Religious extremists attacking a PP in my state [Archive]

Seshat

09-16-2007, 11:36 PM

Religious people become 'religious extremists' when they're attacking people in the name of their religion. The extremist anti-abortion protesters do a lot of damage - some have killed people, in the name of stopping something they see as murder. That's extreme. That's what gets people like me upset.

Peaceful protest, writing letters to the council, speaking in public fora - that's all fine. Heck, I encourage it. 'I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it', and all that.
But once you (the generic you) start blocking people from entering the building, that starts worrying me. Pushing, shoving pamphlets in their face, yelling horrible things - I disapprove of that, and would call the police on you (again, generic). But if it gets to murder, that's extreme, criminal, and I cannot believe that the God my parents taught me about would approve.

Kerrisan, Jaden, so long as neither of you have condoned violence, murder, and abuse in the name of what you believe to be right, you're not 'extremists' in the sense I use the word. Relax, I'm willing to listen to you.

Of course, I'm also about to rebut some of your arguments. :) But in the spirit of open communication and trying to identify where we agree and disagree, not in any attempt to shut you down.

So. Taking this from the easiest to the hardest.

Miscarriage

Many, many children are born, not miscarried, with severe birth defects. Some are born dead, and if you research 'stone baby', some are never born. The CDC's webpage says 1 in 33 children in the States are born with a birth defect, but that includes the really minor ones. For the purpose of this discussion, I think only the ones who won't survive are relevant.
Hm. I've not had much googling success on finding what I really want, but this page (http://www.mdch.state.mi.us/pha/osr/BirthDefects/summary.asp) explains that the infant death rate and the under-two death rate of children with 'reportable birth defects' (presumably ones which are severe enough to matter clinically) is much higher than for normal children.

I could shock you with pictures of harlequin babies and other perinatal abnormalities. If you want to see, follow this link to photos of abnormalities (http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/PEDHTML/PEDIDX.html#3). If not, don't bother - basically, these are a lot of babies who didn't miscarry, and many can't survive.

On top of that, of course, there's the complications of pregnancy that cause permanent damage to the mother's body. I've seen people say that they support abortion where the mother's life is in danger - what about 'merely' her health? God doesn't always miscarry the babies that threaten the mother's health. There is a nice list at thelizlibrary (http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm), but I acknowledge that as a source, those of you who are against abortion may consider it biased. Please feel free to do your own research on the conditions it names.

In summary, however, miscarriage is not sufficient protection for me, or for any child of my body. I accept that you may feel differently, but I ask you not to impose your decision on me and my hypothetical child.

Your other points

Your other points are ones on which we will almost certainly have to agree to disagree. As I understand it, they are:
1. Abortion is murder
2. Even in rape, God has put the child there and wants it there
3. A single act of evil taints every positive act the clinics may perform

For all of these, I see them as matters of individual conscience and belief. I resent people who would force matters of belief and faith on me - and I'm sure you'd resent people forcing matters of faith on you. Would you like to be forced to fast all day during Ramadan?

Anyway, working backwards:

A single act of evil....

Well then, I'd better not stub my toe and swear while I'm helping out at the RSPCA.

I know. It's more severe than that. But many things Christians do offends my faith, and I still perceive the good works done in Christ's name as good. And let's face it, your holiest sacrament is ritual symbolic cannibalism. ("Take and eat, this is my body. Take and drink, this is my blood.")

I guess your argument would make more sense if I did see abortion as murder. But I don't.

God wants the baby there

God isn't stopped by something as simple as abortion. And as I was taught, He can look inside us. If He wanted a particular baby born, he could give it to someone who actually wants to be pregnant.

Abortion as murder

Most abortions are performed in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. At twelve weeks, its a little over five centimetres long and weighs fourteen grams. It's living tissue, wholly dependant on the mother for survival.
My appendix is longer and larger, is living tissue, and wholly depends on me for survival. I'd have my appendix removed. I'd have a twelve week foetus removed with equally little problem.
To me, it's not a person until it becomes capable of independant life. (Actually, I have trouble seeing babies as people. Toddlers are, babies aren't. But I accept that I'm unusually odd that way.)

I just don't see abortion as murder. I'm sure you're about to say something about embryos having souls from the moment of conception - but I have two things to say about that. One is that we can't prove it, and the other is that even if it's so, surely God is capable of protecting those souls.
Actually, if I were God, I wouldn't put a soul in a baby until it actually became interesting to be there. Probably somewhere between babyhood and toddlerhood.

Seshat

09-16-2007, 11:41 PM

Not to denigrate anyone's beliefs but there world doesn't operate in just black and white. There *is* middle ground in almost everything, and to insist there isn't is pretty much the source of most conflict in the world since you're into "I'm right, you're wrong" territory.

Good point, CancelMyService.

I'll also add that most of the Christians I know (including my parents, including most of the ministers I know) are very aware that there's middle ground almost everywhere. I'm surprised by people who see 'right' and 'wrong' and no variations.

Jaden

09-17-2007, 01:12 AM

There IS gray...in some things. I don't believe this is one of them though.

For example, I am a Christian, and being a Christian I don't think casual divorce is right. However, I do believe there are certainly some very good reasons for divorce, y'know, abuse, adultery, things like that.

I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. The Bible makes it pretty clear that you can't judge people who don't live by the Bible by the Bible, so I'm not going to bring the Bible into any debate I have with anybody who does not also claim to follow it. I understand many insane fundies seem to overlook that verse but, well, I can't name anything that doesn't have insane, blind followers.

So, why should I protest the creation of a Planned Parenthood? Wouldn't that be pushing my beliefs on others? Not really. I believe abortion is murder. Murder is illegal. Therefore, abortion should be illegal, regardless of the other good the organization may do. Cursing is not illegal, and quite frankly I really don't mind anybody cursing around me. I believe in every person's right to live their life the way they want, so long as it does not interfere with other people's rights, which I believe abortion does infringe on the rights of baby.

As far as abortion being murder, well quite frankly I couldn't care less as to whether or not the fetus is considered "living" by medical standards, though I think there are arguments for the fetus being alive. If you throw some flower seeds into the ground, and then destroy the seeds, are you not, in essence, destroying the flower? Same principle, I'd imagine. I'm certainly not against the use of contraceptives, and I certainly do encourage condom usage and the pill to anybody who decides to have sex. I don't think there's anything wrong with that (that's like not throwing the seeds into the ground to begin with).

As far as things not being black and white, well, how far are you willing to take that? Once again, I agree that it is true in some cases, but what if somebody did something like, I dunno, burned down somebody's house. What if that person doesn't believe that doing that is wrong, or thought they had a good reason? Is there a gray area? Should we not interfere? Some things are black and white.

CancelMyService

09-17-2007, 02:28 AM

I believe in every person's right to live their life the way they want, so long as it does not interfere with other people's rights, which I believe abortion does infringe on the rights of baby.

What about cases where abortion is sometimes an option to save the life of the mother? Do the rights of the unborn trump the rights of the born? Again another grey issue rears its head. Where do you draw the line and why?

If you throw some flower seeds into the ground, and then destroy the seeds, are you not, in essence, destroying the flower?

IMO, you're just destroying some seeds before they were allowed to potentially grow into flowers, which is kind of the argument a lot of pro-choice people make.

As far as things not being black and white, well, how far are you willing to take that? Once again, I agree that it is true in some cases, but what if somebody did something like, I dunno, burned down somebody's house. What if that person doesn't believe that doing that is wrong, or thought they had a good reason? Is there a gray area? Should we not interfere? Some things are black and white.

It would depend on the context. It's hard to say if something is "right" or "wrong" unless all the details are known.

Also:

I couldn't care less as to whether or not the fetus is considered "living" by medical standards

It would seem the very crux of all your arguments are based on that very thing, so it would suggest you do in fact care about. Also, there's the idea that there can (and usually is) disagreement over which things are black and white and which aren't.

Jaden

09-17-2007, 03:19 AM

What about cases where abortion is sometimes an option to save the life of the mother? Do the rights of the unborn trump the rights of the born? Again another grey issue rears its head. Where do you draw the line and why?

Well, since I consider them both humans, and thus both have the same rights as any other human, that since there is only a chance of the mother dying, whereas there would be a 100% chance of a baby dying in a successful abortion, obviously. I guess that all comes down to whether a mother is willing to risk her life for her child, which is on your own conscience. But I don't think that it's her right or any doctor's right to decide who lives and who dies.

And before anybody says it, I'm not trying to cheapen the lives of women. If, by some very strange and probably disturbing miracle, men were able to get pregnant, I'd say the same thing about it.

IMO, you're just destroying some seeds before they were allowed to potentially grow into flowers, which is kind of the argument a lot of pro-choice people make.

Seeds in the ground even for just a short time, when taken proper care of, have already started to develop and become a flower after a very short time, even if it's not entirely noticeable. Likewise, a fetus, even in a short time, has already started to take in nutrients from the mother and started to grow. It's already in the state of becoming and growing. Even if it isn't alive (which I still have serious doubts on), it is becoming alive.

It would depend on the context. It's hard to say if something is "right" or "wrong" unless all the details are known.

Ok. Let's say your best friend got raped. He doesn't see anything wrong with what he did. Do you need anymore information? Is anything your friend did to him worth her getting raped over? Even if she did something terrible to him in the first place? Acts of revenge make it alright?

Rape is a terrible thing. I'm not trying to cheapen such a traumatic experience at all. But following the line of logic that NOTHING is black and white (which I never said everything was black and white), well, we don't know the circumstances. I guess we shouldn't interfere. How can you judge what's right or wrong in this case? Maybe his religion says it's ok. Then you get into the territory of discriminating against people for their religion.

I just don't see how a person could take the position of nothing, or even almost nothing is black and white. What do we have laws for then? What's the point if nothing is wrong or right? What's the point if nobody cares about anybody else and will just do whatever they feel is right?

It would seem the very crux of all your arguments are based on that very thing, so it would suggest you do in fact care about. Also, there's the idea that there can (and usually is) disagreement over which things are black and white and which aren't.

I think I just went over this in my post. But for the record, the quote you put before this was obviously connected with the line after it, and I don't appreciate taking my words out of context.

CancelMyService

09-17-2007, 04:03 AM

See, the thing is with these types of discussion is it always leads to stuff like "Well what about rape?" with the implication that if I agree with you on that, then it somehow concedes the point overall.

If a friend of mine was raped (which for the record, has happened) and she did something in retaliation, then you're arguing she should face the full consequences of her actions regardless of the context. I'm just saying that one should take all the facts into account before passing judgement (which is admittedly hard a lot of the time) rather than making what could be a kneejerk response.

Also I didn't mean to take anything out of context, I noticed the quote I put last when I was finished typing my post, and put it at the end since I (ironically) wanted to avoid the appearence of taking anything out of xontext. Apparently that was a fail on my part.

Now to respond directly to some comments:

How can you judge what's right or wrong in this case? Maybe his religion says it's ok. Then you get into the territory of discriminating against people for their religion.

On the same token, religious people sometimes need to understand/accept that not everyone holds the same views and may not have been taught the same things that religion taught them. The very nature of religion tends to put people not of the same belief on a lower level, which rubs alot of the unchurched types the wrong way. The whole idea of "my way is right because God said so" as a debating method is not very productive. Neither is claiming religious persecution whenever someone questions those views.

I just don't see how a person could take the position of nothing, or even almost nothing is black and white.

Life experiences? Stealing is wrong but sometimes it's something you have to do for survival. Desparation leads people to make choices that may go against the moral compass of others because they may feel they don't have any other options. That doesn't make what they do *right*, it just offers some insight on why they happen.

What do we have laws for then? What's the point if nothing is wrong or right? What's the point if nobody cares about anybody else and will just do whatever they feel is right?

Well obviously we need to have laws to maintain society, but even laws allow for context. If someone attacks you and you kill them in self-defense, you probably won't get life in prison for it.

Seshat

09-17-2007, 04:04 AM

Well, since I consider them both humans

And here's the grey area. I don't. I don't think the foetus is 'a human being' yet. It's living human tissue, but so's my appendix.

Murder is wrong, but removing bits of tissue isn't. The 'shades of grey' comes in when you're trying to decide where to make the mark that says 'this is a person' on the line between a fertilized ovum and a squalling independant baby.

Even if it isn't alive (which I still have serious doubts on), it is becoming alive.

It's living human tissue as soon as the proteins and vitamins and minerals are absorbed by the parent - before it's even an ovum and a sperm, much less fertilised.

When is it an independant human being with its own rights? That's up in the air. I don't know.

Ok. Let's say your best friend got raped. He doesn't see anything wrong with what he did. Do you need anymore information?

Yes. Did she ever clearly indicate a lack of interest? Did he ever override her indicating a lack of interest? Sometimes it's very clearly rape, sometimes it's a horrific miscommunication. Sometimes it's a false accusation. Rape - especially date rape - is one of the situations which (IMO) is LEAST clearly black and white.

I just don't see how a person could take the position of nothing, or even almost nothing is black and white. What do we have laws for then? What's the point if nothing is wrong or right? What's the point if nobody cares about anybody else and will just do whatever they feel is right?

Most things are a continuum, especially ethical matters. There is distinctly wrong, distinctly right, and wobbly difficult-to-decide stuff in the middle. Laws cover the distinctly-wrong things, and some of the wobbly stuff. We have courts and human judges because of the wobbly difficult-to-decide stuff in the middle (as well as to determine exactly who did the distinctly-wrong stuff).

I'm actually more scared of people who think in black and white than I am of people who think of shades of grey. It's so easy to tell yourself 'I'm right, I know what is right for everyone, so I will override other people's judgements and beliefs in the name of my rightness'. And that gets horribly, horribly scary very quickly.

I have faith in people in general. If I think someone else is doing something wrong, I assume that they've thought it through and have reasons that they think are good to do it that way. I might disagree. I might disagree strongly! But if they're not affecting other people, I consider it to be none of my business what they do - because hey, I'm not in possession of all the facts.

Now, when they ARE affecting other people, I think intervention is appropriate. It's the old saying 'your right to swing your fist ends at my nose'. And that's when the legal/judicial system comes into play. Society as a whole decides where along the various ethical continuums to draw its lines.

People usually do what they think is right, or at least what they think is least wrong, given the circumstances they're in. Sure, there's a small percentage of people who take pleasure in bucking the system or playing it for what they can get, but I don't think there are as many of those as most people think. And these people show up pretty clearly anyway.

I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone.

You said that in an earlier post than the one I'm mostly responding to, but it highlights another point I'd like to get a response to.

Your beliefs say that abortion is wrong. My beliefs don't. Now, you may not be able to answer this, but:

If you (or people who believe like you do) prevent me (or people like me) from getting an abortion, isn't that forcing your beliefs on me?

You believe it's wrong. I believe it's just a medical procedure. You (and those like you) hypothetically make it unavailable, thus forcing women who get pregnant despite precautions against it to endure a pregnancy and all its complications and permanent effects. Because of nothing more than your beliefs.

That's why the pro-choice side gets so upset. Especially the ones like me for whom a pregnancy would be horribly traumatic.

Amethyst Hunter

09-17-2007, 07:51 AM

I guess I am a "religious extremist" then, because I am a Christian.

That depends. Would you take VIOLENT ACTION against those who perform abortions/dispense contraception/would get an abortion? Or would you allow others to live their own lives while still at the same time retaining your personal view that all abortion is wrong?

The latter is legitimately "pro-life." The former isn't - and that's EXACTLY the type of extremists we're facing in this situation. Ever heard of Operation Rescue/Operation Save America? They are a de facto hostile extremist group that has been known to resort to violence against clinics in the past. I would even go so far as to call them terrorists, because that's EXACTLY the kind of crap they engage in. They've partnered with another anti-choice group (PLAL/PLAN) and believe me, these guys are NO friend of "pro-life" people.

PLAN's founder, Joe Scheidler, has already announced *in print* that he fully intends to obtain permits to picket (read: harass and intimidate) the HOMES of PP employees and anybody even remotely associated with them (PP even said that while the building was being constructed these nuts were taking *pictures* of construction workers' license plates). Given this group's questionable history and their association with OR, I would NOT trust that one loose (or more) cannon that you know is out there to not try and start something.

You can disagree with abortion; that's fine. But harassing people at their HOMES goes too far as far as I'm concerned. Don't those people have a right to life too?

AFPheonix

09-17-2007, 09:02 PM

The other thing to consider is that not all PP offices perform abortions. A few do, yes, but most of them have a few nurse practitioners, doctors and PAs who do routine stuff like pap smears and whatnot.
I took advantage of PP's services when I didn't have insurance but still needed birth control and monthly checkups. I am GLAD they're there.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

BlaqueKatt

02-10-2008, 03:44 AM

Not to denigrate anyone's beliefs but there world doesn't operate in just black and white. There *is* middle ground in almost everything, and to insist there isn't is pretty much the source of most conflict in the world since you're into "I'm right, you're wrong" territory.

yeah let's just go back in time and redo the whole civil war because the I'm right you're wrong isn't true.

I'm not religious-and that's essentially why I believe abortion is wrong-we judged a person's worth as a human by the color of their skin, now we're doing it based on physical location(inside another human)

Comparason of Dred Scott and Roe v Wade (http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL699/slave.html)

ThePhoneGoddess

02-10-2008, 09:32 AM

I don't see the comparison between those two decisions at all. Most of the connections they make are extremely tenuous.

In an 1857 court case, known as the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves, even freed slaves, and all their descendants, had no rights protected by the Constitution and that states had no right to abolish slavery.

The purpose of a court is to interpert the laws the government has passed, especially in relation to other laws which affect the same issue. The court stated here that according to the laws at the time the states did not have the legal ability to abolish slavery, and that 'negros' had no rights as defined by the constitution. This is correct---this is the way the laws were written because the slaveholding states held so much power over the federal government, they insisted that the right to slavery be enshrined as a federal issue that the states had no control over. One of the biggest causes of the Civil War was this issue of state's rights.

Slavery was perfectly legal under our laws, and slaves not considered human beings with human rights, until the 13th and 14th Amendments were passed. Abortion is no different---it is perfectly legal under our current laws, and would take a serious law---such as an amendment---to give a fetus personhood status.

The Dred Scott ruling was the CORRECT decision---based on the laws in place at that time. Whether it was a MORAL decision is an entirely different issue.

CancelMyService

02-10-2008, 08:15 PM

Ironically, when it came to slavery the argument was that it's a "state's rights" issue just as it was 100 or so years later with civil rights. That of course is obvious code for "states should be allowed to have discriminatory laws", but when it comes to abortion many of those same people demand federal action like a Constitutional Amendment take place.

Honestly, the Civil War wasn't a clear cut case of "I'm right, you're wrong" either. History has distilled it down to being about slavery, but that was just one of the issues the war was about. The war was mostly about the fledgling federal government wanting to establish itself against the first major challenge to its authority by a state. Even Lincoln was pragmatic about it, as he knew that it wasn't going to be the most popular thing to abolish slavery, but not only was it the right thing to do it was what was needed to maintain the authority of the US government.

Not to say Lincoln didn't believe slavery needed to be abolished, clearly he did, but it wasn't an altruistic plan as one would think.

DexX

02-12-2008, 12:51 AM

I used to be rabidly anti-abortion, except in cases where the mother's life was in danger. Yes, I was a black-and-white thinker. These days I just don't have a cohesive opinion of abortion, and it's probably the one hangover issue from my faded Chairtianity that still confuses and concerns me.

The one thing I know for certain is that abortion is a big thing for any woman, and should never be taken lightly. I also believe it is idiotic to rely on abortion rather than contraceptive drugs or barriers (though those who do are likely to be the victim of moronic abstinence-only sex education).

As for a blob of cells being human, well, I just can't believe that any more. I used to trot out a silly metaphysical argument about time travel - if someone existed in your time and you could go back and convince the mother to have an abortion, would you be a murderer? One day it occured to me... what if you went back a few months earlier and just knocked on the door when you knew the conception was about to occur? What if you prevented conception? If my (very weak) argument proved abortion was murder, then poorly-timed door-knocking was murder too.

Imagine you have two petri dishes, one in each hand. In one is a human ovum, and in the other is some sperm. Both are healthy and viable. Let's say you have the technology to grow a healthy baby from the contents of those dishes. All you have to do to kick it off is tip one dish into the other. According to many pro-life arguments, if you don't, you're a murderer.

Why?

Because those two dishes contain a potential person, and if you don't combine them you are denying them to the right to exist.

It seems ridiculous to me now (though ten years ago I was thoroughly convinced) that minutes after the sperm meeting the egg, a human being with full rights exists. It's some cells. While I am morally uneasy about drawing a line, these days I am more inclined to think that a real, genuine person only exists when a foetus exhibits brain function, and maybe not even then.

All that said, I think women should be careful of abortion. Simple though it may be, it's an invasive medical procedure that subverts the natural, healthy course of biological function. Even women I know who are fiercely pro-choice still speak solemnly of their own abortions. One dear friend of mine says she made the right decision, as she is not psychologically suited to motherhood and her marriage was on the rocks, but she still wishes she hadn't needed to do it.

So yeah, teach kids about safe sex (well, as safe as it can be) and get them using the pill, condoms, or whatever works for them, but as uneasy as it makes me feel at times, if all else fails make sure they also have the right to a reasonably early-term abortion.

(Wow, that was longer and more rambly than I intended.)

Pedersen

02-12-2008, 01:09 AM

As a Christian, I also believe that God knows what He is doing. He created a woman's body to abort a child on its own if it's not going to make it. It's called miscarriage. Abortion in any case is wrong.

Allow me to ask something please?

God, over the past few millenia, has:

Created all of existence.
Turned water into blood (ref: The "persuasion" of the Pharaoh to release His chosen people)
Killed only the first born people of each household of Egypt that did not show the proper symbols to the Angel of Death (ref: see same)
Lit a bush on fire, but without burning the bush itself (ref: Moses and the burning bush)
Brought two men back from the dead (ref: Lazarus and Jesus himself)
Caused a woman to give birth to a male child without intercourse with a human (ref: The Virgin Mary, Immaculate Conception, etc)
Saved a condemned man from being devoured alive by hungry beasts (ref: Daniel and the Lions)

And that's just a list from the Bible. Around us every day, we have things like:

People having horrific accidents, and managing to survive them when they should have died, judging by all acounts.
People dying from things that should not have killed them.
People praying for (and receiving) the things they most need to stay alive (sometimes money, sometimes a specific form of help, etc).

And you are going to tell me that God is limited by modern medical science?

if God wanted that woman to have that baby, then that woman would have that baby. And no abortion could stop it.

Unless, of course, he is not actually omnipotent.

So, now I have to ask: Is God omnipotent, or not?

If so, then the point is moot. A woman having an abortion must be acceptable by God, since he is allowing it to happen.

If not, then again the point is moot. God is not omnipotent, and is therefore not the God of Christian scripture, and thus any edict from that God must be a false one.

CancelMyService

02-12-2008, 04:08 AM

I'm sure there's a loophole that explains it, there always seems to be one.

As far as abortion goes, it always seemed pretty clear that there is a point where a fetus could survive outside of the womb. Before that point, the fetus is basically just a parasite feeding off the host (mother). I know that's controversial since the knee jerk response is all "OMG ITZ A BABY" but to me until it is a viable being that can live outside the womb, it doesn't deserve full rights and privileges to a fully formed being. Isn't the main argument against gay marriage always that ridiculous claim that legalizing same-sex unions will lead to legalizing all unions, like animals and children? Why doesn't anyone ever spin that one around and say if you're going to grant fertilized eggs full rights, why not amoebas or protozoa?

Besides, I always thought God must be OK with terminating pregnancies, since it happens naturally (miscarriages) all the time.

Seshat

02-12-2008, 05:17 AM

Even women I know who are fiercely pro-choice still speak solemnly of their own abortions. One dear friend of mine says she made the right decision, as she is not psychologically suited to motherhood and her marriage was on the rocks, but she still wishes she hadn't needed to do it.

You don't have to look far to find pro-choice women who haven't had an abortion - because they have always been both careful and lucky, and their contraception of choice (which might be celibacy) has worked. Heck, there are pro-choice women who've had their contraception fail and decided to keep their child, while not in any way changing their pro-choice views. The view there is "I'm for choice, and keeping her was my choice".

Conversely, you have to search very, very hard to find a pro-choice person (of either gender) who is actually for abortion. For the vast majority of pro-choice people, abortion is a regrettable medical procedure. As with most medical procedures other than screenings, prevention is better than any treatment, and a non-invasive treatment is usually better than an invasive one.

From some of the ways you've phrased things, it seems as if that comes as a surprise to you - almost as if you expected pro-choice people to want to have abortions. As if we think of it as a primary form of contraception, or a casual thing.

Is that a common belief among anti-choice folk?

CancelMyService

02-12-2008, 06:30 AM

Judging from what I hear when I scan past talk radio or flip past Fox News, the strawman is that pro-choice people want "abortions on demand" like some kind of perverse McDonald's drive thru setup. They tell their listeners/viewers that somehow being pro choice means you enjoy abortions or some other silly nonsense.

Seshat

02-12-2008, 01:36 PM

My husband, my two best friends, and I have all been tempted at times to get t-shirts with a slogan something like "Oops! I forgot to have an abortion!"

Variations include:

Things to do before you die:
<random nice things like 'walk barefoot in the sand' or 'share a sunset picnic'>
* have an abortion

My life is missing something - oh yeah, I haven't had an abortion

Get me pregnant: I haven't had an abortion yet!

I guess to us, the strawman is just so self-evidently ridiculous.

Of course, one of the main reasons we haven't done it is that we don't want to offend the moderate anti-abortion people: the ones who agree that the strawman is ridiculous, and will potentially believe we're setting up the strawman just to publically pull it down and weaken the moderate anti-abortion argument.

(In Australia, we have far fewer extremist anti-abortion 'noise' than you do in America. Over here, it would be a reasonable thing for a moderate anti-abortionist to believe. However, those of you in the States where the extremist strawman is so strong, please feel free to use these slogans!)

Unfortunately, the extremist anti-abortionists are setting up such a strong strawman in the US that the honest moral dilemma of abortion is being overshadowed by the extremists' propaganda. Ironically, they're weakening their own side.

I feel women should think about all the moral issues of abortion. And we should do so at puberty, and every year between puberty and the time their personality and morality settles down - usually between 18 and 25. Then revisit it periodically until menopause. When we're pregnant it's too late to think about it calmly and intellectually - we'd benefit from knowing what we felt and thought about it before one of us realised her period was late.

BlaqueKatt

02-12-2008, 05:52 PM

I feel women should think about all the moral issues of abortion. And we should do so at puberty, and every year between puberty and the time their personality and morality settles down - usually between 18 and 25. Then revisit it periodically until menopause. When we're pregnant it's too late to think about it calmly and intellectually - we'd benefit from knowing what we felt and thought about it before one of us realised her period was late.

I would like to add also think of the MEDICAL issues(at least in the states)
1, the abortion industry has NO REGULATION-they "police themselves"
2, a doctor that performs abortions is the only doctor not REQUIRED BY LAW to have malpractice insurance
3, abortion is the ONLY medical procedure where INFORMED CONSENT is not MANDATED by law

there was a case where a clinic in NY used the same equipment from patient to patient without even running it under water, much less sterilizing it-clinic is still open and operating-why because "have a regulatory comitee and clinic inspections could close clinics and make access linited which is unconstitutional" same argument was made when the AMA wanted to force them to carry malpractice insurance, and informed consent---the argument was made by planned parenthood, who also ignored a court order for a 14 year old girl to not have an abortion due to a medical condition-they arranged for her transport to another state, and maintained they did nothing wrong when the girl died from "complications"

my other issue is there are studies that show after an abortion it becomes very difficult to concieve/carry a child to term(a D&C results in scar tissue that forms over the fallopean tubes resulting in an 85% chance of ectopic pregnancy), but women going in for the procedure are never told this.. They are also not told about the 17 seperate studies done in sweden and china that show abortion increases the risk of breast cancer by up to 280%. The branch of the CDC that is responsible for reporting injury and death statistics for abortion has not released any data since 1988-why is that? And why are all the staff at the CDC that are in charge of collection the data employed at or investors/owners of abortion clinics. Would you let the head of a tobacco comapany run the american lung association, and compile reports on the safety of tobacco? That's what the CDC does for abortion, the reports on safety cite other studies written by other people in their branch exclusively-NO outside sources at all.

One of my best friends had to have her uterus removed to stop the bleeding from a puncture made during a "safe" suction abortion her parents wanted her to have-she was 16 and wanted to keep the baby, now she'll never have one. Neither her nor her parents were warned that it was a common complication(before 1988-last year statistics available around 40% rate of occurance)

TheRoo

02-12-2008, 10:57 PM

In the U.S a lot of states have passed laws superseding the informed consent laws when it comes to abortion. The breast cancer/abortion link has been discredited many times. The methodology of the study that found a link was flawed.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

All of the other physical risks to the mother are actually greater if she choses to deliver the baby.

Boozy

02-12-2008, 11:05 PM

All of the other physical risks to the mother are actually greater if she choses to deliver the baby.

Quoted because it needs to be repeated. Again and again, it would appear.

There are currently no valid studies to indicate that abortions are riskier than pregnancy and delivery.

Besides, let's not pretend that the major concern for the anti-choice movement is the woman. Her body and her life are afterthoughts.

BlaqueKatt

02-13-2008, 01:00 AM

Did you even read the fact that NO MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY RATES have been released by the CDC for 20 YEARS!!!!

you cannot say that without having ALL the DATA you ONLY have the risks for childbirth. The camparisons are from current stats on childbirth to 20 year old stats on abortion.

I personally know about 50 women that have been damaged to the point of not being able to have children(which they desperatly want) due to having an abortion in their teens and 20's-one had to have her bowel resectioned(the doctor that damaged her is still working-she tried to sue for malpractice he had no insurance, and the nurses at the clinic told her-why are you tring to sue you got what you came for). I used to work in a crisis pregnancy center that offered counciling to women both before and after their choices. I never saw as much psycological pain from any of the women that we hooked up with adoptive families.

Also to realise where I'm coming from-I was told no less than 6 times by 4 different doctors to abort my son due to the "possibility" that I'd have complications delivering(apparently they had never heard of a c-section)-the last time I was told I should have an abortion by a medical doctor was when I was 7 months pregnant-at 7 months I could have scheduled a c-section and he would've been in NICU, but I was told to have either a saline or partial birth abortion. They tried getting my husband to sign the consent forms for it telling him I might die during delivery if I didn't have one immediately.

And I think you'd feel differently if you had found out your mother had tried to abort you, and the doctor screwed up-he killed my twin though. I was born 5 months after my mother's attempt to abort me-no one realised she was still pregnant until around 6 months.

TheRoo

02-13-2008, 01:43 AM

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm

DexX

02-13-2008, 03:14 AM

From some of the ways you've phrased things, it seems as if that comes as a surprise to you - almost as if you expected pro-choice people to want to have abortions. As if we think of it as a primary form of contraception, or a casual thing. Is that a common belief among anti-choice folk?

Nah, my views were already changing by the time I made any female friends who had abortions (or at least any who told me about it). Besides, I wasn't an unreasonable psycho until I lost Jesus and became rational and reasonable - I always thought that women who had abortions weren't evil, but just made a bad decision.

Ahhh, the follies of youth...

I find that black and white thinking is a product of a lack of imagination. Remember a few years ago when John Kerry (I think) talked about something being "nuanced" and the conservative side of US politics had a field day, calling him a wishy-washy flip-flopper because he wasn't a narrow-minded git who always thinks in black and white terms.

*sigh*

Amethyst Hunter

02-13-2008, 04:13 AM

there are studies that show after an abortion it becomes very difficult to concieve/carry a child to term(a D&C results in scar tissue that forms over the fallopean tubes resulting in an 85% chance of ectopic pregnancy), but women going in for the procedure are never told this.

That's got to be news to all the women who've had abortions and then later went on to have children without any problems.

Done *incorrectly*, under less than sterile conditions, yes - an abortion (as in, illegal) would have the potential to irrevocably damage the female's body. Which is why I firmly believe abortion must remain legal and accessible. If it's driven underground like other issues (Prohibition comes to mind), it will only become incredibly unsafe and you'll wind up with women who are desperate enough to pull a DIY (and I would be one of them).

As Seshat said, it's nigh-impossible to find a pro-choice person who actually thinks of abortion in terms of "yay, let's go have an abortion party" or some such. It's something that should be avoided whenever possible - I agree that using it as birth control is foolish - but when it's necessary it should be available to prevent further misery. It's not something to celebrate, but it shouldn't be something that someone should be made to feel ashamed of.

They are also not told about the 17 seperate studies done in sweden and china that show abortion increases the risk of breast cancer by up to 280%.

No. This is a very popular lie spread by the anti-choice crowd as a scare tactic. To date, there is no solid evidence that points to abortion being a direct cause of breast cancer (or any other cancer, for that matter).

And speaking of China, seriously, would you really trust anything coming out of a country that's slapped lead paint on toys, contaminated untold numbers of pet food, and has an atrocious human rights record?

I used to work in a crisis pregnancy center that offered counciling to women both before and after their choices. I never saw as much psycological pain from any of the women that we hooked up with adoptive families.

I personally distrust these so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" because most if not all of them are fronts for anti-choice and/or abusive religious practices. A common tactic of anti-choice groups - the notorious Operation Rescue, which DOES have ties to extremists who have committed violence against clinics, is known to have done this - is to force out women's clinics, either through violence (not usually their preferred method due to the attention it receives, but one they've shown they have no reluctance to resort to) or by buying out the property and evicting the tenants in order to set up their own center (more commonly employed).

The abusive religious cults will manipulate the women into not only having a child they may not be prepared to handle, but into giving up this child into their hands for adoption...which ordinarily I wouldn't have a problem with - IF said child wasn't going into a potentially abusive household. There are even some centers that will explicitly state in their contracts that the baby MUST go into a particular type of dominionist household, or any financial aid that pregnant woman was hoping to get will be ganked. It's little more than blackmail.

Incidentally, dominionist households have a higher likelihood and rate of violence in regards to child abuse; there have been cases where teenagers have been sent to boot camps (for offenses including talking back to parents and coming out as homosexual) where beatings severe enough to leave permanent markings have been reported, and contact with the outside world - even with family members - has literally been cut off completely in order to prevent those kids from gaining a different perspective or even flat-out escaping (it's not uncommon for them to be kept under literal lock and key). The problem is severe enough that one such 'boot camp' known as Love In Action (based out of Kentucky, if memory serves me) was actually shut down by government authorities after one too many reports of physical abuse got their attention and an investigation was rendered.

Also, notorious "psychologist" (and I use that term very loosely) James Dobson (of Focus On The Family infamy) has been outed - in his own books, no less - as favoring *beatings,* not just for children that disobey their parents for ANY infraction, but INCLUDING INFANTS for "sins" such as crying (which, as anyone knows, is just what babies do). Yes, you read that right. Dobson has also admitted to beating the family's then-pet dachshund (http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/DobsonsDog.html) (no doubt as a 'lesson' to his children) in the same books.

Given their at-best disturbing penchant for rigid control beyond what most people would consider acceptable limits, these are not the kind of people I would feel comfortable trusting with any child's life.

Also to realise where I'm coming from-I was told no less than 6 times by 4 different doctors to abort my son due to the "possibility" that I'd have complications delivering

Don't know why that many doctors would say so, but I agree that pressuring someone to have an abortion against her wishes goes against the grain of personal choice.

And I think you'd feel differently if you had found out your mother had tried to abort you

It depends on the individual, IMO. For myself, it would be a moot point regardless, because I wouldn't be around to talk about it. If I never existed, how can I either approve or disapprove?

Seshat

02-13-2008, 07:34 AM

Nah, my views were already changing by the time I made any female friends who had abortions (or at least any who told me about it).

Okay. Just an accident of phrasing, then. :)

Besides, I wasn't an unreasonable psycho until I lost Jesus and became rational and reasonable - I always thought that women who had abortions weren't evil, but just made a bad decision.

(laughs)

I don't think Christians are unreasonable psychos. :) I was just curious because of the phrasing.

I find that black and white thinking is a product of a lack of imagination.

I agree.

The camparisons are from current stats on childbirth to 20 year old stats on abortion.

*Assuming that abortion technology has been improving at a rate comparable to childbirth technology,
* Assuming from context that the abortion damage-and-mortality rate from 20 years ago is lower than the childbirth damage-and-mortality rate,

I conclude that abortion must be even safer than childbirth than it was 20 years ago. Those two assumptions make abortion look a LOT safer.

<a great deal of information about lack of informed choice, poor quality surgery, and malpractice>

That experience is far from the experience over here in Aussieland. Based on the people I know who've had abortions, and on my own experience dealing with our Family Planning/Planned Parenthood equivalents: that just wouldn't happen here.

Here, the FP/PP equivalent is at least as clean as any other doctor's office I've been into: the biggest difference is the subjects of the plethora of available information. In most doctor's offices, it's 'get your moles checked' or 'help is available if you care for the elderly or infirm': stuff targeted at the mainstream. In the FP/PP types of places, it's what street drugs do to you, how to avoid STDs and where the hostels are. And most doctors' offices don't have a bowl of brightly packaged condoms on the reception desk. :D

Here, doctors who perform abortions are under the same regulations as any other surgeon, the expected standard of behaviour is the same, and the informed consent rules are the same.

If the complication rate was as extremely high here as you report in your locale, there would be an inquiry and heads would roll.

I cannot make any informed commentary on abortion in your area, but I can say that where I am, it's as safe a procedure as any other abdominal surgery on delicate organs. Which is to say that there are definitely procedures which are much safer, but it's as safe as can be expected given the region of the body affected.

ThePhoneGoddess

02-14-2008, 06:11 AM

I would like to add also think of the MEDICAL issues(at least in the states)
1, the abortion industry has NO REGULATION-they "police themselves"
2, a doctor that performs abortions is the only doctor not REQUIRED BY LAW to have malpractice insurance
3, abortion is the ONLY medical procedure where INFORMED CONSENT is not MANDATED by law

Banket statements are rarely correct, especially when referring to the US, since so many of our laws are relegated to the states. In fact most medical regulations are decided by the states individually, not just abortion regulations.

http://tiny.cc/BeC4p

This map shows exactly what regulations are in place in which state. As you can see, they vary widely. Some states have few regulations. Others have regulations so strict some of them have been declared unconstitutional.

Malpractice insurance, as well, is an issue that is left up to the states. Some states don't require any kind of Doctor to have malpractice insurance, as long as they display that fact prominently in their office/clinic for their patients to see. Some allow Doctors to use other pre-arranged assets in place of malpractice insurance, such as bank letters of credit, etc.

Mandatory malpractice insurance does not enable a person to sue for malpractice. Any Doctor can be sued at present--insurance or no insurance. Mandatory malpractice insurance only does one thing---increase the profitability of lawsuits.

ETA: the site won't let me post the awesome map I found, it thinks I'm trying to type code or something. So click on the link, it will take you to the tinyurl site, saying it can't take you directly to the link, but it displays the full link there and you can click on it. It should start with www.pbs.org.

Amethyst Hunter

02-14-2008, 08:03 AM

Oh, the lawsuits, they are a-flyin'...Just read on a local newssite that the anti-choice bunch is lobbing yet another lawsuit, this time against the Planned Parenthood itself (the second known one to date), the city (second or third suit known to date) and the city's zoning board. The beef that they're using is the claim that the PP came into town "under falsehood" because they used their subsidiary's name on most of the legal documents instead of the more well-known PP name.

Let's look at the closer picture. PP's subsidiary's name (Gemini) is not widely known by the populace at large, but it isn't exactly concealed either - with a bit of looking one can find it with not much trouble. Representing oneself under a different name is NOT illegal so long as the officials approving the zoning are aware of this real name and it still remains readily available to public knowledge (which the city officials knew of in advance, have spent money to have no less than three separate lawyers review all the paperwork and applications for zoning, and the real name would have come out to the public eventually anyway once the facility was completed and opened). I distinctly remember, even, a small ad in the legals section of one of the newspapers stating PP's intention and declaring their operation under the name of Gemini (the ad used both names in the same blurb).

The PP here took advantage of that legal loophole in order to PROTECT their workers from the kind of nuttery their opponents would subject them to - it wasn't until a former construction worker leaked the news that the fury erupted, and even before then there were *documented reports* of anti-choice zealots taking photographs of workers' license plates. Stalking and harassment, anyone? As you can see, it's totally understandable just why PP would try to keep their new building as quiet as possible until they were already in place. They're well aware of the kinds of nuts they come up against and the tactics they use.

Of course this is what pissed off the anti-choice bunch: that the PP was "allowed" to "sneak" in and subvert a lot of their ranting. As a result, several lawsuits have been tossed at the city by the anti-choicers, all of which have been shot down so far. This is just the latest one of their tantrums.

It's also worth noting that there is a similar PP under construction out in Colorado at present, which was also using the Gemini subsidiary name - until the anti-choice bunch in Illinois trumpeted it far and wide to their fellow zealots - and has also come under similar zealot harassment re: the photographing of workers' license plates and/or faces. (Another related note: ThePhoneGoddess made an earlier comment about an amendment proposing legal status on fetuses and embryos; there is in fact a movement under way out in Colorado started by a 20-year old to get a certain number of signatures for a petition to have an amendment (on the state level, I believe) stating that a fertilized egg, or an embryo/fetus, is essentially the same thing as a fully-grown adult and deserves the same legal status; this would in fact declare BIRTH CONTROL illegal and put those who miscarry into potential criminal status - which is *exactly* why such amendments and proposals are dangerous and ought to be turned down. They don't protect anybody, they just make it easier for zealots to oppress women.)

Sylvia727

02-14-2008, 05:52 PM

(Another related note: ThePhoneGoddess made an earlier comment about an amendment proposing legal status on fetuses and embryos; there is in fact a movement under way out in Colorado started by a 20-year old to get a certain number of signatures for a petition to have an amendment (on the state level, I believe) stating that a fertilized egg, or an embryo/fetus, is essentially the same thing as a fully-grown adult and deserves the same legal status; this would in fact declare BIRTH CONTROL illegal and put those who miscarry into potential criminal status - which is *exactly* why such amendments and proposals are dangerous and ought to be turned down. They don't protect anybody, they just make it easier for zealots to oppress women.)

Just a quick nitpick here: I know nothing about this Colorado legislation, but legislation granting legal status to zygotes/embryos/fetuses would not automatically outlaw all forms of birth control, just those that destroyed z/e/fs. And it wouldn't automatically condemn women who had miscarriages, which is patently ridiculous. If I watch someone blow his brains out in front of me, I don't get arrested for murder. I've heard a stat that 2 out of 3 pregnancies terminate themselves before the mother's next period, so that she never knows that she was ever pregnant. It would be nigh impossible to prosecute women for miscarrying, not to mention the absence of a legal precedent.

Besides, I thought US Supreme Court trumped Colorado constitution?

Boozy

02-14-2008, 06:17 PM

I wouldn't say you are nitpicking, Sylvia. These details seem to be very important to people on both sides. They should be understood.

There are really only a few birth control methods that I know of that prevent implantation of the blastocyst (fertilized egg). These include the morning-after pill (which is not a prescribed method of primary birth control) and the IUD.

And in both of these cases, the vast majority of the time the pill and the IUD prevent fertilization before it even occurs. Although these methods have been known to prevent implantation (thereby forcing the expulsion of the fertilized egg), most of the time they've done their job before the process reaches that point.

In general, I think more information about the female reproductive system is needed on both sides of this issue.

Seshat

02-14-2008, 07:01 PM

. . . and I use an IUD.

Actually, the pro-choice side is worried about laws like that for good reason - I'd consider the extreme version of what that sort of law could lead to a 'straw man' argument, except that it's happened.

Ceausescu's Romania.

If those two words aren't enough for you, here's a summary of women's life under Ceaucescu (http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/overplanned_parenthood.htm).

The people in the pro-choice movement know that that's an extreme case, but if the rights of the foetus come to trump the rights of the mother, then that sort of extreme becomes possible. Unlikely, but possible - and it has occurred, and very recently.

Boozy

02-14-2008, 07:32 PM

Actually, the pro-choice side is worried about laws like that for good reason - I'd consider the extreme version of what that sort of law could lead to a 'straw man' argument, except that it's happened.

I agree there is a slippery slope here. All the more reason to be sure that people have complete and accurate information.

It appeared to me that a few people misunderstood what birth control does. That's not good for either side.

Sylvia727

02-14-2008, 07:35 PM

That's a horrible story. I hadn't heard anything about it before, but it does sound like the worst-case scenario. However, all things in moderation. In a society properly educated and able to provide for offspring, with access to safe and effective prevention, the number of people who needed an abortion would be very small, and the embryo/fetus could be granted legal rights without damaging peoples' lives.

The USA might not be ready for that, yet, but it could be done.

Saydrah

02-14-2008, 08:32 PM

I don't think you can guarantee a fetus rights without taking rights away from adult women, no matter how educated and able to provide for offspring the woman is.

If I were finished with my college degree and making more than double what I am now, and amply able to provide for a child, and if despite the very effective birth control methods I use I became pregnant, I would still have an abortion. Sure, I COULD suffer through the health risks, invasions of my privacy, and general pain and discomfort of pregnancy just to give up the baby for adoption- but why, when I could have a simple medical procedure with relatively few risks when done during the first trimester, and avoid adding another life to a very overpopulated world?

Okay, so what if birth control were 100% effective, and all women not trying to conceive took it? Great! Fabulous! But should you give rights to fetuses then? Heck, no. What happens then when Sally Everwoman, who's trying to conceive with her husband, is raped by a stranger and becomes pregnant?

There will always be some unplanned pregnancies, and that means women will always need and deserve the right to make reproductive decisions, including abortion.

susfubb

02-19-2008, 07:57 AM

I am probably far older (57) than most women here, but I want to share a bit of ancient history with all of you. Before "Roe vs Wade," few states had abortion rights, women who could afford it went to Europe & elsewhere, And those who could not were stuck with bearing a child the father refused to support, they were unequipped to raise properly (even resent), or resorting to fly-by-night (back-alley/ coat-hanger) abortionists.

I worked as a horticulturalist (nursery/ garden-shop/ greenhouse) worker which involved a great deal of manual labor (I was one of the first forklift drivers license by OSHA) and knowledge. A few years later, I as one of the first women to pass the nearly 4 hour test on first try to become a CCN/ California Certified Nursery Woman (now nursery worker)- those folks such workplaces advertise as 'we have experts on site.' I had to FIGHT every inch of the way. No raise(s) ever appeared.

During that period of the early/mid 70's, I took several college courses in 'women's studies." One of these became far more than a "class" to its members (ages 17-79); we continued together as an off-campus club. It was THERE that I attended several instructional demonstrations on the sterility of "suctioning out" another woman's "period" before it began. This method would, of course, also SAFELY empty all her uterine contents at ANY time of suctioning, including any first-trimester pregnancy.

I continue to donate money for the minimal equipment necessary - sterile vaginal speculum & attaching device similar to a turkey-baster, but more far more sealed/ sterile. I hope I can recruit others to help so these can be passed out free to all attendees of such women's educational groups. The info was already "old" when I learned it, and in the intervening years, the processes have been demonstrated to more than 3 million American women.

If those who believe they can "regulate" an American woman's use of her own body according to a supposed 'morality' she does not share, then they probably also believe that women are ignorant and willing to allow such tyranny.

Got news for those wanna-bee terrorists: Won't happen HERE. Mothers pass on to daughters/ nieces/ friends/ even strangers they will never meet - and no LAW WILL EVER ENSLAVE US to being the chattel of males again. ~jill

susfubb

02-19-2008, 08:21 AM

don't forget, Seshat, that religious fundamentalists consider an IUD as equivalent to abortion.

& let NONE of us forget our sisters regularly maimed by genital mutilation, and murdered by "honor killings." :((

Seshat

02-19-2008, 09:15 AM

That was a major part of my point. :)

And no, I don't forget them. :( I'm strongly in favour of education and microloans in the developing world. Both have been shown to improve women's and children's health and safety.

BookstoreEscapee

02-20-2008, 04:59 AM

In a society properly educated and able to provide for offspring, with access to safe and effective prevention, the number of people who needed an abortion would be very small,

I agree with this sentiment...the key words being "properly educated" and "access to safe and effective prevention"...

How many of our students are being taught nothing but "abstinence only" which often includes outright falsehoods about the effectiveness of STD prevention and contraceptives? How many of them go on to have sex anyway, and don't bother with condoms because "they don't work anyway." I didn't realize it at the time, of course, but when I was in high school I had a very comprehensive sex ed curriculum (I graduated HS in 1993). My biggest concern is that they didn't cover STDs, birth control, and yes, even abortion, until senior year. Frankly, I think that's too late.

How many stories have I read recently about pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because they insist that birth control = abortion, despite the overwhelming lack of evidence to support such an assumption? (And I'm not only referring to the "morning after pill" but regular everyday birth control as well.) If my doctor gives me a prescription, it is not up to the pharmacist to decide that I shouldn't be able to have it based on nothing more than what boils down to religious conviction. I'm lucky to live in an area where there are a dozen pharmacies within 10 minutes of my house. Not every woman has the option of just going down the street, and even if they do have that option, they shouldn't have to go to such lengths to fill a perfectly valid and legal prescription. I wouldn't go to a doctor who would refuse to prescribe BC on moral grounds, either (whether or not that was my objective in seeing the doctor). For one thing, it is not the doctor's job to police my morality; aside from that, a doctor who seriously subscribes to poorly supported "science" is not someone I trust to be taking care of my health.

Even given those things, I believe that safe, legal abortion should always be an option. There are just too many things in this world that can go "wrong"...there's rape, and no amount of "God wants this baby to be born" would make me OK with carrying a child conceived out of violence, and even if I were to give the child up for adoption, I would still have to live through 9 months of being constantly reminded of the trauma, followed by the lasting physical consequences of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth; birth control is never 100% and sometimes despite the best of intentions and the most careful actions, things happen at bad times; finding out that your (wanted, planned) child has a catastrophic birth defect that will kill them shortly after birth...I sincerely doubt I could go through a pregnancy and childbirth only to watch my baby die.

If I were to become accidentally pregnant as a result of my own informed actions, I seriously doubt I would have an abortion. But who am I to tell someone else that it's not the right decision for them and their circumstances? Who are you to tell me the same?

I don't know who said it, but I will always believe in the "mantra" that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."

Pedersen

02-21-2008, 04:15 AM

no amount of "God wants this baby to be born" would make me OK with carrying a child conceived out of violence

See, here's something that bothers me about this particular thread: I've not seen a reply to my question (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?p=4025#post4025) that I posted.

The gist of the question is this: God is omnipotent. All powerful. Capable of doing absolutely literally anything, including rewriting the laws of physics should He so choose. And he's not able to force a woman to carry a baby to term that He's decided He wants born?

What gives? Is he all powerful, or not? If so, then why doesn't he just prevent abortions from being possible? If not, then he's not really the Christian god anyway.

I'm still waiting for that answer from anybody who can give it.

AFPheonix

02-21-2008, 08:11 AM

Perhaps god doesn't really mind, and these people are putting words into his mouth by claiming it's against his will to have abortions?

It's not like it would be the first time people have dragged God's name into something, regardless of whether it fit with the rest of the dogma we have available in ancient texts.

Boozy

02-21-2008, 01:20 PM

See, here's something that bothers me about this particular thread: I've not seen a reply to my question (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?p=4025#post4025) that I posted.

Pedersen, what you are asking is a version of the age-old question "If God is all-powerful and all-good, why does he let bad things happen?" This question has been studied by many great philosophical thinkers, such as Plato and Augustine.

So despite my great respect for the minds of my fellow Fratching members, I think it unlikely that we'll find an answer to that question here. :)

If it leads you in the right direction, Pedersen, I will say that "free will" has been put forward for the last few millennia as a possible theological explanation.

Dreamstalker

02-21-2008, 02:19 PM

Caused a woman to give birth to a male child without intercourse with a human
<nitpick> Immaculate Conception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception) is the lack of original sin. Nothing to do with the lack of a male.

Pedersen

02-21-2008, 05:22 PM

<nitpick> Immaculate Conception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception) is the lack of original sin. Nothing to do with the lack of a male.

Interesting. I never knew that about the Immaculate Conception. Thank you.

Of course, the Immaculate Conception doesn't change the fact that, according to (at minimum Catholic) Christian belief in the Virginal Conception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Birth_of_Jesus), which states that a woman (Mary) gave birth to a male child (Jesus) without intercourse with any human being.

As such, my Biblical miracle still stands.

Oh, and for free will, here's an article (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/freewill/FW_Problem_TO/FW_HeartsProb_Shatz.htm) which expresses my issues with that idea more eloquently than I will right now. Suffice to say that God does strip away free will when it is convenient to Him to do so.

As such, my original question still stands: Are the Christians stating the God is limited by modern medical science?

BookstoreEscapee

02-22-2008, 01:09 AM

George Carlin came up in the 10 Commandments thread (OK, I brought him up, I love GC), and someone posted a link to the video, and then I came across this one...which is topical here..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU&feature=related

and I have to say, I tend to agree.

Sylvia727

02-22-2008, 06:40 PM

I don't know who said it, but I will always believe in the "mantra" that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."

I believe in birth control that does not harm other people, including preborn people. Your beliefs may vary, of course, but many people agree on the morality of pre-conception birth control methods. So if the ideal birth control, 99% or 100% effective, was spread throughout a properly educated society, then how many pregnancies would occur? The rapes of women trying to conceive or who didn't have an active sex life at the time. I don't know the numbers, but I have heard a statistic that less than 1% of rapes result in pregnancy. Usually, there's a 1 in 30 chance that the women is even fertile on any given day. With growing advancements in criminal forensics, more and more criminals are using condoms and spermicides to avoid leaving evidence. I can't believe that rape-babies would be a significant factor in this debate.

I'm not necessarily arguing for fetus rights, since I too have trouble seeing how this could be accomplished without infringing on the mother's rights. How about her right to drink alcohol? To ride a motorcycle? To engage in any activity that's remotely dangerous? But I think the society could be developed where fetuses had rights, or partial rights.

Boozy

02-22-2008, 06:52 PM

Usually, there's a 1 in 30 chance that the women is even fertile on any given day. With growing advancements in criminal forensics, more and more criminals are using condoms and spermicides to avoid leaving evidence. I can't believe that rape-babies would be a significant factor in this debate.

To nitpick: Women with the average cycle of 28 days are fertile for about 20% of that cycle, or 6 days. Sperm can live up to five days, and the egg lives for up to 24 hours.

75% of rapes are committed by men already known by the victim, and thus most rapists do not bother wearing a condom for purposes of concealing their identities. Their plan is to intimidate the victim into silence and/or claim consensual sex.

And let's not forget that rapes happen in areas of the world where war and pestilence is prevalent, a condom cannot be found for miles, and women have no money and no support for the children they already have.

Even so, I don't like focusing too much on the victims of rape when discussing abortion. At its heart, this is an issue about who controls a woman's body.

Sylvia727

02-22-2008, 08:19 PM

Alright, rape is more complicated than I first thought. But I still don't see rape babies as a significant factor.

Even so, I don't like focusing too much on the victims of rape when discussing abortion. At its heart, this is an issue about who controls a woman's body.

I think this is a common miscommunication. For me, the issue is who has the right to destroy a life. I think women should control their own bodies, but that they don't have the right to kill another being for this right. In most cases, the woman was in control of her own body when she chose to have sex.

I still admire and respect Planned Parenthood for their efforts to end the epidemic of unwanted pregnancies. Even though I condemn abortion, it is a fact of life here. I think the best way to eliminate abortion as an issue is to provide a better, less harmful alternative.

BookstoreEscapee

02-23-2008, 02:46 AM

I agree, conceptions from rape are probably a very small percentage, but it's still a possibility. I also agree that's not really the point.

if the ideal birth control, 99% or 100% effective, was spread throughout a properly educated society

That "perfect" birth control is probably never going to exist, unfortunately. The closest things we have are probably the pill, used correctly and consistently, or the IUD. Not every woman can use hormonal methods, and the IUD isn't ideal for every woman, either. What we need is honest education and communication between patients and doctors to determine the best method for each individual woman. I agree with the underlying premise, though - if every sexually active woman used a reliable method of BC, unwanted pregnancies will be dramatically lessened, which should be the goal. (But "99% effective" still leaves room for error.) Hence the "rare" part.

Amethyst Hunter

02-23-2008, 08:50 AM

I believe in birth control that does not harm other people, including preborn people.

Nitpick: There is no such thing as "preborn". That's a term developed by anti-choicers in their efforts to convince Joe and Jane Public that a 6-week-old embryo is the equivalent of those cute little infants you see in advertisements. Either you're born or you're not.

Nitpick II: *All* birth control, from the regular kind to the EC, (adverse hormonal side effects aside for those it applies to) *does not* harm anyone. This is another misconception spread by the anti-choice groups in an effort to restrict women's access to BC. Pregnancy is not defined until a fertilized egg actually implants in the uterus. All BC - any BC - does is prevent that fertilization or implantation from taking place. An egg or sperm is akin to a single ingredient needed to make a loaf of bread; a fertilized egg is akin to having mixed those ingredients together, and a loaf of dough in the oven, so to speak, would be akin to an actual pregnancy.

I can't believe that rape-babies would be a significant factor in this debate.

Tell that to any female that's been raped and found herself pregnant as a result of that violence.

But I think the society could be developed where fetuses had rights, or partial rights.

Fetuses already have rights - the reason that prosecutors in murder cases where a pregnant woman has been killed go for two counts instead of one is because there's an automatic assumption (which I would guess proves true more often than not) that the pregnancy is wanted - it's a fact that the most dangerous time for a woman, especially if she's in a high-risk relationship, is when she becomes pregnant. High-profile cases like the Laci Petersen murder are an example.

To use a Biblical-based one, there's a passage in the Old Testament where penalty is assigned to a hypothetical situation, that being where an attacker strikes a pregnant woman. If the woman herself dies, the perpetrator gets a death sentence (if memory serves me well enough). However, if the perp causes the fetus to miscarry but the woman survives, said perp is then made to pay a monetary or material fine to the woman's family as compensation for that loss (as large families back then were desirable, since more people meant more help around the farm, and the relative lack of sanitary conditions and medical knowledge meant more pregnancies often ended poorly).

In contemporary society, laws recognize that while it is definitely desirable for a pregnant female to abstain from things like smoking and drinking alcohol for the duration of that pregnancy, there is no *mandatory* law (yet) stating such. Because then you get into the whole area of infringing on an *adult's* free will, and you'll be hard-pressed to find anybody who thinks that taking away somebody else's smokes and booze is always a good thing. (Even I, a VEHEMENT nonsmoker, as much as I *despise* cigarettes, I would not deny somebody else the right to imbibe as they please, provided they aren't bothering me with it - which, so long as I make the effort to avoid places where smokers tend to congregate, isn't a problem)

As Boozy pointed out, it's ultimately not about "saving babies." It's about who gets to control a woman's life. Even now, there are laws pending, or laws in existence, that are specifically worded so as to theoretically make it *illegal* to have birth control of any kind - regardless of the fact that some women *need* it to control conditions like PCOS. It's no coincidence that the anti-choice groups are behind this even as they wave their anti-abortion signs - if enforced by an active presence (and make no mistake, if such people got enough power, they'd do it in a heartbeat), such laws would screw over thousands if not millions of women badly.

And, on one more note, here's something to think about: If the anti-choicers cared so much about "saving babies" (which I don't for one second believe they do), why is it they only seem to care *before* the birth, and tend to disappear like smoke on the wind after a child's been born? Why do they tend to oppose things like education reforms, or tax breaks for struggling families, or welfare for those who do need it? It's like they're saying, "we made you do what *we* wanted, now tough, you're on your own." Real nice sentiment there, eh?

Sylvia727

02-23-2008, 07:58 PM

Nitpick: There is no such thing as "preborn". That's a term developed by anti-choicers in their efforts to convince Joe and Jane Public that a 6-week-old embryo is the equivalent of those cute little infants you see in advertisements. Either you're born or you're not.

And the term "pro-choice" doesn't gloss over the possible implications of murder? The term "pro-life" doesn't gloss over the possible implications of control and limited rights? Most political terms are euphemisms developed to put a positive spin on a certain agenda. It's not limited to any one party or issue.

Also, if one is not yet born, but if left to nature's course will be born in the future, isn't this individual in a state of prebirth? I don't see how "preborn" doesn't exist. There may be more precise terms, but I fail to see the overwhelming flaw in this one.

Nitpick II: *All* birth control, from the regular kind to the EC, (adverse hormonal side effects aside for those it applies to) *does not* harm anyone. This is another misconception spread by the anti-choice groups in an effort to restrict women's access to BC. Pregnancy is not defined until a fertilized egg actually implants in the uterus. All BC - any BC - does is prevent that fertilization or implantation from taking place. An egg or sperm is akin to a single ingredient needed to make a loaf of bread; a fertilized egg is akin to having mixed those ingredients together, and a loaf of dough in the oven, so to speak, would be akin to an actual pregnancy.

I understand how pills and IUDs work, but abortion is commonly referred to as birth control. I was trying to distinguish between methods that prevent pregnancy and methods that terminate pregnancy. If pregnancies were prevented with greater efficiency, than there would be less need to terminate them.

I like your bread analogy though. One could extend it further--at which point is the dough granted the status of bread? When it is removed from the oven? When it is edible, even if undercooked? Or is it always bread, is the breadiness kneaded into its very core?

Tell that to any female that's been raped and found herself pregnant as a result of that violence.

Rape is a tragedy. But it's not a significant factor, no matter how painful it is. Rape pregnancies are the exception to the rule--maybe they should be the exception to the laws on fetus rights. I don't know, and frankly it's irrelevant to the greater issue.

Fetuses already have rights -
<snip>

Yes, they have one or two, mostly by-products of laws designed to serve someone else's needs. I don't see how someone can be tried for the murder of a nonperson, or why it's illegal for someone else to forcibly terminate a pregnancy, but perfectly legal for the mother to do so. The movement to give fetuses rights would actually give them rights, not just when it was convenient. It's not a movement I particularly agree with, actually, but it's important to distinguish what it would and would not do.

Because then you get into the whole area of infringing on an *adult's* free will,

And this is the main reason I think fetus rights would be difficult to allow or enforce. Someone trying to protect the life of a fetus would end up encasing the mother in a plastic rat ball, with nutrionally-balanced and tasteless food poked in through the air holes. And while there may be some people who agree with this, the majority doesn't. So I guess we're safe, for at least a very little while longer.

As Boozy pointed out, it's ultimately not about "saving babies." It's about who gets to control a woman's life.

That's your motivation for getting involved. But rational pro-lifers aren't trying to control women. Through their eyes, your denial of the damage caused to babies looks as alien as their denial of the damage done to women looks to you. Other people get to have opinions also, even if you don't agree with them. By denying that their point of view exists, or that it is somehow less valid than yours, you signal that you are not interested in meeting them halfway. This attitude makes people more hostile and less cooperative, reinforcing the stereotype that pro-lifers are selfish and unreasonable.

Even now, there are laws pending, or laws in existence, that are specifically worded so as to theoretically make it *illegal* to have birth control of any kind - regardless of the fact that some women *need* it to control conditions like PCOS. It's no coincidence that the anti-choice groups are behind this even as they wave their anti-abortion signs - if enforced by an active presence (and make no mistake, if such people got enough power, they'd do it in a heartbeat), such laws would screw over thousands if not millions of women badly.

I don't like those right-wing nutjobs either. As Seshat said in another thread, I won't judge you by your crazies if you don't judge me by mine.

I have PCOS, which is why I take birth control medication. If/When I go off my meds, my cramps leave me curled up whimpering. So they can pry my birth control out of my cold dead fingers--right after I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to own a shotgun ;)

As I've said before, preventing unwanted pregnancies is probably the best solution. Most birth control is perfectly harmless, and most rational folk will grant you the right to put whatever medicines--or poisons--you want into your own body.

And, on one more note, here's something to think about: If the anti-choicers cared so much about "saving babies" (which I don't for one second believe they do), why is it they only seem to care *before* the birth, and tend to disappear like smoke on the wind after a child's been born? Why do they tend to oppose things like education reforms, or tax breaks for struggling families, or welfare for those who do need it? It's like they're saying, "we made you do what *we* wanted, now tough, you're on your own." Real nice sentiment there, eh?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, and I hope that you will not judge an entire movement based on a certain group of supporters. I do support education reforms, raising the poverty line, reforming the welfare/medicaid system, and yes, greater education about and access to birth control methods. Many pro-lifers do, at least the ones I hang out with.

And here's something for you to think about: what's so wrong about walking a mile in the other person's shoes? Both sides need to grow up and try to work out a better solution that leaves everyone happy. Unfortunately, the attitude I hear from some pro-choicers is "Haha, the government sided with us, so stick it up your butt!" and the attitude I hear from some pro-lifers is "You're all evil and going to hell."

AFPheonix

02-23-2008, 09:57 PM

What is really often overlooked by rational pro-lifers and pro-choice people alike is that in the middle, you are far more alike than you're willing to admit.

No one particularly likes abortion, and frankly if it's referred to as a form of birth control, it's a piss poor form, far more invasive than any chemical or barrier form.

What rational pro-choice people want is to lessen the number of abortions that need to take place by increasing education, affordability and availability of birth control measures, and better health care for expectant mothers. They just want to leave the option of an abortion available in the event one is needed, either for physical reasons or because frankly the mother isn't going to be a fit enough parent.
I realize that sometimes, being dead is better than being alive at all costs, and in many cases, like, oh say, this one (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23262198/), where it would have been far preferable for the girl to have just had an abortion instead of putting her kid through this.

If you don't like abortions, then by all means, don't have one. But for those of us who may choose to get one, well, let us be.

Boozy

02-23-2008, 11:06 PM

Aside from the obvious fact that both sides would like to see less abortions, I don't see any compromise being made on this issue.

When one side believes that the other is killing babies, they aren't likely to accept a compromise, are they?

The moment at which human life begins may be ambiguous to some, but once someone has decided where that point is, the issue itself becomes very black and white. Murder is either wrong or it isn't.

I've made it pretty clear that I'm pro-choice, but I can completely appreciate where the other side is coming from.

Sylvia727

02-24-2008, 04:52 AM

No, there isn't a lot of compromise happening on the legality of abortion, nor are we likely to see any. Murder of a baby vs. lost control of a woman's body; neither are desirable, and so neither side wants to let that happen.

I think the best way to end the debate is to sidestep the issue entirely. If there are no unwanted pregnancies, or they're very rare, than the practice of abortion will fall into disuse. I'm sure that the number of people relying on this as their primary birth control mechanism are both very small and very bad for the gene pool anyway. It's why we need better education about birth control, and better environments for the baby to be born into. A growing number of high schools are passing out condoms for free, to encourage safer sex. Slowly but surely, education officials are waking up to the realities of "abstinance only" programs. With drug companies always looking for a better way to make a bigger buck, more and more effective methods will be found.

And as I mentioned earlier, I don't like what Planned Parenthood is doing with abortions, but I have to respect what they're doing with birth control overall. Ideally, effective birth control will be used universally by those who need it, and women and their hypothetical children will be protected from unwanted pregnancies.

Amethyst Hunter

02-24-2008, 09:01 AM

This is going to be very long, but there are some points I want to address:

Also, if one is not yet born, but if left to nature's course will be born in the future, isn't this individual in a state of prebirth? I don't see how "preborn" doesn't exist.

I don't see how it can. (we already have 'blastocyst', 'embryo', 'fetus', and 'infant' as terms to describe the different phases of development) Anyone care to elaborate on it?

I like your bread analogy though. One could extend it further--at which point is the dough granted the status of bread? When it is removed from the oven?

Bingo. Technically, births aren't recorded until someone is actually *born*. (Stillbirths and other situations aside) There's even a passage in the Bible (which I'm paraphrasing to the best of my memory; I'll be the first to admit I'm no scholar on that subject) that says a form did not first become living until that first breath, upon exiting a womb, is drawn.

Granted, someone might believe otherwise, and in such a case where there's something like a miscarriage or a stillbirth, I would say that those dealing with someone who has had such should respect that person's beliefs and treat that loss accordingly (i.e., offer the proper condolences and support for someone grieving the loss of a wanted pregnancy).

Looking at another Bible passage, a favorite thrown out is the "I knew you when I formed you in the womb" one. But it's too easy to overlook the second half of that passage which clearly states that God was speaking *specifically* to one person, a prophet He intended to appoint for a particular purpose. I don't remember that ever applying to anybody else in the book.

This is not to say that from gestation to live birth, that at any time an embryo/fetus is *not* human DNA. It is. But as with most any other hot-button topic, religion and the question of just when souls - if you believe in a soul at all - enter a body is completely up in the air pending concrete proof either way (which I don't think any science or religion can ever answer, at least not in our lifetimes, and probably not ever), and people will never agree completely on that because it's one of those things that has to be decided individually on. Diehard Christians will immediately say that "the soul begins at X point" while atheists will say "there is no soul period." And still others - agnostics, for example - will say "well, we don't know for sure one way or the other, so let's just keep our options open and wait and see how the jury stacks up."

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely do disagree with using abortion as a primary method of birth control (which it is not, and should not be lumped in with the rest of BC). In fact, there is no such thing as any pro-choicer who honestly believes abortion is a *good* thing. But I don't entirely see it as a *bad* thing either - it would be arguably worse to let an unwanted pregnancy progress to the point of viability (that is, the fetus can survive outside the womb) and then have an unwanted child be born into a bad situation that isn't likely to improve, given that the odds on that pretty much suck. (Even adoption - which I wholeheartedly support in any case even when abortion isn't involved - is no guarantee, given that the entire adoption system in the US is bass-ackwards due to bureaucratic nonsense and unnecessary expense, and people mostly want perfect babies, not older kids who may have physical or emotional problems. Kids DO know when they're wanted and when they're not, and I firmly believe they have more emotional intelligence than they're often given credit for in regards to such things.)

Getting into the carrier's side of it, as you said, put yourself in that person's shoes for a moment. Think of how you (generic you) might feel if you were basically told "Here is something that draws its nourishment directly from the host, many times at great physical and mental cost (gestational diabetes, post-partum depression) to said host, and you must support it in your body for almost a year, then support it for at least the next 20 years. You have no choice in the matter, even if you *were* being responsible about sex (as in married sex, or using proper protection correctly)." I, personally, would resent the hell out of anybody who tried to make me do that (which is just one of many reasons I'm thankfully celibate), and I would resent what I would see as a parasite that I never asked for and did not want.

I don't claim to speak for *all* women. I know that quite a few pro-choice people would likely agree, and I wouldn't presume to treat *any* female poorly for having had or wanting an abortion (or, conversely, for not wanting to have one), especially if I wasn't aware of the specific circumstances that led to that female's choosing that particular decision.

The entire point of "pro-choice" is to allow women to choose as they see fit regarding their particular individual situations - whether that choice is to terminate a pregnancy, carry it to term and give it up for adoption, or even keep it entirely. Because women are the ones most affected by pregnancy, financial ups and downs (like divorce), and the ones (still) doing the bulk of childcare, it should be their right to choose. That's why *all* options should be available, because the more choice one has, the more likely one is to make a more sound decision about an important event (and with safe, legal access to abortion services and financial support, women are actually less likely to choose abortion as the way to handle an unwanted pregnancy).

Rape is a tragedy. But it's not a significant factor, no matter how painful it is. Rape pregnancies are the exception to the rule--maybe they should be the exception to the laws on fetus rights. I don't know, and frankly it's irrelevant to the greater issue.

I don't think so. For one thing, there is a concerted effort by anti-choice pharmacists to deny BC prescriptions to all women, and they certainly don't have any sympathy for rape victims. Second, the overwhelming majority of all violent crimes, especially rape, are committed by men, and given that a woman in the US is raped about every 6 minutes, and with something like close to 300 million US citizens, that's a helluva lot of Russian roulette in regards to unwanted pregnancy. It's estimated that one in about every eight females can expect some type of sexual assault on her person in the US today. Those are not good odds.

I don't see... why it's illegal for someone else to forcibly terminate a pregnancy, but perfectly legal for the mother to do so.

It's illegal to forcibly terminate a pregnancy because that termination is being done *against the woman's will*. Laci Petersen, for instance, was nearly due to give birth when she was murdered by her husband to cover up his adultery, and her pregnancy was definitely wanted (by her, that is). In a more recent case, a pregnant Marine (whose such is said to be the result of rape by a fellow Marine (and please note, this does not nor should it reflect badly on *all* servicepeople in this branch, the majority of whom are decent folk) was killed by that same peer and she too was well advanced in her pregnancy. It's also worth noting that the most dangerous time in a relationship - particularly an unstable one - for a woman is when she is pregnant.

When a woman *chooses* to have an abortion, it's because she has thought it over from all angles and decided that it is the right action for *her* individual situation, not necessarily out of a frivolous mindset - far more often than not, it is *poor* women who have abortions, and it is *married* women who have abortions, and women who *cannot* carry to term because pregnancy would literally threaten their lives if allowed to continue to full term.

Yes, there are a few women out there that see abortion as an easy out. I don't necessarily agree with treating it as such, but neither do I agree with bringing people into the world who are very likely to end up sorely abused, one way or another, because they weren't wanted. (Which will, in turn, produce either adults who are unable to function in a relatively stable and healthy way in society, or worse, complete sociopaths who continue a bad cycle; I was told by a friend of mine that there is a report on crime statistics showing that in certain areas, crime actually went *down* because of the availability of abortion - the theory went that the crime rate was down because less criminals were being produced - I'll have to see if I can locate that report)

The key issue is autonomy. A fetus can't exercise autonomy. Children, depending on their age and maturity, can only exercise a very limited range of autonomy (choosing which toys to play with, or rejecting particular foods, for instance). Adults have autonomy because of their developed experience and ability to use reason and logic (for the most part, anyway), and can therefore make informed decisions regarding personal choices.

But rational pro-lifers aren't trying to control women.

Not consciously, but too often some heavy wackjob from the minority extreme proposes a particular law or restriction or protest, purposely worded in an inflammatory or misleading way, and people automatically hear certain things and think "oh, this must be good/bad" and will react accordingly, which enables the minority nuts to take control and run the show to the detriment of all. Take the controversy regarding "partial-birth" abortion, for instance. This is a classic red herring used. Again, as with "preborn", there's no such thing as "partial-birth." When a pregnancy is terminated that far along, it's ALWAYS because something has gone horribly wrong that needs to be dealt with asap or worse consequences will arise - necrotic tissue from a fetus that has died in utero (for whatever reason) will sicken and even kill the woman. Ectopic pregnancies WILL kill, no question, which is why when sterilizations like Essure or tubals are given the women are warned to monitor their sexual activities (i.e., limit them, and use a backup birth control method) for a specific period of time until the permanent sterilization takes completely, to avoid the risk of acquiring an ectopic pregnancy. And then there are horrors like anecephaly (in which the fetus is born without a brain) or genetic problems so severe that the fetus won't live very long either way. I seriously doubt there are any legitimate doctors out there who would be willing to end a perfectly healthy pregnancy that advanced, even if the woman demanded it (and such women, I daresay, are far and few between if they even exist at all).

Then there's the 'ol chestnut "abortion causes breast cancer" - it just kills me (no pun intended) to hear people spout that out-and-out lie. To date, there is *no* conclusive evidence that having an abortion will give you cancer of any kind, nor will it affect one's ability to bear children in the future (assuming said abortion is performed properly under sanitary conditions, of course).

Many self-proclaimed pro-lifers (not saying that this applies to all, but a good many of them) are also big fans of 'abstinence-only' and/or for whatever reasons are embarrassed or disgusted to talk to their kids about sex and pregnancy/disease prevention, which leaves the kids to figure things out on their own, often with disastrous results. (it's also been proven that 'abstinence-only' so-called 'education' doesn't work worth a damn)

Obviously yes, abstinence IS the only 100% protection against unwanted pregnancy and disease (rape aside, that is), and is definitely ideal for teenagers - but applied realistically, how many people - like said teenagers - are going to heed that, especially if they're only given limited tools to work with (if they're given such tools at all)? Should they be punished with consequences they aren't physically or emotionally prepared to handle, all for making a bad mistake? (We're all human, we all fuck up one way or another) There was a survey in one of the local papers here focusing on teens and what they felt about sex in general, what with the Planned Parenthood opening - and the majority of them said their parents basically had their heads in the sand about teens and sex, and that they worried about not getting the support they needed from their parents to even broach subjects like birth control.

(TBC)

Amethyst Hunter

02-24-2008, 09:02 AM

I absolutely do support and encourage parents to talk to their kids about these things well in advance (teen years is way too late), and to tell them "As your parent, I would prefer it if you didn't have sex until X point because Y and Z are a few reasons why you can get badly hurt. If you do have sex, this is what you should do to protect yourself as best you can against this and that." The ones doing all the protesting and sign-waving and such don't encourage that - they're of the "don't do this because I/God said so, period" school of thought. And all that does is foster distrust between parents and kids (and religion, if that's involved), which isn't likely to lead to favorable results.

I was one of the lucky ones. My mother sat me down well before I hit my teen years and went over in (age-appropriate) detail what happened during puberty and how babies were made. She stressed to me the importance of information and putting that information to practical use - and as a result, I never had the problems that many of my peers did in regards to sex, disease and unwanted pregnancy. How many kids, especially in today's sex-disrespectful culture, can rely on that?

Other people get to have opinions also, even if you don't agree with them. By denying that their point of view exists, or that it is somehow less valid than yours, you signal that you are not interested in meeting them halfway.

Other people can have opinions, as many as they want and apply them to their own lives however they want. That part doesn't bother me one whit. I have a very big problem when they try to enforce those opinions on me, through enshrined law that is supposed to protect the majority *and* the minority. And that's exactly what extremists are trying to do. They want this country ruled by their strict personal interpretation of morality -which most Americans *do not* agree with, whether they are supportive or not of things like abortion - and believe me, they are doing everything in their power, legal and not, to make that happen.

And when extremists go around spreading lies like the abortion-breast cancer one, I find it very hard to take them seriously on *anything* - because if they'll lie about that as a scare tactic, what else *won't* they lie about? (This excludes those people who are not extremist but who parrot the lie because it's what they were taught by the liars)

I'm quite willing to work with people who call themselves pro-life and who can back that up with solid actions - supporting birth control, or children's charities (without preconditions like proselytising), for instance, to reduce the abortion rate. I WILL NOT, however, compromise with extremists who are hellbent on reducing women's status to that of chattel and who have proven through repeated lies, intimidation and violence that they CANNOT be trusted *at all.* You NEVER hear about pro-choice people bombing pro-life centers or shooting pro-life activists, for example. The types of people protesting places like Planned Parenthood fall largely into this category (though the majority of their 'entourage' is comprised of people who have been fooled by these minorities' rhetoric and who are not likely to take much action beyond that of sign-waving); there is a reason why such buildings are constructed of bomb- and bulletproof materials and why security at them is so intensely high. (There is evidence that some particularly dangerous anti-choice groups - like Operation Rescue/Save America - are affiliated with or have access to *openly hostile* anti-government militias that are actually registered with the federal government as under the status of hate groups/terrorists.)

To share a related story, I have a relative who is very pro-life (and yes, religion does factor heavily into it for her) and I love her dearly. We're both well aware of the other's views regarding this issue, but we make a concerted effort to 1) either avoid the subject completely or, 2) to talk about it in terms of what we can do to lower the abortion rate, and to respect a) the fact that neither's views are ever going to change completely, if at all, and b) there are indeed valid reasons for why we each think the way we do about it. I can, despite however it may seem, see why a religious person would be reluctant to have an abortion herself, even though I'm not religious (though I do believe in a higher power; I just question how much 'stereotype' about that higher power is valid, which is why I consider myself agnostic). And there's nothing wrong with that. Where I only consider it wrong is when someone else tries to forcibly apply that view (either through violence, restriction or pointless laws that don't solve the problem) to another person who may not believe that way. That's what gets me (and any other pro-choice person) riled.

So they can pry my birth control out of my cold dead fingers--right after I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to own a shotgun ;)

Now that, I heartily salute you on. :D

Many pro-lifers do, at least the ones I hang out with.

I seriously would like to know more of that type. Really. I think one of the reasons those supportive of abortion rights (even if they disagree with it on a personal level) and those who disagree with abortion can't get along is because the pro-choice sees the other element allying with some of the extremists, and are understandably unwilling to trust them. The people claiming to be pro-life who are supporting the major anti-choice group protesting the Planned Parenthood that I originally posted about are probably fooled by this group's disguise, that of "saving babies", and aren't aware of this group's real history (the leader has openly stated in print media that he wanted to get city permits to picket - read: harass and intimidate, which they have a long history of doing to the point of physical violence - the *homes* of PP employees. That is nothing more than stalking, and stalking is *very* illegal.

There are certain key points that both sides are going to have to agree on in order to get anywhere (which is doubtful IMO given the level of personal belief involved):

1) Abortion will NEVER be eliminated entirely; it has been going on since the beginning of time and will continue as such - the best that can be done is to reduce the rate,

2) the ONLY way abortion rates will ever be successfully reduced is through availability of resources and accurate, comprehensive education that *does not* include religious agenda of any kind - much like the so-called "intelligent design" snowballing, there's a place and time for that kind of thing and it's called Sunday School,

3) personal morality is going to have to take a back seat to prevention of far worse things - you can think somebody is a slut for having premarital sex all you like, and it may or may not be true, but which would you rather have: someone who is having premarital sex and *not* getting pregnant/contracting STDs, or someone who is having premarital sex recklessly/in ignorance? Naturally, restraint and/or moderation should be encouraged, but not everybody is going to live by that tenet, and that's another bag o' worms that's best saved for another day.

4) those women who do want and who have chosen abortions a) *will not* be dissuaded in any way shape or form from going through with it no matter how much of a guilt trip or roadblock is loaded onto them, b) should not be denied on the basis of someone else's beliefs, and c) should not be treated as though they've done something 'wrong' (that is best left to them and their Creator, if they believe in one, to sort out). In other words, you're (again, generic) within your rights to think that someone may be going to hell for choosing to have an abortion, but you don't have the right to actually tell them that to their face (because then you would be treating them in a hostile manner, and doesn't Christ say to treat other people how you yourself would want to be treated?).

So - phew, that was long. But I do thank you for engaging in this fratchathon with me. :)

BookstoreEscapee

02-24-2008, 10:41 PM

I was told by a friend of mine that there is a report on crime statistics showing that in certain areas, crime actually went *down* because of the availability of abortion - the theory went that the crime rate was down because less criminals were being produced - I'll have to see if I can locate that report)

This was discussed in the book Freakonomics by Stephen D Levitt.

Boozy

02-25-2008, 12:00 AM

This was discussed in the book Freakonomics by Stephen D Levitt.

Great book, too; I highly recommend it.

BookstoreEscapee

02-25-2008, 12:07 AM

Great book, too; I highly recommend it.

I have the daily calendar on my desk at work. I keep watching for it to come out in paperback but that doesn't seem like it's gonna happen anytime soon. I might just have to spring for the hardcover.

Seshat

02-25-2008, 12:40 AM

And the term "pro-choice" doesn't gloss over the possible implications of murder?

Here's a problem: to me, abortion isn't murder. It's simply removing human tissue, no more significant than a tonsillectomy or appendectomy. I accept that to some people, it is murder. But I don't see it that way.

I understand how pills and IUDs work, but abortion is commonly referred to as birth control.

By whom? I've never heard it referred to as birth control except by pro-life people in abortion debates. Never.

I was trying to distinguish between methods that prevent pregnancy and methods that terminate pregnancy.

'Contraception' = 'against conception'. Works perfectly well for me.

If pregnancies were prevented with greater efficiency, than there would be less need to terminate them.

Yup. And that's why pro-choice people usually advocate extensive sex education, and the availability of affordable, effective contraception.

Many pro-choice people also advocate relationship education (to help reduce the number of people in abusive relationships, and help improve the emotional wellbeing of pretty much everyone), and the use of condoms, dental dams, and other 'safer sex' tools.

Most moderate pro-lifers also advocate at least basic sex education.

Some pro-lifers are Catholic, and can't advocate most contraception, but advocate teaching the more effective versions of the rhythm method. I can respect that, though I disagree with the reasons behind the Papal decision about contraception.

I especially respect the many pro-lifers who advocate almost exactly the same sex and relationship education I advocate, and who also agree with me regarding contraception availability and condoms, dental dams and such.

I like your bread analogy though. One could extend it further--at which point is the dough granted the status of bread? When it is removed from the oven? When it is edible, even if undercooked? Or is it always bread, is the breadiness kneaded into its very core?

It's bread dough until it's cooked, then it's bread.

Rape is a tragedy. But it's not a significant factor, no matter how painful it is. Rape pregnancies are the exception to the rule--maybe they should be the exception to the laws on fetus rights. I don't know, and frankly it's irrelevant to the greater issue.

See Amethyst Hunter's rebuttal. I agree with her.

And this is the main reason I think fetus rights would be difficult to allow or enforce. Someone trying to protect the life of a fetus would end up encasing the mother in a plastic rat ball, with nutrionally-balanced and tasteless food poked in through the air holes.

That's part of the reason our side is called 'pro-choice'. And it's not an impossible nightmare - see Ceacescu's Romania. I linked to a summary of that earlier in this thread.

But rational pro-lifers aren't trying to control women.

In my opinion, yes they are.

They may not think they are, but pregnancy is one of my worst nightmares. I am responsible about contraception, I am careful about sex, but if I got pregnant and couldn't abort, it would be an incredibly traumatic thing for me. And my family would put me on suicide watch, and would be right to.

To me, saying 'we want you not to abort, never ever under any circumstances' IS an attempt to control me. To dictate a critical part of my life. Nothing you can say will change my mind about that.

Through their eyes, your denial of the damage caused to babies looks as alien as their denial of the damage done to women looks to you.

Damage caused to a bit of human tissue about the size of my little fingernail? I do more damage to human tissue just walking down the street!

Other people get to have opinions also, even if you don't agree with them. By denying that their point of view exists, or that it is somehow less valid than yours, you signal that you are not interested in meeting them halfway.

Pro-choice people don't deny that other people have a point of view that's valid. One of our major 'sound bites' is 'Against abortion? Don't have one.'

We advocate for choice.

Our only point of major disagreement with moderate pro-lifers is that the pro-lifers believe that they have the right to dictate what we do with our bodies and our potential babies. At which point I ask you to read your own words again.

This attitude makes people more hostile and less cooperative, reinforcing the stereotype that pro-lifers are selfish and unreasonable.

Pro-choicers want to live in harmony with pro-lifers. You do what you believe to be best for your lives, bodies, and potential babies. We do what we believe to be best for ours.

Unfortunately, pro-lifers believe themselves to have both the right and the duty to invade every woman's womb and dictate what happens there. And that's the sticking point. We can't accept that.

I don't like those right-wing nutjobs either. As Seshat said in another thread, I won't judge you by your crazies if you don't judge me by mine.

Sounds fair to me. But then, it's a quote from me, so I guess it would. ;)

I have PCOS, which is why I take birth control medication. If/When I go off my meds, my cramps leave me curled up whimpering. So they can pry my birth control out of my cold dead fingers--right after I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to own a shotgun ;)

I have PCOS too. I haven't been able to find a hormone dosage which actually works for me, so I use an IUD as birth control and deal with bleeding 3 weeks out of 4.

The whole abortion debate is probably a moot point for me personally - I probably don't actually produce any viable eggs. But if I had the bad luck to do so, and the bad luck for my probably-not-fertile husband to actually have viable sperm at the same time, and the incredible bad luck for my IUD to happen to fail at that same time - well, the poor potential baby would almost certainly suffer (from genetic diseases) its entire life if we let it happen.

As I've said before, preventing unwanted pregnancies is probably the best solution. Most birth control is perfectly harmless, and most rational folk will grant you the right to put whatever medicines--or poisons--you want into your own body.

You'd be hard pressed to find any pro-choicers who disagree.

Well, except with the 'most birth control is perfectly harmless' - some people (like me!) have hideous reactions to the Pill. But with a sane and sensible doctor guiding you, most people can find a birth control which is harmless for them.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, and I hope that you will not judge an entire movement based on a certain group of supporters.

Most pro-choicers know that the majority of pro-lifers are moderates, and not insane nutjobs like that 'certain group of supporters'.

We simply disagree with a fundamental premise of the pro-life movement: that anyone has the right to decide for anyone else whether or not to have an abortion.

I do support education reforms, raising the poverty line, reforming the welfare/medicaid system, and yes, greater education about and access to birth control methods. Many pro-lifers do, at least the ones I hang out with.

Good. Many pro-choicers agree with you. (Not all - some doubtless have different economic priorities. But I think you get my gist here.)

And here's something for you to think about: what's so wrong about walking a mile in the other person's shoes? Both sides need to grow up and try to work out a better solution that leaves everyone happy.

Unfortunately, we have one fundamental disagreement which I think means we can't come to a solution that leaves everyone completely satisfied.

All our moderates can agree about most of it:
* abortion is undesirable, and we should work for a minimal need for it. No need for it would be ideal.
* we want some sort of adequately comprehensive sex education that leaves our teenagers able to make sensible decisions about sex.
* we want contraception to be readily available, as affordable as possible, as safe as possible. Effective 'rhythm' type methods to be available for Catholics and others whose religion forbids other types of contraception.
* we want safer sex supplies to be readily available, and education about how and why to use them to be in the standard sex ed curriculum.
* many would also agree on relationship education being included in the curriculum.

We can't agree on one point: where in the continuum between fertilisation and birth a potential baby becomes a separate human being with separate rights. Humanity has been working on that question since at least Aristotlean times, and we haven't been able to agree on an answer. I think it unlikely that we ever will.

My personal belief is that because we don't know, the woman (preferably both parents) should consult her (their) spiritual or philosophic adviser of choice, and decide for herself (themselves) whether to discuss an abortion with a medical advisor of choice. I believe that since we don't know, each woman (set of parents) has the heavy responsibility of making her (their) own decision.

I think many, if not most, pro-choicers agree with me.

My understanding of the moderate pro-life argument is that there are two versions:
* because we don't know, we have to assume that life begins really early on (*), and therefore abortion is murder unless the baby wouldn't have lived anyway.
* we do know, and we know that life begins really early on (*). Therefore abortion is murder unless the baby wouldn't have lived anyway.

(* exactly when 'really early on' is varies from pro-life group to group)

There are variations. Some think a child of rape can be aborted, some think that if either person's health (mother or child) is endangered by the pregnancy, abortion is okay. Some think that if the child would be born severely disabled, abortion is okay. Some think that no child ever should be aborted. The most common that I'm aware of is 'abortion is only okay if the baby wouldn't live anyway', with 'if the mother would die and the kid would die too' being included.

I believe I do understand the pro-life argument. If there is some aspect of the core premise that isn't up there, please let me know.

Unfortunately, the attitude I hear from some pro-choicers is "Haha, the government sided with us, so stick it up your butt!" and the attitude I hear from some pro-lifers is "You're all evil and going to hell."

That's immature on both sides. Please don't judge us all by our nutjobs. ;)