Daily Kos

Abortion is disgusting. Seriously.

Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 03:51:05 AM PDT

I just read another abortion-related diary referring to the phrase "Reproductive Rights", and for a long time, I've really been wondering about this phrase. Is it really your right to kill an unborn baby?
Well, actually, yes, I suppose I can say I think it is. In the same way that it's your right to put a sick, ailing dog to sleep. In the same way that it's your right to pull the plug on a loved one whose quality of life is nowhere near ideal. In a lot of cases, these are perfectly acceptible and even recommended, and in a lot of cases, so is abortion. But simply to have the right to abort a concieved embryo willy-nilly because you were out of condoms? Eh... to me, not so much. I support the decision if it needs to be made, but roll my eyes in the way that my mom always did when she said "Fine, if that's what you REALLY WANT TO DO."

In case you're wondering how I formed such a crazy opinion, let me share a quick background... at the age of 10, I lost a seven-week-old sister to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, also known as "crib death". It was mortifying. This was in 1984, just as the phrase "Right-To-Life" was entering my secluded Northern Michigan town. The next year, I saw my first parade floats with banners deriding abortion and asked my parents what it was. I was shocked - people were killing babies, when I had just last summer lost my only sister? Murderers!

Luckily, with the age of reason, I became aware of all the complexities involved in the decision to abort, and whereas I might have been a Right-To-Lifer with all the doddering old ladies in the Rogers City parade, I stuck with logic, intelligence, and good old-fashioned empathy to help me understand the needs for such a decision in certain and many situations.

But to bring back my topic - for cripes' sake, is this a "reproductive right"? Do you really have the right to kill a living thing that YOU CREATED? Well, I suppose so, because in the golden words of Mr. Cosby, "I brought you into this world, I'll take you out". Funny, though... that simple statement shirks so much responsibility, it's precisely what makes us laugh at it. To readily dispose of a problem you yourself created rather than face it and own up is horrid to the point of comedy. In fact, that's precisely what we often chide Mr. Bush and his cronies for doing: creating Saddam Hussein, then disposing of him; creating thousands of neglected poor, then disposing of their welfare; creating No Child Left Behind and summarily leaving it behind. We handily criticize the president for his complete lack of responsibility to the problems he's helped to create.

And that's where the phrase "reproductive rights" tends to lose me. Sure, you have reproductive rights, but with these rights come RESPONSIBILITIES. You make your bed, you lie in it; you make your baby, you feed it. If it sounds harsh, maybe it should be. Perhaps instead of focusing on "reproductive rights" - that is, we have the right to abort any baby we've mistakenly created - we should be the party of "reproductive responsibility" - that is, we can become responsible enough NOT to create babies mistakenly.

Sincerely, how could anyone argue with that? It certainly makes our side sound a little less like we LOVE abortion, which the selfish concept of "reproductive rights" always makes me cringe. Coming off like you have the right to ruthlessly kill something you yourself helped create is fine for Bill Cosby's stand-up routine, and Mr. President might find it perfectly acceptible for himself and his administration, but that's not what my Democratic Party is about.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 134 comments

  •  I brought this diary into the world, I'll... (3.53 / 15)

    Just something I have been thinking about lately. It's early, and I'm not sure I got it all out in the best way, but have at me if you like. I'll appreciate all comments.
    •  pregnancy as continuum (4.00 / 6)

      You make some valid points.  I am pro-choice as well but also troubled by some of the casual and defiant attitudes toward abortion-as-birth-control that some diarists have displayed recently.

      Viewing pregnancy as not a static condition but a continuum... I think most of us would regard a very late term elective abortion as being close to murder; especially since medical technology can now usually save a preemie born in the 7th month.

      And I think most of us would regard a very early term abortion such as the morning-after pill, as being wholly distinct and differentiated from outright murder.  The fetus is smaller than a pin-point at that time, and is really just a bunch of fused cells that 'know' in their structure how to gradually become a fetus.

      It's the uneasy in-between fetal terrain between "cells" and "baby" in which we find ourselves having debates on abortion.  It is not an easy issue -- and it shouldn't be.  I'm pro-choice but uncomfortably so -- and I don't ever want to become comfortable with this.  Abortion is what it is, and societally we should be doing much, much more to help women (well, women having hetero sex) to make effective birth control choices so that abortion is brought in for "oops" cases that are inevitable, rather than a default pattern that is slid into again and again.

      To get there, we all need to partner together to remove as many obstacles to contraception as possible.... obstacles re: education, knowledge, access, medical factors, or finances.

      •  Oops cases (none / 0)

        Yes, abortion brought in for "oops" cases. I agree, and wish that were the case. When I say abortion is "disgusting", I mainly mean that it's disgusting we even have to consider it, or even get into the discussion of When Life Begins between "cells" and "baby". With all the avenues for responsible sex we have available today, it's a travesty that any of this discussion and any of these decisions should ever have to take place.

        Can't we plan our parenthood? Oh wait, someone thought of that...

        •  it happens (none / 0)

          we need to have this discussion. Stop thinking about when life begins. Step back and think about what it means to be human, and to make all these decisions. The Democratic party is MIA - as always - in this discussion, leaving it to the nuts.

          What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

          by melvin on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:57:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We have been very unwise (none / 1)

            in how our side has discussed the issue of abortion.  I read a diary earlier this week from a writer who had attended a Colleen Rowley campaign event.  When Rowley was asked a question regarding where she stood on abortion, Rowley answered (I am paraphrasing), "I am pro-lide.  I am for education, contraception, access to quality medical care; and I am against the criminalization of abortion."

            That is the right way to discuss the issue.

            Abortion is horrible, and I think you would find most people agree on that point.  So I agree with the writer of this diary that framing the issue in terms of "reproductive rights" leaves many uneasy.  I also have long been uncomfortable with the term "pro-choice" for similar reasons.

      •  Small nit (4.00 / 3)

        I don't know that I would say that the morning-after pill is a very early-term method of abortion. They say that it can work in a number of ways depending on when in a women's cycle it is taken, one of which is inhibiting implantation and the other is by preventing ovulation. If ovulation never even occurs, how can anyone say it is an "abortion?" I also would argue that preventing implantation is not abortion.

        You may be confusing the morning after pill with RU-486 which is an abortificant and is used in early-term abortions.

        I'm only speaking up because I see these two confused all of the time. It really irks me when I hear people applauding pharmacists for refusing to give out the morning-after pill because they confuse it with RU-486.

      •  Abortion IS birth control (none / 0)

        It is a stop gap of last resort. What's the matter with that?
      •  mech of morning after pill (none / 0)

        The morning after pill works primarily by preventing ovulation and delaying ovulation. In theoretical cases (in the same way the postpartum breastfeeding works and as occurs in nature all the time) some fertilized eggs may fail to implant. It is incorrect to call the morning after pill an early abortion.
    •  I gave you a 4. (4.00 / 4)

      Not because I agree with you, but because you made some good points that are worth thinking about. It saddens me when comments are given 2s (or worse) simply because someone disagrees.

      Do not feel safe. The poet remembers.
      Czeslaw Milosz

      by Chris Kulczycki on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 05:22:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bite me (4.00 / 13)

      I know some women who have made some very difficult, personal decisions who don't give a rat's ass that you think their choice was 'disgusting'.  Responsible, intelligent women, who for one reason or another decided to have an abortion.

      Abortion is difficult.  Abortion is heart-wrenching.  Abortion is personal.  For some, abortion is a requirement.  To deride someone's difficult personal choice as 'disgusting' can be pretty hurtful.  

      I don't give a shit what you think.  Too many people attach the characteristics of a baby to a cluster of cells that is in no way sentient (yet).  Accidents and mistakes happen.  Even to smart, knowledgeable people.  Who are you to tell them that their personal decision disgusts you?

      "Soon the super karate monkey death car would park in my space. But Jimmy has fancy plans... and pants to match."

      by Dave Brown on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 06:25:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's add rape and incest (4.00 / 6)

        to the causes of pregnancy.  People want to except them, but they are no exception to the fetus as child argument, are they?  

        You say that a pregnancy conceived in rape or by a girl's father is different?  What makes them different?  The violation of the woman changes things, you say?  Does that mean you actually care about the woman's role in this?  But why should you care about her when she has another person in her?  

        First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi

        by flo58 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 07:25:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  SOrry, gotta disagree. (none / 0)

      But it is not my RESPONSIBILITY to carry to term a child conceived by a rapist.
  •  I think your in for a bashing... (4.00 / 21)

    because of the title and the tone.
    However, I think there are a few good points mixed in here.  For one, I do think we should be the pro-life party.  We believe in making every life the best it can be, not the Republicans, who are pro-birth.  We believe in ending abortion by riding the world of the need for abortion, not the right for abortion.  Abortions were decreasing under Democratic leadership, and we could do even more if we had the political will.

    One man with courage makes a majority.
    - Andrew Jackson

    by chuckles1 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:01:09 AM PDT

    •  Expand your comment (4.00 / 2)

      It is far better than the diary. (No offense meant to anyone.)

      Safe, legal, and rare. Sex ed. Family planning. Woman's choice.

      Now say it again.

      Concentrate on outcomes, as your comment suggests.

      What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

      by melvin on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:07:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rare? (4.00 / 9)

        Please.
        Over 25 million women in this country have had abortions. Calling for abortion "rare" is just a way to heap shame on these women and to silence them about exactly how common the conditions are under which the choice to have an abortion is made. For some women the choice to abort is gut-wrenching. For others its actually quite simple. In either case we don't need this kind of moralizing crap. Of course I support policies that would make abortion rarer -- like serious sex education, free and easy access to birth control, free child care and similar socialist measures. But I support these things because they make peoples lives better, not because they might bring down the abortion rate.

        Abortion: Safe, Legal, Free and Without Apology.

        Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
        "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

        by Christopher Day on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 05:57:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (4.00 / 4)

          Countries with the most liberal sex eduction and who sell condoms in bathrooms have the lowest abortion rates.  The problem in this country is that the puritan mind set is at odds with reality and therefore those opposed to abortion are also opposed to sex eduction and birth control.  

          http://icasualties.org/oif/ ** 4144 **

          by BDA in VA on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 06:13:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You say that for some (none / 0)

          women the choice is gut wrenching. But you object to the idea that fewer women should have to make that choice? Logic? It is not moralizing to suggest that some of these women - and I am talking about young women - could be saved the trouble, time, expense, and health concerns of ever having to make this choice if they had access to birth control in the first place and the freedom to control their futures, including, by the way, the freedom to say no to sex if that is their informed choice.

          Cool your jets.

          What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

          by melvin on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 06:29:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you misread me. (none / 0)

            I don't object at all to fewer women having to make that choice because they were given others earlier. I object to the talk about making abortion "rare" because it serves to stigmatize and silence the (millions of) women who have had them and wildly distort the discourse around this issue. Abortion isn't going to be "rare" for a very long time (if ever), even if every good policy is implemented. Wanna know why? Because even good girls who pay attention in sex ed class and have the means to obtain contraception or raise a child will sometimes have sex without contraception and not want to carry a resulting pregnancy to term. Because sex is a powerful thing. And by "sometimes" I mean millions of times. As long as we attempt to mollify our opponents with language like this womens reproductive freedom will remain in jeapordy. Hillary Clinton's shameful pandering on this matter (and worse the applause it has gotten for being "politically savvy" ) has a huge pricetag.

            Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
            "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

            by Christopher Day on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 09:12:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, they are (none / 0)

      pro-birth, they're not pro-life, pro-parent or pro-child.

      They're just pro-birth.

      •  exactly (4.00 / 4)

        one issue wonders.  Of course some people would rather bash women for thier decisions and situations, instead of taking their disgust out there into the full spectrum of:

        People with no health care
        people starving in our own country
        the death penalty
        torture and detainment of other humans
        illegal war(sending troops to die under a lie, and tell them to die for a notion as stupid as "for your country", what the hell is that exactly?)

        It's so much easier to bash women for having an abortion, because they cheat you out of the opportunity to have you bash them for how they raise their children or choose to work outside the home, and on and on and on.

        No one in this country, God forbid!, would consider taking up the torch to have good paying jobs, affordable housing, health care, peace and prosperity.  Oh No! That would be too much work, when you can parrot hate radio and claim that women get abortions for birth control.  Pal, get a uteris!  You deserve it.  And all the pap smears, menstrating, D&C's, childbirth, cancer, menopause, heart disease, and osteoporosis that comes with it.  I'm hoping in the next life you are one.  God forbid I should have a medical procedure you don't agree with.

        Get out of my uteris, out of my head, and out of my life.

        Don't protest, PUBLISH!

        by Yankee in exile on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 06:28:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I wonder (none / 0)

        Maybe it should be "forced birth." Because it does almost seem like they want to force women to have children.

        U.S. Citizen Abroad? Sustain the Momentum! Join and contribute to Democrats Abroad at: www.democratsabroad.org

        by worried sick on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 06:47:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  For the most part, I agree (4.00 / 3)

      Frankly, I don't know of anyone who is "pro-abortion".  Just about everyone I know would much rather see abortion never be necessary, either for the health and safety of the mother, or for any other reason.

      The key to the abortion issue, IMHO, is the issue of choice.  Who gets to choose?  Do you want the government deciding whether or not women end their pregnancies?  Because if they can decide women can't end a pregnancy, then they can decide women must do so under certain circumstances.  The principle is the same.

      It comes down to whether or not we feel women should be treated as living incubators with the "on/off" switch located in the state legislature.  Anti-choicers are all about humanizing embryos, but somehow, they have no problem dehumanizing women in the process.

    •  I like that "pro-birth". (none / 0)

    •  Fundies are NOT prolife (4.00 / 3)

      If they were prolife they would be against the death penalty, the ongoing murder in Iraq and they would be vegeterians. They would not make an abortion exception in cases of rape or incest. Quakers are prolife; fundies are merely ANTI CHOICE.
  •  Thing is what (4.00 / 10)

    constitute's a baby? Is a fertilized human ova a baby? Why or why not? Is a two year old an adult? Why or why not? When does a child become an adult? And when does a fertilized ova become a baby? Three months is a reasonable dividing line on what is otherwise a continious spectrum of development. Most folks who object to abortion do so based on religious faith. They claim an embryo, a fetus, or a blastocyte has a soul. Hindus also believe in souls. They believe, some of them, that humans souls are in other creatures and thus killing cows is the equivalent of murder in their eyes. It's their right in the US to maintain that view. But we don't allow their personal religious opinion to be forced onto non-hindus or Hindus which don't agree. The US Constitution forbids that even if they have a majority in any town or district.

    So is it constituoinal and does it make sense to force other people to accept an idea on purely religious grounds that they don't buy?

    What about an ectopic pregnancy? How about if the mother has cancer and has a 10 % chance of living until birth and there's a fifty percent chance she will miscarry. But if she undergoes chemo it will for sure kill the fetus but increase her odds significantly of survivl, is that still 'murder' then? What if the odds are wrose, or beter? Where do you draw the line and why should you be able to make that call based on purely religious beliefs?

    Read UTI, your free thought forum

    by DarkSyde on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:04:11 AM PDT

  •  Don't like 'em, then don't have one. (3.66 / 15)

    Hence the 'choice' frame.

    You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty.
    - Jessica Mitford

    by Swampfoot on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:08:58 AM PDT

    •  when i hear or see (4.00 / 3)

      that statement ("Don't like abortion?  Then don't have one"), I find it very dismissive.  

      I don't like country music, so I don't listen to it.  Abortion is FAR more morally and ethically complex than choice of music you or I might listen to.  It is the termination of a fetus that is on natural track to become a living person.  

      I am pro-choice but I can't stand the abrupt, dismissive wand-waving nature of the above statement.  It suggests to me that the speaker or writer "doesn't get it" about why abortion is such a loaded issue.

      •  It's aimed mostly at pro life men. (none / 0)

        Your take is valid, but the "Don't like it, Don't have one!" is aimed at all the pro-life men that will never become pregnant, and thus, never have an abortion.  The translation in that case is "Mind your own business and butt out of mine.".

        Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

        by Fabian on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:37:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think that quip helps. (none / 0)

          You know, it does take two to create a baby.  Recent court rulings, including one in my own state, Pennsylvania, reinforced the idea that men have no say in the consequences of the pregnancy at all.  This makes men feel left out of the process.  I don't think it helps to alienate them anymore.  It's his son or daughter too.  I mean, I agree with the court ruling, but it's really very sad that it has to come to this.  I'm pro-choice, and I would be offended and even enraged by a quip such as that.  Imagine how angry that would make a pro-life man.  I don't think it's very helpful.  Unrelatedly, I think the Democratic frame should be: "we don't like abortions, but it's ultimately your decision."  That's not an original thought, of course, but clearly Democrats keep getting trapped into trying to defend the act of abortion.

          John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

          by redrelic17 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 09:50:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Listen to Torta (none / 0)

        You don't have to agree. But listen before you start screaming.

        What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

        by melvin on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 05:00:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not so complex (4.00 / 5)

        It's complex because we allow anti-choicers to muddy the waters.  The issue is really straightforward: who gets to decide if and when a pregancy ends?

        The "choice" issue is the key.  I don't like abortion because I do think that it's the killing of a human being (whether or not it's a "person" is an open question).  But that should not obscure the issue of choice.

        I don't want politicians having the power to control pregnancies.  They already have that power when it comes to life or death.  There are laws against murder--but there are also laws that allow the state to kill people.

        •  it is still ethically complex (none / 0)

          Thank you for bringing us back to the real question at hand re: abortion in America 2005.

          And yet.... abortion is still ethically complex. And it should be. It is not a lightweight or simple thing to be dismissed with "flip" language about liking vs disliking the presence and role of abortion in our world.

          I feel the same way about assisted suicide.

          •  The other problem (none / 0)

            with the phrase "Don't like abortion? Don't have one" is two-fold:  first, there are many couples who dearly want to be parents but are unable to conceive, and thus have some resentment that other women who are able to conceive would choose to end a pregnancy.  Second, there are many cases in which a woman "does not like abortion" but for any number of EXCEEDINGLY PERSONAL reasons chooses to end her pregnancy--an excruciating choice she would in her heart really rather not make.
      •  Birth control accomplishes the same thing (none / 1)

        prevents pregnancy. Still comes down to the same thing- why does the governmnet have the right to tell me I can't choose for myself. I feel the same way about end of life issues. I'm a nurse, I get it.
      •  It's not dismissive. It's centered in reality. (none / 0)

        After all, who is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to have an abortion?
        •  A little absurd maybe? (none / 0)

          Obviously men can't have abortions, but the child is half theirs.  It's very dismissive of peope who genuinely care for fetuses, because some actually do.  Most people don't have some ulterior motive like forcing women to be barefoot and pregnant, but some do I'm sure.  I'm a pro-choice male, and that comment makes me pretty angry.  Can't we find a better way to be convincing?

          John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

          by redrelic17 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 10:05:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  you're right (none / 1)

        it is very dismissive. i like that about it.

        and "hand waving" about the potential of the fetus suggests to me that a person just "doesn't get it."

        a fetus is not yet a living person.

        and your morals and your ethics and your religion are your own business. you go agonize over them.

        if earth were desperately short of people, if only a few couples could conceive, i might take the potential of a fetus more seriously. as things stand, that potential is easy to come by and special only to the parents.

        tell me, why do we need more more babies? or are you worried about the fetus's "soul"?

        •  That's really mean-spirited (none / 0)

          It may be hard to believe, but you know, some pro-lifers do genuinely care about the lives of fetuses.  I don't think it's such a stretch to see fetuses as people, but you act like pro-lifers are completely nuts.  You don't have to be so sarcastic.  I know plenty of pro-life Democrats who don't drink the kool-aid, and I know some who are on the fence.  I support abortion rights because it's not the government's job to control women's bodies.  In general, I think it's wrong to kill fetuses, but ultimately, it's not my decision.  I think I represent the majority of middle-of-the-road males in this country, who are really on our side.

          John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

          by redrelic17 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 10:00:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  how does one (none / 1)

            see a fetus as a person? what person-like qualities do they have?

            i would be surprised if a fetus has anything like the sort of intellectual life or emotional life or sense of self that is commonly associated with personhood.

            a fetus has the potential to become a person, but is not one yet. i don't think that potential is worth much except to parents who want a child.

            i suppose people hem and haw about this for religious reasons or because they think a fetus is just a very small person waiting to come out and start living. why do their half-baked ideas deserve to be taken seriously by other people?

            so, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.

            if you do have religious ideas--the truth of which must be unknowable--apply them to your own life. don't inflict your faith on other people.

            •  Ad Nauseam. (none / 0)

                 You know, infants don't have a sense of self, do they deserve rights?  "I would be surprised," doesn't sound very convincing to me.  We do know, however, that fetuses listen to their mother's voice while they are in the womb, and that it's been shown to soothe them.  The fetus has some person-like qualities, and science supports this.  It's not just religion, even if religion is usually in the way.  Believe it or not, science has yet to find any criteria for life.  I repeat, we do not know the criteria for life.  It is impossible to define life, and I think you misrepresent that point.  This is one of the few questions for which science has no answers.  So you think a fetus is not a human: prove it.  
                  I support abortion rights, because the government should have no right in controlling women's bodies.  I have no interest in defining whether a fetus is a person.  So you see, it's not faith at all the guides my opinion on abortion, which is why I'm pro-choice.
                  Since I'm male I can't have an abortion.  Your comment dismisses 48% of the country's population.  Why is it that women always encorage men to become involved in the fight against rape and sexual assault, but always exclude us from the fight over abortion?  They're our children too, and I'll be damned if my opinion is not heard on a very important issue, just because I'm male.

              John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

              by redrelic17 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 01:14:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Not flip at all (4.00 / 2)

        The person who says that is not being flip.  They are saying where they believe the decision lies -- with the individual who to make a choice.  It's a "get your nose out of my business" position.  Whether I choose an abortion is none of your goddam business and don't think to make it your business.  

        First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi

        by flo58 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 07:34:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Abortion is totally immoral (2.50 / 10)

    I was born 43 years ago to an unwed mother and immediately put up for adoption.  I tracked this lady down a few years ago and she made it pretty clear, when I spoke to her,  that if abortion had been legal back then, I would have been sucked up the first vacuum tube she could find and tossed into a dumpster.

    Abortion is sick.  I'm not saying I want it to be illegal, the only thing more disgusting than abortion itself are the fanatics that are trying to make it illegal.  I would, however, in the strongest terms, call it totally fucking immoral to kill unborn children.

    •  Abortion is legal (none / 1)

      "Abortion is sick.  I'm not saying I want it to be illegal, the only thing more disgusting than abortion itself are the fanatics that are trying to make it illegal.  I would, however, in the strongest terms, call it totally fucking immoral to kill unborn children."

      Your comments are confusing.  There are things in this life that are far more immoral than aborting a fetus.  War is immoral.  Neglect of the poor is immoral.  Racism is immoral.  I am very curious to know the opinions of those in the Pro-Life camp how they really feel about these issues.  I also think capital punishment is immoral.  But many, many pro-lifers have absolutely no problem with executing a person on the basis that well, that is a totally different thing.  Life is life and if they proclaim to be for life, and every life is precious, I can't for the life of me understand their stance.

    •  "Unborn Children" (4.00 / 6)

      The phrase "unborn children" is totally immoral. If it's "unborn," it's not a "child." Period. That's a coercive term, used to torture women with a false premise. It is a terrible lie.

      When a baby is born, even then it has only hardly begun to be a "child." The neurons in the brain have but a small fraction of the interconnections they will have in just another month. If you go back a couple of months before it is born, there is so little brain development that there is no there there. It is not, in any sense, psychologically a "child," and so certainly not an "unborn child."

      If your mother had aborted, it's not you she would have aborted. You didn't come into being, in any important sense, until after your birth. And in the potential hundreds of billions of people who could have been born but weren't (partially because most fertilize eggs spontaneously abort), there is very little tragedy.

      People who take a stand against abortion — present company excluded — degrade the humanity of the living, cheapening the children we do have by equating them with something far less. That, perhaps, is why the "pro-life" crowd is so entirely bad at supporting childhood programs, including the quality of education that would allow our culture to see that abortion, when desired by the would-be mother, is a vast social good.

      •  Please take a class in critical reasoning (none / 1)

        If your mother had aborted, it's not you she would have aborted.

        Your whole comment depends on the above statement being true.  Guess what?  It's totally false.  

        If my mother had aborted, it would have sure as hell been ME she aborted  Not only that, I have three beautiful children that she would have been aborting along with me.

        You are denying this obvious reality and therefore building your arguments on a rather weak foundation

        I would not be sitting here typing right now; my remains would be in some landfill in Northern California if my birthmother had aborted me.

        You are denying the potentiality of the unborn child.  Yes some spontaneously abort, many, many others go on to become thinking, breathing adults, just like I did; and if you kill an unborn child, you kill that child along with all his or her potential offspring too.

        That's the reality of it.

        As for public policy I prefer Scandinavian-style social democracy and think every woman who gave up their child to adoption should be paid for at least all their time off work if not much more.  It's one of the most loving and human things that a woman can do when she carries an unwanted child to all the way to term and gives it to a loving and caring family to rear.

        •  Read that comment again (none / 1)

          I understand that this must be a painful issue for you, but that pain is clouding your judgement as you try to evaluate the comment you are responding to.  All you did was take commenter's assertion, say "it can't possibly be true" without citing any evidence whatsoever, and then claim that you were right all along.  A critical thinker would not commit such a mistake in argumentation - you have to respond to that commenter's evidence to show how s/he was wrong (and as someone who has read a little about brain development in the young, I can tell you that you are going to have a very hard time refuting it).

          Give me liberty, or give me death!

          by salsa0000 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 07:00:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  maybe he meant (none / 0)

          that if that had happened, no one would have missed that "potentiality".

          i don't think anyone questions that a fetus can potentially become an adult. a lot of people don't think that potential is worth very much... there being a lot of people already and fetuses being fairly easy to come by.

        •  SoLeft (4.00 / 2)

          To call adoption "a loving option" is to confess that meaningful comprehension of the damage done to the woman who has lost her child really has not penetrated your being.  Do you wonder why that woman said she would rather have had an abortion?  Most probably because of the damage and pain done to her (and likely to whomever her sos are) by adoption.

          No one in their right mind would ask, coerce, or try to market another human being into living with the life long havoc that adoption brings in its wake.

          If people knew the realities of adoption as it affects everyday, mentally healthy women, instead of the marketing slogans like " a loving option" they would most probably be far more circumspect in their thinking about adoption.

          In all kindness, adoption destroys a family for every family it "creates."  For every women who becomes a mother through adoption, a mother is aborted.  All of the adoptive family's joy is built on the ongoing and  painful loss of the natural family.

          •  woman's body ultra-nationalist (none / 1)

            My interests are more in the field of international relations so I would classify you as a Bush-style unilateralist - basically a neocon - when it comes to the question of the sovereignty of a growing fetus inside a woman's body.  Just as Bush and company only see US interests and therefore reject such things as the Kyoto treaty or the UN, you refuse the see beyond the woman's narrow interests, making you a woman's body ultra-"nationalist".

            In fact the fetus has interests too.  I was there.  I survived.  My birthmother came to visit me last month and had tears in her eyes when she saw my 2 ½ year old twins and she said all the trouble she went through was more than worth it when she saw those two cute little children and realized they would not have existed except for the fact that she gave birth to me and gave me up for adoption.

            Yes, it is hard for the woman.  Abortion is of course much harder on the unborn child.  Just as I think it is reasonable for the US to bite the bullet and sign the Kyoto treaty despite the fact that one could argue there could be some difficulties associated with this decision; I believe a woman could sacrifice and give birth to an unwanted child and then give it to a loving family, fully well the good her child could bring to the world.  It's called making a sacrifice.

            •  Dear`So Left (none / 0)

              Hate to say it, but I find your response somewhat limited.  May I direct your attention to the fact that besides the issue of any individual possessing the sovereign right to determine the fate of her own body  (including any of its products,)  in this situation there are other people involved beyond the woman?  I speak of the woman's future husband and  children, who also bear the cost of their wife/mother's loss.   Sad, sad, sad...but true.

              "Unilateralism" is not a sufficient concept here.  There are other people - the dearest of  dear people, and valuable lives all - to consider.  

              If I had to sacrifice one child to abortion to save all my other loved ones such great and potentially crippling distress, I would, and I would count it a bargain.  Alas, it was not a choice I personally was free to make.

              •  anti-adoption? (none / 0)

                Your comment seems to imply that abortion is lose-free but giving up a child to adoption leads to "potentially crippling distress".  This is rather strange since in the one case you are ending a potential life while in the distressing case your are giving life to a child, albeit for someone else to raise.

                Adoption is a perfectly viable option, there can and often are potentially crippling distress assocciated with abortion.  There are no silver bullets here.  I hope all families in a situation where they have an unwelcome pregnancy will consider adoption.

                It is one thing to fight for legal abortion, which I agree with.  You should be ashamed of yourself, on the other hand, for discouraging women to not consider adoption.  It is nothing short of sick.

                •  I do not imply that child loss through adoption (none / 0)

                  can be crippling.  I proclaim it loudly.

                  "Your comment seems to imply that abortion is lose-free but giving up a child to adoption leads to "potentially crippling distress".  

                  I have never had an abortion, so I can not speak to that first hand.  I am in fact the only woman in my family to NOT have an abortion, including my cousins, sisters, daughter and nieces.  Most of the women I know have also had abortions, truth be told.  They are all fine.  I have never heard ONE regret, one complaint, never an  if-only, not one I-wish-I-hadn't, no physical sequelae, nothing at all from any of them regarding their choice to terminate their pregnancies.  OTOH, I'm the only one who lost a child to adoption, and I have suffered sequelae for 37 years.  My husband and children have also paid the price.

                  "This is rather strange since in the one case you are ending a potential life while in the distressing case your are giving life to a child, albeit for someone else to raise."

                  Nothing strange about it at all.  In the one case I am taking responsibility and control for my own life and the lives and happiness of my future children, and in the other I am fully ceding responsibility and control for my life and the happiness of my future children.  It's important to note, I think,  that a great many of the people who want to substiture adoption for abortion are wingers.  It's already well established that these people are more than willing to use the lives of women to  gratify their neurotic ( or worse) need  for control.  Add to that the fact that adoption is a for profit industry - one that makes its practitioners a living on the backs of women - and the "strange"ness you reference is understood to be not so strange at all.

                  "Adoption is a perfectly viable option, there can and often are potentially crippling distress assocciated with abortion."  

                  As you already know, there is nothing perfect about adoption.  Adoption is built around and predicated upon destruction of the mother-child dyad.  Its foundation is loss, suffering and  destruction.

                  As someone wrote elsewhere in this thread, male responsibility is never mentioned in these situations.  That is because  if we hold men responsible, the dynamics change radically, and talot of people lose their issue, their cause, and their power.  We will be able to find other solutions to our problems and we will no longer need the anto choice crowd.  It's similar with adoption, only in this case it's the woman who loses the child that we fail to mention.  Becuase IF we mention it, the dynamics  become  radically altered, and the price becomes  unacceptably high, so that we will have to seek other answers.   When we are forced to face reality ( ie, it takes sperm and egg ; adoption can cause massive emotional damage) we are forced out of our comfort zones, out of our fictions, and into the coldness of factual situations that demand our time and energy to solve.  We lose our illusions.

                  "There are no silver bullets here."
                  Prevention.

                   "I hope all families in a situation where they have an unwelcome pregnancy will consider adoption."

                  And I hope that anyone who is even remotely considering such a radical procedure will take the time to become FULLY informed of the possible outcomes for herself and her future family.  And she needs to get this information from survivors of the procedure, not from people who have made an artform of subverting a woman's maternal instinct and turning it against her like a weapon.

                  "It is one thing to fight for legal abortion, which I agree with.  You should be ashamed of yourself, on the other hand, for discouraging women to not consider adoption.  It is nothing short of sick."

                  The thing about that shaming and labeling thingee( which btw is a very common tactic used by adoption defenders) is this ;
                   while it worked on me when I was 18 and abandoned, it doesn't work on me now that I am old and wise.  In fact, I find it mildly amusing.

                  I'm interested in extending the same consideration to people considering a most radical procedure that I would extend to any person considering a medical procedure.  They deserve ALL the facts.

      •  Correct on the brain development. (none / 0)

        Babies born premature by as little as 3-5 weeks may not even be able to nurse enough to sustain themselves.

        Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

        by Fabian on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 06:47:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, and by that logic (4.00 / 2)

      I should be claiming that stillbirth really can be a great thing... after all, I owe my existence to my parents' expected firstborn dying in utero.  Had they somehow been allowed to choose in advance, of course, they would have taken that son instead of suffering through over a week of hospital red tape (in 1968, no one wanted to be accused of performing an abortion, so they had to really jump through hoops while my mom carried a dead fetus around) before labor could be induced and the body whisked away.  But that's not what happened; I was conceived maybe two weeks after their due date, which certainly wouldn't have happened had they ended up with a live baby on schedule.

      My point is that all of us are basically here because of random circumstances-- it could be anything from a stomach bug that put a kibosh on romance on a fertile day to a given set of parents never even meeting to a car wreck & subsequent miscarriage, but each of us exists as a happy (or not-so-happy) accident of fate.  I'm sorry your birth mother wouldn't have carried you to term had she had the choice-- that's really not something anyone should ever have to know for sure about the circumstances of their birth-- but that doesn't mean that I think she shouldn't have had the right to have an abortion anyway.  

      It's really not about you at all.  Or me, for that mattter.  Life is random that way.

      "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

      by latts on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 08:34:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pro-life/pro-choice (4.00 / 4)

    If you don't like abortion, don't have one.  I can't put it any more simply.  What gives you or John Roberts or George Bush the right to tell anyone what they must do?  A woman deserves sovereignty over her own body.

    Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:11:27 AM PDT

    •  If one doesn't like it.... (3.00 / 2)

      Hmm. Can't we then say, if you don't like the death penalty, don't go killing convicts? Or, perhaps, if you don't like the war in Iraq, don't go over there and kill Iraqis?

      And seriously, can anyone really "like" abortion? I guess if you'd had one done, and you were certain it was the right decision for you and whatever "cells" or "baby" it was at the time, you'd like it. I think I'd probably at least thank it, to be fair...

      But what I'd like to see is no need for even considering it. That's why I would like to have an emphasis on "responsibility" rather than an overt proclamation of it as being a "right".

      •  "like" (3.76 / 17)

        That's something I've been thinking about.

        It seems to me that the far left and the far right have completely forgotten, or conveniently dismissed the difficulty of the choice to have an abortion.  I have friends who have had an abortion, and it was by no means an easy or happy choice.  They didn't "like" it at all.  They were pretty sad afterwards, although they were glad they had that choice.

        If they had "liked" and reveled in the fact that they'd had an abortion, I would have been a bit repulsed.  And that's the impression I get from the far left "abortion is here to stay, get used to it, and be very happy you can have one.  No need to grieve, because you're asserting your right."  For political reasons, they seem to be conveniently forgetting that it's ending the potential to be a mother.

        The far right has also conveniently forgotten that it's a very sad and difficult choice to not become a mother.

        And I'll get flamed for this comment.  I know I will.

        But I'm going to tell the women (and hyper-PC men) who flame me:

        I didn't even really think about abortion and the difficulty of the choice until I found out that I was infertile.

        I grieve because I cannot have children.  And I can empathize with the women who have had to make the choice not to become a mother, because I am so sad that I can't become one myself.

        Sorry if this doesn't make sense, but women, please try to think about how you'd feel if you couldn't have children.


        Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed. -- Bruce Springsteen

        by Plutonium Page on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:35:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, to be honest. I wouldn't be too sad. (none / 0)

          Before my husband and I decided to procreate, we had practiced the two worst forms of contraception - coitus interruptus and the rhythm method. After over fifteen years of this and not one accidental pregnancy, I suspected we were infertile.  So I decided that if we were infertile and it came down to serious infertility therapy or not having children at all, I voted for no children.  The whole trauma, effort and expense of infertility therapy was not worth it to me.

          On the other hand, I knew a woman my age who knew she wouldn't have children and was terribly sensitive about it.  I learned not to talk about reproductive issues with her.

          Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

          by Fabian on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:56:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, you can certainly... (none / 0)

            ... talk about "reproductive issues" with me, including abortion.  That wasn't my point.

            I was long-winded, obviously.  I could have just posted a navel-gazing comment about not really thinking about abortion until I found out I absolutely couldn't have children.

            Anyway.  Sorry to post and run, but I have to go.


            Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed. -- Bruce Springsteen

            by Plutonium Page on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 05:00:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not calling you oversensitive. (none / 0)

              But when I described a teacher at an all girls school starting her reproductive education lecture with "You are all baby machines!  Your whole biology is geared to get pregnant and make babies!", she erupted with "That is so insensitive to all the women who can't have children!  That is terrible!".

              Whoa!  That caught me by surprise.  The lecture was meant to get girls to think seriously about the fact that while they were thinking about fashion, cute boys and hot bands, their bodies were conspiring to get pregnant.  And that they need be thinking about how stop this very real conspiracy.

              It was the first time I was exposed to the real and intense pain of the involuntarily childless.  

              Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

              by Fabian on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 05:13:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I can't believe (none / 0)

          that I got a "1" for being infertile.

          I think someone has a sockpuppet.


          Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed. -- Bruce Springsteen

          by Plutonium Page on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 09:30:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (3.50 / 4)

        if you don't like the death penalty, don't go killing convicts? Or, perhaps, if you don't like the war in Iraq, don't go over there and kill Iraqis?

        That you cannot see the distinction between abortion and these other issues shows that you really have not thought about this issue in depth.

        Hint: Both the death penalty and the Iraq war are acts of the state, meaning that as citizens and taxpayers we all have responsibility for what the state does.  If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy, that is her choice and hers alone, not a matter of government policy.  Therefore, none of your business.

        -- The going's good in the land of the free, but I live in another country. -- Bob Hillman

        by J from VJ on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:45:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Au contraire (none / 1)

          Then again, if a man chooses to kill his mother, that is his choice and his alone, not a matter of government policy. Should that be none of my business?

          I do see the distinction, as you point it out, but I also see the similarities. I see the questions of ethics involved. I see the inherent wastefulness in each case. I would speak out against anything wasteful or unethical whether or not it was a matter of government policy, and I'd hope to have the strength, whether or not it was any of 'my business'.

          •  Doesn't make sense (none / 0)

            A man's mother does not live in the man's body for 9 months.  The issue is control of your own body.  I don't see why you don't get that.  There are many people who are "pro-life" who understand that you can't take away rights of another person.

            Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

            by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 05:04:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Control of your own body (none / 0)

              What if the mother, in my example, had enslaved the son beyond his will? Granted, that's an unlikely scenario, but there you would have an issue where the man had lost control of his own body, to some extent, or his freedom. Would then his killing of the sadistic mother be excusable? After all, the issue was his regaining control over his body.

              Suppose a woman is in an accident that damages her spinal cord, leaving her unable to walk. With intense therapy, she is able to regain control over her body in 9 months. If the issue is control of your own body, then because she lost control over her body for those nine months, is she entitled to kill the person who caused the accident?

              •  so a child not born yet (none / 0)

                is enslaved beyond it's own will?

                You're really grasping aren't you?

                Don't protest, PUBLISH!

                by Yankee in exile on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 06:37:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  aoeu (none / 0)

                  A veritable yoga master, indeed.

                  "Presumptuous" is the new "uppity"

                  by TealVeal on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 07:26:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Nope, you misunderstood (none / 0)

                  Or maybe I explained it poorly... easily done, it was early in the morning when I wrote that. I wasn't talking about an unborn child enslaved beyond its will killing its mother. I guess I shouldn't have used a mother and a son in my example - it's too easily confused with the characters involved in abortion, as evidenced by your post.

                  I don't think it was grasping. I was just seeking to rethink the statement given to me in another venue to see if it would still apply. The statement "the issue is control over your own body" is one that I have problems with. It is precisely why I wrote this diary. The issue, to me, seems more like "control over another future body living within your own body".

                  To me, whether life begins at ovulation, conception, whatever, I don't care... but that fertilized egg is a future human. Now, I could care less if you kill another future human; we have too damn many of us anyway. But is it really your RIGHT to kill a future human? That's where this whole thing loses me. Claiming abortion as a "right" makes it sound like one of life's necessities... food, water, shelter, and abortions. I don't like the sound of that, and that's why I'm piping up. I don't believe we are doing the cause of decrimilizing abortions any favors by making them seem a staple of our diets. Republicans made us take such extreme poorly-thought-out stands on abortion back before we knew proper framing - perhaps it's time we took a look at this debate and really got to the heart of it.

      •  No. (4.00 / 3)

        The death penalty is society killing a person for a crime.  If you live in a jurisdiction with the death penalty, you are conceptually a participant in every execution.

        One of the reasons I moved overseas was because I didn't want to be one of Timothy McVeigh's killers.

        Abortion is not the same thing.  If you don't want abortions, then do things that will allow you and yours to avoid having them.  And by that I don't just mean "don't have them."

        I mean educate your children about "responsible reproduction" as you call it.  Done responsibly I suspect your kids will probably have healthier relationships and will be less likely to get certain diseases as a side benefits to such education.  Donate money to groups like planned parenthood and other organisations that work to do similar types of education across the country.  Encourage labour laws, child care and other social programs that can lessen the impact of economic downturns on families - a significant percentage of abortions take place because of economic stresses.

        Keeping abortion safe and legal does not require you to stop encouraging people to have responsible relationships and building a society that better supports parents in their rather important roles.

        Then there's that additional issue that pregnancy can lead to certain medical conditions that require a choice: mother or baby.  Seems like something the mother should have the final say in.

  •  The dems are pro-life (3.83 / 6)

    Life of both mother and babies are important and we hope to offer information to women to prevent births.  Using abortion as a birth control method is bad, very bad, but usually happens in light of little information.

    Safe, legal and rare is what I hope for.  Also, republicans don't give a rip for babies after they are born.  Are republican for free health care and supportive services in the first 3 years of life?  Yah, did not think so.  That "culture of Life" can be used to crucify the republicans for their abuse of children already breathing our air.

    But when a women is facing ahealth crisis and discovers she is pregnant, she is faced with an awful decision.  It must be made between her and her doctor.  Republicans should take all the money they spend on trying to take down Roe, and start a fund to help pregnant mothers, it could help.  Maybe the dems should start that.

    And the fact the abortions went DOWN under Clinton should tell one all they need to know.  I too want the number of abortion to go down.

  •  It's great that you (3.77 / 9)

    Are focusing on facts and intellect to inform your opinion.  Might I suggest you've got a little more to learn about this issue?  Consider volunteering at a clinic or talking with providers for a more informed view.

    The only people in my experience who buy the 'casual decision' line are those who are not intimately involved in the reality of abortion.

    Also - please consider that unwanted children did not make the bed they have to lie in.  

    •  my sentiments also. (3.50 / 4)

      this diary offers nothing but an emotional rant, naive to the extreme.
    •  thanks (none / 0)

      This comment does a great job of complimenting and making an intelligent suggestion politely, and I thank you for it. I had no doubt that I had a lot to learn and I've already begun to do so from this diary.

      Part of the reason I posted, though, was because I can't be the only person who harbors some of these feelings, and even if they are naive, they are valid opinions held by myself and others. By posting this diary I invite us all to discover a way to more ably reach those like me who may have problems with some "pro-abortion" seeming comments and are not as willing to open a dailykos thread to explore the discussion and learn more about it.

  •  In an ideal world... (4.00 / 17)

    ....abortion would remain legal and no one would have one. In reality, abortions will continue regardless of legality. Outlawing abortion will return us to the days when the wealthy traveled to "safe" abortionists and the poor died at the hands of a backroom coat hanger procedure.
    •  This comment, and that of chuckles above (4.00 / 3)

      are on point and where we need to be. Look at the Netherlands, with its abortion on demand laws and an abortion rate much lower than ours. Why? Because, as a culture, and i suppose as a body politic, they wholeheartedly endorse sex education and family planning. If outcomes matter....

      Stop arguing about when life begins. We are talking about something incontrovertably "human," definitions of life and viability all fall to the side. Face this head-on, Dems. Hide from it at your peril and to your shame. I see the answers right here, in this thread. Run with it.

      What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

      by melvin on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:41:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Believe me, it's nowhere near as disgusting (4.00 / 11)

    as forcing a woman to give birth to a child she doesn't want and that child subsequently not getting the proper care it needs, either in foster care or in what old Newt tried to promote- orphanages. That was his big solution. He even sponsored a showing of the classic film Boys Town to show us all how orphanages are actually kind, loving places and not the soulless, cruel places that virtually everyone who ever grew up in one describes them as.

    Compare that to removing a barely-able-to-move clump of cells and I think you'll realize which is more disgusting.

    Flying Squid Studios - Cartoons to Rot Your Brain!

    by Arken on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:34:15 AM PDT

    •  Indeed... (none / 0)

      Indeed, I've heard it proposed that every societal problem can be traced directly back to an unwanted pregnancy. Again, I can see where often abortion is a very sensible choice. I think it's simply unfortunate that it must be chosen so often, with so many precauations and education available.
      •  abortion is sometimes very sensible. (4.00 / 3)

        seriously.  that's the diary that i think many more democrats could stand to read before they start spouting off and flirting with the pro-birth crowd.
        if all of our other social and problems were solved, the need for fewer abortions would be a great collateral benefit.  but it's bass-ackwards to go after the abortions first.

        www.beyondmarriage.org

        by decafdyke on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 05:52:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Trust (4.00 / 4)

    In my limited experience, abortion has been used by women who were unable to provide a future or even a safe uterus for a baby.  The decision was NEVER easy.  In one case a teenager who had ulcers and had continued to take her meds found out she was pregnant.  Two others were women in their fifties with age-related issues.  Painting abortion as something that people do on a whim is not fair.  It's much simpler, easier, less heartbreaking, etc to use other forms of birth control.  Sometimes those forms don't work, or maybe you don't have a choice with your partner.  That doesn't mean that the federal government should make sure that you "lie in that bed you made" because it sure doesn't make him lie in it.  

    I'd also like to note that these were all women that would be able to afford an abortion should it be made illegal.  There will still be places you can go and have this done for a price.  That means that we only make it illegal for poor women or women who can't travel to obtain the procedure.  

    All of this being said, I'm not Pro-Abortion - no one is.  I'm Pro-Choice and Pro-Mother.  It's a necessary medical procedure and if people use it inappropriately as birth control it's along the lines of innocent until proven guilty.  Better that a woman can get an abortion that isn't medically necessary than that no women can get one at all or that you must jump through hoops in order to obtain one.  It should be SAFE, LEGAL and RARE because we get effective birth control into the hands of those least likely to be able to provide a future or a safe uterus.  

    Lastly, if you can't trust a woman to make an informed choice about abortion, how can you trust her with a child?  

    I'm an American I can handle the truth!

    by stas61690 on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 04:58:19 AM PDT

  •  it really irks me (4.00 / 7)

    when people are so ready to spout off their Opinion about abortion.

    I can't speak for anyone but myself, but frankly I don't care what you think about it.  And I don't think it's something that you should feel is broadcastable, even in anonymity as we all are here on kos.  Whatever your Opinion(s) is/are and whatever circumstances in your life led you to those Opinions, this debate is not about the morality of the Decision.

    When people say "abortion is fucking disgusting" etc., it doesn't make me think "oh, of course!  thank god i've read so-and-so's comment."  It makes me think "Why do I know something about this person that no one except that person should ever know?"  As if we ever really know what our Opinions would be anyway -- we can never understand the situation until we have been in it, and who would disagree that 90% of our decision-making is situational.

    I thought, or I guess I HOPED, that liberals would address this as exactly what it is:  protection of basic privacy rights and the security over the rights of our own bodies.  The true debate can never take place until people drop their egos and need-to-jump-in-with-their-morality business and focus on what liberals are supposed to really stand for.

    •  Broadcastable (none / 0)

      I'm sorry if you don't feel my opinions are broadcastable, but I often find that if I communicate my opinions and feelings I tend to open discussions and learn more about what others think. In so doing, I often find myself able to discover more about why I think the way I think as well as why others think the way they think. I very much prefer that sort of open communication to simply having kept my overly judgmental opinions to myself - already I have 32 comments from several different points of view here, and I'm fascinated by all of them.

      As far as jumping in with morality, there are lots of cases where liberals have done that very thing - least of which is not the large peace protest a few weekends ago.

      I'll agree that I can't judge a situation until I've been in it. That's precisely why I logically and empirically say that abortion should be perfectly legal and readily available. That doesn't mean I can't express a preference that it should never need to be performed or even necessary.

      •  fair characterization of dkos, but (none / 0)

        my point was a bit more broad.  and what's with the hyperbolically-insulted tone of the reply, geez.

        it's not that i don't feel that these opinions are valid/thought-out/heartfelt/(il)logical, it's that i don't think talking about them is worthwhile at all.  i just don't see the point in telling someone "I think abortion is abhorrent and gross."  Well, that's great and I respect that you have that opinion.  Submitting that opinion for the world to see, though, is something I can't really wrap my brain around.

        i guess my argument hinges on that last bit about situational decision making.  I just think that part is so crucial to this whole discussion.  I can't understand how one can hold the belief "I will never know what it's like to be in that situation." with the other belief "It's wrong and abhorrent and weak."

        And your bit about the anti-war demonstrations -- I wouldn't compare these two based on the meaning of the word "morality" which we have invoked here.     Lots of people oppose the war for a whole litany of reasons (which is what makes it so disgusting and wrong.)  I think it's valid for any citizen of the USA (or world if you want to include human rights violations) to object to the war on (broadly) moral grounds -- we've all experienced the loss of certain civil liberties, we've all experienced the hijacking of our government by corporate tyrants...get it?

        •  Oops (none / 1)

          okay, a little hyperbolically insulted. ;)

          But as far as situational decision making and holding the "it's wrong and abhorrent and weak" belief alongside the "i will never know what it's like to be in that situation"... I feel that way every time I see "Saving Private Ryan". Would I kill a person, which I find morally wrong? Not normally speaking. But under circumstances such as those, or even circumstances where I feel threatened in a back alley and can see no other recourse, then I might think differently. In that case, something I find morally wrong sidles right next to "i'll never know unless I find myself in that situation". So it's not that unimaginable, at least for me, for the two concepts to coexist.

          Comparing the anti-war demonstrations might be a little different, indeed, but if we talk about the meaning of the word "morality" in a way that gives it some flexibility as to where we can apply it, i'm not sure it will continue to remain morality. Can morality apply more to some situations and less to others? "Oh, don't worry, that was a GOOD murder." Well, I guess if I was in "Saving Private Ryan" and I killed someone in self-defense, maybe that was a little more moral, or maybe if it was for the greater good for everyone... and hell, I'd even say that an abortion could be quite moral in certain situations where it's simply the best choice all around. But again, I'm mostly advocating for the prevention of these situations ever occurring in the first place; i.e., let's get some prevention and education in line so that these unfortunate decisions don't even have to be made, and with solutions ready at our disposal, it's disgusting that abortions need to be happening. I'm glad that they can, and are available, but they shouldn't. Like Mr. Clinton said, safe, legal, and rare.

    •  I agree with most of what you say (4.00 / 2)

      I don't agree that it is not appropriate to discuss personal feeling about abortion at Kos.  This is an open forum.

      But the rest of your comment is correct.  Why is it that abortion is pretty much one of the only medical procedures about which every Tom, Dick, and Tamika believe that their opinion should matter to someone else?  

      Where is the same open societal referendum on assholes who refuse to donate organs to siblings?  On people who have elective plastic surgery, multiple times, despite having young children who would be devastated if a surgery went wrong?

      We seem to have come to a consensus that these are private medical decisions and we don't have the right to inject our respective morality into anyone else's decision-making process.  I can't understand why people think that they deserve a say with respect to someone else's decision to abort.

  •  Yes, abortion is disgusting, as are most (none / 1)

    excretory functions.  The substances excreted are noxious.  Which is why the body gets rid of them.

    However, what you seem to be concerned about is the premature termination of a pregnancy as the result of chemical or surgical intervention.  The tissues removed by these processes are probably also disgusting, but that's not the point, is it?

    Any assertion that anyone is "pro-abortion" can be easily refuted by correcting the terminology.  Popular usage is sometimes convenient but not when it provides a false image.

    Think of "rape" being referred to as "deflowering."  

    How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

    by hannah on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 05:16:01 AM PDT

  •  As undesirable as abortion is...... (none / 1)

    .....I do not think government should issue a ban on the practice, particularly in the current political climate.

    First, we have a government in place which does not care what happens to that child once born. Whether or not it has food, shelter, or clothing is not a concern of the current "powers that be" in the federal gov. If government cared as much about the born children as they seem to care about the unborn, the country would be much better off.....and less elective abortions would likely occur as a result.

    There is also a wing in government who refuses to discuss sex for what it is, and to respond to the needs of the populace. The unwillingness to make birth control and sex education available to those who need it is another reason I cannot condone gov making abortion 100% illegal. If government cannot give straight talk on sexual health issues, how can we expect people to make educated choices? IMNSHO, religious dogma doesn't cut it - this simply leads to young teens succumbing to "urban legend" style learning about sexual issues - and therefore, more unwanted pregnancies.

    Another point: this may well be the WORST time to ban abortion when the current economic climate is considered. People cannot afford as many children under current economic conditions. In good economies where abortion is legal, there are less abortions than when economic times are tough.

    I DO THINK that the "it's my body and I'll do what I want to" approach is a poor one - POLITICALLY. While there is validity to that, it's politically risky. Those who want abortion kept legal will lose support with that approach. I think a "reality based" approach - like some ideas I listed above - is a better way to convince those in the political center that Clinton's approach was best:

    Safe, legal, and rare.

  •  It's a fetus, not a baby. A fetus is part of a (4.00 / 7)

    woman. A fetus has no individual rights, but depends on those enjoyed by the mother.

    A fetus is not a citizen.
    A fetus is not counted in the census.
    A fetus cannot be named in, nor bring a lawsuit.
    A fetus cannot be insured, nor named as an heir.
    And so on.

    It is only when a fetus is born that it enjoys rights the rest of us do. You can believe what you want, but legally the case is settled.

  •  Coathangers are disgusting (4.00 / 12)

    If you don't remember the days of coat hangers