As the state of South Dakota moves to bring in a ban on abortion, “LaLa Leftist Land” reacts . Pedro provides the colour commentary;
My choice for Constitutional Amendment #28: the State should preserve the woman’s right to have a hot, tight, and firm body forever.
Via Maxed Out Mama, who has additional comments worth your time, (regardless of your position on the issue).
In the political forum area of a Corvette-related website which I help moderate (fast cars & politics… can it be better?) we had someone from South Dakota go up in flames and quit posting after his “cheers” about SD’s new anti-abortion law weren’t greeted with the enthusiasim which he felt was deserved. Abortion really seems to polarize folks like no other topic I’ve seen.
If women’s health is the highest priority – then access to abortion should be very restrictive. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if sex has immediate and blatant consequences, like pregnancy, women will be less likely to engage in it and therefore less likely to catch the new & improved strains of STD’s going around or AIDS and so forth. And if access were very restrictive then women would likely choose sex partners who they think would stick around to support the baby etc. Ideally the couple wouldn’t be exposed to further STD risks, ideally.
Presently, many young women are taught to emulate guys when it comes to sex, that’s great and all – especially the ‘Girls gone wild’ series! – but those women won’t ever have to worry about abortion anyhow, chlamydia, age and other diseases will take care of their fertility.
I vote for Amendment #29: Outlawing stretchmarks.
I long ago stopped discussing abortion. There seems to be no way to discuss it rationally.
Reading through the posts helps me understand that there are many out there that do not share my values. A fetus referred to as a “parasitic infection”. Just an “inconvenience” not to be tolerated. How sad.
As many others, I believe that live begins when the egg and sperm come together. The mystical and magical creative process has begun at this point developing toward full term.
Mac said that there is no other issue that polarizes like this one. That is because it is one of the few issues in which for some of us there is only black and white… no grey area to cloud the issue. For me the issue is all about the intrinsic value of human life. Each and every life is precious and valuable.
As society has marched down the road of “choice” (convenience), the voice that matters the most is least able to be heard, that of the unborn.
One measure of a society is how they treat the most vulnerable among them. If we continue to decide that the life of the unborn has no value then how are we going to advocate on behalf of the elderly, the infirm, the comatose, the mentally challenged, the severely handicapped etc.
These decisions are already upon us with doctor assisted suicides being advocated in many places because of the work of Doctor Death, Jack Kevorkian an others.
As for abortion, I am glad to see that there are still men and women with the courage of their convictions to advocate for the unborn and honor the unborn by giving them legal protection and sanction afforded to each one of us under our constitutions.
This argument may become mute in the near future however because of the legalization of the morning after pill. In addition to surgical intervention, we now have death by chemical cocktail. Dr. Death would be proud of the “advances” we have made. Sad indeed.
My opinion, in every decision where there is a choice to be made, I choose life!
Maranatha
Yep, mighty inconvenient. Cows don’t have kittens and women don’t give birth to “blobs of protoplasm”.
Mind you death is inconvenient as well; when STDs are left unchecked. Sounds like a prescription from “Planned Barrenhood”.
Of course when you behave like the rabbits let loose in Austrailia; reality has a way of spanking you.
I mean why relate to another human being on a psychologically meaningful level when you can let the “animals out of the cage”. The current mores, if you can call them that, are such that daily ‘rutting season’ is quite acceptable; with as many partners as possible.
Oh that pregnancy thing, we ‘advanced folk’ have a quick fix for everything. You got your IUDs, birthcontrol pills, condoms, and when all else fails you just “nuke’ the unwanted kids.
Of course all the above paraphenalia is constructed precisely to prevent meaningful discussion and encounter with a true “other person”. Simply when you engage reality, you take account of one’s sexuality and don’t try to willy nilly avoid it.
But then ‘rutting season’ is so much easier when you just negate one’s ability to choose. Because if you are following mere instinct, then you aren’t acting as a human agent, but a mere automoton commanded by biological urges.
Yep, life is so much simpler when you don’t have to think and act cogently for yourself. It is easier to blame somebody or something else than actually engage responsibly.
Freedom used responsibly; what a concept? Oh I think I’m getting too revolutionary for those dear post modernist’s biological flights of fancy.
To Maranatha
You said .”Each and every Life is Precious and Valuable.”
Does that include all those Islamofascist NUTBARS out there as well?
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive
Very appropriate.
Arnold Ziffel,
How’s life in Green Acres? How are all the other animals back on the farm?
“Does that include all those Islamofascist NUTBARS out there as well?”
Arnold, the world is filled with “nutbars”. Yes I believe that each and every life is precious and valuable. When each of these individuals came into this world as new born babes, they too were valuable and precious to their mothers, family and community. The fact that they were born where they were and in the conditions and environments that they grew up in were largely not their fault. Each person, as they grow up make choices in life. They have chosen to follow a corrupt system with corrupt leaders. In as much as they have broken laws or waged war, they will answer for those actions even as we answer for the wrong things that we choose to do here (unless of course you are the Liberal Public Works Minister, you may be rewarded with an ambassadorship!)
What I am saying is that each and every life is precious and deserves to have the opportunity to grow up and make a difference in this world, to make it a better place for their having been here. If they choose not to, they will answer for that.
Who would you designate to make the decisions as to who will live and who will die? If you decide that they all should not live or be born even, who is next? Communists because you don’t like their philosophy. Africans because of the scourge of aids. Once we come to the place of deciding a whole race, religion or group of people are unfit or less valuable, then we are on the road to genocide like Rawanda or the holocaust in Germany.
I assure you that I don’t have all the answers and yes there will always be the fringe exceptions from the ethics class but on the whole…
I choose life.
Maranatha
Yeah Gordon, I agree. It is a very touchy subject and being ovary challenged I am not expected to understand let alone speak.
Candace, my wife agrees with you on 29.
Yes, abortion is always a hard issue to grapple with. I can only quote P.J. O’Rourke:
“The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors – psychology, sociology, women’s studies – to prove that nothing is anybody’s fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you’d have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view.”
JJM:…well said…I am neither calous (pragmatic…yes) nor a devout Christian (agnostic). A close Christian friend says I have more Christian values than some of the devout Christians he knows. That being said…I believe life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong. I also believe that in certain cases (bernardo and holmoka for one) I would find it hard not to think the dealh penalty would be justified. Only my opinion.
My real confusion lies with someone who is completely pro abortion and anti death penalty. In most cases each of us has a cross to bear.
There is no way to discuss ahjtyrdn irrationally, …except to quote Dr. Seuss: “Hop on Pop”:
Girls pack on pounds with pop
Ottawa Sun – 27 Feb 2006
By SUN MEDIA. A new study shows pop consumption tends to increase dramatically in adolescent girls as they get older, leading to weight gain. “We found that changes in beverage consumption took place as the girls got older. … +
cnews
Take this how you may, but one might argue that a woman’s right to choice ends when she makes that choice to spread her legs.
What is it about the Dems that attracts the nation’s brainsick to it’s aid?
Kate: next time you provide links to moonbat central, issue some warnings for the rational so they don’t have to endure these psychotic rants. 😉
Gordon: ” I long ago stopped discussing abortion. There seems to be no way to discuss it rationally.”
That may be the case but I think the debate has focused too much on the morality. Forget morality for a second, there are compelling sociological and demographical arguments against abortion. Pope John Paul II was right, whether the message is “morally inconvenient” or not: a nation that aborts its children has no future.
And these people who say we need to increase immigration because Canadian women are refusing to procreate. I don’t use the word racist much, but consider the consequences: we are effectively saying that children and procreation are yucky things and we should leave it to “The Brown People” (to produce “workers” to pay for social programs – ugh). That’s racist as hell. We’ve effectively outsourced procreation, and made the decision to exterminate ourselves. Self-genocide, as it were. If Darwin were alive he’d say we – the people who aren’t procrating – are inferior, unfit for survival.
Mommy… who’s this harper guy? Isn’t he the accountant for dr. Morgendollar? +
OTTAWA — Stephen Harper says he will put an end to the “lie” that he intends to re-open the abortion debate… +
http://www.rapp.org/url/?XJS5252S
via nealenews
I think a workable comprimise is to insist on aborting fetuses only from the Looney Left. Afterall, we would then not only be curing “infections” but also stamping out “parasites”.
eskimo….
would your senario include a case of rape ?
I’m actually hoping that the SD law gets Roe vs. Wade overturned. I believe in a woman’s right to choose but Roe v Wade has held the movement back and enabled Republicans to have their cake and eat it too on abortion.
Overturning Roe will mean that the legislative branch will have to do something about abortion. Which is what would have happened anyway if it weren’t for Roe. It always amazed me that the Democrats defended Roe as much as its been a great boon to the Republicans. With Roe gone republicans can no longer pussy foot with pro-choice right winger and the pro-life movement at the same time. And that’s very bad news for them.
I think it’s just plain sad.
I’m not a woman… so who the hell am I to voice an opinion on it… I can only feel sad that it even needs to exist as a subject of debate or practice.
Spike, obviously not – unless you are of the opinion that women choose to be raped.
William Macdonell:…how true…as their mother and I (I don’t say ‘my wife’…not a term I use) watch our sons (14 & 13) develop and grow into fine young men, I think of those who were never given the chance and my heart aches…
The Left can rant, rail, have abortions till the cows come home.
I am okay with Lefties aborting their little parasites.
It means a shrinking left and a growing right.
The universe is unfolding as it should.
ed…
that has to be one of the dumbest comments get, or is that wishful thinking on your part ?
A few days ago I read a headline that asked” Where are all the people we need to fill jobs that are going begging?”Where are the professionals, the laborers, the service people? I would suggest that maybe they should be looking down the sinks of the abortuaries.
Jose has obviosly never heard of the “Roe Effect.”
Just ask your average Leftist “true believer” how many children they have and then ask your average conservative sane individual.
How many votes does that eventually translate into?
No wonder the Leftists planned to take over the education system 100 years ago. It’s their only hope. They obviously got to Jose.
I am surprised we are having an abortion debate now. I didn’t think it was allowed in Canada. I agree with restrictions on abortion but disagree with the SD law in that a raped woman should be allowed to abort, as she did not choose this. Canada has no abortion law, so in effect late term abortions are legal.
The looney left is quite hypocritical in Canada in that they want women to have the “right to choose” yet want to ban gender selection abortions. Somehow the state should be allowed to interfere with their bodies in this instance.
Canada should at least have a ban on second and third trimester abortions with exceptions made for dangerous pregancies and severe genetic abnormalities in the fetuses. It is disgusting and inhumane that they should be allowed this late.
I am okay with Lefties aborting their little parasites. It means a shrinking left and a growing right.
And on that note, has anyone seen the cover story in the current “Foreign Policy” mag? It argues that low birthrates among “progressives” is leading to an eventual surge in conservatism, broadly defined, and a return to trad “patriarchical” values.
Anyone here actually talk to a woman who has been raped and become pregnant, before advocating abortion for rape victims?
There are two studies of women in this situation, covering both women who aborted and those who gave birth. Every woman who gave birth was glad she’d done so (no exceptions); something like 85% of women who aborted regretted it.
Rape as an exception is a red herring – women in these situations don’t want abortion thrown at them as though it’s a solution – they want support. Rape is also irrelevant to the issue that needs deciding when crafting a law (I don’t mean this callously, but it is); is the fetus a human being? Biologically, there is no other possible answer than ‘yes’ – therefore the child should be considered with the same rights as other human beings. The SD law takes into account the only possible situation where the death of the fetus should be considered – where the mother’s life is in real danger due to the pregnancy.
“I am okay with Lefties aborting their little parasites. It means a shrinking left and a growing right…And on that note, has anyone seen the cover story in the current “Foreign Policy” mag? It argues that low birthrates among “progressives” is leading to an eventual surge in conservatism, broadly defined, and a return to trad “patriarchical” values.”
I think Left vs. Right is a gross oversimplification of a serious issue. It seems to be correlated more along wealth, religion, ethnicity, and probably metro Canada vs. rest of Canada lines.
Globally, we – Canada, Europe, and to a lesser extent the USA – are “The Left” on this issue. We’re the ones who mass abort children.
The rest of the non-self-extinction world that doesn’t mass-abort their children – Iran, Saudi Arabia, the less developed world – they are “The Right”. So when you say you’re happy the left are aboting their children, I think on a global scale it is us – Canada – you’re speaking about. Maybe Left & Right or even prog. vs. con. are too fuzzy in this context.
“Take this how you may, but one might argue that a woman’s right to choice ends when she makes that choice to spread her legs”
But then ‘rutting season’ is so much easier when you just negate one’s ability to choose.
The problem with the pro-life movement is judmental a-holes like these two. I don’t like abortion but I won’t stand side by side with judgemental, moralising dinosaurs to oppose it. What’s next? Do you want to outlaw pre-marital sex, bring back the “red letter”?
Okay, I realize I’m not going to win many friends with this position, but….
I support abortion rights without exception.
Here’s why:
1) is a foetus a person? Biologically, the answer is “sort of”. It is certainly not a viable person in the first trimester. By the time it gets to 3rd trimester, it essentially is. I can’t say it becomes a “person” at conception. 2 cells are not a person.
So on this approach the “foetus as a person” argument only works against late-term abortions.
2) Even if a foetus is a quasi-person, any debate on abortion must consider the rights of the foetus versus those of the mother. The mother has a right to “security of person”, meaning that she has a right to control what goes on in her own body. While I don’t like the treatment of potential people as “parasites”, the woman has the right to remove a foetus in the same way that she has a right to remove a mole. It’s her body; she is in ultimate control of it.
Why?
Because if we made the rights of the foetus superior to the rights of the mother, the mother would have no rights. Pregnant women would quickly be legally barred from smoking, drinking, eating improperly, or doing anything that MIGHT harm the foetus. Eventually, pregnant women would all have to follow some strictly idealized state-approved “pregnancy plan”. To treat a foetus as a person would be to cease treating the mother as a person. Pregnant women would be reduced to the status of baby factories.
Given the choice between the rights of a current person and the rights of a potential person, I would choose the current person every time.
3) Several of you have put foward demographic, moral and policy arguments as to why having more children is a good thing. These are valid arguments to inform any choice as to whether to have children.
But the case of each individual pregnancy, I would trust the judgement of the potential mother (exception: incest/rape cases of minors). She knows her situaition better than any of us do, and is therefore qualified to make the choice.
4) Some people have advanced racial arguments about abortion. These fall into two categories:
1)Western civilization will cease to exist if developed countries don’t raise their birthrates
2) it is racist to expect minorities to do the demographic “work” of having children
My responses:
1) Sure, Saudi Arabia has a higher birthrate, but do we want to treat women the way the Saudis do?
2)it isn’t racist if they are offered the same choices as everyone else.
That is all. I fully expect to be flamed for this. Please let me be wrong on that.
Related: Child care in LibSpeak means Liberals taking care of themselves, their clients, their brown envelope$. +
Grits ready for child care battle
OTTAWA (CP) � The federal Liberals warn that their first big fight with the Stephen Harper Conservatives will be over child care. +
cnews
Two issues were raised at about the same time-the Surgeon General of the US, come out with a stmt re smoking-and the anti-smoking lobby was created. This was taken as a health issue and we have seen the results.
John Kennedy was elected Pres and his religion was a big issue. Stories erupted that no Pope was going to tell women what to do blah blah, and the abortion issue was on.
One-smoking-was fought on a health issue
One-abortion was fought on a religious issue.
Lost in the shuffle was the fact that the Surgeon General at the time was a member of the Quarum of 12 of the LDS church (almost the same powers as the Pope) and the mormon church was against smoking. Therefore, it was also a religious issue and ignored by the MSM.
There were letters, editorials, columns etc saying that in years to come, with abortion being used as a birth control, we would face a shrinking work force, less students for schools and colleges, fewer people to pay for all the social benefits, welfare, OAP, CPP, Social Security etc. It would also lead to a culture of death. Seems a lot of those fears have been met-abortion, euthanasia, killings of children by parents, lack of respect for life (gang murders). Stats have been used re number of smoking deaths/yr. But, if you ever smoked and you die at age 95, it is smoking related. Non smoking numbers now include from birth to 16, instead of from 16 on. We heard of the back alley abortions and deaths. We never hear of those dying of legal abortions, but some do. We never hear of those women who had an abortion and were never able to get pregnant again. How many women get pregnant from rape? (I mean true rape, not being caught with the wrong man) And, when you think of the number of women in Canada and the US that have made a choice to kill their unborn child, no wonder we live in such a violent society. If they killed their child, what else have they done to themselves-drugs, liquor, divorce, or what left-wing causes do they support. All I ask them to admit is that they killed a child, a potential human being, who maybe would have found a cure for some awful disease. I think the tide is slowly turning and family and morality will again become an important part of our lives.
I’m in agreement with everyone, except the leftie righty comment. Therein lies the issue, morality vs morality. No one wins, everyone, and I do mean everyone is a loser on this one.
Rape a red-herring? My wife was victimized as a teen, so I wouldn’t want to be you Shane when you made that comment in front of her. Unless of your a women with a male handle. If not, I don’t think either you or I would have much voice on that topic.
I think the solution is the day after pill… It’s fine to say a man has to be responsible too, but that’s rather foolish of a woman to trust that a guy is going to look after his end. Better that the thought is taken out of play altogether with tools readily available.
Then all a person has to do is worry about STD’s… Mother natures birth control.
Hey Feisty: Who pooped in your Mueslix this morning?
I’m a judgemental a-hole? A moralizing dinosaur?
First the dinosaur label. Although I feel I’m young at “only” 41, my son may agree with you.
Jundgemental a-hole….hmmmm. If you’re going to call me an asshole, show some balls and spell the whole word out.
What’s wrong with being judgemental? Even “progressives” like you make judgements every day. ie. not to touch the hot stove, not to run over pedestrians on your way to your government social work job, not to tuck your t-shirt inside your underpants, etc.
So long as there’s skanks-‘o-plenty out there, willingly spreading their thighs for whoever’s willing, rest assure I’ll be voicing my “jundgements”. (Both her AND the greaseball pumping said skank who refuses to wear a condom will receive my judgements)I won’t even get into the fact that abortions are free, compliments of my hard earned tax dollar.
Not looking to outlaw sex at all.
Where’s the self control and RESPONSIBILITY?
Oh yeah, I forgot. This is the socialist mecca of Can-uh-duh. The land of perpetual “second chances” where mediocrity is our gold standard.
Hey Eskimo,
I don’t think it’s fair to characterize women who have abortions as “skanks”.
You do realize that people in committed relationships have abortions too, right?
You do realize that the pill, condoms, etc. are not 100% effective, right?
Don’t get me wrong, abortion should be a last resort, but it should be available.
Which is more irresponsible, an unintended pregnancy or having a child when you aren’t ready?
Surely, in some cases, abortion is, in fact, the “responsible” decision.
GM,
If it is a faming you are expecting, I would hate to see you leave disappointed.
I expressed my opinions earlier in the thread so I will try not to repeat myself but did want to address your points. We are at polar opposites of this discussion and I don’t expect tp change your mind or to have you agree wih me. The thing about reasoned discussion is that a fair airing of the issue can be had.
1 You had said that a foetus is not a person until later in the developement like the third trimester. That is very convenient. Where do you draw the line? If we say that after 8months and 29 days the foetus is a person, what about 8 months and 28 days? Back it up one day at a time and let me know when the foetus is no longer a person or a human being deserving the rights afforded human beings under our charter. Those who research embyonic developement are seeing some amazing things taking place very early in development which point to personhood much earlier than previously thought. In the end, the only sure test is conception.
2 Rather than thinking of the foetus as a paracite like some have taken to because that disgusts you, you would rather think of it as mole removal? Harly a valid comparison when you consider the potential value wrapped up in a little human vs a few abnormally pigmented cells. I know you want to look at this as a womans right to what goes on with her body. I would suggest to you that when she had irresponsible sex that led to the pregnancy, she yielded a portion of her rights and it became a shared right at conception. The mother is primarily responsible for the well being of the child after birth, what makes you think that responsibility can be abandoned before birth? Who is advocating for the “rights” of the unborn.
3 As far as the demographic, moral and policy and racial arguments, they have been discussed eloquently by others already and I agree with most if not all of them.
Life is precious.
Maranatha
P.S. We can still be friends, even if we in the end must agree to disagree
Hi Maranatha,
Thank you for a thoughtful response. I’m not disappointed at all; merely surprised and pleased.
I hope to show that reasonable debate over this issue IS possible.
1. You are absolutley right that deciding that personhood begins some time during pregnancy would be an excercise in arbitrary line-drawing.
But at the same time, I cannot give a pair of cells the same rights as a fully developed sentient person. In my view, a person becomes human biologically at some point in the second tirmester, but does not become one LEGALLY (a very different thing) until birth. Given the choice between using birth and conception as measuring points, I’ll go with birth.
2) EVEN IF you believe that life begins at conception, I still believe the anti-abortion argument fails. To require a woman to carry the foetus to term in every case would be to require one person to subordinate their body for the benefit of another. This would be the same as ordering me to give a kidney to somone in need of a transplant; it would be a violation of my rights.
Of course, when the child is born, we require the parents to subordinate their interests, to some extent, to those of the child. This is because they (or at least the mother) CHOSE to have the child, and cannot escape the consequences of that.
The essential point of my argument is this: No person should be required to subordinate their rights (especially the right to control their body) to another person except where they have made an explicit choice to do so.
Choosing to have sex is NOT the same as choosing to have a child. Even if precautions against pregnacy are taken, they can fail. Even if the sex is “irresponsible” (which is not always the case; married people have abortions too), abortion gives the woman the option of correcting a mistake and not taking the further irresponsible action of bringing a child into this world that they are not prepared to care for.
In this sense, abortion is often, in fact, the “responsible” choice.
As for the “policy” arguments, I will only say one further thing: policy goals are, effectivley “wants”. “Wants” do not take precedence over rights.
One man or womans want is another’s right.
I tend to think of the line “Man shall have no judge above God”…
It tells me I should shut the fuck up about things I’m not qualified to worry about personally, obviously you all have a different opinion, and that’s cool.
40 years ago, if a Catholic got cremated, they couldn’t go to heaven.
AS a Muslim, if you are contaminated by the blood of a pig, say goodbye to paradise.
God doesn’t want female priests but we’ve had 3 female Popes.
All the arguements here preclude one simple fact, people are people.
You make abortion illegal, and it will still happen, except that two people might die instead of one. You can rant about abstinance, and people will still screw irresponsibly and possibly end up wanting an abortion.
You can say it’s a right, and still your killing a life, be it justifiable or no. Death is death and it is final in at least the earthly sense.
You can take a side, and neither will win or lose, because both sides are precluded by human nature.
The best you can hope for is a happy medium through education and intelligent conversation in todays society.
Trying to put the Genie back in the bottle is unrealistic at best. History is full of examples of people trying to take away something from other people, and they always fail.
Some of the most ardent prohibitionists were closet tippler’s, Nazi Germany was about an Aryan race trying to keep itself pure, only to turn itself into a mass murderer.
Even Jesus humbled himself amongst the prostitutes and userers. It was he who said “let he who has no guilt cast the first stone”.
Yet to stand on the liberty and freedom of the individual is to be hypocritical in the face of abortion. As it is predictated on the choice of one life over another, regardless of motive.
A damning dicotomy.
Amazing how pious we can be in the face of our own teachings. Me, I would rather trust in God, Allah, Budha, Vishna, whatever your Gods name might be, they are all the same to me. If I burn for it, well I chose to not choose, so fair enough.
If there’s no judgement when I die… well shit.
When the commandment to ‘go forth and multiply’ was issued, there were two residents on this earth. The six billion mark was reached, (according to estimates),on June 1, 1999. The seven billion threshold, will be crossed in 2012.
The six poorest countries on earth, account for the largest percentage of population growth, and will continue to do so.
The talking heads will continue to maintain that human activity is not contributing to climate change, ( and these are the same people who say that this country has to drastically increase our immigration levels)!?!
Duh!
The ‘pro life’ movement is essentially a religious doctrine. (These are the same simpletons who see no problem with tax-payer funded baby factories.)
Is it too much to ask, that you keep them out of my front yard?
GM said: “To require a woman to carry the foetus to term in every case would be to require one person to subordinate their body for the benefit of another. This would be the same as ordering me to give a kidney to somone in need of a transplant; it would be a violation of my rights.”
Using the analogy of subordinating one’s body to the benefit of another, why are individuals made to yield the fruits of his/her labor through toil and hardship on *their* bodies, to the benefit of strangers?
Might not there also then be some rewarding through special *extension* of rights and privileges, from society to those women who DO ‘subordinate their bodies’ to harbor and nourish a developing baby?
Women who do assume the constraints that delivering a new baby call for are often the same women who are accorded some reduced status in parts of society…odd, isn’t it!
The body is changed and challenged. What is of some wonder is how many women will do so regardless. Most, gratefully, do not think of having that baby for their society, but for their own families.
Those who value life (no matter the stage), understand all too well the tidy use of septic language that comes into any discussion of abortion rights.
I used to feel disposed to discussing this issue; it was/is futile. But sometimes, it draws me back in.
I have had the benefit (I still see it as a benefit) of two things- being a registered nurse who spent time on obstetric units…..and being raised on a farm, and to this day, involving myself in the birthing of foals.
Those who have witnessed a birth will NOT go first to words like ‘subordinating bodies’ to another life.
In fact, they often cannot find the words to explain the awe..they just feel it, collectively feel it!
Animals grieve when they abort; they stand over that baby and *grieve*.
Humans, when they miscarry, feel a sense of loss…Do they say they are relieved to have their body back? It has not been my experience, but others may know otherwise.
I would hope that each pregnant woman becomes fully informed before that final call…that she will be shown the new technology available that tweeks comparisons to familial facial features and heart-sounds.
But she can refuse even that..it is her right to not know, to not be pressed to know.
If ever kidneys are forcibly taken from one for the other, may women also be required to bear witness to that life growing within, before they dispense with that life.
Having witnessed so many new lives coming into the world, my position is strong, but I allow for hope that those, who have determined that their bodies are their own, will find they will still share temporarily, for a greater purpose than themselves.
GM
After reading Daves comment as well as others, I, like you am not going to win many friends around here either. I know that the views I have are neither popular nor easy to discuss as they go to the heart of some very personal issues for many people. Dave feels that I, like ohters with similar views are “simpletons”. I wish that were true. I wish it were a simple issue. The fact is, it is a complex issue that in the end drives at what it means to be human and discovering where life begins.
I agree with William, in the end I too will put my trust in God. In the meantime it has been entrusted to us to honor Him by honoring one another. I don’t believe that there is room for us to take the position of the ostrich and put our heads in the sand hoping it will go away.
In the great scheme of things, the abortion debate is a very new issue. Granted it has been raging back and forth for most of my lifetime, perhaps 40-50 years in earnest. Compared to the millenia past and the future that lies ahead, that is but a couple of grains in the hourglass of time. Arrogantly, we tend to think that all of history revolves around our short little sojourn here. The decisions made before us and the decisions we make now will affect generations to come so it seems incumbent upon us to make an honest attempt to get it right.
I would like to respond to the comments you made. You said “I cannot give a pair of cells the same rights as a fully developed sentient person”
I guess the problem I have is this; as I go back from birth to conception I cannot see a place in the process where I would say “O.K. it is not human at this point”, I suppose it is no secret from what I have written so far that I am a Christian and that certainly frames my view on the issue differently than someone who has no faith. For me, I believe that when the egg and the sperm come together at conception, there is a spark of life that is added. In my faith I have dicovered that we are a triune personage; spirit, soul and body created in the image of God. My difficulty with abortion is that I have no understanding of when the spirit and the soul are formed and added to our personage, so I assume it is at conception. Life is certainly there at that point causing the foetus to grow and develop and where there is life, it deserves the right of protection. For these reasons, using your words; “Given the choice between using birth and conception as measuring points, I’ll go with… conception.”
In the end, as far as the laws of the land are concerned, I think that the Supreme Court will have to decide through some kind of a case “What is a human or Where does life begin”. At that point, this will become a charter issue or will go away and we will carry on with the status quo or should I say the status woe!
I am very concerned about western societies and the value that we assign to human life. In my own mind the abortion issue is tied to the upcoming euthanasia debate. If we cannot find those who will give a voice to those who are the most vulnerable among us; if first babies; then? the aged, the infirm, the hadicapped, the comatose…then what?
You said “This would be the same as ordering me to give a kidney to somone in need of a transplant; it would be a violation of my rights.” Really! I find it hard to correlate the similarity, first a mole now a kidney. We are not talking about a group of cells or an organ even. We are talking (in my view) about a human being with all the potential of life that you and I are priveleged to share in now. I know that for you this boils down to a womans rights over her body issue. I see a bigger issue than that. Is there nothing to be said for “personal responsibility”, “societal contribution”, “duty as a citizen” to contribute to the greater good of society.
In centuries past women offered babies to Baal as a sacrifice so that they could be prosperous. Today many women sacrifice their unborn babies to gods of convenience and cosmetics. If I say something about it in todays “civil society” I am labelled intolerant, a religious extremist etc. Sad indeed.
In Canada in 2000 there were about 32 abortions per 100 live births. There were around 100,000 abortions performed that year. Stats here:
http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/issues/abortion/stats.html
When I hear these numbers I am reminded of the adoption waiting lists in our nation. Friends have waited 3-4 years and then went out of country to find a child. On the news we are told that we are about 4000 truck drivers short on the prairies so we are having to bring in skilled workers from other countries. The same in nursing, doctors, machinists, welders, you name the trade. Between 1974 and 1997 there had been 1,250,000 abortions. You can add another 100,000 per year since then give or take a few thousand and you can add another million. Now multiply these numbers by about ten to get the USA numbers. These would have been the skilled workers and missing populace in North America today.
The blood of the innocents cries out to be heard. Who will speak for them?
Maranatha
“Take this how you may, but one might argue that a woman’s right to choice ends when she makes that choice to spread her legs”
Who would actually say this? Beyond the abortion debate, this is a disgusting statement.
Nice to see what kind of dogfuckers this site attracts. No wonder why they call you wingnuts.
H/T FrankJ
http://www.imao.us/archives/004872.html
THE SUPER HAPPY FUN PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION FAQ
Q. Critics call it partial birth abortion. Is that name accurate?
A. The actual medical term for this procedure is “Dilation and Extraction” or simply D&X. The term “partial-birth abortion” was manufactured by opponents of women’s health in an attempts to create controversy about the simple procedure of partially delivering a baby and sucking its brains out.
Q. Why don’t you call it “brain sucking abortion” instead of D&X?
A. Because that’s not medical sounding. Sucking out a baby’s brains is a complicated process and requires a complicated name.
Q. Don’t babies need brains?
A. It considers what purpose you have in mind for said babies.
Q. Does sucking out a baby’s brains cause the baby pain?
A. No. The baby would be too distracted from the pain of being stabbed in the head with scissors (used to make the needed hole in the head) to notice the start of the suction.
Q. How was this procedure invented?
A. A doctor was once watching a horror movie in which aliens attacked earth and sucked people’s brains out. He then said, “Hey! We could do that to babies!” I think his name was Steve.
Q. Since the whole body is already out, why not just pull the head out and deliver the baby?
A. For one thing, that defeats the whole point of an abortion. Also, about any doctor could do that, so I simply couldn’t charge as much for that procedure. Finally, if I’m just delivering babies, what in the world am I supposed to do with the brain sucking device I spent good money on?
Q. Why not fully deliver the baby and then suck out the brains?
A. Babies that have been fully delivered tend to squirm more and also make more noise. Beyond the practical considerations, though, it’s only legally considered an “abortion” if the brains are sucked out while the baby is still partially in the mother. Otherwise, it’s “infanticide” which is frowned upon in some cultures.
Q. Do you favor legalizing infanticide?
A. Absolutely not. Then if would be perfectly legal to throw live babies in dumpsters, and it’s not like I can charge a high fee for that either.
Q. Some people say it’s morally wrong to suck out a baby’s brains. What do you say to that?
A. Then why does it feel so right?
Q. I thought the whole point of sucking out the brain matter was to collapse the skull and make the dead fetus easier to deliver, especially in cases of hydrocephalus?
A. Hey, if you want the skull collapsed, that costs extra. The base cost just covers sucking out the brains. Look at the fine print.
Q. Opponents to D&X say that the procedure it never needed to protect a mother’s health. What are your views on this?
A. I think that misses the entire point. Whether to have your baby’s brains sucked out is a personal choice that should be left between a woman and her doctor. Some say it should be between a woman and her doctor and God, but He tends to be judgmental on these sorts of things and is best left out of the loop. Actually, if He asks, say you had a miscarriage. He might not buy that being this so late in the pregnancy, but it’s worth a shot. Whatever you tell Him, though, don’t mention my name.
Q. Should the baby have any say in this?
A. It won’t after its brains have been sucked out.
Q. Are you ever afraid of being attacked by anti-abortion extremists?
A. If anyone ever tries to blow up my clinic, my staff will hold him down and I’ll suck out his brains. I even have a sign out front that says so.
Q. How did you ever get into this line of work in the first place?
A. I’ve never liked babies (probably goes back to that time I was in a nursery and a pack of them jumped me and stole my wallet), so it just fit. Also, the DeBrainer 2000 salesman was really pushy, and, once you have a brain suction device, what else are you going to do with it?
Q. What are your views on the Constitutionality of D&X?
A. I truly believe that the right to suck the brains out of babies is Constitutionally protected. Admittedly, it’s not in there explicitly, but you gotta read between the lines on that document. Don’t just take my word for it, though; go read the Fourteenth Amendment over and over and soon you’ll start thinking of sucking out brains.
It is not quite in the league of Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal but makes its point.
AH YES ABORTION
the lala right says “bring on the babies” BUT they NEVER say who is going to take care of them.
Except perhaps to the tune of 1200 dollars a year before tax.You never hear the right to lifer saying give me 5 or 10 i will take care of them. No they just want them born and then…? I guess they will then have the right to be unwanted, uncared for and otherwise cursed but they will be born! Hallelujah, now we can build bigger prisons for all the unloved and neglected children to grow old in. If you really want to think about the consequences of your actions think about that.
You know if men could become pregnant this wouldnt be an issue at all. Thats right you are never going to tell a man what to do with his body NEVER.
kate obviously this is an explosive issue however I respectfully request you remove eskimo..right to choose is as soon as you whip out your dick. asshole numbnuts fuckwad
Kate,
Thanks once more for hosting an interesting discussion on a topic that many have grown weary of. I am thinking that this discussion may find more traction and more relevance very soon the way things are shaping up politically and judiciously.
I am a little conflicted on the subject though in this way. You had mentioned in a prior posting that many from a certain segment of our population, particularly here in Saskatchewan, have become “baby farms”. You called it right and it is possibly more profitable these days than traditional methods of farming.
I well remember standing in a convenience store in Slave Lake, Alberta when this mentality reared its head. Two young ladies of this same ethnic persuasion were in front of me in line. They were looking through their purses trying to find money to buy lottery tickets. Not finding as much as they had hoped, one turned to the other and said “It looks like were going to have to have some more kids!” It was there and then that I saw one of the main failings of social democracy… there is very little thought given to personal responsibility or cost to society when these single mothers make these decisions. Many times responsibility is abdicated by the mothers in question. Having been amongst the progeny of the baby factories through the school system, I have come to realize how many of these children are being raised by grandmas and grandpas, aunts and uncles, friends and neighbors and foster care.
I know this is a little off topic but one wonders what the answers are in these circumstances especially now that we have made it even more profitable by sending an extra 100 loonies per month per child.
Maranatha
..Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder costs Canadians $344 million a year, according to a new study by researchers at the Hospital for Sick Children…
…It’s estimated 4,000 Canadian children, about 1% of all births, are born with the disorder, which causes developmental and cognitive disabilities…
…The lifetime cost for someone born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is a conservative $1 million, Koren said…
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2006/03/01/1467716-sun.html