There are people who believe that women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies (whether that choice means birthing 18 children, having an abortion, giving a baby up for adoption, spending a fortune on fertility drugs when thousands of living babies go unwanted, or becoming pregnant at 66), and there are people who do not believe women have that right.
And between those two groups, there is no room for “common ground“—any more than there is room for “common ground” between those who support marriage equality and those who believe gay people are condemned to hell. We don’t sit down and dialogue with gay-bashers racists or any other kind of bigot—we pass laws that prohibit their bigotry from infringing on the rights of others. This is a basic tenet of rights-based democracy. Why, when it comes to women’s right to choose, is this so hard to understand?
There are also people who believe a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body does not supersede the right of an unborn child to live.
Not everything fits into a binary system.
In fact, most things don’t.
Thank you Erica. That was nicely said. Hope you are well.
You sound like the defense department circa 2004 – with us or against us. Maybe the best policy is action while keeping invitations to dialogue open, but the invitation/dialogue part is important.
What about a woman’s right to steal wine from a local Cap. Hill business and advertiser QFC, am i right, Erica?
You know, when you — the news editor of the Stranger — was caught red handed (it was a red, GET IT?!?) with a sub-$10 bottle, I was really inspired.
We don’t sit down and dialogue with infanticidal killers or any other kind of murderer—we pass laws that prohibit their evil from infringing on the rights of others. This is a basic tenet of rights-based democracy. Why, when it comes to childen’s right to live, is this so hard to understand?
I love you so much right now Erica… Thank you.
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
Time until ECB says “This is why I supported Hillary blah blah blah….” 10,9,8,7,6……
Fetuses have no rights. They are tumors. They cannot live without the support of the woman whose rights you wish to take away.
@5 that has got to be the most tired form of internet argument there is. You know damn well that the issue hinges on when and whether or not a fetus can be considered a human (hint: a fetus is definitely not a child or an infant, as you imply) with the full rights accorded to a human. It’s an issue that divides perfectly reasonable people and warrants discussion, not your dismissive copy-paste antics.
Because when a woman (or a man) decides to have 18 children, it is very often the other members of that democracy who have to foot the bill for raising (and, in some cases, incarcerating) the majority of those children. In any true society worthy of the term, we all help each other carry the collective load but that also all have an individual responsibility to not excessively & deliberately add to that burden.
I also find it interesting, Erica, that you include post-natal adoption as part of a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body. we may (or may not) agree that a fetus is not a person under the law, but surely a newborn is.
Or is this really just about abortion, and not the much broader “reproductive rights.”
Personally, I myself can agree to disagree with somebody on one issue and work with him or her on an issue we have in common.
If Geithner can fix the economy, I really don’t give a shit one way or the other what he thinks about reproductive freedom.
If Hilary can restore America’s prestige on the world stage, I really don’t give a shit one way or the other what she thinks about marriage equality.
Oh! I understand now — your side is completely right and the other side is totally wrong! It makes so much sense; why didn’t anybody tell us this before? I mean it really makes sense now that I think of it, considering the historically infallible effectiveness of asserting one side’s correctness and the other side’s idiocy. Holy crap, Erica, it’s such a relief to have this question settled for all time. You = savior of humanity. *showers you with flowers and aborted fetuses*
All I know is that the world would have been a better place if some of these numbnuts religious freakazoids on Slog today had been aborted.
Comparing Pro-lifers with racists and homophobes doesn’t really add up. I’m sure SOME are sexist or mysogynists… but many aren’t, after all there are A LOT of women in the pro-life movement, and I’m sure most aren’t driven by self hatred.
Pro-lifers belive that the fetus is a life. So to them saying it it “a woman’s right to choose” to destroy the fetus makes as little sense as saying it is a “woman’s right to choose” to kill their 1 week old, 6 year old, or 12 year old.
And that cliche’ “if you think it is wrong don’t do it” is weak. You could apply that to anything- rape, child molestation, murder, slavery. The south could have used that “if you think slavery is wrong then don’t do it, it’s our right to choose!”
That said, I’m not totally pro-life, but saying their goal is to impede on women’s right’s is weak. Since they believe the fetus is a life for them to remain silent is, in their minds, like looking the other way while someone kill a child.
I’d have more sympathy for people who fight for the “rights” of a fetus, if they were also equally adamant about defending the right of a born child to live a happy, healthy life.
Unfortunately, most of them could give a shit less about a child after it leaves the womb, so I give their position the same amount of consideration I would to a big steaming pile of dog poop on the sidewalk. I step around it, and leave it behind.
“There are also people who believe a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body does not supersede the right of an unborn child to live.”
Those people are wrong. Let’s follow this logically:
Assume an embryo or fetus is a person, and has all the rights thereof.
If the State forces a woman to carry a fetus to term it is (presumably) doing so for the purpose of saving the life of a person.
Thus, the State would be allowed to force people to use their bodies against their will for the purpose of saving another person’s life.
Thus, the State would be allowed to force people to register as bone marrow, kidney and other living donors, as well as force them to donate any and all organs upon their deaths, all for the purpose of saving another person’s life.
However, the State is not allowed to do the above, and thus can not be allowed to force a woman to carry a fetus to term for the purpose of saving another person’s life.
The first sentence is a class false dilemma. There are actually lots of positions in between. For example, I know people who believe that women should be able to get an abortion whenever they want, but do NOT think that women have a right to have an unlimited number of children. (After all, the latter, more than the former, affects other people.) I also know people who think that women should be able to get an abortion whenever they want, but also think that there are special occasions when women are morally OBLIGATED to get an abortion. (E.g., certain fatal genetic diseases that will cause the baby enormous constant pain and it will only live for a year or two before it dies.)
These “either you’re with us or against us” arguments just turn off people that would otherwise be on your side.
ECB is talking about the minority extremes in groups. I would not say “gay-bashers racists or any other kind of bigot” is a good overall description of the opposing side of the issues. Just because emotions cloud the middle ground doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. As paulus in post #1 says, it isn’t binary, it isn’t black and white. Pushing it as one or the other is a disservice to everyone.
@16 Very well put
@17 – As well, though it happens far less with modern medicine, woman do still die in childbirth. Therefore the argument comes back around that the state should be forced into aborting the fetuses of those woman “unfit” to carry a child to full term.
Which is all assed backwards.
It sounds like you are simply saying that you belong to a group who don’t believe there should be a debate about this. That position is so far off the table it’s in the yard. Any debate is going to happen roughly within the confines of Roe v Wade jurisprudence – i.e. exactly how do we adjudicate between the rights of the mother and the rights of the potential child? Then how do we decide which rights are fuzzy enough to be left up to the states and which are clear enough to be specified federally.
It’s hard to see how your position squares with any even recognizable minority though since it would also mean mothers were allowed to poison their children with drug abuse and alcohol abuse and such, and that is generally considered to be something the state has some say over. It’s a pretty darned small and insignificnat minority that would go so far as to say it’s the woman’s body so anything goes.
Addendum to sarcasm: I should point out that I am plenty pro-choice, just sick to death of both sides yelling louder and louder as if that would get us anywhere.
hurrah for critical thinking in the slog comments…well some of them.
Do you think they would stop at abortion rights? What next? the religious fanatics that think all that matters is their religion won’t be happy until everyone but them is murdered or tortured or suffering. Just look at the behavior of their counterparts in the Islamist world. They simply don’t have the capacity to embrace a free society. No, there is no compromise.
Abortion isn’t the only “right to choose what to do with your own body” argument going on out there. Ask the men and women at NORML how they’re getting on with their right to choose what to do with their bodies? It’s not just about sex.
17
The state did not force the woman to engage in behavior that created a new human life.
She made that decision and acted on it and has now incurred moral responsibilities. (wow- that’s a word you never hear on slog: ‘responsibility’)
All the state is doing is intervening to keep her from killing an innocent life in order to dodge the responsibilities she incurred.
Don’t want to be pregnant?
Then don’t CHOOSE get pregnant.
@17, I’ve never heard that argument before; it’s pretty compelling and I like the construction, my only quibble being that both terminating or continuing the pregnancy are positive action.
In your given case, it would amount to state coercion on one’s person, as stated. However, in the case of allowing abortion, it would amount to murder (like pulling the plug on a family member without being able to secure consent or a directive)
Since neither direction seems particularly legal or morally acceptable, where do we go from there? This makes it seem like the problem is intractable…
Momma, you do allow an exception for those who didn’t choose to get pregnant, right?
The last paragraph puts po-life people in the catagory of “bigots”. The idea that if you think life begins at conception (and therefore abortion is murder) is akin to prejudice against women, gays, minorities, etc doesn’t make too much sense or seem honest.
I think, in some ways, the vitriol contained in these comments (on both sides) validates Obama’s approach, which is one that promotes moderate discourse. Some people in this country are “pro-life”; more people (thankfully) are pro-choice; but what we can all agree on is that having an abortion, while sometimes the best option, is never a picnic in the park. If we can get right wingers to work with us to reduce abortions (promoting and making more accessible contraception, for example), isn’t this a positive thing?
@26, not a good tack to take. If you’d prefer to see abortion outlawed, you’re gonna have to take that argument to rape victims, and I don’t think they’ll be happy about it.
28
rape, incest and the life of the mother
“The state did not force the woman to engage in behavior that created a new human life.
She made that decision and acted on it and has now incurred moral responsibilities.”
Another example, somewhat contrived but still possible:
Person A and B are in a car wreck because Person B is driving drunk. Person A will die unless Person B is forced to donate part of his/her body for Person A to survive (let’s say the local blood bank is out of the types of blood that Person A can receive, and Person B is the only donor immediately available).
In this situation, Person B is wholly responsible for Person A’s situation and STILL the State can’t force Person B to donate blood.
“Taking responsibility for your own actions” does not trump bodily autonomy.
@26: A fetus has no biological value unless it’s capable of being born without complication, and until then, it has no social value for at least a decade and no reproductive value until it’s into its teens.
The mother on the other hand is free to choose to give birth, pay taxes and fight wars for that entire time.
Yet another case of weepy conservatives attaching a face to an issue in order to feel so much better about their sorry lives. You know, like they do when they choose religion.
Common ground = work to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, prolifers don’t actually care about doing this, for the most part. But it is relevant common ground between the two positions.
@30, exactly!
People are gonna have sex. I’ve been doing it for 12 years, had multiple partners, and never been pregnant or gotten an STD (knock on wood). You know why? Because my momma always said that being dumb will get you dumb results.
Let’s try some education out there people.
Liberal peeps want less abortions too! But we acknowledge that you cannot place circumstance on these things and that in a society so afraid of showing their teenagers how to treat sex responsibly “accidents” do happen.
My favorite abortion stories: The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. Personally, I find it pretty offensive that these people think they have the right to make my medical decisions for me.
@33, I’m not well-acquainted with the subtleties of the law, but person B could be charged with vehicular manslaughter or even murder if person A die, right?
31
I’d prefer to see human life respected.
I will gladly concede rape and incest ant cases where the life of the mother is (actually) at risk if you concede the other 99.9% of abortions performed in America.
The lines drawn in the sand have been there for decades now. I am confident that abortion will remain legal in the United States. Now we need to expand the dialogue on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies through education on safe sex practices, birth control, family planning, masturbation and, yes, even abstinence. If pro-choice advocates can gain even a few allies in the “pro-life” camp (not all are right-wing, religious nutjobs) to advocate for effective strategies for avoiding unwanted pregnancies, that is a good thing. We can even find common ground on supporting young mothers, single parents, and improving adoption policies. (Would a pro-life person prefer a baby to be adopted by a gay couple or aborted? You would have disagreement there.) The either/or game of rights (mother vs. fetus) is a false choice, and it plays into the hands of extremists on both sides. In matters of health, we need ambassadors who can reach every kind of person in America. Perhaps this “common ground” approach should be called the pro-responsibility movement, because it is about trusting women (and their loved ones) to make informed choices.
@39: No.
34
I know it may seem quaint but some believe people who are unable to yet pay taxes or serve in the military still deserve the right to life.
The exceptions point out the inconsistency of the “sometimes” argument. If the fetus is a separate person with the right to life is that life less valuable because it was created by rape or incest? Does that less valuable status extend past birth? Can a 6 year old who was conceived during rape or incest be killed? Or is a fetus not really the same thing as a child after all, and subject to fewer protections under the law? I find it hard to see anything but an either/or here.
Either a fetus is a person and not to be terminated under any circumstances or a fetus is an anatomical structure within a woman’s body and whose continued existence is subject to the will of the woman.
Any middle ground is the result of rationalization ad absurdum.
I’ll be against abortion when alcohol and drugs don’t result in unwanted pregnancy. I’ll be against abortion when people’s instincts are overcome by “moral purity” as dictated by religion.
I’ll be against abortion when women don’t die because of all the medical problems pregnancy can cause.
I’ll be against abortion when all the deperate unwanted babies of the world have loving homes. In other words I’ll never be against a women’s right to choose.
“In your given case, it would amount to state coercion on one’s person, as stated. However, in the case of allowing abortion, it would amount to murder (like pulling the plug on a family member without being able to secure consent or a directive)”
Some would say that, morally speaking, we are all accomplices to murder when we do not voluntarily sign up to be living organ donors, post-death organ donors, donate all of our extra money for humanitarian efforts, etc etc etc because all such actions (or in these cases, inactions) will result in the deaths of actual living humans.
Modern society does a good job of shielding us from the consequences of our inaction.
God Americans are so boring.
Just move to a single payer nationalized health care plan like the rest of the Free World and tell Obama to sign it or he gets squat.
Do that and this whole “debate” will disappear within 2 years.
@ 32, a question:
Although I’d understand an exception for a pregnancy that puts both the mother’s and the fetus’ life in jeopardy, since at least one life can be saved by an abortion whereas both would otherwise be lost, how exactly have you come to the conclusion that a mother’s life alone carries more moral weight than a fetus’ life? Put another way, what suddenly makes the fetus less of a person than the mother in a case where the fetus could be viably carried to term?
oh, and statswise, high correlation between pro-torture and pro-life views. kind of sick if you ask me …
The abortion issue is difficult by its nature. At 9 months we all agree the fetus is human. At conception most people agree it is not. Where does the transition happen, and how is it defined? It seems to me there is not an easy answer, and that finding middle ground is possible and necessary for everyone but the extremists.
“I’m not well-acquainted with the subtleties of the law, but person B could be charged with vehicular manslaughter or even murder if person A die, right?”
My point(s) concern bodily autonomy, not the legal consequences for Person B or women who get abortions. Of course they would be charged with manslaughter and/or homicide.
The analogy for women who get abortions would be to prosecute them for murder, yet you rarely hear of any but the most rabid pro-lifer suggest that. I suspect it’s because once they are confronted with the logical outcome of their position (forced organ donation, women jailed for murder) they backpedal.