Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Not everything fits into a binary system.
In fact, most things don't.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
These "either you're with us or against us" arguments just turn off people that would otherwise be on your side.
@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'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.
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.
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...
rape, incest and the life of the mother
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The "rights based democracy" in which Erica lives does not recognize the rights she seems to think it does. In the first tirmester, it privleges a woman's right to control her body above the rights of the fetus. In the third trimester, it privleges the right of the fetus not be to destroyed above her rights. And in the second trimester, it recognizes a constitutional gray area. That is what Roe v. Wade said; it did not say, as Erica appears to have deluded herself into believing, that the woman's right to self-determination always trumps the fetus' right to survival.
And setting aside abortions-are-cool crazies like Erica on one side and rifle-toting anti-abortion militants on the other, that constitutional framework enjoys broad consensus in the general public. Most laws aiming to restrict abortion have been about that second trimester, and the supreme court has been pretty clear over the last 30 years that there are few constituional rights issues involved; it's basically a political/legislative issue about what laws people want to live under.
Abortion was around long before Roe v Wade, and it would still occur long after... There is absolutely no way to stop it. The only difference then, is the option of using safe means rather than ethically challenged doctors with sub standard equipment, or a coat hanger. (Which was pretty standard in the 50's)
Untold women's lives have been lost in these back alley procedures, so I ask you: What is more important- a woman's life, or the cells she carries inside her? Can you still call yourselves proLIFE if you'd happily condemn a woman to death for being unable or unwilling (for whatever reason) to carry a child to term?
The Catholic Church's position on birth control leaves them out of that group.
Most of the opposition to choice is a desire to punish woman for being sexual. Look at "mommy's" comments above. Since they believe a fetus is a human being their argument boils down to "if your father is a rapist then we can kill you." Yikes.
This issue will never go away because right wing politicians want to milk it for every last dollar in donations. You'd think that during the last 12 years of Republican rule there might have been one single real debate in congress about overturning Roe v Wade, but there wasn't.
But if you start with the premise, as the other side does, that the fetus is human, then its rights must be protected under the law.
Simply reverse it to illustrate the simple-minded argument: You are against hunting, executing murderers; but support the killing of "innocent life." So, you value the life of a deer or a murder over that of an innocent child! Not very persuasive.
@50 - I think I agree with you, but within your framework, wherein the government can't force an expectant mother to bring the child to term, it also must punish her for getting an abortion, arguments about the relative morality of positive action and inaction aside.
This suggests to me that the life-from-conception view - besides invalidating the pro-life argument which is based on it, as you pointed out initially - isn't worth considering beyond using it to note that it doesn't actually support pro-life positions. It's just incorrect from the outset and we need to look at this from a different light.
I don't know about you ECB, but that sounds like "common ground" to me.
If to do that, we have to talk with, sit down with, shake hands with antiabortion folks and groups, let's do it.
As to the black and white approach, um, we worked with Stalin, right?
I wish there was a better forum to discuss this and other issues. Slog comments just doesn't work for me. I have looked across the internets for such a place but one does not exist that is good enough.
Obama is naming Bill Clinton special envoy to Haiti. The feared Clinton takeover is imminent....
I'm pretty sure we all know why.
However, to frame abortion only as a "woman's right to choose" issue always seemed a little disingenuous to me. Yes, it should be available for some circumstances, but pregnancy is a risk of sex. Take the pill, blah blah blah. The players know the risks going in (or should if sex ed gets improved). Obviously the woman is the one who ends up with the baby, but shouldn't the argument in that case be to require more from the father, not to say, "Well men don't HAVE to do anything, so the women shouldn't either." That argument always seemed a little backwards to me.
It could be, if men had to undergo a risk-filled biological process that permanently changed their body to produce a baby .
But, ECB, it IS a tough issue, and that shouldn't be too difficult for you to understand. Religion clouds the opinions of even smart people.
It's actually a really interesting scientific and philosophical debate to talk about when does a fetus gain the full rights of personhood -- just calling someone who thinks differently on that topic a bigot is sort of bullshit. Is it possible to be pro-life for bigoted, misogynistic reasons? Of course. But, it's also possible to have a rational pro-life stance (and therein lies the difference between racism and the pro-life movement -- it's really not possible to have a rational racist stance).
Anyways, I thought Obama's speech was excellent -- really great stuff on not demonizing the other side of the debate and trying to figure out how to work towards the goal of reducing the number of abortions while respecting the equality of women. Since Erica seems to think that all pro-lifers are bigots, I think, she, as much as all of the pro-life protesters on campus, was the intended audience.
What if having an abortion means THE BABY NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE!
And it would blow your mind.
Having a baby isn't like flipping on a fucking light switch. And if someone did the research, they can find so much detail and gray area of what a life is and isn't ...
I would have to accuse the pro-lifers of having NO respect for life, or at least don't give it as much of an appreciation as it deserves.
In the meantime, we have people among the living who are wasting life. Beit on slog or growing up and/or raising children under depolorable conditions on an overpopulated planet.
I just think it's so narrow minded. Are pro-lifers
a) obnoxiously defensive about their poor life choice and secretly want everyone else to be miserable and conflicted on the inside?
b) Truely overwhelmed with joy and can't for the life of them understand why no one has the capasity to feel the same exact joy that they feel by excreting another being onto this planet?
c) Secretly wanting more souls to convert?
I used to grow catholic, pro-life. I used to think that the unborn suffered. I also believed in Santa Claus and one time I thought I saw the tooth fairy. Somewhere in my adolescents, where I saw people TRUELY suffering (me included apparently) from being brought up in a forced family and others forcing families ... I guess I started to believe that choice is truely the way to go.
If the life of the mother is put at risk by the pregnancy she should have the option to end the pregnancy. It is tragic but both mom and child may be lost if the pregnancy continues. The fetus is not less valuable than the mother and many mothers will choose to carry the pregnancy to term and take the chance.
I guess it reminds me of something I heard in one of these forums. Evolution has less interest in the survival of the young, they are easily replaceable. Evolution has more interest in viable breeding pairs.
My best friends mother, came from a dutch catholic family. At one point durring their childhood, they decided they hit a rough patch and sent 5 of the the 8 children to an orphanage, they didn't see them for years ....
I guess I mention this because abortion supposedly used to be a catholic issue (as well as birth control), the protestants were more or less indifferent about it until the sexual revolution which timed itself very well with Roe V Wade.
When you say there is no common ground you are alienating a lot of people who would like to build bridges on the common ground you are dismissing.
I think abortion is wrong
I don't know when human rights should begin
I think abortion should be used as little as humanly (or fetusly) possible
I am an athiest so therefore i cannot be a religious zealot.
I think abortion should be legal
If you believe life begins at birth then here are a few hypotheticals:
A woman is 9 months pregnant. Another woman punches her in the stomach. The unborn dies. What was the punchers crime? Simple assault? Manslaughter? Murder?
A woman has an infant. A man breaks into her house and kidnaps her but knowingly leaves the infant behind. Infant dies. Mother is returned. Is the only crime kidnapping?
Woman is in labor and a psychotic from three floors above rushes in and pokes his finger through the head's soft spot while it is still several inches inside the birth canal. The thing hadn't been born, so is that just a collection of cells and the psychotic is not guilty of any crime?
We don't, but we could:
http://www.bestcyrano.org/terkelEllisInt…
Is it? I would love to read it.
What these people really are "anti-woman". They want to force women into giving birth to punish them for having wicked, dirty sex (with whomever they want without the permission of a father, husband, male politician, or male religious leader). That's why they are against real comprehensive sex-ed and condoms and birth control pills. Contraceptives and condoms protect women from the consequences of sex (unwanted pregnancies and STDs).
"So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term."
I have to say, I see a lot of contridictions within my pro-life friends who support the war, the use of torture and the death penalty. I'm guessing my pacifism, anti-death penalty, and pro-choice stance confuses them as well. I sincerely hope that the number of abortions can be reduced in this country, but I believe we have to provide comprehensive sex education, affordable birth control, maternal and prenatal health care, and secured maternity leave in order to reduce the numbers.
Says who? Besides, every heinous murderer was once a cute cuddle bouncing ball o' joy!
why do you hope the number of abortions can be reduced?
Thank you Irb!
Contraception, morning-after, all fine. Abortion in case of rape, incest, medical necessity, of course. But otherwise? You have sex, you take precautions, you still get pregnant? Tough cookies. You smoke and you get cancer? tough cookies. You go sky-diving and the chute fails to open? tough cookies. You knew the risks, you did it anyway, deal with the consequences. Do what you can to make it unlikely, but you are taking a risk. If you get pregnant, have the kid. When is it human life? dunno. But I'd rather not see it killed.
And yes, I am anti-death penalty, pro-gay marriage, generally liberal, blah blah blah
but the person who truely suffers is the kid! Who had nothing to do with their parents indescretions!
Yes, I love my life (finally!). But damn ... I'm more than well aware that the deck was stacked against me growing up in a forced family.
You go to the doctor and get it fixed.
similar to gay marriage- if you don't believe in it, don't get one.
If you, as our partners, want to have sex with us, you also need to be fully committed to having children, because that is the risk when you have sex with us.
That reminds me. Has anyone compiled numbers on whether the male partners involved in many unwanted pregnancies want children at the time? I'd be interested in hearing how much of the decision to abort or not abort was shared by the partner without whom the pregnancy would actually not be possible.
Honestly, if we had the funding to do it, I'd love to see everyone's ova and sperm frozen, and tubes snipped, for until they decide to have children.
Christ these assholes really do just want to punish us whoreish woman for daring to enjoy our bodies. I mean, fuck, you get to participate. If a woman is taking all precautions and shit happens, then shit happens and you go to the doctor and take care of it. That IS taking responsibility dumbass.
And why do YOU get to outline the circumstances in which abortion is okay? Why are those circumstances any different from a woman both on the pill and using condoms and yet still there is an accident? Or what about that 15 year old girl whose parents and schools failed her in the teachings about sex and believed that she couldn't get pregnant the first time?
Do you know how many grandparents are raising grandchildren these days?
The instances in which birth control fails are RARE, but they do happen. Accidental pregnancies are caused far more often by a lack of sex education. Increase the education, make birth control readily available, and there will be less abortions in this world as well as less teen pregnancies and less grandparents raising grandchildren.
Don't act so high and mighty just because you don't have to carry the weight of pregnancy.