Action vs talk - George Carlin on the anti-abortion movement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

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 is public knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

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

Thanks, Gregg. Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

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.

Quote:

---

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.