I love it. “Hijack”, what a beautiful word. Tell us how you really feel…
Bob Cos, I have to both agree with you and take issue with you. I will agree with you only in that there is no “typical” pro-choice position – just as there is no true “typical” anti-abortion position. The reason I choose to be pro-choice, however, is that the pro-choice position takes a more comprehensive, practical and realistic view of the issue of pregnancy than does the anti-abortion one.
[FYI, I use anti-abortion rather than pro-life because I know of many people who would not, themselves get an abortion, but who support choice. To me, anti-abortion states the belief more precisely. It is not a contradiction in terms to be pro-life and pro-choice, both.]
The anti-abortion view, for the most part, sees the problem simply as “it’s an unborn life, the mother is a life, therefore, all factors are equal” and considers no other circumstances whatsoever – yet those circumstances exist.
This view is overly simplistic, overly idealistic, and utterly lacking in logic. The anti-abortion view is concerned only with one thing: forcing a live birth. What happens after that birth is not something with which they are concerned. Yet what happens after that birth must be dealt with.
The anti-abortion proponents largely do not concern themselves with this, however, and I find this short-sighted to the point of being deliberately blind. Their one and only goal is to force a live birth. Oh, yes, they’ll complain loudly about welfare rolls and how those on welfare should be forced to work [ignoring the fact that a young mother who must go on welfare does so because she hasn’t the training or skills to get a job that can support the child she was forced to bear and is trying to raise]. They will certainly decry situations in which adopted children are sold for huge sums on the black market or given to abusers, and turn a blind eye to the increasing number of children that nobody wants to adopt – but they will continue to insist that adoption is the answer to abortion. They will certainly stone a young mother who abuses her child through neglect or by accident because she has no parenting skills at all to apply, but not concern themselves with trying to provide instruction in parenting skills or counseling young expectant women on what precisely their responsibility will be to their babies once they are born.
To use a Douglas Adams, anti-abortion proponents typically paint a problem pink and erect a big Somebody Else’s Problem field over it – and proceed blithely to ignore it. Yet like the very real societal issues which have been brought up previously in this discussion, an unwillingness to see the issues and/or deal with them does not make them go away, any more than it works for an ostrich to stick its head in the sand. The problem is there, and someone has to bucket the bilge of the situation. Typically, that ends up being the the woman who is pregnant, because of all of the people involved, she is the only one who does not have the option of up and running away from it.
Now, even I, as a pro-choice advocate, admit readily that abortion is not a choice I wish had to be made necessary. It’s painful, invasive, risky, and can causes emotional and physical problems for the mother. It’s a nasty solution from a woman’s point of view. Despite what anti-abortion proponents seem to want to believe, women don’t just go in, get zipped, and wander out happily. The effects may not show for years after – but there are almost always effects.
However, given the fact that a) there is NO completely safe form of reversible birth control [no, not even abstinence, because a woman can intend to be abstinent and still be raped] and b) there is NO way that blame or responsibility or health risks can be apportioned equally between the father and mother of the child, abortion is an option I cannot rule out. In a less than perfect world, which this indubitably is, sometimes one has to make less than perfect choices. That’s called life.
The anti-abortion argument also postulates that such a view is ethically superior. In fact, this is nothing more than opinion. If a violation of free choice on the part of the child is so ethically abominable, why then is a violation of free choice on the part of the mother ethically acceptable?
An anti-abortion advocate sees abortion as morally wrong. Yet to me [not presuming to speak for all pro-choicers here], dehumanizing a woman by removing the rights to control her body, her welfare and her health and placing it, essentially, in the hands of the government is ethically and morally reprehensible. It is a matter of opinion. What I do not agree with is that the anti-abortion view’s opinion has any more validity than the opposing view. It does not. No matter how strongly held, it is still opinion, and NOT fact.
So, no, I must disagree strenously with the argument that pro-choice people believe as they do because they do not consider a fetus to be alive or at least fail to consider the potential of life in a developing embryo or fetus. I think it is that they’re attempting to deal with an entire situation and a real woman, not an idealized black-and-white scenario and the idealized potential of a child that makes all the difference.
PhillyStyle, the difference is that sure, there are unwanted pregnancies now – but the women at least have the option to do something about it. You should also, perhaps, go back and take a good hard look at life before Roe – from the perspective of women who lived through it, and not just an anti-abortion stance. Dying of septicemia is an ugly, ugly death.
** BeagleDave**, in re penalties against the mother – again, why are we not considering any penalties against the father? Why are we so concerned with what the woman does – yet I hear not suggestion one to pass legislation which would force a man to be as equally legally culpable for the life he helped to conceive. A man, unlike a woman, is capable of forcing a situation which brings about conception. Yet the only suggestions I see are ones to deal draconically with the mother. How on earth is this fair, rational or logical? Answer: it isn’t.
All legal suggestions should deal as draconically with the man as with the woman. Yet it is only the woman, * only the woman*, who is consistently singled out for judgment, and that of a level that is downright draconic. The man, we note, is completely free to go on with his life, with no charges, no stay in jail, no expensive legal fees, no disruption to his life, no ruination of his career due to a prison record, no nothing. Could an anti-abortionist explain to me exactly why that is acceptable?
Super Gnat, I agree that it would be wonderful if we had some form of safe, reversible sterilization or even 100% effective birth control that did not cause harmful health side effects [abstinence does not count for the reasons stated above]; my point was that we do not. If such a method was available to everyone and affordable for everyone and worked for everyone, I would be more than willing to consider restricting abortion to health concerns. As it is not available, I do not.
Making current methods of sterilization easier to get, however, causes more problems than it cures. A hysterectomy is major surgery, and even a tubal ligation is invasive and highly painful. Further, removal of the ovaries can cause some serious health side effects to the woman. A hysterectomy certainly NOT a reversible process, obviously. Tubal ligations are ostensibly reversible – but not only is the reveral procedure they are extremely expensive [$5,000-$7,000], but require about a week of rest to recovery – and that is a far from guaranteed procedure. Thus, why many doctors will not perform such a procedure on a woman who has yet to have children; there is no way to know whether or not she can again be fertile.
Same goes for vasectomies, although a vasectomy is considerably less invasive than a tubal ligation, costs less and heals faster. A vasectomy can be reversed, but I will tell you from personal experience that it costs in the neighborhood from $5-7,000, is painful as hell for the man [requiring several hours under general anesthesia for microsurgery]. Recovery time [in my husband’s case] was nearly two weeks, and the first of that was spent doped on Valium to the eyeballs. [And by recovery time, I mean just until he could go back to work – sex is off limits for several weeks after]. After all that, there’s a considerable chance [though greater than that of tubal ligation reversal] that it will not work and you’re SOL.
Oh, and did I mention that typically, NO reversal procedure is covered by insurance?
Being irreversibly sterile is, not, to me, an acceptable drawback to trying to be reproductively responsible. I’m sure most people would agree with me on that one. Therefore, making sterilization easier ain’t the answer, either, at least not with current methods.
I’m sure there are some anti-abortion groups making some efforts to correct the current societal situations I mentioned in my last post. My point, however, remains that as they have been unsuccessful in fully addressing the problems as they stand now, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that they can muster the resources or the concern to fully address the problem as it will stand once exacerbated by not having access to legal and safe abortion.
Lastly, [to several folks] why go after the abortionists? That makes as much sense as suing gun manufacturers for deaths by firearms [which happens, yes, but is about the most ridiculous abuse of the legal system going]. The only reason to do so is for a scare tactic – and the only result will be creating an environment where a woman will eventually not be able to get an abortion even if it’s legally sanctioned and desperately needed for medical reasons, because the doctor will be too afraid to perform it. Not acceptable, thank you.
Overall, I still say that anti-abortion movement needs to think through its philosophy and deal with all aspects of what will result from what they want before they start forcing the rest of us to live in their brave new world.
Again, you should feel free to continue making idiotic inferences. I, however, will not indulge your nonsense. Stating your enormously stupid conclusion one more time does not give it greater intellectual weight.
This is flat-out incorrect. Lionors, your entire premise is another strawman, though I believe you made your point earnestly. It is simply untrue that being pro-life means one is unconcerned with the implications of that belief. There are people on this very board who are both pro-life and active in supporting pregnant women in need, just as an example. Sorry, but your argument offers something as a given that is simply false.
Well, then what did you mean when you described a woman who was “a desperate, helpless woman, deluded into believing that she did not actually hold another human life within her body” ?
You seem to be operating on the assumption that the fetus is a human being, and the only reason (at least some) abortions occur continue is because (at least some) women are ignorant of this fact.
Trouble is, it’s not firmly defined that a fetus is a human being, so claiming someone is ignorant of a fact that is not even certain is, at best, poor debating.
A woman who believes a fetus is not a human being might be deluded (as you claim) or she simply might not care one way or the other. The problem with a ban that makes allowances for the deluded woman (i.e. her crime is considered less serious) is that there is no way to determine who is deluded and who is simply indifferent, and someone who is indifferent can simply claim to be deluded, and you have no way of determining if she is lying.
The net effect of such a law is to dramatically increase the number of women claiming that some loophole applies to them, and since mind-reading technology is not yet available, sorting out the liars is impossible.
We can see here why the right to termination is so important.
One thing that all the anti-choice men (virtually all the anti-choice posters) have in common is that they really don’t understand the concept of women saying “No!”
Looking for ‘trumps’, forget it, to these guys, whatever we may think, need, want - their obsessions ‘trump’.
14, raped and pregnant - you want to get your life back together? Forget it because ‘Mr-Fetus’ has decided all your life for you.
Mature woman saying to ‘Mr-Fetus’, “Leave my body alone, not only that, your silly laws won’t work,” and ‘Mr-Fetus’ will dismiss your problems - hey any problems - away.
From the moment of an act of sex, ‘Mr-Fetus’ is in control.
[Thank G_d we’ll have those few years of childhood - training for fetus-carrying - and those blessed years after menopause - when we can be uber-fetus-monitors - and, hey, ‘Mr-Fetus’ will still be watching.]
So, say what we want and ‘Mr-Fetus’ will do what ‘Mr-Fetus’ knows what to do - patronize the fetus-carriers and talk to their non-fetus-carrying (misguided) supporters.
Remember - the one word that ‘Mr-Fetus’ doesn’t understand from the mouths of fetus-carriers is “No”.
**By this I meant something along the lines of, oh, a desperate, helpless woman, deluded into believing that she did not actually hold another human life within her body. You explain why this equates with “stupid.” It’s not my job to rationalize a nonsensical inference.
**Yes, that’s my opinion, bolstered by the contribution of people on this very board who base their pro-choice philosophy on a belief that abortions do not kill human beings.
**No, your interpretation of someone describing a hypothetical circumstance where it is a given that the law considers the fetus a human being (i.e., “what would happen if there were a ban?”) is, at best, poor reading comprehension. It is also another indication of your unrelenting predilection for shifting to the particular point you’d like to argue without warning or relationship to the issue under immediate discussion.
Yup, and just as with every other crime, the legal system will need to consider the veracity of any claims made regarding state of mind. And just as with other crimes, it will not be a black-and-white exercise. But that should not lead us to conclude that a ban is not workable, any more than we should abandon the prohibition against other wrongful deaths.
Hey, that’s Mr. Fetus to you…oh, wait a minute. Never mind, carry on.
Hey, nice to see that ‘Mr-Bob-Fetus-Veracity-Checker’ is back totally in control here!
I’m going to work this around in my mind for a few hours to see if it comes to an insult or not. If it does, you’ll be hearing from my attorneys.
Concerned they may be; effectual in stopping the problems currently out there they are not. Further, I see no anti-abortion organization out there that does a portion of what much-reviled Planned Parenthood does in providing prenatal care, parenting information or contraceptive alternatives.
Your next point will undoubtedly be that Planned Parenthood isn’t completely stopping the problems, either. But at least, unlike the anti-abortion movement, they aren’t bent on making the problem worse, either. It should also serve as clear proof that your assumption that pro-choice people do not ascribe value to an unborn fetus is a strawman the likes of which would make a lovely Guy Fawkes blaze.
I would, however be extremely interested in hearing your proposed solutions for the rest of the societal issues related to an abortion ban which I have brought forth to date, as I’ve yet to see a single anti-abortion proponent adequately address a single one.
You can’t imagine how afraid that post has made me feel - unless you’ve spent many hours of your life contemplating ‘zero’.
That was a reply to Mr-Bob-Fetus-Almighty, of course.
No, you tell me. Since only a complete eradication of any related problem can validate an abortion ban for you (I personally don’t need such an assurance, since abortion is a greater evil), please explain to me how the pro-choice groups are planning to eliminate said problems. I know you said they at least aren’t contributing to “the problem,” but certainly if it’s possible to eradicate all such suffering, then they certainly shall. Can you explain how this will occur? You’re the one setting it up as a condition (again, I don’t believe it’s a logical requirement, given my own axioms; YMMV), so I’m interested in your thoughts.
And this was an interesting twist, I must admit…
**…since I never said all pro-choice people held this belief (and it’s demonstrably true just from this board’s archives that at least some do). Therefore, your identification of a false strawman is a strawman itself! Isn’t that lovely?
And, candida, I would appreciate it greatly if you could refer to me as “Lord Mayor Fetus.” I wouldn’t want to put on airs.
I really hate it when I hit post instead of preview midway through a post, dangit.
Not to double post, but I also meant to point out that while the anti-abortion individuals you mention may be concerned with the pregnant woman, but I don’t see them concerning themselves with the 18 years after the baby is born, which is my point.
Does the pro-choice crowd? To probably the same degree as the anti-abortion crowd. The difference is: they’re at least not trying to take away a woman’s ability to solve the problem.
As far as the prevailing anti-abortionist philosophy goes, I think “If your pre-born, you’re fine, if your pre-school, you’re f**cked” sums it up pretty nicely.
Lord Mayor Fetus?
If I remember correctly from when I was a post-grad student at Oxford (how’s that for ‘airs’ from a nice So Cal girl), the only Lord Mayor was of London and it was some kind of ritual title.
Of course, being a Catholic, you’d know about ritual.
Bud, this is not an argument. If it comforts you to believe this, go right ahead. But this is not accurate, and you have provided zero evidence to support this, aside from your strong desire that this be true.
candida, pal o’ mine, do I detect some anti-Catholic sentiments here? I’m telling you, girlfriend, I am this close to hitting you over the head with a metaphorical fetus.
Anyway, if you won’t buy “Lord Mayor Fetus,” howzabout “LL Cool Fetus.” I’ve always wanted a rap name.
Since the problems in question are DIRECTLY going to be exacerbated by the actions of the anti-abortion groups, then it’s the anti-abortion groups who need to take responsibility for the results that will occur from exacerbating the problem. If the anti-abortion crowd is so big on taking the responsibility for actions, then let them start first with the results of their own actions – or at least, prove that they can.
Basically, if you’re going to create a mess, don’t look to me to clean it up the mess you caused.
In your opinion. Mine differs, and I see no reason to accept your opinion over my own, especially as I’ve already pointed out quite clearly why I hold said opinion. I’m more than willing to re-evaluate my views, given clear, hard, factual evidence, but sufficient reason from the anti-abortion camp has yet to be forthcoming.
It’s not my intention to misinterpret your stance. According to your first statement, you believe that if pro-choice people saw a fetus as a life, they would not be pro-choice. However, Planned Parenthood provides prenatal services, thus obviously giving value to the unborn “life” – but by the same token, you certainly couldn’t accuse them of not being pro-choice. Thus, my statement. If you have revised your opinion based upon what has been presented, however, then please advise.
However, if it makes you happy to think I’m standing Mr. Scarecrow in my arguments, so be it. It’ll save me the trouble of having to stand him up in my front yard come Hallowe’en; I’m a lousy decorator. 
Kindly address the issues, or at least posit some reasonable solutions, is all I ask. Give me something more than “It’s a child, it needs to be saved!” that adequately addresses the burden that such a huge smack in population will give to our society. Tell me that you’ll gladly pay 20% more in taxes, or pay that much extra out of your paycheck [letting your own family want by that much] to support social programs overwhelmed by the demand which will be placed upon them. [And no, increasing a tithe to a church by 20% is not acceptable.] Give me a reasonable, rational, equitable law which will govern both the woman and a man in a situation of unwanted pregnancy, and which does not force 100% of the punishment on a person who is only 50% [at most] responsible for the situation.
I’m not asking for proof in the form of scientific studies by futurists that prove that none of my suppositions will occur. I’m only asking for you to look at all the fallout that could possibly occur, and address the concerns I have brought up. That’s all I ask. Is that so very much? I don’t think so. If I cause a problem, I expect to be the one who has to provide a solution. Fair’s fair.
Anti-Catholic sentiment? After the Pontiff seems to have decided that a couple of millennia of persecuting us Yids was not exactly a good idea? How could you imagine that I was implying such an idea?
I think something traditional, like Torquefetus - with dancing nuns each juggling a fetus and hitting you upside the head with them.