I'm sure using their own quotes against them is frustrating. I mean, were I to say that I "don't like kids" and that that was a perfectly sound reason to have an abortion and then have someone show this as the face of the pro-choice movement, I would be a little angry as well. Especially since organizations like Planned Parenthood present an image of the average abortion patient as someone who is really not in any position to have a child. It's just the sort of hard luck story that most people will be compelled to agree with. Because most women who talk about their abortions actually show some sadness and remorse about what happened and why they did it.
But according to Amanda (and the various posters I've gotten), this isn't the case. In fact, they saw their abortions as something to be proud of:
amazon: I got pregnant at 19, thanks to a broken rubber. When I walked out of that clinic after my abortion, it was one of the most relieved, happy and proud - yes, proud - moments of my life. Was I happy, relieved or proud that I had gotten pregnant in the first place? Of course not. Was I happy, relieved and proud that I had managed to make a truly horrible situation have a reasonably positive ending? Fuck yes I was.
I will always be proud that I chose not to bring an unwanted child, which I was not prepared to raise, into the world. I’ve had plenty of anti-choice people tell me that I’m a sick bitch for feeling that way, and I really don’t care; however, I grow weary of hearing obstensibly pro-choice people tell me that my experience with abortion should be one that I look back at with shame or discomfort.
Now, according to Amanda, that I was a little surprised that women would be so calloused about abortion makes me pitiful. But nothing could be further from the truth. See, the women I've been with when they had their abortions, and the women I knew after they had them didn't consider it a reason to celebrate. So, maybe I've just not come in contact with women who think killing one's offspring is a high-fivin' event.
What was most amusing to me about Amanda's diatribe was how she got so many issues wrong. For example:
To be fair, anti-choicers are pretty consistent in their worldview, too—they believe that women are second to men, that women should be punished for having sex, and that pregnancy is god’s way of enforcing women’s second class status.
I had no idea that I thought this, let alone said it! And I'm pretty sure that most women who are pro-life don't think of women as "second class citizens" or that women should be "punished" for having sex.
Amanda, let's get something clear: sex leads to children. Always has. Does one become pregnant every time one has sex? No, but the chances of becoming pregnant are reduced considerably by not having sex. Got that? Sex leads to children. Don't act surprised if, when you have sex and can still bear children, that you might get pregnant once in a while.
The argument about "punishing women for sex" reminds me of law school when we discussed abortion laws. The professor finally resorted to explaining that abortion "equalized" the consequences of sex. Now, maybe to Amanda and the high five guys that sounds pretty good. But I must say that to most people, abortion doesn't "equalize" the consequences of sex because women still have to deal with the whole abortion thing. Men get up, zip their pants, and can leave.
After the nonsensical "abortion equalizes the consequences of sex" argument, Amanda spends some time trying to say that there are all these inconsistences with pro-life arguments.
Should a woman get to have sex without “consequences”? Should a woman be free to choose how many children she has? Should a woman who’s been raped be forced to bear her rapist’s child? Should a woman who has a pregnancy with complications be forced to ruin her health or lose her life? The answers are all fairly straightforward and simple when you believe a woman deserves basic human rights.
But the answers to those questions aren't, in fact, straightforward. In real life, sex has consequences and no amount of legislation (or denial of reality) changes that. And none of the laws discussed ever leave out exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother. Not to mention that the number of abortions done for those reasons is extremely small, so small as to be a red herring by comparison with, say, the women who say it's "not a good time for them." So neither of her other questions are reasonable, either. In short, she sets up a strawman with these arguments for the sake of accusing pro-lifers of being "inconsistent" and wanting women to be second class citizens.
But wait! There's more silliness!
The funniest part of this entire rant, for my purposes, is that Sharon claims that feminists both scramble to get abortions left and right while stating at the exact same time that we don’t mind the process of creating a baby. Which is it? To me, the stated eagerness to terminate pregnancies seems to contradict the stated adoration of being pregnant, which is of course the process that creates babies. Do we hate pregnancy or love it? Who knows, but the important part is to know that feminists are all the same and whether that means they love pregnancy or hate it, they are evil, wicked, man-hating beasts. Who are selfish.
Interestingly enough, I searched through my post to find where I said any of this. Of course, when I said that the people involved don't mind the process of creating a baby, I was talking about sex. Remember: sex is designed to create more people. Whether you think God created sex or it's just a natural, biological function, sex is designed to create more people. Nowhere did I say women created people to have more abortions, but then again, judging from the rest of Amanda's comments, I doubt she read much of what I wrote.
More mind-reading from Amanda:
Of course, there’s the outside chance that Sharon doesn’t understand biology and in her eagerness to imply that feminists are sluts, she mistakenly said conflated the process of creating a baby with Teh Sex. If so, it’s kind of cute that she can’t bring herself to say that a woman could actually want sex, just that we sluts don’t mind it like good women should. Regardless, this notion that sex and not pregnancy is the process that creates a baby makes me wonder if she’s quite aware of what an abortion even is, since it has to happen during that pregnancy phase, where Sharon seems to think that as soon as you light up that post-coital cigarette a bassinet pops up at the end of your bed and starts emitting baby wails, much like on "The Sims".
I find it interesting that Amanda, who supposedly is so knowledgable in the area, thinks that sex doesn't lead to pregnancy. Did she miss that part of biology class? Or was she so busy proudly discussing whether or not women are sluts that she missed the part about how babies are made? Surely she could have gotten the biology textbook where it discusses where babies come from and looked at the little pictures.
And then there was this bit of illogic:
Interestingly enough, by slamming the existence of feminism while defending FFL, she inadvertantly admitted that FFL is not feminist.
I suppose Amanda must not understand the meaning of words because slamming her variety of feminism in no way states that Feminists for Life aren't feminist. I suppose if you are narrow-minded enough to think that there's only one way for women to think about women, then maybe any divergence from the matriarchy would be some sort of repudiation for Amanda's position. But give that I don't believe that and said nothing that would cause a normal person to think that, I can only assume that this was more of Amanda stretching facts to fit her view of things.
In any event, I guess misquoting (hell, Amanda doesn't even bother quoting) someone who points out that this brand of feminism (and yes, there are different types of feminism, Amanda, not just the breast-beating, crotch-grabbing variety you ascribe to) is self-centered BS would make her a bit defensive. Compared to the roots of feminism, it's pretty damn shallow.
Amanda, let's get something clear: sex leads to children. Always has.
ReplyDeleteSex in humans isn't all about sex. It's about relationships, and love, and pleasure, and closeness. Otherwise we would only want to copulate when we went insto estrus, as some animals do.
By the same token, you could say that "cars cause accidents, always have" and therefore no one should drive cars unless they want to have an accident.
In real life, sex has consequences and no amount of legislation (or denial of reality) changes that
So does driving a car. Or mountain-climbing. Does that mean we should not protect ourselves against accidents, or against crashing down the mountain and breaking our fool neck? or maybe we should be forbidden from being treated if we are wounded? after all "consequences" and stuff!!!
And none of the laws discussed ever leave out exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother
So basically, it's not the baby you care about - it's punishing wanton sluts who WANT to have sex. After all, if it's about "life" - why does a foetus created via rape has less "right to life" then one created via consensual sex - unless it's the sex that matters.
Remember: sex is designed to create more people
No, that's not its only purpose. And saying it is over and over will not make it so. Once more: in animals where sex is only for procreation, females go into estrus once every X, and then and only then are they receptive to males. At any other time, attempts to mate will result in one very hurt male. In such species, btw, females get very little in the way of pleasure from sex. In animals where sex has social, pair-bonding, and pleasure purposes, females can mate all the time, and get a lot more out of it. Please study some biology before you make ridiculous statements.
to most people, abortion doesn't "equalize" the consequences of sex because women still have to deal with the whole abortion thing. Men get up, zip their pants, and can leave.
...and your point is? since women can't "zip their pants and leave" we might as well stick 'em with nine months of unwanted and unalterable physical modifications? whole hog or none? I don't get it.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see any sort of logical consistency in your arguments.
I find it interesting that Amanda, who supposedly is so knowledgable in the area, thinks that sex doesn't lead to pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteWell, in fact, most sex doesn't lead to pregnancy. The only sexual act that can lead to pregnancy is heterosexual intercourse, where both partners are fertile, the woman is about to ovulate within the next five days, and either neither partner is using contraception, or the contraception used fails. You may have meant this specific sexual act when you referred to "the process of creating babies", but as neither partner may actually be aware that the woman is in her fertile period, or that the contraceptive method they're using is going to fail, it's not possible to know whether or not a woman who wants an abortion enjoyed "the process of creating babies" - it's more likely, if she doesn't want kids, that what she thought she was enjoying was protected sex with no intent to conceive, which could not therefore be described as "the process of making babies".
Which is why it is, on the whole, simpler to use accurate terminology rather than your own phrases: if you mean "an act of unprotected heterosexual intercourse between fertile partners at a woman's fertile period", why not say so, rather than refer to that as "the process of making babies"?
Amanda, let's get something clear: sex leads to children. Always has. Does one become pregnant every time one has sex? No, but the chances of becoming pregnant are reduced considerably by not having sex.
ReplyDeleteYou really need to learn the fact before you get into this debate. First of all, getting pregnant is not the same as having children. Conflating the two is what's causing your massive confusion. There's a nearly 10 month period between the sexual intercourse and the baby, which is a not-inconsiderable amount of time. Men don't make babies. Women do. You're too busy worshipping the cock to see that, but ask any doctor.
Second of all, you have a fairly bizarre understanding of statistics if you think not having sex is considerably better at preventing unwanted pregnancy than having sex with good contraception. My rate of pregnancy is exactly the same as an abstinent woman's: 0%. Actually mine is lower than abstinent women in general, because I know how many "slip up" on occasion and golly, they weren't on the pill because they're abstinent and stuff.
Third, you denied that you want to punish women for having sex and the rest of your post is about how women who have sex need to be punished and deal with it without whining, since we had it coming.
Plus, I find it interesting you were only supportive of tubal litigation and not vasectomies. Again with the phallic worship!
ReplyDeleteSex in humans isn't all about sex. It's about relationships, and love, and pleasure, and closeness. Otherwise we would only want to copulate when we went insto estrus, as some animals do.
ReplyDeleteBut the idea that sex isn't merely about procreation doesn't change its fundamental purpose. And it's only been in the last 100 years that sex has been separated from its procreational function, and, in fact, is considered a "right" that people should be able to enjoy sex without consequences.
But life doesn't work this way. Sex has consequences whether Amanda chooses to split hairs about the "process of creating life" or not. Your chances of having unwanted children decrease dramatically if you don't have sex.
So does driving a car. Or mountain-climbing. Does that mean we should not protect ourselves against accidents, or against crashing down the mountain and breaking our fool neck? or maybe we should be forbidden from being treated if we are wounded? after all "consequences" and stuff!!!
We do have laws that regulate those things. There are requirements for driving cars which include driver's licenses, car inspections, seatbelt laws and more.
So basically, it's not the baby you care about - it's punishing wanton sluts who WANT to have sex. After all, if it's about "life" - why does a foetus created via rape has less "right to life" then one created via consensual sex - unless it's the sex that matters.
I think maybe a lot of you need to speak to psychiatrists because you are really hung up on being sluts or at least being called sluts. I never called anyone anything. But if you have sex, you should be willing to deal with the consequences, and making the baby make the sacrifice isn't really dealing with that is it?
As for your question about babies conceived from rape, I personally see no difference in a child conceived by rape or one conceived in love. Both can grow up to have meaningful lives. But society seems to think that a woman being "forced" to care a rapist's baby to term is heinous, thus the exceptions for rape or incest. In short, don't blame me for the moral failings of society on this issue. Given the failings already on display, this is really a minor one.
...and your point is? since women can't "zip their pants and leave" we might as well stick 'em with nine months of unwanted and unalterable physical modifications? whole hog or none? I don't get it.
Telling a woman that killing her child "equalizes the consequences of sex" is a lie and completely nonsensical. You cannot equalize the consequences of sex because biology dictates there are different consequences for each sex. I'm sure pointing this out will send Amanda into more peroxisms of hysteria about "phallic worship" or some such nonsense.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see any sort of logical consistency in your arguments.
I wouldn't expect you to, considering your own analogy to driving a car among other things.
Well, in fact, most sex doesn't lead to pregnancy. The only sexual act that can lead to pregnancy is heterosexual intercourse, where both partners are fertile, the woman is about to ovulate within the next five days, and either neither partner is using contraception, or the contraception used fails. You may have meant this specific sexual act when you referred to "the process of creating babies", but as neither partner may actually be aware that the woman is in her fertile period, or that the contraceptive method they're using is going to fail, it's not possible to know whether or not a woman who wants an abortion enjoyed "the process of creating babies" - it's more likely, if she doesn't want kids, that what she thought she was enjoying was protected sex with no intent to conceive, which could not therefore be described as "the process of making babies".
ReplyDeleteI don't think I said anywhere that the people involved intended to make babies. But sex leads to having children. Does every act of sexual intercourse lead to children? No. But the idea that a couple shouldn't consider this before intercourse is reckless. And the idea that "if the stick comes up with two blue lines I'm going to have it sucked out" is a good alternative is rather despicable, as well.
Which is why it is, on the whole, simpler to use accurate terminology rather than your own phrases: if you mean "an act of unprotected heterosexual intercourse between fertile partners at a woman's fertile period", why not say so, rather than refer to that as "the process of making babies"?
Why not talk about women having sex instead of "Teh Sex" or calling them "sluts" constantly?
You really need to learn the fact before you get into this debate.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm sure you're just the woman to tell me about 'em, right?
First of all, getting pregnant is not the same as having children. Conflating the two is what's causing your massive confusion.
No confusion on my part. You are trying describe having children as way more difficult than it is. But that's to be expected if you want to make your argument about why abortion isn't killing babies.
There's a nearly 10 month period between the sexual intercourse and the baby, which is a not-inconsiderable amount of time. Men don't make babies. Women do. You're too busy worshipping the cock to see that, but ask any doctor.
Amanda, I'm well aware of how long gestation is. I'm also aware of how one ends up with a baby in the womb in the first place. It's highly unlikely (not impossible, so don't even try that) you're going to end up pregnant without sex. That's not worshipping the cock. It's a biological fact. Try facts some time.
Second of all, you have a fairly bizarre understanding of statistics if you think not having sex is considerably better at preventing unwanted pregnancy than having sex with good contraception. My rate of pregnancy is exactly the same as an abstinent woman's: 0%. Actually mine is lower than abstinent women in general, because I know how many "slip up" on occasion and golly, they weren't on the pill because they're abstinent and stuff.
Your evidence is what they call anecdotal, my dear. I, too, had a 100% pregnancy prevention rate before having children, using a variety of methods. But I guess you don't read all the teeny tiny type on the condom wrappers that talk about a 20% failure rate. That's because people don't always use contraception properly, and this is a fact that as an abortion proponent you should know. Contraception fails. Quite a bit.
Third, you denied that you want to punish women for having sex and the rest of your post is about how women who have sex need to be punished and deal with it without whining, since we had it coming.
Saying a person should deal with the consequences of their behavior isn't punishment, Amanda. That's called being an adult. We all have to do it. And unless you're some poor 10-year-old kid, it's unlikely that you don't know where babies come from. But if your idea of punishment is having to deal with the normal, predictable consequences of your behavior, then I would suggest the punishment is ignorance.
Plus, I find it interesting you were only supportive of tubal litigation and not vasectomies. Again with the phallic worship!
ReplyDeleteOh, God, yes! Thinking that the person who winds up pregnant and won't want it should make sure the pregnancy doesn't happen is phallic worship! Hey, I don't care who gets sterilized (try reading my posts again where I discuss one of the partners getting sterilized--you know, that sort of puts the lie to your statement).
by the by, it can take HOURS or DAYS after intercourse for an egg to become fertilized. So, no, the act of sex does not instantly produce a baby. The process of sperm meeting egg (facilitated often, but NOT NECESSARILY [see: In vitro fertilization] by sexual activity)
ReplyDelete(The more you know....the more you are a feminist.)
All right, I quit. Clearly you just find abortion, and maybe even women, repugnant, and no logic in the world can get you around that to make you see that YOUR disgust doesn't affect MY body, mind, or actions in any way whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteDamn, I hate to get ad hominem, but would the pro life movement please grow the hell up? I am not going to hold you down and give you an abortion. You can die with a clean conscience (although most people find some other way to muck it up). Will. Someone. Please. Tell. Me. Why. My. Uterus. Is. Your. Business?
by the by, it can take HOURS or DAYS after intercourse for an egg to become fertilized. So, no, the act of sex does not instantly produce a baby. The process of sperm meeting egg (facilitated often, but NOT NECESSARILY [see: In vitro fertilization] by sexual activity)
ReplyDeletePlease point to where I said sex "instantly" produces a baby. And btw, it's highly unlikely that a couple that goes through the trouble and expense of in vitro fertilization is going to decide there are "too many damn kids in the world."
All right, I quit. Clearly you just find abortion, and maybe even women, repugnant, and no logic in the world can get you around that to make you see that YOUR disgust doesn't affect MY body, mind, or actions in any way whatsoever.
Damn, and I just got through saying on another thread how thoughtful and mature the commenters from Pandagon had been. Now you have to spoil it with an idiotic claim that I must "hate women." Thinking abortion is wrong isn't "hating women," dear. It's realizing that even the smallest life is significant and shouldn't be snuffed out because you don't feel like dealing with it. And I'm sure you don't give a damn about what I think. That's why you keep posting.
Damn, I hate to get ad hominem, but would the pro life movement please grow the hell up? I am not going to hold you down and give you an abortion. You can die with a clean conscience (although most people find some other way to muck it up). Will. Someone. Please. Tell. Me. Why. My. Uterus. Is. Your. Business?
The reason your uterus is my business is because, as has been stated previously by other posters, you don't just want to do what you damn well please with your body (an idea you aren't allowed to do under law anyway), but you want me and others like me to approve, applaud, support, and defend your right to do so. How do you do this? By using tax funds to support abortion providers. By setting up clinics in schools to give contraceptives to children without parental consent. By wanting laws to protect your clincs, workers, and patients from the unpleasantness of anyone protesting them through twisted interpretations of laws like RICO. Through your constant attacks on any and every law designed to regulate abortion. By attacking laws on parental consent and/or notice.
I despise supposed pro-lifers who bomb clinics and kill doctors. But it's just rank hypocrisy to declare that all you are interested in is autonomy because you aren't. You want people like me to support and uphold your decision.
whoa again.
ReplyDeletejust to be clear on the following:
By using tax funds to support abortion providers.
that doesn't happen. emphatically DOES NOT happen. i'd love for tax funds to support all facilities that provide medical care to the poor, but right now abortion is pretty much the only one that is absolutely never covered. in fact, clinics and hospitals that provide abortion or even abortion INFORMATION can't get any money at all, not even for their OTHER care programs, from the government. no use crying over milk that didn't spill.
pretty much everything else in your list, however, has nothing to do with asking you to "support" abortion. we're just asking you not to do away with our access to it, because it is part of reproductive freedom. it just is. public harrassment is, in fact, NOT OKAY; i don't know why you would think it is okay. laws regulating abortion are fine if they're about appropriate informed consent or proper licensure or other safety and integrity measures; laws regulating abortion are NOT fine if they are arbitrary or ambiguous (those are judicial standards, i didn't make it up) -- such as the current D&X abortion ban facing the supreme court which is vague enough to outlaw all 2nd-trimester abortion and which at best will leave doctors with a LESS safe and effective late-term method -- or intentionally targeted, such as "abortion clinics must have hallways at least seven feet wide" such that one of the only clinics in the state has to shut down because it can't afford to rebuild its five-feet halls (true story). at that point, you're not only "not applauding" my right to abort a pregnancy, you ARE stepping all over it, and that IS about autonomy. that's all. oof.
But sex leads to having children.
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn't. Witness all the couples with an active sex life and no children.
Sex between men doesn't lead to having children: sex between women doesn't: sex between a man and a woman who use contraception reliably and regularly or who prefer other methods of sexual satisfaction than heterosexual intercourse or who avoid having intercourse when the woman is fertile doesn't (or even, when the man takes care to wear tight underpants in order to overheat the sperm in his testicles and render them infertile...) Sex simply doesn't "lead to having children - not unless the couple are mutually fertile and intend for it to do so.
But society seems to think that a woman being "forced" to care a rapist's baby to term is heinous, thus the exceptions for rape or incest. In short, don't blame me for the moral failings of society on this issue.
Good grief. This sounds quite mixed up. It's not "society's moral failings" you should be slamming: it's the victims who decide that they do not want to be pregnant by a man who raped them - or indeed at all. I can't see why a woman who has been raped should be slammed for the "moral failing" of not wanting to be pregnant because of it: perhaps you could explain why you see it as a moral failing for a woman who has been raped to want an abortion?
Though of course, with the advent of Plan B, a woman who is sexually assaulted shouldn't need to wait for a pregnancy test and decide that she wants an abortion: she can just take emergency contraception ASAP afterwards. All emergency rooms and all police departments should offer this as a matter of course, to protect a woman who has been raped from conceiving, since I imagine that even pro-lifers who don't want raped women to be allowed to make decisions, would see that as the preferable option.
Since your writing lacks certain elements - like the tendency to be clear and to the point - I'm going to ask you to clarify what the point of quoting my abortion experience was. Your entire sentiment seems to be "OMG, SHE ISN'T ASHAMED OF THE FACT THAT SHE HAD AN ABORTION!!! JESUS ON A STICK!!!" So? Why should I be ashamed? I underwent an abortion because I felt it was the morally correct thing to do. What is your point? Or do you have one?
ReplyDeleteMoving on to your comments ...
And it's only been in the last 100 years that sex has been separated from its procreational function
The human orgasm only came into being 100 years ago? Are you seriously under the influence that, 100 years ago, people didn't have sex unless they wanted to have babies? Are you kidding?
Does every act of sexual intercourse lead to children? No. But the idea that a couple shouldn't consider this before intercourse is reckless.
That's right, it is reckless. That's why human beings have continued to develop more effective contraception. What is your point?
And the idea that "if the stick comes up with two blue lines I'm going to have it sucked out" is a good alternative is rather despicable, as well.
What is despicable about the notion that, if a contraceptive failure occurs or a couple fails to use contraception for whatever reason, the woman should pursue an abortion if she doesn't wish to have a child?
But that's to be expected if you want to make your argument about why abortion isn't killing babies.
You have yet, in all of your bloviating, to explain why abortion is objectively equivalent to killing a baby or otherwise morally objectionable. That might be your personal belief, but your personal beliefs are not by any means the equivalent of objective reality.
The reason your uterus is my business is because, as has been stated previously by other posters, you don't just want to do what you damn well please with your body (an idea you aren't allowed to do under law anyway), but you want me and others like me to approve, applaud, support, and defend your right to do so.
I don't expect you to "approve," "applaud" or "support" any choice I make. I do expect you to mind your own business, and to support laws that restrict my reproductive rights is not minding your own business.
By using tax funds to support abortion providers.
ReplyDeletethat doesn't happen. emphatically DOES NOT happen. i'd love for tax funds to support all facilities that provide medical care to the poor, but right now abortion is pretty much the only one that is absolutely never covered. in fact, clinics and hospitals that provide abortion or even abortion INFORMATION can't get any money at all, not even for their OTHER care programs, from the government. no use crying over milk that didn't spill.
Roula,
Maybe I didn't explain what I meant when I said "approve, applaud, support, and defend" abortion as a right. Abortion rights groups believe strongly that abortions should be entirely or at least partially subsidized by taxpayers. They are not bashful about it. That is asking me to support a position that I think is morally wrong and not a defensible use of tax dollars. There's also the annual budget for Planned Parenthood, which includes taxpayer funds to support its various projects, which include in-school clinics and free contraception.
pretty much everything else in your list, however, has nothing to do with asking you to "support" abortion.
Of course it does. What you want is for me (and others who think like I do) to sit back and do nothing while every woman who thinks "there's too many damn kids" not only has her own abortion (you say it is your right), but also advocates abortion through various propaganda methods (ads, radio & television appearances, etc.) without anyone arguing why it is not right or best. In short, what you want to trample on is my First Amendment right to free speech, assembly, and petition of government.
we're just asking you not to do away with our access to it, because it is part of reproductive freedom. it just is.
Well, no, that's not a good enough reason to trump the First Amendment, at least, according to the courts.
public harrassment is, in fact, NOT OKAY; i don't know why you would think it is okay.
That you wish to have an abortion without anyone protesting doesn't give you the right to do so. There are numerous activities that you could want to participate in and face protesters. I'm sure that other people feel harassed as well, but that's the point of it, isn't it?
laws regulating abortion are fine if they're about appropriate informed consent or proper licensure or other safety and integrity measures; laws regulating abortion are NOT fine if they are arbitrary or ambiguous (those are judicial standards, i didn't make it up) -- such as the current D&X abortion ban facing the supreme court which is vague enough to outlaw all 2nd-trimester abortion and which at best will leave doctors with a LESS safe and effective late-term method -- or intentionally targeted, such as "abortion clinics must have hallways at least seven feet wide" such that one of the only clinics in the state has to shut down because it can't afford to rebuild its five-feet halls (true story). at that point, you're not only "not applauding" my right to abort a pregnancy, you ARE stepping all over it, and that IS about autonomy. that's all. oof.
We won't know until the Supreme Court issues its opinion whether it considers the partial-birth abortion ban to be "arbitrary and capricious." So far, all the regulations you listed have been considered constitutional and not to be an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose.
But it's good to see someone who is pro-choice who can concede some restrictions on abortion. There are a considerable number of people who don't see any restriction as reasonable.
No, it doesn't. Witness all the couples with an active sex life and no children.
ReplyDeleteJesurgislac,
Stop being intentionally obtuse. You know exactly what I am talking about when I say sex leads to children. I can think of dozens of forms of sex which don't lead to children, but then they don't lead to abortions either. So try to stay with the topic, ok?
Good grief. This sounds quite mixed up. It's not "society's moral failings" you should be slamming: it's the victims who decide that they do not want to be pregnant by a man who raped them - or indeed at all.
Why should I do that? I personally disagree with the decision to have an abortion if I were raped. I'm not asking anyone else to live by that standard because I can accept that society doesn't draw the line there. Besides which it isn't about "slamming" anyone. It's about persuading women that killing the baby for the sins of the father does nothing to him but does leave her with even more scars.
I can't see why a woman who has been raped should be slammed for the "moral failing" of not wanting to be pregnant because of it: perhaps you could explain why you see it as a moral failing for a woman who has been raped to want an abortion?
I think abortion in almost every case is wrong. That's MY standard. The reason I think it is wrong to abort a baby because it was conceived as a result of rape is that it is the same baby regardless of his/her conception. In other words, the baby isn't born with some sort of mark showing it was the product of rape. Why punish the baby for something he/she isn't responsible for?
But, really, discussing rape victims having abortions is beside the point. Society believes it is permissible for them to do so, even if they agree with other restrictions on abortion. Why don't you try defending the "I don't feel like it" abortion more? Most abortion groups don't like having to defend the abortion done because the baby is the wrong sex (usually female) or has a birth defect.
Since your writing lacks certain elements - like the tendency to be clear and to the point - I'm going to ask you to clarify what the point of quoting my abortion experience was. Your entire sentiment seems to be "OMG, SHE ISN'T ASHAMED OF THE FACT THAT SHE HAD AN ABORTION!!! JESUS ON A STICK!!!" So? Why should I be ashamed? I underwent an abortion because I felt it was the morally correct thing to do. What is your point? Or do you have one?
ReplyDeleteAmaz0n,
The point of quoting your pride at your abortion is so that everyone can see what pro-choice supporters think about it. Not the sugar-coated "every child a wanted child" bullshit that groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood talk about. Not the "legal, safe, and rare" rhetoric of Hillary Clinton and NOW. I want people to see what someone who had an abortion really thought of the experience ("Was I happy, relieved and proud that I had managed to make a truly horrible situation have a reasonably positive ending? Fuck yes I was."), not the watered-down version that's normally presented. That's it.
The human orgasm only came into being 100 years ago? Are you seriously under the influence that, 100 years ago, people didn't have sex unless they wanted to have babies? Are you kidding?
When you come to my site, amaz0n, please try to read statements. Don't try to insert your interpretations into them. How's this for an example: When I say that it's only been in the last 100 years that sex has been separated from its procreational function, that isn't saying people never had sex for fun. That means that the invention of reliable contraception allowed for people to separate the idea of "sex" from the idea that "sex leads to babies." You can read EVERY SINGLE POST I've made and you won't find anywhere that I said people only had sex to have babies. Obviously, some of you must be challenged in the reading department because this is at least the second time I've had to say this.
That's right, it is reckless. That's why human beings have continued to develop more effective contraception. What is your point?
I think the point was contained both before and after the quote you pulled out to make this remark. What was your point?
What is despicable about the notion that, if a contraceptive failure occurs or a couple fails to use contraception for whatever reason, the woman should pursue an abortion if she doesn't wish to have a child?
What's despicable about it is that there's no reason for the abortion aside from the individual whim of the woman. None. The idea that killing one's offspring is the best choice because, "damn, I just don't feel like it" is disgusting. But enlightening. Definitely enlightening.
You have yet, in all of your bloviating, to explain why abortion is objectively equivalent to killing a baby or otherwise morally objectionable. That might be your personal belief, but your personal beliefs are not by any means the equivalent of objective reality.
Of course I have. You don't think a baby exists before birth. I do, as do most women who are delighted to find themselves pregnant (that's why they call their products of conception "babies"). It's morally objectionable because killing one's children, particularly when it's just for the hell of it, is morally reprehensible. And what would be an "objective standard" that you would accept? I can't imagine that there are any. If the AMA came out with a statement that human life begins at conception and henceforth all children in utero will be referred to as "babies," you still would say there was no "objective proof." It's more straw.
I don't expect you to "approve," "applaud" or "support" any choice I make.
Bullshit. You do. You want Americans to support whatever "family planning" ideas Planned Parenthood comes up with next to create more clients. You expect people to forego their First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and petition of the government because it makes you "uncomfortable" or whatever you want to call it these days. You want Americans to support tax-funded abortions for poor women and women on military bases around the world. I'm sure you're against parental consent/notification laws and virtually any possible restriction on your right to kill your kids and be proud of it. So can the bullshit "I want you to stay out of my business." You want Americans to support these policies because it makes you feel better about what you want to do.
You know exactly what I am talking about when I say sex leads to children.
ReplyDeleteI'm just trying to get you to make a clear distinct statement. The only sex that may result in pregnancy, which (if the woman so chooses) may result in a baby, is heterosexual sexual intercourse in a woman's fertile period. Saying "sex leads to children" is demonstrably false: saying "heterosexual sexual intercourse in a woman's fertile period may result in fertilisation" is actually true.
If you are trying to make an argument, it helps for the statements you're basing your argument on to be actually true rather than demonstrably false.
Besides which it isn't about "slamming" anyone.
Apologies for using that verb, then. You said that you think it a moral failing in society that women are legally allowed to make decisions about pregnancy if they are raped, and came up with the ugly fiction that a woman who terminates a pregnancy after rape is somehow "punishing a child" (a child that doesn't exist!) for the rapist's crime. That is brutality to a woman who is already the victim of a crime. You may not think that forcing a woman through an unwanted pregnancy and unwanted childbirth - or even trying to "persuade" her that she should do so - isn't "slamming", and I agree: it's punishment for the crime of having been raped, just as in some Islamic countries under Shari'a law a woman can be sentenced for adultery if she attempts to bring charges of rape.
Why don't you try defending the "I don't feel like it" abortion more?
Because "I don't want to be pregnant" needs no defense. A woman who accidentally conceives and decides she doesn't want to be pregnant should be legally allowed to terminate, and as soon as possible. It's exactly the same principle as a rape victim gets to choose, except that with a rape victim deserves special care, rather than your cruel "persuasion", as she's already suffered criminal assault.
Most abortion groups don't like having to defend the abortion done because the baby is the wrong sex (usually female) or has a birth defect.
Abortion forced on a woman because she is bearing the "wrong" sex of child is as criminal as abortion denied a woman because she was raped.
The issue of abortions done because of birth defects is a wide, wide issue - ranging from terminations done because the fetus, if developed far enough to be born, would die almost immediately and in great pain, to terminations done because the pregnant woman knows she won't be able to look after a severely handicapped child, to terminations where I think might not make that decision, if I were in that position, just as you think you might not terminate a pregnancy as a result of rape. It's impossible to legislate on this issue: it's kinder and simpler, as well as the most moral choice, to say that the pregnant woman must weigh all the information and make a decision whether to continue or terminate. Her right to choose.
You want Americans to support tax-funded abortions for poor women and women on military bases around the world.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes. Granted the principle of a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, what moral argument can you possibly make for soldiers on active service to be discriminated against? Any other medical treatment a soldier needed that could be carried out on a military base, would be: why should pro-lifers be allowed to force soldiers away from military bases - to impose the pro-lifer morality of forcing women to late abortions when the military base could carry out an early abortion easily and quickly?
The morality of forcing women on a low income away from safe, legal abortions to illegal abortions by amateur practioners would be hard for anyone to defend to whom women matter as human beings. A woman on a low income who wants an abortion and can't afford a safe, legal one, is much more likely to end up dead or permanently sterile from an infection.
So, yes. Although not American myself, I would want Americans to behave like decent human beings to soldiers on active service, to people on a low income.
It's morally objectionable because killing one's children, particularly when it's just for the hell of it, is morally reprehensible.
Would be if anyone was suggesting that women should "kill their children". Abortion terminates a pregnancy - most usually in the US at blastocyst or embryo stage when a woman just doesn't want to be pregnant, but sometimes in pro-life states the pro-lifers set up artificial delays to ensure that more abortions take place at the fetal stage of development.
Once a child actually exists - after the baby is born - it is of course illegal to kill it, and your suggestion that anyone wants this to be legal is false.
I'm just trying to get you to make a clear distinct statement. The only sex that may result in pregnancy, which (if the woman so chooses) may result in a baby, is heterosexual sexual intercourse in a woman's fertile period. Saying "sex leads to children" is demonstrably false: saying "heterosexual sexual intercourse in a woman's fertile period may result in fertilisation" is actually true.
ReplyDeleteIf you are trying to make an argument, it helps for the statements you're basing your argument on to be actually true rather than demonstrably false.
You're nitpicking thinking it makes a point. It doesn't. But, hey, if you think you got a lil gold star, I'm happy for ya.
Apologies for using that verb, then. You said that you think it a moral failing in society that women are legally allowed to make decisions about pregnancy if they are raped, and came up with the ugly fiction that a woman who terminates a pregnancy after rape is somehow "punishing a child" (a child that doesn't exist!) for the rapist's crime.
I understand you don't think a baby is a baby before birth. Try looking at some sonograms and get back to me. And yes, the baby is the one paying the price for the rape.
That is brutality to a woman who is already the victim of a crime. You may not think that forcing a woman through an unwanted pregnancy and unwanted childbirth - or even trying to "persuade" her that she should do so - isn't "slamming", and I agree: it's punishment for the crime of having been raped, just as in some Islamic countries under Shari'a law a woman can be sentenced for adultery if she attempts to bring charges of rape.
You need to look up the definition of punishment. Dealing with the consequences of an event is not punishment. It's dealing with an event.
Because "I don't want to be pregnant" needs no defense. A woman who accidentally conceives and decides she doesn't want to be pregnant should be legally allowed to terminate, and as soon as possible. It's exactly the same principle as a rape victim gets to choose, except that with a rape victim deserves special care, rather than your cruel "persuasion", as she's already suffered criminal assault.
If "I don't want to be pregnant" were an arguable position, NARAL and Planned Parenthood, as well as pro-choice politicians would spend a lot more time talking about it. But it isn't excusable. That's what made Pandagon so illuminating: women were proud of the fact that they didn't want children just because they didn't want them. I doubt that most Americans would consider that to be reason enough to kill babies.
Abortion forced on a woman because she is bearing the "wrong" sex of child is as criminal as abortion denied a woman because she was raped.
I said nothing about women being forced to have sex selection abortions. Why don't you think that is their choice, too?
The issue of abortions done because of birth defects is a wide, wide issue - ranging from terminations done because the fetus, if developed far enough to be born, would die almost immediately and in great pain, to terminations done because the pregnant woman knows she won't be able to look after a severely handicapped child, to terminations where I think might not make that decision, if I were in that position, just as you think you might not terminate a pregnancy as a result of rape. It's impossible to legislate on this issue: it's kinder and simpler, as well as the most moral choice, to say that the pregnant woman must weigh all the information and make a decision whether to continue or terminate. Her right to choose.
But the idea that a woman gets to determine who lives and dies based on whether she feels like caring for the child is still barbaric. I undestand your reluctance to actually pass judgement on any of these kinds of abortions. It's tough when it would look inconsistent. That's why I like being pro-life. No inconsistencies.
Well, yes. Granted the principle of a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, what moral argument can you possibly make for soldiers on active service to be discriminated against? Any other medical treatment a soldier needed that could be carried out on a military base, would be: why should pro-lifers be allowed to force soldiers away from military bases - to impose the pro-lifer morality of forcing women to late abortions when the military base could carry out an early abortion easily and quickly?
Because abortion is an individual woman's right, not a taxpayer privilege.
The morality of forcing women on a low income away from safe, legal abortions to illegal abortions by amateur practioners would be hard for anyone to defend to whom women matter as human beings. A woman on a low income who wants an abortion and can't afford a safe, legal one, is much more likely to end up dead or permanently sterile from an infection.
But both these arguments fly in the face of the "it's my body, stay out of my business" argument posted elsewhere. Once you expect taxpayers to pay for these things, they are no longer about privacy or individual choices. Taxpayers get to determine which things they want their money to pay for. That's why we vote.
Would be if anyone was suggesting that women should "kill their children". Abortion terminates a pregnancy - most usually in the US at blastocyst or embryo stage when a woman just doesn't want to be pregnant, but sometimes in pro-life states the pro-lifers set up artificial delays to ensure that more abortions take place at the fetal stage of development.
I know you can't stand the fact that abortion kills babies. It's perfectly understandable. And we can go around this tree again, if you wish. But it won't change what happens. You call it a fetus. I call it a baby. Most people call them babies.
Once a child actually exists - after the baby is born - it is of course illegal to kill it, and your suggestion that anyone wants this to be legal is false.
Well, of course, there are those doctors in the UK who think killing infants is ok, as well, provided caring for them would be too much of an emotional and financial burden. You sure you still want to make this argument?
i don't like that my state uses the death penalty, and yet my taxes go to that. i don't like that my state throws money at stadiums and sports teams in a wasted attempt to attract tourists, but my taxes go to that. i bet there are other things the government sees fit to spend money on that you don't like, and yet you don't assume you ought to tell people (executioners, the tourism industry) they are trampling on your free speech rights or forcing you to applaud them. this pretty much ONLY comes up as a frequent argument when it's about abortion.
ReplyDeleteand OF COURSE i support restrictions on abortion. such as: we should license doctors and provide them with abortion training, so that women don't have to endanger themselves with unsafe abortions. you really are coming up with a strawman of a pro-choicer if you think pro-choice means "we want riskier abortions".
also i totally don't get this
ReplyDeleteyou want to trample on is my First Amendment right to free speech, assembly, and petition of government.
apparently i want only pro-choice opinions to be legal and not anti-choice opinions? i don't remember saying that, implying that, or thinking that.
and, when i said "we're just asking you not to do away with our access to it, because it is part of reproductive freedom.", sharon said Well, no, that's not a good enough reason to trump the First Amendment.
and i really don't know what that means. how is it your "first amendment right" (your words) to "do away with our access to [abortion]" (my words)? i don't get that at ALL.
We do have laws that regulate those things. There are requirements for driving cars which include driver's licenses, car inspections, seatbelt laws and more.
ReplyDeleteExactly. To prevent the unwanted possibility of an accident. And if an accident DOES happen - we treat the victim to undo the damage of the accident. Similarly, we have contraception to avoid pregnany when engaging in sex, and abortions if that fails.
I think maybe a lot of you need to speak to psychiatrists because you are really hung up on being sluts or at least being called sluts
Tsk tsk. With the ad-homs. No, what we're doing is pointing out that focusing on the sexual behaviour of the woman and deciding whether she "deserves" to decide what to do with her body based on that behaviour is very much akin to slut shaming.
I wouldn't expect you to, considering your own analogy to driving a car among other things.
Slowly and carefully then: people like to have sex. People like to drive cars. Both are positive things. Both can have negative consequences: accidents in cars, and unwanted pregnancies with sex. We don't tell people "you drove a car, so now buck up and bleed to death," and we shouldn't tell people "you had sex, now carry and give birth to a child you don't want."
Does every act of sexual intercourse lead to children? No. But the idea that a couple shouldn't consider this before intercourse is reckless.
That's why "contraception" and "abortions" exist. That's like saying (again with the car...) that since cars lead to accidents, the only way to avoid accidents is never drive. Remember the seatbelts and laws and such you yourself brought up earlier?
And the idea that "if the stick comes up with two blue lines I'm going to have it sucked out" is a good alternative is rather despicable, as well.
Why?
Why don't you try defending the "I don't feel like it" abortion more?
OK. I will. I'm married, 30, financially comfortable, want to have kids in about five years, currently use contraception, and if we got pregnant in the next year or so - I'd have an abortion. Why? because we don't want kids right now. We just don't. And I fail to see why that's objectionable.
That means that the invention of reliable contraception allowed for people to separate the idea of "sex" from the idea that "sex leads to babies."
No, my dear. The idea of sex for pleasure for WOMEN is supposed to be relatively new (emphasis on "supposed to be", as historically it's usually women who were considered more sexually voracious then men - that's a Victorian attitude we seem to be sticking with to this day). Prostitutes, brothels, and slavewomen rendered infertile have always been around for men. And actually, women have been using various forms of contraception (and having abortions) since forever.
What's despicable about it is that there's no reason for the abortion aside from the individual whim of the woman. None
And again - what's wrong with that? why is a potential baby more important then me? my life? my desires? I, after all, am a fully grown, socially functioning human being. Why is a balstocyte more important?
Most people call them babies
And once upon a time, most people thought the Earth was flat. What "most people" do, say, or think is NEVER a good argument for anything.
You're nitpicking thinking it makes a point. It doesn't.
ReplyDeleteStill trying to claim that accurate terminology doesn't matter?
I understand you don't think a baby is a baby before birth. Try looking at some sonograms and get back to me.
What difference are you claiming sonograms make?
?And yes, the baby is the one paying the price for the rape.
So, in your view, a woman isn't affected by being raped? I'd say go spend some time on a rape crisis hotline and get back to me, but I really wouldn't want someone as unsympathetic as you are presenting yourself dealing with women who have been assaulted.
You need to look up the definition of punishment. Dealing with the consequences of an event is not punishment. It's dealing with an event.
But you are arguing that women must not be permitted to deal with a possible aftereffect of being raped in the way that suits them best. "Dealing with the consequences" only works as an argument if you feel that women can be allowed to deal. Your argument is that rather that allowing women to deal with the consequences as best they can, they must be forced - if an egg was fertilized - to endure nine months pregnancy and childbirth, against their will. That is punishment: trying to argue that it is not is evading the issue.
If "I don't want to be pregnant" were an arguable position, NARAL and Planned Parenthood, as well as pro-choice politicians would spend a lot more time talking about it. But it isn't excusable.
Of course it's an arguable position: and if you trouble yourself to read Planned Parenthood's website, you will discover that's exactly their position.
That's what made Pandagon so illuminating: women were proud of the fact that they didn't want children just because they didn't want them.
I'm glad that illuminated for you the fact that some women just don't want children. I hope after consideration, that will lead you to realize that women who don't want children shouldn't be forced to have children.
I doubt that most Americans would consider that to be reason enough to kill babies.
Most Americans don't consider blastocysts, embryos, or fetuses, to be babies, and therefore don't have a problem with abortion. The vast majority of Americans support a women's right to choose - look at the popular opposition to the infamous South Dakota amendment, once Americans realized that it meant women in the US would be treated like incubators.
Because abortion is an individual woman's right, not a taxpayer privilege.
What, now you're arguing that soldiers don't pay taxes, so soldiers aren't entitled to the same benefits as taxpayers? Women represent over half the taxpayers in the US, and FYI, soldiers pay - even on active service - is subject to tax. As the vast majority of Americans - male and female - are pro-choice, it's a nonsense to argue that the minority of pro-life taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidise abortion for soldiers on active service or for any woman on a low income: as much a nonsense as it is to argue that the minority of pacifist taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for military service.
But the idea that a woman gets to determine who lives and dies based on whether she feels like caring for the child is still barbaric. I undestand your reluctance to actually pass judgement on any of these kinds of abortions. It's tough when it would look inconsistent.
I am reluctant to pass judgement in a sweeping way on a mass of individuals where I do not know the individual pressures or needs or circumstances of their lives. I see your willingness to assume that women should suffer en masse rather than get to make decisions as barbaric: in civilised countries, women are not enslaved.
That's why I like being pro-life. No inconsistencies.
It's true: taking the position that women are not full human beings with inalienable human rights, but incubators with no right to make decisions about what and when they incubate, is a consistent position that a man can take and keep to, without ever - if he never cares for any woman enough to feel for her suffering - turning away from that path.
For a woman, of course, no matter how much she believes she will consistently regard herself as an incubator, she knows that she isn't: and pro-life women are as likely to terminate unwanted pregnancies as any other women, while often still condemning the other women who do so.
I like being pro-choice, not so much because it's consistent (though, if you like consistency, you know the pro-choice position is consistently "Women are human beings, and have the inalienable right to make all decisions with regard to our own bodies") but because it's moral and decent.
Being pro-choice doesn't lead to the horrifying consequences that come when you embrace a political belief that any group or individual human beings are things, as pro-lifers do. Most people who call themselves pro-life in fact are too human to be really immoral or indecent - when it comes down to it, faced with the reality of enslaving women and treating women as objects, most pro-lifers admit they won't do that.
That you are not prepared to admit that, and you are a woman yourself, I think says that you have never had to face reality in that way: you live in a bubble. Most pro-lifers do.
lizzie asked:
ReplyDeleteDamn, I hate to get ad hominem, but would the pro life movement please grow the hell up? I am not going to hold you down and give you an abortion. You can die with a clean conscience (although most people find some other way to muck it up). Will. Someone. Please. Tell. Me. Why. My. Uterus. Is. Your. Business?
Your uterus is not; the life of a living human being is.
There have been all sorts of privacy arguments that have been disposed of: the right to privacy does not give a man the right to beat his wife in their own home, the right to privacy does not give a woman the right to kill her children as long as they are in the house, the right to privacy does not give you the right to grow pot inside your home, or to sacrifice kittens in some idiotic ritual, or torture or starve dogs on your own property, or screw minors in your own bedroom, or any of a whole host of things.
It is very clear: the human reproductive process puts a much greater burden on women than men. I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but your argument is with God or evolution or Mother Nature, however you wish to put it.
Pregnancy is a burden to some women, no doubt about that, but it is, after all, a temporary burden, something she gets over; abortion is a permanent burden to the child who is killed.
If a woman has a child she does not wish to keep, she has the option of giving him up for adoption; that means she has suffered through her temporary burden, without killing someone to ease it.
Your uterus is not; the life of a living human being is.
ReplyDeleteIf the "living human being" is residing in my uterus, no, it's none of your business. Your right to privacy examples don't wash, since a house is not a body.
If I never own anything else in this world, I own my body. That's true of everyone. And if, when my body was dependent on my mother's to survive, she had decided to terminate, I doubt I would have had much of an opinion since, you know, I was a freakin' fetus at the time.
i don't like that my state uses the death penalty, and yet my taxes go to that. i don't like that my state throws money at stadiums and sports teams in a wasted attempt to attract tourists, but my taxes go to that. i bet there are other things the government sees fit to spend money on that you don't like, and yet you don't assume you ought to tell people (executioners, the tourism industry) they are trampling on your free speech rights or forcing you to applaud them. this pretty much ONLY comes up as a frequent argument when it's about abortion.
ReplyDeleteRoula, you're wrong. It comes up in all kinds of situations like taxpayer funding of art or education or war or the military or businesses or...or...or...get it?
Taxpayers get to vote on things like tax exemptions for stadiums. And there are numerous lawsuits about capital punishment. You have a right to protest these things. But if most people disagree, your viewpoint probably won't prevail. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try to change things.
and OF COURSE i support restrictions on abortion. such as: we should license doctors and provide them with abortion training, so that women don't have to endanger themselves with unsafe abortions. you really are coming up with a strawman of a pro-choicer if you think pro-choice means "we want riskier abortions".
It's not a strawman pro-choicer, Roula. They are the arguments groups like Planned Parenthood have made to the Supreme Court whenever any requirements are made of abortion providers. If a law says a facility must be a certain way, contain certain equipment, or whatever, PP is quick to announce that it will cause other providers to shut down and limit access to abortion. And you would be surprised at the arguments pro-choice groups have made in the past about not needing regulation.
and i really don't know what that means. how is it your "first amendment right" (your words) to "do away with our access to [abortion]" (my words)? i don't get that at ALL.
My First Amendment right to free speech, assembly, and petition of government trumps your right to abortion without protesters. That's what it means. It means that while you want access to abortion, the protesters outside the clinics have a right to denounce your desire. It's no different if the person is protesting the war, taxes, city hall, immigration, or anything else. It's part of what makes this country great.
Exactly. To prevent the unwanted possibility of an accident. And if an accident DOES happen - we treat the victim to undo the damage of the accident. Similarly, we have contraception to avoid pregnany when engaging in sex, and abortions if that fails.
ReplyDeleteBut your analogy fails because you don't want regulation of abortion, do you? 24-hour waiting periods, informed consent, parental consent/notification laws, requirements for abortion clinics? All of those ideas have been opposed by people wanting the right to choose.
Tsk tsk. With the ad-homs. No, what we're doing is pointing out that focusing on the sexual behaviour of the woman and deciding whether she "deserves" to decide what to do with her body based on that behaviour is very much akin to slut shaming.
Welcome to society. We get to decide which behavior is acceptable and which isn't. I can't smoke in a nonsmoking facility. I can't raise farm animals in my suburban neighborhood. I can't drive 70 in a 30. And it's not an ad hominem attack to point out the emphasis on bad arguments. Believe me, if I wanted to call someone a slut, I would do so.
Slowly and carefully then: people like to have sex. People like to drive cars. Both are positive things. Both can have negative consequences: accidents in cars, and unwanted pregnancies with sex. We don't tell people "you drove a car, so now buck up and bleed to death," and we shouldn't tell people "you had sex, now carry and give birth to a child you don't want."
But your analogy is faulty. Bleeding to death is different from a person being pregnant for 9 months.
Why?
Because it's calloused and selfish, that's why.
OK. I will. I'm married, 30, financially comfortable, want to have kids in about five years, currently use contraception, and if we got pregnant in the next year or so - I'd have an abortion. Why? because we don't want kids right now. We just don't. And I fail to see why that's objectionable.
And that really is the problem.
No, my dear. The idea of sex for pleasure for WOMEN is supposed to be relatively new (emphasis on "supposed to be", as historically it's usually women who were considered more sexually voracious then men - that's a Victorian attitude we seem to be sticking with to this day). Prostitutes, brothels, and slavewomen rendered infertile have always been around for men. And actually, women have been using various forms of contraception (and having abortions) since forever.
Haven't made the trip to Sylvan's yet? I said "reliable contraception." Yes, people have always used contraception in one form or another, but it wasn't until the 20th century that it became reliable. Until then, people accepted that there was a risk of pregnancy (at least once they knew where babies came from). But as your own statements show, sex has been separated from its procreational function, and so people assume they have a fundamental right to nonprocreational sex.
And again - what's wrong with that? why is a potential baby more important then me? my life? my desires? I, after all, am a fully grown, socially functioning human being. Why is a balstocyte more important?
Shorter em: Me, me, me, me, me. That's it. Your personal whims and desires are most important in the universe.
And once upon a time, most people thought the Earth was flat. What "most people" do, say, or think is NEVER a good argument for anything.
Why not? I hear that argument all the time in favor of abortion (most countries support it), the war in Iraq (most people are against it), and any number of other ideas.
If the "living human being" is residing in my uterus, no, it's none of your business. Your right to privacy examples don't wash, since a house is not a body.
ReplyDeleteIf I never own anything else in this world, I own my body. That's true of everyone. And if, when my body was dependent on my mother's to survive, she had decided to terminate, I doubt I would have had much of an opinion since, you know, I was a freakin' fetus at the time.
Well, yes and no. You can't do whatever you want with your body. There are a variety of laws on the books that regulate that. And the right to privacy examples are spot on because that's the constitutional hook abortion hangs on.
But your analogy fails because you don't want regulation of abortion, do you? 24-hour waiting periods
ReplyDelete24-hour waiting periods would absolutely make sense if every hospital in the US provided abortions, promptly, on demand. Thanks to pro-life terrorist attacks on hospitals and clinics that provide abortion, and other artificial barriers to abortion, a woman who needs an abortion in some states may have to travel hundreds of miles already to get to the clinic, and a 24-hour waiting period just adds one more barrier. If pro-lifers weren't given to terrorism, harassment, and threats of murder, a 24-hour waiting period wouldn't be an issue.
informed consent
This is the second or third time you've claimed pro-choicers oppose "informed consent", and it makes no sense. You yourself have made clear that you oppose consent, whereas pro-choicers support consent, and consistently, the websites for pro-choice organizations provide far more information about abortion, pregnancy, and contraception than pro-life websites do. This is a perfectly meaningless claim.
parental consent/notification laws
Well, of course. What is your problem with underage patients having the same right to patient confidentiality as adults? A girl who needs an abortion will hopefully have parents who will support her through it: if she has aggressive pro-life parents who won't support her, it would be vilely wrong for anyone to tell the parents, and whichever way, it would always be wrong for a doctor to breach patient confidentiality.
requirements for abortion clinics?
This is such a wide accusation as to be ridiculous. Of course hospitals and clinics have requirements for safe operation - thanks to pro-lifer terrorists and pro-lifer mobs who harass patients, clinics that provide abortion have higher safety requirements than most. Pro-lifer politicians demanding expensive and unnecessary changes to hospitals or clinics ought to be opposed by every sensible tax payer.
The point of quoting your pride at your abortion is so that everyone can see what pro-choice supporters think about it.
ReplyDeleteSo you are trying to ascribe my personal feelings about my abortion to all "pro-choice supporters." I see. Can I quote someone else and then ascribe their views to you, or is that something only you get to do because you're super-special?
Not the sugar-coated "every child a wanted child" bullshit that groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood talk about.
How is the fact that I chose not to have a child - because I didn't want one and wasn't capable of caring for one - contrary to the "every child a wanted child" mission of NARAL and Planned Parenthood (both of whom, by the way, are not me, so you're not exactly refuting them)?
When you come to my site, amaz0n, please try to read statements. Don't try to insert your interpretations into them.
I don't think the problem is with my reading comprehension. The problem is, as I've stated, that you lack the ability to be clear and to the point. You also lack the ability to distinguish opinion from fact, and you tend to contradict yourself within paragraphs. Allow me to provide you with an example:
"You have yet, in all of your bloviating, to explain why abortion is objectively equivalent to killing a baby or otherwise morally objectionable. That might be your personal belief, but your personal beliefs are not by any means the equivalent of objective reality."
Of course I have.
Any reasonable person would take this statement, given the context, to mean "I have explained why abortion is objectively equivalent to killing a baby or otherwise morally objectionable."
Then, you say:
You don't think a baby exists before birth. I do
So, basically, you would like me to believe that abortion is objectively wrong because ... you say so! Then, you basically admit that you haven't actually provided me with anything whatsoever objective:
And what would be an "objective standard" that you would accept?
So you managed, in that paragraph, to say precisely this:
I have provided you with an objective rationale. Actually, I haven't, I've just provided you with my opinion. But I don't have anything to provide you with but my opinion. Why won't you accept my opinion?
Let me tell you what my grandfather frequently told me, Sharon: Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one. Your might be of the opinion that a developing fetus is a baby, and that it is murder to remove it, but the weight of your opinion no more makes it objectively "true" than Roman's view that the world was flat made the Earth less round.
Here's where your problem lies, Sharon: Opinions do not intellegent arguments make. You and I can go back and forth all day about whether or not abortion is murder, and neither one of us is going to get anywhere because it is your opinion that abortion is wrong, it is my opinion that abortion is not, and - let's be honest - neither one of us can possibly prove the other wrong. When it comes down to it, pregnancy is a biological grey area. Let's not pretend that either one of our opinions - and that's what they are, no matter how you'd like to re-phrase it - can any more objectively define that grey area than the other.
Now, I am perfectly content to think what I think, and I am perfectly content to let you think what you think. I feel that your opinions are your business, just as what you do with your body is your business, however I might personally disagree with it. However, when you use my words to paint all pro-choicers with a broad brush, you overstep your boundaries. You also overstep your boundaries when you ascribe to me viewpoints that you have no way of knowing that I hold. Like this:
Bullshit. You do. You want Americans to support whatever "family planning" ideas Planned Parenthood comes up with next to create more clients. You expect people to forego their First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and petition of the government because it makes you "uncomfortable" or whatever you want to call it these days. You want Americans to support tax-funded abortions for poor women and women on military bases around the world. I'm sure you're against parental consent/notification laws and virtually any possible restriction on your right to kill your kids and be proud of it. So can the bullshit "I want you to stay out of my business." You want Americans to support these policies because it makes you feel better about what you want to do.
You know nothing about me, except the fact that I had an abortion because I felt it was the morally sound thing to do. You know nothing about my political views except that I do not think that abortion is wrong and that I think people should mind their own business. That means that, unless you are a mind-reader, you have no honest way of ascribing any of the views that you above stated. Yet, you chose to do so anyway, because you had no way of refuting my statement - "I just want you to mind your own business" - without doing the cyber-equivalent of stopping your feet and saying "NO YOU DON'T!" like a fourth-grader.
24-hour waiting periods, informed consent, parental consent/notification laws, requirements for abortion clinics?
ReplyDeleteSee Jesurgislac's response
Welcome to society. We get to decide which behavior is acceptable and which isn't.
First of all, I'll give you an answer that your thinking suggests: Society actually believes that abortion should be legal, as every recent poll in the US has ever shown. Therefore society is pro-choice, and you should accept its right to "decide which behavior is acceptable and which isn't."
However, I do not agree that the majority is always right (see flat earth, segregation, slavery, etc.). "Society" is very often wrong, and as ideas evolve sometimes individuals or a minority have to fight to convince the majority. As is the case with abortions. 100 years ago I think the majority of the US population would have been against abortions. Today the majority is pro-choice. In the marketplace of ideas, shit may float, but somethimes good things rise as well.
Bleeding to death is different from a person being pregnant for 9 months.
And risking death. And having your body irrevocably altered. And having SOMETHING IN YOUR BODY THAT YOU DON'T WANT IN THERE FOR 9 MONTHS. Also - we set bones and correct scarring and burns. Should we let those be because they aren't "bleeding to death"?
Because it's calloused and selfish, that's why.
I disagree. If you care to explain yourself a bit more, I might be moved to do the same.
And that really is the problem
Again - Why?
I said "reliable contraception."
And that's relevant to women only. Men never had to worry about whether they got a prostitute, or a slave, or someone they raped pregnant. Again - it's only women who were restricted in their enjoyment of sex - and always tried to pursue it, with contraception and abortion methods as reliable as they could get.
sex has been separated from its procreational function
::sigh:: it hasn't been "separated" from anything. Sex in human beings is SUPPOSED to be about things other then procreation at times, or we would not want to copulate when not fertile. And even if we ignore that - human beings are more then biological machines. We eat for pleasure and entertainment, not just sustenance. We nap for pleasure, we enjoy perfume. We enjoy sex for all the things it can give us over and above mere procreation.
Your personal whims and desires are most important in the universe.
Not really. Not always. But sometimes, yes. When it has to do with irrevocable changes to my life and the lives of those around me (my husband, my friends, my parents, my sister, all of whom will be affected by my having a baby, and not in entirely positive ways) - I definitely consider my feelings regarding a decision important and critical. And why should I not think of myself primarily? it's my body, my life. No one has claim on my body before me. As for my life...well, my husband may have a say - perhaps even a veto - on such a decision, but that is only because of the specific relationship we have, and the particulars of my OWN economic, social, and familial curcumstances. I would never dare to suggest that women in different relationships and circumstances should do the same .
Why not? I hear that argument all the time in favor of abortion (most countries support it), the war in Iraq (most people are against it), and any number of other ideas
See my answer to the whole "society thing".
btw - thanks for a lively debate. I disagree with everything you say, but it's a pleasure to be able to have a discussion like this (including some mild insults and sarcasm...)without someone going off the deep end and ranting incoherently.
sex has been separated from its procreational function
ReplyDeleteAs nature intended.
:-D
I don't often use that phrase, but it's seldom quite as true as it is in this context.
As far as we can tell from observing our nearest relatives the bonobo chimpanzees, we evolved to have sex as a form of social lubricant. (Pun intended.)
No animal except ourselves is even capable of figuring out that getting together with another animal to have an orgasm will - sometimes - result in offspring weeks or months (or years) later. The fact that we do know that has meant that some people are fixated enough on cause and effect to believe that people have sex to make babies.
No animal - including ourselves - normally "has sex to make babies". Naturally and normally, animals - including ourselves - have sex because it feels good. Sex is naturally separate from procreation.
And it's only been in the last 100 years that sex has been separated from its procreational function
ReplyDeleteLiterally, the dumbest, most ignorant thing I've read all day. So, in Greece, Rome, etc, there did not exist such things as brothels, etc? Or do you really think prostitutes and their johns were setting about for procreation. Okay, I'm done with you and your idiocy.