Skip to main content

(UPDATE TO ORIGINAL) Thanks, Kossacks, for all of your help in responding to the right-wing anti-choice guy who is a fellow foster parent on a FB group. I will post both my and his response at the flip, keeping both of our names anonymous out of consideration for our (and the group's) privacies.

I'm sure you will all notice a lot of yourselves in my plagiarism paraphrasing of a lot of your main points. As you might have gathered, it is very hard for me to respond to such a viscerally emotional argument. I pride myself on being a writer, but regarding issues and arguments like these, I colossally fail at communicating counterarguments.

So thank you again, and without further adieu (and with the original diary text preceding--scroll down), are both my and his responses.

----------------- ORIGINAL DIARY TEXT -----------------------

So it's been a few days--almost a week--since Obama's "abortion speech" at Notre Dame--yet some people, even well-meaning and caring foster parents such as this commenter, can't let it go:

Consider posting this as your status -- "Mr. President, if the unborn are not living human persons, then WHY on earth should we strive to have fewer abortions?"

He posted this not ONCE, but TWICE--on two separate days--urging us (or at least the anti-choicers in the group) to post this as our personal "status" message. For those who aren't familiar with Facebook, your "status" is very similar to a "tweet," or a short message on your personal page that appears at the top and, if set to Active on your own home page or group, on that group's or person's page as well.

I could think of a thousand ways to respond to this post, up to and including the fact that vitriolic arguments such as his are the very point Obama was trying to make with regards to the abortion issue: the tenor of this debate is and has been so poisonous for the past several decades, and no group can come to consensus. Many of us, however, can agree that abortion is a sad and tragic, but often necessary, decision a woman and ONLY a woman finds herself making in an undesirable situation.

I was about to post something to that effect, but another foster parent on the thread made this thoughtful reply, which I read with interest and approval:

I'd like to ask all of the anti-abortionists to focus some of their energy and efforts to fight for the rights of the babies and children who are born addicted to drugs or into abusive/neglectful situations. Those little lives are at the mercy of laws that favor adults. Another post in addition to yours may be, "Mr. President, if the unborn are not living, human persons, then what are we doing to protect them once they are born?"

To which the original commenter responded:

But I'd like to point out that I don't have to marry a woman to demand that her husband stop beating her. We don't have to make the world a perfect place before allowing everyone to enjoy it. Those parents who abuse their children at the very least allowed them to live which gives them the chance to be loved and nurtured.

I was, to say the least, confounded at this hyperbolic argument, especially the last line, which flabbergasted me in its callousness:

Those parents who abuse their children at the very least allowed them to live which gives them the chance to be loved and nurtured.

It floors me that a fellow foster parent who surely (hopefully!) is aware of the dire, horrible, and often unforgiveable circumstances in which abused children survive...or not. The ones who do survive, who are discovered by "the system," are the lucky ones. Whatever the FUCK is this guy THINKING?

Sorry, but I have no words. I think I need to go lie down (and I'm already not feeling that great to begin with).

(And yes, surprise surprise, this guy and his wife are Fundies.)

How do I respond to this inanity? How CAN I respond to it? Any and all clues will be welcome and appreciated!

------------------------- END ORIGINAL DIARY TEXT ------------------------

Update follows:

My response--although I was admittedly SEETHING angry at him (as you can tell in the diary!), I thought, WWOD? when writing my PM to him (private message), and tried my very best to "rise above"--I hope I did Obama's argument--and you all--justice:

Thanks for the add, and thanks to you and ((your wife)) for not only providing the informative Foster Podcast for your listeners. It is clear that both of you are devoted to your daughters, and bless you for welcoming them into your lives, your home, and your big and loving hearts.

I have to admit I was a little flummoxed to your reaction to the President's speech on Sunday. You posted a status not once, but twice, recommending that your readers asked the President if "the unborn are not living, human persons, then why on earth should we strive to have fewer abortions?" Because I listened to Obama's speech, and absorbed the message he was trying to convey (which, as I mentioned in my reply to your thread on your Wall, was an answer to your question), I was bothered by your reaction. Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seemed to me that you reacted to his speech solely out of passion and anger...and didn't listen to what Obama was trying to say.

I was also frankly put off by a reply you made: "Those parents who abuse their children at the very least allowed them to live which gives them the chance to be loved and nurtured." As a fellow foster parent, I am curious to know if you truly see abusive parents as more loving than someone who makes the decision to abort--for any reason.

Anywhere in this country, I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone who likes abortion. Many people--myself included--are personally against abortion, yet are pro-choice from the standpoint that we would never, ever want either ourselves or the government to make such a deeply personal decision for another person who was facing an unplanned pregnancy. I have never been pregnant before, and cannot imagine the overwhelming and monumental circumstances that one who did unintentionally get pregnant would experience. Thus, for pro-choice and pro-life people alike, reducing the number of abortions is an honorable goal.

It is not a perfect world, and no one is going to come to 100 percent agreement on the abortion issue. Obama realizes that, and wants to encourage people on the anti-abortion side of the fence to work for common cause with those who believe in women's rights and freedom of choice. The other option we have available to us is to continue to alienate one another, and still be stuck in the same rut we are 40 years from now.

I would suggest you read the Faithful America link I shared with you earlier--and also read this article--it is long but well worth the read:

http://www.whchurch.org/...

His response, which, although I disagree PROFOUNDLY with him, is at least thoughtful and considerate:

Re: Obama and his Notre Dame speech

Hi (me), thanks for the links.  I'll check them out.  I appreciate your respectful and thoughtful tone.  I’ll try to reciprocate it.

The basic premise I'm approaching the topic from is this:

If the unborn are living human persons, then there is simply no justification for killing them (except for the life of the mother). Any justification for killing them can be extended on out throughout their entire lives.

If the unborn are not living human beings, there is no justification for preventing abortions.  It's has the same consequence as removing a mole or laser eye surgery. It should be free reign all the way until the hour before delivery.

These are the two consistent positions. Obama's position actually alienates both sides by recognizing that there is something fundamentally wrong with abortion, but does nothing to stop it.

I agree with the President, there should be fewer abortions.  I think he needs to answer the fundamental question on "why".  Once he starts probing the deeper aspects of "what is it?" I think he would recognize that the right to kill another person, regardless of her location is not a right we should be protecting.  

One of government’s jobs is to protect the rights of the weak from the abuses of the strong. The government interferes in deeply personal choices everyday on behalf of the weak.  Owning slaves was a deeply personal choice that many had personal qualms about but thought others should be allowed to do.  Once we recognized that all humans are persons our government saw that it had a duty to protect the weak. There all kinds of things that government will not allow women to do to their bodies that have zero affect on other people.  You can not pay a doctor to cut your hand off.  Why do you let government impinge on that freedom over your body?  If government will not allow you to harm yourself, why should it allow you to harm someone else.

I recognize that abortions will still happen even if it is made illegal.  Slavery still happens to this day.  That doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t stop it.

You asked "I am curious to know if you truly see abusive parents as more loving than someone who makes the decision to abort--for any reason."  I recognize the opportunity for both of us to have passionate responses to my answer.  So please take a deep breath before reading more. . .and I’ll do the same. . . .

Do you think there is any loving reason for a parent to kill an 8 year old?  Down Syndrome?  Product of incest or rape?  Poverty?  Single parent?

As little as I think of abusive parents, I think the parent who kills their child is more abusive no matter the good intentions they perceive themselves under.  Death is the ultimate abuse.

The unborn are living.  – if they were not living they would not grow
The unborn are human – they aren’t pig fetuses or rabbit fetuses inside the womb.  They are human fetuses
The unborn are persons – they have all the same character, traits and DNA as their mothers.  Like a newborn, if given the right environment in which to grow they will become mothers themselves.  Like a newborn, if you stop their life they will not become mothers.

Thanks for taking the time to dialogue on this very important issue.

Originally posted to http://everythingisas.blogspot.com/ on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:14 AM PDT.

Poll

Our dialogue:

33%1 votes
33%1 votes
33%1 votes

| 3 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Personally, I wouldn't respond... (21+ / 0-)

      ...you're dealing with someone who's off the deep end, it seems.

      "The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg

      by grannyhelen on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:19:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have no words, like you -- but I am also (12+ / 0-)

      bemused by this.  Not shocked.  I am frequently confronted with fundie coarseness on "other topics".

      But, look.  Based on what you tell me, this is a distraction.  The person you're referring to is doing the real world equivalent of taking his shoe off and pounding the desk with it while screaming red faced about his philosophy.

      His own words turn back on him.  In this "imperfect" world people don't agree with him on the abortion issue.  So he can either work for common cause with those who believe in women's rights and freedom of choice or alienate them.  It's that simple.

      Because my life doesn't need to be an educational experience for someone else. (-6.62, -6.26)

      by AndyS In Colorado on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:20:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Which Other Political/Religious Beliefs Are More (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, grada3784

      important for adults to adhere to, than not Abusing Children?  And which of those Political/Religious beliefs is this person willing to force the Children under his care, to adhere, to?  And, at some point you have to wonder when this person's beliefs might be actually more important than the welfare of the Children.  Maybe continue a dialogue to see....

    •  You might mention (6+ / 0-)

      how the incidence of abortion can and should be lessened through useful sex education and easy access to contraceptives, especially among youth.

      Then, he'll likely respond with something more demonstrative of his lack of humanity.  People like this can't be forced to think.  I feel better, personally, if I can establish that they're beyond reason.

      Hey, some people live in the bibles like bats live in caves.

      (-7.75, -7.69) No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up - Lily Tomlin

      by john07801 on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:33:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Another commenter already brought up this point.. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        julifolo, grada3784, john07801, Toon

        ...which elicited the response I pointed out above. But yeah, reinforcing that point (from a 2nd commenter) may reinforce him to think a little more about his words.

        Unluckily, re: the Bible, the Fundies who often claim they live by it often don't know a damn thing about what it says, other than that little line in Leviticus about butt sex.

        No matter how hard the truth hurts, a light must shine upon it.

        by boofdah on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:57:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's a documentary about fundie families (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boofdah, Predictor, Toon

          and their reactions to their gay children coming out to them, For the Bible Tells Me So.  Interspersed with the families' trials and tribulations are interviews with notable bible scholars.  They not only explain a more cogent picture of the applicable messages, they all but ridicule the "parsers."  One goes so far as saying the book shouldn't be read by amateurs.

          (-7.75, -7.69) No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up - Lily Tomlin

          by john07801 on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:38:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Because an unwanted child is more likely to (6+ / 0-)

      be abused, abandoned or to live a life below the poverty line.

      That help?

      "If you can't do something smart, do something right."--Serenity

      by Maimonides on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:36:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yet this is the part that angered me re: abuse: (6+ / 0-)

        Per his follow-up comment:

        Those parents who abuse their children at the very least allowed them to live which gives them the chance to be loved and nurtured.

        In other words, "Hey, abuse really sucks, but at LEAST they didn't get aborted!!!"

        Absolutely mind-blowing. :(

        No matter how hard the truth hurts, a light must shine upon it.

        by boofdah on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:01:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yet I think most of us, if we read about a case (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          julifolo, boofdah

          of abuse, are at least relieved to find that the child wasn't killed. All he's saying is that it's better for a child to be left alive and have at least a chance of finding comfort and help. If you think of the fetus as already being a living child, that's a natural enough reaction.

          I'm not surprised that that sentence grated on you, given that his whole response was upsetting, but in itself it isn't meant callously, IMO.

        •  speaking as an formely abused child (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boofdah, Toon

          my mother was bi polar befor that sickness was understood. Sometimes she would be Donna Reed (the perfect mother) and sometimes she was Charles Manson.  While growing up if i would have been given the choice I would have chosen to be aborted and not have to live through 14 years of hell. Sela

          18. As I would not be a slave, so I will not be a master. Abraham Lincoln

          by Yoseph on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:59:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  My husband has worked with many (5+ / 0-)

      abused children and I know he would agree with you completely.  He also works with a lot of foster parents and has great respect for them.
      Kudos to you for being a foster parent.  It's a really difficult job.  We thought about doing it after our daughter was killed but realized (with the help of counseling) that we simply couldn't handle more loss.  
      I actually got my job because of foster care:  My husband had been involved in a case where, after evaluating the bio mother and the foster parents (who had raised the children since infancy and wanted to adopt them), he testified that the children were better off with the foster parents.  That apparently helped win the case for the children so that they could remain with the parents they loved.
      At the time, I was interviewing for a job with a child-advocacy organization.  I was supposed to be interviewed by a particular staffer, but we hadn't yet found a time to meet.  I went to an event the organization held and got into an interesting conversation about foster care with a woman I didn't know.  She and I were agreeing about the importance of foster parents, and how often their rights were very limited.  Turns out (of course) that this was the woman who was supposed to interview me.  She was a foster parent herself (which she hadn't told me), and was impressed with my understanding of that situation and therefore well-disposed toward me right from the start (I still had to prove my capabilities).
      We worked together for many years (I'm now working from home), and are still friends.
      She was able to adopt her child who just finished sophomore year in college and is doing wonderfully despite a very rough early childhood.

      If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

      by Tamar on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:37:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why is a political party so devoted to saving (14+ / 0-)

    unborn lives, also so devoted to taking lives with war.

    Hundreds of thousands (if not a million) people have died as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan. If this guy is so pro-life, why isn't he protesting the wars?

    At least this guy is a foster parent. I cannot stomach the anti-abortion fanatics that insist abortion should be illegal, and they have never fostered or adopted a single child.

    The GOP...Holding 22, "Hit me again!"

    by voracious on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:20:30 AM PDT

  •  Look at history before Roe v. Wade (17+ / 0-)

    The legalization of abortion didn't lead to more abortions, it lead to safer, cleaner abortions.  Before then, safe abortions were only available to the wealthy or connected.  When poor girls got in trouble, they were forced to deal with a cheap abortionist whose tools were dirty and whose methods often led to sterility or death (see the movie Dirty Dancing.)

    So ask your friend, if he really is "Pro-Life," why does he support laws that are going to kill teenage girls?

    •  I think this reasoning is the best kind of reply (9+ / 0-)

      Outlawing abortion does not make it go away.  Countries where abortion is illegal have the highest abortion rates.  In Europe, where abortion is legal and there is access to quality healthcare and economic assistance for women, abortion rates are the lowest in the world.  

      I think the best thing to do is ask what would happen if we overturned Roe v. Wade?  The decision would be left to the states.  Some would outlaw abortion, some would keep it legal - like we had before.  One thing we could be sure of - more girls would run away from home and/or seek back-alley abortions.  

      Nobody is pro-abortion, and it can't be an easy decision for any woman to face.  So, yes, working to reduce the number of abortions through education, economic assistance, contraception, better access to healthcare and more support for foster/adoption options might be the only way we can come together and make progress on this issue.  

    •  From that guy's perspective, the teenaged (5+ / 0-)

      girl in question will be dealt with by God for her sins - a probably painful death and shunning during the last days of her life.  
      Obama cleanly pointed out that everything done to try to prevent abortion all these years really hasn't worked and we should try something different - like simply giving our young people goals to achieve and simple kindness, support and direction when they fail to live up to our desires for them.
      Anyone not interested in this approach - the only one the US hasn't tried yet - doesn't care much about anything but stomping their foot and pitching a tantrum when they don't get their own way.  The abortion issue almost seems secondary at this point.

      DailyKos - taking a bag of political snakes and laying them out straight.

      by Meggie on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:41:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or worse. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, boofdah, grada3784, Toon

      Some died attempting to abort themselves.

      Unfortunately I don't think this argument works so well with fundies, since on some level they consider unplanned pregnancy "the wages of sin". I wonder if they shed any tears for the fetuses who died when those girls did.

      The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

      by sidnora on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:42:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think this is the crux of the matter (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah

      The bottom line is that pro-lifers confuse "pro-choice" with "pro-abortion".  Choice is just as much about supporting life as it is about supporting state-funded abortion.  

      "Pro-choice" simply acknowledges society's inability to regulate either.

      Water boarding is OK, as long as it's done with holy water

      by Nicolas Fouquet on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:25:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would probably change my status message to read (25+ / 0-)

    "I want to live in a world where every child is loved and wanted."

    It is sort of a judo move.  Not responding directly, but putting up a kinder, more hopeful message that somewhat mirrors what Obama said.

    There are bagels in the fridge

    by Sychotic1 on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:22:36 AM PDT

    •  I think this is the best route (5+ / 0-)

      It doesn't engage him in further intolerance, and is something that everyone on the list could agree with.

      Perhaps stating something like:

      Foster parents span all parts of the political spectrum, so out of respect for all who who have opened their hearts and homes to foster children, I have decided to post "I want to live in a world where every child is loved and wanted."

      We cannot assume that our leaders are able to discern our meaning from our silence.

      by mataliandy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:07:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  no matter what your political stance on abortion (10+ / 0-)

    or your belief as to when it becomes a human being, it is always a personal choice that is difficult to make. Do you want to have and raise a child? Do you want to have a medical procedure? What will your family think?

    Birth control is almost always easier on the soul that having to choose after getting pregnant.  

    Dennis Kucinich was right.

    by lisastar on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:23:02 AM PDT

    •  Oddly enough (13+ / 0-)

      those who oppose abortion often also oppose birth control...accept for abstinence, which is not a viable choice. How many "lifers" are willing to adopt several unwanted children? That's not their problem.

      The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on! -Ted Kennedy

      by cloudwatcher on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:30:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know that, (7+ / 0-)

        but unlike abortion, which is a reasonable topic to debate, the birth control issue is not.  

        Don't want to use it, fine...but it should be readily available for those who do.

        Dennis Kucinich was right.

        by lisastar on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:33:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There Is No Debate, There is No Issue (10+ / 0-)

          Republicans and Christianists only do rules, not logic, they only do control, not governance.

          Their rules are against all kinds of individual sex activity and against individual choosing abortion.

          They have no rules forbidding society from having masses of starving and unwanted children, and their rules do not forbid killing millions of unborn in the womb every year so long as it's done by lack of health care and sanitation, too much stress, sale of all kinds of toxic products, and so forth.

          But there's no debate. You can show them how they kill 10 million unborn babies and they just reply "no birth control, no abortions."

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:38:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Somehow these people (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, Predictor, martydd, Toon

      think abortion is just another minor inconvenience, easier than worrying about birth control in advance.  Women cheerfully and casually visit clinics like any other appointment for their hair or nails.

      Abortion is the best alternative among a number of very bad options.  Nothing more.  

      I'd ask fundie men if they're looking forward to their next prostate exam.  Many have probably never allowed their doctor to give them one.

      (-7.75, -7.69) No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up - Lily Tomlin

      by john07801 on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:55:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This guy reveals some strange thoughts (13+ / 0-)

    about parenting.

    Those parents who abuse their children at the very least allowed them to live which gives them the chance to be loved and nurtured.

    Perhaps he should not be allowed to be a foster parent. Just "how" is he showing his foster kids that he "loves" them?

    The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on! -Ted Kennedy

    by cloudwatcher on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:24:54 AM PDT

    •  My thoughts, too. Not interested in this guy (4+ / 0-)

      raising any children, let alone those who are already experiencing some form of trauma just by virtue of them needing foster care.

      DailyKos - taking a bag of political snakes and laying them out straight.

      by Meggie on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:45:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As much as I disagree with him (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, grada3784, Fiona West, greenmama

      I know plenty of lifers who are good, caring, and loving parents, so holding that attitude is not sufficient to automatically rule people out.

      (I say this as a staunchly pro-choice atheist.)

      We cannot assume that our leaders are able to discern our meaning from our silence.

      by mataliandy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:11:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Putting words into his mouth (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      julifolo, boofdah

      I think what he means is that rather than ending an unwanted pregnancy, he would rather that children be brought into the world to be abused and neglected until his so-called loving God can get them into good Christian homes. Of course that means he is conveniently ignoring the psychological damage done to children or the way the conservatives also oppose the government intervening in parental rights to get those children away from abusive parents.

      Blackwater is changing its name to Xe.

      by Toon on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:18:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How's this for an answer: (10+ / 0-)

    One always avoids surgical procedures unless they're necessary.

  •  Medical procedures (8+ / 0-)

    have an inherent risk.  It's always best to do what one can to keep risk to a minimum.

    •  Like having unwanted children (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, grada3784, edwardssl, Toon

      who will be rejected and perhaps abused?

      The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on! -Ted Kennedy

      by cloudwatcher on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:32:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That also ties into the issue (5+ / 0-)

        about the epidemic of absent and/or dead-beat fathers.  And people also need to realize that giving birth to a child, especially an unwanted child, does not automatically mean that child will be loved by the mother.

        So who's going to take care of all the unwanted children of these parents?  If there are a million abortions in the U.S. each year, there simply are not enough people looking to adopt.

        •  That's not THEIR problem! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boofdah, edwardssl

          For Lifers abortion is not a practical issue, it is (at bottom) a religious and a romantic one. Let the gates of heaven open so that god may flood the world with waiting souls. This is not based in any rationality but in an irrational romanticism. It is a romantic notion of "abundance" being a benevolent end in itself. Rationally one can see that unending abundance is not a virtue...abundant cells = cancer, abundant eating = obesity and health problems, etc.

          The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on! -Ted Kennedy

          by cloudwatcher on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:25:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I like to tell the right-to-lifers that if they (15+ / 0-)

    want to carry my fetus to term inside their bodies and raise the result to adulthood using their own money, then and only then are they welcome to do so.  If not, it's my body and they can go f**k themselves, because I am NOT an incubator for an unwanted pregnancy, under any circumstance.

  •  There is nothing you can say that would matter... (11+ / 0-)

    that is the sad fact in this debate.

    I once spent the better part of one of my few days on earth arguing with my anti-choice aunt that simply demanding that abortion be criminalized was insufficient.  For it to be truly "the best option" for all concerned, there needed to be in place some form of support, care, intervention and assistance to help the new baby and its mother going forward.  And most importantly, every hint of moral condemnation of the mother for being pregnant had to be eliminated.

    At the end of several hours of debate all I succeeded in getting was a sore throat.  My aunt remained just as firm in her conviction that 1) being pregnant without marriage made you a whore 2) abortion for any reason was murder 3) once the baby was born it automatically became someone else's problem 4) it was criminal to use her tax dollars to help this baby and its mother in any way (she called it "picking her pockets")

    But then, these are the same people who believe evolution is an unproven theory and that Jesus is coming back on a cloud.  So what can you expect.

    All evils are equal when they are extreme. - Pierre Corneille

    by LiberalCanuck on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:28:31 AM PDT

    •  We are wrong (5+ / 0-)

      if we continue to see this as a "debate." A debate must at least start from a rational point of view. What we have is a screaming match with each group trying to shout the other down. Abortion is an issue that has become so irrational that it is akin to a "debate" between fanatic Christians and fanatic Muslims and sometimes ends up as a war. In this war some right to "life" people are doing the killing. Where is the rationality here?

      The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on! -Ted Kennedy

      by cloudwatcher on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:40:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How my wife's g-pa responds to pro-lifers (28+ / 0-)

    "Have you ever seen what is left over from a back-alley illegal abortion? Well, I have. When I was a police officer in Dallas, Texas, I saw a lot of blood and a lot of dead women. And we can't go back to that. When you talk about outlawing abortion, you're talking about taking a woman's doctor away at the time when she needs it most. We're never going to go back to that."

    "Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world." --- Buddha

    by droogie6655321 on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:29:08 AM PDT

  •  Must be the latest talking point (6+ / 0-)

    Showed up in an LTE in my paper a few days ago.

    President Barack Obama is telling us that it would be a good idea to reduce the number of abortions in our country. If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why do we need to limit it? And if there is something wrong with abortion, why isn't Obama pro-life?

    http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallas...

    Of course, the answers to that are fairly obvious.

    There is no sensible answer to the idiot follow up that we needn't provide attention to the needs of those who are already born because at least they had a "chance". Like the lottery I guess, maybe you win, maybe you don't, but at least you got to buy a ticket.

    "People who have what they want are fond of telling people who haven't what they want that they really don't want it." Ogden Nash (on universal health care?)

    by Catte Nappe on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:31:11 AM PDT

  •  Abortion is a medical procedure that can (10+ / 0-)

    generally be avoided.  More contraception means less abortion.  Duh.  

    Yes, abortions should be reduced.  Not for moral reasons, but for economic reasons.  Contraception is cheaper and doesn't lead to missed work.

    Ask women which they prefer -- abortion, or not facing an unwanted pregnancy at all?  

    My dogs think triciawyse is smart and pretty.

    by martydd on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:31:47 AM PDT

  •  Those of us who are pro-choice (11+ / 0-)

    recognize that "the unborn" (as this person and those like him love to put it) are, in fact, human beings only in potentia.

    As such, we don't consider first or second trimester fetuses to be nothing--we simply don't see them as human yet, having all accompanying human rights. The idea that from the moment of conception a small collection of cells lacking a brain or specialized nervous system is a human being can only be described as an act of religious faith--a faith we do not share. As a pregnancy develops and a fetus acquires more and more human traits, we are more and more reluctant to abort, which is why third trimester abortions are opposed by so many people who are otherwise prochoice.

    You could explain to this person that we don't place a bright line separating nonhuman from human at conception, because we see the miracle of life as as process which results in humanity, but doesn't start with it. We're just not bright line kind of people.

    However, if this person truly sees abusive parents as more loving than someone who makes the decision to abort for any reason, then I don't know why you'd bother to respond at all.

    Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. -- H. L. Mencken

    by leftist vegetarian patriot on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:32:33 AM PDT

  •  Here's my story... hope it helps. (18+ / 0-)

    I am pro-life. I believe life begins at conception, that abortion is wrong and that we must all be taking steps to reduce the number of abortions.

    But I also know that my belief is driven by my faith and understanding of God, and I know you cannot legislate morality or faith -- each person needs to come into their own relatipnship with God (or not) and find truth within their hearts.

    So that also makes me pro-choice in that I do not believe the government should take away a woman's right to choose.

    The President, of course, has never said the unborn were not living human beings.  He has said it is complex, there are moral components, and issues of personal respect.  But clearly, you can belief in life, believe in choice, and believe in the need to reduce abortions.

    The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me' MT 25:40

    by Ed G on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:34:19 AM PDT

    •  Thank you--that is a beautiful reply. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grada3784, Ed G, greenmama

      Will you join our foster group, just to respond with that comment? (Just kidding!) ;-) It is very beautiful, however.

      No matter how hard the truth hurts, a light must shine upon it.

      by boofdah on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:10:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  VERY well said, Ed G n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, grada3784, Ed G

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
      President Obama. Still a thrill to see that in print.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:17:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  thank you (5+ / 0-)

      The issue is so complex.  I appreciate Obama understanding this and speaking about the need to stop demonizing the other side so we can come together and make some progress.  

      My story - my husband and I  just adopted a precious baby boy.  The birthmother was considering abortion but couldn't go through with it.  Having the baby meant putting her life on hold and there was a lot of emotional and physical pain throughout the process.  But, she says now that she has such peace with her decision and knows that the baby is now in a wonderful place and will have everything she couldn't give him.  

      But, this experience does not make me "pro-life" - no, this woman made the best choice for her.  For other women, the choice would be different.  No government should interfere and make that choice for a woman.  

      This experience does make me wish that more women with unintended pregnancies would look into adoption as it's a wonderful option.  

  •  Well, who is this person? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grada3784

    Maybe he is coming from some certain situation that has influenced this?

    Was he able to have children of his own?

    Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

    by borkitekt on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:34:28 AM PDT

  •  I'd retort that abortion is often (8+ / 0-)

    a psychologically devastating procedure for the mother, being the least bad option, and there would be no sense in promoting situations which engender suffering no matter the outcome.

    As for that man's final comment... ugh. It reminds me of archaic Roman ius vitae ac necis: The head of the family (pater familias) could, by virtue of having given them life, also condemn his descendants to die, other family members having only the right to give their opinions.

    Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

    by Dauphin on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:34:32 AM PDT

    •  um... no. How about it usually hurts? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah

      that just gives them more ammunition to try and pass laws "protecting" women from "harming" themselves.

      There is no evidence whatsoever that abortion has more psychological effect than any other means of ending pregnancy.  The dramatic change in hormones does fuck with some women's brain chemistry but it does that no matter whether they give birth, have a miscarriage or an abortion.  Abortion and miscarriage are actually safer for those women because early in pregnancy the hormone levels are lower and so the change is less drastic.

  •  the problem with banning abortion is enforcement (6+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure how one tells the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. I just know that in countries that have banned abortion, women who have problematic pregnancies are afraid to go to the doctor for fear of being accused of getting an abortion.

    I think abortion is that rare part of morality where it comes down to trusting the good intentions of the Mother. Sometimes if a child is to be born with birth defects...you've got to make that choice.

    "the government is full of vampires!" - Glenn Beck

    by superHappyInDC on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:34:57 AM PDT

  •  Mandatory adoption for anti-abortion proponents (5+ / 0-)

    you love babies so much, why don't you take a couple ones without homes.

    Put down your dead baby sign and head over to an adoption agency. Otherwise STFU.

    Is that a good answer?

    The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?' - 1984

    by MinistryOfTruth on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:35:15 AM PDT

    •  Well, to be fair to him, he IS adopting out of... (4+ / 0-)

      ...the foster system, so props to him for that.

      The callous comment about children being abused, as if "well, it's better'n being ABORTED!" just really went up my ass. His anti-choice stance was kind of secondary to me (heard it all before).

      No matter how hard the truth hurts, a light must shine upon it.

      by boofdah on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:52:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. Volunteer at afterschool programs so that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, grada3784, MinistryOfTruth

      parents can work knowing their children are cared for.  
      And care for their children as you would your own - better, in fact.
      Bring extra healthy food you know they are not able to get on their own. Spend extra time/money taking them to museums and reading to them.  Support welfare/universal health care/educational support for all involved so the adults in their life can care for them properly.
      Care about all life or STFU.

      DailyKos - taking a bag of political snakes and laying them out straight.

      by Meggie on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:54:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You Simply Deny Their Claims (11+ / 0-)

    Treat the opposite of their claims as the sole obvious truth.

    WHY on earth should we strive to have fewer abortions

    Because birth control is much cheaper, safer, and less disruptive for women.

    ask all of the anti-abortionists to focus some of their energy and efforts to fight for the rights of the babies and children who are born addicted to drugs

    We do. That's a part of what S-Chip was for, more health care for children. We want cheaper and universal health care, we set up child protective services and foster parenting programs to rescue kids in danger. We set up food stamps to make sure they got fed. Liberals care a great deal about vulnerable children.

    Another post in addition to yours may be, "Mr. President, if the unborn are not living, human persons, then what are we doing to protect them once they are born?"

    The entire liberal social safety net program from maternal and child health care, head start, welfare and food stamps where needed, public education, state and community colleges, unemployment, medicare and medicaid and social security.

    We also oppose sending them into illegal wars, and many of us oppose the death penalty.

    Liberals are extremely pro life when it comes to children, their entire lives. Much of the pro-life community are strong conservatives who have fought against every advance health and safety for children and their families for a hundred years, and have supported unjust and illegal wars, and today, even torture.

    We want to know why the pro-"life" community is so careless about human life once the doctor finishes washing the baby off.

    What about unborn children?
    -- They're not children, they're not people.

    What about the immorality of abortion?
    -- It's perfectly moral and honorable.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:35:24 AM PDT

  •  * (8+ / 0-)

    ""Consider posting this as your status -- "Mr. President, if the unborn are not living human persons, then WHY on earth should we strive to have fewer abortions?" ""

    Because they become living human persons.

    But at conception, they are not.

    If they were, considering the percentage of conceptions that miscarry, God would be the most profilic serial killer the world has ever known.

    Then again, if all natural disasters are assigned to him, he already is anyways.

  •  Why? (5+ / 0-)

    "Mr. President, if the unborn are not living human persons, then WHY on earth should we strive to have fewer abortions?"

    That's a false argument, a Red herring.

    The reality of Obama's proposal is, we want to avoid unnecessary and accidental pregnancies through education and birth control methods and that's how we strive to achieve fewer abortions.

    Fewer the unnecessary or accidental pregnancies, the fewer who are looking to have an abortion. That's how you achieve fewer abortions and still be pro-choice where abortion is deemed necessary by the parties concerned (NOT by Bill Frist on TV).

    Final result, pro-choice and fewer abortions.

  •  Hey Boofdah (7+ / 0-)

      There is one way to respond.  Quite simply put: " We need to have abortions, because there are so few people like you who take the trouble to open their hearts and homes to those less fortunate children."
     I doubt any reply will have much effect on this particular troll.  But you can at least try.

    footsore

    I've been on this trail so long that the older I get the more uphill it seems. footsore

  •  maybe something short and sweet (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grada3784, Meggie

    like, you are a fucking moron, now STFU.
    Try that.
    Honestly, folks like that aren't worth responding to.

    The trick is in what one emphasizes. We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same." Carlos Castaneda

    by FireCrow on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:40:50 AM PDT

  •  Give him this message from an abuse survivor (18+ / 0-)

    I spent many , many years wishing that my mother had aborted me.  I am now on disability for what my parents did to me.  I have suffered life long mental illness and attempted suicide repeatedly. (although I am somewhat stable now)  If I thought that any child of mine would suffer what I did I would abort it.  Hell, I would suffocate it at birth rather than choose the life I have led for a baby.  Abortion is a tragedy but it is not the greatest tragedy simply because the suffering is blessedly brief.

    That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

    by stevie avebury on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:43:57 AM PDT

  •  so vasectomies should be (6+ / 0-)

    considered "abortion" too, right?  

    Just going with the "what if ..." meme

    I've had this discussion with a sister-in-law far too many times and i shut her up every time I ask if she and my brother have given up sex after the birth of their two children.  

    "Oh yeah, that's right - you had XXX (my bro) have a vasectomy.  Wonder how many children God really wanted him to have?"

  •  "hide" him. I have people like that, that I just (3+ / 0-)

    know that there is nothing I can ever do or say.

    Here's to the start of a great 8 years!

    by Xtatic on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:55:14 AM PDT

  •  here's one they never can answer: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, boofdah, grada3784

    Here's what I'd write him (and I've used this on right-wingers before and it usually stubs their brain pretty hard):

    "Dear right-wing idiot:

    If your political party is so obsessed with saving babies, how come the reddest states also have the highest infant mortality rates?   You are very concerned with fetuses, but after the babies are born your party is big on cutting the social programs that would help babies (ones which are already born and wanted) survive and thrive.  Shouldn't these programs get top priority if you're really into saving babies?  If your party is actually pro-life, wouldn't the Republican states have the lowest infant mortality rates?  How come the opposite is the case?

    Have you been hoodwinked into voting against your own interests?"

    You could leave out the "dear" at the opening... it's optional! :)

    "Oh, you're agnostic, you think there COULD be a Batman, you just don't know." - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:55:49 AM PDT

  •  Two things come to mind. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, grada3784

    It depends on which path you want to choose at this fork in the road.
    1st -

    "Thems what don't thinks too good should tries not to thinks too much."

    2nd - Point them to this article

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  •  Because they're expensive. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, grada3784, martydd

    n/t

    Don't tell me about the "new politics" if you're an asshole.

    by Ms Johnson on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:58:00 AM PDT

  •  Futile....don't even attempt to change his mind (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TiaRachel, boofdah, grada3784, one voice

    just respectfully disagree.  Anything you say to that mind is a waste of your time....his mind will only be changed by a personal revelation by something that happens to someone he loves and cares about.

    Further if this group is valuable to your efforts as a foster parent keep your interactions with them about foster care...decline to discuss social issues with him.  Decline to be friends with him.  Recognize that he is just a source for info that you need to do your good works.

    Hard to accept but there are assholes everywhere and they insist on spreading their bitchassness.

    I wish you well.

    5/4/61*Thirteen Freedom Riders got on the bus to defy Jim Crow laws & call for change their efforts transformed the civil rights movement.

    by fedupcitizen on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:05:14 AM PDT

  •  That poster's priorities are so screwed up that (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TiaRachel, boofdah, grada3784, footsore

    nothing you can say will have any effect. Raising children is an important enough task that parents must be afforded every opportunity for success that we as a society can give them. Prospective parents should be aware of their responsibility and should be able to count on the full support of family, friends, and society in general. That support is not found in the empty rhetoric of the right to lifers, but in the very real actions of people who strive to make the world a better place for all children. We have a long way to go to reach that ideal. Any parent who is truly worthy of calling themselves a parent realizes that their job just begins at the birth of their child. It's not just the act of giving birth that is important. It's everything that happens in the days and the years that follow. A responsible parent looks beyond the birth of their child. A responsible parent wants their child to flourish, not just to exist. A responsible and loving parent wants their child to be happy, to be safe, to be healthy, to be loved and to be cared for. Unfortunately, not everyone has the resources or is able to provide their children with the care they need and deserve. I'm sure many of these prospective parents make the difficult decision to abort not because they do not want children, but because they cannot give their children the the things they need to grow and thrive. What we need to do is to create a society in which all children have the same opportunity to grow up in a loving and nurturing environment, free from the ravages of disease, hunger, and ignorance that should be the birthright of all of our children.

  •  Good luck! (7+ / 0-)

    Personally, I don't think the question you highlight is all that outrageous.  It's a logical one, given Obama's statements regarding abortion.  A pro-life activist who feels passionately should absolutely try to highlight apparent inconsistencies in the opposition's arguments, as should any activist on any issue.  I don't think it's a bad faith question by any means.

    I'm pro-choice, and I take the moral and ethical issues at stake very seriously.  But I don't agree at all that "reducing the number of abortions" is anything to strive for.  There should be exactly as many abortions as individual women feel it necessary to have, period.  I emphatically support the goal of "reducing the number of unintended and/or unwanted pregnancies"--a related but significantly different thing.

    •  It wasn't the initial question to which I object: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grada3784, Sportin Life

      It's this, from a counter-response:

      Those parents who abuse their children at the very least allowed them to live which gives them the chance to be loved and nurtured.

      The "pro-life" sentiment seems to just underscore the callousness of his follow-up.

      No matter how hard the truth hurts, a light must shine upon it.

      by boofdah on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:16:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right, sorry... (2+ / 0-)

        I just wanted to throw out there that I think pro-choice people should think carefully and phrase carefully (in accordance with their own opinions, of course, not mine) when seeking common ground with pro-lifers.

        But there may be some sort of response for you to use along that line of thought.  We simply cannot, as human beings with consciences, bring children into this world knowing full well that we are going to allow them to suffer terribly.  That's a large part of the reason why we have an obligation to help prevent unintended and unwanted pregnancies, and to encourage a realistic view of what it takes to provide for a child.

        There's some point at which, what's done is done, and then people have to do the best they can.  Before that point, people need to make responsible, realistic, and informed decisions.  We as society should be supportive and provide what resources we can on both sides of that line.  Politically, we differ on where the point of no return is, and who gets to decide.  But standard right-wing dogma is extremely deficient both before and after.

        I'm sure you've gotten this far already.  Some people simply can't accept that there is arbitrariness in defining conception as the morally significant moment on which everything hinges.  So trying to emphasize the broader context goes nowhere with them.  Just for your own sanity's sake, you might consider your goal to be making solid arguments that appeal to people in the group who are open to hearing arguments, rather than trying to convince this guy to change his mind.

        Like I said, good luck!  :-/

  •  one possible answer (6+ / 0-)

    if the unborn are not living human persons, then WHY on earth should we strive to have fewer abortions?"

    i believe the unborn are living human persons.  i am still pro-choice.

    therefore, this straw man question does not need to be answered.

    but i also FIRMLY believe that the time and energy spent arguing with those whose minds are closed is time and energy you could spend in some other way or on some other issue where your effort would make a difference.  so I would suggest not responding to this person at all.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
    President Obama. Still a thrill to see that in print.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:16:43 AM PDT

  •  You'll lose if you play this by their rules. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, grada3784

    Hijack the dialog, using the Carlin line about dead soldiers. Then pivot to war and Bush and Cheney and NEVER come back to the original line. Use gooper tactics on this idiot.

    I know the special interests and lobbyists are gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: So am I. -- Barack Obama, 2/28/2009

    by MAORCA on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:17:44 AM PDT

  •  What percent of Pro-Lifers are or have been (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah

    foster parents? I think it should be a moral requirement that if they oppose a woman's right to choose, they should be willing to assist by taking in or helping to provide support for those children.

    As someone who was put through 8 foster homes between the tender age of 4-5, several of which were extremely abusive, I commend all those foster parents who work hard to provide comfort, love, education, opportunities and security for the many children out there who desperately need a stable and loving environment.

    Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. Seneca

    by Maggie Swan on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:23:15 AM PDT

  •  I guess I would not have a comeback (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, rickrocket

    to this. For me, the fetus/embryo is not considered a baby unless it could survive outside of the womb without assistance. If it is dependent on a woman to sustain it, it is not technically a separate entity. So, I believe that "life" begins sometime in the third trimester.  

    When Jesus comes back, he is going to look at what is taught in many churches and say "Dude, that is SO NOT what I meant"

    by Laurie Gator on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:27:15 AM PDT

  •  here is a link to a good essay (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, boofdah, greenmama, Aranfell

    My ex-wife goes to this church.  I am an agnostic, but I like what this guy has to say about abortion.

    Greg Boyd on Abortion

    "If you are going to dance with the Devil, you might as well lead."

    by rickrocket on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:34:29 AM PDT

  •  So what if their life is a living hell? (4+ / 0-)

    At least they're alive.

    Sounds like the Right's justification for torture: "We didn't kill them, just roughed them up a bit."

    I wonder what that person's view on gays/lesbians adopting or being foster parents is...

    Civility is the way of telling someone to go fuck themselves in such a way that the someone agrees it probably is a good idea.

    by Cali Scribe on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:46:34 AM PDT

  •  First of all, hard as it is, please remember that (2+ / 0-)

    this guy probably doesn’t think he’s being vitriolic. He thinks that he’s bringing up a really telling question related to a tragic situation. It sounds like he’s bringing it up without insults or attacks – simply confronting pro-choice people with what seems to him to be an obvious contradiction.  Though anti-choice people often make me tear my hair in frustration, there’s no doubt that many of them do feel great angst over this issue, and some at least still try to talk about it in non-attacking ways.

    I don’t know your beliefs enough to make much suggestion, but if it were me, I would say something like this:

    There is a progression during pregnancy -- from a small clump of cells that (to my mind) can’t possibly be regarded as a human being, to an 8th month fetus that moves, sleeps, wakes, and responds to its mother’s voice. At the beginning of pregnancy, there is only one human being involved: the mother. At the end of pregnancy, there are two.

    Of course, there is a grey area. When does the fetus cross the line, when does it come to be a separate human life with its own claims on our concern?  This is where a lot of debate focuses.

    But even early in the pregnancy, even when there is only a tiny ball of undifferentiated cells, with no possibility of feeling or consciousness, still, that clump of cells is different from any other bit of tissue, because it has within it the capacity to become a unique human being. That’s an awesome thing.

    Now, you have to recognize that there are millions of pro-choice people, and they cover a lot of different attitudes. Some are pretty utilitarian about it, especially with very early abortions. You want a child? Great. If not, terminate. It’s simply a medical procedure, not a big deal.

    Many of us, however, feel that it IS a big deal, because of that sense of awe, that sense of dealing with the potential emergence of a unique new human person. And because of the many profound emotions evoked by the possibility of having and raising children. We feel that there’s always a deep seriousness in deciding either to have a child or to end a pregnancy.  The farther along the pregnancy is, the closer the potential new person is to becoming present, the more solemn the decision feels to us.

    We don’t like abortions produced by carelessness or lack of information, because that violates our sense that having children, or deciding not to, should be a thoughtful, serious, responsible decision. We’re dealing with a potential that is deeply important, many of us would say sacred: the creation of new human life. For those of us who are believers, these are spiritual as well as practical choices, that should ideally be made in a context of spiritual self-examination and prayer.

    The existence of many abortions indicates that there’s an underlying problem: that a lot of people are not being responsible and thoughtful in dealing with their reproductive capacity.  We want people to be educated about sexuality and pregnancy, and to make conscious, thoughtful decisions, based on respect for the value of their own lives and the lives of potential children.  

    We believe that’s best for those involved, and most of all best for bringing children into the world in situations where they will be welcomed and cherished and well cared for. Few things are more important than that.

    •  That's a wonderful, well-thought response, but... (0+ / 0-)

      ...I fear that he would stop reading after the first couple of paragraphs, simply because that is the point--a lot of anti-choice types don't think an embryo is a small clump of cells; they truly believe it's the same as a baby. Ditto with stem cells (and that is why they're against testing with stem cells, for the same reason).

      If I started with this para:

      Many of us, however, feel that it IS a big deal, because of that sense of awe, that sense of dealing with the potential emergence of a unique new human person. And because of the many profound emotions evoked by the possibility of having and raising children...

      ...that may capture his interest, but OTOH, he might AGAIN repeat, "so why not make abortion illegal if you feel it's such a big deal?" It could go round and round and round...

      No matter how hard the truth hurts, a light must shine upon it.

      by boofdah on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:51:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  more abortions = more wasted money (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, martydd

    more abortions = more wasted healthcare time

    more abortions = more women making difficult decisions while being maligned by anti-abortion activists

    Effective birth control up front, with backup 'Plan B' leaves people with more money, less time in hospitals, and less stress.

    It also clears more time for our healthcare system to deal with actual traumas and diseases.

    Even if the fetus is just a blob of cells, abortions are an unnecessary waste of resources that could have been saved by teaching kids safe sex rather than abstinence.

    Bah. Typoed during acct creation. It's Ezekiel 23:20

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:11:45 AM PDT

  •  Oh sorry, was responding to his first question. (3+ / 0-)

    On the last question, you respond by pointing out that an abusive parent, by definition, is 'at the very least' allowing the child to be born into a hellhole of abuse.  If they're an abusive parent, there is no 'chance to be loved and nurtured' for their child.

    Bah. Typoed during acct creation. It's Ezekiel 23:20

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:14:30 AM PDT

  •  I know it's easier said than done, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah

    don't even let people like that get inside your head. Not everyone can be educated or even reasoned with. I'm not saying to just interact with folks you agree with, I'm just saying that when there is no possibility of common ground, you've got to protect yourself.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site