I think that pretty much sums up the intellectual strength of your arguement.
Do you have any grasp of U.S. history?! Dred Scott didn’t come about because of grassroots activism, though it did spur on the abolitionist movement as a result. Roe v. Wade came about because of years of activism and public pressure to make abortion legal again. Dred Scott was tantamount to judicial fiat. Roe v. Wade was a response to public demand.
No, it sums up the fact that I think you’re a complete dickwad and mentally lazy to boot. Additionally, you’re a fucking lousy speller. “Argument” has one ‘e’.
Perhaps you misunderstood me, or I was unclear. I didn’t say that Dred Scott arose out of grassroots activism. I DID agree with you that activism (among other factors) played a role in essentially negating the effects of Dred.
And likewise, activism (among other factors) can play a role in overturning exisiting (or future) Supreme Court rulings.
Which of course leads back to my original point. In both cases, groups of people were using political and social activism to create change in public policy that would have the effect of imposing morality on (at least certain segments of) the population. I don’t necessarily think that that in and of itself is a bad thing.
Hmm generalizing from one typo eh? One hopes all of your posts have been error free as well.
Ah, but see, support for the emancipation of Blacks and for the legalization of abortion are not reducible to simply moral stances and arguments. There are a host of social and political consequences for blacks, whites, men and women arising from both. Whether or not you see the success of Roe v. Wade as imposing morality - which I don’t; does RvW force an abortion on women who choose not to have one in the first place? - its overturn will mean that women overall will be denied the right to control their own bodies. This is indeed a bad thing and needs to be fought against tooth and nail.
No, I’m assessing you on the fact that you have used my opinions to imply a condoning of slavery (beagledave, meet Straw Man - Straw Man, beagledave) and failed to see the fundamental difference between the overturning of Dred Scott and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Overturning the former gave a whole section of the population rights they had been denied, whereas overturning the latter will deny a whole section of the population rights they have been given. The “lousy speller” was tacked on just before I submitted the post. I’m not saying my posts are error-free; but I’m not afraid of using a dictionary either. Or the Preview button.
Except, to pro-lifers, abortion doesn’t have anything to do with a person’s control over her own body. The majority of pro-lifers believe that a fetus is a human being, with its own set of rights. If you start from that belief (I know, you don’t, but for purposes of the argument, realize that they do), then what Roe v. Wade did was give a mother the right to kill her child. For pro-lifers, the abortion question, instead of being about someone’s control over her life, is instead about a person’s control over another life. If you have that belief, and if you’re a basically decent person, then something like that can’t be limited to “If you don’t like it, don’t do it, but let other people do it if they want”, because what that argument sounds like to pro-lifers is “If you think killing people is wrong, don’t do it, but let other people do it if they want to”. This is what they’re fighting against. For the record, btw, I’m pro-choice.
Captain Amazing, you’ve hit the nail on the head. People who are against abortion just look at the one aspect - killing or not? - without considering the whole situation. What kind of life is the mother (or parents) living now? What assurances towards quality of life will the child have? Is this baby even wanted?
Personally, the only way I’d even think about agreeing to end abortion (and even then I’m sure I wouldn’t) is if there was an extensive and inclusive social safety net to provide for any and all children - and since that isn’t gonna happen under the present circumstances, I’m just gonna have to remain firmly rooted in support for a woman’s choice.
**
I guess it comes down to a matter of pereception, then. When I think of a person likely to get an abortion, I think of someone upper or middle class. Though I can’t come up with a rational reason for this belief, I tend to think that lower income women faced with an unplanned pregnancy are less likely to seek an abortion.
Valkyrie, were she patient enough to deal with the board’s crankiness on most days, would tell you it’s quite the other way around. Her working-class and poor patients are, as far as I understand it, the majority of her clientele - both here in Virginia and back when she worked at a Planned Parenthood in SE Pennsylvania. Although her PA job was in a rural town that was fairly depressed, she works in a fairly upscale locale now and the makeup is pretty much the same.
Additionally, it’s those same “middle-class” and rich women who will be least affected by any total ban on abortion here in the US - they can go to another country where it’s still legal and have it done. Poor and working-class women won’t even have that loophole. So a ban on abortion in the US has the potential to actually increase the number of children born into poverty and near-poverty.
These, IMO, are some of the issues that should be considered when discussing abortion - not whether or not it’s killing. Reducing it to a merely moral question is an inadmissible fallacy.
No source, but I believe lower income women are more likely to have abortions. (Though, on rereading your words, we may both be right. It may be that “faced with an unplanned pregnancy” a lower income woman is less likely to have an abortion, but that they have a lot more unplanned pregnancies).
Yeah, pagan bisexuals, feminists, and libertarians, who are notorious for advocating restrictive government wouldn’t know anything about desiring freedom or equal rights.
More seriously, saying that we pro-lifers are against “equal rights” might be legitimate if we were sayng women shouldn’t have abortion while also saying men should have an equivalent right to have their fetus killed. Obviously, though, pro-lifers are saying that NOBODY has the right to kill a human being even at its earliest stages of development. You attempt to denigrate the life of the fetus by calling it a “pile of cells”, but I don’t know of any living being that isn’t composed of a “pile of cells”.
The fact is, the two sides of the debate frame the issue in a different way. The shocking truth is, pro-lifers really do believe they are fighting for life (not to take away women’s rights) and pro-choicers really do believe they are fighting for choice (not to kill babies).
A commentary on the good intentions on both sides…and how they can be used to HELP women.
Let me try to show you how an issue can be framed in a very different way:
[tongue in cheek]
It sounds like you’re against the death penalty. Well, who are you to say that some poor, suffering victim of a crime doesn’t have the RIGHT TO CHOOSE to see their attacker put to death? You are obviously ANTI-CHOICE. Besides, if we don’t put criminals to death in safe, clean execution chambers, then vigilantees are just going to resort to cornering them in back alleys and beat them to death. The vigilantees could end up being hurt or killed in the scuffle, and that just adds to the death and suffering. Therefore, it’s in everyone’s best interest if you keep your crazy religious views to yourself. We’ve had plenty of Bible-beating about how the death penalty is so-called “killing” from religious fanatics like the Pope and Sister Helen Prejean. You have no right to take away our choice to be free of unwanted convicts.
[/tongue in cheek]
Obviously, there is more than one way to look at both issues. Just as you surely wouldn’t think of the DP in the above terms, pro-lifers generally do not think about abortion in the same way that pro-choicers do.
Um, if those kinds of questions are supposed to supercede the issue of if it’s killing a life or not,why stop at birth?
There is no “assurance” of quality of life…after all, good quality of life means different things to different people. Even if you could guarantee that every child was born into a loving middle class home, there would still be people who considered their lives miserable.
I think it is sad that you would take the view that we CAN’T achieve a social support network for women, that abortion is the best we can offer women in need. Feminism should not be about accepting the status quo when there are women who have been hurt and feel betrayed by the status quo.
Of course, I strongly feel that we should do whatever we can to make pregnant women feel supported in carrying to term, which includes financial and emotional support. On the pro-life side there are alreadyprogressive pro-life people and organizations trying to raise awareness and fill the need. Of course, if there were more focus on cooperation and common ground between the two sides (rather than the mutual distrust and hostility that is the norm) much more could be accomplished.
I’m still trying to tease this one out… are you trying to say the only inequality of rights would be if men could say “You will have an abortion” but women couldn’t say “I want an abortion”? There is no inequality in women saying “I want an abortion” but men (or the nation’s courts) saying “You cannot have one”?
And pro-choice people say NOBODY has the right to determine what a woman does with her body besides the woman herself.
I do no such thing. I obviously think that the argument that a fetus is a complete human life is taking it to the same extreme as you say I’m taking my view of a fetus.
That “fight for life” takes away reproductive rights for women and, as you hint in your “tongue in cheek” argument below, consigns a large number of women to seek out abortions in back-alley clinics or worse. So instead of ending just one life that hasn’t even begun to realize its potential, you risk ending two - which has practical consequences for those left behind, such as the woman’s immediate family.
Who said anything about releasing violent criminals onto the streets? Nobody ever said they were against life imprisonment for the criminally insane. I also think the criminal justice system should be geared towards rehabilitation rather than increased incarceration.
Religion can be used both for progressive purposes and for reactionary purposes. Obviously I’m more inclined to support the former.
Then how can there be any “common ground” for cooperation, as you wish for below?
When I mean quality of life, I mean assurances of a healthy diet, proper housing, decent clothing and access to a good education and help from society at large when things get rough - welfare, counseling, that kind of thing. Essentially, that all their material needs are met, and met well.
I do not believe is possible under present circumstances to construct a solid social safety net for anyone. The cuts to the welfare program, as well as to numerous other programs for social spending, are the prime example of why I do not believe it possible in the here and now. I did not say I believe it impossible, period. Just not while things are as they are right now.
That’s why there was such grassroots activism for Roe v. Wade in the first place.
“Common ground” in this case means changing your views to the point of compromising your principles. How many pro-lifers do you know who’ve come around and said “Gosh, I really think abortion is terrible, but I just can’t deny women their rights”? More frequently it’s been groups and organizations that supported the right to abortion unconditionally who have said “Well, they do have a point; it’s terrible that so many lives are being ended like this. We should try to help stop it from happening so often.”
Sorry. No good from this end. If a woman wants an abortion, she has a right to one on demand. No questions asked, no waiting periods, no stinking state-sponsored literature presenting a heavily-masked “different” point of view, even if she doesn’t have to take it.
I recently read a book by Lori Graham Bakker, Jim’s latest wife.
She mentions that by the time she was 22, she had had 5 abortions.
Her low-life boyfriend told her to choose between her and the babies, she unfortuantely chose him.
At 22, she had to get a hysterectomy becasue the abortions had messed her up so much.
After she got saved, two church ladies had her go through a ceremony.
They made five little tissue “babies”, told her to go into a room and talk to them, say goodbye, etc.
Then she came out and they ahd her place them in five little fake coffins.
Macabre…
The latter. Banning abortion would, in my opinion, do more harm than good. I feel that far more effort should be made to promote proper birth control methods to ensure that the mistakes which lead to abortions don’t happen.
Actually, yes I have. I accompanied a friend who was going to have an abortion about 3 years ago. I was only in there for a couple of minutes and I am under no delusions that it’s not a traumatic experience but, frankly, if it were anything else it would be even more horrifying.
Good! I for one would like it to stay that way and as such I am vociferously opposed to arguments stating that because the fetus gestates inside the woman, the woman has the right to dispose of it like an unwanted wisdom tooth. I am also opposed to the increasing prevalence of terminology that sanitises the ‘proceedure’.
First, let me say that I believe everyone has a right to their opinion. Pro-choice is not wrong, Pro-life is not wrong. It is a matter of opinion, and everyone gets one, ok?
My opinion is that everyone has a right to make their own choice. For years, when I had a car, I had a sticker that said “Against abortion? Then don’t have one.” Plain and simple. If you’re not for it, then DON’T GET ONE. It’s that easy.
I would never go protest in front of an ob/gyn office and protest people going in to have babies. Hey, do what you want. It’s not my life.
The purpose of the pro-choice movement is to make sure that everyone is allowed to make their own choice. Not that people should run and get abortions whenever they feel like it. And being pro-choice, I am for certain laws that limit restrictions on abortions. Of course no one should have an abortion at 32 weeks. And no self-respecting professional would give one. (Unless of course, it’s medically necessary to maintain the health of the mother, and/or the baby will not live.)
The only thing that bothers me about certain members of the pro-life movement is the way they protest. (Please note that this part is NOT addressed to all pro-lifers!)
Please do not bring your children to protests. I understand that it makes a good guilt tactic for what you are doing. But is it really good for a small child to sit there and watch you scream at people driving by, telling them they are going to hell, while holding a picture of an aborted fetus? I know you realize that seeing a child on your way to having an abortion may make you think twice. But it is not fair to the people who have had to consider all their options and stress and worry for days to make an ultimately life-changing decision.
I worked in a retail pharmacy here for about 8 years. One day I had a woman come up to my counter. She had something about being pro-choice on her checks. I saw her name, and recognized it from local reports. She had been stalked by a radical pro-lifer. The stalker had called her late at night, telling her what the pictures in her living room looked like, telling her what her young daughter was wearing to bed, things like that. Unfortunately, the stalker was only given a restraining order, which she has violated several times.
I asked this woman at my counter if she was the woman who I had heard about on the news. She got this horribly terrified look on her face, and said,“yes, what about it?”
I had to explain to her that I was in full support of her, and that what had happened to her was a terrible thing. She told me that she was about to mace me, because she had been attacked more than once after being on tv.
I went to high school with a girl that had seven abortions by the time we graduated. Most people thought that she was a slut. I just thought she was uneducated and could have used a couple of lessons in pregnancy prevention. (She was not someone I knew personally, so I didn’t take it upon myself to educate her.) It’s not that hard to get access to reliable contraceptives. and now there are ways of preventing pregnancy even if you have an accident.
Opposing viewpoints are good. Otherwise, we would all be a bunch of animatronic goobers, walking around saying “yes, of course!” to each other. It’s good to be able to have your own beliefs, but we all have to learn to respect the fact that others can believe whatever they want. If you are pro-life, fine. Go to your religious affiliate, and pray for people to make wiser choices next time. If you’re pro-choice, then make certain that you have the ability to do what you choose, within reason. (i.e. if you find out in the first month, you should be able to do what you need to do.) Abortion is a highly personal decision that cannot be taken lightly, but also should not be taken away entirely.
Bravo, Skerri. I often get bogged down in the details of countering arguments and opinions that it’s hard for me to generalize like that. I really couldn’t have said it better myself.
McMurphy - I’m glad to see you actually have some practical experiences behind what you say. More often than not I encounter people whohave the opinion that women who get abortions are doing it on a whim or that they just don’t consider the consequences of their previous actions enough, and they’ve never even been near an abortion clinic or know a woman who’s had one. I fully agree with the assertion that sex education should be much more extensive, exhasutive, and inclusive than it is now, but I don’t think it should be part of a trade-off: more and better sex education in return for restrictions on the right to access to abortions.
And I still don’t think calling it a procedure sanitizes it. There’s a difference, IMO, between sanitizing something (for example, calling the children who died in Oklahoma City “collateral damage”) and removing the emotional charge from something, especially when it provokes heated debate between two diametrically opposed viewpoints.
Here I think you’re oversimplifying the pro-choice argument. I can’t vouch for everyone on the pro-choice side, but I think the overwhelming majority argue that a woman has a right to end a pregnancy if she wants to end it. Not simply because she can get pregnant. Ultimately, however, it is the woman’s choice because it is her body.