health, I have been told by others, men and women that I am actually pro-life, and a misogynist, and a vaginal control freak.
So I think a huge part of the problem is that many folks really and truly do advocate for abortion in all circumstances at any point in time they want. And that creates such a huge stumbling block for others that well, hell, if that's the case, maybe we are pro-life and maybe we just don't care anymore but yes, we'll make sure the people we love will be able to get an abortion if they need one.
Babies are parasites, late term abortions are just fine in all circumstances, banning a procedure is punishment from an oppressive woman hating culture, men can have absolutely no say in this, jeez fine, I'm a monster, thank you for pointing that out, I guess from now on I'll vote prolife because the one thing I know is that life does not begin at birth and the virulent pro-choicers are extremists that do need some regulation.
jerry at June 16, 2009 7:56 AM
And this is where the problem is. As soon as you add the qualifier "meaningful" you open up all kinds of doors that ought to remain closed.
There are a good number of people who would say that by virtue of not reproducing, my life is not meaningful. Is it OK to kill me if that becomes the standard? How about the man with Down's who bags groceries at the local mega-mart?
No, the line for "meaningful" stops at species. If it's genetically Homo Sapiens, then it has rights that neither Canis Lupus Familiaris nor Bacillus Anthracis have.
To state otherwise is to deny all humans even the concept of rights.
brian at June 16, 2009 7:59 AM
Another Kim
see: Scott Peterson.
To pre-emptively attack people you've just met is rude. You could use your enter key a bit more often, though.
And don't play stupid with me, I'm better at it.
brian at June 16, 2009 8:02 AM
"Whomever brought up the whole thing about it being double murder to kill a pregnant woman, but not murder to kill the fetus made a damn good point. I have to think on that one. Can we charge someone with 1.5 murders? Haha."
Actually, if you think that's interesting, understand that many many feminist groups are against laws charging murder against a fetus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act#Opposition
jerry at June 16, 2009 8:04 AM
And this is where the problem is. As soon as you add the qualifier "meaningful" you open up all kinds of doors that ought to remain closed.
Oh, I definitely want to open those doors. It's not wrong to explore the philosophy of what it means to be "meaningful." I don't see a zygote as something I need to protect. Some do. My opinion: What makes your life meaningful is that you have the capacity to perceive it as meaningful. In the case of wanted babies, at least one parent sees their lives as meaningful.
I realize this definition has issues, but that's where I am with it now.
MonicaP at June 16, 2009 8:11 AM
Unfortunately, the law has to apply equally, and politicians are power-hungry and stupid.
Which is a dangerous combination when we're talking about defining life and death.
Arguments about "meaningful" at the start of life will have an impact on the same arguments to be made at the other end.
brian at June 16, 2009 8:25 AM
1. I guess that if the baby is just another body part, then the pregnant woman can have four eyes, four legs, four arms, two blood types, and hey she may even have testicles a penis and a vagina. To say that a baby in the womb is not a separate person is ridiculous.
2. Before 1973, personhood was assumed for babies in the womb, and yet not one woman was prosecuted in 200 years of illegal abortion. Also, I challenge you to find a single case where a doctor was prosecuted for performing a lifesaving procedure on a pregnant mom that had the unfortunate result of killing the baby.
3. The principle of double effect states that if the intention of your act is to cure or treat, then the unintended negative effect is not an abortion. This is perfectly reasonable, and would leave doctors with all legitimate options to treat a woman. You see tearing a baby apart in the womb is not a medical procedure used for anything but getting rid of an inconvenient "problem."
Abortion kills an innocent human being and wounds the soul of the others.
Obama in Pijamas at June 16, 2009 8:33 AM
Arguments about "meaningful" at the start of life will have an impact on the same arguments to be made at the other end.
Indeed. As technology advances and gives us more insight into the beginnings of life (and as medical technology lets us keep people alive long past the time when they would have died naturally), we will struggle with what it means to be alive, and to have a life of meaning.
Many people argued that Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die. There was no doubt that she was alive in the sense that her heart was beating and she was breathing, but, in her case, was that enough?
MonicaP at June 16, 2009 8:43 AM
But we DO have those qualifiers for life, not necessarily "meaningful" life, but life. One of which is indeed brain wave activity. If a being is thinking, society considers it "alive" - at least alive enough not to kill.
My brother was in a car accident at 17. He was "brain dead", so the doctors gave my parents the option of ending his life. However, if he had NOT been brain dead, they wouldn't have been given that choice. He would've met our medical standard for life. It wouldn't matter if his condition was inconvenient, unaffordable, or emotional distressing for my parents. He would've been considered ALIVE.
Pro-choice people don't want to process that, but we already have standards and criteria for life that a fetus, especially a late-term one, clearly meets.
One pro-choicer even said to me, "Well, we know it's thinking, but what could it possibly be thinking about?". As if someone must be having very important, deep thoughts for their life to matter. That is the sort of door for "meaningful" that we shouldn't open. Everyone's view of what is "meaningful" and "productive" is subjective.
Was Helen Keller's life meaningful? How about Stephen Hawking?
No doubt many blind or handicapped people also have unhappy, unproductive lives, but many able-bodied people do as well.
The only thing society can do is set the criteria: this is LIFE. This isn't. This is when you can pull the plug. This is when you can't.
And, based on everything we know about fetal development, that criteria has already been met before the child exits the womb. It already displays too many criteria for life that it could not be terminated if outside the womb.
That is why you get double homicides of late-term babies. The baby would've lived independent of the mother if it had not been shot, stabbed, or whatever, so its life has been taken.
lovelysoul at June 16, 2009 8:43 AM
@lovelysoul
TheotherMike, that is such a self-pitying, contemptuous argument. The whole scenario you describe could be prevented by:
a) wearing a condom.
b) getting involved with a decent woman to start with.
It’s only that way to you because you don’t agree with it. But you expect the rest of us to just accept your viewpoints because you’re a woman
If you're having unprotected sex with a woman who is that vicious and calculating that every decision she makes is purely designed to fuck you over, well, then you need to ask yourself what the hell you're doing with your zipper down!
Again you miss the point entirely that it’s not just me. It is thousands of men every day who have to deal with this. And I would ask the same question about why the fuck do these women have their legs spread? By the tone of this you are willing to excuse a women when she’s promiscuous but a man is shit out of luck.
I got pregnant by a man, and I let him walk. I decided against abortion because I felt it was wrong. Nobody has the right to force me, or anyone, to make that decision. Contrary to your belief, not every woman makes her decisions based on ruining men's lives.
And my point again in the last post was not about ruining anyone’s life. I said it would beneficial to both because if neither of them are willing/able to be a parent then it’s a burden on BOTH. I don’t disagree there. But there are too many women who think their “right” to be a mother supercedes the mans rights to decide when he wants to be a father. I do not disagree that there are a good many jack offs out there who have no business breathing much less having sex and on this forum, my own blogs as well as Glenn’s site I have never defended them.
I've raised my son and never asked for a dime from his biological father. Not because I don't believe he was entitled, but because I didn't want to "force" a man to be a father if he was too big a jerk to step up to the plate on his own.
But it's HIS loss. As life turned out, he never had another son. No one to take fishing, camping. He missed that bond with his child.
I have 4 girls and 1 boy and am active in ALL of their lives you’re right he did miss out and that’s his loss.
I know he REGRETS not being a real a man, a real father. Occasionally, he sends me little messages reflecting that, but I don't answer. Someday, he may get a chance to explain why he never took part in his only son's life - why he's such sorry excuse for a man - and I would hate to have to be him that day.
Here we are again though where you attempt to define a “Real Man” based upon your own experiences. You don’t know what was going thru his head and you have already said you ignore his messages when he tries to relay that too you. Sounds to me like you are gate keeping rather then maybe take the view he’s fishing to see if there may be some way he can start that process. But you already made the decision about the whys/when’s/how’s and what for’s. I think it’s you who may have explaining to do when your child is older.
You act as if this is all about YOU. The child has no right to exist because it inconveniences YOU. The mother only wants child support because she's out to get YOU. The mother doesn't choose to have her uterus sucked out for YOUR convenience because she's calculated ways to make YOU pay for all eternity.
It’s not about me it’s about not subjecting someone to years of what amounts to slavery at the whims of another person. You made a decision about your situation but there are 1000s of men who WANT to be fathers and who would step up given the opportunity but because of the system as it is and because of those vindictive types they are frozen out of their children’s lives. You don’t want to hear that because as a woman you are going to side with RvW as your choice. I would much rather see a child aborted then have to come into a world where mom is going to use him/her as a weapon to get back at dad.
Nevermind that her life is also effected by this unplanned pregnancy. Nevermind that she has the hard job of raising this child alone, while the self-absorbed, self-pitying father whines about himself.
And his life isn’t affected? He has more culpability then she does for the pregnancy? She is pissed off at the man so fuck him he will never see his child. So she makes that decision and he is the asshole. How is it any difference then her running back to the courts for the next 18+ years different? In my own life I have known FAR TOO MANY women who will sit there and tell me “I provide a roof and food” but that paid for by somebody else. That’s not providing….that’s living off your child. As far as self pitying no I’m not. In my own case I continued to better my life and situation and have a great deal to show for it. Your statements in an earlier part of this post show you to be very angry at your childs father and you whine about how hes “not a real man” “not a real father”. How is that any different in how I feel about my oldest childs mothers. Bit of the hypocrite isn’t it?
I think you have a persecution complex or some sort of narcissism. You take no responsibility for your actions and blame everyone else.
No I have had to ensure her actions didn’t hurt my other children.
You have no right to ask that a woman terminate the life of an unborn child because you're too dumb to wear protection or make good relationship choices. If you hate/fear a woman so much that you wouldn't want a child with her, you better keep it in your pants. That's the grown up perspective.
And she should keep her legs closed. But wait now that would be grown up as well wouldn’t it. Women always expect the man to keep his dick in his pants but never tell her to keep her legs closed. Expecting women to have a sense of responsibility for their own actions is way too much to ask for. Every day we see women get a pass for what would have a man in prison. We see that equal punishment for crimes is not the way it works yet many of you keep on with the mantra that you’re entitled because of your gender. I didn’t say that women should be forced to have an abortion if she wants the child then that’s HER choice. I stated that there should be a window where the father can say no. She shouldn’t be able by default to expect the man to pay for her choices. There are of course different circumstances but with the system the way it is today once you’re past the 9 month period the burden on the non-custodial father or mother becomes one that cannot be relieved. You can’t see the forest for the trees. You can attack me all you want but I will continue to stand up for what I believe is right. You want grown up, stop picking bad men and then complaining when they turn out to be assholes. It’s a two way street.
The Other Mike D at June 16, 2009 9:16 AM
Yes. It's called caveat emptor.
I haven't bothered looking because you're too much of a bitch for it to be worth my effort. If you can't be bothered to read the collected works of MacKinnon, Dworkin, and Schroeder, then why should I do your work for you? You want to call yourself a feminist? Then it's on you to understand how that term came to be and who owns it.
brian at June 16, 2009 9:29 AM
oops. sorry. that last one was in reply to Theresa, who managed to sneak one in upthread a bit.
brian at June 16, 2009 9:31 AM
brian, you missed the point of the analogy: Sure, we might "caveat emptor" to *come down* with hookworms or a parasite, but nobody is absurd enough to think that we can't *get rid of them if we don't want to keep them*. Just because we invited something doesn't mean we're obligated to live with it forever.
And now I'm a bitch? Yeah, so much for the whole civilized discourse. You're the one who made the statement that some prominent feminist (and/or "policy director") encouraged "as many as possible" abortions for the purpose of exerting power over men. You're therefore the one who has to prove that statement exists.
If I came out and said that a Supreme Court judge ruled that fetuses should be treated as trespassers under property law, and thus could be shot if they refused to leave, I rather imagine you'd ask for a cite on it.
You made the claim, now you've got to back it up. If you can. Which I doubt. But the "I'm not gonna do your work for you, bitch" angle is a weak way to evade it. I don't think even you believe it at this point.
And where on earth did I ever say I wanted to call myself a feminist? I want no such thing. I do not call myself or consider myself a feminist. I do not like many, many, MANY aspects of even moderate feminism. I reject quotas, I reject affirmative action, I reject victimhood, I reject ANY "men are evil", "men are all potential rapists", "the world would be better with women in charge" bullshit. My own ethics even say that a man SHOULD have some ability to decline accidental parenthood and the financial obligation that entails, although there are many complicating factors that need to be considered. I happen to think that, from what I've seen, MacKinnon, Dworkin, and their ilk, are quite possibly insane, and should be mocked and dismissed at just about every turn.
I just don't think that any of them - the ones with some claims to legitimacy, or political credibility or influence - have ever indicated that women should have "as many as possible" abortions for the purpose of exerting power over men.
If you can't back up your claim - the one that you made, and therefore are on the hook to back up - that's fine. Just don't try to claim that you *won't*. You *can't*, and it's clearly upsetting you to the point where you're now the one (and the ONLY one of us two) who's spitting insults.
Theresa at June 16, 2009 9:52 AM
TheOtherMike, my son is 19 years old, and his bio-dad didn't start making overtures until fairly recently. I made it very clear up front and through the early years that he was welcome to know his son. The photos and letters I sent were returned because, at the time, he didn't want his life "messed up", even though it was HIS idea that we try to have a child together because he "loved me so much".
Most intelligent women don't take that risk unless they believe the man loves them and wants to be with them. It was foolish on my part to believe his romantic lines, but if anyone was committing "fraud," it was him. Yet, a lot of men will say similar misleading stuff just to keep a woman having sex with him. Very few women are eager to have sex with a guy who says, "I don't really like you that much, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to have a kid with you!"
Why, then, when it all turns out to be a lie, a ruse, should a woman have to commit what she may well consider to be murder just so he doesn't have to face any consequences?
I faced the consequences of my actions. I raised my child. That's what adults do. Even if I had gotten child support, it wouldn't have been easy.
You act as if the woman has the cushy job, that the father's life is "ruined" by an unplanned pregnancy, but the mother gets to lie around and do nothing. 9 months of pregnancy, the childbirth, and 18 + years of taking responsibility for this life that was created doesn't count when she does it.
You BOTH created that life, and the mom is usually the one stuck with caring for it when it's sick, and all the other tough parts of parenting. It is not too much to expect the father to contribute financially to the child that he made.
Besides, abortion is NOT after-the-fact birth control. If we start treating it like that in society, it will create an even more hideous situation than we already have.
Why should anyone take sexual responsibility then? It will let every guy off the hook from even using protection because he can just "opt out" within the window.
That's stupid policy. You'll only create more welfare cases, more children without fathers, more crime, etc.
I believe in policy that promotes responsibility and accountability. It takes two to make a baby, but the biological circumstances are such that the child is made within the woman's body. So, SHE gets to decide how to procede.
This isn't something new that should shock any male out there having sex. It's not some "trick clause" you didn't know about. You know you take that risk with any woman, so try to choose and act wisely, but if not, be decent enough to accept your responsibility.
lovelysoul at June 16, 2009 9:55 AM
Brian
“If you are engaged in a long-term sexually active relationship and the only answer you have for "what happens if birth control fails" is "I'll get an abortion", then you should get yourself sterilized immediately. If you haven't even thought it through THAT far, then you really ought not be fucking.”
Brian…I think you said earlier that you are 40. Of course you would know this at your age. Heck, I’m 25 and I know this, but I’d be lying if I said that every man I have slept with has been marriage and/or father material. If you can honestly say that you have NEVER slept with a woman you wouldn’t want to be with forever and raise a child with, good for you…but you are in the minority…by quite a bit.
“What I'm saying is don't fuck unless you are willing to accept all of the possibilities. If you get herpes, do you expect me to have sympathy for you - 'coz I won't.”
No, I don’t. I also couldn’t care less if you had sympathy for me if I were in a situation where I felt abortion was my only way out. What I hope for (not stupid enough to expect it) is for you to mind your business and worry about your own life, not mine. As you’ve said, it’s not your place to judge the decisions of others. Those decisions include maybe having a lapse in judgment and having sex before you’re ready to have a child.
“And how did the bible get involved here? Is there some requirement that I read the bible or be religious to oppose abortion? If so, I didn't get the memo.”
LOL. Not everything is about you, Brian. ;) The bible got involved because many of the most rabid in their opposition to abortion are religious. Not all, but many. I wasn’t trying to imply that you were, just trying to make a point directed to those that are. Religion is one debate I try to stay out of.
“Thanks for adding yet another name to the list of things I've been called this thread.”
Well, you deserved it. Sorry, but your post about how we can make the rapist pay for the child pissed me off. If it makes you feel any better, I thought of typing “disgusting pig”, “useless fucking scumbag”, and a host of other potty mouthed insults, but I thought “sick fuck” spoke to more of the masses. Again, not all about you, sport. ;)
“Rape is an edge case, and it's always trotted out as one of the primary reasons that "abortion rights must be protected".”
Well, I don’t feel that way at all. I feel there are many reasons why abortion rights should be protected. I do, however, bring out the rape argument when people say that abortion is NEVER the answer because I feel that it is cruel and unusual punishment for a woman to have to carry the product of her rape to term.
“I've been on both sides of the argument concerning rape. I still haven't figured it out yet. On the one hand, the rights of the victim have already been violated. On the other, the rights of the child in utero are going to be. Who gets to win?”
Honey, no one wins when someone is raped…unless the rapist gets away…then I guess they win. This right here is why the “sick fuck” comment came into play. The victims rights have already been violated? Are you implying that makes it okay to violate them for the next 9 months? So if you see a woman lying in the street that had just been raped, it’s okay for you to hop on and take your turn? This woman didn’t just go and fuck without thinking about the consequences. Hell, she could even be a virgin. She was attacked. There is a big difference there. The emotional trauma from the rape itself could scar the woman for life, let alone carrying the baby to term. I think many times in the abortion debate, people get wrapped up in the rights of the fetus and no one has any compassion for the “mothers”. Personally, I have a hard time assigning rights to a fertilized egg, but if I must…that egg has no right being there in the first place. That man’s sperm were trespassing in that woman’s body, which to me means that the egg is trespassing. At the very least, if it has rights, the fetus is responsible for its actions. Until that point, it was just another part of the woman’s body…like a toenail...perfectly okay to remove. Then the offending sperm came into the picture and the egg started making bad decisions….one of which was to attach to the uterine wall. Since the egg chose to do that without the permission, the egg itself is trespassing, no? You know, you can shoot someone for trespassing in your house. Just sayin’. Okay, so say the woman doesn’t get an abortion and decides to put the baby up for adoption. Shouldn’t the baby be responsible to pay its room and board? I mean, if you give it rights, it should have responsibilities too. You see how silly the argument gets when you apply HUMAN rights to a barely fertilized egg? IMO you have to be a living, breathing part of society before you can claim your rights.
“If we could come up with a foolproof way of proving rape (i.e. we didn't have to deal with things like the Duke Rape Hoax) then the death penalty for forcible rape would probably put a bit of a damper on the problem”.
Uggg, you make me want to throw my keyboard, Brian. Funny, the only ex I have ever thrown anything at was named Brian. That phone was a piece of crap anyway. Not to self: I don’t get along with Brians. Lol.
Anywho, it seems like you’re blaming the fact that rape is hard to prove all on the women who have filed a false report. There are other reasons, you know. How about all the pigs that drug and rape women then have the nerve to say “She said yes.” Because she can’t remember it?
“But it still leaves the dilemma. Unless you have made the leap to totally denying the existence of rights for the child in utero.”
Well, to do that we’d have to agree on when the fertilized egg should considered a child.
Another Kim at June 16, 2009 9:56 AM
My apologies for the big jumble of words. I haven't mastered the art of formatting here yet.
Kim2 at June 16, 2009 9:57 AM
When was the last thread that reached 250 posts?
lujlp at June 16, 2009 10:14 AM
In fact, I am not aware of any condition a mom can have where an abortion is needed to save her life.
I had an endometrial ablation in 1998 due to menstrual issues. If I were to get pregnant, the egg would have nothing to attach to other than uterine muscle (This was explained to me as part of the discussion about my surgical options). That would lead to bleeding and require a full hysterectomy taking the fetus with it. There is just one condition that requires an abortion to save the life of the woman. Just because you've never heard of the condition doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
-Julie
Julie at June 16, 2009 10:33 AM
Jerry:
“I think part of the problem in the debates is all of the absolutes, including some of yours (men can have absolutely no say in this.)”
To be clear, I do think this is a problem. I just can’t wrap my head around giving the man a say when it is the woman that has to carry the baby. Any way you word it, it is giving the man a certain amount of control over that woman’s body. How is it okay for him to have control over her body, but not for her to have control over the fetus? Again, I’m not saying it’s right, but I don’t see any way we can get around it.
“When I argue your position, which is, abortion is pretty much the woman's choice however, "I am very much against late term abortions unless the fetus is going to be born severely handicapped or deformed" or risk the mothers health, I have been told by others, men and women that I am actually pro-life, and a misogynist, and a vaginal control freak.”
Well, that’s a shame. I feel the same way, so I would never call you that. I think some women in this debate get so wrapped up in “IT’S MY BODY!!!” that they what they are talking about here. We’re talking about a tiny little being with fingers and toes. I will never understand how a woman could abort a life that she has felt moving inside her without a reason such as those we listed, but I’m not in that position, so I can’t judge. I just don’t see why the procedure can’t be done when it’s less traumatic for all involved.
“So I think a huge part of the problem is that many folks really and truly do advocate for abortion in all circumstances at any point in time they want. And that creates such a huge stumbling block for others that well, hell, if that's the case, maybe we are pro-life and maybe we just don't care anymore but yes, we'll make sure the people we love will be able to get an abortion if they need one.”
I agree. For the record, I stand by my beliefs no matter who wants to go against them. A good friend of mine had an abortion a few years ago because her and her boyfriend just weren’t ready. Granted, she had mental issues she had to work out, but don’t we all? These two are still together today. Both still have good jobs. They own a home. I told her flat out when she asked for my advice that I would be a friend to her no matter what, but I thought what she was planning was kind of selfish. Hey, she asked. However, I still don’t judge her, really. She is the only person capable of knowing if she can support that child in every way.
“Babies are parasites, late term abortions are just fine in all circumstances, banning a procedure is punishment from an oppressive woman hating culture, men can have absolutely no say in this, jeez fine, I'm a monster, thank you for pointing that out, I guess from now on I'll vote prolife because the one thing I know is that life does not begin at birth and the virulent pro-choicers are extremists that do need some regulation.”
Hey, there are pro lifers that need some regulation too. There are always crazies on both sides of any important debate. I was driving through a small town in PA once and apparently there was some anti abortion protest going on. These people lined either side of the main road with double sided posters of aborted fetuses. Yep. The signs were taller than the people holding them they were everywhere you looked. In case anyone still can’t get the mental picture: these pictures were actually of babies aborted late term. Some were missing limbs. Some had their heads bashed in. Some were obviously severely deformed even before the procedure. You know what? It made me even MORE pro-choice. I don’t respond well to scare tactics. An ex-coworker used to go to a low cost clinic for her OBGYN visits. Unfortunately, her only day off some weeks was also the day they do low cost abortions there. She had to be escorted to and from her car because apparently no one believes you when you say you’re just going to the clinic for your check up. I guess she finally turned around and responded to a cry of: “Don’t you see what you’re doing?!” with “Yes, I’m getting a FUCKING pap-smear and a pack of birth control!!! Is that okay with you?!” God, I miss her.
Brian:
“To pre-emptively attack people you've just met is rude. You could use your enter key a bit more often, though.
And don't play stupid with me, I'm better at it.”
Riiiight, because it’s totally unlikely that someone will come into a thread on the internet and try to play grammar police when they don’t really have an argument. That NEVER happens.
I do use my enter key, smart ass. I’m typing in word and then copying it to the thread. I learned the hard way that I need to preview.
As for a pre-emptive attack…wow…I thought I was just making a snarky joke to lighten the mood….huh. My apologies if I offended anyone.
Jerry again:
“Actually, if you think that's interesting, understand that many many feminist groups are against laws charging murder against a fetus.”
Huh…that’s a tough one to sort out. If I were pregnant with the intention of keeping and raising my baby and someone came up and kicked me in the stomach killing my him/her, I would sure as hell want that person charged with murder. However, I don’t think someone who has an abortion (especially early on) is a murderer, per say. I honestly don’t know what my stance is on that. I guess the laws can’t please everyone. Sometimes, you have to make some unpopular laws for the greater good. Glad it’s not all my decision to make!
Obama in Pijamas:
“Abortion kills an innocent human being and wounds the soul of the others.”
Sorry, I find this a little over dramatic. The only person’s soul it should wound is the mother’s and it’s her soul, so she can wound it if she wants. If someone you don’t even know getting an abortion wounds your soul, that’s your problem…not theirs.
Brian again:
NIIIICE SNL reference!! That made me giggle….unless you really were calling Kim1 an ignorant slut, then it was kinda mean. LOL.
Kim2 at June 16, 2009 10:41 AM
Well, technically, Julie, that doesn't save your life, just your uterus, but I'm not quibbling. There are conditions, like that, in early pregancy where an abortion may be warranted, but we were discussing late-term abortions, where the fetus is viable.
There are no conditions which would require aborting a fully-formed, healthy, viable baby to save the mother's life. A c-section takes 5 min and can safely remove the baby, no matter what the mom's medical condition. However, the "to save the mother's life" reason is frequently used by people to justify supporting late-term abortions. It is simply not true.
lovelysoul at June 16, 2009 10:46 AM
>>If you fuck, you have implicitly agreed with your body to make another person.
Brian,
If you got preggers every single time you had unprotected sex, yes - I could understand the "invitation" argument.
But you don't.
I got lucky all the times I crossed my fingers and failed to do the same elsewhere.
Just as I got lucky when I was (twice) in the position to want productive sex, thereby issuing that implicit invitation, and got preggers.
Almost all the women I know have had those marrow-melting "scares" when a pregnancy would have been wrong for so many reasons.
Jody Tresidder at June 16, 2009 10:57 AM
Well, technically, Julie, that doesn't save your life, just your uterus, but I'm not quibbling.
I'm not quibbling either, but let me be more clear.
If I were to get pregnant and attempted to carry it to term, it would cause severe bleeding and my death (along with malformation of the fetus, but that isn't what we are talking about here). The only way to remove the fetus and eliminate the problem would be for a hysterectomy, fetus and all. The hysterectomy would be my abortion, so my life would be saved by the abortion...but I wouldn't come away unscathed in the process.
You are right though, that I would do it early (I got my tubes tied at the same time to do all I could to eliminate this possibility). However, there are a multitude of situations that cause injury or bleeding to the mother where her life could be in jeopardy if the child is carried to term. If a woman's uterus is evacuated (through c-section or vaginally) and the child has no hope of living (because it's lungs aren't developed, etc), is that an abortion or 'birth'?
-Julie
Julie at June 16, 2009 11:09 AM
And, Jody, almost all of us have taken drugs or driven drunk at one time or another, and the odds are nothing bad will happen, but if this results in negative consequences - if we hurt ourselves or someone else - we have to face responsibility for our foolish choices.
This is the only area where people are arguing that the slate should just be wiped clean, just because it "can" be...because abortion exists. It's kind of like telling your kid, who drunkenly hit a pedestrian, "Go hide the car in the bushes, you can probably get away with this!"
Just because we are likely not to face consequences for our bad choices, doesn't mean we should condone those choices, for ourselves or others.
lovelysoul at June 16, 2009 11:20 AM
Rex - here's the problem with the "parasite" argument.
Other than cases of forcible rape, the child was INVITED. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.
I didn't make the "parasite" argument. You will not find that word in any of my posts, except this one.
I agree that a fetus is (or reasonably can be considered in most cases) an invited guest. But that invitation can be withdrawn by the owner of the body in which the fetus is guesting. ("Guesting". . . interesting how similar that word is to "gestating." I wonder if there's a linguistic connection.) Once the fetus is viable, the mother has the choice of having it removed alive if she wants it out of her body, so restrictions/bans on late-term abortions are reasonable. But before viability, the only way she can exercise her right to withdraw the invitation is to abort.
This line of reasoning gets around the "double murder" dilemma, by the way. If the fetus is considered to have full human rights, then if it is killed by any means other than removal from the mother with her consent, that's murder. But "full human rights" do not include the right to live on, or inside, another person's body without her consent, so an early abortion is not murder.
Rex Little at June 16, 2009 11:31 AM
Apparently Kim=idiot, on here at least. We've got 2 fitting that description now. I've been raped. And would not have aborted. It would have been MY baby. Not punishment. There is no moral abortion to me, not my own or my kids'.
"And yes, this was my obviously failed attempt to inject sane rationality back into the discussion here."
insisting babies are parasitic invaders is not rational. Not one person here (or many anywhere, I'd guess) agree with you. Failed attempt, most certainly, right out of the gate.
Julie, one would hope you got sterilized, knowing a pregnancy could kill you. To not to would just be stupid, and medical malpractice as well.
As for getting lucky all the times you crossed your fingers-how fucking stupid can a woman be (not specifically Jody, I mean all the idiots that do this)? Do you step out onto the freeway and cross your fingers not to get hit?? Why is it so many people in this world expect to have to take no responsibility whatsoever when it comes to sex? And if, stepping into the freeway, you didn't get lucky and a car hit you, would it be fair for that driver to be killed instead of you? It wouldn't be the driver's fault, and it's not the baby's fault.
"If I were pregnant with the intention of keeping and raising my baby and someone came up and kicked me in the stomach killing my him/her, I would sure as hell want that person charged with murder. However, I don’t think someone who has an abortion (especially early on) is a murderer, per say"
So, it's only a person if you want it to be? Are you posting from prison, Scott Peterson? What is that psychological condition where one views others as merely existing at your whims, and not as real people? Oh, yeah, sociopathy.
momof4 at June 16, 2009 11:56 AM
>>As for getting lucky all the times you crossed your fingers-how fucking stupid can a woman be (not specifically Jody, I mean all the idiots that do this)?
No, that's okay, momof4.
(And I think I have NOT said congrats to you -I've been meaning to for ages. But please accept them now. We may disagree profoundly but I am delighted it went well - and that you're on fighting form. Well done to you!).
The attitude I described IS stupid. I could dress it up (to myself) - and did - as being part of my passionate, spontaneous nature, serially in love (I was always that too) or hum along with the words from "Grease..."there are worse things I could do..." but yeah, stupid fits.
Jody Tresidder at June 16, 2009 12:17 PM
For those who believe simply having sex is an implicit agreement to reproduce: Do you also accept that all men, regardless of whether they want the baby or not should pay up child support.
Granted, child support and "murder" are different but isn't the logic the same - if the sex is the agreement to take care of any possible outcomes, including a child, that means supporting it, yeah?
Gretchen at June 16, 2009 12:41 PM
"For those who believe simply having sex is an implicit agreement to reproduce: Do you also accept that all men, regardless of whether they want the baby or not should pay up child support."
I do. Sex is risky, despite even using birth control. STDs happen. Pregnancy happens. I think it's entirely the wrong message to send to young people (or older people) that they can just escape the consequences of sexual involvement, and treat it as a "casual" event they can always walk away from.
In order for the male to opt out of parenthood, a woman must have a reasonable way to opt out too, but abortion is obviously not a good solution because of how controversial it is. Many women feel it is murder, so their philosophical or religious beliefs prohibit its use as an after-the-fact birth control. Not to mention that it IS dangerous and can result in later fertility problems.
My half-sister had 4 abortions in her early 20s, and her uterus was so damaged that by the time she was ready to give birth to a child she wanted, she had severe complications. Though rare, women do still die from abortions.
So, abortion is not a light decision, and its existence doesn't make it reasonable to assume that the mother bear the burden of an unplanned pregnancy alone, while the father gets to go on his merry way.
lovelysoul at June 16, 2009 1:26 PM
Kim2
Way to miss the point. The whole problem for the human rights POV regarding abortion is the competing rights of the mother and baby. That's the battle I'm talking about "winning" here, the rapist is already out of the picture by this point.
But to argue that the rape victim ought to abort the child because "she'll never love it anyhow" is to say that the child's rights ought to be negated because the mother's rights were violated. I'm not sure I'm ready to accept the idea of nullifying rights based upon the actions of a third party.
I can say that with complete honesty. And although I can't stand children, I still wouldn't be willing to risk them with a woman I did not consider worthy of raising a child with.
Perhaps if I was not in the minority we wouldn't need to have this argument.
Theresa:
I can feel the sneer in your voice.Rex:
Not saying you did. I was tying your "revocation of consent" claim to the "parasite" argument. They share the same flaw. Either way, they declare the unborn child an "un-person".
Gretchen
I would take that as an axiom. I'd like to see the government stop skimming the payments, and I'd like an exception for fraud (such as intentionally perforating condoms, or lying about use of birth control). But other than that, yeah.
brian at June 16, 2009 2:00 PM
In order for the male to opt out of parenthood, a woman must have a reasonable way to opt out too, but abortion is obviously not a good solution
There is another way for the woman to opt out. Doesn't get her out of pregnancy the way abortion does, but parenthood? No problem. It's called adoption.
Rex Little at June 16, 2009 2:02 PM
I was tying your "revocation of consent" claim to the "parasite" argument. They share the same flaw. Either way, they declare the unborn child an "un-person".
Read my post again. I explicitly included the assumption that the fetus is a human being with full human rights.
Rex Little at June 16, 2009 2:19 PM
brian: I can feel the sneer in your voice.
I think anyone who's read our correspondence here is likely to agree with me when I say that I'll take this as, essentially, the last gasp in a grudging, if very tacit, acknowledgement that you're unable to provide any sort of cite to back up your claim that anyone of any repute whatsoever supports "as many as possible" abortions to exert power over men, or that there are any "policy directors" who have put forth that recommendation.
And that you're stung that you failed in your assumption that I'm a "feminist".
And that you're really really stung that you were called on your ridiculous "quote".
And that I stuck pretty close to the high road and avoided insults, unlike you.
Yeah, I'm gonna call this a "win".
You can insult me all you want, but it just looks bad on you. I mean, I'd have to actually *care* what you think of me for it to hurt me.
Theresa at June 16, 2009 2:23 PM
Rex
This part?
OK. I disagree. If you stipulate that the fetus has full rights, then the mother cannot withdraw consent pre-viability without violating the rights of the fetus.
You are describing a hierarchy of rights that is the reverse of what the law presently recognizes. The law imposes a duty to protect the most defenseless upon their caretakers.
Which is pretty much the same as the "parasite!" argument, only more civil.
brian at June 16, 2009 2:26 PM
Of course, adoption is an option, Rex, but that doesn't seem fair. Just because the father wishes to opt out of parenthood, the woman must carry the baby for 9 months, endure hours of painful childbirth, risking her life, followed by the gutwrenching guilt and worry over giving the child away, not to mention the stretch marks, c-section scars, and other physical remnants of pregnancy? Yet, the father just gets to continue on with his life, having opted out and left her to deal with all the unpleasant consequences?
That's not right, and it'll never fly. When a couple has sex, and an accidental pregnancy results, they may, indeed, differ on whether to become parents. But the child is in her body, so like Brian so comically said about breakfast, "The chicken was involved, but the pig was committed". SHE gets to decide whether to terminate, adopt, or keep the baby. Each of those decisions is valid.
Now, I know you want some release clause for the guy if her decision isn't what he wants, but that's selfish and unfair to the child.
Men should be responsible enough to get to know the women they sleep with. Ideally, before becoming intimate, you should discuss birth control as well as your beliefs about abortion and what might happen in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.
I told my boyfriend straight up that I'm on the pill, but if it went wrong for some reason, I wouldn't have an abortion. He keeps saying he's going to get a vasectomy but hasn't done so yet, but at least I know I've been clear about what would happen in the unlikely event I get pregnant. If it scares him so, he has the option to protect himself or stop dating me.
If you haven't discussed this, or your views are completely in conflict, you probably shouldn't get sexually involved.
lovelysoul at June 16, 2009 2:36 PM
Theresa, I'd actually have to think of you for you to have anything to care about.
I've not said that any "policy directors" have recommended maximizing abortions, I don't know where you got that.
Re-read my 6/15/09 08:43 comment. THAT is the quote that I am looking for. I can't find the name, and unfortunately the google returns way too much without the precisely accurate quote. I'm working on it.
The statement in the 12:05 quote is an assertion, not a statement made by any one feminist. But if you take the actions of the pro-abortion crowd as a whole, that is certainly their objective.
Your first post at 12:57 hit me when I was trying to pry myself off of this cursed thread and failing, and I just didn't feel like looking for the quote. Your continued sneering sounded more like a playground taunt, so I got nasty.
Go read Pandagon. They are considered "cutting edge" modern feminists. See what they say. Hint: They REALLY hate "The Patriarchy™"
Oh, I did find this quote:
And yeah, he's a man, but he's also a radical environmentalist.
If a man is coming up with that kind of industrial-strength stupid, I have no trouble believing that a woman who postulates that all sex is rape could likewise say that abortion is woman's revenge.
brian at June 16, 2009 2:36 PM
lovelysoul :
Shorter: Don't let your dick run your life.
brian at June 16, 2009 2:42 PM
brian
OK. I disagree. If you stipulate that the fetus has full rights, then the mother cannot withdraw consent pre-viability without violating the rights of the fetus.
You are describing a hierarchy of rights that is the reverse of what the law presently recognizes. The law imposes a duty to protect the most defenseless upon their caretakers.
Which is pretty much the same as the "parasite!" argument, only more civil.
How do you make this damn form indent, so I can show the quote ending? Grumble grumble.
Under this argument, brian, can we (or "the law" or whoever) FORCE a parent to donate their compatible liver to their baby whose liver is failing?
As I understand it, the answer to that is "no".
And if we can't force a parent to provide bodily tissue, etc, to a *born* baby (whose rights as a live person aren't really in debate here), we can't realistically force a woman to do so for an *unborn* one (whose rights are debatable). They're equally helpless, equally desperately in need... It can't be possible that a fetus has more rights than a baby, I'd say.
Kyle 3.0 at June 16, 2009 2:48 PM
Kyle - we have, however, forced a parent to get treatment for a child that they object to on some grounds. The rights of the child were placed above parental rights.
And since a human cannot live without their liver (HA!) your donation argument there is inoperative, as the law would be requiring someone to kill themselves.
Do we have any legal types here who can tell me if there's any case law on kidneys, though? Can someone be compelled to donate a kidney to a blood relative?
brian at June 16, 2009 2:52 PM
To answer your other question, kyle, HTML tags.
in < and >, you put the tags: 'b' for bold, 'i' for italics, 'blockquote' for quoting.
Then you put your text.
Then you put in < and > the same tag with a / in front of it.
so: <blockquote>This is a quote</blockquote>
looks like this:
If you use Firefox, there's a plugin: http://codefisher.org/format_toolbar/
Set it to HTML.
brian at June 16, 2009 2:55 PM
Actually, brian, I chose liver specifically, because it regenerates, so you only have to donate a part of it. Yours'll grow back, and the transplanted piece will grow to a full one. Zing! ;)
Anyhow, requiring a child be *treated* is entirely different from requiring mandatory body part removal from a parent.
I'm pretty sure donation can't be mandated. So it doesn't stand to reason that a woman can be mandated to provide biological material (for lack of a better term) for a fetus, but can not be mandated to provide biological material for a baby. Therefore, he says with mock triumph, it seems pretty clear that the woman's right to her body should have dominion over the fetus' right to continue gestating.
This is kind of interesting, actually. I have to assume this tack has been debated elsewhere, but it's new to me.
Kyle 3.0 at June 16, 2009 3:02 PM
On the surface, it's an interesting argument, Kyle, but from a practical standpoint, the reason there are no laws requiring a parent to donate a matching organ is because it's never, if ever, necessary.
If parents routinely chose, for their own selfish reasons, not to donate an organ - or a small piece of an organ - to their child, and instead let him/her die, I assure there would be such public outrage that laws would be passed. Just as there are laws regarding parents who refuse medical treatment for their children on religious grounds.
Luckily, parents usually love their children enough, at least once born, to go to almost any length to preserve their lives, so that particular requirment has never been needed.
lovelysoul at June 16, 2009 3:20 PM
brian: I've not said that any "policy directors" have recommended maximizing abortions, I don't know where you got that.
me: June 15, 2009 2:07 PM, replying to my "I simply do not believe that there is more than one or two *total* whackadoos who would believe that women should abort "as much as possible" as some sort of slap to men." you say "That's as may be. But it is those few whackadoos who are the ones directing policy."
That's pretty clear to me.
brian: Re-read my 6/15/09 08:43 comment. THAT is the quote that I am looking for. I can't find the name, and unfortunately the google returns way too much without the precisely accurate quote. I'm working on it.
Me: Okay, the one you sort of extrapolate as "In other words, there exist a number of women who honestly believe that by having abortions, they are striking a blow against The Patriarchy™." That quote, I can actually believe. No need to research it on my behalf. Please reread my June 15, 2009 12:27 PM post for clarification. You have clearly and explicitly asserted that there are women out there who want to maximize abortions as a way to express power over "The Patriarchy" (which is a term that makes me snort derisively, by the way. Any woman who uses that word in conversation with me is immediately dismissed as an idiot.) I have been (pretty explicitly) requesting any evidence that anyone's ever exhorted us to maximize abortions to strike a blow, etc etc.
brian: The statement in the 12:05 quote is an assertion, not a statement made by any one feminist. But if you take the actions of the pro-abortion crowd as a whole, that is certainly their objective.
me: See, I have to disagree with that assertion/extrapolation. See my "whales/harpoons" post. What you assert does not, in my opinion, logically follow from the quote you used.
brian: Your first post at 12:57 hit me when I was trying to pry myself off of this cursed thread and failing, and I just didn't feel like looking for the quote. Your continued sneering sounded more like a playground taunt, so I got nasty.
me: I wasn't intending to sneer, actually. I was incredulous at what sounded to me like a ridiculous assertion (see my "shoot a fetus as a trespasser" post) that simply *demanded* proof of existence, and context. Any one or two lines can be made to sound insane, when surrounding material is removed.
brian: Go read Pandagon. They are considered "cutting edge" modern feminists. See what they say. Hint: They REALLY hate "The Patriarchy™"
me: I believe it. And I think you now know what I think of feminists and the "patriarchy" paranoia.
brian: Oh, I did find this quote:
Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State. ~Edward Abbey
And yeah, he's a man, but he's also a radical environmentalist.
If a man is coming up with that kind of industrial-strength stupid, I have no trouble believing that a woman who postulates that all sex is rape could likewise say that abortion is woman's revenge.
me: See, I'm not seeing the "OMGWTF" in that Abbey quote. I'm pro-choice, though, so my knee doesn't jerk to the same things that a pro-life person's does. I understand what he *means*, looking beyond the eye-rollingly wanna-trump use of that debate-ending "rape!" phraseology. Cut it out, and "Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity", which I rather agree with. It's actually pretty accurate. Not to the exclusion of everything else (ie, a pro-life person could as easily write a converse statement, which would resonate with them). But from my side of the fence, the statement is valid.
As for the last bit, the problem is that you're a bit too passionate, shall we say, which means that your "I have no trouble believing" extrapolations are often a bit... extreme. You see one or two people say "I like orange juice" and leap to the conclusion that they must hate apple juice and want to set fire to orchards. Metaphorically, of course.
You're not a lousy arguer. Many of your points show a pretty well thought out philosophy. I may disagree, but I can respect it. You'd have a better chance of actually being persuasive, if that's your goal, by toning down the leaping to conclusions based on "I find it easy to believe/imagine".
Perhaps we can agree to disagree. I don't believe there exists a politically-significant cabal of feminists rejoicing at every abortion and its emasculating effects. You might believe there does. Fair enough. I doubt it's possible we'll change one another's minds, so there's not much point engendering (interesting word, no?) additional animosity on here. Hell, I think this entire set of comments has completely and totally overlooked the fact that the original post was specifically about debate among Libertarians, and not pro-life/pro-choice in general.
Theresa at June 16, 2009 3:38 PM
This is beginning to read like a novel.."me:..."you". Perhaps you guys are falling in love.
lovelysoul at June 16, 2009 3:46 PM
>>Perhaps we can agree to disagree
Darn it, Theresa:)
I was looking forward to brian finding that quote (along with Bigfoot!)
>>And yeah, he's a man, but he's also a radical environmentalist.
Abbey may be just a radical to some, but his meditation on the American wilds, "Desert Solitaire" is a sublime bit of writing. (A classic, basically).
Jody Tresidder at June 16, 2009 3:52 PM
Theresa, I will find that quote. It was read by Limbaugh on his show at least once. It was from one of the names I mentioned or one of their contemporaries.
Poorly worded on my part. The meaning I was going for is that the same loons who believe that abortion is their ticket to finally beating The Patriarchy™ are the same people who are bending the ear of those responsible for writing policy.
In other words, Kim Gandy is a radical abortionist, and she also wields enrmous power over certain senators (like Biden).
Is this whole thing over a poorly-worded sentence on my part?
Maybe I ought to restrict my posting to after-hours.
brian at June 16, 2009 4:50 PM
the reason there are no laws requiring a parent to donate a matching organ is because it's never. . . necessary.
That's true for parents who are raising their birth children. But suppose an adopted child needs an organ, the only compatible donor is one of the birth parents, and that person refuses to donate. I don't know if that's ever happened, but it's certainly possible.
Laws could obviously be passed to force donation in such a case, but I'd object to those laws for the same reason I'd object to laws against early-term abortion: they violate the principle of self-ownership at its most basic level.
Rex Little at June 16, 2009 5:27 PM
Brian,
This is the only quote I could find by Limbaugh regarding this. I hope this isn't it, because he said it, not anyone from the feminist camp.
E. Steven Berkimer at June 16, 2009 8:04 PM
The link I got it from is Here.
E. Steven Berkimer at June 16, 2009 8:07 PM
Yeah, I know Rush's take. But he derived that from various speeches and writings of the women who earned the title "feminazi".
I do know he referred multiple times to the Schroeder speech (that she later claimed was a joke - what is it with lefties and sick jokes?) where she said that to be a good feminist women had to divorce their husbands, kill their children, and become lesbians.
I seriously doubt that she meant any of it, but you can get a glimpse into someone's mindset by the jokes they tell.
I'll find the damned quote sooner or later. I know it's passed through this head before, and it didn't originate here.
brian at June 16, 2009 9:19 PM
Blimey, brian!
Even with Limbaugh's own, unambiguous statement that this is the feminazis' "unspoken reasoning," you still insist there's a direct quote somewhere?!
Jody Tresidder at June 17, 2009 5:55 AM
I'm not insisting, I am certain.
There is no direct quote that says "maximize abortions". I never claimed that there was. But there is a mindset that implies it.
I said there is a quote that states that abortion is the only power women have over men.
It was one of our wonderful radical feminists that said it.
I just need to find close enough to the original wording to get to it, and not end up with 20,000 links to crypto-feminist blogs that are "striking a blow against teh patriarchy!!!!!111!!oneoneone"
You'd be amazed at how many ideology-addled college girls have blogs meant to strike a blow against the man.
brian at June 17, 2009 6:25 AM
You are describing a hierarchy of rights that is the reverse of what the law presently recognizes. The law imposes a duty to protect the most defenseless upon their caretakers.
If you give birth to a child and decide after a time that you do not want to keep it, you have the option of putting it up for adoption. If a person comes into your home and insults you, you have the right to withdraw your consent to allow them on your property and kick them out.
See, if a fetus has full human rights (a huge debate) then we have typical everyday examples that withdrawing consent for the parasitic growth to steal your calories, use your blood supply, borrow your kidneys and liver to filter out impurities, etc.
You have a right to say "I don't want this to inhabit me any longer." If the fetus is viable, then it can be purged and put up for adoption. If it isn't, then you still have that right, and only the woman can decide when to revoke consent because she is the one housing the little thing.
Do I think abortion is great? No I do not. However, I think that it is a necessary evil if women are going to have the ability to control their own bodies. Plus, we can't count on the medical and legal establishment to act rapidly enough to provide this service should it be greatly restricted. In Roe v. Wade, the pregnancy in question actually ended with a live birth because the legal process took so long. If I'm in a medical or personal emergency, I don't want to be forced to wait for a group of lawyers and judges to get around to making a decision.
-Julie
Julie at June 17, 2009 7:16 AM
Julie, you realize that the mom in question from Roe is "rabidly
prolife", and has extreme guilt issues that she was associated with that ruling? And is, in fact, extremely grateful that her pregnancy ended in live birth?
"However, I think that it is a necessary evil if women are going to have the ability to control their own bodies."
Again, WHy is it so hard to control your body PRIOR to conception? Don't want a kid? Use BC. Really don't want one? Use two types! Be the one person in 2 billion that has 2 forms fail on them at once during their fertile time? Accept you're meant to have that kid!
momof4 at June 17, 2009 12:34 PM
Momof4... it's because our bodies should always be ours to control. And some of us don't believe in being "meant to" do anything.
Yeah, I know I'm not going to change your mind, but just as you do what you choose with your body - including having a passel o' kids - I'm going to choose what to do with mine. I do happen to take great care not to become pregnant, but if my BC was to fail, I would abort. And I would feel no guilt whatsoever. Seriously. I've given it quite a lot of thought, in fact. Searched my very soul.
I do not believe that a fetus is a person. I do not believe it has any "right to life" until it has reached a developmental stage where it could live on its own outside the womb without requiring "artificial womb" properties (ie, when it reaches a developmental stage where warmth, nutrition, and love are essentially enough).
I know you're going to leap up with a "what about disabled children! What about preemies!" and I say *they're born*. Once born alive, they're born. Whether they can (or should) survive is a conversation for the parents and the doctors.
But while it's in me and can't survive without my body... I have dominion. Sorry. No matter how mad it makes you, it's the way it is. And you, in turn, have dominion over yours, and you can choose to carry to term as you like.
As if it matters at all, the chances are excellent that I would abort as early as possible, well before any semblance of "viability". But women in my family have a history of "stealth pregnancies", where they still have periods, and pregnancy tests say "negative" for a long while. If I only discovered my pregnancy at, say, 6 months, I would almost certainly finish the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption. I can foresee circumstances where I believe I should have the "right" to abort even then (health of me issues, badly damaged fetus, etc), but beyond those issues, I likely wouldn't. And I *am* one of those people who thinks that late-term abortion should remain legal, mainly because they're so VERY VERY rare that a blanket law is too imprecise to cover the reasons one might be desired.
Theresa at June 17, 2009 1:58 PM
"No matter how mad it makes you, it's the way it is. "
Doesn't make me mad. Sick, yes. Disgusted. Any number of other terms. But not mad. The Nazi's who killed jews made me sick. The people who justified and/or ignored it made me mad. Same thing here.
Your body should always be yours to control, sure, except as society we have decided it's not, for any number of reasons in any number of situations, no matter your gender. And I still say the best way to control it is with your brain, beforehand. People incapable of doing that ought to be sterilized anyway.
What are pro-choice people's thoughts on the fact that (roughly) 80% of abortions are repeat customers who do use them as BC? To the tune of 4 or 5 or more per woman? And that the majority of abortion-seekers are minorities (as originally intended by those who fought for the right)?
momof4 at June 17, 2009 3:03 PM
"And I *am* one of those people who thinks that late-term abortion should remain legal, mainly because they're so VERY VERY rare that a blanket law is too imprecise to cover the reasons one might be desired."
Julie, they aren't that rare, and the reasons aren't that varied. Dr. Tiller performed thousands of late-term abortions, and he made lots of money doing so. Most were for fetal abnormalities, but not all.
You and I agree on basically everything. I just hope you would join me in saying that the reasons for late-term abortions should only be performed for serious medical reasons, such as fetal abnormalities or threat to a mother's physical health.
It was supposed to be that way - "for the health of the mother" - and I am fine with that because I know there would be very few, if any, late-term abortions necessary for that reason. Yet, feminists and pro-choice advocates managed to expand the definition of "health of the mother" to include mental health too, which can be interpreted to mean almost anything. That is how Tiller and other late-term abortionists were getting around the intent of the law and killing perfectly healthy babies, some as late as 8 months.
That needs to be stopped, while early-term abortions kept legal. If pro-choice people will support that stance, it would pacify most of the moderate objections against abortion. It won't satisfy everyone, but I think it would satisfy most, which is the best way to assure that early abortions remain legal.
lovelysoul at June 17, 2009 3:33 PM
Obviously, not hard enough.
Because you could avoid the thing entirely with a single operation. And the recurring costs of birth control would be out of your budget.
brian at June 17, 2009 3:44 PM
>>Obviously, not hard enough.
Back atcha brian.
Your own searching, I mean - for that quote:)
Jody Tresidder at June 17, 2009 3:50 PM
momof4: What are pro-choice people's thoughts on the fact that (roughly) 80% of abortions are repeat customers who do use them as BC? To the tune of 4 or 5 or more per woman? And that the majority of abortion-seekers are minorities (as originally intended by those who fought for the right)?
me: Don't care. Not my business. And since, as I clearly laid out, I don't believe a fetus is a "person" during the time when the VAST majority of abortions are performed. I don't care if the woman having the abortion is having it because the fetus is XX and she wanted XY. I may be saddened by why she wants XY so badly, and whether it's truly her choice or a cultural/spousal one, but if it is her choice, then it's her right.
I don't care whether she's a minority or a majority or a mix of every culture in our earthly rainbow. If she wants an abortion, I say she can have it.
I think I can hear your outraged gasp from here. ;)
brian (in response to me saying I take care not to get pregnant, etc): Because you could avoid the thing entirely with a single operation. And the recurring costs of birth control would be out of your budget.
Aaaactually, the "great care" I take is being married to a man who had a vasectomy, of his own free will. I said I wanted to go for a tubal, and he said "no, a vasectomy is less invasive and has fewer complications". He is a very fine man indeed.
So, if that vasectomy was to fail, I would abort. With no hesitation or guilt. I've read every argument pro-life individuals have put out there, and I respect the fact that they have strong beliefs. But they're not mine, and I don't agree with them. My gut, my heart, and my mind are all with me on this. ~shrug~. Chances are it'll never happen, though.
Theresa at June 17, 2009 5:51 PM
No outraged gasp. There are sociopaths in this world, and people that think pretty much ANYTHING they want to do is ok. I am well aware of that. I am not the church lady, although I fully believe in a well-populated hell.
Leaving your pregnancy to someone else is pretty irresponsible, husband or no. After all, you want full control of YOUR body, no? That is, after all, your whole argument here on your right to abort. Pop in and get Essure and be done with it. It's done in a dr's office visit, and it's permanent.
Just cause I know 4 vasectomy babies personally, is all. They are all dearly loved, if a shock at first. Their moms are good people.
momof4 at June 17, 2009 6:05 PM
Lovely try, Momof4, to play piously-superior-slash-shrink. First Nazis and now sociopaths. What's next? Possessed by Satan? Voodoo? Thetans, perhaps?
Look, I'm not tossing crap at you - saying things like that religion trains people to be sheep who believe whatever the man in the red shoes and dress says, and he wants more tithers. Or that people popping out babies like Pez are clearly trying to hide from the fact they don't have anything else to offer but a functioning uterus. Or that anyone so hell-bent on forcing women to have babies they don't want must be so horrified by what her own life has become that she wants everyone else to suffer like she does... So it would be a courtesy not to throw crap at me. You know, that whole "casting the first stone" thing?
I'm just saying that - in short form - I don't buy that a cluster of cells the size of my fist, that can't exist without my body should have rights over my body.
And I am pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion. I am happy that you can choose to have your kids. I have a friend who could never in a million years abort for herself, but understands that not everyone feels the same way, so respects that it's not up to HER to tell them what to do. It's not up to me to tell you what to do. And it's not up to you to tell me what to do.
I did, actually, look keenly into Essure a few years ago when I first heard of it. Unfortunately, it wasn't available in my area at the time. And I've since hit 40, so the odds of me getting knocked up, after the failure of a 10+ year old vasectomy, is pretty slim. And if that one in a zillion sperm escapes and hits one of my dusty eggs, well... I think it's pretty clear what I'd do.
Theresa at June 17, 2009 7:45 PM
First of, I have to say that this has been a really interesting debate to follow over the past couple days. It's thought-provoking to see two sides of the issue argued out by intelligent, articulate people.
Just my two cents (as an 18 year old college student)...
It's easy to take a theoretical stance against abortion, especially if you're happily married, financially stable, and/or feasibly capable of raising a child; even more so if you're a dude. But keeping an unwanted pregnancy is a much scarier proposition when the consequences mean dropping out of high school or college and preparing to spend the next 18 years single-handedly raising a baby that you aren't at all emotionally or financially equipped to provide for, which likely means moving back home, going on welfare, and severely damaging your chances of a successful career and/or relationship.
It's easy to say "keep your legs shut or deal with the consequences" but how well is that message going to sink in with your average 15 year old with raging hormones and an incompletely developed brain? And does it really make sense to punish kids by essentially giving them kids of their own? If you're not responsible enough to take basic steps to prevent pregnancy, then you're probably not responsible enough to raise a child.
Of course, if you believe that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then a life is a life, spawn of 12 year old gangbang victims included. Obviously that's a hugely personal moral and religious belief, and I wouldn't attempt to convince anyone differently. But if you believe in outlawing abortion, then you have to follow that decision to its logical consequences, which means a lot more unwanted and unprovided for children being raised on welfare in single-parent families. Is that really what we want for our economy and society?
Shannon at June 17, 2009 8:15 PM
Geeze, Theresa, what a spew of insults.
I'm not at all religious, at least in an organized sense. I can't speak for momof4, but that is not why I view unborn life as life.
Simply study it and you really can't escape the truth, and accepting that truth changes your whole perspective.
For many years, I was like you in the whole "cluster of cells" theory. I was very much pro-choice until I understood fetal development, then I realized that this debate has a lot of dimensions. You can try to stereotype them according to religion, but that isn't what it's about. Science fully supports that an unborn life is a life. Even your most passionate pro-choicer, if they're informed, doesn't bother arguing that anymore. Life has been established. We have fiberoptic images inside the womb, which they did not have during Roe v Wade. All that is in debate is how much power the mother has over that living being.
And I think, simply because generations have grown up with this convenience of taking a life as a back-up contraceptive, that we probably can't change that. We will never convince those who expect that convenience to reverse course. I'm a realist. Do I still think it's wrong ethically and morally? Yes. Do I think it will change? No.
So pro-lifers need to concede early abortion and focus on late-term. That's where they clearly have the moral high ground. Life is indisputable, and if you ask the Supreme Court to define life, a late-term, viable fetus will absolutely meet that criteria...and maybe even earlier...so the court will have to weigh the heart of the issue: how much say does the mother get over termination...over murder?
That could easily go against pro-choicers, so I think it's wise to be reasonable about late-term abortions. Right now, the laws are so inconsistent - treating the unborn of the exact same stage of development differently - that they are obviously unjust.
lovelysoul at June 17, 2009 8:22 PM
Hey, Lovelysoul... I used those insults (which were intentionally over-the-top, and not directed at anyone in particular) to emphasize that I had NOT used insults, while Momof4 had already essentially called me a sociopath and a Nazi.
I should say that I am not of the "cluster of cells" mindset. I cheerily acknowledge that a fetus is "life". However, I maintain that, in my opinion, it is not a "person" until it can live on its own (without massive medical intervention). As such, the actual person in the equation - the mother - has trump rights.
I would be interested to know your definition of "late term", as well. Frankly, depending on the definition, I, as a pro-choicer, would be "reasonable" about them, too. I would hesitate to explicitly outlaw them, just on general principles, but I wouldn't get bent out of shape at a doctor (or abortion provider) declining to perform them. I seriously, seriously doubt the "8 month abortion of perfectly healthy babies" stories. They just don't *make sense*. I mean, at that point, the procedure isn't much easier than an induced delivery, so I just can't grok a rationale for it. And if they happen at all, I would venture a guess to say that the number is so low as to be of less concern than toddler deaths by inhaling Lego.
Theresa at June 17, 2009 9:27 PM
Theresa:
no, you are pro-abortion and blowing smoke up my ass.
And that's what I object to most. The idea that by softening the language you somehow take the reality away.
brian at June 17, 2009 10:00 PM
Theresa instead of guessing i suggest you look it up online. I cant understand how you can justify late term abortion based on the tiny number of them that are performed when you dont know what that number is. Second even if its one in a hundred million how does that even matter? Since when does the rarity of an act somehow make it ok. If its not ok if everyone does it its not ok when one person does it. While im also pro-choice i too hate the softening of language to make something unpleasant more palatable to people. Dont say that your pro choice, its dishonest. Everybody is pro choice, everybody loves to have choices but not everybody likes abortions.If you cant say that your pro-abortion then say that youre for the continued availability of legal abortions or something similar.
Leto at June 18, 2009 2:24 AM
As for my general opinion on the matter are thus. Im pro first term abortion in all cases. Anything past that is ok only for medical reasons as in mothers health or if the baby is defective(yeah i know that's a very poor choice of words). As for why abortion should be legal i think lack of sufficient resources to properly care for a child is reason enough. Yes thats subjective but its a good enough reason for me.I think the my body my choice reasoning that popular with most women is faulty reasoning since people dont have the choice to do what they want with their bodies in many circumstances. Suicide is illegal and so is doing drugs. Its aganst the law for a man paying child support to switch to a less profitable vocation. Jury duty is mandatory and some countries (like my home country of Russia) require military service from the men. It could be argued that carrying a child to term is a womans duty to the state.
Lastly all the arguments for male responsibility regardless of what they want and the circumstances of the conception of the child are also faulty. First of all a man refusing to be a father is not the same thing as forcing the mother to have an abortion. A simple sighing away of parental rights and responsibilities is all that was proposed. If the woman still wants to have the baby she can. She just cant get child support from the man. The people who think guys have to keep it in their pants but a woman can get an abortion are intellectually dishonest.
Leto at June 18, 2009 3:21 AM
Leto, how about having that discussion BEFORE you have sex with her? Why does a guy assume he should get to walk away without ever even knowing a woman's beliefs about abortion, or whether or not she even wants a child? How come it's like, "What?! A child could result from this? You didn't tell me that!"
If she opts for abortion, she is letting you walk away, but if that's not her choice, then there's going to be a child in the world with your DNA and your genes. You can walk away from the mother (that's YOUR choice), but not the child.
It's incredibly selfish to claim that because she lets the child live, you shouldn't have responsibility for it.
Besides being exremely bad policy, there are also cases where women don't even know they're pregnant until giving birth. How would we deal with that? "The stupid mother clause" that would let the father walk?
How about not banging people you barely know. I bet you can find girls who do believe in abortion and/or don't want any kids. And, even then, before you bang her, put on a condom. Problem solved.
lovelysoul at June 18, 2009 6:51 AM
brian: no, you are pro-abortion and blowing smoke up my ass.
And that's what I object to most. The idea that by softening the language you somehow take the reality away.
me: No, I am pro-choice and using more precise language. "Pro-life" means they want all fetuses to be born into babies. "Pro-abortion" would therefore logically mean they want all fetuses to be aborted. "Pro-choice" means that I want women to have BOTH options available to them to choose from. They may choose to continue OR abort the pregnancy.
Leto - the point behind the "it's very very rare" (and you're right, that doesn't necessarily make something okay) is simply that "OMG whole perfect babies being aborted days from birth!!!111oneeleventy!" thing is used as "evidence" by the most hysterical anti-abortion folks that all abortion must be banned. They use it to get "on the fence" people onto their side. But if those people were truly worried about *babies* and *children*, they'd be much, much better of focusing on dangers that actually happen on a frequent basis.
So, to rephrase, I suspect that there are more children who die from choking on Lego or other small toys, than there are "days from birth" abortions. Therefore, far more lives would be saved by, for example, campaigning for public education on toy safety.
Theresa at June 18, 2009 7:35 AM
Theresa -
No. It does not.
Because "pro-life" is as much of a smoke-blow as "pro-choice".
Pro-life people are overwhelmingly in favor of the death penalty. Shouldn't they have at least a LITTLE cognitive dissonance there? They argue about innocence and guilt. Well, then call it what it is - you are anti-abortion. But nobody likes to be called "anti-" anything.
The bulk of "pro-choice" people will fight against school vouchers. So what choice are we talking about here? Oh yes, the choice to have an abortion. Pro-abortion doesn't mean that you want every pregnancy to end in abortion. But don't sugar-coat it because as a whole the "choice" movement is anti-choice in a great many other endeavors concerning children and their rearing.
brian at June 18, 2009 8:01 AM
Yeah, Theresa, and if only 1 or 2 kids get caught in a crib slat and die, they immediately recall that brand. How many healthy babies does it take for you? One, ten, twenty? Or is it easier to look the other way and pretend it doesn't happen "much", so therefore, it's acceptable.
Abortionists like Tiller would not have had huge clinics and staff, with INCINERATORS to burn flesh, if they were only doing 2 or 3 late-term abortions per year. He wasn't sitting around most of the day twiddling his thumbs.
Aren't you at least curious enough about that to look into it? I was. And what I found is that we really don't know how many of the thousands of babies he aborted were healthy. He had another doctor collaborating with him, who would rubber stamp the "health of the mother" justification without going into detail, then he would perform the abortion.
And, yes, these are induced labors, that's why sometimes girls, like the mentally handicapped girl, hemorraged and died after his procedures. Her baby, we know, was healthy. Her parents just didn't want her to have the baby. Now, they are both dead.
This shouldn't be allowed to happen. At a minimum, there should be greater oversight, and objective doctors making these decisions, based on legitimate need, not for profit.
lovelysoul at June 18, 2009 8:14 AM
brian - okay, I see where you're going. I genuinely don't understand the "school vouchers" thing. They don't have them where I am, so I'm not familiar with the issues. However, in the context of the abortion debate, "pro-life" means "all babies must be born", and "pro-choice" means "women can choose whether or not to carry to term".
My major peeve with "pro-life" as a descriptor is that the majority of "pro-life" people are actually just *pro-birth*. Once those babies are actually born, they don't appear to give a shit about them. If the people who have hours and hours a day free to picket clinics and post on newsgroups and message boards, used those hours to, say, provide free daycare for poor women, then maybe some of those poor women would CHOOSE to deliver their babies. Maybe they'd be able to afford to take a minimum-wage job or go to school, if they didn't have daycare costs. Maybe they'd be able to take some time for their own needs so they didn't get isolated and frustrated and start shaking their baby. Or if the pro-life folks took the money they donate to pay for picket signs and advertising, and instead set up scholarships, toy banks, parent training, and the like, more women would CHOOSE to keep their babies because they could afford to keep them.
But hey, ain't none of us perfect, right?
Anyhow, I am actually heading away for a couple of weeks, so am signing off on this debate. It's been lovely.
Theresa at June 18, 2009 8:28 AM
Theresa, that is all being done. Pro-life advocates run many pregnancy centers that support women through the pregnancy and afterwards. They arrange and refer for all kinds of resources, including adoption, job training, daycare, etc.
Here is a site that gives a pretty good picture of what happened at Dr. Tiller's clinic and the types of abortions he performed. Read the womne's stories.
www.dr-tiller.com
lovelysoul at June 18, 2009 8:49 AM
You and I agree on basically everything. I just hope you would join me in saying that the reasons for late-term abortions should only be performed for serious medical reasons, such as fetal abnormalities or threat to a mother's physical health.
That is why I think late term abortions should be done, but attempting to codify that appropriately is impossible. People on both sides of the fence will bend the meaning of words to the point where it won't change over the way that it is now. I think that abortions should be LEGAL until the point of fetal viability. Period.
We are all getting personal here, so I am going to stick my neck out (again) and explain why I am so die hard about this. I have alluded to barely surviving my childhood in past posts, but now I am going to give a more complete story.
I am the middle child of a very large catholic family. My mother was born and raised Catholic, and my father was raised generic protestant. They met, fell in love, and married within 6 months. Small problem, my father didn't want kids.
My father explained this to my mother, she nodded, and then proceeded to start getting pregnant. I don't know if my father was a good and honorable man before we all came along, but throughout my childhood he was a violent alcoholic. My sisters and I endured beatings that rival the sick shit shown on Lifetime movies. I personally would be worked like a dog for hours then would have to attend to childcare and feeding my father dinner. If it didn't go just right I would be beaten until I was screaming. Stupid shit like serving my father is desert wrong would get me a beating. Many times we didn't have enough food to go around. For awhile we were living in a shack with no plumbing or running water. When I finally 'went over the wall' to college and lived in a dorm, the privacy and luxuriousness was astounding (if that tells you anything).
I tell you all of this to prove this point: My parents would have been better of had they believed in abortion and so would my siblings and I We talk about this whole 'right to life', but in the end, no one can protect those unwanted kids once they get here. If I had been the result of a D&C abortion and thrown away, it would have been less awful and less painful than 20 years of torment and continued difficulties and alienation. At 35 I still suffer from the issues and problems resulting from my long term abuse, and so do my siblings. None of us will ever be completely good and whole.
Now, for the record, I love my life. I am not suicidal. However, if the world had been without another litter of toe headed kids being pushed into the world all fucked up and emotionally lame, things would have been better off. Will people use abortion for less than intelligent ends? Yes. Can we really trust any of the statistics on either side of the fence? No, they are all being skewed to one direction or another. So in the end we have to ask ourselves, are the aborted fetuses really worse off for having never been born? Considering that I should have been one of them, I can't say that they are.
-Julie
Julie at June 18, 2009 11:21 AM
"Pro-life people are overwhelmingly in favor of the death penalty. Shouldn't they have at least a LITTLE cognitive dissonance there? They argue about innocence and guilt. Well, then call it what it is - you are anti-abortion. But nobody likes to be called "anti-" anything."
No dissonance here. People sentenced to die got their by their own actions-they are OWNING THEMSELVES, right? Babies do nothing to be killed, they are innocent. I will always go for the potential rather than the older person who's done what they're gonna do, esp when in most cases it wasn't much anyway.
"They just don't *make sense*. I mean, at that point, the procedure isn't much easier than an induced delivery, so I just can't grok a rationale for it. And if they happen at all, I would venture a guess to say that the number is so low as to be of less concern than toddler deaths by inhaling Lego."
Nothing about abortion makes sense. There's no need for them, there are other ways to avoid being a parent. And yet, here we are. And yes, they do happen with frightening regularity. ar more than legos, or legos wouldn't exist.
momof4 at June 18, 2009 3:35 PM
>> ar more than legos, or legos wouldn't exist.
I would love to see Geoffrey Rush say that.
Eric at June 18, 2009 9:44 PM
Theresa I agree that people who are the most vocal opponents of abortion couldn't care less about the children. Despite that it doesn't matter what their motives are as long their argument is valid. If we bring everyones motives into question it becomes impossible to have a discution about anything. Instead of arguing with the persons ideas dishonest people can just assing a motive to that person and bring it into question.
Leto at June 19, 2009 5:03 AM
And if one read clearly Theresa, I wasn't calling you a nazi. I was saying my feelings on the 2 subjects are the same. I don't cry when Nazi's get caught and hung, and didn't cry over Tiller either. Neither are tragedies.
And pro-choice arguments do fit the bill for sociopathy, if one considers babies people. Which they clearly are, they certainly aren't frogs, right?
I feel no need to go into the pregnancy assistance center work I do, or the fact that every outgrown baby item we have goes to moms who need them, free. Most anti-abortionists do use their time better than picketing, and do care about and help the kids and moms. You are judging us all on fringe cases, and that never works.
momof4 at June 19, 2009 5:23 AM
[quote]You cannot seriously compare humans in civilization with lower primates. They do things that aren't logical all the time. Hell, we just had a chimpanzee here in CT rip a lady's face off. Logical? Fuck no! Primates are not reasoning beings. -Brian[/quote]
Actually, I think this was an apt comparision. These primates are not really that much "lower" than us. Some chimpanzee species share more genes with humans than they do with other primates. They are capable of lying, comprehending death, and several other activities that are still believed to be, by some,
Torque at June 22, 2009 12:23 PM
Leave a comment