It is stories like this that are why I am viscerally opposed to the “pro-choice” movement.
It is beyond disgusting that anyone would end two lives for nothing more than their own selfish convenience. There are thousands of couples who would have provided a home for those children – but instead a selfish and dispicable woman decides to murder them in cold blood rather than give up her Manhattan lifestyle.
Such reckless disregard for life can be called nothing less than evil.
I am done here.
I’m sorry Jay, I’m done commenting or trying to bring an alternative viewpoint to your blog. I feel that my level headed commentary cannot compete with your hate and anger. This has been an interesting experience, I thought that I could help bring enlightened discourse to an environment where I feel there is too little crossover between the righties and the lefties, but maybe this just isn’t for me.
Enjoy, folks. Just try to remember there’s always two sides to the story. Learn all the angles before you cast the stone.
It is beyond disgusting that anyone would end two lives for nothing more than their own selfish convenience.
She was 8 weeks pregnant, Jay. Learn some science before you fly off the handle. What she had excised were not human lives. They were human fetuses.
To suggest that they are the moral equivalent of a human adult or even a human infant is as ridiculous as asserting a human zygote is equivalent, or that a mass of human sperm is equivalent, or that scrapings from the inside of your cheek are the equivalent.
Such reckless disregard for life can be called nothing less than evil.
For instance, a reckless insistance that a woman put her body and life at risk by having more babies than her body is able to. Yeah, I’d say that’s nothing less than evil.
This is a picture of a human fetus at 8 weeks. That’s what she got rid of two of. I have a very difficult time believing that tissue mass is somehow of greater moral value than a living, working adult human woman.
How can you look at that picture of a fetus at not see human life?
Because there’s not one there. Because it takes more to be human than simply genetics and biology. It takes a mind, and there is no mind in that picture.
That this is a complete life
It’s not complete, though. It’s not self-sufficient, nor does it have an individual mind. It’s not a complete person.
The woman’s life was not at risk.
Well, since you’re no doctor, we can just ignore your amateur assessment of her health risks.
Pregnancy always puts a woman’s life at risk. Multiple pregnancy, even more so. Now, other concerns than the risk to her health may have been important to her – had she wanted 3 children, she might very well have decided the risk was worth it.
But that’s her decision, not yours, not mine, not Jay’s, and not the government’s. You have no right to usurp her ability to make decisions regarding her own health.
The reasons the woman gave for aborting two of her three children could easily have been given for abandoning or murdering already born children.
Except that human infants are human beings, and human fetuses are not. It’s no more murder than ejaculating into a condom.
Perhaps it is time for a woman’s opinion on this subject since, you know, we’re the ones with the baby bearing equipment.
First, my vantage: pro-life morally/believe life begins at conception, but feel abortion should remain legal so as not to punish those women who have been raped or who would have to endanger their lives to maintain a pregnancy.
Next, the issue of when human life begins–people can debate this issue until the cows come home. Personally, I believe life begins at conception, but I will spare you all the rational on this point (and the rational for its counterpoint) because we’ve heard it all before. However, it is important perhaps to note that the medical community treats the embryo/fetus as lives that require distinctive medical attention in obstetrical appointments. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of women who have been pregnant will relate that they feel a presence of life even in the earliest trimester. Nevertheless, the previous sentences, based on my experience (extensive though it may be) with pregnant women is hardly scientific evidence necessary in this debate.
Returning to the subject matter of the entry though–Jay criticized the article as representing the worst of the pro-choice movement and it does. It is hard not to be repelled by the flippant attitude of this particular woman: she was not a victim of rape or incest, her life was not in danger, she was not some child who became sexually active too early, and she did not even fall prey to the faulty or the odds of contraception. She made a conscious effort to become pregnant and when it didn’t turn out exactly as she planned, she acted deplorably. The word “deplorably” need not even be applied to the act ov abortion, which can be interpreted through several different moral lenses. Rather, her actions were deplorable because of the selfish way in which she justified her actions. Aborting two fetuses because you don’t want your life to be consumed with “mayonaise jars” and children even though you deliberately became pregnant? And wouldn’t adoption be a feasible option as, you know, you have to give birth and go through pregnancy anyway?
Clearly, the details of this case are absent–the health of the fetuses, the potential threat to the mother, etc. However, it seems logical that the article would have included these threats if they had existed since it would only strengthen the underlying pro-choice arguments.
The point? Whatever you feel about abortion, this woman comes off as a selfish spoiled wanker who expects everything to go her way perfectly. If you’re pro-life, you may be disgusted with her choices, but if you’re pro-choice you should be disgusted with the way she represents your viewpoint so badly.
I’m glad a woman decided to weigh in, but I disagree with a few points:
Personally, I believe life begins at conception
I’m not sure how this statement could be true. Firstly, conception results from the union of two things that are already alive – an ovum and a spermocyte. So to say that “life begins” at that point is certainly inaccurate, because it was already alive before that point.
Secondly, pregnancy doesn’t even begin until after conception – the physiological changes that herald the onset of pregnancy occur at implantation, not conception.
Most conceptions don’t result in pregnancy; they simply pass out of the womans body and are not implanted. So to say that conception is the beginning of a human being is ignore biological reality – at the very least, it’s pretty inconsistent to huff and puff righteous indignation over aborted fetuses and never think twice about all those poor zygotes – 50-90% of them or so – that pass out of the womans body without ever starting a pregnancy.
It’s ludicrous to expect nature to have provided a convinient transition point for us to say “this is human” on one side and “this is not” on the other. We all have to come to our own decisions about when human life starts. Moreover, none of us have the right to dictate to others our opinions on the beginning of life; or to legislate that others follow suit.
Aborting two fetuses because you don’t want your life to be consumed with “mayonaise jars” and children
If that’s not a valid justification for reductive abortion, why would it be a valid reason to not become pregnant at all?
By this logic, any woman that decides her career and current lifestyle are more important to her than having children and thus chooses not to is acting selfishly. Think of all the lives that won’t exist because of her (in)action! How selfish! How dare she doom all those potential children to non-existence simply to preserve her “Manhattan lifestyle!” By this logic, any woman that isn’t getting pregnant right fuckin now is being selfish.
It’s clearly ludicrous logic. Not everyone considers children a blessing, man or woman. Certainly those people who don’t want them are the people you’d think we want least to have them. But then I guess Republicans feel that they can make loving parents and caring mothers through laws. Good luck with that.
I’m not registered at the New York Times, so I wasn’t able to read the article. Nonetheless, I get the feeling that the indignance of most Republican insiders in regards to abortion is put on. With three months before the election and Bush behind in the polls, the Republicans know the best card they can play is abortion, rallying cultural conservatives in Ohio, West Virginia and Missouri to forget about their unemployment and underemployment and get fired up about “saving babies.” Jay’s diatribe just reinforces my theory that conservatives are horrified at achieving their stated goal on the abortion issue. If Republicans lose abortion as a wedge issue, they’ll have to appeal to small-town Wal-Mart clerks at a different level, which they know will cost them hundreds of thousands of votes.
Dagny, I am pro-life, but if this woman is the evil incarnate you and Jay suggest she is, why do you think she is prepared for motherhood? Why do you think this terrible person should be mandated to deliver and care for these children she does not care about? There are a litany of serious issues conservatives need to address before their “pro-life” stance is to be taken seriously, and this is near the top of that list.
I’m not registered at the New York Times, so I wasn’t able to read the article.
Try “dailykos/dailykos” as a username/password. You really should see the article, if only to view the fantastic disconnect between reality and Jay Reding.com .
It’s called adoption. I know that there seems to be an inability for some to remember that such an option exists, but when there are thousands of couples looking for children , there is no excuse for ending two lives.
As for Chet’s patently ridiculous strawman argument, getting pregnant is a choice. Once you are pregnant, you accept that you have the moral obligation to take care of your baby. This woman accepted the risk of becoming pregnant by her own admission. The only reason she decided to end two lives (individuals with a detectable heart rate) was for her own selfish convenience.
If we accept this, why not execute the retarded? After all, they’re a burden on the mother as well? Why not kill children with other developmental disorders? If the child had Down’s Syndrome, imagine what it would do to Ms. Richard’s tony Manhattan lifestyle?
There is absolutely no moral justification for the practice of ending two lives for nothing more than convenience.
As per the adoption argument, I’m certainly not opposed to it, but doesn’t the adoption process involve a months-long commitment of paperwork? If these “nasty, evil women” are too selfish to commit themselves to a pregnancy or raising a child, what makes you think they’ll be so willing to spend nine months filling out forms and delivering a child for someone else’s benefit? Perhaps this is a minor concern, but there’s a reason why so many women choose abortion over adoption, and I think those who believe these women would change their minds if government enacted a prohibition are as naive as conservatives usually are on such issues.
For a family wishing to adopt, yes. For someone wishing to give up a child for adoption, no.
Besides, isn’t a human life more valuable than paperwork?
Jay, of course a human life is more important than paperwork. That’s the kind of simplification that will forever hold this debate at a dangerously rudimentary level. If abortion is a selfish act, as it frequently is, what makes you think the act of criminalizing it will suddenly make women more likely to go through the process of delivering a baby for another family instead of getting an amateur abortion procedure from the thousands of back-alley abortionists that would pop up everywhere? Criminalizing abortion first and asking questions later may be par for the GOP policy course, particularly given their desperate attempts to earn the praise of the self-righteous on moral issues, but simply submitting to the “human life is more important than paperwork” line before considering the consequences will have serious consequences that will eventually trigger back to Republicans.
Mark: In essence, you argue that we cannot legislate morality…that because some might be inclined to break a law, don’t put it in place to begin with.
This is silly; I could just as easily say we shouldn’t have laws against stealing or murder, because some people will break those laws and get hurt. Hey, better to have the thief calmly walk away with the item than run away with it and trip and fall…or worse yet, get shoved to the ground or shot.
You in essence are comparing abortion to drinking, and what happened with prohibition laws. But abortion and terminating a life is an entirely different matter than taking a drink of alcohol. And even now there are laws against the abuse of alcohol, such as drunk driving.
Martin Luther King once wrote that though we cannot legislate morality, we can regulate behavior. Quoting, “The law may not be able to make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me.” We are not trying to make abortionists love children, only to stop the lynching.
It’s interesting that some comment on the risks of pregnancy to the mother’s health, but what about the risks of abortion?
Women who have an abortion unfortunately experience higher rates of substance abuse, depression, anxiety, and ultimately suicide. And just this month, The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse has published the latest study of post-abortive women. This study compares women who have had unplanned first pregnancies. Women who aborted had rates of substance abuse that were approximately twice as high as those of women who chose to give birth to their babies.
Much to address:
First for Chet—the section of your post regarding when life begins is interesting, although I clearly disagree. An ovum and spermocyte may be alive, but it only after the spermocyte penetrates the ovum that the entity FOR A LIFE is created. Refuting and debating the facts as you present them would not alter the facts but only the way in which they are considered—this would probably waste everybody’s time, so I shall only say that I personally think that once my body starts diverting its nutrients to nourish another entity (read: menstruation ceases), that that entity (zygote/embryo/fetus/baby) is another life. As a woman and a person, that is how I feel.
Still, as previously stated and as you seem to agree, there are many different opinions on this issue, including within the scientific community. No matter how much science supports either side (and honestly, all of this science still has to be interpreted in the context of personal opinion of what life is), most people will continue their beliefs as based on religious background, political persuasion, and/or moral imperative. Because of this grey area as well as protecting the rights of women (who when it comes down to it really do bear the burden of this choice almost entirely), I am pro-choice in politics.
HOWEVER, this particular woman and article are very offensive. You say that her justification of not wanting her life to be mayonnaise and children is perfectly valid; again, this is debatable (I am a bit confused as to why this woman wanted a child in the first place if she was so worried about not having her life consumed by children, although to avoid future banality, I do understand that three is two more than one). Nevertheless, I take issue with the glib presentation of her opinion. Why not say that she had intended only to have one child and would be overwhelmed by three? Why not explain that she feared she would sacrifice her life because of this unexpected occurrence? There are much more articulate, intelligent ways in which she could have expressed the emotions of women who face unplanned pregnancies (or 2/3 unplanned pregnancy in this case); the way in which this woman described her situation hurts women, most of whom face emotional challenges much more complex and compelling than the one this woman describes. To say she didn’t want her life taken over by a fatty condiment so she had to have two abortions is insulting to an overwhelming majority of women who think the process through on higher levels than Hellman’s. It is not worthwhile to address your argument that pro-life sentiments imply that “any woman who isn’t getting pregnant right fucking now is being selfish” because the sentence is simply absurd. Once again, abortion certainly brings out heated, if not always helpful, rhetoric.
Second—for Mark: I never said this woman is “evil incarnate,” and only she can decide if she is ready for motherhood. In fact, it seems she felt she was since she PLANNED her pregnancy! I am not passing judgment as to whether or not she is a “terrible person,” and I never said a woman should be mandated to bear/deliver/care for children about whom she does not care. (In fact, if you had read my post, you would have seen that I am politically pro-choice). Indeed, all I am saying is that she seems to have a very obnoxious attitude towards the issue of abortion. Regardless of your stance, how much effort does it take to treat the issue with the sensitivity it deserves?
Attitudes such as the one fostered by this woman only inflame the worst aspects of the abortion debate in this country and make it impossible to make any real progress on reducing the number of abortions, making sure women have safe, affordable healthcare on issues that affect solely them, and establishing a level of personal responsibility for both men and women in their sexual (and the rest) of their lives. Her story is in no way enlightening with regard to the specific concerns of women on this issue, and it does more harm than good.
It’s amazing that you insult me for drawing conclusions without being a doctor, but you draw many biological conclusions yourself, particularly about the state of the fetus and its status of life.
Yes, that’s true. I asked my wife, who is a biologist, and I read our biology textbooks. In other words I aquainted myself with the subject before opening my mouth about it. You should try it sometime.
You pronounce that the fetus has no mind; how do you know? How exactly do you define a “mind?
It has no language. There’s a great deal of evidence that suggests that it is the absorption of language that defines self and mind.
The fetus certainly has a developing brain, and through medical science we know that fetuses at an early stage can feel emotions, and even pain.
Emotions and pain do not constitute a mind. My cat feels emotions and pain. Trees feel pain. Emotions and pain do not represent sufficient conditions for humanity.
Also, if it takes a “mind” in your definition to be human life, what about babies born with mental defects? Do they qualify in your definition?
It depends on if they can absorb language or not. But ultimately it doesn’t matter – it’s up to the mother to decide if she wants to keep the pregnancy or have it aborted. If she wants to go ahead and raise a baby with no mind, that’s fine – it’s her body. I wouldn’t make the same choice, myself.
If one doesn’t know whether it’s human life or not, perhaps better to err on the side of caution?
Right, and that would be the side that puts the least number of indisputably-human persons – adult women, in other words – at risk of injury and death. In other words the pro-choice position is the side of caution.
At what stage would you say the fetus becomes human life in your definition?
Well, if you had actually read my post you would see that I said there was no such point, much as there’s no stage where up becomes down or hot becomes cold.
Myself I wouldn’t abort a fetus in the third trimester, unless I had made the decision before and factors I couldn’t control prevented the timely proceeding of the abortion. But again that’s not a choice that I can morally make for anyone else.
The only reason she decided to end two lives (individuals with a detectable heart rate) was for her own selfish convenience.
So what about you? Isn’t the only reason that you’re choosing not to father as many children as possible your own “selfish convinience?”
Stop being so selfish, Jay. You’re preventing hundreds of potential offspring from existing. Get out there and start making babies!
There is absolutely no moral justification for the practice of ending two lives for nothing more than convenience.
Then there’s certainly no justification for choosing not to have children at all. Get out there, Jay!
so I shall only say that I personally think that once my body starts diverting its nutrients to nourish another entity (read: menstruation ceases), that that entity (zygote/embryo/fetus/baby) is another life.
Well, you’re free to hold that opinion, but you should know that what your describing are the physical changes in the mother’s body that herald implantation, not conception. Conception does not have these effects on the body, only implantation.
I’ve never understood why men concern themselves with this issue. It will never be your life or career on the line. You will never know what it means to be pregnant. It will never be your decision to make, so please refrain from judging those who do have to make such a difficult decision, whatever you think their reasons may be. Anyway, in your rush to condemn this woman, you’re forgetting her boyfriend. If men wish to have something to say on this issue, they should be taking 1/2 of the blame for unwanted pregnancies.
A definition which excludes those with certain cognitive disorders or the metally retarded from being human. Does that mean a dyslexic is only partially human?
Nice straw man, I’m sure it keeps the crows away.
Sperm aren’t human – if just sperm could create offspring Star Trek geeks would have come to rule the world years ago. Women (and men) have the choice whether or not to have children – there’s no life involved. I’m all for safe and effective contraception (although abstinence is the only safe method of contraception – 100% – immaculate conceptions aside).
The problem with abortion is that there is another life involved, and no one has the right to infringe upon the rights of another for anything other than to save life. If the life of the baby of the mother are in doubt, then I support abortion. I could even accept exceptions for rape or incest.
What I cannot stand is someone deciding to end two lives for nothing more than convenience. It may be legal, but it is unethical, immoral, and wrong. The Manhattan lifestyle of the mother is not worth the lives of two children. I sometimes wonder how many discoverers for cures for cancer, AIDS, etc, have been aborted before they ever had a chance…
Chet, you seem very preoccupied with the distinction between conception and implantation. Yet, implantation occurs, normally, 2-5 days after conception. (http://preconception.com/resources/articles/earlypreg.htm) Other than the morning after pill controversy, this does not really affect the overall abortion issue because few women become aware of their pregnancy (and decide, if they choose, to terminate it) in the five days after conception. Why is this such an important distinction to you? Just curious.
Also, kudos to Erica for bringing up the role of the boyfriend.
Another Thought, as usual, you miss my point. I COULD support an abortion ban (with exclusions for rape, incest and when the mother’s life is in danger) if abortion prohibitionists devised a comprehensive plan on how to deal with the consequences of such a move….and to be willing to pay for it with “their money.” I am of the mind that life begins at conception, so am thus not comparing abortion to alcohol or drugs. However, I’m not currently willing to trust that shallow-minded “morality” zealots have anything beyond the overturning of Roe vs. Wade on their radar screen. In their mind, as soon as Rehnquist bangs his gavel after that Supreme Court ruling, utopia begins and the consequences of prohibition will be non-existent. You said as much yourself the last time we were quagmired in this discussion. It’s an unacceptable and dangerous philosophy, especially considering the individualistic gluttony favored by the majority of “pro-lifers” whose concern for babies will cease to exist the second that umbilical cord is cut. From that second on, people like you will chastise them for their “poor life choices.”
Of course none of this is relevant anyway since Republicans have no intention of allowing Roe vs. Wade to be overturned and thus taking away their top vote-getting wedge issue.
Whether it is pro-choice or pro-life it all boils down to choice. Every choice has consequences. Some take responsibility for their actions and others run from them. Abortion is simply a way to avoid the consequences, a way to avoid responsibility. It is a way to save face.
The fetus (Latin fetus newly delivered) does not have life is shaky ground to build an argument. If this idea is followed to it’s logical conclusion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and murder become morally upright. Yes, I said murder because if a fetus can be killed because it lacks a certain “human’ qualities why not that in-human jerk down the street. As for the mind argument, what about Helen Keller who had not been born in her deaf, blind and mute situation? Did she loose her mind because she could no longer communicate with outside world? Did she regain her mind when she learned to communicate? What about the vegetable or the person in the coma? Do these people have minds? Interestingly enough Nazis held the same belief that a deformed or “mindless” person was no longer human and could be disposed of.
The choice of Planned Parenthood is made before sex. Once the action has occurred there is the inherent risk of conception and pregnancy. The difference between pro-life and pro-choice is taking responsibility for ones actions.
A definition which excludes those with certain cognitive disorders or the metally retarded from being human. Does that mean a dyslexic is only partially human?
I dunno. By what criteria would we posit that they are human beings?
Sperm aren’t human
Since I never said they were, I’m not sure what relevance this has to our discussion.
And it doesn’t change the fact that your relative (or total?) sexual abstinence is preventing a number of pregnancies you would otherwise be the father of. Your refusal to impregnate as many women as you can get your hands on is simply preventing children for your “own selfish convinience.”
It’s not a strawman, Jay. It’s taking your argument to it’s logical conclusion. That conclusion is that avoiding pregnancy – by any means – is simply selfishness.
There’s a lot of kids you could be fathering, Jay. It’s time you stopped being so damn selfish and get out there and make ’em!
I’m all for safe and effective contraception (although abstinence is the only safe method of contraception – 100% – immaculate conceptions aside).
Abstinence is only 40% effective at preventing pregnancy and even worse at preventing disease. It’s even less effective for women.
The problem with abortion is that there is another life involved
Circular argument. I could just as well say that there is no problem with abortion, because there is no other human life involved.
Jay, I find your “concern” for the unborn very disingenuous, as I find it so for all you abortion foes. If your hearts bleed so damn bad for all the children in the world, how many have you adopted? Isn’t it fairly selfish of you to choose your lifestyle over the well-being of a child – of ten children – that you could be adopting?
Of course, people like Jay aren’t really interested or concerned in the children – they’re simply capitalizing on a convinient moral soapbox in order to condemn women they see as sluts. Scratch an anti-abortion advocate and you’ll see them bleed mysogyny and fear of sexual self-determination.
To address Dagney’s question:
Why is this such an important distinction to you? Just curious.
It’s not that important a distinction to me. I don’t believe that conception or implantation are the beginning of humanity.
But it’s an important distinction to people like you because it demonstrates how the “conception=life” crowd is out of touch with biological reality. Most conceptions do not lead to pregnancy, but the majority of implantations do. Therefore how can it be reasonable to posit that every concieved ovum is a human being?
We would have to conclude that the vast, vast majority of human beings die before they’re even born, that untold numbers of people die without even having a name. That’s simply ludicrous.
Abstinence is only 40% effective at preventing pregnancy and even worse at preventing disease.
What in the world are you talking about?
you would otherwise be the father of. Your refusal to impregnate as many women as you can get your hands on is simply preventing children for your “own selfish convinience.”
What kind of argument is that? Either you are trying to justify your idea by saying “you do it too” or you are just off your rocker. The fact is some religious denominations do live out that ideology. Of course you would call them sexists by keeping women always bear foot and pregnant. I personally believe that by abstaining from impregnation does not kill or prevent lives from being created or existing for that matter.
why is it cutting off the first few words of my post after the quote?
What in the world …
What kind of argument …
Mark writes “I COULD support an abortion ban (with exclusions for rape, incest and when the mother’s life is in danger) if abortion prohibitionists devised a comprehensive plan on how to deal with the consequences of such a move….and to be willing to pay for it with “their money.”
First, the issue of the morality and ethics of abortion comes down to the simple question of whether the fetus is a human life…if it is, it is entitled to all of the protections of human life with no conditions attached.
Second, your precondition for protecting the developing human life is extremely vague and fuzzy, and does nothing to resolve the issue. What would be a “comprehensive” enough plan for you? Right now there are no “comprehensive” plans for dealing with the current numbers of humans born. We don’t approach parents who plan on having their children and demand some “comprehensive plan” be in place, either with them or the govt, or else their child will not be born. We don’t go up to parents of one year olds and demand some comprehensive plan.
Also, your argument is a cruel one; it reduces the right to life to a totally utilitarian and economic argument. This argument could just as easily be made to any number of people living today. Why not find some poor inner city neighborhood and lobby for their merciful extinction unless a “comprehensive plan” is prepared?
Bottom line: your “comprehensive” plan is nothing more than a BS stall tactic…
Erica writes “Abstinence is only 40% effective at preventing pregnancy and even worse at preventing disease.”
I have to echo Joecrazy and just laugh at that statement…it’s self parody.
I would say abstinence is, by definition, 100% effective at preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
Except abstinence fails too- because people fail to be abstinent! Which is the point of that statistic…
Nicholas: I know you are trying to make the point that people fail at being abstinent, but then it is not “abstinence” per se that fails, but the self-discipline of the people involved.
Another Thought, a “comprehensive plan” is admittedly generic….because it would have to be big. We’d have to add more law enforcement agents (or reallocate existing ones as efficiently as possible) to police the streets full of back-alley abortionists and the women demanding their services, new prisons to lock up those busted for providing or receiving illegal abortion services, and additional staff at our courthouses to prosecute the new criminals. And of course that’s just on the law enforcement end. We’ll also need new health care services and special education programs to treat drug-addicted and alcohol-addicted infants born to women who would have had abortions.
You ignore the cost of making abortion illegal because it’s inconvenient to your cowboy mindset of me-first avarice. You suggest I’m “cruel” for raising the pesky issue of what happens to the children you insist be born even though you couldn’t care less what kind of life they lead if it interferes with a plug nickel of “your money”. You just look at them as future deviants groveling at the door of your ministry, allowing you a fresh batch of people who “made poor life choices” to talk down to. For you to even suggest that we proceed with criminalizing abortion without preparing for the inconvenient consequences shows just how dangerous you and your ilk are. No matter how “selfish” and “cruel” these women having abortions are, they and their offspring still need protection from scum like you.
“…establishing a level of personal responsibility for both men and women in their sexual (and the rest) of their lives.”
“If men wish to have something to say on this issue, they should be taking 1/2 of the blame for unwanted pregnancies.”
I have to agree with the ladies on this contentious issue.
This condition of unwanted children has been with us for centuries. Indeed, it is written in natural and herbal medical guides that womenfolk of ancient tribes and cultures practiced safe self-abortion with natural herbs. I have firsthand knowledge its efficacy. One can pass judgment on the level of “civilization” of those cultures the same as they do of modern women; you are free to do that. We are all gods at some level determining not only whose lives you affect, but what you make of your own. Men & women equally bear responsibility for the choice of taking risks and creating unwanted children, but until men share that responsibility and accompanying burdens equally in practice, then they forfeit any jurisdiction over subsequent choices made by women.
The questions surrounding what constitutes life will always be colored by each individual’s filter. Those filters consist of perceptions acquired and molded through accumulated life experience and influence from one’s environment, education and religion.
I question whether physical form constitutes the ultimate definition of life. I leave open the possibility that consciousness can enter or leave the physical plane in ways that most of us cannot comprehend, much less prove or disprove. Ultimately, definitions of mind, consiousness, awareness, life, etc., which have been pondered by scientists and philosophers since the beginning of time, are a religious issue.
The concept of liberty has its roots in religious freedom movements — in a value system where freedom comes with responsibility…”Do unto others, etc…” Yet religious zealotry has also been responsible for much of the loss of liberty and life throughout recorded history. Quality of life, I believe, correlates directly with degree of liberty and adherence to that generally accepted value system. Why does one person’s belief system give them the right to impose upon the body of another whose belief system may be different but no less valid, until such time as it can be proven otherwise?
I am OK with quality of life issues being included with circumstantial factors such as rape and health of the mother in excusing abortion. Right or wrong, it will always be a matter of individual liberty. Who truly has the authority to decide? Shouldn’t it be the ones who have to live with the results, good or bad, happy or unhappy?
The cultural ills that generate unwanted pregnancies involve complicated issues of parenting, education, self-esteem, personal responsibility, etc. Let’s focus our energy on prevention instead of condemnation.
Another Thought, as for abstinence and “self-discipline”, the human species are sexual beings. It’s natural to have sex. It’s unnatural to abstain. Suppressing one’s sexual urges is the biggest perversion of all….and leads to priests molesting altar boys. I look at it this way, if teens are having sex, they’re probably happy-go-lucky enough not to bring a gun to school the next day. You’ll notice is rarely the oversexed who go on school shooting sprees just like it’s rarely the oversexed who molest altar boys. Abstinence is a conservative fantasy….just like the concept of criminalizing abortion without any taxpayer sacrifice required.
I’m hitting a few people’s posts at once:
What in the world are you talking about?
Oh, right. I should probably have assumed that you guys don’t know how failure rates are calculated.
When you calculate rates of contraception failure, you have to take into account user error. In that situation, “abstinence” is no better than using nothing at all.
The reason that it’s worse for women is because you have to account for pregnancy and disease as a result of rape, and that brings the failure rate up. Men are really not raped all that often.
What kind of argument is that? Either you are trying to justify your idea by saying you do it too or you are just off your rocker.
What kind of argument is that? It’s called “reducto ad absurdum”, or “proof by contradiction.” It’s where I take (in this case) Jay Reding’s argument and show how, when taken to its logical conclusion (that it’s selfish to prevent to prefer one’s current lifestyle over a childrearing lifestyle) it’s simply ridiculous or contradictory.
And indeed it is. Clearly even Jay doesn’t think it’s selfish to prefer his lifestyle without children over the life he’d have fathering them, because he doesn’t have any kids. So it’s inconsistent and incoherent for him to admonish another for making the same choice he makes every day.
Seriously you guys need some introductory informal rhetoric classes or something.
I know you are trying to make the point that people fail at being abstinent, but then it is not “abstinence” per se that fails, but the self-discipline of the people involved.
Except that it doesn’t matter. When you calculate failure rates, you have to take all situations of failure into account.
Moreover you forgot that no amount of “self-dicipline” will stop a determined rapist, so even if we accept your skewed, loaded-in-your-favor methodology, abstinence still isn’t 100% effective.
I have to agree with the ladies on this contentious issue.
And I do too. Ultimately abortion is a symptom of a larger problem – a failure of contraception to be avaliable at the time of intercourse, or it’s failure to be consistently and correctly employed, whatever method one chooses.
But trying to put an end to that problem by banning abortion makes as much sense as stopping the flu season by banning sneezing. If conservatives were really interested in the problem of unwanted pregnancy and not in scoring cheap shots on “sluts” (and maintaining the votes of religious conservatives despite decades of harmful policies), they’d be working to treat the disease, not hide the symptoms.
By that definition safty belt failers include the people who don’t wear seat belts. Even a better example would be condom failers include the people that don’t use them.
You do often see the oversexed kill thier partner for having sex with some one else.
“Abstinence is a conservative fantasy….just like the concept of criminalizing abortion without any taxpayer sacrifice required.”
Well, I disagree with your sentiments on abstinence… take it from me, if one has sufficiently low self-esteem and is socially akward, it’s actually very easy… and I can’t say I ever shot up a school or molested a child because of it. (thankfully I’m not abstinent anymore, but that’s another story)
God gave us hands- and they have many wonderful uses. If only the church would quit condemning masturbation…
Nicholas, I’m not big on using one’s personal example as a barometer for the human condition. Given that I’m abstinent all but the couple weeks of the year when I get to visit my girlfriend, I would be an example of an undersexed individual not prone to deviant behavior as well (although I’m sure my political foes would declare my voicing of leftist viewpoints as deviant). Clearly, there are people who can be sexually repressed and still function, although it’s highly unnatural and at the very least seems to lead to bitter nuns unloading their frustrations out on grade-schoolers with rulers.
I don’t think that less sex is a recipe for a better society as abstinence advocates constantly suggest. As soon as humans become sexual beings in their early teens, I think it’s imperative to teach them the safest way to be natural members of the species, and I don’t think lifting the stigma off of Rosy Palm is gonna suffice.
Even a better example would be condom failers include the people that don’t use them.
Well, since that’s exactly how condom failure rates are calculated, I’d say you picked good examples.
You do often see the oversexed kill thier partner for having sex with some one else.
I’m sorry, the who? What’s the relevance of this comment?
Perhaps it is time we examined what motivates men to have such strong opinions on this issue. First, consider that the females of our species must commit much more time, energy, and resources to reproduction than do the males. This means that females should be far more selective when it comes to choosing a mate and that places an unequal amount of sexual selection pressure on males. Obviously, this is not beneficial for males so there are instinctive retaliatory measures. Most violence against women is perpetrated against pregnant women. Babies bear no resemblance to the father or mother, which most likely developed as a survival mechanism to protect them from infanticidal males who were unwilling to provide resources for offspring they did not produce. In short, women having sexual self-determination is very bad for men biologically – and instinctively they know it.
Now, to address some things before they are asked. There are also women who are pro-life. It is, of course, logical that women would be just as protective of their offspring as men and perhaps more so considering how many more resources they commit. However, it is equally logical that since women do commit so many resources they might choose to end a pregnancy if they feel they cannot commit an appropriate amount at that time. Pregnancy is also statistically dangerous, so it would be biologically wise to end a pregnancy that was forced, unwanted, or unplanned. As was mentioned above women are more likely to be a victim of violence when they are pregnant. Also, before the advent of modern medicine one in five women died in childbirth. It’s much better to take that risk on a baby you want and are able to support.
Aren’t I being rather cold and scientific about the whole thing? Yes. We can either deal with this like the hormonal apes we are, or we can deal with it like the rational, intelligent beings which we also are.
The above information is easy to find. Simply pick up an animal behavior text or type in the correct key words in a search engine for scientific journals. I definitely encourage you to read the journals for yourselves and form your own opinions on the evidence.
Erica-
To say that men don’t have the right to have any opinion on this issue (pro-life or pro-choice) is ridiculous. Using the same skewed logic you could say that women don’t have a right to comment on problems of the Catholic Clergy because none of them are women. I personally lean more pro-choice (though not when it comes to viable fetuses in the late term when there are no health risks) so I am not necessarily opposed to all you say ideologically. I just think that the issue at hand is about a lot more than just the woman and to demand the men refrain from commenting on the topic is absurd, unreasonable, and narrow.
I just think that the issue at hand is about a lot more than just the woman and to demand the men refrain from commenting on the topic is absurd, unreasonable, and narrow.
It’s not about anything but the woman, because that’s the only human life in question.
Moreover I’m not sure her point is that men shouldn’t comment, but that they shouldn’t legislate. It’s fine for men to comment but they shouldn’t be the ones to make the decision.
Contrast that with the picture of Bush signing the most recent abortion legislation, in the presence of the bill’s supporters, lined up behind him – with not a single woman present.
How can you look at that picture and think that’s right? How can it be right for the enacters of legislation to be the people whom it won’t ever, under any circumstances, affect?
If one accepts that a fetus is human, then by definition it has human rights. If it has human rights, then the state has the obligation to protect it.
The question then becomes, can one delineate between a fetus and a human being without excluding a certain group of people. We can’t say it’s language, or the retarded can be said not to be human. We can’t say it’s necessarily brainwave activity because fetuses have that after a certain point and certain people (say someone in a deep comatose state) could also said to be non-human. There are any number of criteria that don’t work.
I’m faily agnostic on the issue of abortion. I consider it an issue that is unlikely to be settled politically. What I strongly disagree with is the idea that abortion is merely a choice. Getting abortion is not like changing hair color, it is a dangerous, invasive, and devastating procedure. The most viscerally anti-abortion person I know is a woman who had an abortion.
In any event, this is a subject that is as much about metaphysics and philosophy as it is about politics, and is unlikely to be solved soon.
Well then, Justin Paul, let me clarify. Certainly one can hold an opinion on anything one likes and comment accordingly. What I’m saying is that men should not be making laws about abortion. It makes about as much sense as a poet being in charge of a laboratory.
We can’t say it’s language, or the retarded can be said not to be human.
This simply doesn’t make sense. The mentally handicapped have language. I’m not saying that you have to possess the rhetoric of Cicero to be human; I’m saying that humanity means having conciousness, self-awareness, self-reflection. These things are intimately tied with language.
Please, don’t misrepresent my position like this.
What I strongly disagree with is the idea that abortion is merely a choice.
There’s nothing “mere” about it. Being faced with an unwated pregnancy is the sort of thing that keeps me up at night, not least of which because I’m married. I can’t imagine how I might face such a situation, or what might be the result in my relationship.
Which is why AT’s repeated assertions that “abortion is a form of birth control” ring so transparent and hollow. Nobody who’s faced this choice – not even the woman in the article – did so without careful reflection of the consequences. Even aborted pregnancies are life-changing.
Honestly if any of you Republicans truly cared about the status of the unborn I’d be incensed by their treatment of the issue these past decades. All they’ve ever done is give lip service to the issue to secure a dogmatic voter base.