Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
For the past two years, I've blogged for choice on the anniversary Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal. Today, on the 35th anniversary, NARAL Pro-Choice America is calling on bloggers to answer this question: Why do you vote pro-choice? I'll be featuring links to blog posts throughout the day, but to kick things off - here's why I vote pro-choice.
I vote pro-choice because I believe in bodily integrity;
I vote pro-choice because I want the Hyde Amendment to be repealed;
I vote pro-choice because I support healthy choices for women;
I vote pro-choice because anti-choice laws disproportionately affect young women, women of color, low-income women and women who live in rural areas;
I vote pro-choice because I don't want women to die;
I vote pro-choice because I think the Global Gag Rule is harming and killing women worldwide;
But perhaps most importantly, I vote pro-choice because I trust women to make the decision about what's best for them and their families.
Why do you vote pro-choice?
The only reason I'm amenable to abortion in the First Trimester is to reduce the number of unplanned for children who may disproportionally end up w/UNloving mothers and/or fathers! Yet, that's not among Feminists'--like Jessica--top reasons! Amazing!
Posted by Happy at 01/22/2008 @ 11:48am
well happy, because we have both extremes here. Valenti cares only for women, and you only care for the cute little babies. Luckily for us all, the majority of America loves its mothers and children equally and roe v wade still stands for everyones benefit.
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 11:57am
check out the map of abortion laws worldwide and see what kind of company a reversal of roe/wade would put the u.s. in.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png [tinyurl.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 12:06pm
"...I believe in bodily integrity;"
Ok, where did this one come from? What's the implication here?
Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 12:17pm
"...roe v wade still stands for everyones benefit."
Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 11:57am
Really?!
Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 12:18pm
"...roe v wade still stands for everyones benefit."
Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 11:57am
Really?!
Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:18pm
Let me help to clarify for JR......she meant "everyone" who wasn't aborted!
Posted by Happy at 01/22/2008 @ 12:24pm
Really?!
Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:18pm
think of the alternative. you work in the ER. do you want to deal with the complications of botched butchery?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 12:31pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/22/2008 @ 12:06pm
FZ, I don't think the US will reverse itself. However, I do believe we need a more universal policy on how the procedure is administered.
For example, if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, let it be within the first trimester and she should receive comprehensive consuling on reproductive healthcare and what options are available.
Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 12:31pm
she should receive comprehensive consuling on reproductive healthcare and what options are available."---Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:31
You mean to prevent future unplanned pregnancies?
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 12:36pm
BTW, I'm pro-choice because of two reasons. One philosophical, the other realistic.
1. Because I believe in individual freedom.
2. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct a functional and non-destructive governmental policy to stop it or ban it, so why try?
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 12:38pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/22/2008 @ 12:31pm
FZ, I work in the ICU. I see more cases of GSW, Occupational and MVAs, and head trauma (some due to domestic violence).
As I stated before, I don't think there will be a total reversal of the current Roe v Wade opinion. However, I do believe the law was not soundly implemented and has caused more harm than good.
Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 12:38pm
Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:31pm
of course. seems like you guys could use codification of many things on a national level.
seems the "founding fathers (no mothers allowed!) never foresaw such a big, diverse country.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 12:38pm
2. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct a functional and non-destructive governmental policy to stop it or ban it, so why try?
Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 12:38pm
you mean like with ganja?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 12:40pm
I vote pro-choice because only I know when/if I am capable of having a child.
I vote pro-choice because many girls and women aren't given the choice to not get pregnant in the first place.
I vote pro-choice to ensure that girls and women learn that they have options and that even in their fear, there is somewhere to go.
I vote pro-choice in the hope that no girl or woman will ever repeat the desperate actions of Katie McCoy, in the hope that no other family will simultaneously lose a daughter and a baby.
I vote pro-choice because I believe that women's health is important.
I, too, vote pro-choice because anti-choice policy causes the greatest harm to the most vulnerable members of society both in the U.S. and abroad.
Posted by ldn at 01/22/2008 @ 12:49pm
"You mean to prevent future unplanned pregnancies?"
Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 12:36pm
For the most part, yes. Women have got to understand that if they are not able or willing to be responsible for baby, then they need to do all that they can to make sure it doesn't happened. If she is in a relationship that is not favorable to her well being and she is not able to leave right away (for whatever reason), I would suggest inserting the Norplant device or receiving depo injections every 3 months. This way she is able to ward off an unplanned pregancy and shift her focus on protecting herself from STDs.
Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 12:50pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/22/2008 @ 12:40pm |
I mean EXACTLY that. Not a "pro-lifer" here can explain how we will keep RU-486 out of this country and out of the hands of women who want it....when we can't keep Mary Jane, blow, X, and lots of other stuff that most think is bad for you, out of their hands.
And when they DO try to explain, they basically admit that it's about FEELING good or IMAGE...not substantive reductions in abortions!
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 12:52pm
Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:50pm
My point was you're not referring to that kind of "consuling" as we see in the "Crises Pregnancy Centers", to try to talk, scare, or intimidate them OUT of having the abortion....right?
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 12:53pm
Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 12:38pm
Mask, you need to come work with me at the hospital. I'll see to it that you're paid well, however, you'll have to promise me you won't throw up in the process... :-)
Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 12:58pm
what i don't understand about abortion is how it doesn't violate the hippocratic oath that the ob/gyn took to "do no harm". it certainly does harm to the life of the unborn child (at the behest of her parent's no less).
Posted by katamantulo at 01/22/2008 @ 12:59pm
Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 12:53pm
No. Like the doctors, we nurses take the Nightingale pledge (modified version of the Hippocratic Oath) very seriously.
But, I do want women to understand that abortions should be a last resort and not a first response. Use your head and stay on what ever birth control you are comfortable with.
Posted by ACook at 01/22/2008 @ 1:06pm
Jessica like the other baby killers who are posting are more concerned about their lifestyle choices than the innocent child in the womb. No amount of twisting to call it a parasite, invading tissue, or any other code word they use to pacify their own conscience will change the facts.
It is a baby in the womb. The only difference becomes their decision whether to kill it or not.
If they kill it, they use the "non-offensive" terminology.
If they decide to have the baby, then suddenly it's about "my baby", possible names, noting it's progress in development, the kicking and moving, all the things that acknowledge that they are carrying in their bodies, a human being.
It is not a hampster, a worm, or any other creature. It is a human being.
You can run your denial statements and slogans all you want; but you cannot change the biological facts. That is a baby that will either be granted the opportunity for life, or be killed in the name of a woman's priorities.
As with Martin Luther King, I too have a dream. One day we will treat the unborn children we create as lovingly and respectfully as we do our living children. One day we will honor life more than lifestyle.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 1:12pm
Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:50pm
Not a bad idea, in theory. Here is the issue. How do girls/women without health insurance and/or low incomes afford either depo or the Norplant device? Will the government cover it? Does someone work with them to provide services at reduced cost?
The clinic in my city provides a three month prescription for Ortho-tricyclen with a one month prescription free coupon. If you don't have health insurance, you're on your own to figure out how to pay for the additional two months, and you're on your own to figure out what to do after that prescription runs out. Seeing as some women can't even afford to get the post-abortion antibiotic prescription filled, I doubt they will be able to afford depo or the Norplant device.
Again, I like the idea of providing women with education and providing them with contraceptive options. Figuring out how to provide such options to every patient, though, will take a great deal of planning and some serious funding.
Posted by ldn at 01/22/2008 @ 1:18pm
"...roe v wade still stands for everyones benefit." Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 11:57am
Really?! Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:18pm
Acook: do you think forcing a pregnancy on an unwilling and resentful woman helps anyone? it hurts everyone in the equation- the woman, the potential child, society as a whole.
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 1:20pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 1:12pm
yeah, abortion sure is icky.
has your house ever been robbed? it sure is a horrible feeling. you feel uneasy every time you enter it. and for a long time.
imagine how a woman feels who has been raped and is now pregnant.
you can sell a house.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 1:39pm
Again, I like the idea of providing women with education and providing them with contraceptive options. Figuring out how to provide such options to every patient, though, will take a great deal of planning and some serious funding.
Posted by LDN 01/22/2008 @ 1:18pm
How effortlessly we come from "It's a private decision between a woman and her doctor" to .."It's the taxpayers responsibility to fund my privacy".
Posted by Sliver at 01/22/2008 @ 1:41pm
I vote pro-choice because I love and live in my body.
I vote pro-choice because no one should have jurisdiction over my body. I will not have my humanity stripped and become a vessel, an incubator for any man,state, or religion.
I vote pro-choice because already there are too many unloved and unwanted kids in this nation, waiting for a loving family that all too often never comes.
I vote pro-choice because every woman deserves the right to chose for themselves: forced pregnancy is just as harsh and cruel as forced abortion.
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 1:42pm
Posted by KATAMANTULO 01/22/2008 @ 12:59pm
There are those that would argue unborn child is an oxymoron. We don't put conception dates on birth certificates, and you are not legally a person until you are born. Now, feel free to make the moral case that the law should be different, but you don't get to assume it.
Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:50pm
Unfortunately, Norplant doesn't cut it among the personhood begins at fertilization crowd. Also, do you support free Norplants to anyone that wants one? Because the cost of a couple of hundred dollars is prohibitive for many.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 1:12pm
You are assuming the question. There is a reason we call things embryo and fetus - rather than baby. I believe you start calling an embryo a person once the embryo attaches to the uterus.
Some people define it as preventing conception using a condom - because you circumvented a "natural" process. Others define it as fertilization, which makes hormonal forms of birth control problematic. Others define it as viability or birth.
To assume wherever you draw the line, is the correct place, and everyone that draws the line later is a "murderer" is a bit problematic - particularly since most people with your perspective go with fertilization and not attachment to the uterine wall. In their eyes, you too are supporting murder.
So, please tone down the self-righteousness. You can strongly believe you are right - but you don't know that you are and calling people murderers is a bit much.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 1:42pm
you'll have to promise me you won't throw up in the process... :-)---Posted by ACOOK 01/22/2008 @ 12:58pm
Not a problem, I can eat cotton candy ice cream and Pop Rocks while watching CSI and the Forensic Files.
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 1:45pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 1:12pm
LVLIB, is a human female's ovum one micro-second after contact with a human male's sperm cell...a "human being"?
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 1:46pm
I support a woman's right to chose, but not necessarily because of the usual reasons.
I was adopted during at a time when abortion was still illegal. And from what I know about the circumstances of my birth, it involved a young teenage mother who may well have aborted me if she could have done so safely and without legal consequence.
Some people say..."you should be pro-life because you would not have existed if Roe v. Wade was decided a few years earlier." And although this may be appealing in a selfish kind of way, it is difficult to imagine what my natural mother was going through and what circumstances that would have been "forced" upon me had she not decided to give me up for adoption.
As it turned out, I was adopted by a great family and received probably the best education and upbringing any kid could have had in their wildest dreams. And as a Buddhist, it is difficult to know whether an aborted life would have made any difference in the eventual birth (rebirth) of my karmic-life-force-energy, and perhaps would have only delayed my eventual "birth" by a few months to a different body by another mother under better circumstances.
We know so little about life outside of the body, it is hard to stomach the black and white self-righteousness of the pro-life movement. Do they really know for certain what happens to our energy when our body dies, and should their "theory" on what happens be forced on everyone else?
What if they are wrong, and the Buddha is right - that our karmic-life-force-energy persists after the death of the body and is re-born into another body unless karma is extinguished through complete enlightenment? If this is true, then reversing Roe v Wade is A LOT more than taking away "choice" about what a woman does with their body, it takes away one's choice about what they can believe about the very nature of life.
It is this anti-choice that I find most troubling about the pro-life movement - its certainty that its religious interpretation is superior to all others. In a free society that America purports to be, in which "all" religious expressions are respected and protected, how can we tolerate the elevation of one religious interpretation over another?
Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2008 @ 1:48pm
I also want to thank Jessica Valenti for providing a thoughtful post. It's nice to have an issue brought up for discussion without it being framed in a way that leaves no room for fairness.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 1:48pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 1:48pm :: an extremely insightful post...thank you for sharing.
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 1:52pm
Frosty....
Another misconception about pregnancy resulting from rape is that it is a common occurrence. However, there are many sound medical reasons and statistical data that refute this presumption. A 1988 study conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (formerly affiliated with Planned Parenthood) concluded that of 1,900 U.S. women surveyed who had undergone abortions only 1% listed rape or incest as their reason for choosing abortion.
It's not as common as one might think. Also, even most pro-lifers wouldn't have object to an abortion due to pregnancy caused by a rape.
Posted by Sliver at 01/22/2008 @ 1:54pm
So, please tone down the self-righteousness. You can strongly believe you are right - but you don't know that you are and calling people murderers is a bit much.
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 1:42pm
any of you abortion supporters who have children care to admit that what you called what was in the womb before it's birth?
Did you tell people? "My embryo kicked today. We're naming my fetus Darla. Yeah, my wife is 3 months pregnant with our first fetus".
The psychology of denial in not admitting it's a baby is the obvious mental health necessity that the abortion supporters use to keep any level of mental health. That is with the exception of those on the extreme fringes of the abortion movement (and you know they exist) who could care less that they know it's a child. For them it's all about Feminist rights superceding all else, including their children.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 1:57pm
I also want to thank Jessica Valenti for providing a thoughtful post. It's nice to have an issue brought up for discussion without it being framed in a way that leaves no room for fairness.
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 1:48pm
Really?
Enlighten me on the areas of fairness on this subject that she wrote on?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 1:58pm
LVLIB, is a human female's ovum one micro-second after contact with a human male's sperm cell...a "human being"?
Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 1:46pm
No, because contact doesn't ensure conception.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:00pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 1:48pm :: an extremely insightful post...thank you for sharing.
Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 1:52pm
I have to agree. Nicely put, Mett, and an example of the kind of discussions about any issue that are sorely lacking in the 'great debate' these days.
Posted by Rintrah at 01/22/2008 @ 2:02pm
Also, even most pro-lifers wouldn't have object to an abortion due to pregnancy caused by a rape.
Posted by SLIVER 01/22/2008 @ 1:54pm
Well, count me as one of those pro-lifers who do object to abortions for rape. Don't murder the child because of a crime committed on the mother.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 1:57pm
I don't have children, LVL because I can afford and have learned how to use contraceptives.
Most people I know that have children, refer to it as "it" during the pregnancy because even with ultra-sound, it takes several months to determine gender. English doesn't have a good gender neutral third-person pronoun, nor do I (or they) call something a baby that hasn't been born yet - particularly if they are older and unsure that they will carry it to term.
Just because you want to play the semantic game to support your view, doesn't mean that's the way the world works.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 1:58pm
Well, for one, she didn't call anyone a murderer and didn't refer to pro-choice people as brain damaged. I think that is a step in the right direction for Jessica; she is setting an example we would all do well to follow.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 2:07pm
"No, because contact doesn't ensure conception."- LV- what if the fertilized zygote fails to adhere to the uterine walls? is that a lost child? lots of people have a hard time conceiving...every time they fail, are they murdering a child?
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:09pm
How effortlessly we come from "It's a private decision between a woman and her doctor" to .."It's the taxpayers responsibility to fund my privacy".
Posted by SLIVER 01/22/2008 @ 1:41pm
Sliver:
As I posted before, here is the issue: How do girls/women without health insurance and/or low incomes afford either depo or the Norplant device? Will the government cover it? Does someone work with them to provide services at reduced cost?
Where in that do you get "It's the taxpayers responsibility to fund my privacy"?
Maybe the government wouldn't need to "fund" someone's privacy if a) healthcare and health insurance were affordable for all and b) states didn't make it illegal for a health insurance company to cover abortion.
Posted by ldn at 01/22/2008 @ 2:09pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 1:48pm
I certainly am glad that someone made the right decision and chose to give you life.
However, while I certainly respect your right to hold to your religious views, they are obviously a copout to personal responsibility from my standpoint.
While the debate over whether Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam are correct as to whether reincarnation is a lie or the truth will only be realized by each of us upon our death, I will stand with these 3 faiths on the truth that we live once and then to judgment.
The theology of reincarnation has been responsible in much of Asia for thousands of years in bringing massive suffering to hundreds of millions, if not billions of people. It has made it easy for many to not only excuse, but to perpetrate suffering on others under the "law of karma" and the opportunity under reincarnation for a second (or is 1000 chances).
I'll stay with personal responsibility and accountability where I will have to stand before God and face a day of judgment
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:12pm
Well, for one, she didn't call anyone a murderer and didn't refer to pro-choice people as brain damaged. I think that is a step in the right direction for Jessica; she is setting an example we would all do well to follow.
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 2:07pm
Perhaps we are debating instead over what "fair" means? I take fairness to be an even handed discussion of a controversial subject. I certainly don't take fairness as a one sided approach.
And I acknowledge that I am not being "fair" to opposing views. But then I made no claim as doing so. I am firmly and aggressively advocating my opposing position.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:15pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:03pm; Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:12pm :: an extremist radical through and through. You are indeed correct in one point LV- you and your islamic brothers are very, very similar indeed. Its hard to see where any real distinction lies. American Taliban...alive and well.
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:18pm
No, because contact doesn't ensure conception.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:00pm
Okay...is a fertilized human ovum one micro-second after implantation in the uterine wall...a "human being"?
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 2:18pm
"No, because contact doesn't ensure conception."- LV- what if the fertilized zygote fails to adhere to the uterine walls? is that a lost child? lots of people have a hard time conceiving...every time they fail, are they murdering a child?
Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 2:09pm
While it is an attempt at conception, it displays instead for me further proof that conception and child birth are a miracle of God, not man.
I will add in case someone asks regarding miscarriages. I use the example of one of my sons and his wife who about 2 years ago, lost their first child when it never developed beyond about 6 weeks. There were no brain waves or detectable heart beat and the baby was aborted for the health of my daughter-in-law. That was not an easy decision for them and they waited to ensure that the first 2 doctors were not possibly wrong. But after 9 weeks and still no development, they had the abortion. They, as parents, and I as grandfather, wept and mourned over the loss of that child. We never considered it to be just invasive tissue.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:21pm
As I posted before, here is the issue: How do girls/women without health insurance and/or low incomes afford either depo or the Norplant device? Will the government cover it? Does someone work with them to provide services at reduced cost?
Not sure. But I'm a guy, who has no say-so in what a woman does with her body, so don't ask me. And don't ask me to pay for it, either.
Here's an idea...an abortion costs, what...$300-350? How about the abortion providers take $50 from every abortion and fund contraception. Fair? Could they advertize for donations? If it's just the right thing to do, why is it so hard to get the funding?
Posted by Sliver at 01/22/2008 @ 2:25pm
If a young woman can work at Taco Bell to buy shoes, a young woman can work at Taco Bell to buy contraception.
Posted by Sliver at 01/22/2008 @ 2:26pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:21pm :: I'm sorry for your loss. I wonder why God chose to first bless your daughter-in-law with a child, and then steal it away in such a cruel fashion.
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:27pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:03pm; Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:12pm :: an extremist radical through and through. You are indeed correct in one point LV- you and your islamic brothers are very, very similar indeed. Its hard to see where any real distinction lies. American Taliban...alive and well.
Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 2:18pm
Now this is an excellent example of radical leftist thought. Convoluted and resorting to canards rather than intelligent debate.
You call me extreme and liken me to those who kill the innocent when it is you rather who is more like the Taliban.
It is you who is deciding which innocents live, and which die, not me. It is you who relishes your personal ideology over life for innocents.
I (and Christians like me) unlike the Taliban, believe that innocent life is precious before God. I unlike the Taliban allow dissenting views to be heard. I unlike the Taliban believe that liberty requires the expression of differing religious views and open dialogue and debate about those views.
The saddest part is that I have no doubts that you and those like you cannot even see the ironic truth of what I'm saying
You are calling me what your life reality has defined you as being.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:28pm
"We never considered it to be just invasive tissue."- for the people who do consider it as such...do you think them deserving of being parents?? for someone who has such little respect for the child inside them...why do you insist on them having the child? are they not undeserving in your eyes anyway?
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:28pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:21pm :: I'm sorry for your loss. I wonder why God chose to first bless your daughter-in-law with a child, and then steal it away in such a cruel fashion.
Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 2:27pm
Well, here is why blogging can be dangerous. We were becoming involved in sharp criticism when all of a sudden, human emotions stepped in.
Thank you for your words. We don't know why my grandchild was lost. What we do know is that 5 months later, they conceived again, and now have a wonderful healthy little girl who will be one year old in April.
These for me are part of the mystery of God's sovereignty and can never be known until after this life.
Thank you again for taking a moment from our sharp and critical debates to interject those thoughts.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:32pm
LV- listen, people can disagree and still show compassion towards eachother. I understand you had wanted a grandchild, I understand the reverence you hold for the unborn, and so I express my condolences. In this same token, I sympthize with women who chose abortion, I sympathize with people who have to make tough choices that I have no idea about, that I cannot relate too, and I respect them by paying my condolences. I am pro-choice because I can never understand the complexity of everyones lives, I dont think anyone is wise enough to decide for every single person on this planet what is "right" and what is "wrong". The only person I can decide that for is me.
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:40pm
"We never considered it to be just invasive tissue."- for the people who do consider it as such...do you think them deserving of being parents?? for someone who has such little respect for the child inside them...why do you insist on them having the child? are they not undeserving in your eyes anyway?
Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 2:28pm
You bring up an excellent point. I grant you that not everyone takes that viewpoint. However there are far more who do so than perhaps you would expect. At least that has been my experience in this debate over more than 30 years of doing so. And there are many on this blog who have so indicated. Now, as to your greater point:
I do agree that not everyone should be a parent. As a pastor, I spend a lot of time with people who are terrible parents (both Christian and non-Christian). I find too many people (even one is too many) who do not have a true loving attitude towards their children and respect them as the gift and treasure that they are.
But that is why I believe that there are always those couples out there who may not be blessed with the ability to conceive on their own and would and do make wonderful parents to these children. Children who come into to this world deserve parents who will care for them at least as much as they do for themselves; and actually I prefer that they care more for their children then themselves. That would demonstrate then that they have some of God's self-sacrificing love to give to that child.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:41pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:12pm
I'd argue that you don't have a particularly sophisticated understanding of karma - which if I were to guess is probably based on the confused mess of a Wikipedia article - and a bit of ethnocentricism.
Karma, at base, is about attachment to the fruits of action. I think Gandhi explained it beautifully in this passage:
"We should do no work with attachment. Attachment to good work, is that too wrong? Yes, it is. If we are attached to our goal of winning liberty, we shall not hesitate to adopt bad means. If a person is particular that he should give coins to me personally, one day he might even steal them. Hence, we should not be attached even to a good cause. Only then will our means remain pure and our actions, too." From the Bhagavad Git: According to Gandhi.
Based on some of the opinions I have seen you post here, I think this would be a very useful point to reflect upon.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:15pm
Compared to Jessica's previous posts, I think this is fair. She is marking an occasion and taking a position - but she hasn't done anything to frame the discussion so that other points of view are put in a negative light. I consider that fair.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 2:43pm
"But that is why I believe that there are always those couples out there who may not be blessed with the ability to conceive on their own and would and do make wonderful parents to these children" :: so, adoption yes?? and I agree its a wonderful option, but there aren't enough adoptive parents out there to handle the numbers of unwanted children presently. This in itself is not a solution, sadly.
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:44pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:28pm
Now this is an excellent example of radical leftist thought. Convoluted and resorting to canards rather than intelligent debate.
Leftist thought? Have you never seen people claiming to be conservatives doing the same? Or do you ignore those people here?
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 2:48pm
Margaret Sanger, in 'Birth Control Review' 1921: 'The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/22/2008 @ 2:52pm
Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 01/22/2008 @ 2:52pm :: curious- do you ever say anything original and your own, or do you just copy and paste quotes all day?
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:53pm
Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 2:40pm
Thanks again. I have 5 sons, 3 whom are step-sons and are Black/Hispanic mix. I have 5 grandchildren todate, black, brown, and white.
I love them all as if they were my own seed. I love children and believe completely in the biblical thought that children are a treaure from heaven. I even spent about 5 years teaching first pre-school children, then second graders, and finally junior high kids. I have dedicated time and energy, here in slum areas and the projects and overseas to poor children and young people. I still personally serve as youth pastor in our church in addition to being the senior pastor because of my love for and belief in young people.
They always know that I invest myself in their lives and future.
I understand some of the complex and difficult life decisions you allude to. Life is not easy for most of us. Making the difficult decision to choose life over other options carries a lot of responsibility and sacrifice. I just believe at the end of the day, that choosing life for others even at the risk of self-sacrifice will ultimately be the right decision.
Thanks again for making this dialogue something more than the usual name calling back and forth that so often goes on.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:54pm
Leftist thought? Have you never seen people claiming to be conservatives doing the same? Or do you ignore those people here?
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 2:48pm
No, you are absolutely correct. Have you ever seen me even acknowledge "frankshitz" or some of the others on the right who come here with flame throwing words rather than a real debate on the issues?
I have equal disdain for that approach on the right as I do from the left.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 2:56pm
Excuse me, LL...not to be boorish, but might I get an answer?
No, because contact doesn't ensure conception.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:00pm
Okay...is a fertilized human ovum one micro-second after implantation in the uterine wall...a "human being"?
Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 2:18pm
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 2:58pm
"I just believe at the end of the day, that choosing life for others even at the risk of self-sacrifice will ultimately be the right decision."- LV, I respect your beliefs, and I also respect the beliefs of Valenti and other pro-choice individuals. That is what they are- beliefs. They are extremely personal, individual, and variant. Just as you would feel encroached upon if someone tried to tell you what to believe, the other side feels this tension as well. I prefer pro-choice because I am relieved of being a dictator to anyone. Everyone makes their own choices according to their own needs, not according to my beliefs.
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 3:04pm
oh, and congrats on such a wonderful, diverse family. You have every right to be proud.
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 3:05pm
Sliver:
Not sure. But I'm a guy, who has no say-so in what a woman does with her body, so don't ask me. And don't ask me to pay for it, either.
You're right. You don't have the right to a) force a woman to do something with her body that she does not want or b)otherwise intimidate or pressure her into doing something that she doesn't want to do. That may be why I asked ACook, not you. You know, she is a nurse, and she does have some background in the medical field. She may have some good ideas as to how to make something like that work. Unlike you.
Here's an idea...an abortion costs, what...$300-350?
Depends on where you are located. The clinic in my town charges $600. That's $200 for the ultrasound (required by state law) and $400 for RU-486 if you're less that 8 weeks or the D&E if you're 8+ weeks. Along with that, you get a three month prescription for Ortho-Tricyclen w/a one month free coupon from the manufacturor.
How about the abortion providers take $50 from every abortion and fund contraception. Fair? Could they advertize for donations? If it's just the right thing to do, why is it so hard to get the funding?
Well, let's see. They don't operate for profit so there really isn't extra cash lying around to fund contraception. In all seriousness, the failure to advertize probably has to do with the fact that many clinics are still operating in fear of the clinic bombings of the 1990s. The one here has FBI wanted pictures of all of the crazies posted behind the front desk, the nurses talk to the patients behind bullet proof glass, and an armed police officer guards the door. Perhaps they don't want to advertize for fear that some nutjob will try to blow them up?
Did you even notice the fact that I was critical of the local clinic for its failure to fully care for the women it treats? Nope. You just replied with the typical rhetoric.
You're swell. A truly helpful member of society who is clearly here to engage in thoughtful conversation and not merely a troll.*sarcasm*
Times like these make me want to use the ignore button.
Posted by ldn at 01/22/2008 @ 3:18pm
If a young woman can work at Taco Bell to buy shoes, a young woman can work at Taco Bell to buy contraception.
Posted by SLIVER 01/22/2008 @ 2:26pm
Not the kind ACook was suggesting. In order to prevent pregnancy, several contraceptive methods should be used.
Posted by ldn at 01/22/2008 @ 3:22pm
Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 3:04pm
Ditto.
Posted by ldn at 01/22/2008 @ 3:26pm
However, while I certainly respect your right to hold to your religious views, they are obviously a copout to personal responsibility from my standpoint.
Not at all, LVLIBERTY1!
If you are "conscious" and fully present, then you would want to engage the world skillfully in a manner that is conducive to spiritual enlightenment.
The problem with your self-righteous approach is that you make "judgments" about the merit of other religious paths and assign your path a superior position to that of another. This has been the source of much war and bloodshed, as "beliefs" are quite personal. To "impose" your personal beliefs on other people violates the spirit of every major religion, including Christianity.
Can you imagine Jesus saying: Come follow me or I will put you in jail? Or could you imagine him accepting a follower who came to him out of fear of persecution rather than out of love for his teachings?
Beliefs MUST BE volitional, or they are not beliefs at all. The moment you start imposing your beliefs on another human being, you have substituted force for faith.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2008 @ 3:31pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 3:31pm :: another great post, keep them coming :)
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 3:38pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:56pm
Then, perhaps, you might want to consider dropping the "leftist" adjective. It's not a leftist problem. It's a problem that transcends political viewpoint.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 3:50pm
Okay...is a fertilized human ovum one micro-second after implantation in the uterine wall...a "human being"?
Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 2:18pm
Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 2:58pm
Mask, You get too caught up in your attempts to parse words ala Clinton.
If there is no conception, there is no human being. How can I be more clear.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 4:10pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 3:31pm
Show me once where I have ever suggested much less stated clearly that I want to "impose" my views on others.
I hold no such beliefs. Believing in strongly in my own faith is not the same as imposing it on others. A person with no strong convictions in reality has none.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 4:13pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 4:10pm
Parse words...words like "human being" and "baby"?!?!?
I'm trying to see if you have any idea what you belief, much less talk about.
So....is a fertilized human ovum one microsecond upon implantation in the uterine wall...a "human being" or not?
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 4:13pm
Show me once where I have ever suggested much less stated clearly that I want to "impose" my views on others.
Well, that is the sub-topic of this thread: imposing your religious view that life begins with conception and ends with the death of the body, denies a woman her choice of not just what she can do with her body, but her ability to chose a different belief than you regarding the nature of life.
So if you really LOVE LIBERTY, as your moniker suggests, you ought to support a woman's right to choose what she wants to believe regarding the nature of life, even if that means she chooses a different religious interpretation and path than you.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2008 @ 4:25pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 4:25pm
METTE, can I just pause for a moment from the logical dissection I'm giving poor LVLIB and defend him slightly.
He has stated on numerous occasions that he has GIVEN UP on the idea of legislatively or by government mandate outlawing abortion...and is in the "change hearts and minds" camp. Which is fine...pointless, but harmless.
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 4:28pm
But, hey, that's just my opinion.----Posted by FREIHEIT 01/22/2008 @ 4:27pm
and of course, you're "not making any judgements for or against abortion"....right?
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 4:29pm
BTW, FREI.....C.S. Lewis thought that we should suffer the pain of old age in 'fairness' to our souls for the joys of youth (C. S. Lewis---'perpetual springtime is not allowed'--Breakpoint magazine article "Mercy Living")...
in other words, if we don't suffer horribly (from cancer or some other disease or condition) in correspondence to our painfree youth, we don't grow spiritually....which is fine, if you think that God gives you brownie points for being wracked with pain.
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 4:35pm
Right.---Posted by FREIHEIT 01/22/2008 @ 4:36pm
Right? "Right" you're stating your opinion on how those of us who are pro-choice want to kill old folks too, but you're not "making judgements for or against abortion"?
That has what to do with anything?---Posted by FREIHEIT 01/22/2008 @ 4:37pm
Well....SOMEBODY said "Recommended reading: "The Screwtape Letters", CS Lewis."
So SOMEBODY thought Lewis was relevant, hmm?
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 4:42pm
BTW, FREI...care to take a stab at it?
1. Do you agree with LVLIB that a pre-implanted fertilized human ovum is NOT a "human being"?
2. Does it become one, one microsecond after implantation?
Or do you "not think about what you don't think about" (Ref: "Matthew Harrison Brady" "Inherit the Wind")
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 4:43pm
Well, that is the sub-topic of this thread: imposing your religious view that life begins with conception and ends with the death of the body, denies a woman her choice of not just what she can do with her body, but her ability to chose a different belief than you regarding the nature of life.
So if you really LOVE LIBERTY, as your moniker suggests, you ought to support a woman's right to choose what she wants to believe regarding the nature of life, even if that means she chooses a different religious interpretation and path than you.
Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 4:25pm
Using your analysis, shouldn't we have honored those from the South who believed fervently that Blacks were not human and therefore that slavery was a legitimate choice for slave owners to make?
I cannot make the leap of logic that you take and conclude that innocent life should either be destroyed or enslaved to satisfy someone else.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 5:18pm
But I'm not really interested in arguing your "microsecond after implantation" sidetrack.---Posted by FREIHEIT 01/22/2008 @ 5:00pm
Of course not, because you're smart enough to know what you'll eventually have to say...and it will make you look foolish.
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 5:31pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 5:18pm
Now, I'm curious. Where do you fall on the following issues:
1. What about condoms? Does wearing one interfere with God's plan? Is this not potentially life in the same way that a fertilized egg is? If not, what is the relevant difference?
2. What about hormonal contraceptives (Norplant, the pill, the patch)? If I remember correctly, you didn't have a problem with them, even though they could "abort" a fertilized egg.
3. Is there not a difference between a black adult or child and a fertilized egg?
4. What about other innocent life? Do you hold the same position regarding animals and the eating of animals - particularly those that are kept in factory farms? If not, why do you make the arbitrary distinction between animals and humans? Is this not similar to making a distinction between people and fetuses? If not, why not?
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 5:34pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 4:13pm
It is easy to see that most of those opposing your idea of opening one's self up to debate come to this issue with their own particular religious biases, whether it is Hinduism of Buddhism, or some secular bias. Thus they are doing what they claim is your approach to the subject. You obviously don't come to this debate as a neutral but then not one of us ever do to any topic.
However it is not necessary to have a formal religious position to have a gut feeling that the pro-abortion position is some way down the same intellectual path that led, in a previous time, to the gas chamber solution. Thus it is not really only a religious versus the rest issue but rather it seems to me to be not only a human rights issue but also one that ultimately defines the society in which we live.
This needs a more substantive debate than arbitrarily defining when human life begins.
Posted by harvey 79 at 01/22/2008 @ 5:45pm
I cannot make the leap of logic that you take and conclude that innocent life should either be destroyed or enslaved to satisfy someone else.
Well, MASK, it looks like LVLIBERTY1 is not as libertarian on this as you suggest.
LVLIBERTY,
The issue is not what YOU believe to be innocent life; the issue is whether you are going to IMPOSE this belief on others who don't share your religious views?
Even Jesus, who broke the Sabbath, did NOT "force" others to break the Sabbath as well. And he respected the right of others who still wanted to observe the Sabbath.
I think you are not appreciating the role volition plays in ALL religious beliefs and want to FORCE your view of when human life begins and ends on others!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2008 @ 5:45pm
So....is a fertilized human ovum one microsecond upon implantation in the uterine wall...a "human being" or not?
Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 4:13pm
You are attempting a poor parsing of words. You originally asked I do not believe even medically, much less theologically that conception has taken place in the micro-second that the fertilized ovum implants against the uterine wall. There needs to be about a period of time after implantation to see if the ovum actually begins the process of taking nurishment from the uterine wall. The reason for my continuing to debate your question has to do with the difference between me and some on the pro-life side. I understand the statistical fact that approximately 50% of fertilized ovum do not develop past two weeks.
That is why the "day after pill" is still subject to debate even within the pro-life community. There is still some gray area on this timing.
But that is entirely separate from the abortion debate because I'm not aware of anyone getting an abortion in the first few days following intercourse. That makes your question on this a strawman in terms of the abortion issue. But I figure knowing your line of reasoning you would eventually get to the RU486 issue or perhaps the "Morning After Pill".
I have stated before that I am opposed to RU486 because that is just another means of abortion and is performed up to 7 weeks into the pregnancy.
I have few qualms about the morning after pill. I say few because I would prefer that it limited to the first 48 hours rather than 72 hours when there is greater risk to the mother.
The reason for my continuing to debate your question has to do with the difference between me and some on the pro-life side. I understand the statistical fact that approximately 50% of fertilized ovum do not develop past two weeks.
However, even given that fact, I prefer to take my stand at using birth control either before intercourse or less preferrably, the morning after pill. I am not against birth control and have stated so previously.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 5:49pm
Now, I'm curious. Where do you fall on the following issues:
1. What about condoms? Does wearing one interfere with God's plan? Is this not potentially life in the same way that a fertilized egg is? If not, what is the relevant difference?
2. What about hormonal contraceptives (Norplant, the pill, the patch)? If I remember correctly, you didn't have a problem with them, even though they could "abort" a fertilized egg.
3. Is there not a difference between a black adult or child and a fertilized egg?
4. What about other innocent life? Do you hold the same position regarding animals and the eating of animals - particularly those that are kept in factory farms? If not, why do you make the arbitrary distinction between animals and humans? Is this not similar to making a distinction between people and fetuses? If not, why not?
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 5:34pm
1,2: I am not against birth control. There is nothing in my faith that prohibits birth control
3: no=all people are equal in God's sight
4: They are not the same and it is not an arbitrary decision. I didn't make this determination based solely on my own judgment. As you know, my Judeo-Christian heritage says that mankind, not animalkind is formed in the image of God. That only mankind has a soul.
And just to emphasize the point, Jesus Himself ate meat and fish did nothing to point to some equalization of animals with mankind.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 6:01pm
Posted by HARVEY 79 01/22/2008 @ 5:45pm
The problem is that this "debate" centers on that question. People that favor abortion think that life begins sometime after fertilization. People that are "pro-life" think it happens at fertilization (or perhaps even before).
If you try to approach it from a practicality perspective, you are going to get lost because ultimately this is a deontological argument that needs to be addressed on its own terms.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 6:11pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 5:45pm
I have consistently said that I do not want to impose my beliefs on anyone
You continue to attempt to link personal belief with some desire to impose some theocratic will on others. That violates my beliefs in Free Will.
But that does not mean that I will diminish the firmness of my beliefs or in stating them. That is part of the democratic process we enjoy in this country.
I think where you and others are always concluding motives that are quite different in your debates with me is in my respect for our democracy and my understanding as a Pastor of Free Will.
I am not one looking to impose my religious beliefs on anyone. That is at best a foolhardy venture, and is quite outside of the commandments given to Christians.
I share openly and vigorously with any who will listen to me. But that does not mean that I want my views imposed on others. For me it is equally tragic, that we continue to kill our unborn children, just as slavery was a terrible sin committed in this country. But until there is a moral awakening by people against accepted practices, there can be no great change in a society against these moral failings.
I continue to pray that the people of the United States will one day come to a moral understanding that abortion is wrong. However I am not looking to change the laws. And I can exercise my rights as a citizen to see judges appointed who will not find legal rights where none exist which preferences one person over another.
And I am not alone in thinking as a citizen that Roe v Wade was decided apart from sound constitutional principals which are entirely separate from any moral argument.
What do Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe have in common with Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork? They all believe Roe v. Wade was a bad decision. Dershowitz and Tribe are not the only pro-choice legal scholars who denounce Roe as poor jurisprudence.
John Hart Ely, another pro-choice legal scholar, wrote in 1973 in the Yale Law Journal that Roe was wrongly decided. Edward Lazarus, a dedicated pro-choicer and former clerk to Roe's author, says Roe was borderline "indefensible." Pro-choice Washington Post writer Benjamin Wittes calls Roe "a lousy decision." Slate columnist William Saletan--who left the Republican Party in 2004 because it was too pro-life--has written that Roe was a sloppy "overreach." Pro-choice Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen calls Roe "a bad decision."
As Mask has noted, overturning Roe would send it back to the states and there, most states would legalize some form of abortion rights.
That is why I continue to make my argument that it will only be when the people of the US have a moral awakening to the sin of abortion that this tragedy will end.
http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/020500.php
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 6:18pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 6:01pm
There are some that take your position that do make arguments 1 and 2. I think 2 is a problem for you because those that argue that life begins at conception would say that allowing hormonal birth control is a form of abortion, and you are supporting "murder".
As for 3, again, you are assuming that an embryo in the womb is a person. I don't think a freshly fertilized egg is anymore of a person than an unfertilized egg. Nothing magic happens at conception. You have potentiality - just as you have when they are seperated by a condom.
As for 4, I would make arguments about continuing revelation - but it would be off-topic.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 6:20pm
In time, with the legitimacy of abortion entrenched, euthanasia will become easier to rationalize. Then we can easily accept it is in everyone's best interests to exterminate handicapped - I mean, who really watches the special olympics anyway? Next, perhaps we'll just decide that really the world should be white. All easy, easy steps.... So, my argument is against the legitimization of the practice of abortion because that acceptance leads people away from accepting personal responsibility and away from God. That is the ultimate goal of the abortion on demand advocates. The rest of us arguing women's rights and uterine walls are just useful idiots.
Okay, so if I read this correctly, the pro-choice people who aren't just brainwashed quailtards mouthing the opinions of their leftist masters are actually White Supremacists looking to eugenically cleanse the globe through the Power Of Abortion.
I obviously need to get better drugs from my leftist masters, because that sounds perfectly credible to me.
Posted by cyrano at 01/22/2008 @ 6:29pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 6:20pm
Why do you try and attach me to those whose argument is different from what you already acknowledge that my argument is. That is not relevant to a debate with me over my views.
Secondly, regarding number 3, I asked earlier but nobody unsurprisingly has answered. If you are a parent, did you call the child in the womb:
a fertilized egg, the fetus, or perhaps using your last comment, a potential person?
As to point 4, I wouldn't go there unless you are prepared to telll me about the great civilizations and technology accomplishments of some segment of the animal kingdom. Surely in 4-6 billion years, evolution would have brought them into some comparable accomplishments. Or maybe I should just go back and rent "Planet of the Apes"?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 6:33pm
"Most people I know that have children, refer to it as "it" during the pregnancy because even with ultra-sound, it takes several months to determine gender. English doesn't have a good gender neutral third-person pronoun, nor do I (or they) call something a baby that hasn't been born yet - particularly if they are older and unsure that they will carry it to term.
Just because you want to play the semantic game to support your view, doesn't mean that's the way the world works. " ::SRJENKINS
just so you know LV, your question did not go unanswered.
Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 6:43pm
ultimately this is a deontological argument that needs to be addressed on its own terms.
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 6:11pm
Precisely and I was suggesting that it is about ethics whereas yours is not purely an ethical but primarily an argument about biology intertwined with a woman's right.
It seems to me that one can hide behind an arbitrary definition of what constitutes human life and miss what is possibly the real ethical issue. If there is any doubt that in fact it is a "human child" then LVL is on much safer ethical ground.
That leads to the conclusion that he is focussed on the ethical considerations whilst you are trying to work out, without any ethical consideration except for a woman's right, what that "thing" is that a pregnant woman carries in her womb.
Posted by harvey 79 at 01/22/2008 @ 7:27pm
Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 6:43pm
I find that kind of sad and also not reflective of the people I have always been around.
I have never known anyone in my 60 years who did not think of nor call the child in the womb the baby they were carrying in terms of the woman and the baby my wife is carrying in terms of the men.
I would agree that many do refer to the baby as it because of a lack of knowledge on the sexual identity of the baby. But I've never known anyone that did so because they thought it was anything other than a baby in the womb.
I can remember pre-ultra sound days as when my kids where born; we always said, if it's a girl, she will be named "yyyy"; if it's a boy, he will be named "xxxx".
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2008 @ 7:49pm
any of you abortion supporters who have children care to admit that what you called what was in the womb before it's birth?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 1:57pm
An immaterial question, but I'll bite:
We called it "the baby."
But since we made a decision to have one, that was thinking ahead to the end result.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/22/2008 @ 8:00pm
The Dalai Lama has said:
Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances.
If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.
Dalai Lama, New York Times, 28/11/1993
I would add that one of the central concepts in Buddhism is "non-judgment". In other words, people practice Buddhism for their own spiritual welfare, not to conform to some "authority". In this sense, there is no one to judge the actions of the doer, as karma, which is a natural law, is enforced regardless of anyone's judgment. Karma is the essence of life force energy, it is what distinguishes between a body that is dead from one that is alive.
It is this karmic-life-force-energy that propels one into further rebirths, and whether one is born into a blissful or woeful state is determined by the karma of a specific being, not the judgment of others.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2008 @ 8:18pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 6:33pm
I bring it up because it shows an inconsistency in your position. There is just as much arbitrariness in selecting uterine wall attachment as there is in selecting fertilization, and the charges you make against others of "murder", from the perspective of life begins at fertilization, can be attributed to you.
I'm not sure where I fall on the debate. I admit that at some point before birth, we are dealing with a child, but I don't think fertilization or uterine wall connections make cells into a child. I also know that any distinction made after that fertilization is completely arbitrary.
I answered 3 @ 2:07pm. See JRO555 above.
As for 4, intelligence, possible intelligence or progress isn't a necessary condition for moral standing. See your own arguments regarding fertilized cells on the uterine wall as persons (who don't have brain function much less intelligence) as a case in point.
Posted by HARVEY 79 01/22/2008 @ 7:27pm
I've actually offered no arguments regarding women's rights. Until the above, I haven't even stated WHAT my position is on abortion on this thread. I merely asked LVL questions.
However, the central question is not one of biology. The central question is whether fertilized human cells are "people" and have moral standing. In short, it's a question of ethics.
So, your comment that "one can hide behind an arbitrary definition of what constitutes human life and miss what is possibly the real ethical issue" pretends to miss the real question while at the same time, provides an answer for it. That is, if it is uncertain, then you think it is safer to assume fertilized cells are people.
But, I would assert that I am certain that fertilized human cells, even one's implanted on a uterine wall, are not people. Pretty much brings us back to where we started now doesn't it?
That leads us to the conclusion that you actually have an agenda here and are claiming, falsely I might add, that I'm not dealing with the real ethical issues, because I'm not parsiing them in the way you would like. Might I suggest trying to offer an argument or criticism on my actual position - rather than making things up?
If you don't know what my position is, you can ask - much like I'm doing with LVL. I'm not sure I can offer much more than I have above.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 8:21pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/22/2008 @ 8:00pm
Interesting that you don't call it fetal rights and explain why they trump women's rights. Also, it isn't nearly as prevalent as you are suggesting - and leads to absurd outcomes, like a woman claiming that unlawful imprisonment occurred because she was arrested while pregnant. You have to think out all the issues, my friend.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 8:38pm
absurd outcomes, like a woman claiming that unlawful imprisonment occurred because she was arrested while pregnant.
Huh? What was the reasoning for that, exactly? That the fetus was effectively being imprisoned as well? I don't follow.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/22/2008 @ 9:52pm
It's not as common as one might think. Also, even most pro-lifers wouldn't have object to an abortion due to pregnancy caused by a rape.
Posted by SLIVER 01/22/2008 @ 1:54pm
i know its not common. just thought i'd pick the easiest place to start.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 10:02pm
Posted by SLIVER 01/22/2008 @ 1:54pm
Well, count me as one of those pro-lifers who do object to abortions for rape. Don't murder the child because of a crime committed on the mother.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:03pm
see what i mean?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 10:03pm
While the debate over whether Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam are correct as to whether reincarnation is a lie or the truth will only be realized by each of us upon our death, I will stand with these 3 faiths on the truth that we live once and then to judgment.
The theology of reincarnation has been responsible in much of Asia for thousands of years in bringing massive suffering to hundreds of millions, if not billions of people.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 2:12pm
well, if i remember rightly, world wars 1 and 2 (mostly) were fought by christians, jews and muslims.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 10:06pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 2:43pm
¿what goes around, comes around?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 10:09pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 5:49pm
Sorry, so late...went out to see "Cloverfield" (Interesting, but nothing spectacular...for a spectacle)
No, the point is YOU just set an ARBITRARY "zone of comfort" that you are morally (or theologically if you like) at ease with a woman terminating her pregnancy.
"A few days".....so, upto "a few days" after implantation of a fertilized human ovum....
it is NOT a "human being" to you. And not "killing a human being" to de-couple it from the uterine wall and flush it from the womb.
Now...aside from your ARBITRARY time limit, what's the difference between you and the average person who has no problem with abortion in general.
Again, apart from your ARBITRARY time limit?
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 10:22pm
Now, any of you other "pro-lifers" (THRAWN, RIO, FREIHEIT) want to step and tell us YOUR arbitrary frame of reference from micro-second fertilized egg to...."human being"?
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 10:23pm
Posted by THRAWN 01/22/2008 @ 9:52pm
See following link for an old example. It's logically consistent when you give fetus seperate rights as a person independent of the mother.
THE LAW; Missouri Fetus Unlawfully Jailed, Suit Says
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4D9153EF932A2575BC0A 96F948260
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 11:08pm
Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 10:23pm
maybe this will help:
Iran looks to science as source of pride
Nuclear program stokes ambitions
By Anne Barnard, Globe Staff | August 22, 2006 TEHRAN -- The white-coated scientists at Tehran's Royan Institute labor beneath a framed portrait of the turbaned, bearded supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the head of a state that enforces strict religious rules governing everything from how women dress to what kinds of parties people throw.
But in the cutting-edge field of human embryonic stem-cell research, the scientists work with a freedom that US researchers can only dream of: broad government approval, including government funding, to work on the potent cells from early-stage embryos that researchers believe hold the promise to cure many diseases.
The green light for embryonic stem cells was possible because Shi'ite Muslim scholars have long ruled that a developing fetus is infused with a soul only at the age of 120 days. That allows stem-cell research in Iran to steer clear of the abortion debate that has made it controversial in the United States.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/08/22/iran_loo ks_to_science_as_source_of_pride/
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 11:18pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/22/2008 @ 10:09pm
My take is that it is more attachment to achieving certain results, particularly results we think of as good, invariably leads to bad results. Spinoza had this notion of looking at things under the aspect of eternity, and I think it is related. We do not know what ultimately will be good or bad actions viewed from God's perspective, so we need to put aside this notion that we know that by doing X, we are accomplishing good. We never know for sure, but if we think that dropping atomic bombs, flying airplanes into skyscrapers or what not is doing good, then perhaps it is time to think about how our notions of "good" is bringing forth what is likely evil into the world.
Case in point, suppose Roe v Wade is overturned. LVL might rejoice and think he has saved millions from "murder". Then suppose population pressure, pollution (lack of clean water) and so forth reach a point that there is such scarcity that War World III is the result and billions die - indirectly as a result of his actions.
It's never neat and clean like this - but LVL likely won't live long enough to experience the repercussions of his action. So what comes around goes around doesn't really work in that way. Many sow and leave for others to reap what they have sown. Karma isn't a balance. It's a wheel, a wheel that takes the bumps that are along the way.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 11:33pm
It's a wheel, a wheel that takes the bumps that are along the way.
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 11:33pm
i guess bush's wheel's gonna have one hell of a flat tire.
i'm reading this one up. thanks so much for your response.
perhaps you'll enjoy this site [sacred-texts.com]
in the meantime, if you need any help with polychords or orchestration, feel free to ask.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 12:23am
It's never neat and clean like this - but LVL likely won't live long enough to experience the repercussions of his action. So what comes around goes around doesn't really work in that way. Many sow and leave for others to reap what they have sown. Karma isn't a balance. It's a wheel, a wheel that takes the bumps that are along the way.
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 11:33pm
Nonsense. do you think these issues only surfaced in the 20th century?
And I repeat that the reliance on a supposed law of Karma and subsequent reincarnation is a moral copout from addressing the issues head on now.
Judeo-Christian belief rightly says that our actions today have consequences for us that may or may not be correctable depending on circumstance. But they do not alleviate our subsequent submittal to God's judgment. I would rather take the Judeo-Christian path that says that indeed, I am subject to the laws of sowing and reaping, as is everyone.
One of the critical moral shortcomings of Buddhist thought is the lack of true personal accountability. It was from this burden that the "Buddha" sought his personal deliverance (hence Nirvana).
The guy understood that the concept of reincarnation was destructive and he wanted a way out. His ultimate path was to deny any existence of deity or eternity of the soul (heck, he even denied the existence of a soul).
That is why Buddhism is such an empty religion. It tries to promise much while actually promising nothing. The nothing is that the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to become nothing. Completely unaware of existence.
It is no wonder then that American Buddhists can so easily accept as moral, the killing of something that a) has no soul anyway, and b) will simply be reincarnated into another existence.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/23/2008 @ 12:26am
hey, this stuff is very frosty-like:
Manusmriti written by the ancient sage Manu, prescribes 10 essential rules for the observance of dharma: Patience (dhriti), forgiveness (kshama), piety or self control (dama), honesty (asteya), sanctity (shauch), control of senses (indraiya-nigrah), reason (dhi), knowledge or learning (vidya), truthfulness (satya) and absence of anger (krodha). Manu further writes, "Non-violence, truth, non-coveting, purity of body and mind, control of senses are the essence of dharma". Therefore dharmic laws govern not only the individual but all in society.
i'm trying.
The satvik karma, which is without attachment, selfless and for the benefit of others;
the rajasik karma, which is selfish where the focus is on gains for oneself;
and the tamasik karma, which is undertaken without heed to consequences, and is supremely selfish and savage.
wow. life sure is a battle.
chapter v:
46. He who does not seek to cause the sufferings of bonds and death to living creatures, (but) desires the good of all (beings), obtains endless bliss.
47. He who does not injure any (creature), attains without an effort what he thinks of, what he undertakes, and what he fixes his mind on.
48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.
49. Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.
68. In order to preserve living creatures, let him always by day and by night, even with pain to his body, walk, carefully scanning the ground.
anyways......................................................
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 12:49am
THE LAW; Missouri Fetus Unlawfully Jailed, Suit Says Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 11:08pm
Huh, interesting. I hadn't really thought of that permutation. I don't think it's a defeater, obviously, since it only begs the question about whether the woman's claim has any validity, etc, but it is really interesting. Does a pro-life stance lead to some bizarre results? Yeah, probably, which I think means little more than that the law itself is complex enough to create some strange results if any philosophy is really enacted consistently. A good example escapes me right now, but I'll try and find one by tomorrow (by which I mean Wednesday).
Now, any of you other "pro-lifers" (THRAWN, RIO, FREIHEIT) want to step and tell us YOUR arbitrary frame of reference from micro-second fertilized egg to...."human being"?
Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 10:23pm
Hmm. You want the honest answer? I don't know. I think that a lot of the posters here are right: this is a very difficult issue, but I don't think that automatically entails a pro-choice stance, or at least not the kind of pro-choice stance we've seen here for the most part.
Right off the bat, I'd like to echo whichever poster alluded to the flawed reasoning behind Roe; I think it was a bad decision, and should probably be overturned. I refuse to defend appointing justices to the bench for the sole (or even primary) purpose of doing so, but I do believe that someone who believes in the original understanding in the Constitution will agree that Roe was a poor decision (though I would support them regardless of their agreement on that front; I think it's safe to say they'd likely be smarter than I am).
More fundamentally, though, I think that the pro-lifers are willing to engage where pro-choicers haven't: they're willing to treat the question of life as relevant. What I think is really important, as I've argued before, is that the ambiguity goes both ways. Though it may seem arbitrary to suggest that life begins at conception, I think it's also arbitrary to suggest that it begins right at birth; what about right before birth? right before that? etc. I think that both sides have a problem because they don't grapple with the difficulty of the issue, and what's really needed is a balanced approach that realy tries to take life into consideration without assuming that they know precisely when that life starts. That, I think, is the real challenge in this debate, and I hope that we will be able to make progress in it. These questions have to be confronted, from both sides. Both have something to add, and I hope that they do so.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/23/2008 @ 01:10am
Posted by THRAWN 01/23/2008 @ 01:10am
Notice you didn't answer the question in all that...
at what point in the reproduction process, do YOU think the fertilized human ovum becomes a "human being"...specifically?
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 07:11am
It is this karmic-life-force-energy that propels one into further rebirths, and whether one is born into a blissful or woeful state is determined by the karma of a specific being, not the judgment of others.
Posted by METTEYYA 01/22/2008 @ 8:18pm
If there were no judgement of others in a society, then wouldn't such things as rape, murder, armed robbery be fully legal?
at what point in the reproduction process, do YOU think the fertilized human ovum becomes a "human being"...specifically?
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 07:11am
Does it really matter? WHy is the drinking age 21? WHy is the voting age 18? WHy is the retirement age 65? It seems that, societally, we have no problem in determining guidelines or benchmarks based on a timeline. Wasn't it 1st trimester only?
Posted by Sliver at 01/23/2008 @ 07:33am
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 8:21pm
You were not in view in my first post but that is the main if not only reason advanced by pro-abortion advocates. In fact the expression of a woman's right, used in the Roe and Wade decision, is "a woman's privacy". Ms Valenti's article indicates that is the only issue a feminist need or should consider. So perhaps I read too much into your "fairness" in an article that was solely about women's rights and aspirations about which you said: " I also want to thank Jessica Valenti for providing a thoughtful post. It's nice to have an issue brought up for discussion without it being framed in a way that leaves no room for fairness."
I find no reason to change my view that those who oppose LVL's position, on the grounds that he is promoting a view based broadly on Christian principles in a judgemental way, are doing precisely the same thing by offering a judgemental and sometimes abusive response to his opinions.
I did not notice at the time but notice now that you are oriented toward a Hindu religious point of view so it seems that far from being a disinterested actor dealing with the issues raised, it is as much about your set of authoritative doctrines against LVL's set, as it is about rational dispassionate debate. And ditto for the Buddhists etc.
I had noticed we had a fairly judgemental Buddhist on board as well as a secularist. It would seem to me that a Gandhi or a Buddha may have hummed a mantra and said marvellous in response to LVL. How different are their disciples.
As you know Ghandi had a very high opinion of Jesus, though he was, in his pronouncements a bit ambivalent with respect to the Jews. There are some who would claim he was anti-Semitic.
Anyway this is a little gem, which may or may not have some Ghandi relevance to how to deal sensitively with the abortion issue:
"During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife," he said. "They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."
"Louis Fisher, Gandhi's biographer asked him: "You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?"
Gandhi responded, "Yes, that would have been heroism."
If Gandhi is your cup of tea, then you're a hero and I'm a coward but please don't be judgemental.
To get back to your response.
"However, the central question is not one of biology. The central question is whether fertilized human cells are "people" and have moral standing. In short, it's a question of ethics." "So, your comment that "one can hide behind an arbitrary definition of what constitutes human life and miss what is possibly the real ethical issue" pretends to miss the real question while at the same time, provides an answer for it. That is, if it is uncertain, then you think it is safer to assume fertilized cells are people."
But, I would assert that I am certain that fertilized human cells, even one's implanted on a uterine wall, are not people. Pretty much brings us back to where we started now doesn't it? "
No. It will only bring one back to where you started if you reduce what is inside the womb of a pregnant woman to " fertilized human cells". That is a classical example of reductionism. And that is the sense in which I suggested part of your argument, in seeking to define when life begins, is about foetal development, such as the central nervous system, which of course is the province of biology.
The issue which philosophers, ethicists and Justices of the Supreme Court have never been able to come to agreement on is when an embryo/foetus becomes a "human being" or assumes "personhood". (There is even argument about what constitutes personhood outside the womb).
Let the Justices (Roe and Wade) have the last word:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Let me suggest a very simple biological fact that LVL has already mentioned. Human embryos implanted in the womb of a woman are humans and they will never be anything else.
That is trivial but points to what I suggest is a different sort of solution. And it is that the embryos that are called foetuses after about two months, until birth are living, growing, developing human beings and that is enough to give pause to those who think it is OK to premeditatedly destroy them.
If we think in these terms the diversionary tactics of bringing up milliseconds after the act and contraception or embryos and foetuses that die of natural or accidental causes are shown to be no more than that.
Posted by harvey 79 at 01/23/2008 @ 07:36am