By the way, did you read The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion"? If so, what’s your take on it?
CJ
That claim comes up all the time in these abortion discussions. Interestingly enough, you only hear it when people cite a pro-life source… as opposed to, say, NARAL or Planned Parenthood.
Mmm, not exactly. I don’t think it’s as loaded as “pro-life” is–because by saying you’re “pro-life” you’re insinuating that anyone the opposite camp is “pro-death” or “anti-life”. Those who aren’t “pro-life” are not in favor of death, even in the specific discussion of pregnancy options.
Taking “pro-choice” in the same manner, it insinuates that the opposite camp is “anti-choice” which is loaded, but not quite to the same depth. Those who are not “pro-choice” are in favor of removing the element of choice, in the specific discussion of pregnancy options, although it’s not as though you’re against choices in general, Chunky Monkey vs Phish Food or poodles vs lhasa apsos.
So while I agree that “pro-choice” is loaded, I don’t think it’s nearly as :rolleyes: a term as “pro-life”. But maybe there’s something I’m missing in the pro-choice rhetoric 
?
And the provision that pregnant women can’t be prosecuted for some crimes does not reduce abortions, and priveleges one class of individuals over another.
Yep.
Huh? Not sure what you;re asserting here.
Just took a quick peek at it. I’d say if those anecdotes are true, there are certainly hypocrites in the pro-life camp. Do you think it’s typical? I don’t.
I’d expect it to be near-universal, given the fundamentally sociopathic nature of the “pro-life” viewpoint.
If abortion is a crime, it follows that the person primarily responsible for the crime should be prosecuted. Doctors do not sneak up and perform abortions on unsuspecting women. If I hire someone to commit a crime, I am just as guilty as the person who committed the crime, no matter how much more sympathy people might have for me. You can’t say equal protection exists when such an indulgence is given to a criminal based only upon the sympathy they engender in the general public.
Here’s a refresher of the cite in question…
Going to this cite, and taking a look, I found some interesting shit. Long on emotion and hyperbole, but short on fact.
In post 224, I replied to the cite you gave, with the pertinent quotes.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
I bolded the main bones of contention for your convenience.
Let’s take some unrelated but highly visilbe examples, just to make a point. 9/11 and its aftermath. OK? Which “highly regarded religious leaders” were actually happy over the attacks and used them as an excuse to attack their fellow Americans and pass spurios moral judgements, but did squat to send any aid or comfort to the many victims? Hint… Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
Who said the giant tsunami in Indonesia was God’s judgement and they deserved what they got? That “highly regarded religious leader” Pat Robertson.
Who said the hurricane that hit New Orleans was God’s judgement? Pat Robertson.
Who is one of the strongest opponents of birth control for poor countries, which need birth control and education most, and has always - regardless of the individual in office - opposed all abortion, birth control, and or sex education? The Pope.
All judgement and no aid or comfort. Don’t make me go on. I can pull shitloads of cites and newspaper reports if I have to.
It’s in the Bill of Rights, under the umbrella or “penumbra” of the rights of the person to be secure in their blah blah blah.
Thank you for the independent corroboration.
Sorry, but I don’t buy the “do as I say and not as I do” argument. If an individual does something they say is wrong, then they have given up any right to judge anyone else for making the same decision under the same conditions. Whether it is typical or not begs the question of HYPOCRISY.
Now as to my contempt for Fox News. These are the people who still claim there were WMD in Iraq, that there is a war on Christmas, that we should feel sorry for Cheney that he shot that “old guy”, and that any time Bush’s polls go from uhhh 35 percent approval to 36 percent (not the actual numbers but you get the point) it is a major upswing. But this isn’t about Bush or Cheney or O’Reilly. It’s about my lack of confidence in any of the horse shit they try to peddle as news. I have more respect for the National Enquirer, or Weekly World News at this point.
I read the whole thing. It certainly demonstrates how frequently and dramatically an “absolute” position can change.
Then it is the fault of others not to call them in to question. That said I usually see the polls cited by Planned Parenthood and the like to be quoting a poll done by a dedicated polling organization that are generally cited by many news agencies and politicians and the like. Presumably these polling organizations are dedicated the the accuracy of the poll and have no particular axe of their own to grind. That is far different than Planned Parenthood writing and conducting its own poll which I would certainly feel comfortable in calling into question. I have no such comfort level with Fox News conducting polls.
And I still stand behind the notion that polls are, in and of themselves, dicey things. I certainly wouldn’t want public policy to be decided on the basis of polling (even if I happened to agree with the policy). I bet there was a time when you could have taken a poll and found a majority of Americans supporting slavery in one form or another. There was a time when you would have found a majority of people saying the earth was flat. Just because a majority thinks a thing doesn’t make them right. And of course in a democracy you need to be an guard for a “tyranny of the majority”.
Who said it did? Obviously, people do not view the pregnant woman as a criminal. So this is an exception. An exception. Repeat, an exception. Learn why people consider it an exception.
Please explain it to me because I am not seeing it. There is an exception because it is politically expedient? Because no politician would stay in office if they started throwing young women into jail? Because women seeking an abortion are not really in control of their actions? Because marauding bands of doctors ambush pregnant women and give them abortions?
If you read through it a bit they try to address your question but admit the data on it is slim. Take it FWIW:
It looked like double talk to me too.
Right, but if a pregnant woman is a criminal, then people have to look at her that way. You don’t get to make exceptions because you’d rather prosecute someone less sympathetic.
Obviously, you do get to make exceptions. And has been explained above, the Equal Protection Clause is not absolute. There are many instances of legally allowable discrimination in laws, when a legitimate government interest is being served. And as Roe v. Wade acknowledged, the government does have a legitimate interest in preserving unborn life. The only squabble between the pro-choice and pro-life sides is when.
The question is not whether it is allowable for the law to make exceptions but rather on what basis (of law and/or reasoning) you justify exempting mothers from criminal prosecution for aborting their babies (with the assumption that others such as doctors will be prosecuted for that very thing)?
While we’re on the subject of exceptions, let’s also look at the now famous exemption for raped and sodomized very religious virgins who were saving themselves for marriage.
In the interest of serving justice and promoting fairness, and in the hope of equal protection under the law I ask this…
People might make exceptions for rape or incest because it is assumed that a woman would be justified in not wanting to give birth to, much less raise, the product of such acts. To adopt this position, though, requires accepting that a woman’s feelings about the pregnancy are relevant — it is to assume that it’s her body and she should get to decide whether it will be used in such a manner.** A fetus conceived via rape or incest is no less innocent than any other fetus, so isn’t this murder, too?**
So I guess then, this unfortunate woman should not get a pass either. Think about that.