The 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, but WTF is up with NARAL?
By bluegal Monday Jan 21, 2008 8:00pm
A great many bloggers are participating in "Blog for Choice" today. From a roundup of feminist response to the anniversary in Salon (advertisement req.)
I wish young women knew how deeply their way of life offends the right-to-life establishment and how set this establishment is on changing our lifestyle, either by criminalizing the things that make it possible (the most common forms of family planning) or filling our heads with fears and lies (abstinence-only curriculum). Today, 95 percent of us have sex before marriage, 85 percent of couples have sex once a week (decidedly not for baby making), 90 percent use some form of artificial birth control. The "right to life" movement is dedicated to stopping this.
Nevertheless, many bloggers have neither forgiven nor forgotten that NARAL endorsed Joe Lieberman in Connecticut over Ned Lamont, and Bush-dog Al Wynn in Maryland over Donna Edwards.
Digby said it way better than I could... NARAL is
Yet another thing that has to be cleaned up --- the foolish, moribund, liberal interest groups of the Village that refuse to enter the 21st century. It's exhausting.
Back on topic, this video, which asks anti-abortion protesters exactly what should happen to women who have abortions, is extraordinarily telling.
Login or Register to post comments.
Abortions should be up to the family and not the government.....and on a side note, it's still not too late for Cheney's mother and Georgie's mommy to have an abortion.
I must confess I posted the graphic because I was rushed and thought it looked good. NARAL has been in a downward spiral for a few years now. I live in MD, and we are constantly at odds with their organizers/lobbyists who are willing to sell out on reproductive justice issues. Women's groups need to wake up and realize there is no compromise on women's reprodutive lives. The only group who consistently stands strong is NOW and the Feminist Majority. Amazing, since abortion is just one of the issues these two groups address.
BAC
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/139254/Take_that_science.html
Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy tooooooo funny !!!!!!!!!!!! Pregnancy test commercials that cause a lot of feminist to yell.....
They don't understand "Quit sending me appeals for money, fuckwits!" either. I don't know WTF is with them. Just thick as two short planks, I guess....
Wow...just wow...So totally one sided toward the fetus with no consideration for the "murderer".Not a one has even considered what punishment would be appropriate???I expected "life in prison","burn in a lake of fire" responses.Ambivalent zealots!It makes my brain hurt.
If bible-thumpers want the right to decide how and when women can reproduce, then, as an Atheist, I want the right to decide how and when men can reproduce.
that seemed to stump them...."If Abortion was illegal,What should happen to the women?Jail?Prison?The woman @ the 5 min mark thought that life in prison should be left on the table.wtf....personally....I don't like abortion.....if you haven't made up your mind by 12 weeks....tsol.BUT>>>>>I also think it's not for me to tell someone I don't know what they can and can't do.It's a very personal decision,and left up to the people involved......so...I'm pro choice.....I don't like abortion as I've stated.....But I am pro choice...
oh...and on those posters they had...........I think those were "late term abortions".....I'm against them.........if they don't have the brains to figuer it out by 12 weeks....tsol...........young women need someone to talk too that they can trust and confide in.........I don't think the religous right are the ones for that task.
I give to Planned Parenthood. They are teriffic!
regardlsess of my own feelings on this topic(or anyone elses for that matter)Abortions should be legal.period.
What a bunch of thoughtless sheep. They have no idea, you can tell they are not used to doing much thinking for themselves by their hesitation.
The last gal (the one who got the call from god), it was interesting how she just was not prepared at all.
When god calls you ... is it a collect call?
Interesting bit of video if you want to study how people can be led and manipulated.
Most of the propaganda used by anti-choicers shows not abortions, but still births. I have no problem with abortions before 12 weeks. That video was great. I like how the one woman said God sent her there, and that they are doing God's work.
mudshark out.....so save the attacks for later....
I didn't know Senator Lieberman was against abortion. Strange that NARAL would support a pro-lifer. After all, NARAL exists for the sole purpose of protecting the right to chose.
oh well, bored again ............. guess I'll go kill a few million possibilities.
ConcernedCanuck @ 1:
Damn, and I was wishing.
My take:
I'm pro-choice, but only very early in the pregnency (morning-after pills, for example, are a-ok). Abortions to preserve the health of the mother are also totally justified.
After a few months the fetus can kick, suck its thumb, and dream. By that point: off-limits. (I'm no doctor, I still don't have an exact time when it goes from moral to immoral, I'm still carefully considering the subject).
The penalty, I think, for an abortion of a healthy 8-month-old healthy fetus (as an example) for reasons other than the mother's survival ought to be a stiff fine for the head doctor performing the procedure (the woman should not be penalized, in my humble opinion, as she is not performing the procedure).
A woman who -perish the thought- performs an abortion on herself needs help. Psychiatric help. Not that I think people with other opinions should go to shrinks (I don't), but rather someone who is willing to harm herself that way really does need professional help.
PS: I'm no Christ-nut, either. I'm an atheist.
any form of contraception is fine by me...morning after pill ...no problem............but after 12 weeks...tsol...put the child up for adoption.........just my opinion...
Women who have abortions? what women who have abortions?
You mean there are women involved?
Weird!
Hey mudshark, what does "tsol" stand for?
#17 - You can't have it both ways.
Now I want to preface this first by saying: I am completely pro-choice. It is up to the woman in all cases. I have no 12 week rule, or anything.
It strikes of extreme paternalism to say a woman who chose to have an abortion is less responsible for that choice than the doctor who performed it. That is the WHOLE point of pro-choice, women are responsible enough to make their own decisions.
NARAL is just another established political action committee. Like Code Pink, NOW, American Federation of Teachers, they have an agenda that is narrow, and often counter-progressive. I stopped donating money around the time of their support of Joe Liebermann, but not because of it. Something weird happens when these groups get old.
Maybe dogma bites.
On Air America in the last week they have been running ads that largely misrepresents Roe vs. Wade. These people have no clue that they are just representing self interests. Again, idiots voting against their own self interests. What if they or their child were in danger of losing their own lives because of a pregnancy gone bad? Things like that happen to women.
Sven @ 17:
How the hell do you know if they dream.
[Off topic. Wait for the open thread, m'kay? Sitemonitor]
Firedoglake has been on NARAL for a loooong time. They're worthless. jfgi.
[Off topic-Sitemonitor]
L.A. Confidential @ 25:
Nuttin' we don't already know anyway.
Sven said: ...(the woman should not be penalized, in my humble opinion, as she is not performing the procedure).
I immediately thought, then why did they impeach Bill over a blow job since he didn't perform the procedure?
/snark
You know, if you took just about every debate this country has had on abortion and ended them with "I don't know...THIRD BASE!" you'd have a pretty good routine.
Nancy Keenan is a life long, hard core CATHOLIC. Don't even try to explain the crap that's gone down while she has been at the helm.
They've lost all credibility, how dare she position herself as the head of a "pro-choice" organization on a national level when she has gutted the organization.
What the hell were the members thinking when they put her in a position of power.
THERE IS NO WAY A CATHOLIC IS PRO CHOICE.
Use some common sense next time.
They not only have set the movement back by decades, they have taken the unsuspecting publics' funds in doing so. I received a gift donation for my birthday last year and was horrified by it.
Nancy Keenan should be kicked out immedicatly.
[Off topic-Sitemonitor]
How sad. That I'm actually old enough to clearly remember a time - not really so long ago - when women who became pregnant out of lack of available birth control or religious taboos against it, incest, rape, or just plain sheer bloody ignorance and bad luck were desperate enough to seek out back street abortionists, go to Mexico, or risk bleeding to death from stick knitting needles up themselves. Shame if the 73%, through indifference or inertia, allowed the 27% to turn back the clock.
1. Surgical abortion is one of the greatest invention humankind has ever conceived. (no pun intended) Pharmaceutical abortion is even betterest.
3. Shame on you people for being so one dimensional. You leave no room for the individual who might be pro-choice AND pro-war. or pro-choice AND anti-immigrant. or pro-choice and totally batshit racist libertarian vegetarian whatever. The sooner you realize the electorate is not in lock step with a progressive/conservative dichotomy, the sooner we will stop electing leaders like dubya.
My own aunties, during WWII, induced abortions and risked death because they simply could not afford a child.
I'm not elderly, and my daughters are shocked to hear that while I was in high school it was ILLEGAL for your doctor to even DISCUSS birth control with a patient.
And these troglydites, please excuse my spelling, want to take us back there.
I am absolutely dumfounded that our culture is actually moving backwards into the 21 century.
Gawd Bless us all!
when abortion was illegal, women DIED having unsafe ones-the rate of abortions was no different. If getting pregnant can be a death sentance, what about all you guys...The only sane thing is to ensure a hefty pro-choice majority and get choice and all other forms of reproductive rights enacted by law instead of by judicial decision.
73% of America is pro-choice. why doesn't it seem that way?
Becuase normal sane people don't make a big deal about bullshit, but whack-a-loons do!
Sven @ 17:
Ultrasounds and genetic testing are not routinely done until AFTER 12 weeks. Many women make the difficult decision to abort a child with genetic defects, but who is otherwise "healthy" (think Down Syndrome, Spina bifida). Additionally, younger women and women from small towns or strict states, need time to get money and transportation to get the procedure. 12 week rules are STUPID!
My neighbors growing up were leaders in the local pro-life movement. They had six kids - one of which was a good friend of mine - and they were awful parents who never disciplined their kids but would just pray for them to behave or occassionally snap and beat them. All four of their daughters got knocked up before they were even 18, and two ended up in drug-rehab by the time they were 16. One of the boys was in rehab numerous times and my buddy should have been.
These idiots were so concerned with saving "lives" yet had absolutely no concern for their own children's health and well-being. Just another shining example of "pro-birth" idiocy.
is swallowing a form of contraception?
Kate @ 31:
I take issue with that... I am both.
On a side note; it's interesting that Jane Roe (of Roe v Wade) endorsed Ron Paul yesterday.
I'm so tired of the coat hanger squad.
Why are they concerned about a woman's body?
How can they, basically tell a woman what to do with her body?
Why do they want control of all women's bodies?
These assholes don't know the meaning of choice.
The film is revealing, The dumbasses refused to answer honestly or truthfully. They know they would easily blow up a clinic or kill the doctor. Chickenshits.
BTW -- These asshole are using pics of spontaneous abortions meaning the fetuses are still birth.
Control Freaks!
KansasCityFaGt @ 33:
Shame on you. BTW who the f are you?
pro choice and pro war = repug
pro-choice and anti immigrant = repug
pro-choice and batshit racist libertrian vegetarian = repug
You are a troll and definitely a repug
OMG, those women interviewed in the video all said abortion should be illegle but didn't think the women who would have those abortions should be punished. Instead we should pray for them and counsel them. Very interesting.
OK, lets see. You are guilty of having an abortion. For your punishment we will pray for your soul.
So lets see where that logic will get us. Light sentances and unsafe backroom abortion clinics. I tell you what. If it comes to that they will need all the prayer they can get.
I would like to ask these people if they are pro-Iraq war. I see many pro-Bush and pro-war advocates sporting pro-life bumper sticker.
Lets ask them how their thoughts on the 1,300 children and babies killed between 2003 and 2005 since we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. The figure is probably higher now.
Meanwhile, the battle for nationalizing women's bodies by the state has reared it's ugly head again. The FDA has just banned the use of estriol, a bio-identical hormone used to restore what is lost from the aging process, on basis of complaint from Wyeth, not consumers.
""...This decision affects hundreds of thousands of women whose doctors believe they should take estriol," said Josh Wenderoff, a spokesman for the group. Wenderoff noted that the FDA hasn't protested other substances that are not FDA-approved, such as aspirin and phenol barbital..."
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0116hormones0116...
Rusty Shackleford @ 20:
tough shit outta luck...tsol.
After NARAL and Planned Parenthood went with Lieberman over Lamont, I stopped donating. This year, PP of IL (Chgo), got my dander when they didn't endorse the progressive Dem candidate running for Denny Hastert's seat, John Laesch. PP IL, PP Fed and NARAL aren't getting my blue $$ anymore. When will they learn?
An interesting video. It's more wishful thinking and fantasy government they have in mind: if we just make things that don't fit into our own little view of life illegal, they¨ll just go away -- with no thought to the overflowing prisons, the broken culture, the dysfunctional education and economic systems, etc. etc.
Geez, isn't wonderful to find Tucker Carlson, heir to the Swanson fortune, lecturing Americans on privilege?
I've posted the anti-abortion protesters video on many an open thread on many a blog. It never fails to drop jaws. Glad to see it on the front page!
What's most striking is that anti-abortion activists often do not have the courage of their convictions. They claim that abortion is "murder" because it entails the "killing of a human being." The law has a variety of ways to analyze and punish murder as a crime. None of them entail simply letting a convicted offender off for any of the reasons anti-abortion activists give for clemency for people who commit abortion.
Is this cognitive dissonance, or simply a lack of proper articulation of what they actually feel? The apparent dissonance could possibly open the door for discussion with anti-abortion activists, and the punitive consequences of committing abortion should be the starting point for any conversation with an anti-abortion activist willing to have a serious debate on the subject.
With that in mind.......................
Sven @ 17:
While I disagree that all abortions should be illegal after the first trimester, and I find your empirical claims about dreaming dubious, I'll work with your premises. You appear to be saying that once the fetus can perform certain rudimentary acts, it has a right to live. Do you believe aborting a fetus after the first trimester is murder?
Why? How can you square this with your other sentiments? Would it be ok to kill a human baby in order to protect its mother? Traditional morality (not to mention the human maternal instinct) would have the mother die to protect her child. Why is it different for a third-trimester fetus under your conceptual framework?
A fine? For ending a human life? Your distinction between a first-trimester and second- or third-trimester fetus involved the actions it could take, and you mentioned the fetus' cognitive capacity to dream. If a doctor purposely killed a human infant, he would be punished with a life term, or possibly executed. Why a fine for merely aborting a third-term fetus? How do you articulate the moral distinction?
(the woman should not be penalized, in my humble opinion, as she is not performing the procedure).
Are you kidding? She solicits the doctor to perform the procedure. She enters into a criminal conspiracy to commit the abortion. And she is an accomplice to the procedure. Again, were this a human baby being killed because of such actions, the mother would be just as guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder as if she "pulled the trigger," as it were.
So, however you characterize abortion (even if not as murder), how can you justify not punishing the mother?
Would you mind answering a fellow atheist's questions? It would seem to me that you suffer the same, or a similar, dissonance as the people in the video.
Jo @ 9:
Margaret Sanger appreciates the donation. Nothing like negative Eugenics for the 21st Century. Nazi Germany would be proud of you!
Margaret Sanger appreciates the donation. Nothing like negative Eugenics for the 21st Century. Nazi Germany would be proud of you!
Oh piss off. Planned Parenthood is 10 times better than NRAL as both a lobby group and a provider of healthcare for women.
Don't donate to NARAL. Instead, support abortion providers and abortion rights directly by giving to NAF - the National Abortion Federation.
http://www.prochoice.org/
any form of contraception is fine by me…morning after pill …no problem…………but after 12 weeks…tsol…put the child up for adoption………just my opinion…
Most states have a 22 week limit. New York, the most liberal abortion state in the union, has a 22 week limit. The conventional wisdom is that a delivery before 22 weeks would result in the death of the fetus (miscarriage), while a premature birth 22 weeks or afterward has a chance of surviving outside the mother.
Abortion is basically a medically or surgically induced miscarriage.
Dhalgren @ 52:
Obviously you dont know your history of Planned Parenthood, read about it. Margaret Sanger founded the group that became Planned Parenthood, was a big supporter of Hitler and advised him on the American Eugenics program practiced by Planned Parenthood. The abortion movement was founded by her and her Eugenics beliefs.
Dhalgren @ 54:
yeah thanks...I'm familiar with the way the procedure works.The cure all for this dilema is the morning after pill.....you can't murder a booger.
Oh..and I use the word murder loosley.................just a play on words.
mudshark @ 7:
Yeah that video is unbelievable,... 'it depends on the woman's mindset,...' Really? Like, if a woman gets an abortion & yells 'I dedicate this abortion to SATAN!' she gets life in prison, but if she just believes that a zygote is a clump of cels, she just gets a parking ticket?!
She also felt that outlawing abortion would mean very few women would ever get abortions, so she has no clue about her history. Statistically, we did just about as many abortions in 72 as we did in 73.
Amazing how uninformed & clueless people are who are so dedicated to that cause. Now, if we could just get people that worked up over prison camps & illegal war,...
Rusty Shackleford @ 20:
Early 80's punk rock.
http://www.truesoundsofliberty.com/
loosely....ugh...
there is so much more than just this, how about Impeaching the assholes that are screwing you
Hey...NARAL I can forgive.....self proclaimed 'Democrats' that voted for Lieberman over Lamont....unexcusable stupidity or laziness.
THIS IS THE REASON WE MUST HAVE A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT IN 08....
Say bye bye to the supreme court forever, if that doesn't happen....
You can kiss these good bye: Seperation of Church & State, Roe vs Wade, Corporate Regulation (at any level), Government protected parks/environmental lands, etc
JohnnyThief @ 58:
ya know...I was just thinking the same thing......why don't they go to ...ummm...say.....East Palo Alto....or East LA....and protest the murder of gang members......oh...that's right....they don't care after the child is born..........nevermind.
"Criminalizing the things that make our way of life possible," with those "things" being sex?
You know, feminists hate when women are seen as sexual objects. This would look far less hypocritical if they stopped saying stupid things like that.
tHeGaMeOfLiFe @ 42:
Aren't spontaneous abortions miscarriages? Aren't they done by god? No doctor has a "hand" in "it". Wait a second, after many miscarriages I gues the doc will get a hand in it.
"...many bloggers have neither forgiven nor forgotten that NARAL endorsed Joe Lieberman in..."
And this Rhode Islander has never forgotten that NARAL endorsed Chafee. Yes, Chafee was pro choice and it was cool to have a pro choice Republican in the Senate. But had Chafee won, the Senate would have stayed Republican. Can you imagine where we would be now if the Senate had not turned to the Democrats?
(Yes, I know, the Senate is in a stalemate because of the filibuster rules, but having the leadership means a lot. Better to go in no direction than in the wrong direction.)
Dan S @ 64:
You seem to equate sex and sexuality with "sexual objectivation".
I think you mean feminists hate it when women are seen as "merely" sexual objects. This comment of yours plays to the stereotype that feminists are man haters and despise sexuality. This is absurd. 21st century feminists have no problem with embracing their sexuality. They just "hate" being defined by it. There's a profound difference. And I say Viva that difference!
These people are just doing what they have been told to do - and they are blindly following the orders of their preacher. As someone who has to deal with evangelicals regularly, I realize that all of their beliefs are a matter of BLIND FAITH.
They need nothing more than faith to explain everything as being 'god's will' - reality doesn't enter into it, period.
Well, NOW is endorsing Hillary because it will be so "empowering" to have a woman in the White House. I'm sure the women in Iraq who have died and suffered because of her calculated pro-war vote feel tremendously "empowered" by the idea of President Hillary. Maybe she'll empower the shit out of Iranian women next!
And hey, can't find a more feminist-friendly organization than Wal-Mart -- just ask Barbara Ehrenreich. Funny that Hillary, the policy wonk robot, is so vague about what exactly she did during her time on the Wal-Mart board.
I'm a feminist, but I refuse to give any more money to organizations like NARAL and NOW. I'll give to local nonprofit clinics and groups doing work internationally for refugee relief and women's rights (Women for Women International is pretty great). But endorsing a War Whore like HRC is completely antithetical to the feminist beliefs I have about peace, justice, and equality.
As for "punishing the women," it's tricky to raise this politically, but I think pro-choice groups need to start calling the antis on their shit. If abortion is "murder," then women who have abortions should face the death penalty, right? If not, then why not? Is it because they see shades of gray -- in other words, even they don't totally think it's a "real" baby? Well, then, that means that the system articulated by Roe basically works.
Though of course RU-486 does change the terms (no pun intended) considerably. Much easier to get a pill than to have to go to a surgical clinic and face protesters.
JohnnyThief @ 59:
I remember those guys. That was actually the first thing I thought of, but I couldn't contextualize it with the rest of mudshark's posts.
Comments were at "69" so I had to push it up to 70.
80% of couples have sex weekly- I doubt that.
The Pro Life crowd needs to mind their own business. I work for one and can't park next to her car with the bumper stickers on it makes me want to peel them off.
That video is perhaps the best I've seen on this subject! It shows the insanity of these religious, anti-choice wackjobs.
mudshark @ 8:
You do realize, don't you, that the vast, vast majority (90%+, I believe) of late term abortions are to preserve the mother's health, or the fetus is not viable and is endangering the health and/or life of the mother? If you do realize this, and still say "TSOL" well, then, fuck you.
If you did not realize this, maybe you should educate yourself. Most women don't wake up 8 1/2 months pregnant and decide they just don't want to do it anymore.
CoIntelPro @ 39:
Yes. ;)
The reason they don't have an answer to the question is because abortion isn't really the issue for them. The REAL issue for them is religion and their god.
more on this at my blog...
There are two things you can do, since your voting system is compromised and the corps who run it will not allow a person of integrity to take the office.
You can whine and bitch, or openly violate the law, en masse.
I've never seen such a movement of hate and hypocracy like the Christian Movement.
I would RATHER deal with the Nazi Brownshirts. At least, you can see who they are.
Teleken @ 71:
The law here is "THE STATE HAS NO BUSINESS IN THE BEDROOMS OF CANADA".
Period. They have no right to know how, who and in what position I fuck.
I thought Roe versus Wade was Bushes proposal for poor folks getting out of New Orleans after Katrina.
NARAL I have given up on. I'm not sure it accomplishes anything, but I return their (numerous) begging letters marked up with "why" that is so -- all of the reasons already mentioned. I hope they may have a change of "leadership" and get back to some useful purpose soon, but until then...
Planned Parenthood (or its political action component) has also done some boneheaded inside-the-beltway stuff, and I've been boycotting their national PAC, too. But I haven't given up on them altogether, still donate to the regional office, etc.
I would be very interested to hear some enlightened news and comment about what PP has been up to lately, though, politically speaking. Anyone...?
I actually find that video to be kind of encouraging -- that people who live out by me aren't crazed, robotic "Kill the mother!" zealots. It means that they're actually considering reality.
I'm glad abortion exists.
I know my mother had one once before having me. Knowing such a practice is legal makes me sure I was really wanted, that I don't exist solely because the evangelicals think I had a "right to life".
That's intensely comforting to me.
SpinyNorman @ 81:
Or that they are at least aware, on a subconscious level, that reality exists.
I wish everyone would start calling the loonies "Anti-Choice" - there's nothing pro-life about them. They are anti-child, anti-women, anti- anything that is rational, independent, etc.
Thanks for posting the link to the video. This is work that NARAL should be doing. NARAL is sadly missing the mark in its "battle"--whatever that is for them. Their message, if it exists, is silent while billboards blare at me on a daily basis about fetal fingernails, pain, smiles and heartbeats. What the hell is that organization doing? This video says it all in a very poignant way.
bill w @ 66:
On the same note... does the pro-life group feel that if a woman miscarries that she has to report it to the police and they have to issue an investigation?
Rusty Shackleford @ 83:
Baby steps, man. Baby steps.
For all you women that are 35 and younger, you have no idea how women fought to legalize abortion. All the Republicans want to criminalize abortion. Get out there and vote these people out of office. One in five women who have abortions are pro life.
If abortion becomes illegal you can bet they will still be available to the elite.
What needs to happen is that liberal bloggers and their friends need to begin to question the authenticity of all "Liberal" leaning organizations to actually determine if they are indeed aligned with liberal causes or just a republican front group pretending to represent liberal causes.
Hold no illusions that we are infiltrated and being monitored and measured. Your dearest friends may hold dual allegiences and be working against you. It's okay to ask a few questions.
The friendly opposition, is not an opposition candidate, but a planted weed, fully funded and armed with more information than you can imagine. They are masters at deception and their goal is to hijack your "liberal" institution and either set it up to be annihilated through its own self destruction, or to attach a poison to its reputation. In all cases, you have no secrets.
PEOPLE ARE TIRED the the right wing pat robertson KOOLAID crowd
kac90b @ 74:
of course the well being of the woman always comes first.....did you bother reading the rest of my comments..?And where did you get that I would be against an abortion if it was in the best interest of the womans health.....who in their right mind would be against an abortion if it was to save the woman?don't get your panties in a wad.
I knew I'd get at least one.
actually....I expected to be attacked way more than just once.......this topic is very emotional...I used to not care about abortion.....it's none of my buissness what other people do.But now that I'm older....I can see an angle too it that I didn't see before.......personal responsibility.We have to take responsibility for our actions....we do in every other aspect of our lives.....that's why I feel the way I do.....still pro choice......and always will be.That doesn't mean I like it.That just means I understand it..........ok....next
business...ooppsss.....sorry about that chief........missed it by that much.
kac90b @ 74:
you're right...most women don't just wake up one day and say I want an abortion at 8 1/2 months............but I knew two who did just that............perhaps that's why I feel the way I do...............tsol!
For some reason Wonkoblog tagged this article as relevant to Ron Paul, presumably due to Norma McCorvey's (the famous Roe, now an abortion opponent) endorsement of him. Automated search algorithms leave something to be desired yet, it seems.
I'd like to think of myself as a rational opponent of abortion, as opposed to a religious one. I'll be the first to admit that it's a very lonely existence, and that video makes it more so. It also compels me to share a reasoned argument instead of the drivel presented by the movement that I'm profoundly ashamed now to have ever been associated with. Reasoned and polite critique of this chain of thinking is sincerely welcomed.
-A fetus at any stage of development is a living organism. In the same way that a bacterium is. This is a simple fact of biology and should not be a subject for debate. I would hope the last 7 years have taught all of us the critical importance of denying anyone the right to their own "facts"
-No individual organism can change species. Again, Biology 101.
-A fetus is therefore a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, for the duration of its life, from conception through birth and on into adulthood and death. Gametes (sperm and eggs), while alive, are not members of that species as they contain only half the required chromosomes. I'm not saying that 46 is the magic number and XXY mutants aren't human, please let's leave that strawman alone. 45 and 47 are close enough, 23 isn't. I'm also not saying other creatures with 46 chromosomes are human, the development path matters. Not the development itself, just the path. Those strawmen defused, on to the next step.
-All living members of H sapiens sapiens are entitled to the legal status of persons. This is the first step that is truly a belief. The first three are basic biology, but this one is completely and totally an ethical question and it one that we as a society should debate. I happen to believe this, you may not. For purposes of understanding one another, though, let's take it as given as I do and move forward.
-All persons possess the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. This again is a philosophical stance, not a fact. It's almost but not quite written into the fabric of American culture, but I believe the original's emphasis on property rights instead of pursuit of happiness makes for a more coherent system of ethics.
-In the event of conflict, one person's right to life takes moral precedence over another's property rights. Property can be restored or regained, life cannot.
-Thus I conclude that the fetal human's right to live imposes a moral duty on the mother to surrender the property rights to her womb until such time as the fetus can survive outside that womb. At that point choice reenters the picture and the mother can choose to place the child for adoption. Women who refuse this moral duty and conspire with a doctor to kill their child should face conspiracy murder charges. As an aside, so should any politician involved in a declaration of aggressive war, but that's a whole other subject.
Parenthetically, 18 1/2 years ago my parents and I (age 16) took in a foster child from Baltimore City who became my brother. He's just now moved out on his own and is a fine but troubled human being that I love fiercely. It's been a brutally hard experience with the soulless bureaucracy that is social service and psychiatric care in this country. And I wouldn't have traded a second of it. So please spare me any comments along the lines of "Who in the hell is going to adopt the legions of unwanted kids?" It's a fair question. I'll counter it by asking, given what an unwanted kid meant to my life, how in the hell could anyone NOT want their kid once it was alive? Pre-conception birth control is the answer and I profoundly hope that the zealots who oppose it on religious grounds have to answer to their God for such a hideous travesty of morality.
As for political implications, I realize that many people will not share my beliefs on the points above marked as beliefs. I would like the right and ability to move to a state where the majority of people do agree with me and our moral judgment is embodied in the laws of that state. I would also like for those who disagree to have the same right to move to a place where the majority agrees with them and the laws reflect their moral judgment. I think that's the real meaning of the 10th Amendment, and I think that's a part of the Constitution that matters. That's why I switched parties (again) to to support Ron Paul. He and I think very similarly on this and many other subjects, and if you've found anything of value or sanity in what I've written here, I would urge you to please read his writings at ronpaullibrary.org and give him your support if possible.
Final thought (I know this has gone long): Please, please let's agree to retire the tired foolishness about how you can't use law to force your morality on people. Law is by definition nothing more than the majority of society's collective moral judgment on the minority. For example, prostitution is illegal in most places even though both parties involved consent and consider the act morally acceptable enough to be involved in it. Law forces the moral judgment of the majority onto two members of the minority without their consent.
Pode @ 96:
So...am I to understand you correctly....the morning after pill is ok by you?....just asking.It seems to me that this is the best alternative for everybody.The problem is peoples rights.....who comes first?While I understand your position...........I feel,that it's up to the people involved,and no one else.We can't force our beliefs on other people who we don't even know.
and for Ron Paul....................why would you want another republican?Haven't you seen enough?
Pode @ 96:
Okeedoke. I'll take ya up. :)
-A fetus at any stage of development is a living organism. [ ]
-No individual organism can change species. Again, Biology 101. [ ]
-A fetus is therefore a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, for the duration of its life, from conception through birth and on into adulthood and death. [ ]
-All living members of H sapiens sapiens are entitled to the legal status of persons. This is the first step that is truly a belief.
As you recognized, you jumped from the empirical realm to the normative. And indeed, this is where a disagreement would begin.
I guess I would wonder why you would bestow the status of personhood on an entity merely because it is both human and biologically alive. Certainly, the mere fact that an organism is alive does not necessarily mean that it is sentient. And the mere fact that it is sentient does not necessarily mean that it is sentient enough to suffer its own destruction, or indeed, to suffer at all. A plant, after all, is alive, but we have no evidence to suggest that it is sentient and suffers. Likewise for your aforementioned bacterium. Likewise for a sperm or an egg, that vast, vast majority of which never become zygotes, much less human beings.
I do realize that you differentiate between all of those things and a zygote by adding that the zygote is human, a "member" of our species. To me, that seems like a rather arbitrary distinction. Especially since a sperm would lack rights not because it is a cell that lacks sentience, but because it is a cell that lacks the proper number of chromosomes.
In what sense might Terri Schaivo then have been "alive" and thus entitled to life, liberty and property, despite the biological fact that her sentience -- all awareness, not merely her ability to suffer the destruction of her body -- had evaporated? Certainly, she had not changed species. What changed was her sentience. Or would you concede that Schaivo was entitled to life, liberty and property? And what would that mean? What would Schaivo own as a person? Could we steal from her? For how long after someone's consciousness erodes as they are dying are they still "persons?" Do they have rights if they are put in the grave while parts of their bodies are technically alive?
So, ultimately, I would challenge the basis on which you bestow personhood. I would rather have it bestowed after a certain level of sentience, especially that level where one would suffer, and suffer its own destruction.
In terms of legal rights I would disagree. I lament that the pursuit of happiness was not enumerated in the Constitution. It clarifies so much for a civil libertarian like myself. But that's not really on topic so, I'll leave it for another day if you'd like to discuss it with me.
I respect your understanding of the Constitution, but fundamentally disagree with it. Don't misunderstand me. I believe in the 10th Amendment. (Ask the regulars here. I'm the one who constantly implores progressives to understand libertarianism and Ron Paul's understanding of federalism.) While I do believe that the 10th Amendment reserves all powers to the states or people that are not expressly delegated to the federal government, I do not believe that it reserves plenary powers for the states, such that the majority simply may legislate any of its moral understandings on the minority.
Our Declaration of Independence lists the virtues by which the states have their sovereignty, and explains that governments are instituted among people to secure their equal rights. When a state, or majority of its people, violates the rights of any member of the minority -- when its laws are designed purely to impose unshared moral standards rather than to secure the shared rights of all people created equal -- then the federal government has the power and the duty to step in by overturning such laws in the court. That's what happened in the case of Roe v. Wade, flawed though that decision might be. The Constitutional and textual basis for my claims lie in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
There is certainly an ultimate level of abstraction where imposing a civil libertarian philosophy of government is indeed about the civil libertarians' understanding of "morality." But when people say that they would rather the government not "legislate morality," they mean that they would rather have a legal justification for laws beyond "the majority thinks it's morally wrong." Something more is needed to justify restrictions on a person's liberty.
For intents and purposes of this discussion, for me, that would boil down to the civil libertarian shibboleth that each person is free to pursue her own happiness to the extent that she does not infringe on the rights or pursuit of a non-consenting other.
For abortion, that's one of the very important questions. (It would not necessarily be dispositive, though.) Is a fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, fetus at one stage or another, a non-consenting other, with the same rights as a sentient human being? For reasons stated above, I do not believe it is, at least not in early stages of development. It is not sentient. It cannot suffer. It does not suffer its own destruction.
@ mudshark #97 Condoms, IUD, diaphragm, etc. anything that prevents conception is fine by me. As I understand it, RU-486 works by preventing the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining, which makes it post-fertilization and therefore something I have an issue with.
@ mudshark #98 Paul's philosophy most closely lines up with the Jeffersonian Democrats of, well, Jefferson. Before the current crop of fascists took over, there was a tiny shred of that spirit left in the Republican party. Basically, I'm looking for not a Republican but a republican, in a field dominated by socialists of various degree in one party and fascists of varying degree in the other. Without Paul I'd be voting Trey and Matt from South Park by write-in.
@ Karen #99 Well and fairly argued, thank you, that's the type of response I hoped for. In arriving at my beliefs, I considered and rejected the sentience and suffering tests on the grounds that they are arbitrary when applied to a non-communicative entity. Absent communication, what test can be applied to determine sentience or suffering? You yourself said that we have no evidence (albeit you were taling about plants, but . . .). Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I'll grant that the odds are low that single cell zygotes scream in agony, but no one expected this either A single neuron was found to be capable of controlling muscle behavior , which requires sensory awareness. If I recall correctly, in utero EEG scans have detected fetal neural activity as early as three weeks, which would require at least one neuron earlier to that time. Other than RU-486, how would one perform an abortion so early that the mother hasn't missed a period yet? Are you certain enough that early fetuses feel no pain that you're willing to risk inflicting it, to a fatal level? I think erring on the side of caution is the right choice. Of course, I can say that easier than some, I'm a man.
The standards I endorse are expansive, but they are far from arbitrary. Membership in H sapiens is definitive and binary. No nonhuman sperm is capable of fertilizing a human egg. If it's alive, it's human. I will grant that the definition of life becomes more complicated when we're talking about euthanasia and the life or death status of some unfortunate like Schiavo, but we're talking about abortion here. While there are some grey areas about the definition of life for things like viruses and prions, for human cells it's pretty well defined what counts as a living vs a dead cell. I chose living and biologically human as the tests for the beginning of personhood because they can be definitively measured. Most other standards have the onset of personhood being a function of socioeconomic status and technological development (Can an EEG detect fetal brainwaves? Can the old broken one in the poor neighborhood hospital? Have incubators been invented yet? Can the mother or the scoiety afford one if they have?) I believe personhood must remain independent of socioeconomic status if society is to be worth continuing, but that's just my moral judgment.
Speaking of which, the point I was trying to make was that that libertarian shibboleth you describe as the basis for just law is, itself, nothing more than a moral judgment about the relative value of your rights vs the other's. Nietzsche, for one, put forth a value system where that moral judgment is not held as true for certain individuals. How then does your basis of law cope with a follower of his, without simply imposing the morality of the majority upon the minority by force of arms?
Pode @ 100:
Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, as I'm sure you are aware, if you want me to believe a proposition, you need evidence in that proposition's favor. Absence of evidence justifies withholding belief, as long as one is open to adopting belief upon the unearthing of new evidence.
Not being an expert in neuroscience, it would be difficult for me to explain precisely how to determine whether a creature is sentient or suffers pain or how much. Nevertheless, we can draw inferences with reasonable probabilities. I would imagine, for instance, that scientists could explain to you, based on examining respective animals neuronal systems, how much suffering they're capable of. I imagine, for instance, that you would not be surprised if science could establish with reasonable certainty that there are gradations of sentience, insofar as a fly is not as sentient as a chicken, which is not as sentient as a dog, which is not as sentient as a monkey, etc.
I do believe it requires sensory perception. Awareness is another story. We have computers that have sensory perception, but so far, silicon "brains" are not aware of themselves the way neuronal brains are. Of course, I concede that science does not yet have a very good grasp on sentience / consciousness.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are arguing that because we must remain agnostic about the subjective experience of another living creature, like a human embryo, the moral action is to presume that it is alive, lest we be wrong, and inadvertently commit murder. If that is your argument, I do not understand why the argument applies only to the taking of human life. It would seem to me to apply to every "living" thing, plant, animal, insect, etc. Should I refrain from swatting flies, just in case? From chopping down trees?
Am I certain enough that early fetuses feel no pain? I am certain enough that their experiences are not those of a fully-developed human baby. Naturally, I am always willing to look at evidence that suggests that they are, but until that evidence is presented, I will withhold belief. Again, we're dealing with gradations of sentience, and I do concede that precisely when they become sentient enough to be persons is certainly a difficult question.
I wasn't suggesting that it was arbitrary because the defining line between human and non-human was arbitrary. I was suggesting that it was arbitrary to recognize or deny a creature's right to life based on whether it is human. With the gradations of sentience, it seems to me to be a greater "crime" to kill a dolphin or a chimpanzee than it does to kill a chicken or an insect. What seems arbitrary to me then is to recognize the right of an embryo to live merely because it is human. I would need more to go on in terms of its sentience.
I fail to see the distinction. Wouldn't you have to concede that you shouldn't take the chance, however small it is, that Schaivo were alive, and thus keep her body on life support until it is no longer capable of being kept alive?
Whether the fetus' limbs were fully developed could be defined and measured as well. Why not make that the criteria? You'll likely respond that whether it has limbs or not -- or even will have fully developed limbs during its life as a human being -- tells us nothing about its normative worth. I would agree. But that's also how I feel about the mere fact that a single-cell can be defined as "human." It's arbitrary with respect to its indicia of normative worth and right to life.
I agreed with you on this point. I conceded that at an ultimate level of abstraction, even a civil libertarian code is a moral one, and entails the enforcement of civil libertarian morality.
My point was that that ultimate level of abstraction isn't what people are talking about when they say they would rather the government not "legislate morality." To respond by saying that ultimately, the government must legislate morality because that's what legislation is, is a form of equivocation. I was just pointing out that you're really not disagreeing with people in an other than semantic way.
I could phrase it this way: My ultimate moral code suggests that it is not enough of a justification to outlaw something merely because the majority finds something morally wrong. And that's what I mean when I say the legislature should not legislate "morality." This does not mark cognitive dissonance on my part, but rather an inadequate vocabulary, and thus an equivocal use of the word "moral."
Login or Register to post comments.