I don't care whether the developing fetus is a child. I still think basic self-defense laws should cover the right to an abortion. I'm almost finished my second pregnancy now and only the fact that I badly want this to happen prevents it being a violent assault on my body. Even if the assaulter is doing it involuntarily, I think my right to self-defense is, well, mine.

I'm really, really fucking grateful that I've never felt a need to exercise it. I grew up in a country with no legal abortion. It hones the instincts rather, and all my instincts say that this right is MINE.
Ailbhe | Email | Homepage | 06.23.06 - 12:59 pm | #

Much as I disagree with their position, I have always felt the "never" camp was more honest than the "except for" camp, whose position, after all, can be extrapolated to "it's okay to kill a child for its father's crimes."

However, I want to repeat - I don't agree with either. Especially since the behavior of most pro-lifers clearly shows that all they're pro is control and punishment.
The Ridger | Email | Homepage | 06.23.06 - 7:15 pm | #

This is pretty standard coalition politics, right? When abortion on demand is the law, it's easy to unite the people who think abortion is always wrong with the people who think it's usually wrong, and the people who think it's just got bad social consequences that outweight the good ones. Once you're in a position to make abortions illegal, that coalition splits up.
albatross | Email | Homepage | 06.23.06 - 7:39 pm | #

Much as I disagree with their position, I have always felt the "never" camp was more honest than the "except for" camp,

I'd agree except for one thing: lifers' apparent indifference to early miscarriage. Half or more of conceptions end in miscarriage, most during the first two weeks of pregnancy.

If the lifers really believed that all those concepti were babies, surely they'd be interested in preventing those deaths. Yet I've never seen a pro-life site dedicated to ending miscarriage or heard a pro-life politician call for massive funding for the NIH for a new program to end miscarriage or any wealthy pro-lifer endowing a fellowship to study the question or any other signs of interest in this, by their belief system, pandemic.

I can only conclude that really the vast majority of lifers don't really believe that an undifferentiated mass of cells is a person either and that in the end their opposition to abortion is really more based on a desire to punish women for sex than any real fear of children being harmed.
Dianne | Email | Homepage | 06.23.06 - 9:41 pm | #

I agree totally, Diane. It's all about control and punishment. But those who say "never" are more upfront than the others - who are the proverbial camel's butt. Er, nose.
The Ridger | Email | Homepage | 06.23.06 - 10:06 pm | #

Dianne:

Do you really believe that most pro-lifers don't think abortion is killing something human? And that their real motive is to punish women for sex? I'm baffled that anyone could believe this.
albatross | Email | Homepage | 06.24.06 - 1:00 am | #

We believe it because (a) most of them are equally against contraception (b) I've yet to any of them wailing over the roughly 50% of "human beings" who get killed by nature in the first couple of weeks of their "life" (c) most don't give a rat's ass about the kids after they're born: they can die from preventable childhood diseases; be killed by abusive parents; starve; wind up as collateral damage in a war, righteous or otherwise; get a little older and be made into cannon fodder; go to jail; be tortured ... and it serves them right (I say most, not all, but it's a honking huge most) (d) these same people are carrying on about HPV vaccination, which would save peoples' lives and (e) the rhetoric is heavily about "convenience" and "lack of morals" and "frivolity".

I'm not saying they don't think fetuses are human (though their Bible doesn't tell them so) - I'm saying that their compassion for humans seems to stop at birth. And you couple that with their other causes, and it's very very hard not to think their primary motive is to punish and control.
The Ridger | Email | Homepage | 06.24.06 - 7:44 am | #

I also don't see the ones arguing that the woman has surrendered her autonomy the second she became pregnant arguing that both parents should be compelled to give up blood or bone marrow or even organs for their child, which is the logical extension of the "'child' has a right to live which trumps all else" position.
The Ridger | Email | Homepage | 06.24.06 - 11:57 am | #

Do you really believe that most pro-lifers don't think abortion is killing something human?

The Ridger has pretty much said it already, but I'll add a couple of comments anyway...

I'd be willing to believe that a signficant number of pro-lifers are sincere in their concern for "unborn babies" and just had never heard of or never thought about the problem of miscarriages, except that every pro-lifer I've ever pointed the problem out to has blown it off. I find it hard to believe that if 50% or more of newborns were dying of some unknown problem that anyone would blow it off as just a "natural occurance" and be so totally uninterested in reducing the early mortality.

Of course, it's not like I've surveyed a representative sample of pro-lifers. Maybe the ones I've come across have just been particularly hypocritical.
Dianne | Email | Homepage | 06.24.06 - 1:36 pm | #

I forgot - until someone over at Daylight Atheism made the point - that if those folks were really concerned about the "baby" they'd also be strongly in favor of decent pre-natal care, child care, family leave, and so on. Which in most cases they are not. (Not to say they're against them, but they don't advocate pouring money into such programs.)
The Ridger | Email | Homepage | 06.25.06 - 10:11 am | #

The problem isn't that the ban is too harsh; it's that we've evolved into a society where a live baby is vermin and a dead baby is an absolute right. The courts have enshrined this and will never permit any protection of fetuses until a new generation of judges arises who have grown up in a culture that values everybody. And we're not going to evolve a society that values everybody overnight.

The disabled, the unborn, the elderly, and the ailing are considered garbage by the intelligencia. To ban abortion makes as much sense to them as to ban trash collection.
Christina | Email | Homepage | 06.25.06 - 4:11 pm | #

BTW, don't you notice any irony between your own love of your born child and your vehement declarations that other children are disposable? Go back in time. At what point does your beloved child become a valueless blob of tissue, worthy of no moral consideration?
Christina | Email | Homepage | 06.25.06 - 4:12 pm | #

Live babies are vermin? Hell yes, to the people who can't be bothered to provide post-natal health care and vaccinations and food. And who are the people who fight health care tooth and nail? Seems to me it's the same ones who profess to love babies. The only babies they love haven't been born yet. They get all worked up about a high-profile case like Terry Schiavo, and completely tune out a case like Sam Hudson, the first time care was denied a pediatric patient who was *conscious* and whose parents wanted him to live.
The Ridger | Email | Homepage | 06.25.06 - 5:54 pm | #

Christina - I've given you your answer in a separate post.
Rivka | Email | Homepage | 06.26.06 - 11:23 am | #

I am personally VERY strongly pro choice. So I always hesitate to get into these abortion arguments. But nonetheless I have difficulty accepting the various "they don't care aboout life" arguments.

The cited "contradictions" of the prolifers (and I use quotes intentionally) are usually presenting a false dichotomy. Can you decry abortion and not give a hoot, copmaratively speaking, about starving infants? Sure, in theory: just start with the premise that abortion is a mortal sin which dooms a mother and fetus to hell, while a dead fetus has the potential to live life in eternal bliss.

Now to me that makes little sense but then again I'm me. I can certainly see the possibility a prolifer might feel that way. I am also sure it is only one of many possible justifications for the apparent "contradictions" in their arguments.

So as a result the typical prochoice tactic of putting straw man arguments into the mouths of your opponents is damn silly IMO. Not to mention that we have plenty of contradictions on our own side as well--do we really want to get in that sort of fight?

I think that prolifers are NOT, by and large, merely part of an evil conspiracy to control women. I think it's more that they really do think abortion is wrong. And as a result I think they're misguided--but the "contradictions" don't bother me much.
Sailorman | Email | Homepage | 06.26.06 - 1:45 pm | #

It seemed to me that Dianne and Christina were engaged in the same process--the one by which you insulate yourself from any need to understand the other side of some debate, by making the other side into monsters or fools.
albatross | Email | Homepage | 06.26.06 - 5:21 pm | #

I'm not sure that I'd go as far as The Ridger, but it does look very much as if the pro-life campaigners don't care about either life involved after birth, and have scant regard for the mother's life. Yes. it is the self-defence issue, and it is part of the ancient problem; moral, ethical, and religious; of when ir is permissible to kill.

And they want to force the mother into not-killing, and then wash their hands of any responsibility for the consequences. As Stanley Baldwin said, "They seek power without responsibility--the prerogative of the harlot through the ages."
Dave Bell | Email | Homepage | 06.26.06 - 6:06 pm | #

So, I suppose you feel the same way about people who don't support welfare programs, but want to keep infanticide illegal? Isn't it pretty obvious these are different issues?
albatross | Email | Homepage | 06.26.06 - 7:11 pm | #

After the birth, you have an entity which can latch on to any available nipple. albatross, that's a whole different situation, and for that reason comparing infanticide to abortion is potentially very misleading.

But the obvious consequence of stopping abortion is more babies. Ignoring that consequence is hypocrisy.
Dave Bell | Email | Homepage | 06.29.06 - 5:13 am | #

The point is, many or most pro lifers think abortion is either equivalent to infanticide, or at least uncomfortably close to it. So saying "pro-lifers who don't also want welfare programs are wanting power without responsibility" is true, in their case, only if you say the same thing about people who oppose infanticide but don't support welfare programs.
albatross | Email | Homepage | 06.29.06 - 4:10 pm | #

Albatross: The point is, many or most pro lifers think abortion is either equivalent to infanticide, or at least uncomfortably close to it.

Hardly. Some "pro-lifers" may be mad enough to think that. But most "pro-lifers" who claim they think that aborting a fetus is anything like killing a baby are lying - to themselves, I'm sure, as well as to others. But they are lying.
Jesurgislac | Email | Homepage | 07.01.06 - 4:40 am | #

Jesirgislac,

I am prochoice and often debate with prolifers.

I can say one thing, however: You are not helping.

If you begin by stating the premise that the other side is lying, irratoinal, and unable to even process their own thoughts correctly, well... this is so offensive (and untrue) that it will brand you as unimportant from the getgo. You will not change anyone's mind.

I mean, can you even see how ridiculous this sounds? It's as if a prolife person said "you support infanticide. You may say you don't, and you may think you don't, but you really do. you're just lying to yourself." Would you listen to a thing they said after that? Or would you just dismiss them as silly?

It may "feel good" for you to say it, but it's a poor argument tactic.
Sailorman | Email | Homepage | 07.06.06 - 4:55 pm | #

Sailorman: I mean, can you even see how ridiculous this sounds? It's as if a prolife person said "you support infanticide. You may say you don't, and you may think you don't, but you really do. you're just lying to yourself."

But, unlike the claim that pro-choicers "support infanticide", the fact that most "pro-lifers" do not in the least think that abortion is equivalent to killing a baby is well-proven - beginning with the simple fact that there's not one "pro-life" organization anywhere in the US (not even "feminists for life") that has provision of free contraception to everyone as part of their policy.

They don't care that hetero pairings who use barrier contraception routinely, both, will kill far, far fewer embryos - both those that will spontaneously abort in early pregnancy (at least 50%) and the many abortions that reliable use of contraception will prevent. Patently, then, most "pro-lifers" do not think that killing an embryo is directly equivalent to killing a baby, since they are massively uninterested in the most effective option to prevent it. All they actively to care about is punishing women who conceive and then choose to abort - including "pro-life" attempts to prevent women from getting antibiotics following an abortion.

In my opinion, most "pro-lifers" have never seriously sat down and thought through their facile claim that they think of a blastocyst as identical to a newborn baby. Those that have, of course, have ended up in jail as often as not - since the law in the US does not protect people who commit terrorist acts on women's health clinics because they have come to literally believe that abortion means "killing a baby".

I see no reason not to challenge any "pro-lifer" who claims to believe that abortion=infanticide: the only reason not to would be if I feared there really were more sincere "pro-lifers" out there who'd realize that if they really believe having an abortion is "killing a baby" they have no choice but to turn terrorist themselves.
Jesurgislac | Email | Homepage | 07.07.06 - 5:10 pm | #

There's an added factor: a "pro-lifer" who really believed that a blastocyst is identical to an infant would be much more likely to assail an IVF clinic, where "babies" are routinely conceived and flushed or frozen on a day-in-day-out basis - but somehow, demonstrating outside fertility clinics to tell women who want to get pregnant via IVF that they're "babykillers" has never become the "pro-life" sport. Yet it's as absolutely true, if you believe that a blastocyst is a baby.
Jesurgislac | Email | Homepage | 07.07.06 - 5:13 pm | #

"If you begin by stating the premise that the other side is lying, irratoinal, and unable to even process their own thoughts correctly, well.."

Heck, I'd apply that to all sides, anywhere - to a degree, anyway. People are not particularly rational beings, esp. for certain definitions of rational that are close to formal logic and similar forms of argument.

My guess is that many prolifers certainly, genuinely feel that there's a baby holocaust going on. At the same time, they have various justifications or myths (in the technical sense, at least) that allow them to reconcile this concern with practices and policies that unquestionably (and unintentionally) kill or harm both actual born babies and fetuses.

Us prochoicers don't have or generally even know of these justifications, so we can only look on in disgust. Additionally, this means things work out as though the prolifers don't really care at all about the little guys - pre- or postnatal - and are more concerned about controlling and punishing women . . . topics which, frankly, do appear to play a not-insignificant role in such justifications&myths.

But that's jus' my 2¢, Any ideas on how to answer Rivka's question? I mean, in essence, it would be forcing them to confront these myths - but saying they don't care about the babies and only want to punish women as part of a wider war on fucking may not be the best way to start . . .

One suggestion would be keeping it real, so to speak. As one young woman who was interviewed in the article, iirc, said, it becomes a whole different thing when it's about someone you know (or at least could know, I would guess, as supposed to the straw-frivolous abortiongetter, who is upset that she won't fit into her pretty new dress, or whatever.
Dan S. | Email | Homepage | 07.08.06 - 8:06 am | #

Christina - besides the assertion that live babies are vermin (I've yet to find bottles of Baby-B-Gone at the hardware store next to the glue traps and poisons . . . ), you write that:
"The disabled, the unborn, the elderly, and the ailing are considered garbage by the [intelligensia]."

I've not seen that term in a while! (Should I consider it functionally equivalent to liberal elite/ limousine liberal/ Hollywood/ rootless cosmopolitans/ Jews, queers & communists?) Anyway, while it's hard to speak for such a vaguely defined group, certainly college-educated liberals and lefties (and non-college educated ones too, for that matter) overwhelmingly tend to be for disability rights, better health care, preserving social security so elderly folks don't end up with nothing because of bad luck/ judgement/ whatever - and of course, for easily available prenatal care. (Hence the strange contradiction being discussed above.)

You may be worried about euthanasia. (Frankly, I'm more worried about youth in Iraq, but . . ). I can't say I'm all that comfortable about this issue, given the potential for abuse, etc. Slippery-slopeness seems less of a concern, given the fact that it's justified by the primacy of the individual, not the state or nation - hence the 'right to die,' rather the 'duty to die' - but I suppose it's always a possibility, if our society falls to that level. I would guess that for some people this is an easier topic to be certain about if they haven't seen somebody suffer through a agonizing, prolonged, and inevitable death, biut perhaps not.
Dan S. | Email | Homepage | 07.08.06 - 8:42 am | #

And I meant [intelligentsia]. Serves me right.
Dan S. | Email | Homepage | 07.08.06 - 8:43 am | #

Back on topic: More generalized (re: framing debate and such) then invoking the moderate dilemma, but:
Are you sure you know better than your wife? Your sister? Your best friend? Your neighbor?'

Etc.
Of course, there are always people who say "yes!"
Dan S. | Email | Homepage | 07.08.06 - 8:51 am | #

Dan S: As one young woman who was interviewed in the article, iirc, said, it becomes a whole different thing when it's about someone you know (or at least could know, I would guess, as supposed to the straw-frivolous abortiongetter, who is upset that she won't fit into her pretty new dress, or whatever.

The problem is that "pro-lifers" are in fact quite willing to apply pro-choice principles when it is someone they know - while still being judgemental about all those other women who have abortions.

Since my comment above I've been directed to a couple of blogs which mention "pro-life" demonstrators outside IVF clinics, which does show some of them have some sense of consistency. (Though I suspect that, just as they feel entitled to abort if they want one, because they have "good reasons", they'll feel entitled to IVF treatment if they want to, because... etc.)

My guess is that many prolifers certainly, genuinely feel that there's a baby holocaust going on.

Sure. Like some Bush supporters certainly, genuinely feel that everything is going just fine in Iraq if only the "liberal media" would quit reporting on all those disasters.

Do you feel we should be supportive of that delusion, too?
Jesurgislac | Email | Homepage | 07.09.06 - 3:43 am | #

abf64b 46ce38d095
diamante | Email | Homepage | 12.15.06 - 8:25 pm | #

student loan payment student loan payment student loan payment. card credit guaranteed loan personal card credit guaranteed loan personal card credit guaranteed loan personal.
gxqbkhouw | Email | Homepage | 08.22.07 - 9:25 pm | #