View Full Version : Action vs talk - George Carlin on the anti-abortion movement
Yesterday was the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. I came across this Carlin quote last night while searching for something else. It actually does a pretty good job of describing a good many people I know or have encountered online. I won't actually quote it - the language is typical Carlin.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Carlin
Scroll down to the "Back in Town" section, and then the relevant quote is the paragraph right underneath it.
Yes, I'm a theologically conservative Christian, but I'll be voting for Obama again this fall. Social welfare programs that might actually help reduce the abortion rate are a danged sight more useful than marching around and doing little else.
Amen! Preach it George.
I am prime fodder for the Republican party, but because the reversal of Roe v. Wade is part of their platform I vote their way as little as possible.
I am an Independent with cafeteria style stances.
I was raised in what felt like the epicenter of this mindset Carlin describes and I just didn't get it and really still don't.
That's great. I wish George Carlin could have had a "news" show like Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert. He was so on-point most of the time. I've often wondered how many abortion protesters would actually volunteer to be responsible for the upbringing of the unwanted child they are so desperately trying to save.
I've often wondered how many abortion protesters would actually volunteer to be responsible for the upbringing of the unwanted child they are so desperately trying to save.
Isn't it a shame that even one "unwanted child" is destroyed? And further, that we would think negatively about those who don't want it to happen?
Isn't it a shame that even one "unwanted child" is destroyed? And further, that we would think negatively about those who don't want it to happen?
There are many things about this subject that 'are a shame' that is for certain.
Oh good--another thread about abortion. This time I'm sure we'll solve it, and will all come together in peace and love and harmony. Oh wait--this is the SLN board where the religious bashing will soon commence. All "arguments" here are predictable.
For those who think the religious right who opposes abortion all march around without doing any practical good, they need to actually inform themselves of all of the mother-support services provided by the--to cite one example--Catholics. When I wondered into a nearby Catholic church in one of my 1X biennial trips, I heard their recitation of fundraising for mother-support and I was surprised that this was a charity center for this particular congregation which is well known for services to the (mostly male) homeless. It's really tiresome, this idea that there is no practical support, that only Nanny G and Big Govt and President Obama can solve your problem if you are female and pregnant and without means.
Let me also state for the record that I am not a believer, I am as pro-abortion as anyone on this board in my personal beliefs, and I will be voting Republican. Roe V Wade is an important decision but it's not THE defining issue for me.
... I've often wondered how many abortion protesters would actually volunteer to be responsible for the upbringing of the unwanted child they are so desperately trying to save.
Seriously? Do ya know how much in demand tiny new babies are? If only bulldogs were that popular we wouldn't see our placement rate up a bazillion percent this year!
We are in a sellers market with babies and any one baby would have scads of parents wanting to raise it.
I am not saying that adiption is the universal answer to an unwanted pregnancy, but it's certainly the answer to your argument.
Iris, I was referring to individuals I actually have encountered. I know folks who like to gab about how many people they help send to the March for Life or go pray and demonstrate outside a Planned Parenthood clinic. Or their contributions to politicsl candidates/lobbyinh groups But when asked what concrete things they have done - volunteer, give money to organizations that help those in need - their answer is *nothing.*
If these folks I know (from different religious backgrounds) actually coupled their marching and political activity with concrete action to help both single mothers, the babies, and others in need, that's one thing. But a large number of them do not.
What set me off was the amount of stuff on my Facebook newsfeed yesterday about the March yesterday.
folkypoet
1-24-12, 10:58am
Social welfare programs that might actually help reduce the abortion rate are a danged sight more useful than marching around and doing little else.
:+1:
catherine
1-24-12, 11:05am
Isn't it a shame that even one "unwanted child" is destroyed? And further, that we would think negatively about those who don't want it to happen?
Alan, just to clarify, I agree with you. Because of my beliefs in the sanctity of life, I oppose the death penalty, stem cell research, and I'm vegetarian. What's more, I once had a pregnancy test in an abortion clinic, ready to have one because I was probably the most unfit mother there was at that time. But something divine spoke to me and by some miracle I listened, and as a result I have been blessed with one of the greatest gifts of my life: a beautiful, intelligent, funny, kind, compassionate, wonderful daughter who has taught me the meaning of the word hope.
But that was my choice, and it doesn't negate my feeling that there are a lot of people out there who protest and demonize women, but who are unwilling to take part in the solutions that will minimize the tragedy of abortion from occurring.
ETA: Iris Lily, thanks for the shout-out to the Catholic church. They deserve it.
I know of NO person who is 'pro-abortion'.
It is pro-choice, or no-choice. Semantics are important.
I know of NO person who is 'pro-abortion'.
It is pro-choice, or no-choice. Semantics are important.
I think we well understand the importance of semantics in the debate. Pro Death or Pro Infanticide is so distasteful.
I think we well understand the importance of semantics in the debate. Pro Death or Pro Infanticide is so distasteful.
I don't know. You can consider abortion to be a distasteful last resort, that should still be legal. Call it discretionary infanticide.
***MOD HAT ON***
Just wanted to remind everyone to take a deep breath. Abortion is a subject where feelings are usually fairly well entrenched. We've been down this road before, sometimes with less than stellar results, which is the reason for this somewhat more proactive than usual mod comment. Please just keep in mind that everyone here has the right to respectfully voice their opinions and beliefs without worrying about being chastised. Carry on.
Social welfare programs that might actually help reduce the abortion rate are a danged sight more useful than marching around and doing little else.
Might I suggest a couple minor changes? Education that might actually help reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate (is) a danged sight more useful than anything else.
I don't know anyone who thinks lowering the number of abortions performed by lowering the number of women/girls who get pregnant is a bad idea. It's easy to see where moral opposition to abortion comes from. Not hard to figure out why some are theologically opposed to birth control. But its impossible for me to comprehend why we do not start teaching our kids basic human biology at a very early age and continue that all the way through high school.
I am not "pro-abortion," I am "pro-choice." If there were never another abortion performed on the planet because women had no further need for the procedure, it would be fine with me and every other pro choice person I know. We have no attachment to abortion. We don't hold it as a sacrament. But in this world, the real world, where real women are often faced with unplanned/unwanted or harmful pregnancies, the option must exist. When it is criminalized, women suffer and die.
What makes me angry, almost rageful, is the notion that anyone else, particularly some man, should dictate to me that I must be forced to bear a child against my will, that THEY have the right to tell me I must use my body in any particular way or that they have the right to intrude in MY private decisions about something that is so very personal. They would tell me that a fertilized egg or cytoblast or newly implanted embryo have more rights than I do, a grown sentient woman. I also hate the patronizing attitude as though women don't know what they are doing or the gravity of the decision. What makes me also very angry is that many of the same people who want to control women in this way and force childbirth on unwilling women in the name of protecting "babies" are the same folks who don't want to pay taxes to help other people with medical care, education, etc. So, all the instincts to protect life seem to end once the baby is born. Some of these same people support war, support the death penalty, want to eliminate foreign aid to starving children, don't want to spend any money so that poor women have access to birth control, applaud assassination of abortion doctors, harrass women going to clinics, have a punitive attitude towards women who have been brutalized by abortionists where the procedure is illegal. These attitudes which often, not always, but often, go hand in hand with the "pro life" movement have nothing to do with compassion and reverence for life but with imposing their belief systems on other people and in particular with controlling and punishing women.
BTW, a fetus is not a baby no matter how many times you say that. That is a belief, not a fact.
BTW, a fetus is not a baby no matter how many times you say that. That is a belief, not a fact.
If a fetus survives an abortion, is it a baby?
Rosebud, brava!
I knew from an early age I didn't want children, so I was very careful not to get pregnant. I've never had to face the abortion issue directly. But I have an observation and a question.
My observation is that adoption is no panacea. The idea that unwanted children invariably find themselves in happy homes, with never a thought about where they came from or who rejected them is a myth. If you don't believe me, take a stroll through Bastard Nation or any other adoptees' rights site. And every day, it seems, there's another horror story about actual children--not zygotes or fetuses--being neglected, tortured, killed. Given a choice, they might have preferred to materialize in some other situation--or not to have been born at all.
Which brings me to a religious/philosophical question. For those of you who believe in an eternal soul (as I tend to), wouldn't any individual whose earthly journey was cut short through failure to implant, miscarriage, abortion, or stillbirth just return to its spiritual home to await another opportunity? That seems like the logical course of events to me, but as far as I know (jump in here; I'm no religious scholar) no religion spells that out. Certainly there's nothing in the New Testament about it, or about abortion itself, as far as I know.
Jane, that sounds almost like reincarnation to me.
Something like that, though if its embodiment was thwarted it might not count as an incarnation at all. Also, if we have eternal souls, do we just get one shot at an earthly experience and then it's all harps and enlightenment? That doesn't seem right, so I lean toward reincarnation. I have many questions.
If a fetus survives an abortion, is it a baby?
Only 1.5 percent of abortions in the US are performed after 21 weeks. There is zero viability outside the womb prior to 21 weeks, so really, this is not an issue that comes up and if it does come up, it is usually in the context of the mother's life being in danger or some fatal defect in the fetus. So, your question doesn't deal with the real world.
Only 1.5 percent of abortions in the US are performed after 21 weeks. There is zero viability outside the womb prior to 21 weeks, so really, this is not an issue that comes up and if it does come up, it is usually in the context of the mother's life being in danger or some fatal defect in the fetus. So, your question doesn't deal with the real world.
That doesn't answer the basis of the question. If you declare that a fetus is not a baby, at what point does it become one? Is it a baby at 21 weeks, 22 weeks, at successful full term birth?
I understand that it's important to get the terminology right when discussing this subject since any indication that an aborted fetus is an actual person harms the "pro choice" movement, so, I'm trying to understand when that change actually takes place. If it's at viability, let's say 21 weeks, does it make a difference if it's 20 weeks and 4 days when the mother decides to abort?
My conservative nature forces me to always err on the side of caution. That's what makes me suspicious of all loaded terms and convenient absolute truths.
If you declare that a fetus is not a baby, at what point does it become one? Is it a baby at 21 weeks, 22 weeks, at successful full term birth?
I've always felt that an abortion is between a woman and whatever God she prays to. In a perfect world the father/sperm donor, depending on your point of view, would also be part of deciding what to do. Abortion would never have been considered as an option in our home because privately we both believe life is possible without a fully conscious realization of the world. Like you Alan I always prefer to err on the side of caution, but that is also where our roads diverge. My pro-choice stance should in no way be construed as approval, but at the same time I am simply not qualified to make such decisions for anyone else.
The few female friends I have that chose abortion at some point in their lives without fail feel remorse and regret. That may not compare to what their fetus' endured, but it is nonetheless a very high price to pay for their decision. I can't even tell you what that means, but somehow I know that any choice that carries such a weight is beyond what I have capability to decide for anyone else.
Alan, I don't think you really understand the nature of abortion. In the vast majority of cases, the fetus is aborted through a tub a little larger than a straw. There is no viability there. This fetus would not survive outside the womb at any time. Just wouldn't happen.
The one or two bizarre cases aside, women do not wait until the 7th month to 'just abort' cause they don't want it. This just doesn't happen. I know the anti-choice people will find the one case, and then probably distort the truth of it to fit their agenda, but the vast vast majority of cases just aren't like this. Most are in the first couple of months. Do late abortions happen? Sure. But a real examination of the case will probably show that it was a case of dead fetuses, mothers life in very real risk, or a fetus laking a brain, for instance. Yes, that actually happens, and it is an extremely sad, soul wrenching time for the parents. People don't carry a baby that far just to 'get tired' of it. It doesn't happen. Nurses and doctors aren't killing babies and just keeping quiet about it. Do not believe the rhetoric. An IUD is an abortion. The pill is an abortion. A miscarriage is an abortion. This is a woman's life. You have absolutely no credibility, or say in it.
You keep talking about, railing against a personal mandate to buy into the national insurance pool, yet why can't you see this as a personal, the most personal mandate, to support, with your very health at risk, and carry a zygote until it becomes a person. It isn't even a person for many many months. And on top of that you don't even want to pay for the health care of the host-body in this religious mandate.
..... but somehow I know that any choice that carries such a weight is beyond what I have capability to decide for anyone else.
And yet, that choice is made for babies every day. If we define it as a matter of choice, I choose to advocate for the unborn.
Alan, I don't think you really understand the nature of abortion. In the vast majority of cases, the fetus is aborted through a tub a little larger than a straw. There is no viability there. This fetus would not survive outside the womb at any time. Just wouldn't happen.
The one or two bizarre cases aside, women do not wait until the 7th month to 'just abort' cause they don't want it. This just doesn't happen. I know the anti-choice people will find the one case, and then probably distort the truth of it to fit their agenda, but the vast vast majority of cases just aren't like this. Most are in the first couple of months. Do late abortions happen? Sure. But a real examination of the case will probably show that it was a case of dead fetuses, mothers life in very real risk, or a fetus laking a brain, for instance. Yes, that actually happens, and it is an extremely sad, soul wrenching time for the parents. People don't carry a baby that far just to 'get tired' of it. It doesn't happen. Nurses and doctors aren't killing babies and just keeping quiet about it. Do not believe the rhetoric. An IUD is an abortion. The pill is an abortion. A miscarriage is an abortion. This is a woman's life. You have absolutely no credibility, or say in it.
You keep talking about, railing against a personal mandate to buy into the national insurance pool, yet why can't you see this as a personal, the most personal mandate, to support, with your very health at risk, and carry a zygote until it becomes a person. It isn't even a person for many many months. And on top of that you don't even want to pay for the health care of the host-body in this religious mandate.
So, if you don't accept the heartfelt opinions of others your preferred recourse is to question the motives or sincerity of the holder? You could do better if you wanted.
As a parent and grandparent, I believe strongly in my responsibility to place my offspring's interests above my own, whether they're considered human (by other's standards) or not. I simply can't do otherwise.
My understanding is that the majority of abortions are performed in the embryonic or early fetal stages well before neural development occurs. The idea that termination procedures are commonly performed on human tissue that's even recognizable as fetal, let alone that there's a "silent scream" involved is mostly promulgated by anti-choice advocates. But the more successful their efforts are, the fewer clinics exist, the more likely desperate women will require later-term procedures.
I agree with those who say it's all about control of women's sexuality. Many anti-choice people rail against any and all birth control and extra-marital sex as well. I'm inclined to think they descended from witch burners, but perhaps that's a bit harsh.
And yet, that choice is made for babies every day. If we define it as a matter of choice, I choose to advocate for the unborn.
I have no problem with someone using moral persausion to try to convince women not to terminate their pregnancies. I do have a problem with eliminating safe legal abortion as an option for women. I have a problem with harrassing women and their doctors and patronizing women and putting undue burdens on them I will continue to advocate for women.
You ask me when a fetus becomes a baby and I say there is no bright line that will satisfy everyone other than actual birth at a viable stage. Asking me about a live birth in the context of an abortion is not a serious question and you know it. I could ask you what if an 11 year old mentally ill girl is raped by her father and has a medical condition that would kill her if she did not abort and the pregnancy was caught within a minute so that the fetus was only a day old and it was known that the child would be born with severe and painful deformities. Is abortion ok in that situation?
I will ask you this: Is a fertilized egg a baby? A human being?
I will ask you this: Is a fertilized egg a baby? A human being?
I'm not sure. You said a fetus is not a baby. Was that simply the language of pro choice? It's not a baby until I decide it is?
I couldn't possibly speak with that degree of certainty, although I'm pretty sure a baby exists within the time frame of legal abortion. That's why it's important to me to err on the side of life and dispute self-serving rhetoric.
Asking me about a live birth in the context of an abortion is not a serious question and you know it.
Sure it is. Even though our medical professionals are very good at what they do, baby's still occasionally survive abortions. Then Senator Barack Obama thought it was problematic enough to sponsor legislation forbidding medical care to those who do survive while serving in the Illinois legislature. He was serious about it, wasn't he?
[QUOTE=alan;63866]I'm not sure. You said a fetus is not a baby. Was that simply the language of pro choice? It's not a baby until I decide it is?
I couldn't possibly speak with that degree of certainty, although I'm pretty sure a baby exists within the time frame of legal abortion. That's why it's important to me to err on the side of life and dispute self-serving rhetoric.K
Sure it is. Even though our medical professionals are very good at what they do, baby's still occasionally survive abortions. Then Senator Barack Obama thought it was problematic enough to sponsor legislation forbidding medical care to those who do survive while serving in the Illinois legislature. He was serious about it, wasn't he?[/
First I am quite sure that more girls and women have been harmed by forced continuation of dangerous pregnancies than than there are babies born in the aftermath of botched abortions. Certainly more women die in childbirth than die as a result of complications following legal abortions. And we know for sure that women will risk their own lives to terminate unwanted pregnancies when abortion is illegal and a significant number of them die So you can continue to focus on the tiny tiny number of babies who survive abortions if you like but I'll take the utilitarian approach and focus on the much much larger number of girls and women who get hurt when safe legal abortion is not an available option.
I agree that the more a fetus developes the murkier the line becomes and the more difficult it becomes to balance the interests. But there is a distnction between the potential for human life and human life. We know for sure that a woman is a human being. And there is no other situation in which you would advocate the violation of a person's liberty and bodily integrity. You don't even think people should be forced to pay taxes. You 're saying you have more rights to your property than women have to their own self determination. In the balance of interests, you don't think you should be forced to pay any amount of money to save the life of another person but a woman must be forced to essentially save the life of another person by sacrificing her body to the task of incubation. I don't understand why your property rights are more valuable and sacrosanct than a woman's privacy rights and rights to her own body. Ultimately it always has to be the woman's decision. Not your decision.
Smooth move squishing more anti Obama propaganda into the conversation. I know these charges have been debunked time and time again so I'm not going to bother to respond. Another day another canard...
You 're saying you have more rights to your property than women have to their own self determination. In the balance of interests, you don't think you should be forced to pay any amount of money to save the life of another person but a woman must be forced to essentially save the life of another person by sacrificing her body to the task of incubation. I don't understand why your property rights are more valuable and sacrosanct than a woman's privacy rights and rights to her own body. Ultimately it always has to be the woman's decision. Not your decision.
I know quite a few people who are pro-life. I can not think of a single one who I suspect of holding that position due to any antiquated notion regarding the suppression of women's rights. If there is a canard to be had, that is it. Women's rights, or the desire to limit them, have nothing to do with why those people oppose abortion. There is no bright line between fertilized egg and sentient being. Without fail the people I know who oppose abortion do so because they firmly believe they are advocating for those without voices of their own. To claim that the desire to take away the rights of the mother is a motivation for the pro-life movement is at best a strawman deflecting us from the deeper questions raised in the debate.
Smooth move squishing more anti Obama propaganda into the conversation. I know these charges have been debunked time and time again so I'm not going to bother to respond. Another day another canard...
Well, Mr. Obama does have a very strong pro-abortion record of votes and appointments. Some will support him for that, others will oppose him, but his record (http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/) is public knowledge.
Maxamillion
1-25-12, 5:42am
Certainly there's nothing in the New Testament about it, or about abortion itself, as far as I know.
The one instance of abortion that I know of in the Bible is Numbers 5:11-31. According to this, abortion is okay if the wife has committed adultery.
Smooth move squishing more anti Obama propaganda into the conversation. I know these charges have been debunked time and time again so I'm not going to bother to respond. Another day another canard...
Debunked...Canard? I'll admit I mis-spoke when I mentioned Senator Obama sponsoring legislation when he actually blocked legislation which would have legally classified abortion survivors as "live birth".
Providing an example to dispute your contention that my question doesn't deal with the "real world" isn't anti Obama. It's simply evidence that it's "real world" enough for our top elected official.
I know quite a few people who are pro-life. I can not think of a single one who I suspect of holding that position due to any antiquated notion regarding the suppression of women's rights.
That's not what rosebud is saying at all. I realize there are probably very few pro-life people who are pro-life in order to keep women down. The point is, they don't have the right to legislate a woman's personal choice. Is the right of a sentient human being greater than the right of a mass of cells that are housed in that human beings's body, especially when, as you pointed out, there is no "bright line"? I believe so.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, because of my personal experience, I am as pro-life as you can get, but I'm not about to legislate my beliefs and impose them on another woman in the absence of that bright line. It's not "women's" rights--I also don't have the right to legislate how many rooms you should have in your house, or what color clothes to wear. I also don't have the right to dictate how many kids you have, or what career you must choose, or how much time you must spend with your family, or how much money you have to spend on charity. Imagine if someone did try to impose those kinds of laws on you.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, because of my personal experience, I am as pro-life as you can get, but I'm not about to legislate my beliefs and impose them on another woman in the absence of that bright line.
Exactly my feelings as well Catherine. As I've said before, its a decision I'm only comfortable making for myself (or in my case with my wife). We've concluded that the "mass of cells" is alive and at the very least has all the genetic makeup of a human being and so abortion would not be an option for us. For that reason I do think the debate gets off course when people compare abortion rights to property or other rights. A governing entity telling you what to wear or deciding career paths intrudes on its citizens' liberty. That is something that should be rallied against, but is rarely actually life threatening. The difference with abortion is that it really is a life and death situation.
That fertilized egg is a mass of human cells and there are people who feel a very deep obligation to protect it from harm. If I saw your 5 year old child being threatened on their way home from school I would intervene. Part of that reaction would be based on the fact that most 5 year olds can't adequately defend themselves. Wherever that bright line is, by kindergarten age most of us have an easy time agreeing that the child has crossed it. As that line moves backwards (chronologically) more and more variables enter into the mix. For my own family we believe that conception is the beginning of a new life. Others set the line at 21 weeks or birth or any number of other benchmarks.
Abortion is not a defining political issue in my house. It just isn't. The reason I am pro-choice politically, frankly, has nothing to do with women's rights. It's simply a matter of wanting the government to stay the @#&% out of what should be a very private matter. Our politicians have plenty of problems effecting far more people that they better start concentrating on.
So, if you don't accept the heartfelt opinions of others your preferred recourse is to question the motives or sincerity of the holder? You could do better if you wanted.
As a parent and grandparent, I believe strongly in my responsibility to place my offspring's interests above my own, whether they're considered human (by other's standards) or not. I simply can't do otherwise.
I didn't question your motives. I question your knowledge of abortions and what really goes on in the vast vast majority of cases. I"m sure your motives are completely honest. But your knowledge is fuzzy, and probably from the heightened rhetoric of the anti-choice crowd, who's motives are also probably honest.
I don't believe the motives are necessarily to control women, but that is the outcome. And as rosebud pointed out, it's kind of disingenuous that the crowd who cheers letting the poor slob die who failed to get insurance thinks it's just fine and dandy to force a woman to carry a zygote to person hood...just as long as they don't have to pay for it.
I wonder what those people would think if the government told them that because of their blood type, they have to be hooked up by IV to a dying man for 9 months to save his life, and that without this IV hook-up this other person would die. It's saving a life, right? They must sacrifice their 9 months, and put their health in danger to save this other person, who actually is a person. Government mandate. What would they say then? Do you think they would revolt? Would you? Kind of the ultimate government mandate, isn't it. Do we force people to give a kidney?
You have no credibility in this simply because you are a man. Period. Just a fact of life. Men, who have no idea what so ever, nor will they ever, in carrying and childbirth, should not be a part of the decision except where their own family is concerned.
You are against abortion? Fine, don't get one.
Exactly my feelings as well Catherine. As I've said before, its a decision I'm only comfortable making for myself (or in my case with my wife). We've concluded that the "mass of cells" is alive and at the very least has all the genetic makeup of a human being and so abortion would not be an option for us. For that reason I do think the debate gets off course when people compare abortion rights to property or other rights. A governing entity telling you what to wear or deciding career paths intrudes on its citizens' liberty. That is something that should be rallied against, but is rarely actually life threatening. The difference with abortion is that it really is a life and death situation.
That fertilized egg is a mass of human cells and there are people who feel a very deep obligation to protect it from harm. If I saw your 5 year old child being threatened on their way home from school I would intervene. Part of that reaction would be based on the fact that most 5 year olds can't adequately defend themselves. Wherever that bright line is, by kindergarten age most of us have an easy time agreeing that the child has crossed it. As that line moves backwards (chronologically) more and more variables enter into the mix. For my own family we believe that conception is the beginning of a new life. Others set the line at 21 weeks or birth or any number of other benchmarks.
Abortion is not a defining political issue in my house. It just isn't. The reason I am pro-choice politically, frankly, has nothing to do with women's rights. It's simply a matter of wanting the government to stay the @#&% out of what should be a very private matter. Our politicians have plenty of problems effecting far more people that they better start concentrating on.
+1
catherine
1-25-12, 10:00am
Thanks, Gregg. Well said.
You have no credibility in this simply because you are a man. Period. Just a fact of life. Men, who have no idea what so ever, nor will they ever, in carrying and childbirth, should not be a part of the decision except where their own family is concerned.
Thanks for your perspective.
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me
Shouldn't that go more like "First, they came for her tonsils..." ?
As my mother used to say about the rabidly anti-choice "They love 'em up until they're born."
She clearly would have agreed with George Carlin, as I do.
Thanks for your perspective.
Apparently there are situations where the needs of one individual can usurp the rights of another.
You have no credibility in this simply because you are a man. Period. Just a fact of life. Men, who have no idea what so ever, nor will they ever, in carrying and childbirth, should not be a part of the decision except where their own family is concerned.
Would the same argument apply to sterile women, or is the Y-chromosome the sole disqualifier?
Debunked...Canard? I'll admit I mis-spoke when I mentioned Senator Obama sponsoring legislation when he actually blocked legislation which would have legally classified abortion survivors as "live birth".
Providing an example to dispute your contention that my question doesn't deal with the "real world" isn't anti Obama. It's simply evidence that it's "real world" enough for our top elected official.
We were not discussing Obama's record or opinions. That was not the point of the thread, but you could not resist slamming him. He is very squeamish on late term abortions and has always said he believes states have the right to restrict them, however he has maintained that those restrictions must have exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother. He has opposed legislation that is so vague that it would effectively define a fetus as a person or could be interpreted as bannning all abortions.
In the balance of rights between a pregnant woman and a non viable fetus I side with women. When folks don' t show any compassion towards babies and kids overall and object to being forced to pay any amount of money to help other people I don' t understand how they can say they are pro life.
We were not discussing Obama's record or opinions. That was not the point of the thread, but you could not resist slamming him. He is very squeamish on late term abortions and has always said he believes states have the right to restrict them, however he has maintained that those restrictions must have exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother. He has opposed legislation that is so vague that it would effectively define a fetus as a person or could be interpreted as bannning all abortions.
That's sort of right. He opposed legislation that would define an abortion survivor as a 'live birth'. I would maintain that any fetus, alive outside the womb, is a baby, deserving of all the constitutional protections that others enjoy. Without that designation, they can legally be left to die without medical care.
Peggy was right several posts back, it's a semantics game. If we don't get the semantics right, it's possible that people will realize that they're sometimes killing babies rather than removing a tumor or other foreign growth. Pointing that out is not a "slam" on Obama, it's pointing out the collective hypocracy of those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
In the balance of rights between a pregnant woman and a non viable fetus I side with women. When folks don' t show any compassion towards babies and kids overall and object to being forced to pay any amount of money to help other people I don' t understand how they can say they are pro life.
Perhaps you define compassion differently than others. If it depends upon governmental intervention it's not really compassion, but rather forced servitude. Conflating the two may make a good argumentum ad hominem, but will not help your understanding.
Would the same argument apply to sterile women, or is the Y-chromosome the sole disqualifier?
The final decision lies with the woman whose life and womb is on the line, IMO.
You have no credibility in this simply because you are a man. Period. Just a fact of life. Men, who have no idea what so ever, nor will they ever, in carrying and childbirth, should not be a part of the decision except where their own family is concerned.
Would the same argument apply to sterile women, or is the Y-chromosome the sole disqualifier?
Ya know LDAHL, that is actually a REALLY interesting question. I've always tried to be an active parent/partner and so have assumed my opinion was valid in the discussion, even beyond just my own family. Peggy is right stating that I will never be able to fully comprehend all aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. As colloquial as it now is to say "we" are pregnant, the truth is that only the woman ever will be.
So where is the line beyond which one opinion becomes more valuable than others? With women who are already mothers because they are the only ones who know what it is like if you don't abort? What about the fathers of their children? What about women who have had an abortion, but never given birth to a child? What about women who are fertile, but have not ever conceived? Shouldn't potential conception have ramifications and responsibilities for either sex? If responsibility is to be conferred on both partners shouldn't they both also have a say in the outcome? What about, as LDAHL mentioned, women who are not capable of conception? Is their opinion invalid because they can not experience pregnancy and birth? Where's the line?
"Perhaps you define compassion differently than others. If it depends upon governmental intervention it's not really compassion, but rather forced servitude. Conflating the two may make a good argumentum ad hominem, but will not help your understanding. " (Alan)
The goal should be little or no governmental oversight over individual women's reproductive choices. Forced servitude would only come into play if one is compelled to carry an unwanted fetus to term. (See The Handmaid's Tale)
"Perhaps you define compassion differently than others. If it depends upon governmental intervention it's not really compassion, but rather forced servitude. Conflating the two may make a good argumentum ad hominem, but will not help your understanding. " (Alan)
The goal should be little or no governmental oversight over individual women's reproductive choices. Forced servitude would only come into play if one is compelled to carry an unwanted fetus to term. (See The Handmaid's Tale)
I mentioned governmental intervention because several of the other posters seem to believe that if I'm not for higher taxes I am lacking in compassion.
I agree that there should be little or no governmental oversight over individual women's reproductive choices, but would add that once those choices result in another life, it too is deserving of consideration.
That's sort of right. He opposed legislation that would define an abortion survivor as a 'live birth'. I would maintain that any fetus, alive outside the womb, is a baby, deserving of all the constitutional protections that others enjoy. Without that designation, they can legally be left to die without medical care.
Peggy was right several posts back, it's a semantics game. If we don't get the semantics right, it's possible that people will realize that they're sometimes killing babies rather than removing a tumor or other foreign growth. Pointing that out is not a "slam" on Obama, it's pointing out the collective hypocracy of those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
Perhaps you define compassion differently than others. If it depends upon governmental intervention it's not really compassion, but rather forced servitude. Conflating the two may make a good argumentum ad hominem, but will not help your understanding.
1. Here is a link to a non-partisan objective outline of Obama's record on abortion. Everyone can make up their own minds.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/Abortion/
2. Here is a link to a non profit organization that does research and compiles stats on abortion in real life. To clarify a few points, the vast majority of legal abortions in this country take place in the first 3 months. The vast number of women report feeling relieved more than regretful after having an abortion. The risk of regretting your choice is of course a possibility if you opt for an abortion, and in fact the woman behind Roe v. Wade certainly regretted her role in the case later in her life.
http://www.guttmacher.org/
3. You said: If it depends on governmental intervention it's not really compassion but rather FORCED SERVITUDE. So, let me understand this: when the government uses your tax money to save babies by paying for programs that protect the purity of baby formula or provide pre-natal health care to poor women or pay the salaries of social workers to take abused babies away from unfit parents...that is tantamount to enslaving you. But when the government makes it a crime to obtain an abortion, effectively coercing women into supporting "babies" with their bodies, that is NOT involuntary servitude.
I don't know anything about your personal commitment to helping other people in the form of charitable donations or volunteer work. For all I know you have adopted 60 kids and gave half your paycheck to the nearest home for unwed mothers. But you consistently oppose any government programs that effectively help other people and you are so vehement in your equation of taxes with involuntary servitude that I find it incongruous that you would not be troubled by the prospect of the government forcing women to bear children. That is involuntary servitude to me. You do know that in third world countries surrogate mothers are compensated for serving as incubators and giving birth? So the service of providing a fetus your body to grow iinto a full term baby does have as much monetary value as your work.
That is not an ad hominem attack.
That is not an ad hominem attack.
This is:
When folks don' t show any compassion towards babies and kids overall and object to being forced to pay any amount of money to help other people I don' t understand how they can say they are pro life.
For me, the problem with the argument is that people get tied up in whether or not abortion is right/wrong or should be legal/illegal, rather than looking at what creates the prevalence of abortions.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that collects data around abortion rates and similar issues, the real lynchpin around this issue is the prevalence of unintended pregnancy, not whether or not abortion is legal.
So, the real action shouldn't be focused on whether or not abortion is legal -- that's secondary -- but on making certain that people have access to birth control, comprehensive sex education, and a culture that supports the use of birth control methods.
Most countries who have the lowest unintended pregnancy rates and therefore lowest abortion rates are countries whose national education systems provide comprehensive sex education as well as have national health care programs that provide free birth control to those who would seek it. As these two elements impact culture a great deal, a culture develops around utilizing these things and avoiding pregnancy, and thereby avoiding abortion.
Anyone who would want to prevent abortions would therefore want to educate the young populace about how to prevent unintended pregnancy. The problem is that they tend to focus on abstinence education, not wanting to discuss birth control, and so on. And in particular, not wanting to provide birth control.
Arguably, that needn't be done by "big gubment" (has anyone noticed that the government is about the same size regardless of whether the president is democrat or republican? i think if you *really* want small government, you're going to have to look at libertarians!), but part of the issue is that much of the anti-abortion-laws crowd is also focused on actively preventing birth control access and comprehensive sex education.
Which means, even if they succeed at making abortion illegal, the rates of abortion will be just as high (if not higher) than they currently are.
Well done Zoebird. Education = +1. If the only time abortion was ever considered was during the rare times when a mother's life was at risk I suspect there would be very little polarization around the issue.
This is:
I concede that was poorly phrased.
I mentioned governmental intervention because several of the other posters seem to believe that if I'm not for higher taxes I am lacking in compassion.
I agree that there should be little or no governmental oversight over individual women's reproductive choices, but would add that once those choices result in another life, it too is deserving of consideration.
Again it comes back to when is it another life? And given that you're talking about choices, would that infer that you're ok with abortion in cases where the woman had no choice?
I mentioned governmental intervention because several of the other posters seem to believe that if I'm not for higher taxes I am lacking in compassion.
I agree that there should be little or no governmental oversight over individual women's reproductive choices, but would add that once those choices result in another life, it too is deserving of consideration.
I absolutely agree that any potential for human life should be given full and careful consideration; I would like to think that women (and men) would be scrupulous about this before conception, but based on results...
Would the same argument apply to sterile women, or is the Y-chromosome the sole disqualifier?
It applies to EVERYONE who isn't a member of the woman's family.
This is largely a case of people trying to force their religious beliefs on the general public. Viability is actually pretty easy to determine, viability being capable of independent life. A one month zygote is not viable. A two month old fetus is not viable. A three or four month old fetus is not viable. There, we have taken care of the vast majority of abortions. A five month old fetus is not viable. Six and seven is getting into a grey area. Independently, they are not viable. With drastic intervention, maybe, but even then it's iffy, and there is quite often grave physical and mental damage. Despite the rabid anti-choice types, doctors and nurses are not delivering 8 month old babies and killing them. It's just not happening. That's called murder and someone would come forward.
I can appreciate someones religious beliefs. Personally I think religion is a bunch of bunk, but I won't picket outside your church and scream that you are being brainwashed. I won't demand the government ban religion even though I think religious zealots are one of the biggest threats to our way of life. If you don't believe in abortion then by all means don't have one.
To extend Jane's thought:
First they came for her tonsils, but they were not my tonsils, so I agreed.
Then they came for a pint of blood, but it wasn't my type, so I agreed.
Then they came for her womb, but since men can't get pregnant, I'm good.
Then they wanted me to pay for it, and I'm all like, Whoa! Wait!
I think the argument gets lost out of all of this is not about legality per se.
I believe these are the two primary arguments:
Moderate Pro-Lifers say "I don't want government in these health care decisions, but when the government acts, it should be doing things to promote/support life." The underlying assumption is that the person wants women to rarely have abortions (as in, only in extreme circumstances). Would this be a fair characterization? It was my experience when I was on that side.
Moderate Pro-choicers say "I don't want the government in these health care decisions, but I also don't want a lot of women having abortions." The underlying assumption is that having them legal is an important reproductive/health choice, but that the act itself is not wonderful and something that one should be cavalier about. This is my experience anyway.
Both groups have several things in common: 1. they don't want the government making decisions about women's reproductive and health rights, or over a family's reproductive and health rights; and 2. they don't want people to feel compelled to have abortions "willy-nilly" as a form of birth control.
From here, it's important to look at facts:
1. according to the research, the percentage of abortions is directly related to the number of unwanted pregnancies NOT related to whether or not the abortions are legal. In countries where it is illegal, and where unwanted pregnancy rates are high, abortion rates are just as high as those countries that have high unwanted pregnancy rates where abortion is legal. Thus, the legal element is not relevant to preventing abortions. Making it illegal (or overturning Roe v Wade) will not reduce the number of abortions. It would only increase criminality, increasing expenses in the justice system (and thereby increasing government), and possibly increasing the profits of privatized prison systems.
2. the laws as they come down in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey explicitly state that the government is saying out of a woman's right to choose what is appropriate for her self, her body, and her family. The effective first statement of both groups is supported via the current law, and therefore there is no reason to fight over this law.
3. research has demonstrated that the most effective ways to decrease the number of abortions is education and access to birth control.
Therefore, both groups should stop focusing on legalities and finger pointing about adoption and what not, and start focusing on policy that will allow this to take place.
And, I'm not suggesting any specific policy per se -- government or private. I just wish people would stop arguing over the law or over viability and other related beliefs, and look at -- you know -- solving the problem.
If you believe there are too many abortions, then you need to work to end abortions, not to fight against a law that doesn't impact whether or not abortions happen.
My position (I'm male, but I'll dare to speak anyways) is as follows:
- I think a "fetus" at some point in its development is human in some important sense, and I won't *****foot around the fact that abortion is killing.
- I think that all beings deserve equal consideration of interests.
- I do not believe in using force against another except in case of self defense.
- I think the mother's right to control of her body outweighs the unborn human's right to occupy her body. If necessary, I would kill a man on the spot, quite legally in this state, to stop him from using force to coerce me into serving him against my will for a day, or an hour, or a minute. Forcing me to serve his interests against my will for 9 months seems even more troublesome.
So, in general:
- I am opposed to abortion personally. And so I take steps to avoid encountering the issue in my life. Though apparently nature finds a way, and my daughter arrived on the scene 2 years ahead of schedule. So be it.
- I would not presume to tell a mother what she should or should not decide about aborting her baby. I don't think her husband even has that "right". Or her doctor, or her priest.
- I would not presume to tell a doctor he had to perform abortions against his will.
- I find distinctions of "against abortion except in cases of rape or incest" to miss the fundamental ethical points - you are either killing, or you aren't, and if you are, you need to think through if the killing, the use of force, is acceptable. I find this use of force possible acceptable, and it's the mother's call.
For those who think the religious right who opposes abortion all march around without doing any practical good, they need to actually inform themselves of all of the mother-support services provided by the--to cite one example--Catholics.
I believe I detailed the unintended consequences of this sort of support on the previous boards. I'll summarize.
My sister and her husband were criminals, engaged in a decade long life of crime on-the-road. They had two daughters, that they kept. They, three times that I've been able to determine, got pregnant on purpose, contacted a support service, told the service they were considering an abortion, and got the support service to provide them housing and food for the duration of the pregnancy and through the adoption. They used this time to live below-the-radar of the warrants out for them in about a dozen states. They were in essence breeding and selling babies to support their lifestyle.
If they couldn't land a program, they would abort the child. If they got arrested before they managed to get into hiding in a program, or under other circumstances, they'd abort the child. I know of 5 abortions.
As I said in another thread here today, yes, I think evil exists :-(
bae,
i fall quite similar to you. I also like how St Thomas Acquinas dealt with the issue in his treatise. He essentially says that the moral implications are between God and the individual woman. He assumed -- and asserted that it was only a guess -- that there would be more moral import *after* the quickening vs before, but that whatever the moral implications are -- those are between the woman and God.
Yes, it is killing. But there are a fair number of situations where killing is justified (as you bring forth in your statement) or allowable, even if it is still unsavory and distasteful to those who would feel forced to do so, as well as those who are observing.
I also can admit that having had my son, I am far less cavalier about the concept. Before having him, I said that if we weren't ready, we would go ahead and abort. But, once I did have him (and, we never were in that position, btw), I now feel that there's just no way that I could do it -- and that we would find a way if I were to become pregnant.
That being said, I am *ridiculously* educated about my body, and we are looking at using 3 forms of birth control just to be sure that we don't get into that situation. Sterilization is out for both of us, absolutely certain. But vigilance is no problem. Even hyper-vigilance.
bae, that is tragic. thanks for reminding us of the other side, too. though, seeing their criminality, i could assume that even if abortion were illegal, they'd still play that game. tragic, tragic. yes, human evil certainly does exist.
bae, that is tragic. thanks for reminding us of the other side, too. though, seeing their criminality, i could assume that even if abortion were illegal, they'd still play that game. tragic, tragic. yes, human evil certainly does exist.
Yes. At least to my understanding most of the support organizations now share data with each other to try to detect this sort of serial behaviour, though I'm not sure what that really accomplishes :-(
the main thing it accomplishes is those organizations not being used to protect people from prosecution for crimes, or their resources aren't being 'used.'
True enough. Hopefully by reducing the marketing channel for serial-criminal-baby-sellers, they'd be encouraged to find some other line of work.
My position (I'm male, but I'll dare to speak anyways) is as follows:
- I think a "fetus" at some point in its development is human in some important sense, and I won't *****foot around the fact that abortion is killing.
- I think that all beings deserve equal consideration of interests.
- I do not believe in using force against another except in case of self defense.
- I think the mother's right to control of her body outweighs the unborn human's right to occupy her body. If necessary, I would kill a man on the spot, quite legally in this state, to stop him from using force to coerce me into serving him against my will for a day, or an hour, or a minute. Forcing me to serve his interests against my will for 9 months seems even more troublesome.
So, in general:
- I am opposed to abortion personally. And so I take steps to avoid encountering the issue in my life. Though apparently nature finds a way, and my daughter arrived on the scene 2 years ahead of schedule. So be it.
- I would not presume to tell a mother what she should or should not decide about aborting her baby. I don't think her husband even has that "right". Or her doctor, or her priest.
- I would not presume to tell a doctor he had to perform abortions against his will.
- I find distinctions of "against abortion except in cases of rape or incest" to miss the fundamental ethical points - you are either killing, or you aren't, and if you are, you need to think through if the killing, the use of force, is acceptable. I find this use of force possible acceptable, and it's the mother's call.
I think this a very well thought out position.
My position (I'm male, but I'll dare to speak anyways) is as follows:
- I think a "fetus" at some point in its development is human in some important sense, and I won't *****foot around the fact that abortion is killing.
- I think that all beings deserve equal consideration of interests.
- I do not believe in using force against another except in case of self defense.
- I think the mother's right to control of her body outweighs the unborn human's right to occupy her body. If necessary, I would kill a man on the spot, quite legally in this state, to stop him from using force to coerce me into serving him against my will for a day, or an hour, or a minute. Forcing me to serve his interests against my will for 9 months seems even more troublesome.
So, in general:
- I am opposed to abortion personally. And so I take steps to avoid encountering the issue in my life. Though apparently nature finds a way, and my daughter arrived on the scene 2 years ahead of schedule. So be it.
- I would not presume to tell a mother what she should or should not decide about aborting her baby. I don't think her husband even has that "right". Or her doctor, or her priest.
- I would not presume to tell a doctor he had to perform abortions against his will.
- I find distinctions of "against abortion except in cases of rape or incest" to miss the fundamental ethical points - you are either killing, or you aren't, and if you are, you need to think through if the killing, the use of force, is acceptable. I find this use of force possible acceptable, and it's the mother's call.
Well said.
Of course you have an opinion, and you stated it very well as it pertains to your family.
I'm so sorry about your sister. Unfortunately, monsters aren't all make believe.
iris lily
1-26-12, 12:09am
I think that if Margaret Sanger showed up today in this country she would be shocked, just shocked, at the number of unwanted children that STILL exist after decades of education and superior birth control that far surpasses anything available in her day. Shocked and dismayed.
I know that I am.
But on the flip side, I remember when I was a teen, I knew *so many* teens who didn't have the slightest knowledge about their bodies and how babies were made. And they were sexually active. Between ages 14 and 17, I spent a good deal of time in my summers educating my peers. They went to public schools. Their parents had "opted them out" of the sex education program. So, they knew nothing.
I'm not saying that parents "shouldn't" have the right to opt a kid out of a program that they dislike or whatever, but that level of ignorance is . . . devastating in my opinion.
And, teens are rather capricious about the whole thing, and sometimes rules work against people. For example, my catholic school did have comprehensive education. But, they also had rules. The rule book -- which had been last edited in the 1950s -- stated that if a girl became pregnant, she could attend our school from home (correspondence) and then not "walk in graduation" (which meant wearing a white dress and carrying a red rose and apparently was really important to people). If she gave that child up for adoption after the birth, then she could return to school. If she kept the child, she could not return to school.
So, after 1972, graduation became WAY more important than babies. And a lot of girls whom I knew had abortions.
In 1992 -- my sophomore year and the first year that I heard of a classmate getting an abortion because she wanted to walk in graduation -- I went to the principal and vice principal and asked them if they were pro-life. If they were, I postulated, then they would do things that *prevented* abortion. This would include things like "girls being able to stay in school with us" and possibly considering "allowing them to walk in graduation."
For me, walking in graduation was meaningless. I don't get it. But apparently for a lot of people, it's Really Really Super Important and Meaningful. That goes for adults too -- parents, teachers, and admin all seem to feel that Graduation is Awesomely Important and Sacred.
My argument: Is it more sacred than human life itself?
By 1993, the rules had been amended. IN fact, all of the rules were considered, put to discussion between the diocese, the nuns who ran the school (the order), the alumnae, staff -- and yes, even students.
I theorized that while the education was comprehensive, girls wouldn't use birth control because of the culture (catholic), and that they would then seek abortions to avoid punishment. I was able to get multiple statements from students -- in person -- to give to the board that they had had abortions. I was shocked at the number in my year alone -- it was more than 10, and there were only 120 girls in our class. Other classes also had several abortions.
To a one, every girl said "I didn't want to not get to walk in graduation."
The rules were changed.
Girls who kept their babies (stayed pregnant) were allowed to attend school. It was quickly determined that getting pregnant was not glamorous -- and those girls were rather shunned. They experienced the public shaming that not allowing them to attend school (the fear being that pregnancy would be romanticized) was meant to accomplish but didn't. And, they were allowed to participate in every aspect of life except, ultimately, ONE -- which was walking in graduation.
While the rates of abortions in my class went down and pregnancies went up (by my senior year of high school, i knew of 7 pregnant girls in my class, and this is above the 10+ who had abortions, and there were several more who gave birth within months of graduation. You have to see that this was easily 1/6th or MORE of our graduating class, and several girls *still* had abortions to avoid the public shame and also the "not getting to walk in graduation."
I kept close notes of rumors, and gently spoke to girls -- telling them I was collecting information to allow the school to make a pro-life decision.
Ultimately, graduation was opened, but you couldn't be pregnant and showing during graduation. This still means that abortions occur so that a 17 yr old girl can do a stupid, meaningless ceremony. If she is likely to 'show' on June 5 or so, she aborts.
The numbers all around are well down. According to the school, our class was one of the "toughest classes to deal with." we were contentious, rebellious, and stubborn. No doubt, I was part of that problem, because my pro-life leanings were such that I didn't want to just 'Take a stand" against the laws back then, but at some people I realized that the legality DID NOT create a situation where abortiosn were not happening.
My process was many. One was changing the school culture so that girls kept their babies (some gave theirs up for adoption, some of those children are now graduating from high school themselves this year -- kept by their parents). Another was purchasing and handing out birth control. Girls felt like they couldn't go and buy condoms themselves, boys were not going to (another cultural thing), and I had no qualms about going into a drug store and spending my pocket money preventing pregnancies of others as best I could.
I also learned and taught fertility charting -- something not taught in schools -- to help girls understand. I had no way to access things like birth control pills or similar -- because those require prescriptions. I learned as much as I could about fertility charting and attempted to teach it to my friends and encourage them to use condoms and talk to their parents about getting pills, wires, or diaphragms.
While I never believed in using these forms myself (beyond charting), i felt that if a girl was going to be sexually active, it was VITAL that she was able to get what she needed. And I was more than willing to provide it. I ultimately connected with planned parenthood, and they gave me a lot of information about birth control and supplied me with condoms to pass out, so I no longer had to spend my spending money on it. I happened into the place just after a pro-life rally had taken place there.
I later left the pro-life movement because i felt that the movement was misguided. They are focusing their efforts in the wrong place. The right place to focus is not necessarily on mother support -- though that is important -- it's to focus on preventing pregnancy. Prevent unwanted pregnancy, you prevent abortions. Plain and simple.
To avoid that, you educate, you provide birth control, you change the culture so that people aren't going to choose to kill a baby so that they can walk in stupid, meaningless ceremonies, and you provide mother-support if it breaks through all of that.
When I went to university, another 12 girls got pregnant in their first year. I started to think they were doing it on purpose. Nearly all of these girls have kept their children. Being on FB is weird.
Zoebird,
Thank you for humanizing some of the issues by telling your story.
What I take away from it is people who don't want to get burned shouldn't play with matches. I don't have statistics on the sexual activity of teens/young adults now, but I have a feeling that it's pretty much an accepted practice, probably thanks in part to the media and movies. I agree with you completely on education and on changing the culture and on prevention of pregnancy--and I am idealistic enough to believe that abstinence is a good place to start.
In the old days, you weren't supposed to have sex before marriage. I'm sure that was breached often, but now anyone who is even trying to do that is considered a dinosaur. Marriage doesn't even happen for many people now until they are in their 30s, if ever, so there are no real social guidelines or barriers to having sex. My generation, I'm sad to say, really did a bang-up job on selling free love.
I asked my daughter once, if a girl is about 28, how many sex partners is she likely to have had? And she told me, 10. I have to say, little old product-of-Catholic-school me was shocked. Pregnancy, even with birth control, is often a numbers game. So, shouldn't we TRY to keep the shooting numbers low, if we want to reduce the incidence of abortion? Just try??
by the by, I admit that I was a very, very weird teenager.
The existence of so many unloved, rejected, neglected, abandoned, and abused children is vastly more appalling to me than are medical abortions. I don't know why so many people avoid readily available birth control and then seem surprised by the resulting pregnancy. People make me tired.
And speaking only for myself, I think less shame around sex is just one of the positive developments of the late sixties/early seventies.
And speaking only for myself, I think less shame around sex is just one of the positive developments of the late sixties/early seventies.
True, but that doesn't mean the experience has to be like the drive-thru at McDonalds.
by the by, I admit that I was a very, very weird teenager.
I think the word you're looking is "awesome" - that was pretty cool :-)
considering i've only had one partner, i agree that abstinence is great and healthy and should be taught/considered.
but, i don't think that "abstinence education" is that great. It mostly focuses on one thing, and not educating on the other issues and concerns.
the program in our school was comprehensive. they did teach abstinence. a BIG part of the program was the social and emotional (personal) impact of premarital/extramarital sex. What wasn't covered were ethical foundations.
there are many reasons why i wanted until i was with my husband. but here are some of the foundations:
1. my body theology asserts that the body is a sacred vessel or an aspect of a sacred whole. just as anything held sacred is protected and held precious, well cared for, and so on, so also should my body.
2. sex is a powerful, bonding and procreative act. anyone who understands, for example, how powerful a high-voltage station is, wouldn't "play" with it. when you understand how powerful something is, you don't "muck about" with it.
3. in general, it is wrong to seek to use or harm other human beings -- they have dignity and sovereignty, and seeking to use or harm them for your own purposes is inappropriate. As I had no desire to use someone, I also had no desire to be used (see 1).
These sort of belief-premises which form the foundation of my ethics are what guided me to not have sex until i was with my husband (it was pre-marital, but after engagement/commitment).
It made the decision simple. I know how sacred I am. I know how powerful sex is. I know that I do not want to be used as a pleasure-toy (in the pick up artist realm or "game" realm, it's called a 'pump and dump' when you actively use someone as a pleasure toy). I also know that I do not want to use someone else in that way (i find the behavior repugnant and beneath my dignity).
I tried to explain this to my friends, but most of them failed to see it. "sex is fun!" and "there's nothing wrong if everyone is consenting!" and "sex is sacred too!" obviously, they didn't really comprehend how "sacred" works.
And this is part of the problem, imo. Even in cultures where multiple partners, orgies, and the like might be the norm, these sexual ethics are still there. Sex would not be using someone, nor would it be merely "consenting partners." it's not just a "game for fun and pleasure!" in such cultures, they are deeply procreative bonding acts.
Heck, go back to the norse people. they had festivals throughout the year, and the point of these festivals was to procreate. Men would visit towns for these festivals (men who were viking or on travels of various sorts), and this would purposefully 'mix up' the gene pool. It was absolutely critical for the health of the community, and festival babies were considered "extra lucky." Marriage wasn't important for these festivals, men would return home to wives pregnant by the festival, and it was considered a blessing and would be "his child." Fostering children was also a common practice -- which increased blood ties and social ties across communities.
So, it's not like it's this strict "no sex before/outside" of marriage thing. But it wasn't a free-for-all. You could have multiple, extra marital partners for the *festival* and it wasn't using people, it was a sacred celebration and everyone knew the rules. It's completely different than the way a lot of people characterize things today. And, we live in a different world.
Anyway, i find this topic frustrating in general. I do not know why people -- in general -- do not behave with more self respect and dignity, and treat others with more respect and dignity.
ApatheticNoMore
1-26-12, 3:51pm
I don't know why so many people avoid readily available birth control and then seem surprised by the resulting pregnancy. People make me tired.
And speaking only for myself, I think less shame around sex is just one of the positive developments of the late sixties/early seventies.
+ 1
I would say that 10 is a low number for a woman of 28 today. Or maybe I know particularly loose women.
Most women, if they are married between 22 and 25 might have 4 or fewer partners. But, most have more than that -- as far as I can tell -- but there are a lot that they "don't count" (one night stands after parties, etc are "not counted" because it was "just casual." I don't get how people twist the numbers).
So, a 'good girl' may have 5 or so by 28, but that might mean 15 or 30 or 100 depending upon a lot of factors. But if they are younger, and if they get married younger -- they likely have far fewer partners than their older counterparts.
I admit, i don't get it.
chanterelle
1-26-12, 4:04pm
There is another aspect to this discussion other than unwed teens and young women getting pregnant.
I am old enough to remember the first womens focus groups of the mid to late 60's.
As many critics have pointed out, the women were mainly white and fairly middle class [as was I], they also were a very mixed group married and unmarried women of all ages. The women I met were not welfare queens, uneducated or clueless.
When the discussions centered on birth control and abortion it was disclosed just how many married women, with children, had sought out the then illegal procedure during their marraiges.
Family economics were an issue, even though most of these women were not of the poverty class, but many confessed that they just could not handle any more children. They were tired, wanted out of having another child and also wanted some control of their own reproduction process. Many women back then could not demand that their spouses use whatever legal means were available and many were constrained by social and religious views which left them out of the process. They sought out illegal procedures as a result...they made themselves criminals inorder to get some control of their lives.
The discussion today needs to get away from the inevitable harangue about young unmarrieds , those on welfare and those people who are too clueless to use birth control. There is more to this issue.
We need to focus on the fact of basic human sexuality. People have sex, thay have always had sex and we must stop demonizing people for doing so and make birth control, not only available but a valid and common place health option. Unwanted pregnancies are greatly lessened if the stigma that planning for sex is a shameful act is ended.
Women need to know that they have the power over their lives. Young girls need access to education and jobs, because statistics prove that birth rates drop when this happens.
...
The discussion today needs to get away from the inevitable harangue about young unmarrieds , those on welfare and those people who are too clueless to use birth control. There is more to this issue.
We need to focus on the fact of basic human sexuality. People have sex, thay have always had sex and we must stop demonizing people for doing so and make birth control, not only available but a valid and common place health option. Unwanted pregnancies are greatly lessened if the stigma that planning for sex is a shameful act.
Women need to know that they have the power over their lives. Young girls need access to education and jobs, because statistics prove that birth rates drop when this happens.
Well put. Most European countries have much lower rates of unwanted pregnancy than we do.
yes, that's exactly what i think, chanterelle. :)
I would say that 10 is a low number for a woman of 28 today. Or maybe I know particularly loose women.
Most women, if they are married between 22 and 25 might have 4 or fewer partners. But, most have more than that -- as far as I can tell -- but there are a lot that they "don't count" (one night stands after parties, etc are "not counted" because it was "just casual." I don't get how people twist the numbers).
So, a 'good girl' may have 5 or so by 28, but that might mean 15 or 30 or 100 depending upon a lot of factors. But if they are younger, and if they get married younger -- they likely have far fewer partners than their older counterparts.
I admit, i don't get it.
frankly i find much of the language on this thread to be far more shocking than the idea that a woman might have 10 sexual partners in her life. i feel like i stumbled into the first season of mad men or something when the doctor tells peggy that if he finds out she's "abusing" her birth control pills, he will taken them away from her.
why is a woman's "number" something that we feel we have the right to pass judgement on? or even COMMENT on? there are PLENTY of men who have had FAR more partners than that, and no one says a word. why?
it's the same reason that we are still having this same tired abortion debate: because women's bodies are still in a very real sense seen as public property. especially by those who hold a traditional worldview.
this pisses me off. if a woman wants to get laid 5 nights a week by 5 different guys and then eat mc donald's on the way home, that is her right as an adult in possession of her own brain and genitals. and everyone else can shut the hell up about it.
also, some perspective: if you became sexually active at 18, and had 2 partners per year (not exactly a shocking number), you'd still be up to a couple dozen by age 30.
this is normal.
and why are we conflating the number of partners with someone's likelihood to have an abortion?
they have NOTHING to do with each other.
some interesting reading for those whose ideas about sex and abortion are stuck in a time warp:
http://thehairpin.com/2012/01/ask-another-abortion-provider-roe-vs-wade-39th-anniversary-commemorative-edition
edited to add: not trying to single zoebird out with this quote ... it just seemed to sum up the last few pages of this thread.
So, in summation, I blame it on the Puritans. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/light_skin/diablo.gif
So, in summation, I blame it on the Puritans. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/light_skin/diablo.gif
just one in a long line of cultures that discount the agency of women! grr!!
I don't feel singled out. But I do think you misunderstand me.
Foremost, I'm not "judging" anyone for having sex. I know that people are making choices about sex that I wouldn't make, and that I find personally morally repugnant or unethical. But, that doesn't mean that they don't have a different structure for decision making, that they should be ashamed, or that I am shaming them.
I have actively provided sex education and birth control for individuals whom I knew who were choosing to have sex as a teen, spending my own limited pocket money to do so. I actively looked to turn over rules in our school that pushed girls to choosing abortion over birthing their babies, so that they would choose to birth those babies instead. I supported those girls personally in a variety of ways, including encouraging them to seek medical care (prenatal care) and being with them when they spoke to their parents about it for the first time.
I continue to support sex education and access to birth control through both private organizations and public policy when applicable.
In the discussion, the concept of teaching abstinence was brought up. I commented that much of "abstinence based education" is misguided -- because it doesn't provide the information that the person (man or woman) needs to make good decisions about sex (when ultimately choosing to have sex). And, that when abstinence based education *is* part of a comprehensive education, in my experience it "misses the mark" in promoting abstinence as viable because it doesn't explain the why behind choosing that over choosing to have multiple partners.
I expressed the reasons why I feel that abstinence is important, or is better than casual sex, and that it applies to *people* equally regardless of sex or gender.
And that sexual ethics can still apply in other formations of sexual expression that are culturally different -- which means that a person can have multiple partners over multiple days and still meet the basic structure of sexual ethics if they are being thoughtful in their processes and decision making.
While I feel that it would be better for men and women to have fewer partners, it is not my decision to make for anyone else. I do not shame people for choosing differently from me, which is why I also find it imperative that IF people are choosing different from me that they have access to information and resources that can help them create the outcomes that they want and that I share (no unintended pregnancies leading to abortions, for example; no sexually transmitted diseases as well).
Just because I take a conservative view of sex does not mean that I'm not a pragmatist or realist about other people and their behaviors.
Just because I find certain behaviors as ethically questionable doesn't mean that I'm "shaming" someone.
And I never connected the "number of partners" with "having had an abortion" as part of the equation at all. I never put that connection forth. Most of the girls in my school had been with only ONE partner when the got pregnant and either kept that pregnancy or had an abortion, so there would be no basis for me to make such a claim.
Oh, and finally, when my husband and I were first married, we were using charting and a barrier method. Both failed, and I became pregnant. I miscarried and was *despartely thankful* because we were not ready. But during those first weeks when we discovered we were pregnant, we had a lot of talks about possibly seeking an abortion, carrying and keeping the baby, or putting the child up for adoption.
It was all a very serious consideration. I've had only one partner. We had an unintended pregnancy. We considered an abortion. Ultimately, the decision was made for us.
I'm glad that we could discuss it and make that decision. I think that it's important to be able to do so.
Zoebird, you are catching some of the heat for my comments... I'm the clueless prude here, apparently, so I'll own up to it. I'm not going to defend what I said other than to clarify that I also am not shaming anyone, and I certainly do not consider women's bodies public property. I agree with education, I agree with empowering women, I agree with easy access to birth control. But I don't think a little discernment is a bad thing when it comes to actions with such grave consequences, that's all.
I'm going to slip into my burqa and slink away now....
ApatheticNoMore
1-26-12, 6:21pm
Well really you have to take equal precautions against pregnancy regardless of what age you are (if it falls somewhere between puberty and completion of menopause), regardless of your marital status, and regardless of how many partners you have. At least if you don't want kids.
I'm going to slip into my burqa and slink away now....
The difference, Catherine (to quote Will Smith) is that you make that look good.
But seriously, I understand what you're saying.
It's good we finally solved this issue.
catherine and zoebird, i see where you are coming from and i respect your point of view.
it's just that it still strikes me as, like, 'well i don't get these girls and think they are making a huge mistake but i'm willing to help them out anyway.'
the thing is, not everyone thinks having multiple sexual partners is a big mistake! in fact, i think quite the opposite! i treasure my (many shocking!) sexual experiences because i learned a great deal from them about myself, what i like, who i am in relationships, and what kind of relationship i ultimately wanted to be in.
there are lots of reasons to have sex, and "because he was cute and i felt like it" is as valid as any. it doesn't always have to be some big meaningful thing. some of my favorite experiences were transitory and yet i still treasure them. and i'm sure when i'm old and gray i'll be glad i have those memories.
i applaud all efforts to educate people, and to get the contraception out there into the hands that need it ... but i guess i would like to see us approach these issues from a position of wanting to liberate women to express themselves sexually however they as individuals see fit, rather than from a place of wanting to minimize the damage caused by these choices that you think are wrong.
I think you are putting something onto me that isn't there in your last statement.
I don't think that sexual choices outside of and beyond abstinence and monogamy are wrong.
I believe that some people can be unethical in their sexual behaviors. This is not categorical to any one "formation" of a sex life, nor is it connected to the number of partners a person has. I dislike it when people are unethical (in general), and in particular in regards to sex because it is such a valuable experience (in it's many forms).
I've never got the correlation between any number of partners and the likelihood a woman will end up seeking an abortion. A woman who is, shall we say, more adventurous in her sex life but always precautionary would seem to be less prone to having an unintended pregnancy than a woman with only a few partners that did not take steps to prevent pregnancy.
Most opposition to abortion is value based which is an absolutely legitimate position to hold. Where critical thinking breaks down is when the sometimes associated concepts of promiscuity and/or virtue enter the conversation. I know plenty of people who firmly believe that making contraceptives available to high school kids is akin to issuing a license to have sex. While I would like to cover my ears, sing la la la and go on believing my grandkids will be immaculately conceived, it probably ain't gonna happen that way. In the real world I would rather my kids learn about relationships in a healthy and sane fashion. That will probably include sex (not sure why I added "probably"). Educating them and granting access to contraceptives is as close as we can get to insuring they won't have to weigh having an abortion vs. being an unprepared young parent. An ounce of prevention won't eliminate the debate, but it would sure help get it to a more manageable level.
catherine
1-27-12, 11:24am
I really don't intend to dip back into this conversation, because Gregg is absolutely right--when it turns to values it gets personal, and I don't mean to do that. Madgeylou, you sound like a strong and very self-assured woman--I respect you and your choices, even though I can never in a million years see myself having the same "adventures" as you did. Then again, my background filters include a birds and bees talk with my mother that left me with the impression that I could get pregnant if I wore a short-sleeved shirt. So much for sex education.
I will leave you all with this study. I figured if I ever want to go shooting my mouth off with my uninformed hypotheses, it would be good to get more information, so here's one study that addresses unintended pregnancy, a topic without which we wouldn't have to have much of a conversation about abortion at all:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3002498.html
that guttmacher institute has a lot of great articles and information.
Alan, I don't think you really understand the nature of abortion. In the vast majority of cases, the fetus is aborted through a tub a little larger than a straw. There is no viability there. This fetus would not survive outside the womb at any time. Just wouldn't happen.
The one or two bizarre cases aside, women do not wait until the 7th month to 'just abort' cause they don't want it. This just doesn't happen. I know the anti-choice people will find the one case, and then probably distort the truth of it to fit their agenda, but the vast vast majority of cases just aren't like this. Most are in the first couple of months. Do late abortions happen? Sure. But a real examination of the case will probably show that it was a case of dead fetuses, mothers life in very real risk, or a fetus laking a brain, for instance. Yes, that actually happens, and it is an extremely sad, soul wrenching time for the parents. People don't carry a baby that far just to 'get tired' of it. It doesn't happen.
My cousins had to make this choice. Their first pregnancy, the fetus had no brain. They were Catholic. It was a difficult decision. But in the end, a fetus without a brain will never become a baby.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.