A snarky article on why the “pro-lifers” should not debate over the morning-after-pill or “pharmacists’ rights”
| April 27th, 2005This post was removed by request of the author.
25 Responses to “A snarky article on why the “pro-lifers” should not debate over the morning-after-pill or “pharmacists’ rights””
Leave a Reply
If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.
(Need to know how to create blockquotes and links, i.e., linked text?)
If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking program may have blocked your comment by mistake. When this happens, please contact the moderators right away so we can rescue your comment!
April 27th, 2005 at 5:41 am
Good morning to you too. Moist towel? Listerine? Alka Seltzer?
I’d say this is a good thing, but I think the anti-choice movement is finaly realizing that they can say anything, and the press will be too intimidated to call them on it. And if the press calls them on it, the voting base won’t care.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 6:00 am
>>As for rape victims….pregnancy and childbirth will make everything all better for her, won’t it? >>
I don’t see why not. Babies are adorable! I certainly wouldn’t feel any lingering fury, resentment, fear, or depression if I were a mommy!
You know, terrifying as it is to see the front line moving closer and closer to The Handmaid’s Tale, it seems like it’ll be much easier to work the “They don’t care about rape victims, or any women” angle with this choice sub-issue than with the last big one. Kerry didn’t seem to get many points when he made the same argument around parental consent laws.
And speaking of patriarchal authority vs. female agency, I hadn’t considered that people might be really angry that a _doctor’s_ decisions were ignored. Could that really change people’s minds? Would that convince people who are less inclined to worry about the violation of a woman’s bodily integrity?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 6:58 am
Piny, I’ve had a lot of luck convincing people with that argument–that doctors should be trusted. I say the pro-choice side holds our noses and uses that argument as much as we can.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Oh, I’m happy to pander if it’ll keep this nightmare from becoming status quo. I’ll be so screwed.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 10:33 am
I guess the hesitation is that it takes away women’s moral authority over themselves and hands it to the doctor. But the “doctor’s judgement” argument is quite valid–why should a bunch of non-medically trained legislators and Bible-thumpers tell doctors what the best treatment is?
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 10:51 am
I think that is the creepy part, along with the idea of who gets privacy and respect. It’s like, his prescription pad is sacred, but her uterus not so much?
Might it also help to put this into a larger context of censorship and hindrance of healthcare providers? Stem cells, Planned Parenthood’s other services, defunding of support services for the sick?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
“In recent years, they’ve gained the upper hand by focusing relentlessly on late-term fetuses that look like babies.” That’s because they are babies, geniuses…
This comment was written by Will.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
I don’t see the need for rude sarcasm, or for insulting other people’s intellgence.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
Pardon me, but it usually bothers me how people distance themselves from what is in essence a murder of a human by calling it a fetus.
Let me ask you this Ampersand; Do you seriously consider that you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and consider that right and just? Oh yes, I am being very closed minded in not mentioning that this is only one of the ways that this is praticed. The others might not be as sick and disgusting…
This comment was written by Will.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
Will, are you familiar with the reality of late term abortions, or just the reality according to pro-lifers?
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 11:21 pm
I am bothered by late term abortions, and would want to see alternate forms of saving both the mother and baby found. For the most part, from my understanding, late term abortions are about moms health or are about the lack of the babies viability (this is where I am not in favor of abortion. Moms health, yes, babies chances or quality of life, no). However, I also don’t think we get anywhere by saying
I think most pro-lifers know it would cause the mother a great deal of pain, but believe the life of the baby outweighs that pain, and if one believes a conception is equivalent to a child, then it doesn’t matter what the stage of life is. I don’t agree that life begins at conception, but I think one has to understand how the “other side” views things, and not to simply tag them with a deragatory label. If one believes it is murder it is murder, and would I really want someone to say; “Okay, its murder. But that’s alright. I’ll let it pass.” ?
There might not be a solution to this and many other debates. I don’t know; I think we have reached the point where many of us are secure in whatever belief-niche we are in, and can no longer regard the multiple views of the issue as having moral standing. “I disagree but accept that you have a right to your beliefs”.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
Ampersand has far more information on it than I do, but yes, late term abortions were by law health related. And yes, a woman’s health is more important than an undelivered child, and yes if there are alternatives they should absolutely be a point of consideration when it comes to making these decisions.
The problem, Rachel, is that this issue is not about people agreeing to disagree, but instead people attempting to force agreement or compliance of their beliefs on others personal life-altering decisions. Nobody is forcing anyone who objects to terminating pregnancies to do so, unfortunately the same can’t be said with regards to those attempting to force their beliefs with regards to people objecting to deciding to terminate a pregnancy.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 12:58 am
I’m sorry to disagree with Kim (basement variety!), but the legal requirements for late term abortions aren’t necessarily health related; the laws vary from state to state.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 5:33 am
Virtually all aboriton procedures can be described in ways that make them sound gross. However, I don’t think we should base our laws on what sounds gross or not.
Regardless of if D&X abortions (which is what you’re describing here) are “right and just,” I think that’s a decision better left to individual women than to Big Brother Government. So to some extent, I think your question is irrelevent.
However, yes, I think that D&X abortions can certainly be “right and just.” For some examples, read these two earlier posts I wrote: why D&X abortions are medically necessary and some real women who have needed d&x abortions.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 10:58 am
You’re kidding, right? This is how most pro-choicers make omelettes. Because if liberals hate anything, it’s the unborn.
I love pro-lifer reversals. Almost all late-term abortions are performed for the sake of the health of the mother; in many states–like mine–they’re illegal otherwise. If, for example, you detect anencephaly after the second trimester, you get to deliver the baby. There are exceptions, but they are extremely rare. If you really wanted this procedure to be nonexistent, you wouldn’t force poor women to save hundreds of dollars to have an earlier abortion performed. Do you think a woman would dither for five or six months over an unwanted pregnancy if there weren’t other considerations?
And if you care about keeping fetal brains intact, what’s your excuse for voting for the Mercury President?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 11:04 am
Especially since, I’m guessing, Will doesn’t want any abortions legal, at any point in the pregnancy.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Will, this is my post so I have authority here as Amp has given me. I suggest you calm the fuck down and stop be so insulting to others if you wish to keep posting your opinion on this thread. Differing opinions is perfectly okay but being an asshole on purpose (for the sake of being an asshole I guess) will not be tolerated. Clear?
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
“If you really wanted this procedure to be nonexistent, you wouldn’t force poor women to save hundreds of dollars to have an earlier abortion performed.”
Although, with all due respect, the alternative is to force people who think abortion is murder to support it through their tax dollars. Not really a pro-choice position.
Granted, people already are forced to support things they find immoral through their tax dollars, but in most of those cases the people advocating government expenditures aren’t calling themselves “pro-choice.”
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
I’ll rephrase: If a pro-lifer wants to force a woman to choose between a late-term abortion and no abortion at all, they can’t complain when she chooses a late-term abortion, or act as though women in general or pro-choicers in general support or prefer late-term abortions.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
The problem, Rachel, is that this issue is not about people agreeing to disagree, but instead people attempting to force agreement or compliance of their beliefs on others personal life-altering decisions
And I agree that is the problem. However, the reason the problem exists and I’m not certain there is a solution, is because one group feels abortion is murder. They cannot simply allow murder to continue. It is easier for me to debate this issue and allow people their say,because while I think many abortions are immoral, I do not think they are murder. But if one thinks that abortion is murder, if one thinks that contraceptives are murder, then there is no more talking. The “other side” cannot sit back and allow a discussion to go on but must work tirelessly against laws which allow, what they feel is murder to continue.
It is like two people debating whether a garment is aquamarine or plain green; one can take it to a vote, but that doesn’t alter anyone’s vision.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
This is just one of the first forays into the real agenda of the religocrats. The want to make ALL forms of birth-control illegal. The justification used is an extention of their existing argument. “Abortion is murder.” then “The morning after pill is murder.” then “The pill is murder.” then “A condom is murder.”
This comment was written by Dave.There is no appeasing the zealots. They will not be satisfied until all forms of birth-control are illegal. (and if they could find a way into the bedrooms, they’d make the rythym method illegal, too)
Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
I’m just unwilling to accept or even humor the argument that abortion is murder.
If it was murder, I’d be in jail as a self-confessed person whom has terminated a pregnancy, and well, I’m not, and there hasn’t been any attempt to prosecute me as so.
Abortion ! = murder. Period. No matter how hard moralists attempt to make the argument, it just isn’t so.
For another example, I think attempting to force a woman to do something with her body that she is not willing to is rape. Does that make anti-choice people rapists, just because I said so?
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Anyone who thinks procedures should be legal depending on their grossness ought not to be present at childbirth.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
Although, I must say, the best thing my mom ever did to me to encourage me to stay abstinent was show me a movie of a live birth. To me, sex was equated with pain, and mess for the longest time (thank you, psychological scars).
Comparitively, abortions are down right clean.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
For another example, I think attempting to force a woman to do something with her body that she is not willing to is rape. Does that make anti-choice people rapists, just because I said so?
No; however, if your perception is that all forms of intercourse are a form of rape, then prseenting “willingness” as an arguement that it is not rape will not suffice. Does that make it rape? It would depend on the circumstances of course; if we are talking about two legally consenting adults (using those words to avoid drunkeness, being drugged, being by reason of insanity etc. etc. unable to actually give consent) I would have to say no it isn’t. That doesn’t change the mind of someone who believes rape means penetration of a woman by a man under any circumstances. Similarly, if one were to say that it is impossible to rape a woman will also not be persuaded by any arguments suggesting it wasn’t consensual. So what is the solution?
The middle ground is where I head; but my middle is someone else’s right (far right) another’s left, and we still leave people dissatified. Perhaps that is what happens. We will always need to keep arguing abortion till somehow it is decided absolutely by some factor or other, if we want to keep it legal at least in some instances.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators