A Rant On Abortion (Michael Demmons)
Michael Demmons
I got a little irritated today when I read two posts about abortion - one by Oliver Willis and the other by Stephen Taylor. My premise, or conclusion (or whatever) is that if there's a political party remotely to blame for the rates of pregnancy and abortion in this country, it's the Republican Party and their base's insistence on keeping teenagers blind to the realities of sex and birth control. Abstinence? Please...
Update: I've responded to a commenter in a new post on the same topic.
The emphasis wasn't necessarily focused on the mechanics of what went where, i.e., how to fuck correctly, but more specifically on what caused women to become pregnant and how this could be avoided through contraception. Which I presume was a well thought out idea that had some practical effect. Because there certainly were not any pregnant 13-year old girls that I knew of in my milieu at Stone Elementary.
I guess I just never have understood why something that has been done naturally for millions of years, by everybody, at all hours of the day and night, and in every remote corner of this planet, sometimes even in the sky in aircraft cockpits, and by all mammalian species, no less, ought to be treated with such furious hatreds, restrictions, outright taboos, etc, by the religiously inclined folks.
So, all you persons of the age of consent, of either or both gender, fuck on joyously and forever. Just remember to take the precautions needed to avoid unintended consequences that last an average of 76.5 years, or whatever it is, and which costs you progressively more pocket money as the consequence approaches his or her own adulthood.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I don't believe they have bad motives, but I do believe they're doing more damage than good.
Roemer is griping because he is a pro-life democrat and not likely to get the DNC post which Howard Dean will, because Howard Dean is pro-abortion but oddly enough thinks its a nice idea to let pro-choice demos into the party---some party.\
What do I know, I'm only one of ten children. And I still haven't figured out--if I plug in the abortion solution which one of my brothers and sisters qualified for death before birth.
I bet you wouldn't find ANY Democrat who is Pro-abortion. May are pro-choice. Think about the difference. One is fair. One is not.
Fortunately, I assume your mother wasn't raped or subject to incest prior to the birth of one of those ten children. I hope though, if anyone was forcibly raped, they would have the choice not to carry the child.
To take it to the extreme (and this example is admittedly extreme), what an awful world we'd live in if a guy had a right to force his girlfriend to give him a child.
When I was fourteen years old an older man raped me. I chose life. I knew this man pretty well, but did not deserve what he did. He was twenty one years old, and had lied to an entire country and on into Europe singing his fancy number one hit that is still played today. He is no longer here on earth but I am. I found the son I gave life to 20 years later.
I brought him a Teddy Bear and he brought me a Single Red Rose. It was my grandmother's love, that helped me endure; knowing I would have to say good bye to this precious innocent baby within my womb. She told me about the baby boy Moses.
I love Jesus and He loves me. My grandmother carried the United States flag, into Every Meeting of the, Rebecca's ladies lodge of the era. And she went to her Baptist Church until her death. People came from all around the Southwest to her funeral. She was a simple poor woman that had to let go of her youngest child due to the severe depression this country was going through. Her time of struggle and loss of her husband to WWI. She already had two children and she made her choice in wanting better for him.
Here in San Antonio, Texas we have the largest teen pregnancy rate in the entire nation, of girls fifteen years and younger. I am working on a birthmother's home for girls and women that make a choice for life. I made damn sure a young girl here in Texas would not have to surrender her child to any money hungry lawyer or be put in a situation to where she had no other choice but to let go because of family dynamics at the time of that childs life.
I am thankful that I have a daughter in law that believes in life as I do. Abstience is an absolute, but people are people and give into temptation. That will go on and has been going on since time began. I see there are choices and I am working hard to open another birthmother's home here in San Antonio. We have just two. Both are under Catholic Charities. One holds eight pregnant girls 16 and under and the other holds the same for girls and women 18 and over that already have one child.
There is an unwed Mother, and it's about damn time men said they were unwed father's. Birthfathers care too and want to know where their child went.
God Bless Dean and Rosemary today. I will say no more.
That's a nice story, but (no offense) it has nothing to do with the content of the post.
Which means I insist absolutely on the right to keep guns and to use them for self-defense, should that become necessary.
Which means that I support the proliferation of taxpayers' bill of rights amendments, for which I am working actively here in Wisconsin.
Which means that I want to get rid of the whole of the social welfare system, and especially those aspects of it that enslaves african-american citizens of this country.
Which means that I think that liberty is the outstanding characteristic of a wholesome society.
Which means that I think that relationships, sexual or otherwise, between any two consenting adults, is the business of no other persons, agencies, powers or entities.
Ready my stuff going back in Dean's World. You'll probably dislike me intensely. But you sure as hell will never have reason to think me inconsistent in my opinions.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Stefi and I have four fine kids. Between us, we had four fine parents, eight fine grandparents, etc, etc.
But Michael is right. We're talking about sex and related questions of abortion rights. And as far as I am concerned, liberty is as indivisible and our fine republic.
You're young enough that you could not have missed Dr Alfred Kinsey's two great studies of sexuality, concering american males, published in 1948 and females, published in 1953. These are as factual today as they were 50 years ago.
Here's looking at you, kid.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I don't consider you a social conservative at all based on what you said. If so, only barely.
Guns: You don't have to be socially conservative to believe in Amendment 2.
Taxpayers' BoR: Nothing socially conservative about that, in my opinion. That's more fiscal conservative.
Social Welfare System: That's socially conservative, but also very sensible.
And I've read most of your stuff in the two years I have been reading Dean. I still don't think you're socially conservative. I think you're socially common sensical. :-)
Here's how I feel about opposing opinions. I think, if I am going to blog at all, that I should try as best I can to educate people on my own beliefs, facts and opinions.
I've learned lately that, if I know I am right, and others will not come around to my way of thinking, then I should drop it. I've especially learned that I am a more conservative gay person in a wacko leftist gay world. I love my friends. I've just learned to shut up around them. It's a hard ting to do, but sometimes you have to.
People don't need to respect opinions. They just need to respect that people are entitled to them - no matter how wrong or right they are. And I have found over the years that I've had to change my mind about a lot of things by listening to rational people like yourself and others.
I listen.
I talk.
I learn - or not.
Opinions aren't worth losing friends or missing out on other great conversation.
And, since this comment has nothing to do with the original post, I must apologize to Janelle for calling her on hers! :-)
"Pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" is much more honest.
"Pro-abortion doesn't mean that you like abortion, or that you would ever have one. It just means that you are in favor of it being legal. And "anti-abortion" means you are in favor of it being illegal.
People who say they are "pro-choice" are often anything but. These are the same people who are against letting workers choose to put a portion of their Social Security taxes in a private account. These are the same people who are against letting parents choose which school their child goes to.
People who say they are "pro-life" are often the same people who favor the death penalty and are in favor of the war on terror.
I try to look at each issue separately, and think out what ought to be the right approach, as if there were no over-arching considerations.
Like a lot of other person of long years, I've had to face up to occasions in which I found that what I had previously thought to be an appropriate outlook or policy just did not fit.
I never have been a racist, having served in the US Army as a young kid at a time when white and black kids had to live, train, work and for some of them, fight and die together. That was back in the late korean war years in the early 1950s.
Like most american males, I grew up with culturally induced notions that homosexuality was some sort of personal disgrace or shortcoming. Recently, I rethought that entire issue, and came to the opinion that all american citizens have equal obligations to pay taxes and therefore have equal rights to define their own sexual relationships, without that being my business or that of any other person or entity.
Like a lot of Republicans, I used to rant continually about jailing folks for this, that and a lot else. But I've been studying recently that our prisons are largely filled with people who committed minor offenses dealing with drug abuse, which in fact are crimes in which someone at worst victimizes his or her own self. I am beginning to sense that this is no solution at all.
As for abortion. Back in 1962, I studied carefully the issue of one woman in Phoenix, Arizona, Sheri Finkbein, who had been taking Thalidomide, and who learned that she would likely give birth to a grossly deformed baby if her fetut was brought to term.
Denied a legal and safe abortion in Arizona or anywhere else in this country, she traveled to Sweden for the procedure. Inspection of the aborted fetus showed she would have given birth to a baby with one arm and no legs.
When she returned to Phoenix and made public the details of her experiences, she was fired from her job as a television children's show host, her husband was suspended from his job in the public school system, and her children were hounded.
But just occasionally, I believe in real old-fashioned justice. So for anyone who would have compelled that women to give birth to a child with one arm and no legs, I would have compelled that person -- including an officer of the court -- to walk through the rest of his life with an 80 pound millstone chained around his neck.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Michael, it's not a nice story and you should know I am emotional. It took me time to come around to understanding you and it was through Dean, Rosemary and Arnold that I came to believe gay people needed to have rights to have a certificate.
So for now, we will just forgive my *nice* story which it is a powerfully hard as your questions the last few days which I have show tremendous respect for I am that way. Sometimes I make mistakes and it doesn't read right.
Pregnancy and fornacating were discuseed these last few days and even this post.
Because I am christian is also why I got this deep feeling and maybe theses responses, just go read my post to my Son and the one to
Rosemary....I am 1600 miles away!
I am broke and can't go there but I am damn well trying to not be broke and I have received no aid. Maybe God does answer prayers because I am not on strong drugs anymore and my posts of the past were not always right, Ah forget it. I am too happy to feel I did something wrong by trying to do something right.
That whole idea of trying to teach people self control and expecting them to actually practice it. What nonsense! How stupid!
I'm not opposed to condoms, but I'm very deeply suspicious of anyone who argues against teaching people to abstain from casual sex. Arguing "Condoms not abstienence!" just smacks far too much of simple hedonism.
But if that's the charge — that republicans have tried to institude non-hedonistic programs, I can't say that I'm very inclined to think less of republicans for it.
So really, do you think that trying to teach people self control is a vain struggle, or do really just object to trying to get people to have less sex?
And do you really think that people having sex are genuinely unaware of the existence and purpose of condoms because they were never formally taught in health class?
I am staunch PRO-CHOICE. I do not advocate abortion, neither do I advocate parenthood or adoption. I will not comment on a woman's choice unless I will walk a mile in her shoes. How many on the 'abstinance only then only adoption' are willing to do that? This decision is between the woman and her God or Goddess or Pantheon, I figure no where in the decision.
For the men out there that seem to want to lay claim to a woman's ovaries, what right do you have. Let me empasis that...what RIGHT do you have (give by the Lord God Almighty or any other deity) to know who I'm having relations with, if I conceive and what I choose to do about it? Also, remeber that to demand one woman to carry a child you must demand them all. Are you willing to force every woman in America to conceive or is that a violation of their rights? You 'moral' rights (which don't exist by the way) stop well short of my body and my sex life.
I would like any woman considering such a drastic action to be well informed and to know any choice is a life altering decision. (Which means the stupid "Abortion=Cancer" scare tactic must stop. I find it the same as a forced conversion into a new religion, the victim has no choice.) I would also like any woman to discuss the facts with her significant other, but I will not support a legal mandate for such. Anyone that wishes to force such 'compromise' on a woman needs to remove themselves from the equasion lest it effect them and their loved ones as well.
In the end, I want my daughters to know I will love them no matter what, nor will I second guess their life choices. They are not mine to make, and I will defend their freedoms to the death from all comers no matter what party offiliation they hold or what 'moral authority' they claim to speak for. I doubt I am alone.
I am Pro-Choice. I support the Death Penalty, the War on Terror and the US Military. I support the Constituion and my President even when I believe him to be misguided. I fully support a radical rethink of Social Security; by the time I make retirement age there will be no money left over from the Baby-Boomers at the rate we're going so something drastic needs to be done or scrap the whole program. A parent needs to be totally involved in their child's life and that definatly includes education; I see no reason to deny a parent the right to use vouchers to send their children to a school where learning is utmost, not drugs or gang violence. I am all for gun rights, but they must be tempered with common sense (IE the laws in place must be applied evenly to all, which they are sadly not).
Hopefully in future you won't consider extremists of any stripe as a means to justify calling moderates something else.
In other words, if your state has concealed carry permits, these must not be limited to a few rich, famous and well-connected folks who have direct social and political access to judges, sheriffs, etc. Equality before the law is the first and most important standard of the United States Constitution.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The only time I know it causes a problem is when some folks don't want to stop packing in a Court House or other excempt building. Short of that I've never heard of any problems in TX at least, though I do support your argument. How many idiot cases in court could be avoided if Justice really was blind in the US like she should be?
I will do my best as stated above to help a young girl or woman of any age. In reuniting years ago I found out just how many men were deeply scarred and torn to pieces because the young girl drifted out of school and or the young girl or woman had an abortion and HE HAD NO CHOICE!
A blog has been offered to me many times but there is no money in it and this is how I find out what is going on with friends I have found here and you also need to be reminded that rather it is a Republican or Democrat this subject touches the core of everyone of us. Same for a Liberal or a MODERATE!
I have a family member protecting us and Washington D.C. is on SEVERE LOCKDOWN AS WE ALL HAVE THE LIBERTIES TO BLOG AND COMMENT!
MY PRESIDENT IS UNDER EXTREME STRESS AND SECURITY IS OF THE UTMOST. BILLY GRAHAM'S SON CAME ON TELEVISON LAST NIGHT AND IT WAS NOT CABLE!!!THIS COUNTRY IS PRAYING SO LIFE CAN CARRY ON AND I CAN NOT TALK TO MY YOUNGEST SON EITHER FOR HE IS ON MY MIND TOO AND I HAVE BEEN EXTREMLEY EMOTIONAL BUT HAVE DOCTORS, A CHIROPRACTER, NATURAL DRUGS AND I AM READY TO SCREAM!!!
It takes time for people to come out of closets and it takes time for a woman to make a choice and God Bless the Married Woman that has a Husband where they support one another. Unfortunately, sex and marriage are not just reserved for a man and a woman or a woman and woman and a man and man. With or without certificaates...SEX IS and always has been LIFE.
Take a moment to be thankful we have family and friends working 24/7 inside these borders.
Good Night and God Bless Dean and Rosemary and Jacob and Drake.
So it just comes down to this: do you think there should be legal on-demand abortion, or not? Are you pro- or anti-abortion?
Michael,
In the Pro-Choice scenario, someone dies--an innocent human life.
That is the equation, you endorse. But you claim, not to agree because you absolve yourself by condoning letting someone else make the decision.
N'est pas ?
The complete lack of logic in blaming America's abortion rate on "social conservatives" induces a terrible sense of awe in those of use who can actually engage our brains in useful work.
Mr. Demmons, just for starters: you do realize the basic ethos, moral code, and expectations of "social conservatives" were the norm for this country for (oh...) several centuries, yes?
You do realize that -for many, many decades- there wasn't any question of the high rate of abortions in this country, because it was bloody illegal? You are aware of that? And that those laws were based on the "social conservative" ethos. Not to mention those same "social conservative[s]" opposed the legalization of abortion.
Yet somehow, in some odd way, the people who are against abortion the most are the ones getting the blame. Odd, that... One wonders if the author actually thought their way through the proposition, or merely spilled some some dogmatic beliefs into the blogosphere.
Some numbers might be in order. The CDC itself says that abortion rates steadily increased between 1970 and 1984 (you know, when the Democrats controlled the federal government most of the time, and lead prevailing thought regarding the anti-war movement, women's rights, gay rights, and so on.
After 1984, the rate has steadily decreased, while Republicans (one certainly tends to equate "social conservatives" with the GOP), falling from 364/1,000 in 1984 to 311 in 1995, and down to 246 in 2000. In other words, when the social conservatives steadily gained ground in Washington, D.C. and the national culture became more conservative, the rate of abortion decreased.
An examination of the tables by state show that generally the highest abortion rates are in areas that are strongly Democratic, such as New York (30/1,000), District of Columbia (25), Washington (20), New Jersey (18), and Oregon (18). Alabama stands at 12, Oklahoma at 10, and Idaho a paltry 6. Yet it's still the fault of those darned "social conservatives!"
Several folks have compared the abortion rate in America to Amsterdam, accompanied by a corresponding sneer. Yes, and the murder rate in Nazi Germany was lower than that in the United States. I suppose that means the National Socialists developed a less violent culture in 1930s Germany...
If you look carefully, you'll see that the CDC has managed to confuse things by only differentiating by race (white and black/other) in one table, and by "ethnicity" (hispanic and non/hispanic) in another table.
This obscures the fact that abortion rates are much, much higher for both hispanic and black women, compared to white, non/hispanic women.
So maybe all those morally superior, condescending ...people... comparing the abortion rate in America to Amsterdam should examine those groups and locations with very high rates, and attempt an effective generalization on just why said rates are so high.
Damned inconvenient things, facts. They really should be used more often.
For the men out there that seem to want to lay claim to a woman's ovaries, what right do you have. Let me empasis that...what RIGHT do you have (give by the Lord God Almighty or any other deity) to know who I'm having relations with,
None. That's between you and God.
if I conceive
Ditto. (Although several months into pregancy, anyone can tell just by looking. But that's not the point.) I would make an exception for minors: their parents should have the right to know that their child is pregnant, unless those parents have a history of abuse. They've got a right to know minor things like school grades, they should also have a right to know the big things. How else are they going to be able to help her effectively?
and what I choose to do about it?
Here's where it gets sticky, because I cannot get away from the fact that abortion means ending an innocent human life. And I just do not see how that can be justified.
Also, remeber that to demand one woman to carry a child you must demand them all. Are you willing to force every woman in America to conceive or is that a violation of their rights?
*Blink*. Who's arguing to force women to conceive? Catholics believe contraception isn't what God intended for marriage, but the only people who are going to follow that rule are Catholics. There are plenty of people who argue against abortion (myself included), but bringing contraception into the picture is mixing two completely different subjects here.
You 'moral' rights (which don't exist by the way) stop well short of my body and my sex life.
Your body -- yes. I support your right to do whatever you like with your body, even including things that I believe would be morally wrong. But your rights end at your own body. They do not include the right to control someone else's body. OK?
Now -- is a developing fetus part of the mother's body? Well, there's one way to find out: compare the mother's DNA with the fetus' DNA. Different, aren't they? Not part of the mother's body.
What it boils down to is this: I believe that a human being is a human being at all stages of their existence. Zygote, blastocyst, fetus, embryo, pre-birth baby, post-birth baby, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult. I cannot find any reasonable place where you can draw the line and say, "Now this organism, which was not a human being before, has just become a human being." The DNA is the same all the way along. The only way to stop that process is to kill the person.
Actually, I can see one other place where one could reasonably draw the line. An argument could be made, based on the number of blastocysts that fail to implant in the womb and are flushed out with the woman's period, that the pre-implantation zygote and blastocyst should not be considered human beings, because otherwise most of the human population throughout history has lived no more than 2 weeks. I don't find that argument very convincing, however, because as I said before, this is a complete organism with human DNA. If that's not a human being, then you have to really stretch and twist the definitions.
Take a look: here's some pictures of how a baby develops in its mother's womb: First trimester; Second trimester; Third trimester. (No ugly photos here; these are all beautiful). I look at these stages and I just do not see any good diving line where you can say "This was not previously a human being, but now it is," except for the moment of conception (or -- very arguably -- the moment of implantation, and I don't find that argument convincing).
Therefore, abortion is not about what a woman does with her own body. It's about what she has the right to do to another person's body.
That, in a nutshell, is the "abortion is murder" argument. Because "[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..." The very first right. The others don't mean squat if you don't have life. And if a developing fetus in its mother's womb is a human being (and I have never found an argument that persuaded me that it is not), then it also is a person with rights.
But others believe no such thing. My wife believes that until a fetus is actually born as a live baby, it is subject to the determination of the woman who is pregnant with that fetus whether it shall be brought to term.
This is truly a conflict in value systems. But just as you would not accept a pro-choice woman imposing her values, standards and core beliefs on you, you should have to agree not to impose your anti-abortion values, standards and core beliefs on those women -- and their families -- who do not share your beliefs. Otherwise, we have no common basis for maintaining a civil society together.
You cannot even say that all Christians agree with the anti-abortion stances of the Roman Catholic church and some but not all the non-catholic christian churches of this country.
My wife and I have lived around the world. We have learned first-hand that attitudes concerning abortion rights vary greatly. The entirety of the concept of "choice" in connection with these issues is based on the realization that there simply is no unanimity of belief and practice in connection with abortion or even with contraception.
Indeed, in not a few countries in christian Europe -- predominantly roman catholic Croatia for example, where my wife was born, infanticide has traditionally been practiced by midwives in rural villages where there are few or no resources available for caring for developmental disabled or deformed babies.
And such places have few or no facilities for screening of fetuses. So the midwives play god in order not to strain community resources. Probably you would consider this barbaric. On the other hand, it is doubtful you ever have had to walk in the shoes of these poor women. So who can say?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Thanks for your response. Yes, there's a conflict in value systems. But after some serious reflection, I'm not sure I can agree that a conflict in value systems automatically means that one party is not justified in imposing its values on the other. To explain why, I'll need to back up a step.
There does exist such a thing as absolute truth: things that are true regardless of whether people believe them or not. For instance, the Earth is round, not flat; and the Earth and planets revolve around the sun, not the sun and planets around the Earth. The fact that some people believed things to be otherwise in the past did not make it so in reality. Their beliefs were incorrect: not consistent with objective reality.
When moral judgments are based on beliefs, it is possible for those beliefs to be mistaken. In that case, the moral judgment has no actual validity, regardless of the person's opinion. To take an extreme example, Hitler claimed that Jews were subhuman, and that killing them was therefore justified. He may have been sincere in that belief; I have no way of knowing whether he was. But even if he was, his belief was incorrect -- false -- and he was therefore committing murder, an evil act. (Or, more accurately, ordering murder committed). Thus, those who imposed their moral beliefs on him and stopped him from committing any more murders were justified.
BTW, please note that I am *not* comparing anyone to Hitler. He was just the most convenient example at hand to illustrate the point I was trying to make. I am *not* trying to invoke Godwin's Law here. :-)
Anyway, my point is: if my belief (that fetuses in their mother's womb are full human beings with accordant rights) is incorrect and false, then others would be justified in imposing their correct belief and morality systems on me. (In my case, that would take the form of laws that allowed my girlfriend or spouse to have an abortion without needing my consent, since I will never, for obvious biological reasons, be a customer of an abortion clinic myself). If, on the other hand, their belief systems are incorrect and false, then I would be justified in imposing my beliefs on them, by passing laws banning abortion.
With two such opposed belief systems ("Abortion is murder because it kills a human being" / "Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not yet a human being"), only one at most can be correct. P and not-P cannot both be true simultaneously; that is a basic axiom of logic. The sticking point, of course, comes in determining which belief system is correct, when both people quite genuinely believe their own to be correct.
If I have understood you correctly, your wife believes the second statement: a fetus is not a human being with rights until it is born. Until that time, the mother has the right to choose whether it will be born. If I'm misunderstanding you and thus attempting to knock down a straw man, please tell me.
I would argue that that belief is incorrect, and that a fetus *is* a human being and therefore has rights. I won't repeat my entire post above :-), just my core premises and conclusion:
Premise 1: A human fetus is a complete organism, not some part (like a liver) of a larger organism.
Premise 2: A human fetus has human DNA that is not identical to its mother's DNA.
Premise 3: Any complete organism that has human DNA is a human being.
Conclusion: A human fetus is a human being.
The conclusion follows logically from the premises, and I don't know of anyone seriously disputing premises 1 or 2. The dispute is over premise 3. But if you want to argue that my premise 3 is false, then I would ask you: if this organism isn't a human being, then what is it? And what rules do you use to draw the distinction between this organism with human DNA that isn't a human being, and these other organisms with human DNA (me and you) that are human beings?
If someone can persuade me that premise 3 above is false, and that my conclusion (fetuses are human beings) is false, then my objections to abortion have no more grounds to stand on and I'll have to withdraw them. I find the DNA argument compelling, though.
That's my answer to your objection that I have no right to impose my beliefs on others. If (and only if) my belief is objectively true, then I would be justified in imposing it. The danger, of course, is that I may be persuaded to impose my beliefs when they aren't actually objectively true. Ask the town of Salem what dangers lie down that road. :-( That's why I'm trying to be very precise and logical about defending my belief that abortion is murder. Sorry about the length, by the way: I get really long-winded when I'm trying to be precise and logical. I'll take off the Vulcan ears now.
OK, on to your second objection: that attitudes towards abortion vary widely around the world. This seems at first to have more force than your first objection, but in fact it has exactly the same logical force, no more, no less. Whether a belief is held by one person or a million, I am no more justified in imposing my own belief if mine is wrong, and no less justified in imposing my own belief if mine is correct. (And they, vice-versa, to me). The only weight that numbers should carry is to make me extra-careful in considering whether I might be wrong. And there are vast numbers on the other side of the scale as well, so the "consider carefully" warning applies to both belief systems.
As a side note: I have lived (for at least a year) in America, France, and Germany. I have also spent time (between two weeks and a month) in Switzerland, Italy, China, Burkina Faso, and Niger. No wait, Burkina Faso was just one week. I say this not to give my own argument any greater force, but to persuade you that I am not ignorant of the fact that beliefs on ethics and moral systems differ widely around the world.
Finally, to address your last objection: that infanticide is carried out in some places because they do not have the resources to care for babies born disabled or with serious physical deformities. Having never been in that desperate of a situation, I will not judge the actions of those midwives. I will, though, hazard a guess that if you asked them about it, most if not all would say, "I hate doing this, I wish I could save this baby, but I have no choice." If they had the same level of resources that we do in America to save premature, disabled, and/or deformed infants, I'm sure they would gladly use them. Besides, this point, interesting as it is, has nothing to do with the debate on whether America should allow abortions, since America does have those resources, and thus the "infanticide due to lack of resources" scenario will not apply here.
Again, I apologize for the length. As Blaie Pascal once said, "I am sorry for the length of my letter, but I had not the time to write a short one."
I guess I just never have understood why something that has been done naturally for millions of years, by everybody, at all hours of the day and night, and in every remote corner of this planet, sometimes even in the sky in aircraft cockpits, and by all mammalian species, no less, ought to be treated with such furious hatreds, restrictions, outright taboos, etc, by the religiously inclined folks.
So, all you persons of the age of consent, of either or both gender, fuck on joyously and forever. Just remember to take the precautions needed to avoid unintended consequences that last an average of 76.5 years, or whatever it is, and which costs you progressively more pocket money as the consequence approaches his or her own adulthood.
I once wrote a lengthy post, over in the Queen's comment section, arguing that pornography was a bad idea if one wanted a committed, monogamous relationship after marriage (or whatever form of commitment one chose). The same argument would apply to promiscuous, casual sex. The core of it was simply: you're forming sexual habits that are going to work against you later. If you plan on being married, or even being in a long-term sexual relationship (one where there's an understanding that sex with anyone else would be "cheating"), then getting in the habit early in life of casual sex with a number of partners is going to work against you. Your early sexual experiences are going to set the pattern for what you expect later; and it your early experience is sex with a vast number of different partners, then when you try to "settle down" with just one partner, you're going to find yourself bored, and "cheating" is going to look quite attractive. On the other hand, if you've formed your habits to include sex with just a single partner, and the same partner for a significant length of time, then even if that relationship ends (death, divorce, breakup, whatever) and you start a new one, your old habits aren't going to be working against you in the new relationship.
Thus one can argue for abstinence until a committed, loving relationship exists -- because any other behavior is going to make that ideal much harder to achieve later. And getting from there to "abstinence until marriage" takes only the following step:
Hey, if you're planning on sticking in this relationship for a long time, then why not make it explicit that that's your plan? In other words, why not get married? And if your reaction is "Oh, but marriage is for life, and I don't really know if I can make that commitment" -- well, if you're planning to back out a year from now, you could at least have the decency to be honest about it. Because I'll bet you dollars to dimes that your partner is thinking a lot longer-term than that. And if your attitude is "Well, only if this works out" -- well, one, things have a much better chance of working out if you're actually trying to give it a long term go. Many marathon runners fail to complete the race, but few people decide to go for a jog and end up running 26 miles. Only those who decided to give the whole race a try actually finished. And two, look, sometimes you fail. Divorces do happen, even though most people who get married didn't plan on them. So? Is that a good reason not to try in the first place?
Arnold, the reason religiously inclined folks like me get in a knot about casual sex is because they think that committed, loving sex is so much better, and they hate to see people ruining their chances for it by getting started so early on casual sex. They want to shake them and say, "Look, there's a fantastic five-course dinner waiting for you, and here you are ruining your appetite by eating candy instead."
Rhianna put it most eloquently, and I agree with her on everything except one thing, which unfortunately happens to be the central or initial topic of this thread, i.e., abortion. I totally agree that a woman's body is her own property, and that what she chooses to do with her own body and sexuality is between herself and her God, Goddess, or Gods and Goddesses. Absolutely. And that includes contraception, tribadism, masturbation, consensual sado-masochism, or anything else between consenting adults.
Unfortunately, at some point in a pregnancy, whatever it is you choose to call the entity that is inside her becomes recognizably a baby, with human DNA, a human form, human sense organs, a human brain, and therefore, a human soul, human rights, including the right not to be ripped to pieces unless the mother's own life is in danger. Abortion, by definition, involves a very non-consenting non-adult. It's a conflict of rights. The solution is difficult.
Mark Jaquith said something I have often said for quite some time. The labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life", while aesthetic, are not necessarily accurate. Too many of those calling themselves "pro-choice" are pro-choice on only one issue, abortion, and advocate government regulation of everything else. And I can't really call myself consistently pro-life in that I am hawkish on guns, war, and capital punishment. "Pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms. Or perhaps "pro-legal abortion" and "anti-legal abortion", though that's quite a mouthful.
As for nobody being actually pro-abortion, I have to differ. For one thing, there's a particularly ugly "meme" going around in certain circles to the effect that the reason the crime rate has been dropping in the last decade or so is because more women are getting more abortions, which kills off the "undesirable" elements who would otherwise be born in the slums and grow up to be criminals. We've all heard that type of argument before, and we know where it comes from. By that argument, Bach and Beethoven should have been aborted, since they, too, were born in less than idyllic environments. Jesus, too, and several others you could name.
That's all I'll say on abortion for now.
Michael makes some interesting points in his original post in Gay Orbit, but there is one thing he said with which I have to take some strong issue:
"Teenagers have sex. Not only that, but they have it all the time. And not only that, but the mystification of sex that the idea, ?wait until you?re married? automatically creates is one of the reasons teenagers have sex."
I'm going to change one word in that, and add a couple:
"And not only that, but the mystification of sex that the idea, ?wait until you?re married? automatically creates is one of the reasons teenagers and adults want sex."
Yes, that is so, and I say that's good. I say people should want sex -- passionately. Sex should be desirable and desired. That's what it's all about. And, therefore, it should be mystified, sanctified, exalted. We must yearn for it. That's why sex is so sexy. I oppose anything that would in any way vitiate that. "Wait until you're married" is an excellent ideal, exactly like "Wait until Christmas before you open your presents". That's why I'm for marriage, including homosexual marriage.
Call me an anti-social conservative.
I'm not against teaching people to abstain from casual sex. I'm against ONLY teaching that. I am FOR completely demystifying sex, and as is the case in Europe, where they're not as stuffy about showing a breast or two on tellie, teenage pregnancy is MUCH lower than it is here.
What I would like, if we're going to handle sex in schools at all, is for the teacher to say "Yes. Abstinence is best, and here are all the horrible problems you can avoid if you just wait. BUT, if you're going to do it anyway, here's how do do it more safely - not 100% safe mind you. Some of you may still get pregnant, but it's safer!"
That's all I'm saying.
And Casey: Show me the stats that say abortions were lower when they were illegal. Or are you just counting the reported ones?
Thanks again guys fo rall the interesting discussion!
Some communities are receptive to the idea of abstinence and some aren't. The government should be flexible.
I appreciate what you said to me Michael for I do know your struggles, I most sincerely do. I was in a closet for twenty years and had family judge, meaning my core family not my children. I know with you being a gay man you have endured extreme hardships and I remember how I mentioned to start petitions when you posted here so long ago.
It's perfectly alright that you judged my comment and felt it was not the subject. I know All You Bloggers have been judged and at times harshly. I have wanted to do a blog and thought for sure when the Arthritis Foundation asked me to help that maybe that was going to be when I would but life stepped in and the pain of RA had me to wiped out. Then I saw Dean go through hell over drinking and everybody was telling him what to do, IN KINDNESS but...HE CHOSE ANOTHER PATH and he has done tremendous.
So you see choices we make are ours and we own then and when we try to give our reasons or our explanations we 9 out of 10 times get judged, even when we write something and later wish we had not and or grow after hearing others views and opinions.
Thank you and hang in there. Dean says if you pass one year and get slammed...You are a Blogger!
Hang in there Michael and someday i may guest post on your site. Joe Gandleman has invited me to be a guest anytime I would like to. But until I feel stronger and not under a lot of medical advice of a medical doctor (rhumatologist), internal doctor, heart doctor,psychiatrist, counselor, and chiro....dah....I ain't gonna take the heat cause I don't have the guts like you all do. I love the chiro and the cool pressure point therapy he does along with hypnosis on tape I listen to.
BESIDES, we all know I'M CRAZY!!!
Now, since Dean finally came on and blogged I can go fall back asleep and go see the chiro at 3:00 and then run home to see President Bush sworn in!
You're a good man Michael. Dean and Rosemary think quite a bit of you and thank you too Steven.
Ahh, good morning, I'm going back to bed.
Watch out folks, it's been a roller coaster and had some darn good detectives that took prints of my old apartment. Man oh man there is evil out there. The one week I missed three doctor appointments just before Thanksgiving because everytime I left...well, I drove my car...boom, the creeps came in. I paid $200.00 reward to those maintence to get Mr. Pips back. Guess how long it took the maintanence to find him with an offer like that?
I can not thank all you wonderful folks enough for you laughing at me and or cheering me on...JaneM was a treasure and....ARNOLD...YOU GROUCH! That would be, OSCAR IN SESAME STREET!!!
Yep kid, I got the Wind to my Back and you sure told me to watch those doctors and the drugs.
... Here's Lookin at ya kid!
As Ever, Giggle Giggle and a wink from my way of a blinking right eye....^^^!
Hey, Mr. Pips was renamed to, Major Pips (that is my cat)!
Heh. Isn't it sad that, when we're making a point, we have to put in a disclaimer like that to appease those who might think otherwise!
Rather, the post is about the social values that contribute to a high unwanted pregnancy rate. I'd really like to hear people talk about that. Obviously, I believe "the mystification" of sex and "sex shame" that comes from more conservative social values is largely to blame.
So that's what I wanted comments on. I know abortion is contentious. No doubt there. But if you can, try to stick to the topic.
Thanks!
"I'm not against teaching people to abstain from casual sex. I'm against ONLY teaching that. I am FOR completely demystifying sex, and as is the case in Europe, where they're not as stuffy about showing a breast or two on tellie, teenage pregnancy is MUCH lower than it is here."
I'll say it again: I'm ABSOLUTELY AGAINST demystifying sex. Sex must be mystified, mythified, sanctified, draped and drenched in taboo. I want to WANT sex. I want to LONG for sex. Sex is holy. Sex is sexy.
If I were not a grouch (good natured or otherwise) you wouldn't have much reason to communicate with me. Because I'd be as un-interesting and obvious as a ham and cheese on rye.
SMA,
On reflection, I think you are right about sex. Demystify it too much and it degenerates to the level of masturbation perfomed by an assistant. "Sex is sexy"? It damned well better be.
Robin,
My partner and wife, Stefanija (Stefi) Prasnjak Harris has been together with me since October 3, 1969, and we have been married since February 13, 1972. We have four children, all of whom we cherish, and perhaps more importantly, honor. Especially now that they are mostly all grown up and can hold intelligent conversations with Stefi and me.
We've worked hard with the four of them to teach them to utilize their own intelligence and even their egos, to avoid the pitfalls of misuse of their own or any other persons' bodies. That is in addition to teaching them the principles of taking charge of their own economic lives and preparing themselves for satisfying work that not only will enable them to live comparatively comfortable lives but also to sustain the costs and demands of starting and supporting families of their own.
Nobody in our family ever has had an abortion. Nor has any women whom I have known -- either by kinship, friendship, or sexual relations, over the extent of my 70 years.
Therefore, all that I have written above are theoretical constructs which, hopefully shall never apply to Stefi, our daughter, or the significant others of my three sons.
But as a theoretical construct, I must hew to the position that I signed onto in 1962, based on the terrible circumstances that beset Sheri Finkbein in Phoenix, Arizona, as I wrote about in my comments above. When all is said and done, compelling that women to give birth to a child with one arm and no legs itself would have a crual and monstrous act.
I have no idea, Robin, whether or not you can dovetail considerations such as I have described here into your weltanschauung (world view) in connection with abortion or even with contraception. That remains something you must personally deal with on the level of your own religious and cosmological principles.
But I certain hope you, as a women, never have to face the terrible choice that Sheri Finkbein faced in 1962.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
You are incorrect that America has the resources, unlike those poor midwives who must play God. Many in America DON'T have the resources. Be that as it may...
In general:
There is a difference between "truth" and "fact." The earth is round. That is a fact. There is a God. To some, that is a truth. To others, it is a myth. In the case of truth, there are no absolutes. It is a matter of faith, belief, social conditioning, etc. There are no moral absolutes.
Having said that, let me say this. I am "pro-choice." I believe the issue of abortion does not belong in the polical arena. It should never have been adjudicated or legislated in the first place. It is, completely and totally, a matter for ONLY the woman involved and those she wishes to confide in.
Whether the blastocyst/embryo/fetus/baby is a human being is irrelevant. We, as a society, make value judgements all the time. For instance, there are men guarding the President today who will die for him if need be. Is that because their lives are any less valuable than the President's? Do they not have families who need and love them, who will miss them terribly if they die? Yes, they do. Are they not vitally as important as the President? No, they're not. Not because they are of less value as a human being, but because their JOB is to be a human shield. Their JOBS are of less value than the President's. Therefore, in the choice of them or the President, it will not be the President who dies. At this point in time, his place in life is MORE important.
And so...is the blastocyst/embryo/fetus/baby less of a human being than the mother? Nope. But in the grand scheme of things, its place in life is NOT as important as the mother's. And so in the case of abortion, we value her life more.
As to the subject at hand, though...
I believe (my truth, if you will) that it is entirely possible to teach a child about sex by being both open AND mystifying. Because in the long run, the mechanics of sex is a much different thing than the emotions of sex. My step-son was 12 when he broached the subject with me on a 5-hour road trip (lo, these many years ago). I could correct the misconceptions he had from locker room talk, and I could explain the mechanics of a woman's body (from menstruation to orgasm), but I could only impart MY truth to him as far as the emotional aspect of sex and it's role in a relationship or marriage. Sex is like ice cream, I told him. A bowl of plain vanilla is good, but a banana split with the works is ever so much better. So with sex. It can feel good to have sex, but making love with someone you care about and are committed to is ever so much better.
So, let the schools teach the mechanics of the body. Let them give options like safe sex with condoms or abstinence. And let them dispel the myths bandied about the locker rooms, PLEASE. And hope that parents will explain the difference between a bowl of vanilla ice cream and a banana split.
With your concise differentiation of "truth" vs "fact", you have helped me make my case for womens' choice about whether or not to abort an embryo or fetus. So I have to tell you I will without hesitation adopt your argument whenever the situation arises.
(I think so highly of the logic your terms differentiation that, if I knew your real name, I would refer to it when citing this; because I hate to plagiarize people if I can avoid it.)
Anyway, thanks.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Per Dean's request that we use real names, I had tried to change my account, but apparently it didn't work.
I have been active in the abortion debate for a few years on Delphi, and was known there as Wolfeyes the Spayed. However, I am not averse to you knowing my real name, especially as I enjoy getting credit when I deserve it.
Yours...
Deanna Barr
Regarding the value of a grown woman's life on a scale alongside that of a fetus or even an infant: My partner and wife, Stefi, is more precious to me than any children. I love my four kids. So too does Stefi. But to me, Stefi always comes first if I have to make a choice. The fact is, I just could not imagine life without her, and I think she values my companionship the same way. That's what results from being together 35 years. In any case, I am glad neither of us ever were compelled to make such choices.
As a supporter of abortion choice, you must remember the case in Phoenix that I cited, that of Sheri Finkbein who, without an abortion which she was only able to get in Sweden in 1962, would have given birth to a grossly deformed and physically incomplete child.
I just cannot understand any system of values that would force any women to undergo the pain, horrow and a lifetime of endless sorrow that would be her lot if she had to give birth to such a child. But people among whom I present this argument and my reasoning behind it sometimes act as if I were some sort of monster for daring to suggest that some fetuses truly should not be brought to term.
As for abortions in general, I have high hopes that the ubiquitous availability of mifepristone (RU-486) will reduce dependency of women on abortion clinics which traditionally have been hounded by threatening mobs and sometimes subject to outright violence. Nor do I think women in general will use such chemical means of birth control or early abortions will do so without sound medical consultations as necessary and appropriate.
And, yes, I think I am just as much a conservative and even a right-winger regardless of my policies on this issue. Because I refuse to allow anyone to back me into some sort of political corner about anything. Every issue must be judged on the merits of its own combination of unique factors.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I have often heard the rebuttal that someone may have aborted the person who would grow up to discover a cure for cancer. To which I reply they could have easily aborted someone who would beat Jeffrey Dahmer's record of mass murders.
I have the utmost respect for women who go through pregnancy, whether they keep their babies or not. It is not something I could ever have borne. I was married when I was 19, and having known since I was 10 that I would never bear children (not be a mother...I mean physically bear a child), I went immediately to a doctor to ask for a tubal ligation. I was told I was too young to make that decision. Had I gone instead to ask for help conceiving (given that having a child is generally also a life-long decision), I would have received that help without question.
So I went on the pill. I was religious in taking it, as I was not going to take any chances with becoming pregnant. Three years later...the rabbit died. Seems no one told me that taking certain antibiotics will negate the efficacy of birth control pills. To make matters worse, we were also using a spermicide as a backup birth control method.
I knew within a week, before I missed my first period, that I was pregnant. I went to the doctor and was told I would have to wait five weeks before I could safely undergo an abortion. My point is that I had plenty of time to become accustomed to the idea that I was pregnant.
Each and every day was worse hell than the last. I can confidently say that had I been forced to endure pregnancy for a full term, I would never have made it and the baby would have died anyway, because I would have committed suicide.
The reason I'm giving all this information is to make a bigger point. Not everyone has a biological clock. Not everyone believes a child is a gift from God. Not everyone has the fortitude to endure pregnancy. Given that I had tried my damnedest to avoid becoming pregnant, I didn't feel that my abortion was frivolous. It was a last resort to a very awful situation. It was not my first choice.
Also, let it be known that I was 40 before I found a doctor who would agree to a tubal ligation. I have never had a child, although I did raise my step-son from the age of 10. He's 26 now. I have since talked to many women who were refused tubals early in their 20's and who subsequently aborted. Perhaps a help in reducing abortions would be for doctors to actually listen and believe their patients when they ask for a tubal.
Bah...this issue is so devisive and cannot even read the word without becoming angry anymore, it seems.
Conventional truth and ultimate truth. Conventional truth does not exist independent of ultimate truth.
That there are no moral absolutes is socially debateable, but that there are ontological certainties is not debateable.
Death is an ontological certainty.
Is life ?
A infant born with a single arm and no legs, or with two heads grotesquely sharing a common body, or any other gross abnormality or deformation, is not life as I would define it, but a mere mockery of all that we expect of life.
That, of course, is my own subjective judgement, which is my "truth" as Deanna used the term. "Fact" in this instance is that no small number of births do take place, bringing pain, and infinite sorrow to the individual born under such terrible circumstances, and to the entire family, not least the mother.
Therefore I am steadfast in my determination that no woman shall ever be compelled to bring such a fetus to term if she chooses to opt for an abortion.
And I feel that my morality over these matters is as good as anyone on the anti-abortion side of the argument.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Your argument, that we value the mother's life more than the child's, only applies in cases such as ectopic pregnancy, where the pregnancy will kill the mother if it continues.
In those situations, I agree with you: abortion, while still a horrible thing, is the only alternative to the mother's death. And therefore, it should be allowable in those circumstances. (Although it should never be forced -- let the mother have the final say. I remember reading about one situation -- I wish I could find the link -- where a pregnant woman with cancer refused chemotherapy because it would kill her baby. She endured horrible pain, but successfully brought the child to term. She died just a short time after the baby was born. That was her own choice; she sacrificed her own life so that her baby could live. "Truer love hath no man than this.")
Got a bit off-track there. My main point is that these are exceptional circumstances, that justify an exception to the main rule. But the main rule, I believe, should take into account that the baby being killed is a human being, and so there had better be a level of justification appropriate for taking a human life. And that's a very high standard indeed.
Arnold -
I just cannot understand any system of values that would force any women to undergo the pain, horrow and a lifetime of endless sorrow that would be her lot if she had to give birth to such a child (one with one arm and no legs).
The unspoken assumption here is that the life of such a child would be so horrible that he/she would be better off never living at all. I cannot agree with that assumption. Obviously we cannot ask those who have been killed, but we can ask those whose parents did not choose abortion: "Do you now wish that you had not been born, that your parents had chosen abortion?" Very few would answer yes; most would answer "No, I'm glad my parents didn't choose abortion." Even if you factor in suicide as a "yes" answer to that question, the numbers still are overwhelmingly towards the "I'm glad I'm alive" side.
I understand the compassion that's leading you to your position. But I submit that it's compassion that's horribly misplaced; if you ask those who are currently living with the effects of birth deformities, you'll be able to judge from their responses whether your instincts (better off dead than deformed) are correct.
Consider this letter published in the London Telegraph in 1962:
Your position on abortion stems from compassion, and I respect that. But that compassion is leading you to a horribly uncompassionate position. Ask a parent of a Down's syndrome child (another condition frequently cited as a reason for abortion) about the "pain, horror and a lifetime of endless sorrow" they experience from having brought that child into the world. Be prepared for a vehement reaction, though.
But, as Michael pointed out, this is off-topic. Shall we take this to E-mail if you want to debate abortion further, and leave the comment thread to discussing social values concerning sex?
I'd prefer pubic discussion. Not to demean Michael's intent but it is not off-topic. Your view is very compassionate.
Sometime while ago,a young lad, named Nolan who is a spastic without speech was raised by profoundly compassionate parents.
It turned out that his mum, spent years of showing him the alphabet with posters and charts she had put on the kitchen walls and pointed out on each schoolday, the letters and then later speech phrases. She had no idea, the young lad understood. Until---
Ten years later, the young lad was given a
word processor so that he was able to <b>create</b> intelligible sentences and then later poetry with a stick in his mouth and a keyboard. He wrote a popular book of poetry. HIs parents had no idea of his brilliance.
One of the things he once wrote was:
"If you accept me for who I am, I will accept you for what you are." He did that about age 14.
This is the kind of individual,others, might say
"you have no right to impose on our lives."
I do not know what happened to young Nolan. He is no longer a public persona. But I do know he does have individual human worth---even though there are others that would suggest---don't bother.
I agree that there are numerous cases of developmentally and physically disabled children who grew into adulthood in an attitude of acceptance of their circumstance of birth. And I cannot doubt many of them -- I would hope most of them -- have parents who love them as much as they would had they been born with the mental capacities of a group of Einsteins and the physical attributes of athletes preparing for the next summer Olympic Games.
Nonetheless, the public schools are becoming crowded with special education children of a type that can almost never expect to achieve anything at these schools except to fill up quotas regularly set by departments of public instruction. People who teach or otherwise work with these unfortunate children have frequent contact with their parents.
These school professionals routinely have cause to remember the anguish and emotional agony of many of these parents, some of whom can never accept that their son or daughter never will learn to read, write, speak or compute. In short, they never shall be normal. Some of their children entered life as fetuses of mothers addicted to alcohol or controlled substances. Many of the parents grimly claim they would have chosen abortion. Had they only known the ongoing grief they would face with their abnormally developed babies.
Where does one draw the line here? I plainly do not know, and probably can never know. Therefore, I believe that the choice must be left to the mother. She will be the one person who bears the greatest emotional strain of such a probable tragedy brought into her life.
I know neither of you can ever agree with my evaluation of this problem, and the inevitable decision I would make based on that evaluation. But my core values and truths concerning the very basis of life do not coincide with yours. And I therefore repeat what I have said earlier. That just as I expect people of your opinion never to agree to my ideas of what is right or wrong about abortion rights, you must come to expect that people of my opinion never shall agree to your ideas on this topic.
Therefore, I agree to disagree with both of you, and I expect you both to pay me the same courtesy so that we can get on with our discourses about numerous and sundry other public issues, no small number of which we probably share close or exact opinions.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The good news is some just might agree with your exceptional case issues.
But largely, Roe vs. Wade is extremely, very bad law that was foisted on ALL states by a narrow vote of nine justices. Think of it. Nine people in a population of over 250 million voted on this critical issue.
It is not justice, nor does it portend the words this nations founders said in the Declaration of Independence noted above:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Yes, we know it isn't in the Constitution nor is it religious dogma.
But, human life if it is to be recognized rather than discounted needs to be reflected in our laws.
And, if this nation does not do that then all our liberties are for nought if even one critical linchpin is removed.
It is a core issue not secondary to anyone's personal political view neither yours nor mine.
I simply cannot pay you the courtesy you expect
if you tell me destroying the life of an unborn is
simply nothing more than an option.
Somehow, I haven't arrived at that point just yet.
I must, however take exception to one thing Deanna Barr (Wolfweyes) wrote, and make a spectrumological point that I have often thought about recently, if I may:
"I have often heard the rebuttal that someone may have aborted the person who would grow up to discover a cure for cancer. To which I reply they could have easily aborted someone who would beat Jeffrey Dahmer's record of mass murders."
1) It is often said that pro-choice/pro-abortion people are or consider themselves to be, more often than not, "liberals", while pro-life/anti-abortion people are or consider themselves to be, more often than not, "conservatives".
2) It is also often said that one salient difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is that "liberals believe in the goodness or potential goodness of man (the human being), while "conservatives" believe that man is by nature inclined to evil, born into Original Sin.
3) And yet, as demonstrated by this quote, and many others like it that I have heard, it is the pro-life "conservatives" who have faith in the human potential to acheive the good, while pro-choice "liberals" believe that man is so prone to evil that he must not be allowed to come into existence at all.
Interesting. Hmmm....
And you might understand our point of view a little better if you kindly stop tricking up anti-abortion arguments with propagandistic terms such as "pro-life" and the "unborn". As I have told you before, the term "unborn" has no more meaning in obstetrics than the "undead" has outside the usual retellings of the story of Count Dracula.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
But then that murderer would be a hero because some of his victims might easily be potential murderers themselves. And the person who discovers the cure for cancer would be a villain for prolonging the lives of murderers. Hmmm....
In any case, I do not agree to make valid public policy based on theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; and certainly not in our great republic, in which churchly matters are carefully and absolutely separated from matters of state. Abortion-yes or abortion-no or aborton-maybe are and should remain strictly private decisions.
And more significantly, since women have been practicing abortions since the dawn of the human race, thus it shall continue to be regardless of the opinions, however stern, however godly, however compassionate, however whatever, of the mary, jesus and moses folks.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Or should society shame them?
I am not aware that abstinence education blinds kids to the mechanics of sex. It does tell them that abstinence is the best choice. You have a problem with choice?
No safe sex method is entirely safe. One study I read discovered that consistent condom usage doubled the number of encounters, on average, required to become pregnant or infected. So maybe it's quadrupled in some other study. If unplanned pregnancy or infection are considered bad things, then safe sex leads to bad things. The only advantage is that it takes longer than unsafe sex.
Abortion is right or wrong depending on whether the fetus is considered a fully-protected person.
If the state decides the fetus is a fully-protected person, abortion becomes murder and will probably be outlawed.
The reverse of this is that a perp who assaults a woman so that the fetus dies is, in some jurisdictions, guilty of murder. Is this fair? Does it square with pro-choice views?
Now, you can start going on about a woman's choice about her body, but if society thinks a fetus ought to be a fully-protected person, then we're talking about a serious question.
If we go on about how natural sex is, and how primates screw and screw and screw with no adverse effects (except they're still baboons or whatever) then we ought to be able to do the same.
Ditto birth. It's natural. Done by millions of females each year for millenia. What's so bad about it that you need a partial-birth abortion at the eight month to avoid a normal birth at the end of the ninth?
The real key is that pro-choice people ought to know that everybody else knows, as they do, that the problem isn't the nine months. It's the next thirty years.
Abstinence from sex is certainly the most foolproof means of contraception against pregnancy, albeit a rather sterile way to live out the relatively few short years of a human life. But fucking is as natural as eating, sleeping or eliminating wastes, so I fail to see the point. And few young people will opt for that anyway, so we're back to square one.
In any case, for those whose "truth" dictates to them that the sole purpose of sex is to assist their deity in the act of procreation, is it therefore not logical that abstinence is also a sin? In other words, your god commands you to fuck and bring forth offspring, who will then march forth in the four directions of the compass and subdue the earth, as I recall from numerous bible readings.
Others -- many, many, many, many others -- share no such truth. The fuck for the sheer joy of two human beings connecting in copulation. Why must this be considered sinful? Why must the women especially pay the price of a pregnancy at all? That fact is, over a lifetme of 70 years, none of that has ever made sense to me, morally or rationally. And if I celebrate life, in its full meaning of the term, that simple action, in my case between a man and a woman, because I am heterosexual, is at the very core of the expression of the joyousness of life.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
"And if I celebrate life, in its full meaning of the term, that simple action, in my case between a man and a woman, because I am heterosexual, is at the very core of the expression of the joyousness of life."
Absolutely.
This link has been floating around for a couple of weeks, but I waited until today to post it, for obvious reasons. It's graphic and beyond sad. It's why pro-lifers believe what they believe and do what they do. The opposition and a clueless media can speculate all they want, but until they understand that this about real people who are being brutally killed every day...they won't get it.
Warning: graphic
Inside a Chula Vista Abortion Clinic
I might also add that I have personal knowledge that many roman catholic women disagree with that church's uncompromising stance against abortion under any circumstances, and simply will not bother listening to the blatherings of any catholic priese, monsignor, bishop or whatever who may choose to threaten them over this matter. That is the nice thing about living in a society that the protestant christians -- the jesus folks -- largely founded, organized and developed into a great commonwealth.
Had the future of this great commonwealth depended on the judgements, grudges and other manifestations of the leaders of the mary-folks, this would have wound up just another crummy second-world banana republic like most of the catholic states of Europe.
I acknowledge the spiritual authority of no church, synagogue, mosque or temple. But despite the fact that I have to suffer the anti-abortion blather of the evangelicals and other bible Christians, at least their worldview of individual responsibility to make or break their own grace before their god is one that -- if I were a believer -- would appeak to the libertarian spirit of my mind.
So there.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Richard:
Abstinence is absolutely a good policy...if one is not married, that is. Surely you're not suggesting that in the frame of my legal and spiritually recognized marriage I should have practiced abstinence? I dare say had I done so, I wouldn't have remained married long.
So what I did was use the best medical contraceptives available to prevent pregnancy. And I ended up pregnant anyway.
Also, there is no medical term "partial-birth abortion." As for late-term abortions (the proper term for what you try to describe emotionally), it is rarely used and is done so only because of gross fetal abnormalities or if the fetus is already dead. Since the pregnant woman (mother, if it makes you feel better) does not go into labor many times in the case of a still birth, rather than cutting the woman open for a C-section, the dead fetus is removed instead. This procedure is not, I repeat, IS NOT something done on a regular basis to viable and healthy fetuses.
Catch22:
You can place as much emotional attachment to the "unborn" as you like. You can give examples of folks who many would have aborted but instead they love their lives. I'm here to tell you...There's nothing physically wrong with me. There's nothing mentally wrong with me (well, I suppose that COULD be considered a relative statement, but I mean medically speaking, of course). In other words, I have no physical or mental ailment that would have prompted my mother to abort me. And if she said to me today: Honey, we have the chance to go back in time and I could refuse to give birth to you and grant you life. What would be your answer?
My answer would be: ABORT ME!!!!!!!! The only reason I've never attempted suicide before is because it would cause my mother too much pain. That, and only that. And no, I'm not clinically depressed (two years of therapy after the death of my father confirmed that). I simply find little to recommend life. Given the choice, I would have chosen to forgo it.
Also, would you mind defining your terms "conventional truth" and "ultimate truth." I fail to see any distinction, and I don't understand your statement that one cannot exist without the other.
As for moral absolutes: Name one. Just one.
One last thing: You can give links to as many pro-life websites as you like. Nearly 100% of the propaganda on those sites has been debunked, including the picture of the little hand sticking out of the stomach and holding the doctor's finger. The doctor himself has publicly stated that he lifted the hand out in order to complete the medical procedure he was performing on the fetus pre-birth.
Pictures of fetuses in garbage cans? Faked by pro-life radicals. Pictures of dismembered fetuses? Faked pictures of still births. This stuff doesn't hold water.
Robin:
An abortion in the event of an ectopic pregnancy should be "allowable?" It is, in fact, a certainty that an ectopic pregnancy will kill the pregnant woman. An abortion in such a case isn't merely allowable. It is, in fact, a life-saving operation no less than bypass surgery.
Steven:
I am a registered Republican, only because I couldn't register as Libertarian in Alaska years ago, and I cannot abide most of the political agenda of the Democratic party. Be that as it may, I am a nearly pure Libertarian in my political stance. I would never call myself a conservative or a liberal.
In general:
Life is a gift, right? Women who have no resources or are stoned out of their gourds SHOULD give birth, right? Every child is a gift from God, right? Yeah, right. Explain that to the 100,000+ children living in the social foster care system right now. Explain that to the babies, infants, and toddlers who are abused and/or killed every year by the parents who supposedly love and cherish them. Explain that to the crack babies who begin life addicted and spend the rest of their lives fighting with the effects of it.
Life has exactly the value we place on it. No more, no less. And that value is subjective to circumstances of each individual case. If you value the life of an unborn person rather than the life of the pregnant woman who already has more mouths to feed than she can afford, or the lives of the children she's already trying to feed who will be further deprived with the new addition, then by all means...don't abort.