HaloScan.com - Comments

The Dawn Patrol: Comments

Sometimes I forget what we are up against. Only spiritual warfare can prevail against such evil. Pray and fast for the conversion of those in the Abortion indusrty.
DefundAbortionGuy | Homepage | 08.28.07 - 11:27 pm | #

So sad. I'll pray about this, and I hope Julia lives in a state where her mother can legally stop the murder of her grandchild. I feel so sad for everyone involved in this situation.
WSG | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 2:16 am | #

In fairness to Margaret Sanger, even though she could fairly described as an eugenicist, a ZPG advocate as well as being anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant, and any other number of turn of the century progressive causes she was not in favor of abortion. She turned women and girls away from her clinics and referred to abortion as "...an outrageous slaughter" and an "...infanticide."
Pat Patterson | 08.29.07 - 2:19 am | #

So disgusted...
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 3:45 am | #

Pat, abortion was illegal during Sanger's lifetime. She often spoke with seeming approval of abortion and infanticide. From a thoroughly sourced National Right to Life article countering Planned Parenthood Federation of America's claims re Sanger:

4) PPFA’S CLAIM: Sanger’s quote, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it” (Woman and the New Race [NY: Brentano’s, 1920], p. 63) was “taken out of context,” according to PPFA. “Sanger was making an ironic comment—not a prescriptive one—about the horrifying rate of infant mortality among large families of early 20th-century urban America.”

THE TRUTH: PPFA’s interpretation is unlikely. While there may be no way to prove irony or the lack thereof, there is a decided absence of humor in all of Sanger’s writings. Sanger elsewhere speaks of people “who never should have been born,” and she also frequently refers to infanticide as a primitive form of birth control. “The earliest methods of primitive society have been infanticide . . . ; the abandonment of babies; and feticide or abortion . . .” (“The Need of Birth Control in America,” Birth Control: Facts and Responsibilities, Adolf Meyer, editor [Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Company, 1925], p. 12).
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 6:45 am | #

Has anybody contacted National 4-H? I think the'd want to investigate one of their adult volunteers trying to browbeat a member into an unwanted abortion.
Christina | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 7:05 am | #

I haven't contacted them, Christina -- could you? Great idea.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 7:07 am | #

Dawn, contraception was also illegal at the time Sanger was actively campaigning. It is possible that the National Right to Life writer's interpretation of Sanger's comments is incorrect. I once worked on the history of birth control, and most members of the "movement" were genuinely uncomfortable with abortion, and supported laws against it.

I don't think Sanger was being ironic when she spoke of killing: I think she was setting up a juxtaposition, saying, in effect, that if the law does not allow contraception, then death is the only merciful option for many of the neglected, unwanted infants born into the world. I don't agree, of course, but I do think Sanger was using this as a tactic to convince people that contraception should be legal because it was less horrific than abortion or infanticide. And she emphasized the fertility of the poor because, at that time, the well-to-do were clearly finding ways to limit their fertility, so their demands weren't really an issue. In fact, many people found the low birth rates among the "better" classes alarming.

It might be worth pointing out, too, that when Sanger began campaigning in the first decades of the 20th century, science still understood little about women's fertility cycles, and thus the Catholic Church had not given its approval to NFP. In those days, if you were a Catholic who didn't want more children, the only choice was complete abstinence.
alias clio | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 7:12 am | #

Radical Mom has leaps in logic that can only come from starting with the conclusion she already wants. She fears that Julia will love the baby she gives birth to and so will want to keep it. Isn't it natural for a woman (or man) to love her child?

What she seems to be saying is: avoid love. Clearly the best option is to kill the child which you would most naturally love, with no coercion from a 4-H group.
Andy | 08.29.07 - 7:16 am | #

"This is one of my kids."

Um, whose kid, again?
Ed Pie | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 7:40 am | #

She is married to an abusive drug addict. She has four children whom she cannot support. They are living in a tiny 2-bedroom apartment. They move every 6-9 months. One child, Julia, is pregnant. Her second child just ran away to his grandparents, claiming that his parents are beating him.

And now this woman wants to raise this baby? “Just until Julia is old enough.” Of course.

So, we talked to her about adoption. She said that it was her second choice, behind abortion. Clearly, she recognizes that she is not ready to be a mother.

Let's put the issue of abortion aside for a moment.

No matter what Julia decides to do, based on the limited information above, does this grandmother sound as if she should be allowed to adopt the baby, if he/she is born?
L. | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 9:10 am | #

L., the question is not whether the grandmother can adopt. (That hasn't even been raised.) The question is whether a woman who volunteers in a 4-H club should be on a personal mission to stop the "cycle of poverty" by urging the children under her direction -- against their parents' wishes -- to abort their babies.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 9:20 am | #

Funny how "choice" is limited to pp's choice.

I have a similar story. Maybe this is enough to get me off my keister and blog it.
iClaudius | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 9:23 am | #

Please let me know when you do blog it, iClaudius.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 9:29 am | #

Funny, I don't recall venessa (she has a name, or do adult women not count?) browbeating anyone. She wants this CHILD to have options. If this CHILD is old enough to care for a baby, she is old enough to be educated about what her options are, and the consequences of her actions.

She fears that this child will end up with ZERO options because of one mistake she made, and because the child has ZERO parenting on her end. I thought compassion for a person was a virtue?

But hey, I wanted an abortion once-I'm sure I'm evil too.
thordora | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 9:32 am | #

Thordora, I don't think you're evil, though we do have different definitions of "compassion." The resources on the right-hand side of After Abortion can help you.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 9:47 am | #

Just checked out Radical Mama's blog, and what caught my eye weren't the anything-but-radical posts (to be truly radical, she'd be pro-life, but that's another story), but that she was nominated for a "Best Parenting Blog" award. St. John the Baptist, pray for us.
Didymus | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 11:22 am | #

Didymus,

I think those were the awards that bloggers could nominate themselves for. :)
Laurie | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 12:34 pm | #

I would be annoyed at the way you have spun my post, but you've given me so much traffic, I decided to apply for some advertising instead.

For the record, I am not a 4-H volunteer. So don't bother contacting the national office.

Also, you may be aware that abortion is a legal procedure. Roe vs. Wade, perhaps you've heard of it?

If I had encouraged her to keep the baby, would you think I was being overly political? Or inappropriate? Just wondering if you think I should be neutral, or if I should just do it your way.
radical mama | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 1:10 pm | #

Years ago, when I was a pro-choice shrink here in California, where there is no lower age limit on the "right" of minors to have abortions without parents' knowledge or consent, I had an older teen client, still a minor, who was pregnant for perhaps the fifth or sixth time. All prior pregnancies had been aborted without her mother's knowledge, but when my client became suicidally depressed, the mother was, at last informed, so she could pay for her child's psychotherapy.

It was the first time I examined my personal support for "choice".
Judith L | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 2:06 pm | #

"Radical Mama, perhaps realizing that the powers-that-be at 4-H might not look kindly upon her pro-abortion evangelism, has replaced her original post with a poem by Sylvia Plath."

Actually, that's just how my sense of humor works. Is this, like, a staring contest or something?
radical mama | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 2:15 pm | #

I suspect that the question of what happened to Deb Frisch may have been answered!
Pat Patterson | 08.29.07 - 2:24 pm | #

Tangential Note:

The number of would-be adoptive parents in thsi country FAR outnumbers the number of babies put up for adoption. Anyone who is considering adoption can be confident that they'll be able to find a good home for their baby. Earlier this summer some friends of mine adopted a daughter. They went through an open adoption with a fifteen-year-old birth mother, as a matter of fact.
Kate B. | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 2:47 pm | #

Kate B. is right. Very difficult for parents to adopt due to shortage, and it is hard to understand why a woman would ever choose abortion under these circumstances. I'm afraid that I'm just not that sympathetic to reasons such as "pregnancy is hard" or "I would find it emotionally difficult." Deliberately killing a person needs somewhat greater justification than that.
Mike Petrik | 08.29.07 - 3:29 pm | #

I just fixed the "Breaking the Cycle" link so that it links to Radical Mama's original post, which was saved by a reader.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 3:40 pm | #

Radical Mama,

In your latest (and as yet undeleted) post, you deny that you "pressured" Julia to get an abortion.

But you clearly WANTED Julia to get an abortion and said everything thought might lead to that result. You believe that having a child will ruin her life because she'll throw away her education and career, doom herself (and the expected baby) to poverty, and bond herself for life to an irresponsible man. You believe that Julia's mother has pressured her into doing the wrong thing, and that her doctor has either misdiagnosed her medical condition or outright misrepresented the risks of abortion. Because you believe that her having the baby is a poor choice, you recommended that she go to Planned Parenthood. You did that because you assumed that after they said certain things to her and provided certain information, Julia would decide to have an abortion. That is a very reasonable assumption, because despite your claim that Planned Parenthood is unbiased, their latest report shows that they performed 264,943 abortions and made 0 (zero) adoption referrals.

Under the circumstances, and particularly in view of your statement that you are "angry" with Julia for the situation she has gotten herself into, I don't think it unreasonable for others, including Dawn, to conclude that your words and advice were intended to counteract the influences being exerted on her and lead to a different decision. Most people would call this attempt to apply force in the opposite direction to be a form of "pressure." I am not entirely clear on your opposition to calling it "pressure" or using pressure – obviously, there are a wide variety of circumstances under which you would apply pressure to prevent a bad choice. You would try to discourage her from bad eating habits, from considering drugs, smoking or drinking, or for engaging in any number of activities not as wholesome as what goes on at 4-H. For some reason you withhold the word "pressure" only when it is used in connection with your attempt to insure that a woman has an abortion.

I am also puzzled by your statement that Julia has now made "her" decision. From your original post, it was clear that a decision other than abortion would be what Julia's "mother wants for her own sake." Are you now saying that Julia HAS in fact done "what is right for her, what she wants to do"?
The Raving Atheist | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 3:56 pm | #

L., the question is not whether the grandmother can adopt. (That hasn't even been raised.)

Yes, it has -- I just raised it.

Especially since the young woman has decided to take this route, I hope someone is looking into whether this really is a good option, or whether another baby is going to be born into a horrible home life. The simple fact that this baby is going to be born at all falls well short of a reason for rejoicing.
L. | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 5:08 pm | #

Very difficult for parents to adopt due to shortage, and it is hard to understand why a woman would ever choose abortion under these circumstances. I'm afraid that I'm just not that sympathetic to reasons such as "pregnancy is hard" or "I would find it emotionally difficult."

I would never wish my pregnancy/childbirth experiences on my worst enemy, and would probably abort to avoid it all again, if I were ever to accidentally conceive.

I have difficulty wondering how people can be "just not sympathetic" to the horrors of childbirth -- but that's just me.
L. | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 5:12 pm | #

"...because despite your claim that Planned Parenthood is unbiased, their latest report shows that they performed 264,943 abortions and made 0 (zero) adoption referrals."

Crap. Pure crap. I used to work for a PP affiliate that alone made dozens of adoption referrals each year. And guess what? They even completed a few adoptions through the adoption agency partnership they formed IN OFFICE. The choice was right there, for each woman, and she was counseled on ALL THREE OPTIONS - adoption, abortion and parenting. And ALL THREE OPTIONS were available in that clinic and around my state thanks to that partnership.

I don't know why the national organization didn't put adoption services in its annual report. That's their prerogative. But there's no need to extrapolate that imply that PP doesn't do adoption referrals. They do.
Amanda | 08.29.07 - 5:23 pm | #

"Very difficult for parents to adopt due to shortage, and it is hard to understand why a woman would ever choose abortion under these circumstances."

Mike,
I don't doubt your sincerity.

Nevertheless, some women who selfishly (from the POV of parents wanting to adopt) elect to have abortions already have children. Their decision is whether to go through with another pregnancy and birth and then effectively give up an "unwanted" sibling. It is a complex, private decision.
Jody Tresidder | 08.29.07 - 5:51 pm | #

Jody, while understand the difficulty I don't think the decision is complex from a moral standpoint unless one fails to appreciate the humanity of the unborn child. Frankly, such a failure, while no doubt common, flies in the face of science and reason. The temptation to rationalize is real, as always, which is why it is essential that society discourage it. The notion that we should not kill our children, even if they are not yet born, is written on the hearts of men and women everywhere. Finally, I do appreciate your concession of my sincerity, and you may consider that concession mutual.
Mike Petrik | 08.29.07 - 6:10 pm | #

Both of my pregnancies and deliveries were difficult and I wouldn't wish to go through either again. However, I would never take a human life to avoid temporary suffering and pain on my part, should I become pregnant again.
Barb the Evil Genius | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 6:35 pm | #

L,
I do sympathize with you and other women who struggle in pregnancy. I, too, suffered during my pregnancy. I was sick the entire time and couldn't take meds for my numbers of illnesses because the meds would harm the baby. I suffered pre-eclampsia. My hormones were out of whack and I had a terrible time once my daughter was born.

Saying all that, I would never consider giving the death penalty to another human being. I find it . . . really sick that a mother would consider taking out her child because the child is making the mom sick. Everything is temporary. Guess what? My daughter is now 2 and it has never been easier.

9 months in the big scheme of life, is a very short time.
Radical Catholic Mom | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 6:46 pm | #

Do you find it sick that a woman might consider abortion because of the effect carrying a pregnancy might have on her other children? With my last pregnancy, the hormonal changes and so forth messed with my head big-time. Better an abortion than that.
Ledasmom | 08.29.07 - 8:26 pm | #

Ledasmom, my post-partum depression was just as bad as the worst of my c-section recoveries.

I am Catholic, and I believe that abortion kills a life -- and yet, if I were to conceive again, I would strongly consider aborting. What does that tell you about my feelings toward the experience?

Yes, I would consider the option of killing my next child to avoid going through it again. You are free to believe that this means that I personify evil in its purest form, and to that I would say, fine -- I can live with you thinking that of me.

No one else but me will never know what it is like to live through the birth process in my particular body.
L. | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 10:13 pm | #

Also, you may be aware that abortion is a legal procedure. Roe vs. Wade, perhaps you've heard of it?

Something else is legal: everything we've said about you. First Amendment, perhaps you've heard of it?
Mary | 08.29.07 - 10:59 pm | #

Oh, I "you" in my comment above refers to the collective "you," not to Ledasmom in particular, whom I only addressed in the first paragraph.

Go, First Amendment! Sorry...not to change the subject.

And still no one is addressing the question of the fitness of the grandmother to adopt the baby. I really hope that everything works out -- there are ways of "Breaking the Cycle" that don't involve abortion.
L. | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 11:33 pm | #

RCM - 9 months may be, in the scheme of things, a very short time, but not every effect of a bad pregnancy goes away when the pregnancy is over.

My first pregnancy left me with chronic hip pain that lasted almost eight years. The two pregancies together did things to my metabolism that I'm still getting sorted out - and both of those pale in comparison to what I can look forward to if I get pregnant again.

Not being particularly fond of abortion, I do my very best to avoid any possibility of getting pregnant again. But if I did, I would abort - as early and as quickly as possible, seeing as my moral qualms stem from the question "Can it suffer?" and no, I don't think a fertilized egg, or an early stage embryo is developed enough to suffer.
Tapetum | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 11:38 pm | #

Adding: Go 1st Amendment. You are indeed free to say anything you want about us - and we are also perfectly free to argue back.
Tapetum | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 11:40 pm | #

Tapetum,

There are many ways of killing adult human beings that would avoid their suffering, as well. Do you advocate murder as long as it is painless?

"Do you find it sick that a woman might consider abortion because of the effect carrying a pregnancy might have on her other children?"

Yes.
Andy | 08.29.07 - 11:46 pm | #

"Do you find it sick that a woman might consider abortion because of the effect carrying a pregnancy might have on her other children?"

No -- because I feel exactly this way myself. And it doesn't bother me in the least that other people find it "sick."
L. | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 12:03 am | #

I personify evil in its purest form, and to that I would say, fine -- I can live with you thinking that of me.

No need for drama. People are not evil in its purest form, and I would strongly object to anyone who called you or anyone else that. No one gets an abortion because they are evil in purest form. Rather, abortion is an evil act and people deceive themselves into thinking it is not. There is simply no sound argument that makes it otherwise.
Scott W. | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 7:56 am | #

"There is simply no sound argument that makes it otherwise."

I grasp your point of view, Scott.

But there is no sound argument for forcing an adult women to remain pregnant and give birth when she does not wish it because you can't accept her point of view.
Jody Tresidder | 08.30.07 - 8:10 am | #

Jody, a person's subjective viewpoint is hardly dispositive. The fact that you might subjectively believe it is morally permissible to own another human being does not mean the state cannot force you to give up your slave. The point is that there is a sound argument for forcing an adult woman to remain pregnant and give birth -- the argument is grounded in the humanity of the child, and the woman's subjective view otherwise changes nothing.
You see, pro-choicers really have no argument other than "well, I believe otherwise." I'm afraid that isn't good enough. We cannot force you to believe the earth is a sphere, but we can certainly press for laws and policies that take that fact into account, even if those laws are disliked by or even detrimental to those who insist the earth is flat.
Mike Petrik | 08.30.07 - 8:32 am | #

...the argument is grounded in the humanity of the child, and the woman's subjective view otherwise changes nothing.
You see, pro-choicers really have no argument other than "well, I believe otherwise." I'm afraid that isn't good enough.

The other argument is grounded in a woman's right to remove another developing person from her body, if she does not want to keep it there because continuing to do so would cause her physical and/or mental harm. That is good enough for me, whether others agree or not.
L. | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 8:49 am | #

Mike,

You see, pro-choicers really have no argument other than "well, I believe otherwise."

In the teenage vernacular - back atcha!

This is not meant to be flippant - because it comes to the heart of my belief versus yours (and I acknowledge yours comes from religious authority, Mike).

When a woman contemplates abortion, it is because two sets of rights are clashing.

There is no way - in these circumstances - that these competing rights can be squared.

I fully accept that abortion means the death of a developing child in the womb.

I am not a flat earther, though. On the contrary - to somewhat awkwardly extend your words - I prefer to accept that the woman's view if the situation is the higher one.
Jody Tresidder | 08.30.07 - 9:23 am | #

Typo - sorry.

"Of the situation" not "if the situation"...
Jody Tresidder | 08.30.07 - 9:27 am | #

The other argument is grounded in a woman's right to remove another developing person from her body, if she does not want to keep it there because continuing to do so would cause her physical and/or mental harm. That is good enough for me, whether others agree or not.

This is why there really is no good analogy to abortion. Painlessly murdering a human adult doesn't compare unless he or she is resident in my body.

my moral qualms stem from the question "Can it suffer?" and no, I don't think a fertilized egg, or an early stage embryo is developed enough to suffer.

This is a huge part of what informs my decision to be pro-choice. The belief that what happens after our death is much better than what goes on here is another huge factor for me (not to mention that us humans seem to have a much higher opinion of ourselves as a species than the evidence warrants).
Anonymous | 08.30.07 - 9:27 am | #

That last "anonymous" was me.
Terezia | 08.30.07 - 9:29 am | #

Andy said: There are many ways of killing adult human beings that would avoid their suffering, as well. Do you advocate murder as long as it is painless?

No. An adult human being either has, or used to have the ability to think, reason and have opinions about their own life and welfare. Their wishes for their own welfare should be followed, even in cases where they can no longer express them, or even hold them. Most especially, as Jody and L point out, because it does not physically harm someone else to do so. Suffering is not just about physical pain.
Tapetum | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 9:40 am | #

Jody,
Re: "Back atcha" -- you are half right. The moral imperative not to murder your fellow man is grounded in moral law rather than science, and while imprecise and not completely correct, I won't quarrel with assertion that it is based on religious authority. This law, while it is written on the hearts of men, is not provable in the same way one can prove that the earth is a sphere. But once you have accepted that law (perhaps you haven't?), then the claim that the law extends to the unborn is grounded in science and reason. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to why a person must be born before he has the right to not be deliberately murdered. The arguments are invariably grounded in the claim that unborn persons are something other than human life. It is this claim that is based on nothing other than complete subjectivity -- i.e., I believe it and that is all that matters.
As to your point about competing rights, moral law is about our duty to others, not ourselves. We do not have a moral right to intentionally kill others simply because they interfer with our sense of privacy, preference, or even well-being.
Mike Petrik | 08.30.07 - 10:17 am | #

We do not have a moral right to intentionally kill others simply because they interfer with our sense of privacy, preference, or even well-being.

I have a really hard time getting past the "well-being" part, which seems to say the possibility of an embryo developing into a viable human is more important than my life or health. I'm definitely not accusing you of misogyny, Mike, but I want to point out that statements like that are what make many pro-choicers wonder when women stop mattering except for their use as incubators.
Terezia | 08.30.07 - 10:32 am | #

Mike,

Thank you - as ever - for your level-headed response.

"I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to why a person must be born before he has the right to not be deliberately murdered."

My answer is simple - and I know you will hate it.

An adult woman has the right to decide for herself whether to give birth to the developing child in her womb.

A "developing child in the womb" is not "a child".

We all modify our language explicitly to make it clear when we are referring to a child who has been born. Because the distinction is a crucial one.

Do YOU refer in private, Mike, to - say - "My neighbor - a child killer" if you know a neighbor who has had an abortion?

Or might your description - should one be necessary - reflect the fact that it was a fetus that was killed, not a born infant?
Jody Tresidder | 08.30.07 - 10:47 am | #

Jody,
You raise good and fair points. The answer, I think, has to do with the fact that our social understandings and vocabulary hasn't caught up with the modern scientific understanding of a fetus. While the Church has always taught that abortion is wrong, the gravity of that wrong and its related basis has only become understood with precision in more modern times as we more fully understand the scientific nature of unborn humans. If you ever read the early American literature you'll see similar problems associated with Indians and Blacks. They were regarded as less than fully human, and these views did not recede apace with the scientific knowledge to the contrary. Nonetheless, as knowledge progressed, vocabulary and views did follow, even if too slowly. It is perverse that as our knowledge of the unborn grows, our culture's behavior grows more disparate with that knowledge. There are complicated reasons for this, but it is probably not sustainable. Someday, our descendants will look back with horror at the barbary of our times, with special disdain directed toward our willingness to rationalize the deliberate killing of our most innocent and helpless, much the same way many people today view 19th century US slavery. The truth is slavery apologists were wrong more than evil, in much the way abortion apologists are today. The temptation to rationalize our behavior to suit our self-interests is pretty universal, and since I'm part of that universe I know I'm relying on God's mercy in the end rather than His justice.
Finally, the notion that bodily autonomy can always operate as a moral trump card is no more persuasive than the notion that property rights can do the same.
Mike Petrik | 08.30.07 - 11:27 am | #

Jody,
I don't understand the lapse in logic.

A fetus is just as much an individual human being as a newborn infant or a full-grown adult. Roe v. Wade says this, biological science says this, metaphysical philosophy says this.

I really do not understand people who hang their argument on specific terms. Either the ZEF is human, or it is not. If it is human, then what human rights are extended or denied to this human being?

The Supreme Court has never decided that "a fetus is not a child." So why do pro-choicers continue to bandy this about?

I suspect that this is because the pro-choice people want to avoid the guilt of killing "children"... so they insist on using a different NAME, and pretend that it is a different THING.
Del | 08.30.07 - 11:32 am | #

"I suspect that this is because the pro-choice people want to avoid the guilt of killing "children"... so they insist on using a different NAME, and pretend that it is a different THING."

On the contrary, Del.

It sometimes seems that pro-lifers purposefully insist on saying "child" rather than, more accurately, "fetus" or "developing child" because of the special freight "child" carries.

Mike,

I am familiar with the slavery argument.

But science has yet to dispose of the unique physical relationship between the developing child and the woman carrying.

This was, of course, never the case with a slave and its master or mistress.
Jody Tresidder | 08.30.07 - 12:19 pm | #

As someone who's taken human developmental biology, I get rather puzzled at the insistence that a fertilized egg is a "separate human being" as much as a grown person, or even as an infant. It's a cell. It has no nervous system, no heart, no organs, nothing to think with or feel with. For some time afterwards it remains a ball of cells with some differentiation, but still plainly without the capacity to think or feel. There are more human cells with their own unique DNA still alive in your average fresh corpse.

As it happens, I'm more with Jody's reasoning than yours vis-a-vis the right to self-defense of the mother. IOW I legally would be allowed to kill my own children were they legitimately threatening my life - whether I would or not being a whole different question. Yet to me, the insistence that even a single cell - the fertilized egg - is in fact a child, seems the height of craziness. It's a cell! One cell - you kill several hundred every time you bite your cheek. And cause more pain, since you have a nervous system to notice the bite. More than 30% of fertilized eggs are dumped all on their own, with nobody being the wiser. No science is going to say that's the equivalent of a born infant, which has a working brain, heart, lungs, in fact a whole body made up of millions of cells. Just because it's a smooth run with few hard delineations doesn't mean one is the same as the other, any more than your blueprints are a house you can live in.

It's your theology which tells you it's a full-on human being. Which is fine - you can believe that all day long and it won't bother me. But please stop saying that science says so too.
Tapetum | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 12:48 pm | #

Tapetum,
Did that single course tell you all cells are the same?
And did it tell you when exactly the fetus becomes a human being?
Your reasoning seems to suggest that its humanity is a function of its appearance or ability to think or feel. Is that what you think?
Mike Petrik | 08.30.07 - 12:57 pm | #

Mike,
Your metaphysics breathes humanity into every product of conception. And to echo Tapetum, that's fine by me too.

Because I am well aware how genuinely distressed pro-lifers become over the "bunch of cells" reasoning, I try to step around it.

If it's your "bunch of cells", it's Fred or Ginger - or whoever you like - from the moment the woman decides to go ahead.

But I don't understand how one can glorify the idea of an adult woman who must - by law - be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth against her will.

(And I really don't understand, Mike. This is my blind spot, if you like. Involuntary self-sacrifice seems to me an ugly concept which devalues our notion of rights.)

And, yes. I am a mother and I'm generally adoring of babies (even "bawling oranges in black wigs" as one wit called 'em).

I've just been around long enough to know women for whom abortion was a sometimes painful, but profoundly correct decision.
Jody Tresidder | 08.30.07 - 1:27 pm | #

No Mike, all cells are not the same. But all cells have similarities - and no cell has, for instance a nervous system, or consciousness.

And yes, my reason tells me that there is more to being human than simple existence. Appearence, not so much, ability to think and feel, absolutely. Lest you attempt to triumphantly point out the many historical cases where we have denied humanity on those bases to people that absolutely can think and feel, I will say now, that I think we should make such judgments conservatively (not in the political sense), even very conservatively - but that is not the same as never making them. If you want to argue with me over whether an 18 week fetus can think or feel, you have grounds to argue on. Saying that a cell does is simply silly.

However, most right-to-life people I know don't actually argue that. They argue that thinking and feeling aren't necessary to being a person. I disagree - profoundly. However, I'm not going to try to encode that into law. If you desire to protect your newly (or not even) conceived baby-in-development, even at the risk of your own life - have at. I may even applaud, depending on your reasons and situation. Telling other women they must risk their lives when they have no desire to, is a whole different kettle of fish.

I see no way to argue that women should be put, quite literally, to forced labor, without arguing that they are lesser human beings. My husband could not, by law, be forced to donate so much as a pint of blood or his toe-nail clippings to preserve the life of our children. Funny how it doesn't apply in this one instance.
Tapetum | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 2:02 pm | #

Alias clio said: It might be worth pointing out, too, that when Sanger began campaigning in the first decades of the 20th century, science still understood little about women's fertility cycles, and thus the Catholic Church had not given its approval to NFP. In those days, if you were a Catholic who didn't want more children, the only choice was complete abstinence.

That's not quite correct. The Rhythm Method, flawed as it was, was approved by the Church even in the 1800s, so complete abstinence wasn't the only choice (not that complete abstinence is a bad thing). Practically speaking, though, because of the errors of the Rhythm Method, a Catholic who wanted to delay or avoid children had no other option but abstinence -- but it would be a mistaken to say the Church had not given its approval to natural methods of avoiding pregnancy. The one method known at the time had been approved.
Jordan Potter | 08.30.07 - 6:17 pm | #

I think the self-preservation/self-defense rationale comes closest to my own personal view on abortion. As others point out above, legally, I would be allowed to kill my own post-born children in self-defense, if they were legitimately threatening my life.

The self-defense rationale is erroneous when applied to unborn babies. If one of your born children attempts to kill you, you can legitimately use self-defense even if it causes your child's death, but little babies, whether born or unborn, are incapable of attempting to kill anyone. A pregnant woman's life can be put in danger by the circumstances of her pregnancy, but in no case is her life in danger as a result of a deliberate action of the unborn baby. Therefore the self-defense rationale does not apply.

There is simply no valid argument that can justify the deliberate, intentional and direct taking of an unborn human life. (This is not to say that medical actions are never allowed that indirectly result in the death of the unborn child, but that is not abortion-on-demand.)
Jordan Potter | 08.30.07 - 6:24 pm | #

No. An adult human being either has, or used to have the ability to think, reason and have opinions about their own life and welfare. Their wishes for their own welfare should be followed, even in cases where they can no longer express them, or even hold them.

So if you collapse in front of me, I should try to find our what your wishes are before I administer CPR? I might be reviving you against your wishes.
Mary | 08.30.07 - 7:35 pm | #

Appearence, not so much, ability to think and feel, absolutely.

So I'm perfectly entitled to kill you in your sleep on the ground that you're neither feeling nor thinking then?
Mary | 08.30.07 - 7:54 pm | #

But I don't understand how one can glorify the idea of an adult woman who must - by law - be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth against her will.

You might as well say that the law forces you to let your heart beat againt your will. Carrying pregnancy to term and giving birth is not something your will has anything to do with.

The law can prevent you from taking a fatal dose of arsenic (which would stop your heart) and from tearing your child limb from limb.
Mary | 08.30.07 - 7:57 pm | #

A "developing child in the womb" is not "a child".

This is about as logical as caling that a "female human" is not "a human." You yourself have admitted it's a child. You can not take it away by hanging modifiers on it.
Mary | 08.30.07 - 7:58 pm | #

My husband could not, by law, be forced to donate so much as a pint of blood or his toe-nail clippings to preserve the life of our children. Funny how it doesn't apply in this one instance.

Yes, it is indeed very funny that you argue that because people can't forcibly suck blood from your husband, they can forcibly suck your child's brain from his skull.
Mary | 08.30.07 - 8:02 pm | #

A pregnant woman's life can be put in danger by the circumstances of her pregnancy, but in no case is her life in danger as a result of a deliberate action of the unborn baby. Therefore the self-defense rationale does not apply.

Self-defense does not necessarily apply only to "deliberate action." For example, a mentally ill person might not even realize that his/her actions are potentially deadly to others.
L. | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 8:12 pm | #

Mary - the accepted legal view here (which I generally agree with) is that the default for situations like CPR is to ask. If asking is not possible, the default assumption is that the person would wish to be revived. Please note that a blastocyte is quite incapable of wishing anything.

The sleeping person analogy is just silly. Your brain is hard at work when you're asleep as is mine. Check out an EEG sometime - lots of dreams going on, and lots of brain activity even when not dreaming. Plus the previous would hold, the wishes of the awake person hold even when asleep.

Self-defense against the active intent of harm is not all that's allowed. If my child and I fall off a cliff, I am hanging on with one hand while child clings to my ankles, I am allowed to defend my life by climbing up, even if the only way to do so is to have my child fall to his death. The child in such a case would have no active intent of harm, but would be the agent of harm nonetheless, which seems pretty analogous to a harmful pregnancy.

And Mary? The woman's will has a lot to do with whether or not she will carry a child. Legal or not, women have power over their own bodies, and when prevented from safe, legal abortions have been known to throw themselves down stairs, poison themselves or even shoot themselves in the belly rather than carry to term.
Tapetum | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 8:22 pm | #

Mary - nobody else on the planet, including my children and my husband, has the right to suck the nutrition out of my blood, not even if they would die for lack of it. I have the right to give it. They do not have the right to take it.
Tapetum | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 8:27 pm | #

"A "developing child in the womb" is not "a child".

This is about as logical as caling that a "female human" is not "a human." You yourself have admitted it's a child. You can not take it away by hanging modifiers on it.

Mary,
Sorry if that reads illogically!

I simply meant when most people talk about "children" they don't mean those in the womb. Perhaps "fetus" is better after all, then.
Jody Tresidder | 08.30.07 - 8:41 pm | #

"Nobody else on the planet, including my children and my husband, has the right to suck the nutrition out of my blood, not even if they would die for lack of it. I have the right to give it. They do not have the right to take it."

This is essentially a libertarian argument. Leaving aside the moral bankruptcy of pure libertarianism, the problem is you gave up that right, even under libertarianism, when you agreed to have sex. By assuming the risk, you invited the child -- a human being -- you cannot then kill it because you feel like it, no matter how much you happen to like sex and not like the child.
Mike Petrik | 08.30.07 - 9:07 pm | #

...you gave up that right, even under libertarianism, when you agreed to have sex.

No.

No more than consenting to an airplane ride is consenting to an airplane crash.
L. | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 9:19 pm | #

The analogy doesn't work because the principle of self defense is not involved in the plane crash example, and it is that principle that presumably would permit the killing of the baby under the artiface that the baby is essentially a trespasser. But outside of the rape context the baby is not a trespasser if you are responsible for the baby being there -- and you are -- certainly more so than the baby. The fact that you did not intend the baby does not take alter the fact that you caused it. You would presumably not be the cause of the plane crash.
Mike Petrik | 08.30.07 - 9:31 pm | #

I simply meant when most people talk about "children" they don't mean those in the womb

This can mean one of two things:

1. People don't refer to children in the womb as children. It is, in fact, perfectly commonplace.

2. When people think of "children" their first thought is of born children. This is about as relevant as saying that most people, when they think of a dog, don't think of Great Dane. It doesn't mean a Great Dane is not a dog.
Mary | 08.30.07 - 9:38 pm | #

If asking is not possible, the default assumption is that the person would wish to be revived.

Which gives the game away right there. The presumption of people who do not have wishes is that they wish to live.

The sleeping person analogy is just silly. Your brain is hard at work when you're asleep as is mine. Check out an EEG sometime - lots of dreams going on, and lots of brain activity even when not dreaming.

If we were discussing EEG, your argument is just plain silly. Do you know how early in the pregnancy brain waves have been detected?

But we were discussing thoughts and feelings, and either the EEG is no evidence or most abortions are performed on children with thoughts and feelings.
Mary | 08.30.07 - 9:43 pm | #

And Mary? The woman's will has a lot to do with whether or not she will carry a child. Legal or not, women have power over their own bodies, and when prevented from safe, legal abortions have been known to throw themselves down stairs, poison themselves or even shoot themselves in the belly rather than carry to term.

And the same woman's will has a lot to do with whether she will kill or let live her born children, her husband, herself, or random strangers on the street. It is irrelevant to the argument of law and morality.

Heck, men don't want to be fathers as much as women don't want to be mothers. Men have killed pregnant women in many ways to avoid becoming fathers. Is that relevant to their crime?
Mary | 08.30.07 - 9:46 pm | #

No more than consenting to an airplane ride is consenting to an airplane crash.

Consenting to an airplane ride is consenting to an airplane crash. It is a foreseeable consequence and you do not have any right to not have it happen.
Mary | 08.30.07 - 9:47 pm | #

Nobody else on the planet, including my children and my husband, has the right to suck the nutrition out of my blood, not even if they would die for lack of it. I have the right to give it. They do not have the right to take it.

You might as well say that you have the right to allow your heart to beat or to have it stop. You can not, by right, demand that the laws of biology not work.
Mary | 08.30.07 - 9:50 pm | #

If my child and I fall off a cliff, I am hanging on with one hand while child clings to my ankles, I am allowed to defend my life by climbing up, even if the only way to do so is to have my child fall to his death.

You are not allowed, however, to deliberately push him off because you think it would make climbing easier.

By the same token, you may receive medical treatment that will cause a miscarriage, but you may not deliberately kill the child.
Mary | 08.30.07 - 9:51 pm | #

It is a foreseeable consequence and you do not have any right to not have it happen.

I have a right to prevent the consequences in whatever way I can, so I do.

You might as well say that you have the right to allow your heart to beat or to have it stop.

In fact, I could swallow some pills right now, to make it do either. I interfere with the laws of biology all the time.
L. | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 9:52 pm | #

You might as well say that you have the right to allow your heart to beat or to have it stop.

In fact, I could swallow some pills right now, to make it do either.

But you would not have the right to allow your heart to beat or not. You would be claiming the right to swallow the pill.
Mary | 08.30.07 - 9:53 pm | #

Mary, the law can't outlaw suicide. It can try, but it's about as effective as outlawing illness. It can only outlaw failed suicide.
Tapetum | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 11:30 pm | #

Self-defense does not necessarily apply only to "deliberate action." For example, a mentally ill person might not even realize that his/her actions are potentially deadly to others.

Yes, a mentally ill person can attempt to kill someone without being responsible for his actions. But an unborn baby can't do that, so the self-defense exception to the prohibition on directly taking innocent life does not apply to unborn babies.
Jordan Potter | 08.31.07 - 9:33 am | #

I agree with Jordan as to the inapplicablity of the self-defense analogy. But even if one accepts the analogy, it is important to note that self defense is subject to serious moral and legal limitations, including those related to proportionality. Pro-aborts are not remotely willing to admit to such limitations.
Mike Petrik | 08.31.07 - 10:55 am | #

"Pro-aborts are not remotely willing to admit to such limitations."

That reads unduly provocatively, Mike?

Many pro-choicers will accept legal constraints as long as they are based on unbiased medical advice and reflect an understanding of individual circumstances.

It is the refusal of pro-lifers to attach any significant importance to a woman's individual circumstances and to her rights that freezes my marrow.

And, I might add, it is the sometimes hypocrisy of those who would deny abortions to others - for the usual reasons outlined here - but who then quietly decide the procedure is appropriate in their own circumstances or that of a loved one - that confounds me.

To be honest, I get a little weary about these theoretical debates about whether it's okay to strangle a toddler who is hanging on to your leg over a cliff.

For my own part, the women I wish to defend are those who decided an abortion was best and who were able to legally carry out that private and important choice.

And who have - eventually - been able to realize - that what they mourn is not simply the procedure itself but the rotten nexus of circumstances that made bringing that developing child into the world at that time the wrong choice for them.
Jody Tresidder | 08.31.07 - 11:35 am | #

[i]No. An adult human being either has, or used to have the ability to think, reason and have opinions about their own life and welfare. Their wishes for their own welfare should be followed, even in cases where they can no longer express them, or even hold them. Most especially, as Jody and L point out, because it does not physically harm someone else to do so. Suffering is not just about physical pain.[/i]

Ah, so it based on the CAPABILITY of thought. What about infants? The mentally disabled? Shall we follow Sanger's thoughts to their natural conclusion?

[i]I have a right to prevent the consequences in whatever way I can, so I do.[/i]

That sound incredibly adolescent to me.
Andy | 08.31.07 - 11:48 am | #

I have a right to prevent the consequences in whatever way I can, so I do.

That sound incredibly adolescent to me.

It can sound like an entitled teenager, sure.

But conception is not the inevitable consequence of sex even without protection (as teenagers and the rest of us know.)

So when you insert "unintended" before "consequences" it strikes me as responsible, rather than otherwise Andy.
Jody Tresidder | 08.31.07 - 12:35 pm | #

For my own part, the women I wish to defend are those who decided an abortion was best and who were able to legally carry out that private and important choice.>>

I always think it's the crux of this 'debate' (it's not really because no one really changes their minds): private. If a person wants to have an abortion for what they consider a good reason (even if you believe it's selfish and unholy), let them. If they don't want to have one, that's great, too. Worry about your own house and life and let others live theirs as long as it doesn't bother you or has been ruled illegal. I await the usual hysterical responses comparing abortion to suicide, genocide, placing pillows over old peoples heads, etc.
Neil C | 08.31.07 - 1:28 pm | #

It is the refusal of pro-lifers to attach any significant importance to a woman's individual circumstances and to her rights that freezes my marrow.

For one thing, pro-lifers do not believe that anyone has the right to intentionally take the life of an innocent person -- they cannot attach significant importance to something they know is not a woman's right. However, there are plenty of pro-lifers who see the importance of a woman's individual circumstances in understanding why they choose to kill their born and unborn children. Those circumstances can never justify the choice to abort (which is probably what you mean by attaching significant importance to a woman's individual circumstances), but it doesn't mean that the woman isn't often a victim as much as a victimiser.

And, I might add, it is the sometimes hypocrisy of those who would deny abortions to others - for the usual reasons outlined here - but who then quietly decide the procedure is appropriate in their own circumstances or that of a loved one - that confounds me.

Such hypocrisy doesn't confound me, it disappoints and saddens me. It's easy to profess morality, but harder to practice it. We're all sinners, weakened by original sin.

For my own part, the women I wish to defend are those who decided an abortion was best and who were able to legally carry out that private and important choice.

And who have - eventually - been able to realize - that what they mourn is not simply the procedure itself but the rotten nexus of circumstances that made bringing that developing child into the world at that time the wrong choice for them.

They will find real healing only when they are given the freedom to mourn not just euphemistic "procedures" and "circumstances," but their children who lost their lives through their actions.
Jordan Potter | 08.31.07 - 1:45 pm | #

If a person wants to have an abortion for what they consider a good reason (even if you believe it's selfish and unholy), let them.

Abortion is never a private choice, but is an action that directly affects many people: first, the unborn child and her mother; second, the father who may or may not be pressuring the mother to do away with the child; third, the grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins of the unborn child; and finally, everyone else who would never get a chance to have a relationship with the child whose life is intentionally ended. Causing human death can never be merely private.
Jordan Potter | 08.31.07 - 1:52 pm | #

"They will find real healing only when they are given the freedom to mourn not just euphemistic "procedures" and "circumstances," but their children who lost their lives through their actions."

Jordan,
I have never found it useful - or kind - to insist that other adults mourn a personal loss appropriately.

Who are we to tell someone else when they are permitted to experience "real" healing?
Jody Tresidder | 08.31.07 - 2:24 pm | #

Abortion is never a private choice, but is an action that directly affects many people: first, the unborn child and her mother; second, the father who may or may not be pressuring the mother to do away with the child; third, the grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins of the unborn child; and finally, everyone else who would never get a chance.>>>

And if it's cool with all them, then it should be OK, right? That's a lot of people to ask!
Neil C | 08.31.07 - 5:00 pm | #

And Jordan, is this the only choice that requires me to contact so many people? Because I'm thinking of ordering out tomorrow, and I'd have to hate to ask you and all my relatives what to have ;)
Neil C | 08.31.07 - 5:11 pm | #

Nah, Neil, you just can't kill people even with permission -- sorry to disappoint you.
Mike Petrik | 08.31.07 - 5:59 pm | #

Darn it!
Neil C | 08.31.07 - 6:47 pm | #

I have a right to prevent the consequences in whatever way I can, so I do

Nevertheless, you are still responsible for the consequences if they happen.

Unless you mean the abortion as "preventation" in which case you are also asserting the right to murder the born infant -- that would also "prevent the consequences" as much as any abortion.
Mary | 08.31.07 - 7:36 pm | #

They will find real healing only when they are given the freedom to mourn not just euphemistic procedures and circumstances, but their children who lost their lives through their actions.

Oddly, this is nearly word-for-word what a counselor once told me. I mentioned, in the course of discussing the totally unreleated issue at hand for which I had consulted him, that I'd lost a pregnancy the previous year, but that it wasn't traumatic at all because it was unwanted, and in fact I was very happy at the outcome.

And he told me I would find "real healing" only when I stopped using the "euphemism" of "losing a pregnancy" and mourned my "child," repenting for my actions of rejoicing over his or her death.

I, too, wonder why people believe there is only one "appropriate" way to mourn a personal loss, and insist that to do otherwise is unhealthy?

I have a right to prevent the consequences in whatever way I can, so I do.
>>That sounds incredibly adolescent to me.

Andy, you might try reading my words out loud, slowly, in a calm and quiet voice, and see if that makes any difference.

Nevertheless, you are still responsible for the consequences if they happen.

Mary, I was speaking generally, not just about abortion -- my analogy was comparing a pregnancy to an airplane crash, remember?

Yes, I would certainly be responsible. Since I have no desire to go down in flames, I try to prevent horrible consequences.
L. | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 8:41 pm | #

Jordan:
Such hypocrisy doesn't confound me, it disappoints and saddens me. It's easy to profess morality, but harder to practice it. We're all sinners, weakened by original sin.

Jordan, that's exactly what I feel on this particular issue. I've long planned, but not yet written, an essay on the phrase, "I could never see having an abortion myself, but I think it should be legal." My take on it would be to flip the phrase around. Under certain temptations, I could see myself having an abortion, and that's why I believe it should be illegal. The law should deter, not tempt us to murder.

(Before one of the pro-choice commentators tirelessly chimes in, of course, this is if you believe abortion is murder.)

Neil, a word in season. What exactly is your *point* on this blog? I've watched your presence here with increasing mystification. We've plenty of intelligent pro-choice commenters who engage in interesting and polite discussions. L, Jody, Terezia are good examples. Then you'll blow in with some facile one-liners and an attitude bordering on plain rudeness towards the pro-life commenters.

Now, I know that you know Dawn personally, and that's why you showed up in the first place, and it's that personal connection which has me puzzled. I can only think that you aren't intending the offence, and perhaps it might actually be useful to make this comment. If I thought you were a random troll, I wouldn't bother.
EileenR | 08.31.07 - 11:32 pm | #

"I could never see having an abortion myself, but I think it should be legal."

And there are those of us who have never had abortions and never want to, but nonetheless DO see ourselves having one in certain circumstances, which is why I believe it should be legal. Different view.

(By the way, I've always thought NeilC's comments were meant in a tongue-in-cheek way. That's just my outsider's impression.)
L. | Homepage | 09.01.07 - 12:24 am | #

EileenR,
No offense taken. I just feel that some people need some lightening up. And, to be honest, I am amazed at the absolutism and comparisons that get made here sometimes. A person who makes what I feel is a nonhysterical point, I respect. I might be wrong in my interpretation, but it is my choice. That's why I'll try to stick to the pop culture type posts because I slap my head a lot less. :)
Neil C | 09.01.07 - 12:29 am | #

"Now, I know that you know Dawn personally..."

EileenR,

I had no idea Neil C had any such connection - or that he was ever seen as sailing close to the wind because of it!

I always thought commenters like Neil sometimes helped prevent these discussions becoming an "amen corner" (which is not a faith-bashing phrase - I've just checked!).

There can be exactly the same echo-chamber effect on some of the resolutely pro-choice sites. And it's maddening.

(But thank you for your kind comment. That was unexpected and nice!)
Jody Tresidder | 09.01.07 - 10:34 am | #

Neil lived in the same college dorm as me when I was a freshman, some two decades ago. We last saw each other at a trivia game that I co-hosted about five years back. It's always a pleasure to cross paths with him.

I don't think Neil, in making his comments, takes any special advantage of knowing me. Early on, I banned him a few times, but I let him back because I'm not as ban-happy as I used to be, plus he tempered his tone in keeping with my revised, "be nice" comments rules.

I wouldn't say his sarcasm on this thread is exactly "nice," but he's not engaging in ad hominem either, so I don't see any reason to interfere. I would accept his explanation -- that he's making his comments to lighten the tone of the discussion -- on its face.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.01.07 - 11:21 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan