How Much Time, Indeed …
Posted by: Blue Collar Muse in Abortion, Anti Dictionary Democrats, Blogroll, Conservative, Individual ResponsibilityHat tip to Ned Williams at Wisdom is Vindicated and Aunt B. at Tiny Cat Pants for pointing this out.
Aunt B. takes a moment to laugh at Ned Williams for posting about a weapon pro-abortionists are considering in their fight to further legitimize abortion in the minds of the people. It’s the premise of a video (of the Michael Moore variety as evidenced by this account of how it was filmed) viewable here. So you know, the group who shot the video, the At Center Network, are not dispassionate documentary makers. Their website links to The Daily Kos and Air America Radio and their other videos and commentaries are decidedly Left of center. The video asks, and shows pro-lifers answering, the questions “Should abortion be illegal?” and “If so, what should be done to the women who have them?”
It makes great theater and, for the pro-abortion faithful, a great opportunity to ridicule pro-life dullards and hypocrites. If one takes at face value the validity of the video’s premise, then there is most certainly validity to the conclusions it is pushing us to come to. However, if one concludes the video’s premise is flawed, then the conclusions, regardless of how much one might wish it were different, are also flawed and useless.
The video was shot in 2005 and seems to have gained little traction I could find, even among those in the pro-abortion camp. Recently, however, Anna Quindlen wrote a piece in Newsweek titled, ‘How Much Jail Time?’, adding her voice to those that would like to change that. She writes,
The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It’s as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: “I’ve never really thought about it.” “I don’t have an answer for that.” “I don’t know.” “Just pray for them.”
You have to hand it to the questioner; he struggles manfully. “Usually when things are illegal there’s a penalty attached,” he explains patiently. But he can’t get a single person to be decisive about the crux of a matter they have been approaching with absolute certainty.
A new public-policy group called the National Institute for Reproductive Health wants to take this contradiction and make it the centerpiece of a national conversation, along with a slogan that stops people in their tracks: How much time should she do?
Those rushing to announce they are jumping on this particular bandwagon seem not to have thought through their argument. It’s understandable, really. It can be hard to think on one’s feet. Like when a camera is turned on and pointed at you and an interesting question is posed and your initial responses are then used as if they represent all the wisdom that can come from such a discussion. Let’s take a look, however, at the situation with a bit of time to actually consider what is being asked and how else it might be answered. Because a response of “I don’t know” or “I don’t have an answer for that” is not the same as “There isn’t an answer for that.”
Quindlen’s position that there isn’t a single decisive pro-life answer to questions about “the crux of a matter they have been approaching with absolute certainty” is valid only if you agree on what that matter is. If the question is, “Do you believe that abortion is immoral and should be made illegal?”, then as the video clearly shows, there is no lack of decisive answers. If the question is “Should women who have abortions be jailed for a crime in the event abortion becomes illegal?” then some thoughtful consideration of one’s answer to such an important question as well as a range of responses should be both expected and allowed.
Seven minutes of video cannot realistically be considered sufficient time to either find the full range of responses to the question nor the depth of reason and thought behind them. It is, however, sufficient if all you intend is a drive-by approach to addressing your opponent’s position. Personally, I welcome the NIRH’s commitment to making this Q&A a national issue as it may backfire when the question is fully and thoughtfully answered. What a delicious irony if the very argument intended to defeat and demoralize pro-lifers won more to their cause instead?
With that in mind, I’d like to answer the question “How much time?” with some questions of my own. There are surely more to be asked in the days ahead but for now, I’m wondering about the following.
I’ll not dispute most pro-lifers believe abortion is murder. I certainly do. And, like some in the video, I have never once thought about nor am I interested in making women who have abortions stand trial for murder or any other crime. My concern is stopping the killing and the extensively documented physical and emotional consequences to some women as a result of their choosing to have an abortion. Why insist that if I hold one position then I must hold the other? Why insist that if I believe abortion should be illegal, I must also insist women who have them be charged with a crime?
Because it’s all about the question! Ms. Quindlen assumes there is only one way of criminalizing abortion. One which guarantees the criminalization of women who have them. Unfortunately, laws tend to be fairly specific. Crafting a law criminalizing only the providing of an abortion makes the killing illegal and avoids vapid questions designed to divide people and not to divine truth. It’s as simple as that.
Quindlen and company are trying to set up the abortion debate equivalent of “Do you still beat your wife?” They want a question to which any answer is the wrong answer. But the question is only valid if one accepts as true the premise the question itself establishes. What if the man never beat his wife? How much time should she do? What if I don’t think women who have abortions should be charged with a crime? What if the law only makes providing abortion a crime? So many questions to answer to one trick question from the Left.
Fortunately for pro-lifers, it would appear the only answer the Left will accept is, “Let’s charge them with premeditated, first degree murder and keep all punishment options on the table, including the death penalty!” I understand that is the answer they believe will make pro-lifers look the worst. I wonder if they also understand that driving wide open down that road might make them look a lot worse in the end.
Thinking “How much time?” is a great question - as in how much time will it take before the Left realizes they’ve hitched their wagon to a lame horse …
Blue Collar Muse
For links to great posts around the blogosphere, check out Outside the Beltway’s Traffic Jam!
Popularity: 59% [?]
Entries (RSS)
August 14th, 2007 at 6:47 am
[…] Efron Contact the Webmaster Link to Article michael moore How Much Time, Indeed … » Posted at Blue Collar Muse on Tuesday, […]
August 14th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Yes, but here’s the problem. You yourself say, “I’ll not dispute most pro-lifers believe abortion is murder. I certainly do.” and then you turn right around and say “And, like some in the video, I have never once thought about nor am I interested in making women who have abortions stand trial for murder or any other crime.”
This can only mean one of two things–either you don’t really think abortion is actually murder OR you don’t think women should be held to the same legal standards as men; i.e. that we’re not quite full citizens.
If that is at the heart of your beliefs about the world–that women aren’t as capable of participating in society as men, that, by virtue of being women, we have to be treated like junior citizens, never quite ready for full citizenship, then at least be honest about it so that people understand they position they’re taking when they choose to agree with you.
The “abortion is murder” crowd annoys the stuffing out of me, but at least they respect my ability to function as an autonomous legal entity. What you’re saying here, if you’re saying what it looks like you’re saying, is that you don’t.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:29 am
[…] P did not link to this article by Blue Collar Muse, but I like to call it “No, Ladies, what I’m saying is that you’re too stupid to be held legally responsible for….” I, myself, after finishing up my “Eat this tamale or Die, Cracker!” sign, […]
August 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Aunt B. -
Thanks for stopping by! I’m honored! Your comment got hung up in spam - I don’t know why since there’s no links in it. Imagine my delight in finding your comment there! I’m going to make a button for my sidebar that says, “I’ve been B-atified!”
On to comments …
Well, I do believe that abortion is murder, so we can set that one to rest.
However, I disagree that my only choices for responding to the question of what to do with women who have them must, therefore, be to either charge them with murder or relegate them to second class citizen status.
One reason is that not everyone agrees abortion is murder. Thus many women having abortions believe it is morally OK to do so. She is not thinking to herself, “I’m going to go out and commit murder today!” That is an honestly held conviction for her. How would it be just to charge her with a crime she honestly did not know or believe she was committing?
As I mentioned, the goal here is to stop abortions, not to punish the women who have them.
Additionally, you and I are using the term “woman” without definition. Is this a person over 18? Over 21? We both know that many females having abortions are minors - I’m uncomfortable with calling them fully informed women. Many of these girls have abortions for reasons that, had they had different advice, counsel, influence or what have you would have prompted them to make different choices. How could I insist on charging a minor making an incredibly difficult decision with either not enough personal maturity or insufficient counsel with murder? Especially when so many others are telling her the exact opposite? Do you believe the 13 and 14 year olds having abortions qualify as full citizens? Are they capable of fully participating in society? Is this because they are female or is it because they are young?
I’m sure there are thoughts you might have on my thoughts. As always, I enjoy give and take with you. Let me know where I’m all wet on this and I’ll try and fight back thoughtfully enough to hold you off. **grin**
BCM
August 14th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
The whole teenagers having abortions thing is difficult. And I think we, as a society, try to account for it being difficult by requiring parental consent or for the involvement of a judge and a social worker. But it kind of ooks me out because we don’t require those things for a teenager to have a baby–there’s no parental consent, no court involvement. It seems weird to me that everyone is legally required to get involved when a girl doesn’t want to carry a pregnancy to term, but not when she does. And having a baby at twelve or thirteen is absolutely statistically the most deadly time in a woman’s life to have a baby, so you’d think, if a girl had to get permission for anything, it might be the thing that had a good likelihood of killing her.
I think, in cases like this, we have to err on the side of treating those girls like adults, as much as possible, and respecting their right to make their own decisions, while still following reasonable laws. (In other words, I support laws that require either parental notification or judicial oversight–if a girl can’t tell her parents she’s pregnant for some reason, some adult in a position to do something needs to know why. But I don’t support laws that require parental consent, since she wouldn’t have to have their consent to have and keep the baby.)
But I think asking girls who are thirteen or fourteen to make that kind of decision is terrible. I don’t think that they’re mature enough, by and large, to understand the magnitude of their decision either way–abortion or live birth.
And lord knows I have sat down with girls that age and had them ask me questions about how their bodies worked–about whether it’s true that you can’t get pregnant your first time; about whether it’s true that you can’t get pregnant if you have sex standing up; or if you douche immediately afterwards; or if you can have anal sex and still be a virgin and so on. And they have ideas that are, frankly, stupid about how their bodies work and what they can do to keep from getting pregnant.
So, I’d also like to see some comprehensive sex ed, because, clearly, though ideally they’d get it at home, they’re not.
Here’s what I don’t get. If you believe that abortion is murder, how could you then say ‘But I don’t want to see women punished for it.”? Are there other things women can do that you recognize as being criminal for which you have no interest in seeing them punished? And that might work as a moral position, but how would that work as a legal position?
How could you have a crime as serious as murder and not punish everyone involved?
Or are you saying that, because you believe abortion is murder, you’d like to see it made illegal, but you’re fine with it not being called “murder” under the law?
August 14th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Uhm, I’d like to point out that roughly 95% of teenage girls who get abortions do so with the consent and support of their parents.
So, supposing, post RvW repeal, a “victimized” woman refuses to identify who performed her abortion, or say… a woman simply self-aborts. (not that hard, in this day and age)
How will the law handle a “victim” who does not consider herself a victim and refuses to act like one?
Been asking this question for awhile and no takers to date. You game, Blue Collar Muse?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Ahunt -
Great questions. They assume, however, that the law post RvW will insist on making the woman a criminal and thus have difficulty dealing with her if she refuses to go along with the plan. That is by no means a given.
Just so, I refuse to go along with your plan. I have no interest in criminalizing what she is doing. I simply want the killing stopped.
In the event she does not tell who provided her abortion, there will be other ways to find out who is doing them. It is not possible for that information to remain secret for very long. It’s the nature of the situation. He only gets the work by word of mouth so someone is always talking.
Since I’m not looking to force the choice of victim/not victim on women, the difficulties your questions raise are merely interesting hypotheticals.
Your thoughts?
BCM
August 15th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
B -
The whole teenager thing is, indeed, interesting. I’m glad that we agree, as you say, “But I think asking girls who are thirteen or fourteen to make that kind of decision is terrible. I don’t think that they’re mature enough, by and large, to understand the magnitude of their decision either way–abortion or live birth.”
I support with parental consent laws. I understand that you don’t but I find your premise as to why flawed. You say that you don’t agree with consent (but are fine with notification) since girls don’t need consent to have the child. I think that’s quite probably untrue in most cases. Once notification is made, then parent and child work out what to do together. Sometimes the parent advises and pushes for abortion, sometimes adoption and sometimes to keep and raise the child. It is not hard to see the parent understanding that, regardless of what their teenage girl SAYS she wants to do, the parent is going to end up bearing the brunt of the responsibility for raising the grandchild. Thus, for the child to keep the baby, she really does need parental consent. Not legally but practically.
You make an interesting case. However, instead of letting the girl decide about abortion since she gets to decide to keep the baby (under your scenario), I’d opt for consent to keep since she has to have consent to abort. By your evaluation, we have two irreconcilable practices (consent or not) and we get to choose which to go with. From where I sit, we have consent both ways, one mandated by courts and one implied but, it seems to me, pretty clearly there. And consent, not just notification, would seem to be best because as we both agree, teen girls are not the best equipped to be making these sorts of decisions.
As to how I could have a crime as serious as murder and not punish everyone involved and are there other things women could do and not be punished, we have some precedent. Mary Winkler walked today after serving 67 days for shooting her husband while he slept. She claimed she was abused. There are other murder cases where the circumstances were such that the woman was not punished (though most are likely arrested, charged and tried). Didn’t Farah Fawcett do a movie called “The Burning Bed” about something like that years ago?
But these are exceptions, not the rule and you can’t make law based on exceptions. We routinely let people guilty of all manner of crimes go free or get greatly reduced sentences in order to get to someone bigger or more influential. Drug users and minor dealers, small bookies, small time criminals and such often get immunity in order to get them to help find bigger fish. If I’m not mistaken, that’s how they got Michael Vick. Minors who buy or acquire alchohol or tobacco are not usually charged with a crime but people and businesses who provide it to them routinely are. Our legal system is filled with such examples.
The practical side of the answer is to be realistic about resources and costs. We have around 3,000 abortions a year here in Nashville so we have 3000 murders with 3000 women involved. But there aren’t 3000 abortion providers. There are what, 5?, 10?, 30? That’s 100 to 500 murders per year each. The most effective way to stop the killing would be to target the 30, not the 3000. In the event Roe v. Wade is overturned, those numbers would drop drastically but the point remains valid.
On the less practical side but still a realistic evaluation of the situation is the difficulty with which the state would attempt to prosecute a woman for the crime of abortion. In all the examples above, there is no question that a crime has been committed. For abortion, even in a post RvW legal environment, that might be difficult to determine. Because while I believe abortion is murder, not everyone does. There are girls and women who would have abortions and their defense would consist of I was confused, I got bad advice, I don’t accept that what I did was murder since my fetus wasn’t human and on and on. I really have no interest in trying to find a jury that will accept the premise that what the woman did rises to the level of murder under the law. If means, motive and opportunity are the criteria by which we decide, the weak link is motive. I can’t see in a woman’s heart to know what she really believed as opposed to what I hear her say. Perhaps she truly didn’t understand what she did was wrong. Perhaps she understood I believe what she did was wrong but she disagrees with me. Perhaps she understood perfectly that she was participating in the destruction of a human life and did it anyway. How does one prove any of those?
Of course all this assumes that any post RvW law would be charging the people involved with murder. Once again, that is by no means guaranteed. I’ve spent a couple of hours looking but cannot find a definitive law from prior to 1973 that tells what the laws forbade. But several things seem to be the case. Woment were not charged with a crime for seeking abortions, the doctors providing them were. Even in states that banned abortions, the laws were not total bans. Most allowed abortions for certain reasons up to a certain point in pregnancy. It was abortions after these times or for reasons other than those allowed that were criminal. Laws prohibiting abortion were passed by state legislators and not the federal government. Not every state had laws against abortion. Some permitted them. A repeal of Roe v. Wade would not automatically mean that all women everywhere would be charged with any crime at all, let alone murder. Nor does it mean that there would be no places for a woman to get an abortion legally if she wanted one. Likely, it means what abortion proponents have always said they wanted. It means abortion would be safe and rare. It means the killing would stop!
Once again, with feeling, that is my goal.
BCM
August 15th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
See, but here’s the problem I have with y’all. From my position, I respect that a woman is an autonomous individual who has the right to control what happens to her body and who should not be able to be coerced by any government (state or federal) to do something as dangerous and potentially life threatening as going through a pregnancy. I believe that only a woman can know what’s best for her and what she’s capable of.
You all seem so hung up on “abortion is murder” that it seems, to me, anyway that you completely disregard the mother. Take y’all’s glee at getting rid of the “partial birth abortion” (whatever that means). Ignoring the fact that most doctors aren’t clear about what’s actually been banned, since there is no procedure actually called a “partial birth abortion,” abortions in which the fetus is brought out of the uterus in one piece instead of in multiple pieces late in the pregnancy are by and large had by women desperate to have children.
This is not a form of abortion done by people who just wake up one day and decide they don’t want to be pregnant. This is a way of ending a pregnancy that will result either in a baby who will suffer incredibly before dying shortly after birth or a baby who won’t survive birth in such a way that a woman’s ability to try to have another baby is preserved.
What kind of movement that claims to care about life would start with those women, women desperate to have children, women who desperately wanted those children, but couldn’t continue the pregnancies for medical reasons, and who are desperate to be able to try again?
Why would you choose to compound tragedy by outlawing a procedure that keeps the woman as safe as possible?
Do you see how that looks from our side of the fence?
For all of the “Oh, we love women and babies” rhetoric, when you had your chance, you picked the most vulnerable among us and did just about the cruelest thing you could think of–picking women who desperately want to be mothers, who’ve had to make the most difficult decision of their lives, and make it so they have no choice but riskier procedures known to frequently make them barren.
That makes it very hard for me to believe that this is actually about saving babies and not about punishing women.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
B -
Unfortunately, here you and I are going to really part company. Your contention that Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) is somehow a serious factor in the conversation we are currently having is discouraging. The best estimates I can find for the number of PBAs performed annually in the US puts the number at less than 10,000. That is being generous. 5,000 is a far more common figure. Let’s say that’s off by a factor of 5. That would put the number at 25,000 to 50,000. Out of 1.3 million annually. As I mentioned in a previous comment, one cannot make law from exceptions.
Further, your stated position that PBA, as a procedure, is done for medical reasons to preserve the health of the mother or on a child so deformed or problematic that it would not likely survive does not hold up to research. Please see the extensive article at National Right To Life.
I fully understand that is likely a source you would view as unreliable given the debate. However, the article I reference is a transcript of testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, not some ideological rant in an obscure publication with limited distribution. The testimony clearly references accounts from abortion providers themselves, along with sourcing, that contradicts your position. While it is expected that you will seek to defend your position, you will need to deal with the statements in that testimony to do so effectively. If the NRLC is wrong, very well. Where might I find information supporting your side of the conversation.
As far as choosing the most vulnerable among us to exploit for our own purposes, given the reality that has become abortion in the US over the last 35 years, perhaps you should check outside your door for the proper location of that charge. The manipulation of individuals and media by the advocates of abortion is well documented and continues to this day. That manipulation had little to do with concern for the women involved and much to do with advancing an agenda that has harmed far more women than it has helped.
Which makes it hard for me to believe this is about helping women in a time of medical need.
BCM
August 15th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Your position, Muse, is irrational and morally inconsistent. I’m sure you’ve heard the “Hit Man” analogy.
If you truly believe that women cannot be held responsible for the carefully thought out decision to obtain an illegal abortion, you effectively reduce the legal status of women to that of children. By your own logic, if a woman purchases a Saturday Night Special from some kid on the street, and subsequently robs a bank using it, the kid on the street is guily of robbing the bank. Bizarre, and I think maybe unconstitutional.
Also, you labor under the delusion that abortion will cease if we just prosecute the providers. Leaving aside the fact that financially well off women and teenagers will always have access to abortion (well documented, pre-Roe), you are apparently not up on advancing medical technologies. Black market abortifacient prostaglandins, some times known as “bathtub drugs” for the ease with which they can be produced in non-pharmaceutical environs, will explode onto the landscape. Given the spectacular failures of the current “drug war,” can you really delude yourself into believing that poor women will not have easy access to such chemicals?
And finally, how do you envision investigative procedures in a post-Roe world? Bear in mind, 500,000-1,000,000 abortions annually occured pre-Roe. What will be different post-Roe?
Abortion no longer carries the stigma it once did, and you yourself acknowledge that finding unanimous juries to convict women will be well nigh impossible. Why would this sentiment change if it is the provider on trial?
Moreover, not only do you have economically empowered women these days, you have the internet for the rapid dissemination of information and resources, and a significant population who stand ready to circumvent, defy and subvert restrictive legislation. Do you really believe that women will simply submit to forced pregnancy? Women did not do so pre-Roe. What makes you think we will post-Roe?
August 15th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
- Women who chose to have sex will not have to submit to forced pregnancy (comment 11) given the fact that they made the true choice.
- I may be lumped in with the dullards, even though I can solve quadratic equations, but I think abortion is indeed murder. I am not sure how much difference there should be between the punishment for the killer and the person or people that hire the killer to do the job. If the pro-abortion crowd insists that the punishment for the killer and the hiring party be equal, they would also insist that any murder for hire be treated the same way (we know they are all intellectually honest!)
- Any pro-abortion advocate that relies on the idea of “keep your laws off my body,” must also be pro-prostitution. It does seem odd that they show no concern for the body of the most innocent and defenseless among us.
- The only reason for late term abortion is to ensure the child dies! If this were not the case a c-section would be used to get the baby out of the mother if she could no longer carry him or her.
- Where is the logic in the idea that if something is made illegal, and some people still commit the act, then it should not be illegal? Anyone thinking along those lines would believe any illegal act of any kind is an indicator that the act in question should not be illegal.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
ahunt -
I am, indeed, familiar with the ‘hitman’ analogy. I am not surprised to see it here. Once again, it is only valid if you assume all the a priori postulates in your argument. I do not. That does not make me irrational or inconsistent. It means that I refuse to take part in a “Do you still beat your wife?” style Q&A of my position.
I’ll try and explain it again. Even if I believe as I do that abortion is murder and that it should, therefore, be made illegal, it does not automatically follow that the laws that make it so be laws against murder. The goal is stopping the killing. I am not hung up on making women murderers to do so - you are.
Instead of thanking me for understanding that the decision is a difficult one that in many instances impacts women for the rest of their lives; instead of thanking me for not adding to that the stigma of criminal charges; instead of finding a place where we agree and working forward from there - it is your side of the argument that is insisting that I must make women murderers. It cannot be because you think that is good for the women. Thus it is likely that it is because it is good for abortion.
I labor under no false hopes that abortion will cease if Roe v. Wade is overturned. For one, even prior to RvW, there was legal access to abortion for certain reasons. These really did have to do with the health of the mother. Unlike today when there is no medically necessary reason for, what … well over 90% of the abortions we have today? It’s not a procedure to save the life of an at risk mother, it’s destruction of the life of an innocent to save the lifestyle of an irresponsible girl. I know you know the stats - we’ve got 35 years worth. An absurdly high percentage of all abortions are for women under 20. How is this anything but a procedure of convenience?
You are quite correct that advances in medicine and technology will make it much easier than it was before for women to get what they want. How sad to apply additional achievements to such a base purpose as the wholesale slaughter of the innocent. I cannot stop it, but I don’t have to give it even the appearance of propriety by keeping it legal and condoning it.
Instead of arguing that such an attitude is fitting evidence that my stance is wrong, you ought to consider that whenever someone is willing to so radically, purposefully, passionately and with such determination defy the law of the land, it is not usually for a good reason. The considered wisdom of society is far superior a gauge than the fears of the youngest among us. That is not, of course, true in all situations but it is axiomatic enough that it bears considering when making such enormous decisions.
Finally, your argument would be so much stronger if you could demonstrate that a majority of women agree with you. It is clear that the majority of the US population does not and it is even more telling that the majority of women do not either. It is untrue that this is an issue which impacts only women or even a majority of women. It is now as it was in the late 60s and early 70s - an issue being driven by a radical minority willing to flaunt any societal concerns in pursuit of a generally unnecessary medical procedure and then claim some sort of high moral ground.
And I’m the irrational and inconsistent one?
Your thoughts?
BCM
August 15th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Even if I believe as I do that abortion is murder and that it should, therefore, be made illegal, it does not automatically follow that the laws that make it so be laws against murder. The goal is stopping the killing.
Again, it is highly unlikely you would want to live in a society where laws have no rational foundation. Can you give me any other scenario where an instigating participent in illegal activity is NOT guilty of a crime? Your own example of drug users NOT being charged in exchange for fingering their sources doesn’t fly because failure to comply still results in criminal charges. Just one scenario? You can’t, because American jurisprudence cannot function absent coherent, consistant application of rational principles. To say that the goal of a particular law can justify fundamentally flawed reasoning opens the door for mind-numbing abuses of our civil liberties.
“Innocent?” And women who seek abortions are guilty of what…precisely? I’ve never gotten a clear answer here.
An absurdly high percentage of all abortions are for women under 20.
An absurdly high percentage of abortions are sought by women of color, poor/unemployed women, single women, and undereducated women. 60% of all women who choose abortion have children. What’s your point?
How is this anything but a procedure of convenience? and…
Instead of thanking me for understanding that the decision is a difficult one that in many instances impacts women for the rest of their lives; are mutually exclusive statements. A decision that impacts the rest of one’s life cannot be described as one of mere “convenience.”
By all means, produce credible evidence that the majority of women in the US believe RvW should be overturned.
Instead of arguing that such an attitude is fitting evidence that my stance is wrong, you ought to consider that whenever someone is willing to so radically, purposefully, passionately and with such determination defy the law of the land, it is not usually for a good reason
Civil rights movement?
Women’s right’s movement?
Viet Nam anti-war movement?
August 15th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Ahunt -
The laws overturned by Roe v Wade are great examples of how to deal with this situation. So you’re right, I couldn’t name one, I gave you over 30! These focused on the provider and not the woman and American jurisprudence seems to have survived just fine.
I’m not trying to make the women into criminals so I have no problem with not making them guilty of a crime. Am I to gather from your comment that you also agree that the children aborted are also innocent?
My point is that the women having abortions are not having them for medical reasons or due to a problem with the child they are carrying. They are having the abortion because they made poor choices when they chose to engage in behavior that might result in a pregnancy and are now making another poor choice - out of convenience. That they may also belong to the groups you reference doesn’t make my assertion untrue. What’s your point in raising the objection?
The two statements are not, as you assert, mutually exclusive. To say that a decision you were sure of on Monday morning turned out to be one you regret for the rest of your life come Monday afternoon is not contradictory. We see the same thing in divorce cases, business partnerships, career decisions and so on ad nauseum. What seems fantastic now is revealed to be devastating shortly thereafter.
How many women who have had abortions find regret and emotional issues sometimes years later where they were looking for peace and were assured they’d find it by counselors that touted the benefits of abortion. If anything, it is even more support for my not compounding a woman’s misery by making her a criminal on top of her emotional distress, anguish, regret or what have you.
For the evidence you request, here’s the quote
The page is here. The statement made is referenced to footnote #10 at the bottom. While you’re there, please check out the other assertions and their provenance. If true, they are devastating for the cause of abortion on demand and reveal it to be an unpopular, deceptive and dangerous practice. Again, the assertions are not gratuitous. Sources are cited.
Finally, I appreciate you quoting back to me my comment. Perhaps you missed the rest of it, the part that reads
Thus, I understand that there are often extensive public debates about issues. This is not the same as overturning the accepted wisdom and practice of hundreds of years of civilization. Overturning Roe v Wade likely has more support than Viet Nam protesters did. The protesters got more press, but that did not make their cause more popular, it merely seemed so based on exposure. Civil Rights were not as broadly opposed as abortion is opposed. The vast majority of the country approved of Civil Rights. The abolitionists were the religious people of their day, not the secularists. These are the same people that today oppose abortion! Truthfully, it is possible that women’s rights are an example of where my point is admittedly wrong. I don’t know enough about the entire struggle for women’s rights to be able to comment with confidence. But even if you are correct in this instance, I’m OK with admitting that. I never said it was never correct to go against society’s norms, just that it was unwise without a great deal of confidence in the righteousness of your cause.
Your thoughts?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Convenience=the quality of being suited to one’s comfort or needs
As it happens, the needs of women are every bit as important and worthy of respect as yours. To imply that an unwanted pregnancy is the equivalent of say…an inconvenient flat tire… is so much rubbish. It is a circumstance that has far-reaching and permanent impact on every aspect of a woman’s life.
And I can cite any number of other polls indicating that the majority of women do not want RvW overturned. And I think it was a recent Barna research project that showed 30% of abortions occured among evangelical women who described themselves as “pro-life,” but still chose abortion. Poll battles are a waste of time.
These focused on the provider and not the woman and American jurisprudence seems to have survived just fine.
Laws that were struck down in 1973 with the passage of RvW. The world has changed hugely in 35 years, as women have or are achieving equality with men, with a great deal of help from the 14th amendment (equal protection clause) No longer are women considered to be passive, helpless, intellectually and morally lesser beings under the law. It will take a most convoluted interpretation of the 14th amendment to exempt women as a class from responsibility for their willing initiation/participation in illegal activity. To do so would also entail reenshrining into law a legal concept of female moral inferiority…and that ain’t gonna fly.
How many women who have had abortions find regret and emotional issues sometimes years later where they were looking for peace and were assured they’d find it by counselors that touted the benefits of abortion. If anything, it is even more support for my not compounding a woman’s misery by making her a criminal on top of her emotional distress, anguish, regret or what have you.
And when credible, methodologically sound, peer reviewed research supports your contentions, I’ll give them some thought. But as of now, the most thorough and ongoing research establishes that the emotional response of the vast majority of women who undergo an abortion is overwhelming relief. This same research essentially establishes that the emotional issues of women who feel deep regret their abortion existed prior to the act.
Upthread:
Where is the logic in the idea that if something is made illegal, and some people still commit the act, then it should not be illegal
I hear this a lot, and my simple answer is that I do not nor will I ever cede to the government control over my reproduction, and hence, it would be illogical for me to submit to coercive law.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:49 am
What crime did the baby commit, to deserve the death sentence he or she received? I wonder how many supporters of this butchery have seen a sonagram, in which they could see and hear the beating heart. I wonder how many have seen the baby move his hands or his feet during a sonogram. I would ask those that have, how they can assert that this baby is less than human. If they do not assert that this baby is less than human, I would ask them how they justify killing this innocent human.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:55 am
[…] 16th, 2007 by Aunt B. We’re still arguing about abortion over at Blue Collar Muse’s place. It’s a tense discussion, but not very heated, so it’s still interesting, if […]
August 16th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
They are having the abortion because they made poor choices when they chose to engage in behavior that might result in a pregnancy and are now making another poor choice - out of convenience.
Blue Collar Muse, I seriously cannot fathom the level of arrogance and presumptuousness it takes to believe that you know what’s best for every woman on the planet. Every abortion is a “poor choice”? ‘Cause it makes you feel icky?
Right now I am in school and working full time, trying to support myself and my husband (who is incapacitated due to mental illness) on minimum wage. And you have the audacity to suggest that what I need is a baby, even when I say, NO, A BABY WOULD DESTROY MY FAMILY’S LIFE RIGHT NOW. You know better than me and every other woman. You know our situations, our histories, our constraints, our hopes for our futures. You know better. We should defer to you personal preferences for our lives and then deal with the terrible aftermath so you can sleep easier at night . Please. Spare me.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Bridgetka,
I don’t doubt your life is difficult, but I can’t see how killing a baby is justified if you and your husband choose to have unprotected sex. One way to avoid getting pregnant is to not have sex. There are other methods that can minimize the chance for pregnancy if your choice is to have sex.
I assume that adoption would be an “icky” option if your choice to have sex resulted in the creation of a child. Would it help you sleep at night to know you had paid someone to kill your son or daughter?
I think the arrogance in these discussions is displayed by those that believe a woman can have a person killed at will and that the “victim” is the woman who chose to have sex and not the child being killed as punishment for the mother’s choice!
August 16th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
So, and I just want to be clear here, if a wife is unwilling to undergo pregnancy and childbirth and childrearing, she has no obligation to have sex with her husband? Right?
Merely checking.
And Sam, lose the notion that women are merely breeding stock for those who WANT to adopt. We have no such obligation, not now, not ever!
Finally, if you truly believe that an embryo/fetus is a person entitled to the full rights of actual “personhood” under the law, best you be prepared to strip all women of their rights as “persons.” Because you cannot have both.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
I can’t see how killing a baby is justified if you and your husband choose to have unprotected sex.
We don’t have unprotected sex; I’m on NuvaRing. But these things do fail occasionally, you know. And I would never kill a baby.
Would it help you sleep at night to know you had paid someone to kill your son or daughter?
No, I would never pay anyone to kill my son or daughter. I would, however, terminate a pregnancy and have an embryo vacuumed out of my uterus.
And you’re right, I would not put a baby up for adoption. I don’t want to be pregnant right now–I’ve got enough on my plate, don’t have health insurance, can’t afford to eat right or anything–nor, frankly, could I just give my child away to strangers.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Women have no rights if unborn children have rights, is this a true statement? Do men have rights? I suggest that all three have rights. I believe women have the right to engage in activity that can result in pregnancy or not to engage in it. I believe that children are the most innocent among us and have a right to live, for what capitol crime could they have committed? I believe a man that has fathered a child should be able to trust that the mother of his child will not have the child killed.
To say abortion is not killing a child or a person, one would be implying that the victim is neither. When, in your opinion does one attain “personhood?” The beating heart does not suffice. The hiccups do not suffice. The opening and closing of fists does not suffice. The response to physical pressure does not suffice. What is sufficient to determine child or person status?
Did Andrea Yates have the right to terminate the lives of her five children? If a child is born prematurely should he or she be carted off to some holding room and left to die?
I can understand the reluctance to give your child to a stranger (note you admit he or she is a child) but how can you have no issue with having him or her vacuumed from your uterus?
August 18th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Sam,
Like most anti-choicers, your positions are clearly born out of your catholic faith. 98+% of anti-choicers like you similarly take this moral position as a part of their religious faith. And you want to force this standard on others? Does this forcing of religious morality on women bring any comparisons to mind? Like say the Taliban?
August 19th, 2007 at 4:20 am
I became Catholic in 2000. I was pro-life at some point long before 2000, even though I was raised in an environment where religion played a very small role. For several years in my late teens and early twenties I chose to not believe in God altogether, while I was miserable, I was still against killing an innocent child.
Abortion kills a child. Is it not wrong to kill a child? Does the fact that men can’t pregnant mean that the killing of a child is strictly a woman’s issue? I have to assume that to be pro-choice one must be against child support payments made by the father to the mother in the event that the father does not want the child.
Should anything that could be considered immoral be legal on the basis of not inflicting morality (religious or common sense) on others? I would suggest that murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. are immoral.
August 19th, 2007 at 10:19 am
BS. As I said, 98% of anti-choicers are Christian and see their position as a religious moral imperative. What do suppose the comparative % of non-religious anti-choicers are compared with those that are religious? You don’t like abortion, don’t have one, who are you to push your views as law for everyone else to follow? Probably the same type of arrogance that believes that your savior or god is the ‘true god’ and all others are phony. You equate abortion with murder but can’t back it up by stating 800,000 women every year should be punished for having abortions.
By every poll ever taken, America is clearly a pro-choice nation as is most of the industrialized world. You want to force your (religious) values on society that clearly doesn’t want them. What does that say about your so called christian values? Is it part of being a christian to force people into adopting your values as law?
August 19th, 2007 at 11:29 am
I don’t believe you can find an instance in which I claimed that women who have abortions should not be punished. I also notice that William has not addressed the idea of killing a child. Is killing a child ok? At what age does it cease being ok?
Which of the criminal acts (murder, rape, robbery, assault) do you consider to not also be immoral? If any are immoral, why aren’t they held to the same standard as abortion?
I believe it is intellectually dishonest to claim that a person that is against killing a baby is anti-choice. I firmly believe in choice. The choice to have sex should not be taken lightly. Also the choice of protection level should not be taken lightly.
Do you believe the baby being aborted is just a blob of cells? Are you not a blob of cells, yourself? I went to public school and even I learned that humans are organisms composed of systems of organs. The systems of organs are composed of organs, which are made up of tissue. This tissue is composed of, wait for it… cells!
Is the disgust at the idea that it is acceptable to be able to kill babies in order to enjoy the physical pleasure of unprotected sex without any associated responsibility strictly a Christian issue? Again, one would have to be either evil or believe that the baby being killed is not a baby.
August 19th, 2007 at 11:55 am
William -
It may very well be that the majority of people that oppose abortion do so on religious grounds. That and $5 and you can get a cup of burnt coffee at StarBucks!
The issue is not what their motivations are for believing what they believe, the issue is whether or not what they believe is correct. In this case, it is. The child the mother carries is every bit as human as you are and deserves to be protected, even as you do, from those having an interest in doing you harm.
Prattle on all you like about people with Christian convictions and how intrusive they are and how you wish they’d take their morality elsewhere and leave you in peace.
Unfortunately, if history were to do that, blacks would still be slaves, children would still be exploited for their labor usefulness and women would still be second class citizens. It is Western Society in general based on its Judeo/Christian foundations and Christianity and Judaism in particular that have fought the good fight for millenia against the forces that seek to destroy individuals and cultures via moral relativity and outright immorality.
Your opposition to godliness and morality is nothing new or surprising. The ultimate demise of your position is just as sure.
BCM
August 20th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
t is Western Society in general based on its Judeo/Christian foundations and Christianity and Judaism in particular that have fought the good fight for millenia against the forces that seek to destroy individuals and cultures via moral relativity and outright immorality.
Yes, like our christian foundations that enslaved Africans, committed genocide against Native Americans and denied women the right to vote.
Get off your moral high horse. And repeat after me:
A blastula is not a baby
A blastula is not a baby
A blastula is not a baby
No matter what Sam ’saddled w/ 5 kids’ Pierce will tell you.
A blastula is not a baby
August 21st, 2007 at 5:51 am
William -
The beauty of Christianity is that it allows me to care about you as a person even if I find what you do or believe to be … wrong.
You are, of course, free to believe what you choose. And, of course, you will deal with any consequences for said beliefs.
As always, thanks for your comments and please drop by again later to add a few more. You are welcome here.
In the event you are unaware of it, The Much Younger Trophy Wife and I are also “saddled w/ 5 kids’. They are a blessing beyond imagination, welcomed and desired joyfully even though each one was a surprise and unplanned. We have surrendered and sacrificed much of our own planning and dreaming to love and nurture them. After the second one, especially, family and friends began to ask us if we were sure we wanted another and had we considered, “you know, doing something about it.” While restraining my first reaction out of respect for their love for me and mine, I just smiled and quietly said, “I would not consider, even for a moment, killing my child!”
Gently reminding you again, it is a child, not a choice …
Blue Collar Muse
August 21st, 2007 at 6:27 am
I am delighted to be “saddled” with 5 precious living children. I would be even more delighted to be able to include the one we lost early in my wife’s fourth pregnancy. I would not have thought the loss would have been so devastating if he or she was not a child.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Blue Collar, I get that you are a devout person, but as it happens, your devout beliefs can never constitute the legal standards by which we all must live. Were such the case, 95% of Americans would be incarcerated, or under indictment, or on probation.
The ultimate point here is that no matter how much you want legal abortion to end, you cannot do it without holding women legally culpable for their part in the act. There is no going back. Women are rational, moral agents who are absolutely responsible for the illegal acts they commit.
I’m not willing to give up equal protection under the law, and that is what you are insisting that women do.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:51 am
No one is asking women to give up any equal protection under the law. Some of us are asking that children be given equal protection under the law.
Do men or children have the right to kill? If not, how does allowing women to do so qualify as equal protection?
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:59 am
This funny (but vulgar) video says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2AqGh8-el0
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
How can it be done, Sam?
How can you rationally extend equal protection under the law to the fetus without stripping women of those same protections?
There is virtually no realm of human endeavor that women cannot be excluded from if the fetus is granted equal protection status.
Consider the following. I train horses for a living, a high risk enterprise. Unwillingly pregnant post-Roe. I take a header off a restive colt, resulting, to my great relief, in a miscarriage. If in fact, the fetus is equally protected under the law, what is the difference between the miscarriage resulting from the pursuit of a legal living (my rights protected under the 14th amendment) and that same header with my child in my arms, resulting in the snapped neck of my child?
A woman unwillingly carrying twins post-Roe, is advised by her doctor to get complete bedrest. She cannot do this, because she lives paycheck to paycheck. She continues to work, precipitating premature birth incompatible with survival. Who is entitled to equal protection under the law here?
Will unwillingly pregnant women with cervical incompetance be forced to undergo invasive surgical procedures to insure that she carries to term?
Tell us again how we can rationally extend the 14th amendment to a fetus?
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:44 am
Ahunt,
Your last comment is heartbreaking. I cannot fathom the motivation behind such an opinion. I can’t grasp how one can be so pro-abortion that a baby is relegated to being nothing more than an inconvenience.
By your logic, if a man had a heart condition and was advised to not get too excited and then he had a heart attack while having sex with his wife, she might be charged with manslaughter.
Also in your above example you left out the part about being raped, for that is the only way to become unwillfully pregnant. Abortion being illegal never caused one pregnancy.
The fourteenth amendment unfortunately uses the word “born,” which one can assume is a product of the era in which it was penned. I don’t imagine that when the amendment ensuring citizenship for the children of slaves, brought to this country against their will, the writers could anticipate the warped ways in which the wording might be applied in the future. They probably did not foresee a time when people would choose to enjoy the pleasures of unprotected sex and then use the amendment as justification for killing the baby that resulted from their behavior.
I would suggest that if your job is more important than your child, maybe you could refrain from creating a child.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
By your logic, if a man had a heart condition and was advised to not get too excited and then he had a heart attack while having sex with his wife, she might be charged with manslaughter.
Come again? This makes no sense…how is this relevant?
that is the only way to become unwillfully pregnant
One more time, engaging in sexual activity is not “consenting” to pregnancy anymore than skiing is “consenting” to a broken leg.
I would suggest that if your job is more important than your child, maybe you could refrain from creating a child.
IOW, you really have no answers to the questions I’ve posed.