The Pro-Love Movement
Goodness, you know I’m in a lazy streak, when I’m too lazy to post (one of the many fine) guest posts in my inbox. (Yippee for chocolate easter egg induced semi-coma.) Here’s something from a very special guest that’s been languishing in limbo far too long . . .
The Pro-Love Movement
by Bored in Vernal
No single issue has been as divisive of women as that of abortion. Its battle lines are so clear-cut; one is either pro-life or pro-choice. A change of opinion on the issue by a politician is tantamount to desertion and betrayal. Until this moment I did not even realize there was another option.
Until now I have been vociferously pro-life, have used all of the usual arguments, have seen all of the usual films, read the brochures, contributed to the organizations. Until, with a flash of clarity, I have finally decided: I can no longer affiliate myself with the “pro-life” movement.
Have I converted to “pro-choice?” An emphatic NO. I am now “pro-love.”
With all of my heart I believe in the existence of the soul of an unborn child. I have felt its stirrings within me. I have held my 3 pound, 13 ounce daughter in my arms and help her fight–and win–the battle to survive. I have also miscarried tiny, perfectly formed 12-week fetus. How can I support the freedom of choice to end this life-possibility?
However, with 5 children ages 7 and under, I have briefly glimpsed the feeling of emotional exhaustion that would cause a woman to feel that she could not provide for one more child. Because I have removed myself from the battle, I can now empathize with the woman who has conceived a child of rape–part herself and part horror. I can be touched by the plight of a child budding into womanhood whose life potential has been suddenly and drastically reduced by a tragic mistake.
I stand with my sister-woman on one side of the controversy as she views the rights of the unborn child and contends to save a small life. I stand with my sister-woman on the other side as she articulately expresses that the right to choose what we do with our bodies must not be taken away by a state or federal government. I love both women. I agree with both. The view is indeed different from atop the fence.
Because I believe my stance could never be legislated, I am done with one-issue politics. I find myself more free to consider the many policies of political candidates when I do not have to automatically accept or reject them because of their stand on abortion.
As a pro-love advocate, I no longer spend my energy on standing in front of abortion clinics, marching in Washington, angry debate. Instead, my efforts are focused on making a loving world where rapes are less likely to occur, where babies aren’t born addicted to drugs, where children don’t need to find their love in premarital sex. My efforts are focused on better health care, adoption and child placement possibilities, child support issues, education and job opportunities–solutions which might alleviate the need for abortions. In this world, every baby is a wanted baby.
I realize this is an idealistic view. But somehow we have to remove ourselves from the current battle over abortion which is now going on in the United States. Overturning Roe vs. Wade will solve nothing. People will continue to hold divergent opinions and the legality of abortion will flip-flop every few years as different parties gain political control. Roe vs. Wade is not a worthy goal for us as a country. We must set our sights higher. We must unite in a movement which will address the problem.
Until now, the middle of the road has had no name. The activists have been on either side of the issue. I hereby offer the “Pro-Love” movement. It’s an idea whose time has come. It’s an alternative to shooting the abortion doctor.
We need activists who will reach out with love to human beings with all idealogies in all situations. A pro-love world will take all the energy we can muster. We have none to waste on a war.
I’m with you, BIV. Thanks for putting it so well.
Comment by Idahospud — April 11, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Me too.
Comment by EmilyS — April 11, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
You can see how long ago I wrote this…(with 5 children ages 7 and under) Just to make it clear, I now have 8 children ages 8 to 22). And no, this essay hasn’t been languishing in fmhLisa’s inbox that long!)
Comment by Bored in Vernal — April 11, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Amen!
Comment by Ana — April 11, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
I love your phrasing, “where children don’t need to find their love in premarital sex,” because it seems so often we overlook the problems already experienced by teenagers long before they turn into teenage parents. I always feel most sympathetic to ideas and social programs that try to reduce the number of abortions, because I can see how they are really helping people, rather than spending time and money on endless debate.
Comment by Day — April 11, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
Wonderful! I’ve been looking for that middle ground as well, and I think this can apply to other political/social/moral issues that we face as a society…Awesome idea. Love it.
Comment by cheryl — April 11, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
excellent!!!
Comment by mfranti — April 11, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Beautiful thoughts. I’m a firm believer in ideals! What would the world be without idealists? A pretty depressing place.
Comment by Rachel — April 11, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
I’m glad you’ve abandoned the ‘pro-life’ movement, but to me this just seems like a warm fuzzy face on the same old message: women don’t have the right to choose. We either have it or we don’t, and even if nobody ever chose to exercise it, it would still be an important political question. I don’t think anyone can escape it by personally dropping out or papering it over with practical ways to reduce abortion. The core question remains.
Also, contraception is conspiciously absent from your post.
Comment by z — April 11, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
BIV, great posts (also love the one currently on ExII). Adressing the root of the problem and loving people in order to help them… not a bad thing to think about at all.
Comment by Alisa — April 11, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
I love this!
z - I think the point your missing is that the debate between pro-life and pro-choice will be a never ending one. One side will not change the other’s view. And the hyper-focus on this one issue is taking time and focus away from issues where we can make a real difference to address the problems surrounding abortion as well as other issues that seem to get set aside.
I think getting away from the silly black/white one issue politics is essential to saving our entire political system in the US.
Comment by Veritas — April 11, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Well, I just don’t think it’s possible not to have a position on it. You can talk about love till you’re blue in the face, but at the end of the day the fetus either lives or dies. It can’t be both.
And I think it’s silly to pretend that every pregnancy can be a wanted pregnancy. There will always be wanted pregnancies that turn life-threatening, etc.. Sometimes the reason for abortion just isn’t something that ‘love’ could cure. Also, can women feel fully loved by a society that reserves the right to commandeer their bodies into pregnancy? No amount of love or economic support can make up for the loss of an important political right.
Comment by z — April 11, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
I think that’s why she said she realized it was an idealistic view. Obviously not every pregnancy can be a wanted pregnancy. The key is what BIV said– we have to work towards making the world a better place– where abortions are less necessary. I also don’t think she is saying she has no opinion on it. Like Veritas said, when you get away from the black/white and can understand both sides, you have a better chance of fixing the problem.
Comment by cmac — April 11, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
Well, great– if ‘pro-life’ people want to abandon their efforts to take away the right to choose, joining pro-choice people in trying to make sure it’s a real choice, I’m all for it. But I don’t think a world in which women don’t have reproductive choice is a world in which women are loved. So it’s not really ‘pro-love.’
Comment by z — April 11, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Women have reproductive choice - no baby wanted, no sex made.
More on topic - thanks for writing this, BiV. It puts my sentiments into prose quite well.
Comment by SilverRain — April 11, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Z - I think you are illustrating why this divided issue is tearing our country apart, politically. People in the black and white divide simply cannot accept anything but full acceptance of their point of view no matter how much the issue is ruining the electoral and judicial process.
People can’t seem to let go of it and say…hmmm, “why don’t we all work together on the things we can agree on and that REALLY need fixin and quit debating (and voting according to and campaigning on) something that the supreme court decided on over 30 years ago?”
I love this because essentially she is saying, “I morally don’t feel right about abortion, but the country and its highest court have decided that it is a legal right. Lets move on and work together“
Comment by Veritas — April 11, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Veritas,
cus, the politicians need those issues as a stick to beat their constituents with. how else could they get elected. it wouldn’t be by actually trying to make the country a better place.
Comment by mfranti — April 11, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
…and I agree with your point.
Comment by mfranti — April 11, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Right, SilverRain, because nobody ever gets raped. And we could all just stop having sex right now and our husbands wouldn’t leave us or cheat on us. I think it’s really inappropriate to give such short shrift to rape.
Here’s how I see it: in BIV’s imagined world, either women have the right to choose or they don’t. If they don’t, I fail to see how such a world could be ‘pro-love’ because the consequences for women would be so severe. The economic and social support BIV describes could never make up for the loss of this political right. If women do have the right to choose, in the imagined society, I fail to see how that’s any different from being pro-choice.
Comment by z — April 11, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
I see where Z is coming from…if we aren’t interested in protecting the ability to have a safe abortion, we could one day be back where even a physically risky pregnancy could not be legally terminated. It might be a slippery slope–but not far fetched.
I would add to this change in opinion the distribution of birth control. While we may have the option to not have sex (excluding the obvious unavoidable situations) it is very difficult to convince people that sex should only be done if you are prepared to be a parent. And, if we are interested in reducing abortions, birth control plays a crucial role.
And that’s what I think!
Comment by AngelaM — April 11, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
I think a world in which abortion is the source of a woman’s independence is not a world in which women are loved.
Comment by madhousewife — April 11, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
I agree, madhousewife, but we could still have the right to abortion and not be relying on it for independence.
Comment by z — April 11, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
Z - if you re-read the post she acknowledges that Roe v. Wade was decided and that trying to overturn it is a silly waste of time.
She may (and I agree with her) personally feel that abortion is wrong usually. But, really, we are wasting our time with this whole pro-life/choice business.
I see no argument by her or anyone else that we would like to take abortion away from those who legitmally need it. The knee jerk reactions (I swear you didn’t read past “I have been vociferously pro-life”) are why the silly abortion debate is killing america. Do you care more about people coming over to your side or about making the world a better place?
Comment by Veritas — April 11, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
this thread reminds me so much of many of the documentaries I watch.
Many people come up in a totally different world than many of us. they come up only knowing pain, war, addiction, prostitution, and death. They never know that they have an option to move outside of their given circumstances. They just don’t know!
Just as we don’t know where those people are coming from. We don’t understand the decisions people have to make just to BREATHE another day, another hour.
BIV has touched on something so very important. It’s love for the people that is going to change the world. but it starts one person, one neighborhood, one city….at a time.
Comment by mfranti — April 11, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
Love the love. Scary topic. Not only one topic, though, because the two sides see it from such different angels. it’s not even the same issue for both. One sees Sanctity of Life. The other sees Quality of Life. One seems only to think of the unborn. the other seems only to think of the woman. It’s hard to get a pro-lifer to see the woman’s quality of life important as fetus sanctity of life and it is hard to get a pro-choicer to see a fetus sanctity of life important as womans quality of life.
If a fetus is always a human life worth saving, abortion is killing. If the fetus is ever a threat to the mother’s life and HER life is worth saving, abortion is medical. Who’s right? Yes. Who’s wrong? Yes.
Comment by anon — April 11, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
z, the road I’ve taken on this issue pretty much resembles BIV’s–even though I’m definately pro-choice from a legal perspective. I’m simply more interested in lessening the frequency of women facing this particular choice than I am in lobbying for its existence, since the supreme court has taken care of that for me. There may come a time when I feel inclined to once again take up the posterboard and march, but not now. ANd frankly, marching is a hell of lot easier than working to educate women about contraceptives or lessen domestic and sexual violence, or offer women pregnancy counseling, or any number of other things. It’s easier to change laws than the cultures which fight over them, yes? (Not that changing laws is easy–Utah didn’t illegalize marital rape until 1989, for crimeny’s sake).
BIV’s post actually reminds me a lot of Naomi Woof’s essay “OUr Bodies, Our Souls” both because it aknowledges the vast culteral sea of pain between the black and white slogans and slurs, and because it encourages empathy for those with whom you disagree on the legality issue.
Sure, I agree with you that we need to keep abortion legal (safe, and rare) and that contraception needs to be part of the conversation. But a blog post can’t cover everthing or it wouldn’t be a blog post. It would be a book.
Comment by janet — April 11, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Just a note on the question of whether souls inhabit fetuses: wouldn’t that turf them back to the pre-existence in cases of abortion (whether the miscarraige or elective variety)? That seems suspect to me. Of maybe just horrifically painful in its ability to offer women–LDS women in particular, and we seem especially gifted at self-flagellation–new ways to guilt ourselves into instability.
If you tell mother this, for instance, she’d take it as evidence that somehow her body denied 7 souls their shot at mortality, at least on that go ’round. For which she would no doubt blame herself. Not helpful.
Of course I have no idea what the truth is on that question, but it does seem like you could be sealed to a miscarried fetus if souls were already present.
Comment by janet — April 11, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
Is this going on a tangent? Well, here I go anyway. I have been troubled by what seems a contradiction in the Church’s official stance on abortion. Only in the case of rape, incest, or to protect life of the mother. And only after prayerful consideration, etc. I find it interesting that the church hasn’t taken the extremist vie–that it isn’t the baby’s fault how s/he got here so don’t punish the unborn. Because, correct me if I am wrong, the church sees abortion as imoral because it is ending a life. Why, then, is it okay in some instances? And what do you do with all of those unused embryos when you are done with IVF?
I guess it goes to the whole discussion of when life begins. The church hasn’t taken a stance on that (again, correct me if I am wrong) but maybe it is just more practical to take a hard line approach. Or maybe it isn’t even about the fetus. Maybe it is about consequenses? Anyone out there able to more clearly state what I am trying to get at?
Comment by AngelaM — April 11, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
AngelaM–You’re right that the church has no position on what you should do w/”leftover” embies after an IVF (I checked when I thought I might have leftovers, a pipedream as it turns out). Usually you have the choice, if they make it to blastocyste stage, of letting them die on their own in the dish or freezing them–either for your own later use, for research, or for donation to an infertile couple. This latitude, as well as the church’s abortion stance, leads me to believe that while the official position may hold fetuses as “alive” it doesn’t qualify them as fully human. Or, if they are, they rank below the mother when a choice must be made. I’m inclined towards the former since otherwise I’d be sealed to 6 embyoes :).
It’s a position which troubles a lot of my evangelical friends and suprises the liberal ones, who assume the Mormons must be as conservative on the issue as the Catholics–who supposedly don’t believe in IVF (though the rank and file seems to have disregarded that almost as willingly as the contraceptive ban).
Comment by janet — April 11, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
I hope abortion is never illegal, because I understand there are circumstances I could find myself in where it would be the best option for me. I can’t imagine ever wanting an abortion; but it really isn’t as simple as, “If you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex.” Furthermore, the abortion debate has become about so much more than abortion - it’s become about a woman’s right to control her own sexuality, it’s become about a patient’s right to choose his or her own healthcare.
Having said that - I agree that we should do more to make abortion unnecessary. According to Jim Wallis, poverty accounts for 50% of all abortions in the US. Half of all women have abortion because they didn’t have access to affordable birth control, or because they can’t afford to raise another child. Already, we could cut the abortion rate in half. If we do more to raise the self-esteem of our daughters, so that they don’t find their value in sex or in their attraction to the opposite sex, that would reduce abortion further. Teach men to respect women, and you should (at least theoretically) reduce the incident of rape. Abortion will probably always be a medically-necessary option. (It’s also worth keeping in mind that the abortion figures are inflated a bit; there is no distinction between an abortion and a medically necessary D&C.) But I agree that, rather than fighting the same tired old battles, we should look at ways to make it unnecessary.
Comment by Quimby — April 11, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
This is a painful issue and one which doesn’t lend itself to an either/or approach. Abortion is established as legal means of safe medical practice to terminate in many countries. The dangers of unsafe abortions in countries before the issues were given a legal framework were horrific.
I have an open mind but have consistently felt uncomfortable about the levels of abuse of women seeking medical help and counselling about their choice, the attacks and murders of medical practitioners;so I couldn’t support a one issue anti movement. I wouldn’t perform an abortion but I have seen women who chose to abort in tragic circumstances, rape being the most extreme.
Since BIV wrote this some forms of contraception have arrived “the morning after pill” which may resolve earlier some of the problems of assault and rape or multiple rape, again i for one could not object to any sister who in these circumstances chose abortion.
I keep an open mind, would pray and feel the Church has adopted a wise course in allowing such prayerful choice within some guidelines. In any event I respect a women’s right to make choices with love and support not prescription an lack of support. The loss and grief associated with miscarriage is life long for both parents, I imagine for mothers the loss of a life in any circumstance is painful.
Thanks BIV for raising this thought provoking topic.
Comment by Max C — April 11, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
Sounds like the statistic would be inflated more than “a bit.” It’s quite infuriating, really.
Comment by Janet — April 11, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
Yeah, think women with one year olds that fuss all day long should be given a break if they decide that … well you know….I also think that fathers with wayward teenage daughters ought to be able to … you know, well…. and parents with sons that are always in trouble with the law ought to be able to … you know… and parents with seven year olds who just can’t get math no matter how hard you try need a way to … well you kniow…
Comment by al_miller — April 12, 2007 @ 12:09 am
Oh how I would love to see a world where issues were not alwasys seen as black or white and there was less of the “my way or the highway” attitude. How wonderful if we could debate issues with the hope of reaching a concensus NOT a capitulation to our way of thinking. I see such anger and refusal to listen to any other opinion in our world today that I sometimes despair. Like has been mentioned, very few topics, including abortion, have all the right on one side and if we could learn to find the middle ground how much better it would be. BIV I would like to join you in the Pro Love movement.
Comment by Dianna H. — April 12, 2007 @ 12:20 am
BIV, having read your post, and learning more about you, i have to declare my wonder at how you could possibly be BIV with EIGHT children!!! Your monicur seems like an oxymoron.
perhaps it’s ironic?!
that said, i enjoyed your thoughts. my take on the church’s position is that they don’t need to get any more specific than they are…”for behold it is not meet that i should command in all things, for (s)he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant, wherefore (s)he receiveth no reward.” comes to mind when i ponder the question of what should the church’s stance be on this. no two circumstances will be the same. we should just follow the spirit in any decision we face…especially the hard ones. i’ve always been grateful that there are some areas that we are asked to make our own decisions with the aid of the spirit.
Comment by blue — April 12, 2007 @ 12:57 am
Dianna–don’t you love how people act as though there only two sides to an issue when inevitably at least 2o+ exist?
BIV–I hadn’t thanked you for sending this in. Hearty thanks. Have you read Naomi Woolf’s essay? She’s coming at the issue from a different starting point than you, but the essay is loving and thoughtful.
Comment by janet — April 12, 2007 @ 12:58 am
Great post.
I find myself more free to consider the many policies of political candidates when I do not have to automatically accept or reject them because of their stand on abortion.
Exactly.
Comment by Chino Blanco — April 12, 2007 @ 5:11 am
It is refreshing to hear both sides of an emotionally charged issue expressed with clarity and love. Thank you.
I have had close friends who were “accidentally” pregnant, while single. They chose abortion. I used to feel that was certainly their right. My heart is rent with their pain.
But I have not been able to avoid the conclusion that the moment the zygote is combined with the spermatoa, and a new and unique set of human DNA is formed, that ovum is a human life. A child, if you will. It is still up in the fallopian tube, and the woman isn’t yet pregnant, but it is a human being. A brother or sister.
As a man who has given much of my life’s resources to the support of eight stepchildren by two different mothers, I must say that I do not find it cruel or unusual punishment to inflict the burden of care for that baby on its mother, at least to carry it to term and then, if she cannot support it, to give it up for adoption. I had a bishop whose wife could not concieve, and they waited for years to adopt. What a joy was theirs when they finally were able to adopt a son!
I know it would be a great burden on a teenage girl to be required to bear her pregnancy until she could surrender her baby to adoption. Yet I have concluded that there is no better solution. That is the best available option.
One of the “benefits” of compelling all pregnant women to carry to term would be a powerful pressure on young women (and boys) to avoid casual sex. I think fear of pregnancy works as a significant disincentive to taking this sacred procreative power as a casual thing for pleasure only. “Abortion rights” negates this positive aspect for society.
Although I believe the fetus to be a human child, I have never advocated criminalizing the mother who aborts. I am to aware of her panic and pain, and far to sympathetic to issues. She gets my pity for the eternal consequences that she will likely suffer, as well as for the emotional pain she will likely feel here in mortality for her decision to end the life of her child. But I will not treat her as a murderer.
The abortion doctor, however, who violates his hypocratic oath, by knowingly aborting a baby, I hold in total contempt. I would charge him with murder.
Yes, yes. Making the doctor a criminal (which he is), would drive him underground, or greatly reduce the availability of clinical abortions. Some women choosing abortions, particularly poor ones, would suffer from the lack of proper hospital standard abortions. That to has a good side, in that it further discourages the young woman from aborting her baby.
The arguements that some women would still get their babies aborted and some poor women would be more burdened by unwanted pregnancies than wealthy women do not hold any water with me. The question is whether the state should sanction the aborting of babies, or make it a crime of murder, not whether obtaining illegal abortions is difficult and expensive, and therefore burdensome on those pursuing them. It is expensive and dangerous to obtain illegal drugs to, and people still do it. No doubt it is harder on poor women users to obtain their drugs than it is for wealthy women users, but that isn’t relevant to whether the state should sanction drug abuse, and treat dealers as honored businessmen helping the needy drug users.
To those dear sisters who have had a baby aborted, my heart is full of mercy for you. I trust JC will also be as merciful as he can be. He felt your pain, and knows what you went through.
Here’s a threadjacking question: Since sin is about making wrong decisions, which is the greater wrong: 1. Having casual sex, or 2. Aborting the baby that results? In other words, does the couples committing the sin of union when they aren’t willing to accept the pregnancy as a consequence as great a sin as aborting the consequence when it appears within the woman?
Comment by Trueheart — April 12, 2007 @ 6:01 am
AngelaM (28),
I’ve always assumed that the exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother’s health had to do with the mother’s exercise of her agency. Agency always comes with consequences, good and bad. If a woman has used her agency to have sex, she has also accepted the possible consequences of sex, including pregnancy. By the time she is pregnant and thus could have an abortion, her decision has already been made (by the fact that she had sex in the first place).
In cases of rape or incest, however, that choice/agency was taken from her, so she is not compelled to accept the consequences of someone else’s agency. (Note that I do NOT mean to imply that rape victims don’t suffer unwanted consequences–just that an unwanted pregnancy is one of the few results of rape that we can take decisive physical action to end.)
The exception for the mother’s health seems to be along the same lines…it’s a situation that is beyond the mother’s control, so she is given the opportunity to deal with it in the way she chooses.
Obviously there is no black and white here, either in terms of where sex crosses the line into rape, or when a mother’s life is really on the line. But I think the Church has largely avoided the “when does life begin” debate because it’s not necessarily the basis of the argument.
Comment by Melanie — April 12, 2007 @ 6:09 am
Oh, yes. Bored in Vernal: My wife is a Bowden from there. Do you remember some of the Bowdens?
Comment by Trueheart — April 12, 2007 @ 6:09 am
I was going to post a defence, but I realized the way I wanted to word it would have been very rude and others have already dealt with it much better than I would have. What I will say is that if a husband will leave or cheat on his wife for not having sex with him, that marriage has a serious problem already.
I stated it simply (no baby, no sex) to address one particular attitude which never ceases to infuriate me, that, somehow, people want to be able to have indiscriminate sex and still avoid the consequences by ending someone else’s potential life. That is selfish and ignorant at best, and angers me as few things can. It would be similar to an attitude of “I want to be able to play Russian Roulette as much as I like, and not ever be shot myself. As long as the consequences belong to someone else, I’m fine with that.”
In addition, I feel that abortionists prate on and on about “women’s rights and women’s choice” without ever admitting that there are serious potential consequences for the woman. It is akin to pushing alcohol or drugs on someone who doesn’t understand addiction. There are multitudes of emotional and physical repercussions for submitting to an abortion, not the least of which inuring women and men to a sense of responsibility. That undermines one of the most sacred tenets of God - agency.
I do not believe that abortion should be made illegal. But I do believe that people need to be educated to make an open-eyed decision. (Including letting the careless potential mother hear/see the heartbeat of her child.) All of the “what-if’s” that abortionists love to bring up have other solutions tailored to the situation. In addition, they should be exceptions, not rules. That is a basis for a middle ground I can live with.
Thank you, Melanie, for your comment. It is a very polite way of explaining why I made the comment I did.
Comment by SilverRain — April 12, 2007 @ 7:47 am
BIV
this is a wonderful post–sign me up for “Pro-Love”!
Comment by Space Chick — April 12, 2007 @ 8:54 am
I think the problem z, and I, and others have is that a ‘pro-love’ movement is already what pro-choice people would say they are doing. Planned parenthood clinics do abortions, true, but most of what they do is give out contraceptive info and methods, and do women’s health screenings and proceedures and try in some small way to do what they believe will help women.
Pity the clinics are being shuttered. Lack of contraception can only increase the problem.
Pro-choicers believe women should have access to safe, legal abortion. But very, very few [if any] would tell you that abortion is what a woman should strive for; that woman should ignore birth control just to have an abortion, that abortion is the goal.
As for ‘the zygote is a human being’ — well that’s the problem, no? I don’t believe it is. I do believe it’s a vessel being prepared for some spirit child, and to abort it [at least in the early months] is more akin to theft than to murder. But I don’t believe early term abortion is murder. Though most on this blog would [undoubtably] disagree.
Yes, the joy of the adopting parents is beyond words. But to force a woman [comandeer her body] to produce babies for those who can’t? Sound like some sci-fi, dystopic state-sanctioned kind of slavery . . .
Now that’s creepy.
Comment by Not Ophelia — April 12, 2007 @ 9:19 am
I think that the difficulty is that people who view themselves as pro-life do not perceive the pro-choice movement as being about preventing the need or desire for an abortion. While I agree that most individuals in the pro-choice camp want abortion to be “legal, safe, and rare” and strive to provide contraception as a way to prevent the need for an abortion, I don’t generally the issue talked about , from either side, as a need to create a world where women would want to have children. Pro-life advocates define the controversy in terms of “life” while Pro-choice advocates define it in terms of “choice”. It’s like we are talking past each other. I think this approach gives us a different position from which to have a dialogue without the charged choice/life arguments.
I think that the pro-love approach is useful particularly in the generally conservative LDS context, because it helps people with these worldviews to see that others who choose abortions don’t necessarily do it because they are baby-hating murderers, but that there are societal conditions and personal situations that would make a person need or want an abortion and that maybe we should work on making the world a place where women want to have children (i.e. accessible health care, child care, stable families, addressing domestic violence, etc.) or are able to prevent getting pregnant (again, accessible health care and birth control), rather than saying that the other camp is a group of bad or misguided people who want to either “destroy life” or “take away a woman’s autonomy”.
Thank you all for your comments; I really enjoy being able to talk about a particularly charged topic like this in a new way.
Comment by Amberly — April 12, 2007 @ 10:30 am
My roommate in college got pregnant and decided to abort. I took her to Planned Parenthood in Salt Lake City and sat with her through the mandatory counseling session. In that session, the counselor went over other options besides abortion, including adoption and keeping the child and the support available if she chose either of the first two options. When my roommate decided in terminating the pregnancy, she was required to wait three hours as a “cooling off” period before returning for the procedure. Incidentally, my roommate had been adamantly pro life until she got pregnant and, once she did, she became pro choice very quickly. You never know what you would do in that instance until you’re there and that’s why I believe the right to choose abortion or not must lie with the woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant. I still don’t think I could ever have an abortion and would cry my eyes out if my daughter is ever in that situation, but I’ve never been there so I can’t say for sure. And at this point in my life, I’m certainly financially and emotionally stable enough to have the child and keep it. Incidentally, I know first hand the beauty of adoption. After years of trying to conceive, including IVF, I gave up (I also have eight frozen embryos leftover that I’m trying decide what to do with them and, no, I don’t feel there are spirits in those embryos). My daughter was adopted from Russia and I will eternally be grateful to her birthmom who, despite easy free abortions in Russia, carried her full term and relinquished custody at birth. Nonetheless, I agree with Ophelia’s comment above that having children to give to those who can’t is a very strange concept.
Comment by Lulubelle — April 12, 2007 @ 11:50 am
I, too, have struggled with finding some middle ground between pro-life and pro-choice and decided many years ago that I would be pro-education. For the reasons that both Janet and Quimby so eloquently stated, I don’t think the extreme polarization of either side ultimately helps those who must struggle with this issue in their own lives. It has seemed to me that education for women, men, the rich and wealthy, or the poor and needy could assist them in finding help and solutions before the issue came down to an abortion or not. Education can also help all the other issues tied in with the pro-choice/pro-life debate like reproductive rights, contraception, healthcare, self-esteem, etc.
Comment by ErinG — April 12, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Trueheart-
How do you feel about an IUD then? (read about it here.)
This is a very complex issue. I agree with Blue that there is biblical evidence that supports pro-choice. In is part of our eternal salvation to make the choice between what is right and wrong using the celestial gift of personal revelation. Further; the atonement assures that we will be forgiven if we repent. What was the point of Christs suffering if we make other peoples choices for them through legislation.
Pro-love is an excellent name for what I believe is effectively a pro-choice stance. Christ suffered for us and brought the Plan of Salvation to us, his brothers and sisters, because he loved us. Father in Heaven chose Christs plan , and not Lucifer’s, because it allowed us to come unto him of our own volition, by our own choice. If we take away that choice, how are we fulfilling His plan?
This is how I feel about most morality laws. People have to be converted in their hearts, not forced into piety by the laws of the land.
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — April 12, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Not Ophelia:
The point isn’t that the state is commandeering someone else’s body to have a child, it is that the adult already decided to take a risk and now would force the child to bear the cost of the choice. You may disagree with the logic, but no one is saying that the woman must bear a child that she did not anticipate as at least a possibility, however unwanted.
Comment by Ugly Mahana — April 12, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
YES!!!!
Comment by mfranti — April 12, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
what about prostitutes? many women are forced into prostitution for a myriad of reasons in this country and others?
I am not talking about the call girl who dresses in cheerleeding outfits for celebrities. I am speaking of the millions of girls and women who grow up in circumstances that are way beyond their control.
Comment by mfranti — April 12, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Careful, this reasoning leads to anarchy. There are obviously some things that must be legislated in order to preserve a society. Whether or not abortion is one of them may be arguable, but the existance of such things is not.
People may not need to be forced into morality, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be forced to take responsibility and/or accept the consequences for their actions. Agency is meaningless without accountability, as was so eloquently described in the BoM.
As was once said, “Your rights end where mine begin.” Some feel that a man’s and woman’s right to reproduce ends when her or she produces an embryo. Others believe there is no child until the baby takes it’s first breath. The latter has always smacked of finessing a situation to suit one’s selfish desires to me.
Again, that is an example of a “what-if” that I described before. In this instance, it is prostitution and the situations that drive women to prostitution that should be addressed. It does not justify abortion.
Comment by SilverRain — April 12, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
That was supposed to be “HE or she.” Oops.
Comment by SilverRain — April 12, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
…as i was saying.
many women are forced into prostitution. if you think it’s a matter of agency, it is not, and It is inevitable that these women will become pregnant at some point. so what of those unwanted children? do we continue to view abortion as immoral because we are concerned with the sanctity of life even when we know that that little baby girl, when she is 11 is going to be forced into the same life as her mother? what of her sanctity/quality of life?
I don’t understand!
I don’t understand how naive people can be to say that what is right for oneself (with respect to religion and morality) is the right choice for a 14 year old in India or even for the miamaid next door. I don’t understand how what’s right for me, based on my testimony of truth, is right for everyone else, even when they don’t have a testimony of the same truth.
oh, it must be because my God said it’s right. Right?
BIV is so right that issues like these require love and compassion. They require Christlike love.
If you want to put and end to abortion than you not to do something to solve the problem. Roll up your sleeves and be prepared to get dirty. Solving problems doesn’t happen without work!
Comment by mfranti — April 12, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
I also agree with the general ideas from BIV, we should try to make abortions as rare as possible. I look at all the couples waiting to adopt and all the abortions, and think there must be a way to solve both at once.
I do not agree with the statement:
“the moment the zygote (ovum) is combined with the spermatoa, and a new and unique set of human DNA is formed, that ovum is a human life.”
The idea that fertilized eggs are life is not sound in my opinion. I can find too many confounding issues.
Here are some thought experiments:
A zygote can split into identical twins. If both twins are born, were there two lives in the original fertilized egg or only one. If only one, then the other life was created some time after conception, meaning sperm fertilizing egg does not equal creation of life. If both lives were in the original zygote, how can this be?
Virtually all genetic material is capable of creating life. Dolly the sheep was made from a nucleus from the mammary gland. No egg or sperm genetic material was used and no fertilization took place. Where did this life begin? With the mitoses of the original mammary cell? Are all cells to be treated as life or just the one which has an egg and sperm combined? We shed billions of cells each day.
Most conceptions do not end in a live birth.
Survival probability of human conceptions from fertilization to term, Boklage CE; Int J Fertil 1990 Mar-Apr;35(2):75, 79-80, 81-94.
“Preterm death of the human conceptus is common. A consistent biphasic pattern in the rate of loss from biochemical pregnancy detection to term suggests that most wastage occurs prior to clinical recognition. After simple adjustments for varying methods, existing data show that at least 73% of natural single conceptions have no real chance of surviving 6 weeks of gestation. Of the remainder, about 90% will survive to term.”
Many of these losses will be in zygotes with serious genetic problems. Can a zygote with no chance of survival be considered a life? Some of these zygotes have only the genetic material from a sperm, and no maternal DNA. Is that a life?
My own thought is that life is not about conception, it is about living outside the womb.
My take is that the definition of life is much more complicated than simply a sperm and egg united.
Comment by chas — April 12, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
“My own thought is that life is not about conception, it is about living outside the womb.”
In my hast I did not remove this sentence. It is just too difficult to come up with a quick definition of life.
Comment by chas — April 12, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
where did my last post go?
Comment by mfranti — April 12, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
mfranti - Is your last comment a response to what I said? If so, I don’t understand how what you said relates to my comment. Please explain.
Chas - One very important thing I don’t think you noticed in your “wastage” quote is the phrase “most wastage occurs prior to clinical recognition.” We are not talking about embryos prior to clinical recognition. We are discussing, for the most part, pregnancies that have been clinically recognized. You’ll find the “wastage” rate is much lower.
Some things to think about: if you want to argue when life occurs, you have to define “life.” Two of the most basic forms of measuring life are EKG and EEG readings. Both of those are generally detected by the third week of gestation, only 5 weeks after a mother’s last period. It is almost impossible to detect a pregnancy much before this time.
However, I’m not going to argue precisely when life happens. That is purely a matter of conjecture on anyone’s part, and I believe it’s different for every baby. But I am not trying to argue sanctity of life (though it is important.) I’m arguing the potential social repercussions of allowing men and women to avoid the consequences for their behavior.
Comment by SilverRain — April 12, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Silver, are you reading something I am not? I posted something to you but I don’t see it.
Comment by mfranti — April 12, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
And my last comment should have read “in the third week” not “by the third week.”
Comment by SilverRain — April 12, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Perhaps - comment #53?
Comment by SilverRain — April 12, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
“It is almost impossible to detect a pregnancy much before this time (5 weeks).”
Labs routinely detect pregnancies at 2-3 weeks of gestation. If wanted it could go down to a week (3 weeks after period). Since most fertilizations do not result in viable pregnancy, it is better to use the longer time.
Wastage was their term not mine
“EEG readings…generally detected by the third week of gestation”
The neural tube (precursor to the brain) does not develop until 22 days after fertilization (5 weeks after LMP), so whatever electrical activity detected at 3 weeks gestation, is not the brain.
I agree the “when life begins discussion” is not what I was trying to go for.
What I was trying to point out is the problem of saying a zygote (or nearly any stage of fetal development) is life.
Comment by chas — April 12, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
silver,
that was a continuation of my orig post. i hit the send button before i finished.
Comment by mfranti — April 12, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
The older I get, and the more careful love I give to my own kids, and the more I learn about what some would consider the criminal and drug-addicted underclass, the more pro-choice I am. Flat out, some babies are better off not being born, and some women are better off not having certain babies.
It’s not really a “choice” to have sex when you are so high on meth [alcohol, crack, you name it] that you don’t even remember your own name. And that is how some babies are conceived. In juvenile court you will see what is supposedly parenting that will make you weep. Some people should not have children, and any way we can keep children from coming into their homes [trailer parks/drug houses] should be celebrated.
Those in less dramatic situations should be heavily discouraged from abortion–it truly is a terrible choice, and there are better options. But making the choice for others, from our [often] middle class and/or moral and/or stable lives–tricky.
Comment by natasha — April 12, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Thank you for all your thoughtful comments.
#40 Trueheart, We have lived in Vernal for less than 2 years. I know there are Bowdens in town, but that’s all.
#35 Blue, When I say I’m bored, it doesn’t mean I don’t have a lot to do! But the move to a small Utah town from the Houston suburbs has been very difficult for me. No opera, ballet, plays, culture, universities, scintillating speakers. No Dead Sea Scrolls exhibits, or Vermeer on loan! I miss my friends, lunches, and Book Club. People here are nice, but they have their extended families and friends they went to K-12 with. They’re not really open to new best friends or conversations about controversial topics.
To those of you who brought up birth control, this is apropos to the topic of abortion. Someone mentioned the IUD. The same can be said for the pill, which renders the uterine lining hostile to implantation and often allows breakthrough fertilization of eggs. It is often difficult for pro lifers to reconcile this with their view of life beginning at fertilization. If this is indeed the case, why allow these types of birth control, or abortions in special cases (rape, incest, health of the mother, etc.)
On the other hand, the spirit obviously enters the body of an embryo very early. At least by the time of the first movements. Sanctity of life is very important to me.
Of course we all have our opinions on this, but I really appreciate when people can look at the views of others and give them a respectful hearing.
I would love to put the energy so many people expend on the abortion wars to use in practical situations with real life women. Let’s work with those women “forced into prostitution,” and their 11 year old daughters. If that is our concern, that is where our money and time should go.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — April 12, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
BIV, you WILL find some friends who enjoy stimulating conversation. It just takes a while for you to find each other–People are sometimes guarded at church and such because they fear being labeled the crazy liberal (or whatever label they are afraid of). Since you can’t possibley be busy with 8 children, you should start a book club!
Comment by AngelaM — April 12, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
“I’m arguing the potential social repercussions of allowing men and women to avoid the consequences for their behavior.”
First, Just to point out the obvious, men already “avoid the consequences”.
There was a really interesting debate on T&S many years ago, that I do not have time to look for in which Kaimi and Nate (I think) compared this type of argument to the natural consequences of jay walking. But in this jay-walking universe men had a magic bridge in which they could run over the street anytime they felt like it, whereas women were forced to run in front of busses. In fact men constantly encouraged women to run in front of taxis, and frequently pushed them in front of trolleys. The “Natural consequences” being that women were frequently hit by semi trucks, while men shouted down at them from the safety of their bridge that they really needed to be more careful.
I liked that debate (link anyone?).
And I have to say, that I just hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, the idea that we should view the consequence of pregnancy as some sort of twisted punishment. While it certainly works out that way enough, I think it can only be counter-productive to willfully try to use it that way. Pregnancy is a magical sacred incredibly difficult life event. But if there is any possible way that we can avoid using it as a punishment for a bunch of dirty evil sinners (sigh), then we should certainly do so. That woman is a bad bad bad person, I know! let’s punish her! give her a baby! Great idea.
And finally, using pregnancy as a natural punishment, as it were, is only going punish the most vulnerable women in our culture. On every level it is the vulnerable women who will suffer.
Women who are educated and independent and who have parents and partners who love them, who have a sense of self-worth are much less likely to be pressured into unwanted (but still technically willing) sex, they are more likely to use birthcontrol, and to insist that their partners wear condoms. And these women, if they do have an unwanted pregnancy, are more capable of taking care of a baby, and if they decided to have an abortion, these women will get one, even if a plane ticket to France is required.
So make abortion illegal and that leaves the poor, the uneducated, the desperate, the dependent, the abused, the drugged-up, the pitiful, the unloved, the incompetant, as the only ones being punished “naturally” through pregnancy.
And lastly (I think I already said finally, but so what), I’m still just blown away by the fact that most European countries have fewer than half the teen pregnancies as the US, also vastly fewer STDs and abortions, and that European teens delay sex 2 years compared to American teens, and most of this difference is attributed to better education (since most Europeans teens recieve vastly more and better sex-ed info in schools than US teens, and most other factors such as SES are a wash). When a solution to vastly reducing unwanted pregnancy and abortion is so clear and so easily achieved, we turn our backs on the obvious achievable solutions and let our kids wither away in incompetant abstenence-only ignorance.
If pro-life activist really were interested in reducing or eliminating abortion, then they would be the biggest advocates of publically-funded honest and thorough sex-education (the American leave-it-to-the-parents approach is a proven failure, where’s the moral high ground in failure). And yet generally, they are not.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 12, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
How is it obvious? Because of the movement itself? Droves of religious leaders and lay members don’t find this obvious, so I’m curious as to why you do. (I’m not being hostile–I really am curious. As stated above, I tend to find such an assertion tenuous at best since we aren’t sealed to fetuses lost via miscarriage or embryoes from failed IVF and can’t be, despite that many people would find comfort if we were.)
Comment by Janet — April 12, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
I also wanted to say, that technically speaking, the church’s stance on abortion is a pro-choice one. Within certain parameters, but still pro-choice. Which leads me to think that current church policy at least supports the idea that a fetus and a baby, while both important, are indeed at very least different sorts of human life (or pre-life). According to the Church, and I agree, abortion is a very serious step. But abortion is not murder. It is clear that the church would take entirely different stances and would advocate very different consequences for incest survivor who aborted her fetus, or a incest survivor who killed her three-year old son-brother. Even if both were conceived as a result of incest/rape.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 12, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
Dear fmhLisa,
Wow– what a thorough and thoughtful post. I’m a writer by trade but just didn’t have time to put something together that addressed all my thoughts on the matter. But look here, you did it for me. All I can say is… AMEN. I can’t disagree with a single thing. I’m happy to say I live in California where the “abstinence only” crowd haven’t been too successful. I also grew up in this state and we started receiving sex ed in 5th grade and got it every single year until I graduated from high school. I was stunned to learn that my Utah friends didn’t get the same education. What a shame– it’s so completely necessary. I’ve found that the parents who don’t want their kids taught sex ed in the schools are also the least likely to discuss it openly at home.
Comment by Lulubelle — April 12, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Silverrain-
I am specifically talking about “morality” laws. Stealing, murder, traffic laws, business laws, are put in place to maintain order in society. That is, has, and should always be the primary function of government. When a politician steps up and starts telling me what is morally right or wrong, or tells me what I can or cannot do with with my own personal body, that is when the ice becomes thin. Yes, I believe that for the most part people who advocate and support that sort of legislation more than likely have societies best interest at heart, but things like this leave the door open for those who will take advantage of these precedents to enact discriminatory laws. Some people believe that LDS people are immoral cultists…
Also in addressing the whole spirit entering fetus thing, I had heard that the spirit entered at the “first breath of life” meaning the first time they breathed air. This has been supported personally in my life as we have had family who experienced a still birth at 7.5 months (when birth would have resulted in a viable life),. They named the baby, buried the baby, but the church does not have a record of her birth, and she is not considered sealed to the family, whereas another member of our family had a child who was born and lived for ten minutes ( and took a breath) and is considered a sealed member of their family that they were allowed to give a name and blessing to, and thus he is in the records of the church.
Fmhlisa- in my experience in many other countries, their blase attitude towards sex in general contributes to the demystifying of the taboo of sex. It is the removal of this taboo that allows people to discuss openly things such as birth control and abstinence. I kinda feel it is a whole “forbidden fruit” thing going on here. We have made sex taboo, in art, media and life. I think we make it seem more attractive to have reckless forbidden uneducated sex by saying to rebellious teenagers “oh no you shouldn’t do that it is bad bad bad!!!” I’m not saying that we should hand our teens a golden ticket and keys to a hotel room, but we should at least educate them. In short, You are so right!
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — April 12, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Only in special cases where the woman is trying to become pregnant. Most women barely know they’re pregnant by then. Show me a woman participating in careless sex, especially if she thinks she’s practicing “safe sex”, who routinely goes to the hospital to find out if she’s pregnant.
Um . . . 22 days divided by 7 days per week is about 3 weeks of gestation, so I don’t see the validity of your point.
It was a choice to take the drugs. Again, this is just another tired “what-if” that doesn’t justify abortion. If this is a significant problem, than the drug usage needs to be addressed, not the pregnancy. It does not validate encouraging people in such situations to avoid responsibility for their behavior.
BiV - I hope you don’t feel that I’m “wasting my energy” in arguing the typical pro-life stance. On the contrary, I’m trying to advocate a stance that attacks the real problems, rather than the people in those problems and rather than encouraging and defending a practice that generally brings more heartache than ease of mind. I have already stated that I agree that each woman should make those choices, but that I don’t feel they are properly educated to do so. Part of that education is teaching a sense of obligation and responsibility for one’s own actions.
Sometimes they do, but they almost always have to provide child support if fatherhood is proven. That locks them into a heavy financial responsibility for nearly the next two decades of their lives. Since it isn’t possible to make them go through the pains of labor, it’s the best anyone can do. That is another thing that is rarely taught to men eager to sow their wild oats.
Firstly, I don’t see it as a punishment, but as a consequence. The two are not synonyms. I can see how someone might have difficulty understanding the difference, however - most do. It took me some time to work it out. One of the biggest differences is that consequences are natural results of the behavior. Punishments usually are not. Having to clean up a spilled glass of milk is a consequence, being yelled at for spilling the milk is a punishment. That is why I advocate pre-education and dealing with the root of the situation. I will reiterate for the last time that I am not advocating the illegalization of abortion. However, permitting and lauding careless abortions only band-aids the stab wound, so to speak. Refusing to use a band-aid so one can clean and stitch the wound properly is not a bad thing, whatever the popular opinion.
I am all for sex education, but I disagree vehemently with the current tenor of the education. “Here’s how to use a condom and how to take the pill” is not valid sex ed, in my book. Those should be taught secondary to abstinence and a sense of personal responsibility. Before anyone lumps me into the “‘abstinence only’ crowd” I would like to point out the word secondary doesn’t not mean not at all.
Comment by SilverRain — April 12, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Most business laws are arguably moral laws, and stealing and murder are certainly moral laws. All laws could be considered moral laws, in the end. For a short list: child abuse laws, underage sex laws, and underage drinking laws. I’m sure there are others. That is what society is - other people telling you what you can and cannot do. The difference is that some believe that once you are pregnant, it is not just your own, personal body you are dealing with.
Comment by SilverRain — April 12, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
Theft and murder transcend morality and result in chaos. Child abuse and underage laws protect children and those that the law has decided are to young to make informed decisions; hence maintaining order in society. A law that is enacted primarily to stop one from “sinning” is a morality law a.k.a. anti-gay marriage amendments and abortion laws. Women who have abortions are not creating disorder among the populace. Sister X next to you will have one performed and it will have zero impact on society at large. It will only affect her life ( and the life of her partner or family) Society will not go down the drain. Our economy will not come to a standstill. Her salvation, if she chooses not to repent will be at stake, but that will be the case whether it is illegal or not. That is at The Lords discretion, who last I heard was no respecter of persons and I suppose that goes for our laws as well.
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — April 12, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
That attitude is not a given. I believe that society will go down the drain, not as a result from a single abortion, but as a result from the attitudes that regard abortion as a primary solution to certain problems. Indeed, the attitude that pregnancy can be “unwanted” or a “problem” troubles me for the same reason. Therefore, I believe it affects society in much more than a sin/not sin way. Therefore, even by your definition, it is not necessarily a morality law.
Comment by SilverRain — April 12, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
#73
“Show me a woman participating in careless sex, especially if she thinks she’s practicing “safe sex”, who routinely goes to the hospital to find out if she’s pregnant.”
Actually, home pregnancy tests work pretty well, even as early as four days before the expected period. That would be less than two weeks after conception. I think there are plenty of women who would notice if their periods or a day or more late and take a test.
The term “careless sex” seems needlessly inflammatory, by the way. I have “careless sex” with my husband. Being raped, being pressured into sex, having consensual sex during which a condom breaks — none of these scenarios strike me as “careless.” If anything, I would imagine the girls or woman in these scenarios would be more likely to be aware of a late period and its implications.
Comment by Liz — April 12, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
“Um . . . 22 days divided by 7 days per week is about 3 weeks of gestation, so I don’t see the validity of your point.”
I also did the math, but what you do not understand is that a notochord is not a brain. That takes more time to develop. Your comments about fetal development and matters of laboratory testing show the need for us all to avoid exaggeration.
Comment by chas — April 12, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
It seems to me that the child “bear(s) the cost of the choice” far more if he or she is brought into a world by people who neither love nor want a baby. I think abortion is always tragic (though sometimes justified) but the repercussions for a child seem potentially far more deleterious if the child actually exists. Certainly LDS doctrine doesn’t suggest that particular souls are necessarily assigned to particular conceptions and that, should someone choose to terminate the conception, said soul is out of luck on the mortality front.
I’m adopting in a month, so I’m not being flip. I’m incredibly grateful that our birthmom didn’t abort–she’s quite brave, really. But I believe that any child is better off having to wait for a body than being born unloved and unwanted. My situation aside (I really want this kid, obviously), MANY children live and die with a dearth of love and adoption can’t easily overcome that. Would it be better if people didn’t have sex unless they wanted kids? Maybe so–but that’s not the world we live in. I’d rather see someone end an unwanted pregnancy than destroy the life of an actual child.
(and no, those aren’t the only two options)
Comment by Janet — April 12, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
silverrain-
well of course society is going to go down the drain. It has been prophesied in the scripture that society will become corrupt and bring about the second coming. I’m sure (because I have faith in the scriptures) that things are going to get really bad no matter what is legal and what isn’t.
I think that BIV is correct in saying phooey to all that law crap, lets try to make good with what we got. (not to put words in your mouth Vern…) As I have told my mother time and time again, I have no problem standing up and saying that to use abortion as a carefree form of contraception is wrong, that I am sure that it is not pleasing to the Lord to treat reproduction so cavalierly. I will not however, presume to make that decision for someone else through legislature and deny them the God given right to agency.
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — April 12, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
#67 Janet,
I consider the spirit to be the animating force of the body. This is all just my personal conjecture, but if you want to know my thoughts on the subject, here they are: I think that the spirit may move in and out of the body during pregnancy. I believe that the spirit is not bound to the body until that first “breath of life.” That is why the Church is able to allow abortion in certain circumstances without considering it murder. We must realize that an unborn child, especially one who has been animated by a spirit is a very sacred life possibility. But since the spirit of an aborted fetus may have another chance at life with a body, it is not the same as murder. (Just my opinion!)
#65 AngelaM, you haven’t heard my sad tale of trying to start a Book Club and later a scripture study group, only to be asked by the Bishop not to do so. (None of his beeswax, but that’s a story for another thread!)
fmhLisa, great comments in #66!
Comment by Bored in Vernal — April 12, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
This is a really touchy subject….I suppose I am a pro-lifer. I’ve seen both sides of the story. I known two women who used abortion as birth control and have had several abortions each and could care less. They knew the conquences and didn’t care. I saw my own sister get an abortion, back in the days when she had to fly to California to get it. To this day she wonders what that child would have been like. I’ve seen so many women, who have had abortions, suffer from their choice. I know the Lord will judge each one of them and they will have to pay for their choices. We really don’t have the right to judge, the Lord has told us so in the scriptures.
I happen to believe that using contraceptives is OK. My first bishop told me that, just not doing it (not to get pregeant) is birth control. I used the pill five years before my children were born and I used it five years after they were born. After that my doctor advised me to get for the pill for health reasons. I started using the rythmn method and didn’t get pregeant. Now I am 57 years old and into menopause.
Unless you are totally dumb, you know how pregeancy happens. If you choose to have unprotected sex, then you have chosen to accept your conquences when you do it…It is now between you and the Lord.
I think the only reason for abortion is for the safety of the mother. We definately need to teach our children better sex education. We need to teach conquences to our actions…We also need to love and let the Lord do the judging.
These are my thoughs and I know that each and every one of us are going to have our own thoughts on the subject. This is always a good topic for discussion.
Comment by Lucy Stern — April 12, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
Segullah essay winner, about IVF and fetuses etc:
http://www.segullah.org/spring2006/whenlife.html
It’s a really touching essay; she thought IVF would make her MORE prolife (she was already) and it made her, in a strange way, less so.
I’m with BiV about the spirit being able to move in and out until birth (baby Jesus’ body was being squished in labor when his spirit was in America telling Nephi to “be of good cheer, tomorrow come I into the world”). Carolyn Myss, a “medical intuitive” (so you sciencey types can scoff) has this trippy idea where she’s pro-choice, but pro-THE BABY’S choice. She has the crisis pregnancy-woman sit and talk with her and be very open and honest about just how bad the situation really is, and you are sure this is not a cop-out? and then together they work through the details of all the options, and if it’s really down to no pregnancy is the only best way, they have sessions over a few weeks where they pray hard and then ask for a channel to the baby’s spirit. They tell the baby’s spirit that they are very very sorry if it was looking forward to incarnation at this moment, and say that if the baby really needs this particular mom, she promises not to forget, and to conceive again, thinking of that person and hoping to be able to give it both the genes *and* the resources, even adoptive, if necessary, that it wants and needs. “But please, baby; I just can’t do this right now, and your life would be dreadful—”
And Myss says almost all of them spontaneously abort within a couple of weeks.
it’s the wackiest, sweetest option I’ve heard….
Comment by anon — April 12, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
BIV–your description of spirits that can jaunt in and out of a growing body certainly does mesh with scriptural accounts, and so far as I know doesn’t clash with any doctrine. Of course the existence of the soul reaches a bit past the purview of science, so personal conjecture isn’t cavalier.
And girl, I really want to hear why on earth your bishop thinks book clubs should be quelled. Sigh, sigh, sigh. Come hang out in SLC! Our RS has a book club!
Anon–i like the sweet (albeit a touch wacky) option. Whether or not it’s easier on the soul of the unborn baby I can’t say, but it seems quite possible that it could mitigate the pain and conflict for the woman involved (especially if the pregnancy then miscarries). If nothing else, it gives voice to the doubts and fears so many women must carry into the procedure room. I fear the Pro-choice movement has silenced women even as it has liberated their control over what happens to their physical selves–and that’s a pity. Wacky can be good
Comment by Janet — April 13, 2007 @ 12:19 am
On the subject of spirits of aborted fetuses, I remember reading an account in Glamour magazine (definitely a good source of knowledge, I know) of a woman who had had an abortion years earlier. She felt guilty for years, and went on to have a little girl, who said one day, completely out of the blue, “I remember when I was in your tummy the first time, but it wasn’t the right time so I went away.”
Hardly “proof” of anything; sometimes kids just say weird things; but it’s always stuck with me.
Comment by Quimby — April 13, 2007 @ 12:28 am
BIV how can a Book Club not be part of enrichment?
Some sisters and priesthood catch the spirit of enrichment others need help and persuasion I imagine! Don’t wish to be critical but it has been interesting to see enrichment expand here when a RS President was gradually shown the potential of the programme and members embraced and contributed so much. Thinks :why can’t priesthood have a Book Club too? Can I be alone (again) in wanting one? Actually I am a member of a mixed group and two RS sisters are also in it.
Comment by Max C — April 13, 2007 @ 12:38 am
I must say that I do not find it cruel or unusual punishment to inflict the burden of care for that baby on its mother, at least to carry it to term and then, if she cannot support it, to give it up for adoption. I had a bishop whose wife could not concieve, and they waited for years to adopt. What a joy was theirs when they finally were able to adopt a son!
Yes, the joy of the adopting parents is beyond words. But to force a woman [comandeer her body] to produce babies for those who can’t? Sound like some sci-fi, dystopic state-sanctioned kind of slavery . . .
Now that’s creepy.
Comment by Trueheart — April 13, 2007 @ 5:09 am
Not Ophelia, in #43, quoting and commenting on my remark in #38:” ‘I must say that I do not find it cruel or unusual punishment to inflict the burden of care for that baby on its mother, at least to carry it to term and then, if she cannot support it, to give it up for adoption. I had a bishop whose wife could not concieve, and they waited for years to adopt. What a joy was theirs when they finally were able to adopt a son!’
Yes, the joy of the adopting parents is beyond words. But to force a woman [comandeer her body] to produce babies for those who can’t? Sound like some sci-fi, dystopic state-sanctioned kind of slavery . . .
Now that’s creepy.”
Well, Not Ophelia, what about the woman’s right to choose whether to bring the man’s child into the world or destroy it, but once she decides to bring it into the world, the state forces him to pay child support of a minimum of 18 years. If you think it’s so creapy to pressure a woman to support the child for 7 or 8 months after she discovers she’s pregnant, why don’t you find it truly horrific to force the father to pay 1/3 of his earnings for 18 to 22 years even more so? What about the principle that there shall be no taking without due process (of law). Yet the mother-to-be makes the decision that will bind or release the father for all those years, and he has no voice in it whatever. Surely, if his “responsibility” is important enough to the state to use compulsory means to take support from him for so many years, then the state using compulsory means to pressure the pregnant sister to bear the infant for 8 months past when she might choose to not want it, isn’t so very creepy. I view it as a balancing of interests. The mother’s interests, vs. the baby’s interests. Either the mother’s interests are impacted for less than a year, or the baby’s interests are entirely obliterated.
Unwanted pregnancy isn’t fair. It’s messy and problematic. There isn’t a good outcome available. But isn’t it selfish to focus entirely on the interests of the pregnant woman and completely, utterly overlook the interests of the child and the father that are involved? Yet that is what pro-choice people do.
Another minor point is that when a father-to-be makes a choice similar to what the mother-to-be does when she chooses to abort, and the father-to-be (or anyone else but a practicing abortionist) does some act that causes the death of the fetus, they are, or can be, charged with the crime of murder.
Mother hires a doctor to eliminate the life within = her “choice,” her rights.
Doctor eliminates the life within the mother = Ethical, professional conduct.
Father eliminates the life within the mother = murder.
Child dies = No rights. No voice in the matter. No one cares for his/her interests.
While, as I’ve said, I’m sensitive to the interests and pain of the mother-to-be, there is something very unbalanced about the above set of “rights” and choices.
That is what the “pro-choice” people will not address:
The rights of the baby, or
The rights of the father.
Comment by Trueheart — April 13, 2007 @ 5:33 am
I used the term to specify the type of situation that I have discussed before (Comment #41), since such a situation is the one I am addressing.
I’m addressing this part of the sentence because rape is obviously a different scenario. I find abortionists like to use “rape” as a call word to excuse all abortions, which is part of the attitude about abortion which concerns me. It avoids the real issue in favor of a red-flag example.
The gist of my point is this: If someone is having consensual sex, they are responsible for the chance event that a “mistake” will happen. Sex is an adult behavior that should only be practiced by people with an adult sense of responsibility for the consequences of their own behavior. If two people are not willing to raise a child in event of a “mistake” - such as the breaking of a condom - they should not be indulging in sex. Although sex is not only for reproduction, sterilizing sex by saying that the reproductive ramifications of it should be separate from the physical pleasure is irresponsible, childish, and selfish.
Therefore, if a person has, for whatever reason, created a child through their own irresponsible behavior, I believe they should be required to carry that child to term and/or contribute financial responsibility for that child. I am not saying they should necessarily have to raise that child, since they are obviously unprepared and undeveloped to a point where they can do so, but they should not be allowed to avoid the responsibility for their mistake. That undermines half of the idea of agency.
Agency is not the same as choice. Agency also includes the concept of payment for mistakes made. Religiously, if we repent and are thenceforth obedient, the full payment is made by Christ, though there are always other aspects that we pay ourselves in the short term (humility, sorrow, other things depending on the sin.) If we do not repent, we will sooner or later pay the debt in full alone. Although this is a religious model, the basic principles hold true in a secular setting as well. It is not “merely” the pattern of God, it is a pattern that must be followed to reach maturity. Without learning to accept responsibility for our behavior, we never develop into emotional, mental, or social adults.
Comment by SilverRain — April 13, 2007 @ 7:09 am
#76 - I wasn’t talking about the development of the brain, I was discussing EEG activity - a measurement commonly used to define whether or not someone is clinically “alive.” Are you saying that your definition of life must include a fully developed brain? I agree that we should avoid exaggeration. Good thing I was suggesting possibilities for the definition of life, and not indulging in exaggeration.
Cassandra - this is no excuse for adopting the worldly attitudes that will make it happen. I have already said that I AM NOT ADVOCATING THE ILLEGALIZATION OF ABORTION!!! (That isn’t yelling, that is emphasizing. I’ve already tried italics (#71), so I thought I’d try capitals this time.) I am saying that lauding or excusing abortion does not support agency in and of itself.
#81 - That is a very odd thought. Interesting and very odd. I like it, though I’m not sure I entirely buy into it. At least they are really talking about some of the consequences of abortion.
Trueheart - that is a good point, and something that must be addressed before a truly equitable compromise can be reached.
Comment by SilverRain — April 13, 2007 @ 7:56 am
Trueheart,
Does Church policy influence your thoughts on “rights” and “choices?” In other words, Church policy allows for abortion (pro-choice) in certain circumstances, why?
Comment by Carlton — April 13, 2007 @ 8:54 am
.
NOT TRUE!!!!
Comment by mfranti — April 13, 2007 @ 9:43 am
mfranti - are you wanting me to address this, or is it a simple emotional statement? If the former, I need a little more to work on.
Comment by SilverRain — April 13, 2007 @ 10:20 am
in an ideal world, men would be responsible parents (even when living away from the child), they would support the mother as a parent, they would pay child support out of concern for the mother and child.
but, we don’t live in an ideal world. in fact, in my personal experience with child support–men get to walk away from the financial role of parent and then collect the kid on vacations. I am not just using my own experience but that of many many many women I know. oh sure, you say the government can make them pay…well not if they are in jail. Not if they don’t work. and not if they work side jobs where they are paid in cash.
Comment by mfranti — April 13, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Quimby at #83,
This book has similar reported accounts: http://www.amazon.com/Trailing-Clouds-Glory-Harold-Widdison/dp/0882907727/ref=sr_1_2/102-8739981-0592139?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176486926&sr=1-2
Though I like this book better: http://www.amazon.com/Eternal-Journey-Near-Death-Experiences-Illuminate/dp/0446520543/ref=sr_1_1/102-8739981-0592139?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176486926&sr=1-1
Full disclosure: The author is my uncle.
Comment by Anon — April 13, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Ugly Mahana wrote [way back in #48]:
I think most of this has been answered. However I would note a couple of things. First of all you state ‘the adult’. Does this mean you have a different outlook re: a non-adult? For example most states have a statutory rape law: i.e. Children under a certain age cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse. So a pregnant 12 year old can not have had consentual sex no matter how much she might have said yes. It’s not legally possible for her to make such a decision.
Also, not everyone agrees there is a ‘child’ involved.
Finally, a little fem crit exercise for you: If it isn’t a child then who is bearing the cost?
w/ no abortion alternative: The woman whom the state forces to bear the child.
w/ an abortion alternative: The [usually rich, white] infertile couples who don’t get a ‘perfect white baby’ ’cause there aren’t many.
Comment by Not Ophelia — April 13, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
In response to the person who stated this [71, Silverrain]:
‘It was a choice to take the drugs. Again, this is just another tired “what-if” that doesn’t justify abortion. If this is a significant problem, than the drug usage needs to be addressed, not the pregnancy. It does not validate encouraging people in such situations to avoid responsibility for their behavior.”
My answer: yes, it was a choice to take the drugs. So what? Another commentator put it well–pregnancy should not be seen as a punishment/consequence for whatever choices the woman has stupidly made. Why? Because of the great importance of the consequences. You say, well, address the drug addiction, not the pregnancy. Unless there is someone pay for this and force it to happen [a utopian dream that simply does not exist] it’s a totally unrealistic wish.
And, in addition, your implication [tired “what-if”] that this is just some lame hypothetical is way off. It happens all the time, and the main victim when the pregnancy continues is NOT the mother. It is the child [exposed to drugs in utero, born into a terrible family] that pays the price. No way is this right. I see it all the time. And I see the kids and the way they grow up, and those kids deserve better. And that includes being born into a different family. Period.
Comment by natasha — April 13, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Trueheart:
It’s hard to know where to begin. But a couple of things. First of all, we obviously disagree about whether or not there really is a baby w/ interests involved here. At some point, sure. But at one day? One week? One month? One trimester? 6 mos? 8 mos?
First of all, see Lisa’s comment back at #66.Then listen to me say The Horrible Thing.
All my life I’ve heard ‘biology is unfair.’ Why am I bedridden and unable to function b/c of cramps for 2 - 3 days per month? [Oh, well dear, that’s life. Biology isn’t fair.] Why does my husband get to enjoy the whole parenthood thing without the labor and delivery, without the irreparable damage that pregnancy can [and did] wrought on my body? [Biology isn’t fair dear. It’s how God designed it.] Why do my bones leach calcium and put me in danger of osteoperosis? [Runs in the family dear — that plus pregnancy and you’ve got a medical condition to watch out for the rest of your life.]
So for once, maybe biological advantage runs the other way. A man has very little time to say ‘no’ to potential parenthood. Once he’s done, it’s done. He’s exercised his autonomy and it’s out of his hands. Someone else’s autonomy now rules the day. And now she legally has a few months to decide whether or not she wants to put her life and her health and her bones at risk.
I do realize that power and privledge have a lot to do with this. Back when women were just property, just vessels for bearing a man’s child, she suffered and bore and died with no say. No birth control, no legal or realistic way to say ‘no’, no way to refuse even her husband.
Birth control and abortion have changed the balance of power in a more equitable direction. Unfortunately, there is at some point a baby to support and the state has decided that those responsible for both conceiving and bearing that life [whether that decision was made during in a split second of pleasure or in a [more] time friendly and hopefull rational process] should bear the financial burden. We could do it differently — we could force it on everyone through welfare, or just let them starve in the street [see certain third world countries] but we don’t. We inflict their support on their genetic progenitors, whether that genetic progenitor had 3 seconds or 3 months in which to make his or her decision.]
Finally
You are again assuming that the zygote/embryo is a person from the get go. I am assuming 1) at some point it will be, but not from conception and 2) that a woman is an autonomous person, not just a vessel for bringing a child into the world.
As long as we hold to these different assumptions then, yes, we are per BIV just talking past each other.
But, a ray of hope, perhaps. I do believe [per BIV] it’s worth all our time to change the societal flaws that make abortion more common than it ought. The goal should be to keep it safe and legal but very, very rare.
Comment by Not Ophelia — April 13, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
While this is true, I was referring to the fact that men can be held accountable for their behavior without their consent. It was never meant as a statement that this happens all the time the way it should. I do not believe that the fact that men often weasel out of responsibility should in any way justify allowing women to do the same. All that means is that we should find better ways of enforcing child support, not that abortion is right.
I addressed the difference between punishment and consequence. Pregnancy is a consequence, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps if we allowed consequences for behavior, more of the problems in today’s society would be much less frequent.
Saying that it is unrealistic is a cop-out. I think it is more unrealistic to believe that allowing people to avoid the consequences for behavior will do anything to solve a problem.
“Tired what-if” was used not to call the arguments lame hypotheticals, but to state that pulling all of the “abortion would be okay in this circumstance” arguments repeatedly does nothing to address the situation I am discussing - namely, women who choose to have abortions when they consented to sexual intercourse with no thought or care of the consequence. I am quite tired of trying to defend every little side issue when the main core of problems remains unaddressed.
Reasoning that those children are better off born in a different family is an angle that twists the beautiful doctrine of pre- and post-earth life into a sad excuse to condone selfish, irresponsible behavior.
And, while you argue that an embryo is not a child, I would argue that the woman had the exact same 3 seconds in which to choose whether or not to bear a child as the man did. After that, she, also, should have no more say in the matter.
As far as the embryo-is-not-a-child argument, I’ve heard that one multiple times before. I would believe it more if a few things were true:
1) If the same common measurements for life after breath were undetectable in the embryo.
2) If the people making these arguments had no other investment in the matter. (In other words, I believe it is rationalization, not rationality.)
Regardless, whether the embryo is a child or a child in potential, there is still a sanctity to it. I would imagine that most of the people who claim an embryo is not life would find blowing fertilized eggs or purposefully administering a medication to a pregnant woman to cause a miscarriage of a wanted baby cruel and somewhat sadistic. The only difference in such situations and abortion is the consent of the mother. Therefore, destroying an embryo is okay if the mother thinks it’s okay, but isn’t if the mother doesn’t want it. That makes the issue all about the mother’s “rights” and not at all about the embryo’s state of “life.” To me, such an argument feels like a band-aid placed on a decision after it has already been made to make the mother feel better, not something that has been subjected to the scientific process.
If there are any new points to be made, I’ll address them. Otherwise, I’m a little tired of running around in circles and addressing the same things over and over again, so I’ll withdraw from the discussion.
Comment by SilverRain — April 13, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
I addressed the difference between punishment and consequence. Pregnancy is a consequence, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
No, you made up a difference between a punishment and a consequence, and you are playing word games. Fallacious word games.
Some “consequences” are deterministic — if I shoot an arrow into the air, it will fall to earth (I know not where). Others are not — such as your example previously of having to clean up spilled milk. Cleaning up is not a determined consequence of spilling milk, it is one that you have created. You might just as easily be sent to your room or fined $100 or awarded a free trip to Hawaii for spilling the milk.
Pregnancy is only a “consequence” of sex because you choose to make it one. You then use the other meaning of your “consequence” label to justify making it one.
Stated differently, pregnancy is only a consequence of sex if the pregnancy isn’t aborted. But you claim that the pregnancy can’t be aborted because bearing a child is a consequence of sex. This is a logical fallacy.
Comment by obi-wan — April 13, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
My last comment/response to this:
“I am quite tired of trying to defend every little side issue when the main core of problems remains unaddressed”
You see the problematic pregnancies as side issues: I [and many others] see them as the core. By core, I mean that you can’t address the ideal situations without addressing the less-than-ideal. Why? Because you can’t base laws on what should be. You have to look at the wide range of actual situations.
No one here is saying that abortion is good [haven’t seen one poster do it–in fact, I think every poster has said, “for me, never”]. But the other pro-choicers here are just saying that in some real-life situations either 1) abortion can be the lesser of two evils or 2) abortions is not an outsider’s decision.
No one here believes that it is right have sex without considering the consequences. We just disagree on what options should be available once that sex has occurred, whatever the reason for the irresponsibility.
And, finally, to this: “Saying that it is unrealistic is a cop-out”
Nope, it isn’t. It’s just a statement about reality. I wish it weren’t true that our society lack the political or personal will to help drug-addicted prenant women and their drug-addicted, neglected children. But it does, and again, I see the consequences every day in criminal court. It’s not a cop-out to deal with the real world and describe it as we see it.
Just because we aspire to a utopian world [or a sinless one] doesn’t mean that we don’t have to deal with the imperfect one we are handed. And abortion, like divorce and other evils, sometimes is preferable to the alternative in our sometimes rotten and fallen world.
Good people can and do disagree on this. Best thing we can do is recognize each other’s good will and focus on helping each other make the evils as rare as possible. And, for heaven’s sake, protecting the children who are already here.
Comment by Natasha — April 13, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
Therefore, destroying an embryo is okay if the mother thinks it’s okay, but isn’t if the mother doesn’t want it.
Actually, no one here has said this. You say you’re getting tired of addressing the same old things over an over but you keep arguing arguments that no one here has made. That’s called chasing your own tail.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 14, 2007 @ 12:15 am
Okay, so just to address the question head-on, as per silverrain’s request, lets say we have two women, Lillith and Jezabel.
Lilith only sleeps with men whom she respects and always uses protection. Jezabel, sleeps with anyone with sideburns and says condom-schmondom.
Lilith never gets pregnant.
Jezabel does.
Now already one of these women is not facing natural consequences. Is this wrong?
In fact Lilth has never been taught that premarial sex is a sin. And she never faces any negative consequences at all.
If Lilith continues to choose to have sex, should she be forced to face natural consequences?
Should we ban birthcontrol for unmarried women? Or even married women? Should we ban condoms? Should we not cure STDs? Don’t all these things let people like LIlith avoid the natural consequences? That was certainly the argument against legalizing birthcontrol in the first place. And if you think pregnancy is a good way to discourage sex (eeeek!), then it’s definitely the direction you should be headed.
Now let’s say Jezabel gets an abortion. She’s every pro-lifer’s dream senario. She enjoys sex with strange men. She has a good job with benefits. She would make a half-decent mother. She’s not addicted to drugs. She feels kinda guilty for having an abortion (most women do), but does it anyway. I’d be willing to bet this senario happens all the time.
I haven’t heard a single person here say that we think what Jezabel is doing is a fantastic idea. In fact, even mainstream pro-choice types think Jezabel should get herself some birth control and use freakin condoms.
So if we make abortion illegal (and somehow prevent Jezabel from driving up to Montreal) and force her to face the natural consequences of her actions, then the natural conseqence of that choice is that we also force the 80 lb 12 yo Bess, who reluctantly agreed to sleep with her 17 yo boyfriend because her mom kicked her out of the house and she didn’t have anywhere else to go and it was too cold to sleep in the park, and she didn’t know that her mom didn’t have a legal right to kick her out of the house and she was scared and all alone, and the last time she said no to a boy, he raped her and when she told her mom she was raped her mom asked her if she was drunk even though she’d never had a drink in her life, and she’s only 12 and she doesn’t really understand that she can say no to this boy she really needs someone to take care of her right now (this isn’t a hypothetical btw) we also force Bess to deal with the natural consequences of that decision too. (now entering hypothetical land) And if Bess goes to a back alley butcher and bleeds to death, still all alone, we have to deal with that consequence too. And you know what, Bess would have grown up to be a fantastic person, a wonderful mother, and a general all around blessing to the planet.
So I say, let’s dispence with this natural consequences crap. It’s illogcial nonsense.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 14, 2007 @ 2:04 am
A friend of mine had a roomate who used abortion as birth control. She had four abortions in nine months. Four different men fathered her potential babies. Each was concieved during consensual sex. She is a pro-lifer’s dream. I don’t know of a single pro-choicer who would say she was responsible; in fact, I imagine everyone, from both sides of the debate, would say, Go on the pill, use a condom, say no.
But I also imagine she was not in a good place, mentally. She used sex to judge her self-worth. If a man wouldn’t sleep with her, it meant there was something wrong with her. If a man would sleep with her, it meant she was alright. She refused to go on the pill because she was afraid it would make her fat (and then no man would sleep with her, and then there’d be something wrong with her). She refused to use condoms because her partners didn’t enjoy sex as much with them (and of course in her mind, their desires were more important than hers).
Yeah, she was irresponsible. But what possible lesson would she have learned from carrying through with a pregnancy? She probably would’ve had to dropped out of college - she probably would’ve gone home to her parents - and I don’t even want to think of how screwed up her home life must have been. We can condemn her for having so many abortions. It’s probably a natural desire; most pro-choicers are appalled by this behavior, too. Or we can say, What sort of a screwed up society are we, that a smart, capable young woman thinks that her only value is in having sex, and what can we do to change that.
As the mother of a young daughter, I would much rather teach my child to respect herself, to give her the skills she needs to say no, and to have that choice respected by the men in her life.
Comment by Quimby — April 14, 2007 @ 3:11 am
The “Bess” story Lisa describes in 101 is why abortions should be available to women who can’t afford to pay for them. Not only should pro-choice (and pro-love) supporters work to keep abortion legal, but low income women, who have significantly higher rates of unintended pregnancy, and obtain 57% of all abortions, need access to timely and affordable family planning, including abortion.
Comment by ECS — April 14, 2007 @ 6:36 am
Lisa,
I realize it’s just a story–and it’s your story, so you can write it as you choose–but I don’t think it’s fair to project the worst onto Jezebel and the 17 yo boyfriend, and yet assume that Bess would have been some kind of wonder woman and perfect mom. It’s also beside the point, because we don’t want anyone bleeding to death in an alley, regardless of their own personal character or potential as a mother. Bess can be wonderful, terrible, or somewhere in between, but she shouldn’t be butchered. Period.
Having said that, it’s also not fair to argue Bess’s need for a legal abortion based on her crummy childhood. What about the boyfriend? What if he was raised with no rules, no example, and surrounded by men who abused and raped the women in his life? That would make him just as ill-equipped to make a good choice as Bess is. He might rape her or someone else, knowing as little about how to get himself out of that type of situation as she does about hers. But does that mean we shouldn’t prosecute rape? No, of course not! Certainly we need to focus our efforts on eliminating the various factors that put women in Bess’s situation. But those factors don’t give her an out from the consequences of her actions any more than the boyfriend’s background would eliminate a charge of rape or burglary or domestic violence or whatever else he might do. She made the choice when she had the sex–so the challenge is to solve problems way before a girl gets to that point. The fact that we care about Bess does not make abortion any less horrific or problematic.
Comment by Melanie — April 14, 2007 @ 8:33 am
There’s an excellent essay by Emma Lou Thayne entitled “On the Side of Life” that deals with some of the complexities of this issue.
The problem here is ignorance. Anyone who wants to make abortion illegal clearly doesn’t understand the full ramifications of that act. Anyone who utilizes abortion as birth control (four abortions in nine months?!) doesn’t understand the full ramifications of that act. We should all be helping each other understand, not wasting time arguing minutiae. We live in a very ignorant world. We’ve got parents refusing to give their girls the HPV vaccine on the grounds that they may become promiscuous. We have kids out there who do not know how they became pregnant. The answer is education, education, education. (And anyone who says leave it to the parents is just flat out in denial. These are conversations that are NOT happening.)
Comment by Lupita — April 14, 2007 @ 10:20 am
I love the statements that make no statement at all! It’s so…21st century! Especially that it goes against church doctrine, another bonus!
My answer to every question in life is…Love! You can never go wrong with it!
Is sex before marriage immoral? Love!
Are abortions wrong? Love!
Is homosexuality sanctioned by God? Love!
I’m getting all the answers right today!
Comment by Hallie — April 14, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
I do wonder how sarcastically dismissing the importance of love brings one closer to living a Christ-centered life?
Comment by fMhLisa — April 14, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
obi-wan: From Merriam-Webster
Different words, very different meanings. One is negative, the other one is not necessarily so. One is “inflicted” the other is “derived through logic.” The rest of your argument I’ve already addressed as much as I wish to.
Natasha:
Yes, you must deal with them. But 1) they are not what I was discussing, and 2) they have other solutions I believe much better suited to solve them than the justification of abortion. In such situations, the problem is not the pregnancy, it is the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. Addressing those circumstances is much more important than addressing the pregnancy. I restate that it is a cop-out to say “we can’t solve that problem, so I’ll focus on fighting for abortion.” I can’t imagine what sort of piranha-fest it would be here if I were to advocate a similar opinion for green-earth movements, or poverty. As for most of what you say in the rest of your comment, I’m frankly weary of repeating again and again that I am not arguing against the legalization of abortion. That is why I’m not answering the same old stuff again and again. For the most part, they are attempts to argue against something I’m not even arguing for. For the rest of the rest of what you say, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think I’ve made my point. I wasn’t trying to change minds, necessarily, just point out some things that are usually looked over.
Lisa - I disagree that it’s illogical crap. I think that promoting an attitude of consequence avoidance (which is what the current ramifications of legalized abortion are) is not only illogical nonsense, it’s societally dangerous. You can’t have a baby without having sex. Having sex leads to (at least a chance of) having a baby (almost) no matter what precautions you take. To argue otherwise is more illogical nonsense. If you choose to see it otherwise, you choose to see it otherwise. I think you’re wrong. No hard feelings, though.
Quimby - I wasn’t condemning anyone for their choices, I was condemning the choices and the society that allows such choices to be made in ignorance. Your last paragraph is part of what I was driving at. Thank you.
Lupita - Your comment is the other part, especially “We should all be helping each other understand, not wasting time arguing minutiae. “Tired what-ifs” are the minutiae I’m talking about. Those are things that could be hashed out later, after the process of abortions is changed. The rest of what you said is also what I meant when I said I don’t think abortions should be illegalized, but I don’t like the way they are currently legalized. That sums it up in a nutshell. Thank you.
Comment by SilverRain — April 14, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Different words, very different meanings. One is negative, the other one is not necessarily so. One is “inflicted” the other is “derived through logic.”
You’ve discovered the dictionary, congratulations. I’ve noticed that many sacrament meeting speakers (as well as entirely too many general authorities) find it useful in starting their talks.
Unfortunately the dictionary definitions are completely irrelevant to the fact that you are still conflating two different meanings of “consequence” and using that to bootstrap your argument.
The rest of your argument I’ve already addressed as much as I wish to.
Which is to say that you haven’t addressed it at all.
Anyone can make a mistake in logic, but once it has been pointed out and remains unaddressed, continued use of the same fallacy can only be considered disingenuous.
Comment by obi-wan — April 14, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
[quote]You can’t have a baby without having sex. [/quote]
Um, yes you can. Happens all the time. Haven’t you heard of IVF or IUI? Both result in pregnancy, no intercourse required.
Comment by tisheli — April 15, 2007 @ 12:39 am
Sorry, I didn’t realize html tags don’t work on this blog. Should’ve checked the preview panel.
Comment by tisheli — April 15, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Gosh… where to begin…
My husband Jeff was supposed to be an aborted baby. His mother conceived him while she was using an IUD. They were poor and had two young children and no medical insurance. They finally got state help and saw a doctor about the pregnancy and was counseled by THREE DIFFERENT DOCTORS to abort the baby… that the IUD could be stuck in a body part or his brain or cause all kinds of disorders. Her husband, my FIL, wanted her to have an abortion and was upset when she refused to do so. She prayed about this decision and knew she was doing what the Lord wanted her to do by keeping her baby. Her husband was not LDS, and she was [she was very inactive, had never attended the temple before, etc]. They really couldn’t afford another baby but this was a consequence of the IUD not working correctly and she believed that it wasn’t the baby’s fault for being conceived. So she continued the pregnancy, terrified of what she would see when her baby was born… she had been told horror stories of his condition and that he might not live long, etc.
She had a great birth, my husband Jeffrey was born and healthy and completely normal in every way. There was nothing wrong with him and the IUD was nowhere to be found. The doctor then told her that sometimes the IUD can fall out and perhaps this is what happened? She is grateful, as am I, everyday that she did not abort him! What a different life mine would be without him in it!
My dear friend {whom I will call M} was pregnant with her 2nd baby. She learned at her 18 week ultrasound that her baby was missing part of her brain and skull due to a stroke in uteroand that the baby would not live to be born and that if she DID live to be born, she would die within a few hours. M and her husband are staunch LDS members… they went to their Bishop who read them the stance of the Church and said that in this case it would most likely be appropriate for an abortion and that they had his blessing if they chose to do so. They consulted TWO OTHER DOCTORS who also shared the same opinion and one of those doctors was LDS also. They went to the temple, they prayed, and they decided that it was not their choice to end a life… if she was to die, it would be God’s will to have her die when He wanted her to… and not theirs. They prepared for her funeral. They did not buy ANY baby things for her and had nothing but a burial plot picked out for her. Rebekah was born in April of 2004. She is now almost 3 years old. She was born missing half of her brain but her skull is intact… and so is her spirit. She is a great joy to her family who loves her very much. I have loved and felt this beautiful baby’s spirit many times in my many times I have been able to help care for her and my life will never be the same again having known Rebekah. So far God has not called her home yet. My friend Marlene is grateful that she did not end her child’s life when it was God’s will that she live.
I have a rare genetic disorder that can cause problems to my unborn children, if I am not on a strict diet while pregnant… a diet that is very difficult to stick with and very restrictive. Often the damage can be done to the baby’s heart and brain before ever knowing the baby is in there… as the heart is one of the first organs to form. The damage to the baby from me not being on this strict diet involves brain and heart problems. Major things. Microcephaly, hypo plastic left heart syndrome, stillbirth, etc to name a few. I have 5 children under the age of 7, and we are expecting a 6th child right now. Three of our almost 6 children were conceived while using birth control…while doing the “responsible” thing. {Not having sex with my husband is not an option that I am willing to consider. I believe that sex is a vital part of our having a healthy marriage… it is not the most important part of marriage of course… but it is an important part of it.}Anyways, with each surprise pregnancy, I found myself devastated at first and very very upset at the implications and consequences to our baby. At one point during a pregnancy, my husband and I scheduled a vasectomy for him to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. I was overwhelmed with the implications of having our baby…. and I admit that at one point early in the pregnancy, I had thought about abortion as an option…anyone who knows me would be SHOCKED to know that about me. But I was totally devastated with the consequences to our baby who didn’t ask to be born with a heart or brain problem! Either choice seemed unfair! We scheduled the vasectomy, then we felt we should seek the Bishop’s counsel and go to the temple. We went to the temple first and found ourselves surprised that our answer was to NOT have Jeff get a vasectomy and that just because a child could be born with a problem, doesn’t mean that s/he will and doesn’t mean that it is a bad thing either as those children have the purest spirits!! We were stunned by our answer. And when we learned our baby had microcephaly, we were also stunned but not totally surprised. I felt intense guilt as the doctor’s had tried to get us to have an amnio and abort. Even though I knew what the Lord’s answer was, the weight and pressure from either choice was weighing me down. I was totally distraught. I admit I worried about the work involved with caring for a special needs child and wondering about the kind of life she would have?
Elisabeth Ann Coleman was born on June 8, 2004 and she was born healthy despite having microcephaly. Although she has had to deal with a speech delay and mild hearing loss {both of which have been corrected}, she is a normal, healthy 2 1/2 year old with no developmental delays or problems of any kind. No one looking at her would ever know that she was diagnosed with microcephaly. Today the doctors say it is just a genetic, familial thing because I have a small head too. I would have aborted a healthy baby… only God could know that. Doctors are not Gods… which is why I believe that personal revelation is so important.
Eainvolve women in healthy marital relationships, pregnant with babies they loved and wanted and they were willing and able to accept the consequences of the actions that got them pregnant in the first place. Each one of these women were given circumstances that they did not CHOOSE and that were not of their own making entirely… my friend Marlene did not ask for her child in utero to have a stroke to cause her hydra-encephaly, I did not ask for my baby to have microcephaly or for our birth control method to fail, and my Mother in Law did not ask for her IUD to fall out. Each one of these stories are more than just stories… they are 100% true… and I bet you could find a lot more stories like that just by talking to women about it everyday.
While I believe in the sanctity of life and the beauty of it and our Heavenly Father’s plan… and I am grateful for my beautiful healthy children, I am also equally grateful that myself, my friend Marlene and my mother in law were able to CHOOSE to keep their babies! While they were all placed with the option to abort their babies and they all carefully and prayerfully weighed those decisions, they were able to CHOOSE THE CHOICE THAT THEY MADE! I am so grateful for my agency, my ability to choose…and it will be a sad day when all of our choices and agency are completely taken away… that is the day we will be truly in bondage as many generations before us have been. Usually those ungrateful for their agency and their ability to choose do not consider it a shame to force THEIR decisions on others. I think of all the women and young girls, like myself and my friend and MIL, who also did not ask for the situations in which they were placed or the rape or incest or prostitution or abuse that has been placed upon them and who have very little choice in their life. To take away another one of their options to choose I believe would only continue to perpetuate the problem. I don’t know that I am pro life or pro choice… I tend to lean both ways… I see that abortion should be safe, legal, and available as well as counseling and adoption should be considered, but the choice should always and continue to be that woman or girl’s choice who finds herself in those circumstances. For those who use their agency, their choice to abort, as their personal choice of birth control and who could have supported and cared for a baby or is just unwilling to deal with the consequences of their behavior, I pity them. They will have to deal with their choices as we will ours. But to take away each woman’s ability to choose to make sure a few do not carelessly abort their baby’s is taking away our agency to force everyone to be good… that sounds a lot to me like Satan’s plan.
Stephanie
Comment by Stephanie — April 15, 2007 @ 1:50 am
President Spencer W. Kimball said, “Abortion, the taking of life, is one of the most grievous of sins. We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the Church in unalterably opposing all abortions, except in two rare instances: When conception is the result of forcible rape and when competent medical counsel indicates that a mother’s health would otherwise be seriously jeopardized.” Ensign Nov. 1976, p.6.
I think that the issue of “life” in general is extremely important to Heavenly Father seeing how the two most grievous sins are taking a life and improper use of procreative powers. I believe that it is naive to think God will leave abortion up to all of us to decide our own, seeing how it involves both procreation and the taking of life. Statements by church leaders such as the one above, only serve to emphasize the fact that abortion is no little matter.
In the end all this “pro-love” stuff is not related to abortion. I think that society should do a much better job at taking care of the poor among us. That is a central tenet of the gospel. However, I am still anti-abortion the same way I am against any other form of infanticide.
In the end, if you are pro-choice, millions of babies are going to be killed and if you are pro-life they will be allowed to live. By Planned Parenthood’s own statistics over 96% of abortions are for convenience (Not health/life of the mother and not rape/incest).
A fetus or embryo is definitely human and it is definitley alive in the biological sense. It has it’s own genetic material, and it is growing and replicating. IT IS HUMAN LIFE. It is dependent on its mother, but so is a one month old. In fact any argument in favor of “safe, rare, and legal” abortions that pro-abortion people make can be equally applied to a newborn. Why isn’t infanticide legal? What is the difference?
The only difference is that the baby is inside its mother’s womb. Have you seen a 3D or 4D ultrasound? They are BABIES plain and simple. The same secular society that chooses genderless marriage, and a host of other anti-family, anti-Christian values is the part of society that supports abortion. The world/feminist view on this, (i.e. that a woman is in charge of her body) is too simplistic and denies the irrefutable fact that another life is involved. When the woman chose sex she chose pregnancy as a possible consequence. (Obviously rape is a different situation as is a serious health risk to the mother.)
No matter how hard the mother’s or the child’s life will be, there is no excuse for an abortion (excluding the situations just mentioned) just as there is no excuse for any type of infanticide.
I admire much of what feminism has done for women here and throughout the world. Claiming that being pro-abortion is “pro-women’s rights” however is an example of feminism gone too far.
Comment by Dan — April 15, 2007 @ 4:52 am
As far as “back alley abortions” go, I assume that you are just not very well informed on the issue and have bought into propoganda.
Do you know who Bernard Nathason is? He was a founder of NARAL and was instrumental in leading the battle to legalize abortion. He has since stated that he and others lied in order to get abortion legalized. There were less than 100,000 illegal abortions each year and 200-250 deaths from those abortions. NARAL knowinlgy lied and claimed thoses numbers were 1,000,000 and 10,000.
I really think that the only way you can use a story like Bess as justification is if you don’t understand that a fetus is human life. Would you use the same story about Bess to justify killing Bess’s newborn? What is the difference? A fetus is a living growing human being that has the potential for everything you and I do. (Please spare me the inevitable response regarding IVF babies or ectopic pregnancies. These obviously do not have the potential to continue growing.)
Even if 10,000 women did die from illegal abortions, is that really an excuse not to save the 1,000,000+ babies who are aborted each year. Also the majority of women who would die from illegal abortions would not fit Bess’ description, they would be more like Jezabel.
I have debated abortion with many, many adamant pro-choice doctors and medical students who volunteer at Planned Parenthood. I haven’t found any who will give me a firm time as to when life begins. I believe this is an issue that pro-abortionists avoid because any rational scientific explanation invalidates the entire pro-choice position.
Any rationale for legal abortion (other than rape or a serious health risk) pales in comparison to the rationale of not taking the life of a human being. I would love for a pro-abortionist/pro-lover to explain to me how life does not begin at conception. I don’t think you can and I don’t think you want to deal with it because it doesn’t feel good to advocate for taking human life.
Finally, spare us sob stories like Bess. Any anti-abortion/pro-lifer could write a much more compelling narrative about the wonderful things little Suzy was going to do (cure cancer, etc.). Why didn’t Suzy do all theat great stuff?
***WARNING!! The next paragraph is an accurate description of what happens at an abortion clinic and may be offensive, though not as offensive as actual abortions.
Suzy couldn’t do all that great stuff because her mother was going to be somehow inconvenienced by Suzy’s birth so she signed a piece of paper that allowed a strange doctor to scald Suzy to death with saline, or perhaps the doctor ripped Suzy’s limbs from her body and allowed her to bleed to death or better yet the doctor delivered Suzy’s body 90% of the way through the birth canal but stopped 3″ short of finishing, 3″ short of Suzy being adopted by one of over 1,000,000 loving familes. What did the doctor do next? Come on you know the rest of the story. The doctor pierced Suzy’s head with a pair of scissors and sucked Suzy’s brains out. Suzy probably let out a little cry as her grip on the nurses hand fell limp, she might have even kicked her legs a few times before it was all over. It’s too bad nobody told Suzy’s mom that she was going to cure cancer then maybe Suzy would have been wanted.
Abortion is gruesome and barbaric. I imagine I will be sensored for describing what so many of you support very strongly. That is another funny thing about pro-choicers, they don’t want to talk about the details of what an abortion acutally is, let alone see pictures of the terror it wreaks on the babies whose lives it claims.
Comment by Dan — April 15, 2007 @ 5:50 am
Um, to get back to BiV’s original post….
I very much sympathize with the impulse to find some way out of the abortion-debate deadlock. I also just adored fmhlisa’s post on this issue a few months ago, which (as I recall) made similar observations about the problems with both of the well-entrenched approaches to the issue. And I wholeheartedly agree that the time has come to find better ways to think about the whole complex of problems that results in unwanted pregnancies and to find ways to address those problems both ethically and compassionately.
(Yeah, easy to say, I know–much harder to figure out what that means in practical, social, public-policy terms. But I’d love to see a whole new conversation develop about abortion. I’ve long since lost my last shred of emotional energy for the very, very tired pro-choice / pro-life war.)
Comment by Eve — April 15, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Uh, Dan, are you a scientist? I would be extremely interested in any scientific proof that life (insert your definition here) begins at conception. No one else seems to have it so it seems critical to publish this information.
It’s baffling that anyone who took the time to unravel this thread could still try to make abortion a manichean issue.
Comment by Lupita — April 15, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
So, I see the “pro-life” crazies have arrived on the thread. Pity, since BIV was hoping to offer a way out of the useual posturing. But I suppose it was probably inevitable.
Comment by obi-wan — April 15, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Dan’s numbers aren’t reliable, btw. It’s true that relatively few back-alley deaths were reported to the CDC, but the gigantic onus against abortion likely prevented most from being reported. It’s easy enough to find discussion of this if one bothers to look. My father, who assisted with post-mortems way-back-when, said it was routine to describe the deaths on the death certificate in other terms. (It’s weird that a microbiologist was assisting with autopsies, even in such a small town–how times have changed.) I once asked my father to tell me why he was pro-choice and he described the destroyed body of a 14-year old girl and noted that she was one of many.
I’m not going to get on the “who can be the most gruesome” train with more specific details because, like Eve, I’m exhausted by the tired rhetoric (from both sides, really) which does nothing to further conversation and merely further alienates people from each other. Can’t we note that both sides can generate horror stories and move onto what BIV wanted to discuss? Clearly the rhetoric of the past few decades hasn’t clarified the conversation much. Why not try something new? I understand where the most militant folks are coming from on both sides (having been on both sides, and to each extreme).
What we all seem to agree on: abortion is tragic, whether legal or not. What BIV wants us to talk about: how to lessen the frequency of abortions within the current legal parameters, and how to do so with empathy and compassion rather than vitriol. Seems like both sides want this, so can’t we please discuss the topic at hand?
Comment by Janet — April 15, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Also, I’d say that President Kimball’s quotation can apply to a mother’s emotional health as well as her physical health (sort of like the church’s standing on determining family size).
Comment by Janet — April 15, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
Isn’t it odd that those who are most staunchly anti-abortion, who see it in such clearly-defined black and white terms and have no sympathy whatsoever for a woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, are usually men? Most women – even women who firmly classify themselves as anti-abortion – can understand at least some of the motivations behind wanting an abortion. But for men like Dan, nope, it’s all black and white: a woman who has an abortion is a selfish, self-centred murderer and should be treated as such.
Or perhaps it isn’t so odd. After all, Dan will never have to worry about getting pregnant. Dan will be able to have sex, free from the consequences of his actions. Consequences are great – so long as they apply to Other People. So long as you’re not the one who has to worry about 40+ weeks of wear and tear on your own body. So long as you’re not the one who has to worry about the delivery, which is still a difficult, life-threatening procedure. So long as you’re not the one who has to worry about raising a child. Consequences are great – so long as you’re the man.
Comment by Quimby — April 15, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
Isn’t it odd that those who are most staunchly anti-abortion, who see it in such clearly-defined black and white terms and have no sympathy whatsoever for a woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, are usually men?
Simply stated: BEE-ESS.
Comment by fool — April 15, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
I recognize that I trolled onto your blog and you would rather not have me post here so this will be the last thing I have to say.
As for my “inaccurate definition of life”, here is a reference to an article pulbished in Science Magazine about the 7 pillars of life. An aborted baby fits all of these.
Science 22 March 2002:
Vol. 295. no. 5563, pp. 2215 - 2216
Next, if my numbers are wrong you should be able to provide a better estimate but you can’t. My numbers are accurate but as I stated earlier they aren’t central to the argument because it still doesn’t make sense to trade 10,000 or even 50,000 women for 1,000,000+ babies.
If my numbers were wrong NARAL wouldn’t have had to lie about them to get Roe past the Supreme Court. The main reason for deaths was infection since most 90% of abortions were performed by doctors. The numbers reported to the CDC declined with the advent of modern anti-microbials. More women die of abortions now than pre-Roe. That is obviously because so many more are being performed, but still Roe has led to more deaths. Could you please provide some evidence for your claims. Anecdotal experience doesn’t count.
You incorrectly assume that I don’t sympathize with these women. I do but that wasn’t the point of my post. I believe that society should care for its less fortunate. That means providing economic assistance, healthcare, adoption services and most importantly education. I do not however believe that society’s failure in these areas justifies taking innocent human life.
Let’s have a discussion on how to help the poor, women who have not been as blessed as many of us. I am all for that. In the meantime until that works (the Millenium) we should fight for the lives of the unborn even if that means offending sensibilities.
For the record I am a doctor and have seen many people change their heart based on sound logic, reasoning and facts that they had never heard before. I also know 100s of women who are equally if not more passionate about this issue.
The reason we disagree is not because anti-abortionists don’t care about the problems these women face. It is because we think the that no life is worth sacrificing for another’s convenience. You think of the problems of one human and I think about the problems of two.
I know how difficult being a mother is. My wife just gave birth to our daughter 6 weeks ago. It is more work than I could have ever imagined. My wife is an amazing, capable, skilled and accomplished woman and it has been a struggle even with the help of loving fmaily and friends. Single mothers are truly saints and deserve love and support from all of us for their sacrifices.
Even though we disagree about the merits of a “pro-love” position, I hope you can see that my passion for this issue stems from my belief that a fetus or embryo is a human life. I understand that many people do not agree with that assertion and God knows what is in our hearts. I have never called anyone a murderer, I assume that they view a fetus as less than human or not alive. Finally, I believe that God judges us based on our understanding of truth, not from absolutes.
Comment by Dan — April 15, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
calling it BS won’t work, and won’t win any points (do you find yourself agreeing with those who call your claims bs? “Why yes, I see; now that you have insulted me and dismissed my thoughts as garbage, I COMPLETELY understand why you are right and I am wrong.” Not happening. Not kind.)
I watched two documentaries on the world wars last night, and I was reminded of a friend of mine in the pro-life movement, one whom you would say that, even though she’s a female, sees the issue in pretty darn black-and-white terms. She knows that it’s on par with calling an individual person “Hitler,” but she says it is sad that the comparison to Holocaust is lost on us, because there ARE similarities. I began to protest, but she asked me gently to hear her out, so I did. And I think Dan, above, though using a rhetorical tone I find immensely annoying, was after a similar idea to hers: there are millions, not thousands, of fetal deaths from abortion each year, in this country, and not all of them, not even close to all of them, fit tidily into either extreme of political ideal. Not every one is a poster child for the cause, neither side.
When the Nuremburg trials exposed the atrocities in films and offered first-hand descriptions of what had happened to Europe’s ethnic minorities, there could be no denying that something awful went on in the killing camps: there were the photos, there were the remains. Yet when prolifers do vile things like showing photos of the waste units of clinics, or show “The Silent Scream” or have post-abortion traumatized women give testimony of anything other than prochoice party-line (and I will readily admit that not all women who abort have the same trauma, but prochoice would have you believe p.b.s. does not exist at all, and it does), then they are dismissed with arguments very similar to those used by “Patriotic Germans” at the beginning of the Nazi rise to power. Those people “merely” had a problem to solve, and wanted to be left in peace to “solve” it. Crisis pregnancy is not equivalent to thinking Jews are responsible for the downfall of your country. But we aren’t in that position now. We are in a position where each individual circumstance for a crisis pregnancy is a tiny little, non-national problem. With enormous implication for the persons involved–no matter how many of them there are or might be. Shouldn’t we just leave them alone to solve it?
Colonel Custer: “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out.”
Compassionate pro-choice Mormons: “Keep it legal (as a lifestyle choice, not a medical one), and let God take care of the spiritual baggage and social callousness that results.”
The Nazis were killing the Jews. When the international community finally finally saw the blood and heard the screams the world was aghast and appalled. And still we are forever looking over our shoulders and vowing “Never again.” But the threat of monstrosity is not coming from over our shoulders, it’s not coming from a publicly organized, brash and brassy madman. If we were to look down at our loins, collectively, both nationally and internationally, we would see plenty of innocent blood spilling, no screams. For some, I’d say many, pro-lifers, this is a civil rights issue, for the ones who can’t speak for themselves because they can’t speak at all. The killing is not happening in camps, it is happening inside of other bodies, women’s bodies. If you think witnessing a murder messes you up psychologically, imagine being the murder site, the murder weapon, the judge and jury, and the executioner. On some level your body knows when it has lost a baby. It’s deep, but it’s there, and it is different to have a miscarriage than to make the choice to remove the baby.
Call Dan tactless, call him foolhardy for wading in here, but don’t ignore what he’s saying. His descriptions are real. That IS how to do a partial-birth. That IS how to end a pregnancy. And it is horrific.
Comment by anon — April 15, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
I’m going to be brutally, harshly, horribly honest.
Two seconds after I found out I was pregnant, I loved my baby. (The second after I found out I was pregnant, I just felt petrified.) I loved her fiercely, protectively. I doubt there was a moment during my entire pregnancy when I wasn’t thinking of her, at least in the background.
During the course of my pregnancy, my husband and I discussed what he would do if he had to choose me or the baby. I told him I’d rather he chose me. I am, after all, a fully-grown, self-supporting, contributing member of society. Investments have been made in me. My life is more valuable (certainly to me, certainly to society in general) than that of my unborn child.
Now, you can pull up all the hypotheticals you want – “But what if that unborn child would go on to cure cancer; what if that unborn child would be the next Picasso.” The reality is, I work, I pay taxes, I contribute more to the system than I take from it. A child does not, especially not a hypothetical, unborn child.
Now that my child is born, I’d walk in front of traffic for her. But I have to say, if I’m being brutally, harshly, horribly honest, if I get pregnant again, I’ll still value my life more than my unborn child.
To me this is at the heart of the abortion debate: When I hear pro-lifers say that the fetus’ life is just as important as the mother’s, it bites. When those pro-lifers happen to not have ovaries, it sounds to me like they are saying: A woman’s life is less valuable than any other human life. If we’re going to put a value on life, let’s be honest about it: In real terms, in measurable terms, a woman’s life is worth more than a fetus’s life. I’m not saying that a woman’s life is worth more than a man’s life, or even that a woman’s life is worth more than a baby’s life. But considering the fetus wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the woman who was carrying it, I don’t think you can argue that a fetus’ life is just as valuable as the woman’s life.
Comment by Quimby — April 15, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
Very, very few abortions are done by ‘partial birth abortion’. That is the exception and a HUGE red herring as far as this debate goes.
No one here is arguing that a nearly term fetus is the same as a zygote or an embyo. Except maybe you.
And sorry, but blastocytes don’t make it as ‘human’ or a ‘baby’ in my book. Body for a spirit to [eventually] enter in?. Sure. But not a baby.
And Quimby is right — a man, a woman, a child and a baby take are more important than an embryo or a fetus. I’d have more respect for the ‘pro-life’ movement if they actually seemed to care about those who are already here. But my experience has been that the people who are out to protect the ‘unborn’ are the same ones who are anti-taxes, anti-welfare, anti-birth control, anti-sex-ed, anti-WIC, anti-government- helping-the-poor, etc. etc. etc.
Also — you should be really, really careful invoking the holocaust. Most Jews I’ve met are pro-choice, and I doubt very much they’d take kindly to your cheapening anti-semitic genocide by comparing it to an elective medical procedure that involves 1) something many, many people don’t consider to be even sort of a baby [especially in the early stages when most abortions happen] and 2) someone’s own genetic offspring– not exactly the definition of genocide.
Comment by Not Ophelia — April 15, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
Unborn don’t necessarily make my book as “persons” either. But what I’m trying to point out is why the prolife “crazies” as someone called them, are crazy. John Brown was crazy, too; people who blow up clinics and shoot doctors, definitely crazy. But they are crazy for what they really truly see as defense of the defenseless; they see themselves in the same heroic light as Nazi-hunters. Your life is more important right now than a fetus’s, but the law does not recognize it as more important than a one-month old’s. Another spectre not to raise, as it belongs to a demographic, as surely as the Holocaust belongs to a demographic: slavery. If the fetus is “yours” (like property) you are dangerously close to the reasoning that makes a slave “someone’s,” maybe the fetus deserves, what was it, two-thirds’ worth of personhood? I do not, personally, know if a fetus is a person, but I also don’t know if “person” is a deeply meaningful word here, since any group persecuted to the point of justifiable extermination are de-personed at some point, or else the ones supporting the extermination cannot go through with what they are doing. Nits make lice.
I am not an advocate of clinic bombing. As a religious and I think thoughtful person, I am trying to see where sacredness of agency and sacredness of embodying and escorting Father and Mother’s children into this probation clash, and what to do about it. Speculations are fun, but not much good if they turn out to be wrong. I can speculate, “That aborted baby’s spirit will get another chance,” but I can’t know if I’m right; I can speculate, “There was no harm done,” or I can speculate, “That was a situation into which no child should be born,” or I can answer that with “that particular spirit volunteered for that exact situation; pity it’s a chance gone now” and still have no way to know if I am right, and therefore none of it is my right to judge. But just as I have no right to judge a woman’s choice to abort a baby for whatever reason, I also think I have no right to assume that the spirit or potentially-inhabitable body has no stake in its own being aborted or carried to term. If it is an ethical or even medical question, should we not err on the side of Hippocrates for as many of us as possible–even underdeveloped “us”? Certainly partial births don’t happen all that often. And Mengel’s experiments were only a small portion of the overall holocaust numbers, many of whom were killed rather quickly.
I know, it verges on the evil to put it that way, doesn’t it? Maybe abortion–for so, so many more of the cases than we’re willing to admit–also verges on, or tips over right straight into, the evil.
Thank you for your patience with me. I realize I’m not saying nice things. I’m sorry we’ve got away from love. Prolife crazies would say we should show love for the fetuses and babies too–and no, actually, not nearly all of them are the same ones spouting anti-welfare vitriol. My same friend who is certifiably crazy about her prolife stance is a former Catholic, and she finds no place to lay her head politically because when she values the life of a fetus she’s branded as a classist, out of touch Redstate nutjob who ticks the “grinding the face of the poor” box on the “hobbies” list; but if she dares to value the life of a convict she’s branded as a Bluestate, tree-hugging, spineless wimp who coddles criminals and might even be a vegan. For her, it’s not about the context of the life in question, it’s about how, as mortals, we shouldn’t make the call as to when to deliberately end that life–especially if we do not know for sure whether it is a person.
Comment by anon — April 16, 2007 @ 1:21 am
If we accept that an embryo’s life has value equalivant to our own, where does that lead us? Would you be in favor of doing away with birth control, since it interferes with the possible creation of a life? What about IVF - would you be against it, since it creates embryos that will never reach their full potential as humans? What if it’s a question of the mother’s life, or the unborn baby’s - would you want a law that would side with the unborn baby’s, since, after all, the mother’s already had a shot at living? Would you go so far as to criminilise things like drinking or smoking while pregnant (thus denying the woman’s rights in favor of her unborn child’s)? Would you support the US government’s idea that all women should be living in a constant state of “pre-pregnancy”? Would you want to criminalise miscarriage?
Surely you’ve got to see the ridiculousness of it all. And yet, every single thing I’ve listed above has either been law or policy, or has been lobbied for.
Nobody here is saying that abortion is good. Nobody here is saying that abortion is a desirable option. But the alternative is a world where I’m seen as nothing more than a walking uterus - where the rights of a living, breathing, fully-formed human being are taken away in favor of the rights of something that has nothing more than the potential of being.
As I said in my first post, the abortion laws are about so much more than abortion. Take them away, and you take away my right to make my own medical decisions; you take away my right to control my sexuality and fertility; you take away my right to achieve my full potential.
Comment by Quimby — April 16, 2007 @ 4:35 am
Quimby, #102: The point the anti-legal-abortion folks are would like to make to you, and those who see this your way, is that your friend’s roomate/pro-lifer’s dream became much more common since, and because, abortion was legallized. Changing back, to an illegallity of abortion, would be expected to greatly reduce the incidence of such casual aboration, or abortion as birth control, behavior. Thus, the frequency of abortion would greatly decline. Such a decline in the abortion rate we would view as a good outcome. Offsetting that to some degree, would be some bad outcomes, including the occasional back alley abortion, poor woment having less chance of finding and paying for an illegal abortion, than wealthy women, etc. Again, we must balance good and bad consequences on a societal level.
Pro-choices find the bad consequences unacceptable, and since they don’t allow themselves to recognize the humanity of the fetus, they find the high abortion rate acceptable. Pro-lifers, recognizing the humanity of each fetus, find the high abortion rate as unacceptable as a high murder rate, and the other bad consequences of making abortion illegal sad, and tragic even, but less awful than the high abortion rate that has come from making abortions available on demand.
What seems to be the great difference is whether we see a fellow human being in a fetus, or not. I do.
I will admit though, that the arguement presented above that life, or the joining of the spirit and the body, begins at first breath to be very interesting, and possibly correct. I don’t know that any statement of any prophet has ever resolved the question of when life begins. But the idea has been occupying my mind for a few days now. Thanks for the thought.
Comment by Trueheart — April 16, 2007 @ 6:16 am
Now that Godwin’s Law has come into play, I suspect this thread is well and truly killed.
That said, of course, there is no legitimate moral comparison whatsoever between killing human beings of any age (ie, those who are already born) and aborting foetuses. I find the argument utterly repugnant, as are most comparisons with the Holocaust. Sigh.
Quimby #124 - I totally agree with you, and I applaud your courage in saying it. The bottom line for me is, I value the lives of adult women more than I value the “life” of a foetus (”life” - because I’m not even getting into when “life” begins; it’s quite clear enough to me that a grown woman has “life” enough for it not to be debateable whether she’s “viable” or not).
I like this article “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion: When the Anti-choice Choose” - can be found here.
To me, this article kind of helps us go back to BiV’s original idea - with empathy (or in the case of the article, actual experience - walking a mile in the shoes of someone with an unwanted pregnancy), it is possible to see less black and white, to understand that things are much more nuanced than the loud shouting from both (major) sides would suggest, and that these decisions are never easy. I really find myself agreeing at all levels with the more recent abortion rhetoric: Safe, Legal, and Rare.
Comment by RE — April 16, 2007 @ 6:56 am
May I say that I believe this is the heart of the problem, and the main reason I stopped commenting on the topic in this thread. When I realized that I was spending more time arguing the same old tired choice/life debate rather than what I was trying to discuss - namely, the topic of how a more love-centered approach could be applied, I withdrew.
I believe that the reason the discussion has degenerated is because, for example, when I say that abortion has serious repercussions that are not being properly communicated, people automatically say “She’s anti-abortion, which means she thinks abortion should be illegal, which means she has no respect for women’s life/rights, which means she’s ‘anti-taxes, anti-welfare, anti-birth control, anti-sex-ed, anti-WIC, anti-government- helping-the-poor, etc. etc. etc.’” They then feel compelled to argue with me as if all those labels were true. It’s unfortunate that we are so dependant on labels that we cannot see past them to the good points in what someone is trying to say, even if they don’t wear the same labels we do.
I think the second part does not necessarily follow the first, and is not necessary to be compassionate. God’s work is done through us. If we wash our hands of responsibiilty and leave it up to God, nothing can be done. The important thing is to do God’s work in a spirit of love and understanding.
Comment by SilverRain — April 16, 2007 @ 7:20 am
Wait, Dan’s a doctor? A medical doctor? Even more disturbing…And random statistics? Cite the sources. You didn’t learn those in medical school. Haven’t had a chance to check out the Science article but I will. I highly doubt that it will state when human life begins but I could be wrong.
Having a passion for a belief that is founded on incorrect/incomplete information doesn’t make it praiseworthy. A physician is not required to participate in abortion if one is morally opposed. A physician is required to inform a patient of all their options. An attempt to unduly influence a patient based on one’s own belief system is unethical and may put one in legal jeopardy.
That said, a hearty congratulations, Dan, on the birth of your baby! What a wonderful new adventure for you and your wife. I know I’m making some assumptions here but…A happily, well-adjusted, financially-stable, married couple welcoming a healthy, wanted baby…best case scenario, no?
And Quimby, thanks for having the courage to state publicly what I have said in private. I would choose me, also.
Comment by Lupita — April 16, 2007 @ 10:15 am
A lot of us, when we’re talking about the advent of human “life,” are really referring to personhood, i.e. the point at which human life becomes as obviously meaningful as the life of an already-born person. This isn’t a scientific question. Scientifically, there isn’t much controversy about when human life begins. If you can establish that it’s alive and human, there you have it, human life. But that’s not a useful definition for a public policy debate about abortion. Lines need to be drawn. If a fertilized egg that has not yet implanted in the uterus equals an already-born baby, then abortion and most forms of birth control are never, ever justified. Only a microscopic percentage of pro-lifers would ever sign up for that kind of law.
The Old Testament punishment for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry is to pay compensation to the woman’s husband. The punishment for killing the woman is death. That alone, while not a Biblical justification for abortion, indicates that killing a not-born person is not morally equivalent to killing an already-born person. The fact that they’re not morally equivalent does not mean that one is wrong and the other is okay. But because our society has a plurality of philosophies on what constitutes personhood (even within the same religious tradition, as witnessed here), we can’t make laws that are as cut-and-dried as “no abortion under any circumstances.” We do have a moral obligation to make laws that reflect our regard for human life, even in its early stages. The fact that people disagree on where the line(s) should be drawn is not a reason to shrink from the responsibility.
Most people prefer grandiose statements of philosophical purity to the compromises inherent in democratic law-making, which is why this issue has been dominated by extremists instead of reasonable (but inconsistent) moderates. Most Americans fall under this latter category, which is why most Americans, including BiV, are so frustrated with the abortion debate that they prefer to throw up their hands when it comes to public policy and concentrate their compassionate efforts on real individuals and practical (as opposed to theoretical) problems.
Comment by madhousewife — April 16, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
#110
…don’t forget the chicken baster!
Comment by mfranti — April 16, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
i heard some arguments earlier about the aborted_________ who if born, could have done this or that great thing.
think about this for a second. uh, women that are having abortions (in most cases) are doing it because they can’t or don’t to care for a child. that means she wouldn’t be able to foster the kind of life a child needs to become that great individual.
children need a family in order to grow up and be great citizens. They need to be loved, respected and provide for in many ways and if you think that some drug addicted prostitute is going to provide that for her child, you need to pull your head out of your backside.
Comment by mfranti — April 16, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
That’s assuming the child ends up living with the drug-addicted prostitute and never overcomes the tragedy of his or her beginnings, and also that there’s nothing that can be done for the drug-addicted prostitute. I’m not a fan of the “we’re aborting the next Jonas Salk or Beethoven” argument, but it’s a little superior to “these kids were destined to lives of misery and failure anyway.” I don’t think you intended to say that, but it was the take-home message. You don’t have to be a genius in embryo to be worth saving, but reasoning that nothing of value (yes, even a great good) can come of someone being born into poor circumstances really is dehumanizing.
Comment by madhousewife — April 16, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
And since no one else has pointed it out, there aren’t a lot of drug-addicted prostitutes getting accidentally pregnant through IVF.
Comment by madhousewife — April 16, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Now, there’s a public education campain worth funding, teaching the drug-addicted prostitutes to stay away from semen-filled turkey basters. (turkey basters don’t tip, for one thing)
(I think my sense of humor may have just gotten two shades too dark.)
Comment by fMhLisa — April 16, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Wow, that’s actually a perfect ending to this thread. Not to discourage anyone else from commenting, but I think we have a winner.
Comment by madhousewife — April 16, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
huh?
Comment by mfranti — April 16, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
What happened to my post of this morning?
Comment by Trueheart — April 16, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
I had to look this “article” up because I hadn’t heard about this. Certainly if someone had truly figured out what defines life, it would have made the national news, and likely the front page of the NY Times, as did Arthur Kornberg’s in vitro DNA replication.
This “article” is actually a personal essay. It is in no way a peer-reviewed publication of original research and data. The author defines seven characteristics of life, as he sees them. He never discusses the issue of when life begins. He isn’t slating this as a backdrop to an abortion argument. He never says, “I know what life is, and this is it.” In fact, in his first paragraph, he even acknowledges that life is extremely difficult to define.
“What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the scientific elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive? Is a virus alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching promising balloons that defined life in a sentence, followed by equally conclusive punctures of these balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The ability to reproduce–that is the essential characteristic of life,” said one statesman of science. Everyone nodded in agreement that the essential of a life was the ability to reproduce, until one small voice was heard. “Then one rabbit is dead. Two rabbits–a male and female–are alive but either one alone is dead.” At that point, we all became convinced that although everyone knows what life is there is no simple definition of life.” (emphasis added)
I would also take issue with with an aborted baby meeting pillar 6: adaptability. “Our bodies respond to depletion of nutrients (energy supplies) with hunger, which causes us to seek new food, and our feedback then prevents our eating to an excess of nutrients (that is, beyond satiety) by losing appetite and eating less. Walking long distances on bare feet leads to calluses on one’s feet or the acquisition of shoes to protect them. These behavioral manifestations of adaptability are a development of feedback and feedforward responses at the molecular level and are responses of living systems that allow survival in quickly changing environments.” If I deliver a 16 week fetus, it’s not going to be able to mount a response that allows “survival in a quickly changing envrionment.” A blastocyst would fare much worse.
(Aside: If you really believe these pillars, then you have to believe in evolution because pillar 2 is improvisation. “In our current living systems, such changes can be achieved by a process of mutation plus selection that allows programs to be optimized for new environmental challenges that are to be faced.)
I’m not going to debate the issues of abortion, infection, sepsis, and death. But for what it’s worth, we had quite a few antimicrobials prior to Roe. One might even argue that we were better off then because even though we didn’t have linezolid and imipenem, antibiotic resistance hadn’t developed as much as it currently has.
For the record, in addition to being a physician, I also have a Ph.D. in molecular biology.
Comment by anonymous, M.D., Ph.D. — April 16, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
true, we don’t have anything in moderation. The cyberdemons must’ve e’t it.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 16, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Trueheart–that’s happened to me before, too, and I rarely can figure out what “flagged” my post to cause it to be munched by the spam filter. Sorry about that, though!
Comment by Janet — April 16, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
#137 fMhLisa - You might be surprised to learn that semen-filled turkey-basters are a leading cause of pregnancy in drug-addicted prostitutes. Having lived in a neighbourhood full of drug-addicted prostitutes, I struggle when trying to answer the oft-asked question, “What did you see more often laying in the street, used syringes or semen-filled turkey-basters?” In truth, both were prevalent. Both present their own public health problem – slipping and falling on used syringes obviously carries with it the risk of blood-borne disease, but slipping and falling on a semen-filled turkey-baster carries with it the obvious risk of pregnancy and STD. Strangely, while there was a public health campaign under way to clear the streets of used syringes, no such campaign existed to clear the streets of semen-filled turkey-basters. They are the silent threat of inner-city red-light districts everywhere.
(Actually 90% of the prostitutes where I lived were she-males, so pregnancy was a biological impossibility . . .)
Comment by Quimby — April 16, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
In case anyone is still reading this thread - the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld the ban on partial birth abortions today.
Comment by ECS — April 18, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Amen!
Comment by Jill — February 5, 2008 @ 11:31 am
I am devotedly pro-choice, and I love this post. However, I think you’re misunderstanding the position of the pro-choice community: we don’t advocate for abortion. We believe that abortion can be devastatingly sad, and we don’t want any woman to be forced to make the decision. That’s why the pro-choice movement has been dedicated to expanding access to contraception, educating teenagers about safe sex, providing financial and emotional support to single or low-income mothers, etc. “Pro-choice” IS the middle ground. And I think that’s why the pro-life mindset is so hard for me to understand - because they’re not just anti-abortion, they’re against any measures to reduce the unintended pregnancy rate, and they’re against any measures to better the lives of low-income women and children. So I’d take another look at the label “pro-choice,” if I were you
Comment by Tali — April 3, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
they’re against any measures to reduce the unintended pregnancy rate, and they’re against any measures to better the lives of low-income women and children.
Uh, no, Tali. Abstinence actually reduces the unintended pregnancy rate and helps low-income women. When you are not having sex and are not pregnant, you are able to focus on your education and overcome poverty.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
While I don’t think that Tali’s argument about a pro-life mindset is actually true of most of the pro-life people I know (most of the people I know), I still fundamentally disagree with Stephanie, because it has been show that abstinence only education is a phenomenal failure. Ideals are great, but if pushing your ideals to the exclusion of factual helpful information, is creating this kind of unspeakable mess (twice the teen pregnancies, twice the abortions, teens having sex two years younger than their peers in Europe) then I’m afraid I can’t be fan.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 3, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Tali,
It sounds as if you are generalizing just as much about pro-lifers. I am pro-life and have already taught my 9 year old daughter about birth control (because I use it) and will eventually teach her about condoms, STDs (besides the ones she already knows about), etc. I am a strong supporter of helping young unwed mothers and I’ve used the planned parenting system myself.
I will think open mindedly about you if you will think open mindedly about me. Deal?
Comment by Liz — April 3, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Lisa, abstinence does reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy - more effectively than anything else.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
Stephanie,
abstinence does, but teaching it doesn’t.
My sisters and I were taught abstinence from church and parents and 2 out of 4 of us girls had sex out of wedlock. I’m actually really glad that their boyfriends had been taught to use condoms.
Comment by Liz — April 3, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
I respectfully disagree Liz. Teaching abstinence may not result in teens not choosing to have sex 100% of the time, but it can have a positive effect (particularly when coupled with the “whys”). My siblings and I were taught abstinence from church and mom, and 5 out of 6 of us stuck with it. The one who didn’t uses birth control. In my husband’s family, the stats are exactly the same. That’s a 100% success rate in unintended pregnancies and 83% in not having premarital sex. Pretty good stats. 50% in your family is pretty good, too. I wonder how it compares to families who are NOT taught abstinence.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
But who taught your sister to use birth control?
Comment by Liz — April 3, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
I’m nt saying I don’t agree with abstinince. I 100% agree with abstinence. I will teach it to my children up to their wedding night. I was abstinent and I considered it part of my feminist beliefs. But, for the kids that aren’t going to listen they have to know about safe sex from someone. Hopefully parents are teaching about safe sex, but if they aren’t I’m glad that friends and school are.
Comment by Liz — April 3, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Stephanie - that’s great for you and your husband’s family, but don’t presume that it’s the same for everyone else. Out of me and 3 of my brothers (I’m not including my severely mentally disabled brother), I’m the only one who was abstinent pre-marital, and we were all brought up in the church and taught abstinence. So my family is 25% successful.
Each of our families statistics are purely anecdotal. Just because something is true for one person, one city, one country, doesn’t make it true for everyone else.
Comment by Rebecca — April 3, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Rebecca, I was responding to Liz’s comment. My family and my husband’s family’s stats are as relevant (or irrelevant) as Liz’s family - and yours.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
And anyways, Liz, I actually agree with you and Lisa about abstinence-only education in a public context (Lisa - you jumped to conclusions - the only thing I said to Tali was Abstinence actually reduces the unintended pregnancy rate and helps low-income women. When you are not having sex and are not pregnant, you are able to focus on your education and overcome poverty.)
I don’t think that abstinence-only education without the framework of morality will work. And since morality and God are taboo in public schools, I just don’t think it will work. It helps to know the “whys” behind things (even if a lot of the whys are not moral reasons but very practical things like STDs, pregnancy, etc.)
So, for me and my house, we are learning about sex in the context of morality. We are teaching our children abstinence and all the whys behind it. We are cultivating close relationships with our children and are open to any questions they ask. I don’t know if it will be 100% effective since even my children have free agency, but I have more faith in this approach than in handing my sons condoms.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
I see. I was jumping to conclusions too thinking you were saying that abstinence only and no safe sex should be taught.
Comment by Liz — April 3, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
Stephanie,
If you don’t want us jumping to conclusions, then don’t put the trampoline in our path, okey dokey.
If you do intend to be misleading and provocative, and then offended when we jump on your tramp, then cut it out. It’s annoying.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 3, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
Lisa, what? I’m not offended - just pointing out that you made an incorrect assumption.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
I (L) fMh Lisa.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — April 3, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
Crap! I tried to my (first ever!) emoticon. Failed. Should read:
I heart fMh Lisa. She brooks no nonsense, tolerates very little passive-aggresion and has the grace to apologize on the rare occasions she is wrong. If I was old-school Mormon I think I’d ask her to be my sister-wife. Not the kind where we had to share a husband, the kind where everybody stayed in their own beds but you got to milk cows and hang laundry together. A make-believe kind.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — April 3, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
CrazyWomanCreek
brilliant!
Comment by mfranti — April 3, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
mfranti you and I could churn butter in the shade of the barn. If sour biddies disturbed our peace we might ask them to tell us a joke or relate a time they’d made a fool of themselves before they passed by. Oh, now I’M being passive-agressive! Stephanie, tell a joke, maybe even on yourself. I know you are not as dour and snide as you’re coming off. I bet you’re real nice. But that “don’t be” comment you made on the other thread made my eyes roll back in my head. Everyone here tries so hard to be respectfull of the WHOLE spectrum from hard-line 8 days a week gals with rock solid testimonies, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, mamas, grandmamas, SAHM and everything inbetween. it’s so hard to not be “us and them” when you seem to WANT to frame it that way. Now let’s hear that joke…
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — April 3, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
i’ll start…
Comment by mfranti — April 3, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
Well, Stephanie, I’m “just pointing out” that you very much set us up for that conclusion and then acted surprised that we’d jumped. I find that (lack of) communication style highly problematic. And annoying.
And as long as I’m taking the time to engage with you, then I suppose it may be time to just lay it all out . . . if i give you the benefit of the doubt, then perhaps you just don’t think through the things your write. For now, I’m going to assume you are a decent person and hopefully I can say something that will help you to communicate your good intentions more effectively. If you don’t want help, or if my type of help just doesn’t suit you, then just know that I’m getting very tired of what I see as your (hopefully unintentional) ugly meanness and I’m not going to put up with it much longer. Also tired of fielding all the emails complaining about you. As a tyrant, I can ban you for simply wearing on my last nerve, and I will.
You’re comment 148 is a perfect example of what I mean and I will try to explain to you in detail how I read your comment, so that you can understand, that despite what i hope are your good intentions, how you come off, here, as either very mean-spirited or thoughtlessly cruel.
the comment:
This comment is to put it bluntly, intolerably smug. You have a fondness for reducing problems and solutions to simple little sound-bites, but when you do this, you utterly remove the humanity from both the problems and the solutions.
Basically what you just said was that if those stupid women would just choose to not have sex, voila, a solution. As though, just making the obvious choice is such a simple answer that it’s amazing that no one thought of it before you and that all those idoit knocked-up women deserve what they get for going off and making such obviously stupid choices in the face of such a simple and easy solution! Duh!
But if you actually take the time to get to understand the real women and the real situations neither the simple problem (stupid pregnant women) nor the simple solution (abstinence) are actually simple.
If you actually have any interest in understanding these problems, if you actually have any interest in making the world a better place, then you have to stop with trying to make the questions and the answers simple and easy and assuming that You have them figured out. You don’t. The way you presented your opinion here (and in many previous instances), it doesn’t sound like you actually know or care about poor pregnant women, instead you assume you know how to fix all their problems, and are passing judgment on them for not being as wise as you are.
If you would like me to elaborate on all the complexity you have missed, I’d be willing to try, when i have some time, but right now I have to go and pay some attention to my husband who thinks I should be nibbling on his ear instead of blogging. And I happen to agree.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 3, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
Yes, I am actually a decent person. I just think this site isn’t such a good fit for me. Sorry.
Comment by Stephanie — April 4, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
Oops, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that all pro-lifers are against accessible birth control and comprehensive sex-ed, etc - I know several that support these measures. However, most (if not all) pro-life organizations are, and most (if not all) pro-life politicians are. Visible organizations like Focus on the Family oppose funding for comprehensive sex-ed, etc. And almost all Republican politicians that I know of - including John McCain - oppose comprehensive sex-ed and measures to increase the accessibility of birth control.
And Stephanie, if you look at studies on the issue, comprehensive sex-ed is much more effective than abstinence-only education - not only in decreasing teen pregnancy and STD rates; teenagers in comprehensive sex-ed programs are also more likely to wait longer to have sex, and are more likely to have fewer partners. Abstinence-only programs are also more likely to provide factually inaccurate information (that condoms don’t work, that AIDS can be spread through sweat, etc). Here are some links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTON47250120080324?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/abstinenceonlycontent.pdf
So again, pro-choice groups are the ones working to realistically reduce the abortion rate, and provide women with a real choice - we don’t think any woman should even be in the situation where she feels she has to choose an abortion.
Comment by Tali — April 12, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
I found this article brilliantly written. It expresses the way I have felt inside for many years, perfectly. I myself have been touched by abortion. When I was 14, I became pregnant by my first boyfriend, who was from an active LDS family. My parents forbid me to tell him or his family, and forced me to have an abortion. I had a hard time with it at the time, and held it against my parents for a long time. Looking back now, I think I would have made the same choice that was forced upon me, if I had been given a choice.
I ended up marrying that boy 13 years ago. After we were married, I worked for a while in an abortion clinic. I was avidly Pro-Choice. After getting baptised, and giving birth to a tiny 24 week preemie, my outlook changed. But only on what is right for me. I could never have an abortion now. But Who am I to take away that right to make a choice so personal and life altering as whether or not to continue a pregnancy?
Comment by mysticmommy — April 22, 2008 @ 9:54 am
I think it such a shame when people break down the abortion argument into a challenge between what a woman wants to choose in one circumstance and the right of a child to ever have the chance to make any choice at all.
No one forces a woman to bear a child unless they impregnated her without her consent. If the capability to bear children presents greater responsibility, then so be it. For myself, I think that the man should be somehow tied to the child he helped to create, bearing the same burden that the woman bears.
We must consider that we really don’t know when life begins. No one can say when it begins accurately. Science can’t even describe accurately what life IS. On this basis, we must be cautious. We must assume that life begins early. One of my sisters has felt the spirit of her child touching her before she even conceived. Is it possible that life begins before conception? In some cases, maybe.
But we’re also talking about a political expedient here. This is not necessarily a morality or choice question. It is doubtless that there are many situations wherein abortion is appropriate and even necessary. But politics considers historical perspective, not only emotional immediacy. In the past, infanticide has reached epidemic proportions many times in many countries–that is, until government put a stop to it, sometimes by providing state-funded orphanages. Abortion is the latest attempt at legalized infanticide.
Politically speaking, we MUST designate when and how abortions can be performed. To permit the constant and deplorable practice of abortions of convenience would encourage other forms of personal choice dominance over the right-to-life. We are already facing the horrors of partial-birth abortions. If we don’t stop the progression of this monster soon, we will see more heinous offenses against humanity than “personal choice” could ever claim.
Love is a wonderful thing, and should be used on the individual basis to encourage responsible living and compassionate perspective. On the political spectrum, however, action must be taken. This action must be practical. It can exist in the middle of the fence, but imagine what would happen if the only legislation we had regarding murder was a recommendation that we “love our neighbor.” Some things (such as abortions of convenience) require that we seize the perceived freedoms of others in order to protect the freedoms of those they would destroy for their own benefit.
On a personal note: how dare anyone, man or woman, deny a child the right to live? How dare anyone profess to know when life begins, to the degree that they can dictate when a genetic human body can or can’t be killed? Do we kill infants who are born without limbs? What of one-month-olds who prove to be too much a hassle?
I’m sorry if I polarize this question despite the intentions of the author. But love is an individual question. The political one begs philosophical and ethical debate, not merely personal conviction. This article appeals too much to the reduction of the political debate to personal decisions. I respect the views of the author in regards to her personal choices, but she does us wrong in trying to use them to supercede political necessity.
Comment by Dwight Sheldon Adams — May 9, 2008 @ 4:07 am
I also must state that the pro-choice concept of agency is ludacris. Consider the following situations:
1) You see a woman being raped in an alley.
2) You see a man approaching another man with a knife.
3) You see a drunk driver endangering others on the road.
Isn’t it opposing these criminals’ free agency to stop them from committing these crimes? Yet you can bet that I would do what I could to stop them from being committed.
The bottom line is that God gives us the right to choose whatever we want. Our hearts are what he judges, and when our heart commits evil, we are guilty whether we are allowed by other humans and our environment to commit the action or not.
But we as humans have the responsibility to stop evil from occurring. If I have any right to challenge a murderer’s agency by stopping him from killing someone, I have equal right to challenge a pro-choicer’s agency by stopping her from aborting a baby. I am not stopping her choice by making her actions illegal; I am simply protecting the victim.
You want an abortion of convenience? Go ahead and get one. But you can bet that I (and the law, God-willing) will try to protect the baby whose life I apparently value more than you do. I’ll even put my tax dollars toward supporting that child so that you don’t have to lift a finger. 9 months is all I ask you give up so that a child can have a lifetime. Is that so much?
Comment by Dwight Sheldon Adams — May 9, 2008 @ 4:18 am