John Kerry is once more taking heat for his position on abortion, after an interview where he stated he was personally against abortion.
Now, some are going to say this is a nuanced position designed to placate both sides of the abortion debate, and that’s probably what it was intended to do. However, Kerry has just backed himself into a philosophical and legal corner that he’s going to be unable to get out of any time soon. For the record, here’s what Kerry said in his own words:
I oppose abortion, personally. I don’t like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.
First of all, this has to have NARAL crapping bricks. Kerry’s statement should be the equivalent of farting in church to the radical pro-abortion crowd. He just admitted he believes that life begins at conception. Philosophically, he just stated that abortion is innately immoral. You can’t argue that life begins at conception and then argue that it’s perfectly moral to say that a first or second trimester abortion is just fine. Kerry’s just undercut several of the major pro-abortion arguments in one fell swoop. I doubt this will have much effect on Kerry’s position with the NARAL crowd, although if they take his words seriously they damn well should.
Legally Kerry has just competely contradicted himself as well. The doctrine of civil rights applies to all human beings. Anyone who is American and alive has rights under the Constitution. There is already legal precendent for this position. If Kerry believes that a fetus is alive and that life begins at conception, he is morally and ethically bound to protect that life. Under the law one cannot ignore the status of living being for mere convenience.
Either a fetus is alive, in which case Kerry’s attempt to argue that he can’t legislate morality is irrelevant and abortion is both morally, ethically, and legally wrong, or Kerry is lying through his teeth. He’s once again trying to have it both ways, and I doubt that many pro-life voters are going to be fooled into supporting Kerry.
This raises the question: why in hell is Kerry doing something so politically risky? My guess is that his campaign has polling data that shows (unsurprisingly) that Kerry is losing big with pro-life voters, and that pro-life voters are a considerable fraction of the electorate. With the latest advances in ultrasound medical technology may be far more persuasive than activists ever could towards convincing people that a fetus is as much a person in the womb as it is once born. Kerry’s incoherent position on abortion may be just another one of Kerry’s infamous attempts to have it both ways on this issue, but I’m guessing that there’s some underlying political motivation for Kerry’s risky statement that may have deeper implications for this election.
UPDATE: Spoons corrects my faulty legal reasoning, noting that the Roe v. Wade decision leaves aside any legal consideration for the concept of “life” and instead tries to determine whether a fetus is a “person.” If this hairsplitting seems inane, it’s because it is. So, Kerry is probably on better legal ground than I said he was. However, if Kerry wants to defend the concept that a human being can be alive, but not be a person, he’s more than welcome to do so. Logically his statement (and the law) is incoherent on this issue. Politically, Kerry’s statement is going to be right up with “I voted for the bill before I voted against it” in highlighting Kerry’s hypocrisy and inability to take a coherent position on anything other than disliking Bush and wanting to be President.
You go wrong when you write:
“Legally Kerry has just competely contradicted himself as well. The doctrine of civil rights applies to all human beings. Anyone who is American and alive has rights under the Constitution. There is already legal precendent for this position. If Kerry believes that a fetus is alive and that life begins at conception, he is morally and ethically bound to protect that life. Under the law one cannot ignore the status of living being for mere convenience.”
While I agree with the foregoing, your statement is not an accurate statement of the law. Indeed, the Roe court specifically said that it didn’t matter when life begins. You make a leap when you equate being “alive” with being “a human being.” While I agree with you, the Courts do not. More precisely, the Courts say that what matters is whether the fetus is a “person,” not whether it is “alive.”
My point in all this is just to say that Kerry has not contradicted himself legally at all. His position is perfectly consistent with the inanity that constitutes the law has handed down by our imperial court.
Kerry may not realize it yet, but his statement will only inflame the prolife crowd even more.
I know some people who are very serious in the prolife movement, and they are incensed at Kerry’s statement.
Kerry’s statement mocks the prolife movement. Kerry takes the moral basis for the prolife argument and seeks to render it meaningless.
Kerry also implies that one should not vote based upon heartfelt convictions or values…well, what does that leave…crass self-interest and political calculation…sounds just like Kerry…
Kerry’s statement reminds me of those Democrats against Lincoln who argued that while they were “personally” against slavery, they would do nothing to stop it.
This is Kerry’s logic: I believe that something is human life, but I will not work at all to stop a procedure that terminates that life.
Kerry in making his statement went from being a plain flip-flopper to being a flip flopper with no human decency whatsoever.
Kerry has given the prolife movement everything needed to come out against him like a tsunami.
This will burn Kerry bigtime…those of us who are prolife are appalled and incensed at this…we knew he was for abortion, and we knew he was a bad choice, but this has stirred up huge emotions against him.
Kerry’s statement seeks to delegitimize the prolife movement with one broad stroke.
For if the conviction that life begins at conception is not ample enough reason to oppose abortion, what is?
We in the prolife movement will not forget this statement…it goes beyond human decency given Kerry’s record on abortion.
As a pro-life Democrat, I’ve always hoped Roe v. Wade would be overturned for a number of different reasons. The day that abortion is criminalized is the day the Republican Party as we currently know it ceases to exist. A solid 20% of the American electorate votes Republican exclusively because of abortion, and contradict their personal and regional interest by doing so. Take the abortion issue away and there’s precious little reason for $6 an hour Wal-Mart clerks from Tupelo, Mississippi to continue voting for the party of Enron and Halliburton.
Thus, saying that John Kerry is waffling on abortion is comical coming from a Republican considering their party’s survival depends on manipulating social conservatives into believing that the criminalization of abortion is “right around the corner.” For this reason, I can’t see Bush appointing a majority of pro-life SCJ’s even if he’s elected to a second term and gets the opportunity to appoint three or four new justices. The Republican Party knows they could never win elections without the anti-abortion crowd, since their swaggering “we’re out to cut the little guy’s throat and are damn proud of it” message would otherwise have no chance of prevailing in most places in the country.
Nonetheless, it would be humorous to see the “what have we done?!?” looks on the faces of Republicans across the country if Roe v. Wade was overturned one day. But then again, it would be short-lived. Only months after the ruling, I can picture Republicans lecturing nurseries full of unwanted, drug-addicted newborns about the need for “personal responsibility” and demanding that they “cease and desist from being dependent on hard-working American taxpayers fed up with their shiftlessness and bad choices.”
Do you suppose we could hear from someone with an actual uterus on this issue?
If men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. There’s nothing I love to see more than a bunch of dudes embarass themselves by talking about abortion, all the while lacking any sort of ability to accurately judge the risks of pregnancy.
For if the conviction that life begins at conception is not ample enough reason to oppose abortion, what is?
Nothing.
There’s no good reason to oppose a woman’s right to determine whether or not she takes the risk of continuing a pregnancy.
Well, according to John Kerry there is. If one believes that life begins at conception abortion is by definition murder. The right to decide what one does with their body does not trump the right for another individual to live. A mother can be prosecuted for drinking or smoking during pregnancy, but you don’t hear many people arguing that fetal alcohol syndrome is a women’s right.
Besides, the most anti-abortion people I have ever met are almost always women who have gone through the procedure. Abortion is more than just a choice, it’s not like changing your hair color or even having plastic surgery. It is often devastating and potentially dangerous, and those who would argue otherwise are selling women a pack of lies.
Abortion will be a lot more than potentially dangerous if opponents are ever successful in outlawing it and push onto the mean streets. As much as I reject the notion of abortion “choice”, I have a hard time pretending that an abortion prohibition would be any more effective than past attempts to criminalize alcohol or current attempts to criminalize narcotics and prostitution. That’s exactly what this country needs….expanding the false dichotomy that supply-and-demand principles can be legislated out of existence by the hand of government. More laws producing more prisoners….
The only working people that Republicans have ever helped are the construction crews who build prisons. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, I’m sure the GOP will further solidify the support of prison construction workers since their job security will be ever further entrenched.
Mark writes “I can picture Republicans lecturing nurseries full of unwanted, drug-addicted newborns about the need for āpersonal responsibilityā and demanding that they ācease and desist from being dependent on hard-working American taxpayers fed up with their shiftlessness and bad choices.”
Response: Apparently for you drug-addicted newborns are not worthy of life…and the same case you implicitly make…that such newborns would only be a drag on our society…can just as easily be made against a 6 month old or 1 year old or 2 year old or any age person who is actually taken to birth and has the same problems and is also unwanted….why not get rid of them as well?
Mark laments about laws against narcotics and prostitution, citing what he believes to be the “false dichotomy that supply-and-demand principles can be legislated out of existence by the hand of government” and then complains ever so brilliantly about “More laws producing more prisoners…”
Mark: If one allows supply and demand to dictate laws, then I guess it would be fine to allow for stealing of cars if their is enough of a market for the stolen parts…
Bottom line: no one who looks at the new images (now as early as 12 weeks) of the fetus in the womb and sees a miniature human form, which can even smile and experience emotions, including pain, can deny that is a human life…
Sure, this is a difficult issue, just as any issues of life are…sure, this demands the mother make sacrifices, just as we demand a mother of a baby already born make great sacrifices…
But the paramount legal principle has to be the protection of innocent life…one cannot discard life out of convenience…and that is what most abortions do…
Jay,
Many times have I read comments on you page and not respond because I just wanted to hear different points of view. But Here is where I need to draw the line. you say that “Besides, the most anti-abortion people I have ever met are almost always women who have gone through the procedure”
How many women have you met that had an aboition and regeted it?
Have you ever gone though the pain of having a child while you were unmarried and have countless people stare at you and look down on you because you decided to keep the child?
You know nothing of this topic from first hand and neither does another thought. You have nothing to base your arguments on.
Anyway, back on track of the posted article…this isn’t so much about debating abortion, but about what Kerry said regarding abortion and his slimy duplicity in trying to have it both ways again…
But in this case, he really has stepped over a line…for if Kerry believes life begins at conception, then he cannot make a moral case for supporting abortion…on the contrary, he has made the moral case against abortion…
As Soxblog notes:
Itād be somewhat akin to a German politician circa 1942 offering something like, “I believe Jews are human beings and should be treated with human dignity and not herded into labor camps and death camps and the like. But it would be wrong of me to force this article of faith on my part to Germans who donāt believe likewise.”
S.E. writes “Have you ever gone though the pain of having a child while you were unmarried and have countless people stare at you and look down on you because you decided to keep the child?”
Response: What a ridiculous argument for abortion…so the social pain of pride is sufficient reason to terminate a human life? This illustrates my point about how absurd the reasons are for most people having an abortion.
In the above case, one can just as easily make the argument for allowing the unmarried mother to murder her one year old child, or her two year old child, or her 6 year old child…after all, have you ever experienced the “pain…blah…blah…blah”
The time to consider the social pain of having a child out of wedlock is before one engages in sexual intercourse…after that, there is another life that must be considered and weighed against the other interests…
Also, on a related note, every group I know of that opposes abortion has strong programs to help parents, both unmarried and married, cope with raising their child…plus, there is also the option of putting the child up for adoption…
another thought,
nice to see you want to get back on track of the article when someone calls you out on how one sided you are on every agument.
“Sure, this is a difficult issue, just as any issues of life areā¦sure, this demands the mother make sacrifices, just as we demand a mother of a baby already born make great sacrificesā¦”
hmmm alittle off topic but I am sure that this is ok when you post it. what about your off the topic views of the father making a sacifice? where are those?
It’s amazing how pro-abortion people seem to never have heard of the adoption option…
S.E.: First, you criticize me for merely responding to your post, …and yet never answer any of my actual substantive points…
Second, you ask ” what about your off the topic views of the father making a sacifice?”
Response: I firmly believe that the father and the mother should share in the responsibilities of raising any children they may have…I believe hugely in the father playing a key role…
Interesting, how you take my statement that a mother must make sacrifices and somehow make the illogical leap that implies that I don’t mean to hold the father accountable as well…
Again, every prolife group I know of believes very strongly in a father taking responsibility for his children…
yet you speak of this biologcal bond, have you ever met anyone that has given up a child? do you know how painful that is? and where do you get that I am por-choice? I kept my child and raised him on my own, I made the sacrifice while the father ran, so much for biological bond. I am say that there are bigger issues out there in the world. lets not focus on personal choice.
S.E. writes “yet you speak of this biologcal bond, have you ever met anyone that has given up a child? do you know how painful that is?”
Response:
Yes, believe it or not, I do know women, and have known women in my life…and yes, I have known a few who gave up children for adoption…and yes, it is painful, but they are glad that they made that choice instead of abortion…I have also known women who have had an abortion and experience far greater pain over that…
Again, giving up a child for adoption may be emotionally painful, but that does not mean it isn’t the right thing to do…often, doing the right thing means doing what is difficult…
The emotional pain of giving a child up for adoption in no way justifies abortion, just as it in no way would justify a murder of a child already born that a parent would not want…again, I could use the same argument to justify the taking of any child’s life at any age…
S.E. also writes “I am say that there are bigger issues out there in the world. lets not focus on personal choice.”
Response: For many the issue of protecting innocent life in the womb…what we regard as human life…is a huge issue and cannot and should not be ignored…just as we could not ignore the Holocaust, we cannot ignore this issue…
S.E., I applaud your decision to keep and raise your child…I believe in the long run you will be richly rewarded for it…and I am sorry the father ran away from his responsibility and certainly do not condone that…I wish you and your child all the best…
Given the fundamental difference of ideology of whether life begins inside or outside the womb, there will never be any resolution on the abortion issue. What I find objectionable is how shallow the logic usually is on both sides of the debate, particularly “pro-lifers” who value fetuses inside poor mothers but despise children already delivered by poor mothers. The second that umbillical cord is cut, the “precious innocent child” graduates to “freeloading parasite.”
Another Thought, perhaps you didn’t read my above post. I stated that I’m OPPOSED to abortion. Besides my ideological opposition to the concept, I would welcome the political consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade, given that such a ruling would end the Republican Party’s stranglehold over much of impoverished rural America who vote GOP almost exclusively because of abortion. What I couldn’t live with is the social implications of nearly a million new unwanted and often mentally impaired, chemical-dependent babies delivered into a culture of “pro-lifers” whose fight will become “keeping MY money” instead of funding the billions in new across-the-board expenses that would arise from a culture where all conceptions are mandated by the state to result in a birth. If conservatives had any idea how much tax money it would cost to enforce the prohibition of abortion, criminalize the black market participants and finance the special education and medical care of hundreds of thousands more high-risk children born annually, I get the feeling they’d be more than willing to live with a procedure that kills many future Democrats.
Mark writes “What I find objectionable is how shallow the logic usually is on both sides of the debate, particularly “pro-lifers” who value fetuses inside poor mothers but despise children already delivered by poor mothers.”
Response: Your characterization of the prolife movement is shallow and hateful, and shows great ignorance and prejudice on your part. I know many in the prolife movement who work very hard to help poor mothers care for those children. Every church I know of that is prolife also has a vigorous program to help mothers with their children.
One problem you have, Mark, is that you obviously think the only way to help people is through government…you fail to recognize charities and churches and their like. In fact, one benefit of lower taxes is that it allows for more contributions to these groups, which often are far more effective than govt.
Mark, your other argument about the cost of caring for what otherwise would be aborted children, is also way off-base. What you also don’t understand is that those who are prolife are actually motivated by principles and values, and not money. Also, your argument about the expense to society could be made for arbitrarily killing children up to the age of 1, or 2, or whatever, who are in poor households.
Mark writes that those aborted would be “often mentally impaired, chemical-dependent babies”…
Response: Most abortions are done as a matter of convenience…as a method of birth control…it is a myth that abortions are given primarily to avoid the birth of children with birth defects or chemical addiction…
Also, the same argument could be made to justify the killing of any person of any age with a mental impairment or chemical addiction…
Another Thought, there are clearly a large number of charities that do good work, but by and large, I trust the “inefficiency of government” far more than the morally and financially corrupt network of charities we’re supposed to be putting on a pedestal as an example of selflessness. Now more than ever, charity money and taxpayer money are joined at the hip, meaning there is little difference between government allocated funds to the needy personally and the tax-exempt “charities” that act as filters. The fact that the nation’s biggest charity, United Way, is currently using a piece of every donated dollar to finance the pension of its imprisoned former chairman who bilked hundreds of thousands of dollars from UW isn’t exactly a good poster child for how wonderful and trustworthy America’ s charities are.
Furthermore, charity “help” increasingly comes with strings attached to the recipient. Join our fruitcake religious sect and we’ll give you this can of baked beans. Otherwise, you won’t get the beans….and you’re going to hell. The nation’s poor need a more stable safety net than what Jerry Falwell and Heaven’s Gate cultists may have to offer, particularly if we’re gonna demand they give birth every time they conceive.
The best chuckle I’ve gotten in a long time is your assertion that “those who are pro-life are motivated by principles and values, not money.” It makes me recall a recorded message I got over the phone in October 2000 by an organization of pro-life zealots who completed a speel about Al Gore’s record of supporting abortion rights with a declaration to “support George W. Bush and his platform of ending legalized abortion, cutting taxes and encouraging personal responsibility.” Most Republican minds are apparently too small to recognize the contradiction of that statement, and will continue to miss the logical disparity until basic government services reach the breaking point due to new expenses that come from the criminalization of abortion. Your “principles and values” you will be fighting for will be your own pocketbooks when tax increases are necessary to care for the new baby boom you created. Those whose current rallying cries are “Stop Abortion Now” and “It’s MYYYYY money” are primarily the same people….and I don’t buy your premise that this crowd will have a change of heart on the latter if they get their way on the former, even with those rock-solid “principles and values” they have.
Killing newborns is illegal and not advocated by anyone, so instead of muddying up a debate with that strawman, I would suggest you confine your abortion position within the context of reality. You’ll note that I AM PRO-LIFE myself and don’t support abortion or murdering newborns. What I am saying is that the only reason you guys’ tax rates are as low as they are is because a substantial percentage of the poorest and highest-risk would-be children are aborted before they’re allowed to become “parasites” to Republicans. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, we’ll see if you guys are willing to put your money where your mouths are.
Even if we are to speculate that 90% of abortions were performed as a matter of convenience to healthy, intelligent suburban women who didn’t want to get too big for their Size 4 bridesmaid dress, that’s still leaves approximately 100,000 new mentally or physically (or both) disabled children born every year….children whose minds and bodies were poisoned in the womb by alcohol or drugs and who will essentially become wards of the state. That’s one million in 10 years….and that’s a highly conservative estimate. Sure gives the party of “limited government” something to think about.
Mark: you recite every narrowminded liberal shibboleth out there. It’s amazing how you can write such drivel with a straight face.
First, have you ever visited a mainstream church and seen what they offer in the way of their ministries? Every faith-based charity I’ve ever seen or helped offers their help regardless of the recipient’s own belief system…there is no pressure, but of course if the person wants to pursue issues of faith, then that is available too…and what is wrong with that? It may surprise you that many many people receiving charitable help do better when also counseled on matter of faith…but then you write off all mainstream religion as “fruitcake religious sect” and the stuff of Jerry Falwell and Heaven’s Gate. Talk about being bigoted…you are clearly bigoted against religion.
And again, I will note that those who are prolife do not buy into the Nazi-like argument that you make, which is that if a baby-to-be has a birth defect or is chemically addicted, then that life is not worthy and should be terminated to save money. That is sick. Your assumption that the prolife crowd is not motivated on values and principles is just that…an assumption based on a clear prejudice against conservatives and against people of religious faith. Again, what experience do you really have? If you ever met people in mainstream ministries you would be proven wrong in two seconds. And of course you can cite examples of those who do not live up to the values they profess…but they are in the clear minority among those of religious faith.
Kerry’s comments on abortion are surely the most vile I’ve heard from a pro-abortion candidate, for he admits that he believes that abortion is murder, yet will not do anything to limit or stop it.
That is sick…plain and simple.
Another Thought, given that the entire Catholic Church is attempting to make itself immune from liability after molesting thousands of altar boys for dozens of years doesn’t give me much more of a reason to put faith in “mainstream ministries” than the wacko missionary sects, of which there are many. No wonder the Catholics are so opposed to abortion. Every male fetus aborted is one fewer future altar boy they could have gratified themselves with. Organized religion is as corrupt as the worst charities, and will become even more so now that Dubya is letting them feed out of the government trough.
You’re really backing yourself into a corner with your position on the financial consequences of outlawing abortion. You have wisely evaded addressing the collective responsibility you and your ilk will share in the event of abortion being criminalized….because you have no intention of footing the bill. You’ll just kick back and pretend that those Southern Baptist ministries will do what needs to be done while continuing to screech “It’s MYYYY money!” when government sticks its hand out requesting you pay for the social culture you insisted upon.
Since you’ll never respond directly to my statement unless I state it in the form of a direct question, that’s what I’ll have to do. Would you be willing to pay the significantly higher tax burden necessary to sustain an American culture where abortion is criminalized? Your answer to this question, should you choose to address it, will speak volumes on the sincerity of your “principles and values.”
And merely by asking that question you’ve unwittingly said much about your own principles and values. Is human life truly to so worthless than it should be subservient to some distant concern about the public welfare? Are you so arrogant to argue that every aborted child would end up being a drain on the welfare system? Your argument is one fitting for Ebeneezer Scrooge – better to let those babies die and decrease the surplus population?
Considering the thousands of couples waiting to adopt a child, the argument that these children would never have a chance is simply ignorant.
Would you so cruelly assume that all those lost to abortion would have no value? How do you know that one of those children wouldn’t have been the person who cures cancer or invents effective hydrogen power? The answer is that one will never know since those lives have been irretrievably and unnecessarily lost.
The fact that you slander all of Catholicism and organized religion itself speaks to the intolerance of the left these days. And you dare accuse the Republicans of being heartless?
Mark: Jay summed it up perfectly…your arguments are absurd and carry no credibility…you obviously speak more from misinformed emotion than any analysis of reality…
Mark’s arguments only prove the point that so much of modern liberalism is just an echo of Karl Marx.
It was Marx who saw all of history driven by economic motives…hence, for Mark the key issue on abortion is an economic one.
It was Marx who saw religion as the opiate of the people, and hence Mark sees it as something hugely negative for society.
History has shown that Marxism results in a descent into cruelty and human horror, not the utopia Marx promised, and so it is that Mark also proves this point with a cold human calculus that Marx or Hitler would be proud of.
It is a testimony to Mark’s ignorance and arrogance and the bankruptcy of his opinion that he does not even realize the descent into a cold and heartless philosophy that he has embarked upon.
Jay, that was quite a performance. I ask Another Thought to respond to a question that he has thus far addressed by throwing strawmen at me….and you respond to my question to him by throwing the same strawman at me that he has done repeatedly over the last 12 hours. It’s quite obvious that you haven’t bothered to read the discourse Another Thought and I have had on this very thread, so I would advise you to look it over before raising the same dimwitted points that I already mowed down earlier in the day.
Essentially, your premise is that only healthy, intelligent middle-class women have abortions and not alcoholics, drug addicts or women of extremely low intelligence that will breed offspring who will require special education and increased health care treatment even if Bill Gates and his wife adopt them. Your premise further conveys that the population would merely submit to government’s will on abortion criminalization and neither the supply or the demand for black market abortions will ever surface, thus preventing the need for increased vice cops on the public payrolls and preventing the need for new prisons to lock up thousands of new criminals created by the new prohibition. Once every single unwanted child is born, they’ll all be adopted by caring families and live happily ever after. A million new babies who would have been aborted by their mothers will simply be absorbed into the American landscape without consequence and you won’t have to part with a penny extra in taxes. Have I pretty much stated you and Another Thought’s positions clearly?
Also, had you bothered to read any of my posts in this thread, you would have discovered that I am OPPOSED to abortion. I am simply saying that fellow pro-lifers aren’t the least bit prepared to deal with the consequences of getting what they want on the abortion issue. Apparently, you and Another Thought realize that I’m right, but since you lacked the brainpower to think your positions through without me spelling it out to you, have been reduced to accusing me of arguing that we should use abortion to “reduce surplus population,” when any sane person can see that is NOT AT ALL what I’m saying.
It certainly isn’t a surprise that you guys can’t comprehend the long-term consequences of acting on your base urges when it comes to abortion prohibition. Just as you have no plan on how to deal with the consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade, you and your ilk had no plan on how to deal with post-war Iraq, other than to insist you’d be universally welcomed as liberators. The irony is that there is little difference between you guys’ “shoot first and ask questions later” public policy platform and the sexual choices made by women who later have abortions. Your policy solutions are the political equivalent of spreading your legs without wearing a condom.
Another Thought, reverse Godwin’s law invoked here (the one that says the first one to mention Karl Marx in the same sentence as his debate opponent loses). It was nice to have mopped the floor up with you. š
Once again, “Another Thought” shows how he misnames himself – he doesn’t have a single thought that the GOP hasn’t put there for him.
First, the vast majority of abortions are done not out of any reason to protect the motherās life, but as a convenienceā¦as a method of birth control.
That’s absolutely a myth, and moreover, a contradiction of your earlier statements – that abortion is a drastic, life-changing procedure.
Why would anybody prefer such a drastric surgery to the use of condoms or pills?
no one who looks at the new images (now as early as 12 weeks) of the fetus in the womb and sees a miniature human form, which can even smile and experience emotions, including pain, can deny that is a human lifeā¦
New ultrasound technologies don’t allow us to simply ignore the mother. I’m glad you can see the fetus but apparently you’re content to look past the mother.
But the paramount legal principle has to be the protection of innocent lifeā¦one cannot discard life out of convenienceā¦
Sorry, I refuse to consider a mass of 20 or 60 or 200 cells to be a person. It’s simply not. It takes intelligence to be human, not genes.
Itās amazing how pro-abortion people seem to never have heard of the adoption optionā¦
Any pregnancy is risky. There’s a constant risk of death and infertility.
Moreover, how many children have you adopted? If you insist that women continue the burden of pregnancy, it’s only fair that you be expected to take on the burden of raising their child.
But, predictably, you’re only in favor of illegalizing abortion in so far as it lets you sleep at night. Lord knows you’ve never actually put any effort into reducing the number of abortions. If you’re so sure that women are using “abortion as birth control” (which is tantamount to asserting that welfare moms are using $100 bills to light cigarettes), what are you doing to make other forms of birth control availiable to them? Oh, right, nothing.
Making abortion illegal is as sensical as trying to reduce the number of colds by making it illegal to sneeze. Abortion is a symptom, not the problem. We need better birth control, and we need to get women to use it.
That means things like ridiculous “abstinence-only sex education” (as though it could be called “education” to be not told about something) have to go – they’re the cause of more pregnancy, not less.
Mark: you make no sense…you consistently say that you are opposed to abortion, and then defend it based upon economic savings. You claim we who oppose abortion have no plan on how to deal with the extra people who will then live, but if you are opposed to abortion as you claim, then obviously you must have a plan…so what is it?
Again, you also fail to recognize that that not all unwanted children will end up being burdens on society…
Nor do you realize how inhumane an argument it is to discard a life because of economic costs…what about the value of human life for the sake of simply being human life?
And all your bluster about the economic burden is simply your own ill-reasoned hypothetical with no proof whatsoever.
Again, your arguments fall short…
Bottom line: if Kerry thinks life begins at conception, then he is stating that abortion is murder.
How he can then allow it and campaign for it is beyond human decency…
Another Thought, the simple act of repeating your vicious manipulations of my abortion position won’t make them accurate. NOBODY, at least not here, is arguing that abortion should be used to reduce economic costs. The obvious point is that there WILL BE greater economic costs to a civilized society that bans abortion…..and the vast majority of anti-abortion zealots haven’t even considered that problem, and have no intention of paying those extra costs when they arise. Pro-life means nothing if you don’t value babies you forced to be born enough to treat them when they get sick (even if mama’s uninsured) or educate them when they’re five years old.
As for my plan on how to deal with an America post-abortion criminalization, I’m willing to pay higher taxes for the many things that would need to be done to secure that babies mandated to be born live a decent life. Are you?
Mark: You write that “The obvious point is that there WILL BE greater economic costs to a civilized society that bans abortionā¦”
Response: What proof do you have of this?…as Jay has pointed out, many and even most of the babies born under this scenario will make productive contributions to society and thus increase its collective wealth…and as Jay has pointed out, who knows what types of contributions these people may make…some may make staggering individual contributions…and one can make a very good case that the wealth created for society by these people will be more than enough to compensate for the additional costs…
Mark, you also write:”..and the vast majority of anti-abortion zealots havenāt even considered that problem, and have no intention of paying those extra costs when they arise. Pro-life means nothing if you donāt value babies you forced to be born enough to treat them when they get sick (even if mamaās uninsured) or educate them when theyāre five years old.”
Response: Again, what proof do you have of your rather strident assertion…your language indicates a certain bias against certain types of people…the prolife “zealots” I know are more than willing to put their money and their time and their efforts behind their cause, and do so very generously…
Mark, you assume the classic paleoliberal position: one, that the main provider of social services should be the government, and so the answer for all of society’s problems is to have govt tax and spend more…
I would say this is a poor assumption…and sure, you can point to problems with other non-govt social service providers, but then one can do that with the govt as well…
So my point is this: I think all in the prolife movement are willing to do what is necessary to care for the extra lives that would be born in a world of no abortions…but the question is how best to do that…
For instance, you might throw govt money at people and keep them dependent…I might prefer a private charity to work with the people and give them better financial support all the while giving them the emotional and psychological support necessary to get them self-sufficient…and I’ve seen it happen many times…
Mark: I know you don’t care for the idea of faith-based charity providers, but they provide the people they help with one thing the govt does not, and that is love and care and the assistance in coping with life and developing a cohesive philosophy on life so that these people can function successfully in a society…
This may surprise you, but faith helps a whole lot of people and makes them better…and again, I’ve seen people who can’t function on their own develop a sensible, mainstream type of faith that is the core of their getting back on their feet…this is a reality seen over and over again in life…you should visit a good charity run by a mainstream religious group (and it doesn’t have to be Christian) and see for yourself what kind of good they do…
I’ve put in many years volunteering at a home for troubled teens and these kids, if they weren’t at this home, would be in a state run facility (and some have)…and if you’ve seen a state run facility, and compare, you would know the faith-based home is far, far superior…a much more warm and loving place, much more like a caring home and not a cold facility…and it’s the kids in the home who most testify to that…
Mark: Again, you make sweeping assumptions with no evidence…
You say that every baby otherwise aborted would have to be healthy in order for their to be a net economic contribution to society…how silly and absurd…
You asset that “we still canāt control poverty because a market economy ensures it will always exist.” Karl Marx would be proud of you. A market economy does far better than any other system yet devised at eliminating poverty and lifting up living standards. Funny, but the non-market economies I have seen have done a far better job at creating poverty and making sure it exists than market economies. Perhaps you should try living in a non-market economy and see the difference.
Your prediction that “Immigration policy, global market forces and GOP business constituencies seeking to keep a large pool of disempowered labor will almost inevitably expand poverty in the years to come” is also funny and likely to be proven wrong. And your line about the big bad business constituencies seeking to keep labor down smacks of something out of Marx. Again, a stupid sweeping generalization with no proof…
You also brand all charities as “potentially corrupt organizations”…well, why not brand all govt social programs as “potentially corrupt”…amazing how you trust govt more than private charities…
Then you conclude again with anger that is very revealing:
“We need a more effective solution to this problem than soup kitchens at your churchā¦.and the solution will require government whether you like it or not.”
Nice of you to brand all church programs as “soup kitchens”..again, you speak from ignorance and no experience, as you probably are unaware of the many amazing programs that churches these days offer.
Did it ever occur to you that govt has spent huge amounts of money on combatting poverty and still hasn’t succeeded, and so may not be the solution? Did it ever occur to you that in a free market economy such as ours anyone can literally make it, as long as they make good life decisions? Did it ever occur to you that one reason why many people are in poor financial conditions is because they have made poor life choices? Did it ever occur to you that the real solution is to change what is inside the person, which is what churches, synagogues, temples, and the like attempt to do and which govt throwing money at them does not achieve?
I postulate that as long as there are people out there making some really dumb decisions, such as getting hooked on drugs, dropping out of school, engaging in criminal behavior, and the like, that there will always be poverty.
Services provided include free pregnancy tests, items needed during pregnancy, pregnancy education, food pantry, abortion alternatives, post abortion counseling, and referrals for adoption, medical, legal, government, and housing assistance.
What don’t I see on that list? Oh, yeah. Birth control. Instead I see a great deal of work making sure that pregnant women stay pregnant, not keeping them from being pregnant in the first place.
Let’s stop acting like pregancy is without risk, ok? Pregnancy is the number one killer of girls ages 5-14 in developing countries. I know to a man, pregnancy seems like no big deal, but it’s like a debilitating disease. But your blindness to the plight of the mother means you don’t even think about the cost of pregnancy – and we’re not even talking about child raising, yet.
Against that cost the lives of a few cells are worth nothing. Potential humans are not human. It really is just that simple.
Jay,
Many times have I read comments on you page and not respond because I just wanted to hear different points of view. But Here is where I need to draw the line. you say that Ć¢ā¬ÅBesides, the most anti-abortion people I have ever met are almost always women who have gone through the procedureĆ¢ā¬Ā
How many women have you met that had an aboition and regeted it?
Have you ever gone though the pain of having a child while you were unmarried and have countless people stare at you and look down on you because you decided to keep the child?
You know nothing of this topic from first hand and neither does another thought. You have nothing to base your arguments on.
Comment by S.E. Ć¢ā¬ā July 6, 2004 at 10:38 AM
TO S.E.
I AM A WOMAN THAT HAD AN ABORTION AT THE AGE OF 16. DO I REGRET IT? YES I DO,ALMOST FROM THE FIRST DAY. NOW AT AGE 34 I STILL FIND MY SELF THINKING ABOUT IT FROM TIME TO TIME. I ASK MY SELF “WHAT HAVE I DONE” AND EVEN THOUGH I GO TO CHURCH I AM NOT VERY RELIGIOUS. I STILL FIND MY SELF SAYING “GOD FORGIVE ME” WITH AS MUCH CONVICTION AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE. IT EVEN CROSSES MY MIND THAT ONE DAY I WILL BURN IN HELL. I DID NOT WANT A BABY AT 16 HOWEVER ON THE WAY TO THE CLINIC A BOTTOMLESS EMPTY FEELING WASHED OVER ME. I FELT EMPTY IN MY GUT. I REFER TO THE FEELING AS “IMPENDING DOOM”. I WAS NOT BROUGHT UP PRO-LIFE OR PRO-CHOICE. MY PARENTS DIDN’T TAKE ME TO CHURCH AND THEY WERE NOT POLITICAL I REALLY DIDN’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT. I DID KNOW AS I WALKED INTO THE CLINIC THAT I WAS DOING SOMETHING WRONG. IT FELT REALLY WRONG. I DID IT ANYWAY. THE FEELING STAYS WITH ME. IT IS NOT ALWAYS IN MY THOUGHTS HOWEVER FROM TIME TO TIME IT REARS IT’S UGLY LITTLE HEAD AND THE “IMPENDING DOOM” COMES BACK. I FEEL I HAVE MADE PEACE WITH GOD BY ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS. SADLEY, THE “IMPENDING DOOM” FEELING DOESN’T REALLY CARE ABOUT GOD FORGIVING ME. AND GUESS WHAT? I KNOW 2 OTHER WOMEN MY AGE THAT HAVE ALSO HAD ONE. YES THEY TOTALLY REGRET IT.
JAY IS RIGHT. WOMEN THAT HAVE HAD ABORTIONS ARE SOME OF THE MOST OUT SPOKEN PRO-LIFERS ON THE PLANET.
YOU DON’T HAVE AN ABORTION AND JUST GET OVER IT.”IMPENDING DOOM” TELLS YOU SOMETHINGS WRONG & IT DRIVES YOU. IF YOU CAN SAVE 1 WOMAN OR GIRL FROM THE GUT WRENCHING FEELING OF GUILT THAT FOLLOWS THEM FOR LIFE, THEN MAYBE YOU CAN REDEEM YOURSELF. IF NOT IN THE EYES OF GOD THEN IN YOUR OWN EYES. IF THERE ARE WOMEN OUT IN THE WORLD THAT HAVE HAD AN ABORTION AND NEVER FELT SORRY OR SAD OR EMPTY THEN THEY ARE VERY COLD AND DETACHED OR JUST PLAIN LUCKY.
NOW ON TO UNWED MOTHERS. I CAN RESPOND TO THIS TOO.
AT AGE 19 I GOT PREGNANT.(SAME GUY WHEN I WAS 16) I DECIDED TO HAVE THIS BABY. STUPIDLY I WANTED TO GET MARRIED. THE DAD DIDN’T WANT TO GET MARRIED. WE LIVED TOGETHER. FOR THE FIRST 10 MONTHS OF MY DAUGHTERS LIFE I GOT THE CRAP BEAT OUT OF ME. 11 MONTHS I KICK HIM OUT.
12 MONTHS. MY DAUGHTERS 1ST BIRTHDAY I SPENT THE DAY IN THE HOSPITAL WITH AN I V BECAUSE I WAS SICK. I FOUND OUT THAT BABY #2 WAS ON THE WAY. I CALLED DAD AND TOLD HIM HE COULD COME BACK. I COULD NO SUPPORT MY SELF. I SPENT THE NEXT 2 YEARS GETTING THE CRAP BEAT OUT OF ME. DURING THIS TIME HE ASKED ME TO MARRY HIM. I SAID “NO CHANCE IN HELL”.
DURING A FIGHT I TOLD HIM TO LEAVE. HE WOULD NOT GO. I CALLED 911. THIS IS THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME I CALLED THE POLICE. THEY HAULED HIM OUT IN HANDCUFFS. 2 HOURS LATER THE POLICE CALLED ME TO COME AND GET HIM. I SAID NO WAY. THE POLICE WERE FLOORED BY THIS. I NEVER LET HIM BACK. NEVER EVEN CAME CLOSE.
I THANK GOD FOR THE WISDOM TO KNOW THAT MARRAGE WAS A REALLY BAD IDEA.
I TOATED MY 2 LITTLE BABY GIRLS AROUND AND NEVER FELT SHAME. NO ONE LOOKED DOWN ON ME. IF THEY DID I NEVER NOTICED. EVEN IF I DID NOTICE, WHO THE HELL CARES. IM NOT GOING TO HAVE AN ABORTION BECAUSE SOMEONE MAY STARE AT ME FOR NOT BEING MARRIED. IM NOT GOING TO COMPOUND THE PROBLEM OF BEING AN UNWED MOTHER BY GETTING MARRIED TO A GUY WHOS KICKING BY BUTT. I WORKED HARD. I MADE A LIFE FOR MY KIDS. I DIDN’T HAVE TIME TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT OTHERS THOUGHT. I NEVER APPLIED FOR WELFARE,FOOD STAMPS,OR MEDICAL. I COULD NEVER BRING MYSELF TO DO IT.
THIS IS NOT HOW I IMAGINED LIFE. I THOUGHT LOVE THEN MARRAGE THEN BABY. IT’S MY LIFE. I MADE IT THIS WAY
HE NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM. I NEVER GOT 1 DIME IN CHILD SUPPORT. I NEVER EVEN TRIED. HE NOW HAS 5 OTHER CHILDREN OUT OF WEDLOCK. HE IS A DRUG ADDICT. HE DOES NOT WORK.
ME, I NOW RUN MY OWN BUSINESS. I OWN MY HOME. I HAVE THREE CARS.(LITTLE RED CONVERTABLE) I MARRIED A GREAT GUY. HE HAS ADOPTED THE GIRLS. HE HAS HIS OWN DAUGHTER HOWEVER FEELS CLOSER TO MINE. HE LOVES MY GIRLS AS MUCH AS I DO AND IS PROBALLY THE BETTER PARENT. I HAVE TWO WONDERFUL WELL ADJUSTED TEENAGE DAUGHTERS. THEY GET GOOD GRADES. THEY DRESS VERY BAD. THEY ARE INTO POLITICS. THEY CARE ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES. THEY CAN TELL YOU THE DIFFRENCE BETWEEN A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND A D&E PROCEDURE.
THE POINT OF THIS LONG WINDED STORY IS TO PROVE THAT HAVING AN ABORTION DOES NOT GUARANTEE A BETTER FUTURE. HAVING A CHILD OR CHILDREN OUT OF WEDLOCK DOES NOT DOOM YOU TO A LIFE OF FAILURE. CHILDREN REALLY ARE QUITE TOUGH. LOVE THEM & HOLD THEM TO A HIGH STANDARD AND THEY WILL TURN OUT OK.
L.A. Writes:
THE POINT OF THIS LONG WINDED STORY IS TO PROVE THAT HAVING AN ABORTION DOES NOT GUARANTEE A BETTER FUTURE. HAVING A CHILD OR CHILDREN OUT OF WEDLOCK DOES NOT DOOM YOU TO A LIFE OF FAILURE. CHILDREN REALLY ARE QUITE TOUGH. LOVE THEM & HOLD THEM TO A HIGH STANDARD AND THEY WILL TURN OUT OK.
As you realize life is not easy, but at least you have the chance, and now so do your children. I haven’t had an abortion but I know that my mother-in-law has had at least 2. There are some healthy emotional feelings that you are dealing with and that is okay.
I encourage you to press on and to raise your children and devout your time and energy in helping them to succeed in life.
I make no attempt to prove anybody wrong. I personally am against abortion, and personally find it morally wrong on several grounds. I am also thankful that I have not personally had to wrestle with the issue of whether or not to have an abortion.