Do they really believe that abortion is murder?
| March 21st, 2006I really like to assume the best of everyone, even people I disagree with.
And I try hard to take what opponents say, at their word.
But sometimes it’s hard.
A lot of people who favor forced childbirth for pregnant women say that they believe that an abortion, even early in pregnancy, is identical to child murder. Have an abortion, shoot a four-year-old in the head; morally, it’s the same. Or, anyhow, that’s what they claim to believe.
In contrast, pro-choicers tend to think that the abortion criminalization movement is motivated by a desire - perhaps an unconscious desire - to punish women for having sex.
I used to reject that latter view as a pointless ad hominem attack. Nowadays, I’m not so sure. Although I’ve met some rank-and-file “pro-lifers” whose policy preferences were consistent with a belief that a fetus is morally indistinguishable from a child, those folks usually have policy preferences which are totally out of step with the abortion criminalization movement as a whole.
In contrast, the leaders of the abortion criminalization movement have consistently put their political weight behind policies which make little or no sense if they genuinely think that abortion is identical to child murder. And those same leaders routinely endorse policies that make a lot of sense if their goal is to penalize women who have sex - to, as I’ve heard many of them put it, make sure women “face the consequences” of having sex. And they’ve done so with the apparent backing and blessing of the vast majority of the rank and file. Let’s review:
Almost none of their policies make sense if they really see no difference between the death of a fetus and the death of a four-year-old. However, nearly all their policies make sense if they’re seeking to make sure that women who have sex “face the consequences.” are punished. After years of seeing this pattern repeated again and again, it’s difficult to take them at their word.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:31 am
Great post!
This comment was written by dorktastic.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:47 am
[...] Alas, A Blog has posted a handy table showing how pro-life positions tend to correspond a different motivation than what they claim — that these positions aren’t consistent with a belief that abortion is murder, but are consistent with a belief that women should be punished for having sex. It’s quite compelling to see the argument laid out in this format. [...]
This comment was written by Word Munger » Abortion, sex, and murder.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 6:49 am
Excellent chart and analysis. Did you put the chart together yourself or did it come from another source?
This comment was written by Wally Whateley.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:23 am
Brilliant.
This comment was written by Grace.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:34 am
The one thing you forgot in the analysis is where we pro-lifers claim to be consistent ;-)
All kidding aside, the equating of abortion with murder hinges on the fundimental belief that the embryo/fetus is a person. Period. The fact that our policy proposals are often contradictory (and I agree they are) and that they can be twisted to “look” more like policies against female sexual rights doesn’t mean that is the intent.
The exception to the above may be the contraception/sex ed stance. But that issue is not fundimentally about abortion or murder.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:56 am
Well, gengwall, it doesn’t really have anything to do with consistency, does it? It seems to be it’s more about what you choose to go after. And it really doesn’t take any twisting to point out that anti-choicers are pretty consistent about going after the things that punish women. Why do you think that is?
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:17 am
Well, gengwall, it doesn’t really have anything to do with consistency, does it? It seems to be it’s more about what you choose to go after.
Well, this is true enough.
And it really doesn’t take any twisting to point out that anti-choicers are pretty consistent about going after the things that punish women.
I am simply pointing out the difference between intent and effect. The fundimental intent is to stop murders from happening. The effect may also be that women have their sexual freedom repressed (well, and men too for that matter). Actually, the majority effect is the sexual freedom repression since outlawing abortion and any of the other things Amp mentioned really won’t stop the murders. But, as has been pointed out here and in other Amp posts, the outlawing abortion position is rife with inconsistency and illogic.
Why do you think that is?
Well, I will give you my frank opinion. The majority of the pro-life movement, meaning basically conservative evangelical Christians, is completely out of step with reality. What they want to do, really, is create a theocracy that imposes on society their Christian morality (whatever that is - try getting a consistent answer about that from, say, Jesse Jackson, the Pope, and Pat Robertson) I agree, it is a completely messed up policy stance. But it is fueled by a deep, emotional belief in the personhood of the unborn. And that belief has biological, legal, and political support. There can be no denying that the outlaw abortion movement in America has significant momentum.
I really think that with victory in sight, the movement has become even more short sighted. Now, any law no matter how rediculously contradictory to the “abortion is murder” mantra, is enthusiastically endorsed. You should see some of these bills. The Mississippi bill has gotten almost as much attention as the SD law. It includes exceptions for rape and incest and holds the mother harmless. But even more silly, the penalty for committing this “murder” is a misdemeanor! Now, does that sound like murder to you?
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:38 am
Amp—Mind if I print this out and tape it to the door of my dorm room?
Gengwall—
They do more than “look” like policies against female sexual rights. They are, in practice, policies against female sexual rights. I don’t give a damn what their intent was if they can’t manage their effects.
And the protection of the mother from legal consequences (unless the fact that it’s in her body makes it justifiable homicide), and the rape/incest exception (if it’s murder, it’s murder all the time), and the D&X ban (pointless, from a preventing-murder perspective), and the welfare thing (which leads to more women seeking abortions because they can’t afford another kid or to take unpaid maternity leave), and the attacks on the HPV vaccine (which has nothing to do with abortion), and the opposition of the UNPF (which prevents unwanted pregnancies, thus preventing abortions, and increases maternal health, which results in fewer miscarriages, fewer childbirth complications for both the newborn and the mother, and fewer maternal deaths which means more mothers are alive and healthy to care for their children). All of these are pointless and/or counterproductive if your goal is “saving babies,” but all of them have vastly negative effects on women. They do not seem like reasonable actions of people trying to save babies; rather, they seem like the actions of people for whom punishing women is more important than saving babies.
Put another way, the actions of the “pro-life” movement speak so loudly that I cannot hear what they are saying.
Sex-ed and contraception are fundamentally about preventing abortion (or murder, if that’s how you see it). No one can get an abortion if their birth control prevents them from becoming pregnant in the first place.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:44 am
gengwall, what explanation is there for the inconsistency, then?
I can think of one–the inability to treat women as full moral agents. This is the excuse you primarily hear given for punishing doctors, but not women who seek abortions. Women don’t know what they’re really doing, the evil abortion industry brainwashed them, and so on. In this view, women are really stupid and childlike, and have no moral agency for killing their children. It’d be as if we decided that if Susan Smith had paid someone to drive her children into that like, the driver was a murderer but she shouldn’t be blamed.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:54 am
mythago - yes, that is one possible explanation. But I can tell you sincerely that from my experience in the midst of this camp, that that is not how we think. (Well, there are some bone heads that still have a cave man mentality but they are a very small minority). Remember, there are pretty much as many women in the fundie anti-abortion camp as there are men. These are not repressed women by any means and they certainly aren’t stupid, brainwashed, or childlike in their understanding of the issues.
I have posted an answer to ADS that will probably address your questions as well but it is waiting moderation.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 10:27 am
Ampersand, I would have never thought of myself as one of your opponents, but I do believe abortion is murder (but not akin to child murder), and I also believe abortion laws are there to punish women. I LOVE this chart! I recently posted on this very issue, see “On Abortion Law and Rape” on my site (which is still virginal, so please do look!). I haven’t figured out how to link to specific posts, so you’ll have to scroll down a little.
This comment was written by Sage.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 10:28 am
I’m not sure I follow the very first line. Where is there an anti-abortion law being passed that protects mothers from all legal consequences. Legal consequences of what? Abortion? Giving birth? So confused…
Other than that, good summary.
This comment was written by Orim.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 10:36 am
In my experience, the people most anxious to punish women for having sex are other women.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 10:52 am
gengwall, it’s just impossible for the institutional pro-life movement to divorce itself from the other institutions that breathe life into it — through in-kind, financial, and yes, moral support. This includes the Roman Catholic church, in particular, and any number of smaller church or church related organizations. They oppose contraception and assisted reproductive technology. They are firmly in the camp of denying women equal participation within their own institutions, and don’t really care about how women fare professionally, yet are immensely concerned that women play a particular role in family life, usually in subservience to their husbands. They glorify child rearing as a primary occupation of women. (I have three children but I can see that motherhood isn’t for everyone.) Don’t tell me that these women are smart, etc. That only makes it worse. The fact that these incredibly independent and smart women (have you read even a summary of Phyllis Schlafly’s bio?) are so determined to prevent other women from achieving self-determination and autonomy over their own lives is just revolting.
Connecting the dots here couldn’t be easier. It’s why I no longer give $ to my RC church — I do give in-kind assistance to my parish’s social justice outreach programs, like affordable housing and living wage.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:05 am
Perhaps it’s worth noting that the author of Exodus apparently did not regard the loss of a fetus as equivalent to the death of a person.
In brief, the penalty for intentional homicide is death (Exodus 21:12, 14) and the penalty for unintentional homicide is banishment (Exodus 21:13). But the penalty for causing a miscarriage is a merely a fine (Exodus 21:22).
I learned this from Rabbi (and author) Harold S. Kushner.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:35 am
barbara - your familiarity with the Catholic church to an extent taints your perspective. Catholics make only one segment of the pro-life movement. There are many differing views within the movement on the topics you highlight.
Most non-catholic Christians have no problem with contraception per se. The number dwindles a little regarding assisted reproduction technologies but there certainly are many, many Christians who use and support those technologies. Admitedly, The number dwindles quite a bit when it comes to emergency contraception. But an opposition to EC does not mean an opposition to contraception in total.
Within church institutions, you couldn’t be more wrong. Many, many denominations ordain female ministers, slightly more allow female decons and elders, and virtually all have female ministry heads.
Your contention about the professional world is also not correct. Certainly, you don’t mean to blame work place inequity on Christians alone? I can cite you examples of whole communities where there is overt discrimination against women in the work place and also point out how liberal and non-religious these communities are. Within the church, I will admit that there is a large block of “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” believers but they are not the majority by any means. Virtually all of the families in my 1,000 member very conservative evangelical church are dual income families. In many, the wife earns more and is in a higher rank professionally than the husband. Moreover, I have never, ever, heard any argument in any evangelical Christian circle that women should not receive equal pay for equal work, or that there should be any kind of glass ceiling in the workplace for women. As I have stated before, we simply do not think this way.
They glorify child rearing as a primary occupation of women. (I have three children but I can see that motherhood isn’t for everyone.)
Motherhood might not be for everyone but you started out talking about child rearing. Non-catholic Christians have no problem with people who don’t have or want children. But once the children exist, we do consider child rearing to be a very serious and noble “occupation”. We certainly think that it is better for children if it can be one parent’s “primary” occupation. And we certainly think women are better suited to it than men. I don’t see anything degrading to women in that philosophy.
The vast majority of Christians hold women in high esteem, greatly respect them, desire to honor them, and believe they are equal to men in every respect except one. That is leadership of the family. Now, I could spend several thousands of words helping you understand what this leadership entails, but that would probably be a waste of space. Suffice it to say that it is nothing like what you think or have been told it is.
nobody - you are correct. At best, the bible has contradictory references to the unborn. In addition, the jews did not consider the unborn persons under the law at any prenatal stage. You did not become a person under the law until you were born.
This illustrates again the problem with bringing religion into the discussion. Religions bodies are far from in agreement on personhood of the unborn.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:37 am
Great table. Gengwall misses a point however–perhaps because it wasn’t explicit in this post: the fundamental belief that an embryo/fetus is a person is irrelevant to this discussion.
This comment was written by Ann.ALL societies have rules about when it is permissible to kill another person, and only when those rules are broken is it called murder. Anti-choice people may SAY that abortion is murder, but clearly they don’t believe that to be the case.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:38 am
When I wrote in my blog a post called “20 Questions: Baby Killing Edition,” asking people who kept saying “abortion is MURDER” if they really believed that statement — and all of its outgrowths — I got a lot of hemming and hawing, a lot of inconsistency, and one poster who said trials were too good for women who had abortions, and they should be tossed into wood chippers outside the clinics. Not kidding.
When I asked, since it’s ok to take a woman’s uterus hostage for 9 months to support another life and enforce that with the full power of the law, is it ok to force living people to donate blood, bone marrow, or kidneys, I got a lot of “it’s not the same” and “but you’re RESPONSIBLE for one life.” It’s not about life, it’s about sexual responsibility — but a particular kind of sexual responsibility where we still take care of men who aren’t sexually responsible (for instance, no one would ever propose stopping syphillis treatment, but HPV vaccines? Who needs ‘em, right?).
Even looking at their actual arguments and what they view as “perfect” legislation in a perfect world, it’s clear they don’t believe embryos and fetuses are full humans with full rights. If they did, they would want 1/3 of American women to be behind bars for premeditated murder.
This comment was written by Molly.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 12:01 pm
That’s an excellent, useful post.
I would add one: the issue of dealing with every miscarriage as a homicide investigation. Because how else would the state determine, given the professed belief that abortion is murder, whether a miscarriage was “god’s will” or “murder”?
This comment was written by mg_65.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Wouldn’t the policy of punishing women for having abortions be more consistent with the idea of “punishing women for having sex” than the policy of not punishing women for having abortions? If the main goal is to punish women for having sex then throwing them in jail for having abortions seems like a greater punishment for having sex than not throwing them in jail.
Is there any evidence/studies which show that other late term abortion procedures have a higher risk of injuring the mother than intact D and X?
Which prolife organizations are opposed to an HPV vaccine? The only thing I’ve seen is a couple of individuals tentatively opposing making the vaccine mandatory.
What about the other prolife policies such as informed consent laws, parental consent laws, bans on tax-funded abortions, etc. - do they fit this same model as well?
This comment was written by Jivin J.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 12:13 pm
mg_65 - good point, although certain behaviors by pregnant women are already scrutinized in some state laws. It is such negligence that would be the determining factor in whether it was accidental (”God’s will”) or manslaughter (it would never be murder). I think, actually, that pro-lifers would be in favor of penalties for negligence induced miscarriages.
This would be no different than investigations into newborn and any other child death. Even if it is not murder, an investiation is done to determine if there was negligence which caused the child’s death. If so, many states have manslaughter provisions (and penalties) which deal with these tragic but avoidable deaths.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 12:18 pm
The vast majority of Christians hold women in high esteem, greatly respect them, desire to honor them, and believe they are equal to men in every respect except one. That is leadership of the family. Now, I could spend several thousands of words helping you understand what this leadership entails, but that would probably be a waste of space. Suffice it to say that it is nothing like what you think or have been told it is.
geez, the amount of time i could spend expounding upon all that goes into that little word ‘but.’ if women are not held as equal in all aspects of life, then women are not equal, period. i don’t care how many pedestals religious dogma offers women in other aspects of life. if they are not equal in leadership of the family, they are not equal *at all*.
This comment was written by emily1.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 12:38 pm
emily1 - Your comment shows you do not understand what this leadership I refer to is. So, I will expound a little.
First, it does not mean that the man (or woman) makes all the decisions in the family. The Christian model presumes decisions are made jointly.
It also does not mean the man (or woman) makes the majority of the money, does the majority of the work to maintain home, or handles the household finances. The Christian model presumes that the distribution of these things will be unique in each household and will reflect the areas that the couple are gifted in. Moreover, nothing in the Christian model prevents women from having careers.
It does not mean the woman (or the man) does all the child rearing. The Christian model presumes that this be a mutual and equal effort.
The Christian model of leadership involves two basic principles: responsibility and servanthood. The man is expected to take responsibility for the spiritual direction of the family (something that Christian men today are horrible at). He is also expected to accept responsibility for the consequences of any family actions. Along with this, the man is expected to devote his life to service of the family. The family is to be his number one priority (after God, of course. This is an area where men in general have a dismal record). Moreover, he is to lay down his life for the well being of the family. That may be literal or figurative. In other words, the reason why many Christians say the man should be the “bread winner” is that it is the man who should be making the majority of the sacrifices to ensure the family has their basic needs met.
Jesus is our model for this servant leader. Needless to say, most Christian men, (myself chief among them), fall far short of this example. But that is what is meant when we talk about the man being the leader of the house. The important thing to note is that the correct approach has nothing to do with dominating, abusing, or supressing our wives. Quite the opposite is true. We should be laying down our life in such a way that our wives are free to be whatever they want to be.
Now, (whew, big breath), is that what is practiced in todays society? Of course not. But that is what is preached in today’s churches. We have just abdicated and shirked these roles for so long that we don’t have any idea how to be real men anymore.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 12:45 pm
I agree with Emily1.
The “leadership” of the family is not a small thing. The whole legal principle of coverture was based on the idea of male-head-of-household. Married women’s property laws, the ability to vote, full citizenship rights for women, marital rape, — all of these legal concepts are related to the legal principle of coverture, in which the male head-of-household politically “represents” his dependents to the state. The married woman was considered “legally” dead to the state and “represented” by her husband.
The writings of anti-suffragists is informative on this ideological connection.
In _Casey_ , Sandra O’Connor knocked down the Pennsylvania law that required a woman to notify her husband prior to an abortion. In the opinion, O’Connor (Kennedy and Souter) noted that this law was a throwback to the legal principle of coverture: “Section 3209’s husband notification provision constitutes an undue burden and is therefore invalid…Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women but repugnant to this Court’s present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution.” (In contrast, Alito wrote an opinipon supporting this law.)
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 12:50 pm
gengwall, looks like I hit a nerve.
First, I did not say that Christians are responsible for workplace discrimination. I am sentient enough to see that many non-Christians hold women’s equality in even lower esteem. However, most conservative Christian groups emphasize women’s role within the family and as you admit, that role is not equal; they do not make it a cause to promote the equality or advancement of women in the work place. Many actively encourage women not to participate in the workforce. Many advocate early marriage and so on.
Second, I am aware that many of those who call themselves pro-life may not be active adherents of the groups whereof I speak. I have no idea what the breakdown is, do you? But these are the groups that provide the lion’s share of funding, space, and perhaps most important, the lobbying clout that sustains the legislative efforts against abortion, not to mention that they actively exhort members to join and participate in pro-life groups. For instance, they fund groups with names like “Priests for Life” that disseminates all kinds of inaccurate information by any media at its disposal about health related risks of contraception and abortion. They have a television network called EWTN. Etc.
Third, it’s true that most protestants have no principled opposition to birth control. It’s also true that most protestant denominations do not actively pursue the criminalization of abortion. There is a striking parallel between those denominations that oppose contraception or accessibility of contraception (take your pick — the latter is clearly a rising phenomenon) and that pursue the criminalization of abortion.
I don’t need an education on Christian doctrine or dogma. I am quite literate on the subject, I am also quite literate on early influences on the Church that turned it into an arm of the Roman government and patriarchal authority generally. I am not a specialist, but I am an avid reader and had lots of classes on the subject back in the day.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Or to steal a quote from G.K. Chesterton - “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It’s been found difficult and left untried.”
Though in general I think those who choose to express themselves as Christians would do better to try harder to live up to their own ideals, and worry a little less about whether the rest of the world is living up to the ideals that they themselves can not meet.
This comment was written by Tapetum.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:04 pm
gengwall:
emily1 - Your comment shows you do not understand what this leadership I refer to is. So, I will expound a little.
Emily1’s comment does not descibe her belief or understanding what leadership is at all. She pointed out an inportant flaw in your claims on men and women equal in all aspects by the Christian model. I grant you that the Christian model is not necessarily anti-woman, but instead it seems to have seperate but equal roles for men and women.
Catchy phrase, that.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:04 pm
A couple more possibilities I haven’t noticed here yet:
In-vitro fertilization is an acceptable procedure.
abortion==murder : NO, this procedure often results in embryos that are ultimately killed.
sex only when I approve : YES, this is commonly used by married couples to be fruitful and multiply.
Miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) is an enormous public health problem.
This comment was written by Ken C..abortion==murder : YES , medicine must intervene to save these living souls, just as it does for older people;
sex only when I approve : NO, this happens most often to married women trying to have a baby.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:05 pm
barbara - I appreciate your response. It could be that nerve of mine was over exposed and easily hit. I only would argue still against this:
There is a striking parallel between those denominations that oppose contraception or accessibility of contraception (take your pick … the latter is clearly a rising phenomenon) and that pursue the criminalization of abortion.
I have spent going on 30 years in congregations of denominations that have actively pursued the criminalization of abortion and never in those twenty years have any ever even hinted of an opposition to contraception or the accessibility thereof (with the one exception of contraception distribution in highschools.) We certainly may simply have different experiences and circles of influence, but I have never seen the parallel you alude to in mine.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:06 pm
I thought that was Mark Twain. But I was wrong.
Another good one:
“Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair.”
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:08 pm
I suppose that separate but equal -thing was somewhat harsh, but the earlier point about using emily1’s comment, and criticism of the patronizing tone stands.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Tapetum - Amen
Tuomas - I don’t know that I exactly agree with your paraphrase, but I don’t think we need to quibble over it. My whole diatribe was kind of OT anyway. I just wanted to illustrate that the perception (especially the liberal feminist perception) of Christian male leadership and what the bible actually calls for are very different.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Gengwall:
Okay. The pedant in me jumped at the phrase I quoted. I’m enjoying the discussion, and you do bring a fresh perspective. My understanding of the Christian pro-life movement, and of feminism, are both somewhat limited, so I’m learning a lot here.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:14 pm
emily1 - I appologize if I misread you and for any insult in my response. Thanks, Tuomas, for the “iron sharpening iron” (another great biblical practice).
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:20 pm
I just wanted to illustrate that the perception (especially the liberal feminist perception) of Christian male leadership and what the bible actually calls for are very different.
But it sounds as if you see married women as inferior moral actors to their husbands. Why is the husband more responsible for the moral choices of his wife then the wife herself? Her soul and her moral capacity should be equal to that of her husband.
For example, if my grandmother came to live with my husband and I, we would both have a moral responsibility to care for her. I would be just as responsibility for her well-being as my husband. As an adult, I believe it would be immoral for me to abdicate my moral responsibility.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:25 pm
I think Amp kind of has a point, and kind of doesn’t.
I think there is a strain of anti-abortion thought which is indeed misogynistic and which does indeed seek to punish women for the crime of being sexual entities. That strain is not dominant (squishy moderates like Gengwall are a lot more representative of the pro-lifers I’ve met than the nutjobs are) but it certainly exists.
On the flip side, most of these categories don’t really prove anything. From the top:
A) Abortion bans which don’t criminalize the mother - this is a political choice. There are a lot of people who think that abortion is wrong without it being murder. Pro-lifers who are trying to pass laws are not trying to articulate their philosophical belief in legal form - they’re trying to get a law passed to modify behavior. Locking up the mother would be politically damaging to the chances of getting the law passed.
In fact, this one would seem to point against the “punish women” rubric. If pro-lifers wanted to punish women, they’d want to lock them up. Instead, they focus on the behavior and on the less sympathetic of the players involved - the clinician.
B) Opposing contraception - as Gengwall has noted, relatively few people in the pro-life movement are anti-contraception. Even those of us who are supposed to be, generally aren’t. There are sound reasons for not wanting contraception passed out to kids that don’t have to be viewed through the abortion rubric.
C) Rape and incest - see A. Just politics.
D) Partial birth - Your argument doesn’t hold up, because the people wanting to ban these procedures don’t think that doctors will find alternatives. You might be correct about the actual impact of the law, but your opinion of the impact isn’t the opinion of the pro-lifers involved.
E) Welfare - see B. This is a different issue. Sure, there may be connections - but pro-lifers don’t accept your framing of the question, and don’t see it the way you see it.
F) HPV vaccine. As with contraception, there is very little opposition to the vaccine itself. There is opposition to giving it to kids. You may disagree with the pro-life logic, but we are not opposed to the HPV vaccine’s existence or use.
G) Bombing clinics. Even if you view an action as equivalent to murder, that does not automatically justify resorting to violence to stop it.
H) UNFPA. We all hate the UN. We believe in defunding everything it does and moving the function to some other entity if it must be done. So we’d be opposed to UNFPA regardless; UNFPA’s disputed support of abortion is just a handy hook to hang it from.
Bottom line, I agree in part with your conclusion, but your reasoning to get there is rubbish. ;P
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Amplifying something I just said -
One of the reasons that we don’t view the welfare and contraception issues the way you do is that by and large, pro-lifers are conservative. (Of course there are plenty of exceptions - hi LAMom! - but this is the strong trend.)
And again speaking generally, conservatives believe that we are responsible for the moral formation of young people, but that what adults do is their own problem. So - even if there are empirical effects that would seem to urge a different approach - we are unwilling to hand out condoms and vaccines to kids because that amounts to us endorsing their sexual activity. Whereas, what the welfare moms get up to is their own problem.
I kind of get the impression that liberals work the other way. Kids have total agency and can’t be corralled - and since they’re going to have sex whether we like it or not, let’s make sure they have condoms and vaccines. But the poor welfare people, they’re helpless without us teaching them how to cook (see other thread) and we have to take care of them and make sure they have what they need.
Difference in perceiving the world, results in a difference of how we reason about moral issues.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Wow! Lots of stuff that was out in moderation limbo for a while. Best we just move on - agreed? My head would explode trying to catch up and probably half of the stuff is now either answered or moot.
Good job getting things back on task Robert.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Murder is a legal definition. What may be considered murder in one case would not be considered murder under slightly different circumstances so I don’t call women that choose abortion or abortion providers murderers. I believe that they are killing and believe that “kill” is a more accurate word to use than murder.
People are anti-abortion for a variety of reasons and I have a few reasons myself. There are people that are anti-abortion on biblical grounds. There are people that are anti-abortion for secular reasons like myself and many other people fall somewhere in between the exclusively secular and the exclusively biblical.
Unfortunately, those that are anti-abortion for biblical reasons tend to garner most of the attention and are most effective at getting their points of view heard and their ideas about public policy promoted. Also, many of the most prominent anti-abortion organizations are Catholic or have some other religious affiliation which makes it seem as if the pro-lifers are all religious or are anti-contraception.
In my opinion, you can’t be anti-abortion and not be strongly pro-contraception. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. A Catholic may not be able to promote contraception due to personal beliefs but please don’t think that we are all Catholics ( and that all Catholics do not promote contraceptive use for non-Catholics).
This comment was written by SBW.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 1:53 pm
I have another addition for the chart:
Countries with the lowest abortion rates (Belgium/ Netherlands) also have easy availability of contraception and abortion.
Countries with high abortion rates have legal restrictions on abortion.
Thus, is criminalization of birth control and abortion about lowing the rate of abortions or controlling women’s sexuality and reproduction?
If it’s about lowing the abortion rate, why in the world don’t those groups support the empirical evidence of what has happened in other countries around the world?
The debate of legalities is so stupid. Even totalitarian Romania couldn’t stop illegal abortion (or even lower the abortion rate after the first year.) Why in the world do these groups think they can use the law to lower the abortion rate?
Are they even concerned about the abortion rate? If so, why doesn’t the evidence about world abortion rates and the law interest them?
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Are they even concerned about the abortion rate? If so, why doesn’t the evidence about world abortion rates and the law interest them?
Pro-lifers are interested in the abortion rate, but the evidence isn’t as unambiguous as you outline/assume. Abortion is a tricky thing to measure.
Some pro-lifers think that they can use the law to lower the abortion rate because they presume that there is a population of women who, if abortion is legal will consider abortion, but if abortion is illegal will not consider it. (Not necessarily because of the law per se, but because they don’t want to have to deal with the underworld to get it done.)
That presumption is almost certainly accurate; . The question is whether other effects would swamp whatever change there was from the change in incentives.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
SW - very true. pro-lifers make this mistake constantly. I have actually started threads in forums where I have had to constantly moderate and remind people that the use of the term “murder” in the present abortion context is inappropriate to the discussion.
What abortion opponents really are attemting to argue is that prenatal personhood makes abortion a homocide. Now, how that homocide gets classed in law and whether or not it is justified, and therefore not criminal, under certain circumstances would need to be sorted out after it is established that it is indeed homocide. The most accurate statement an anti-choicer could make is that they want to get the homocide of abortion classified as murder in these x number of situations.
As I stated above, the miscarriage side of things would then fall under man slaughter rules. Specifically, was the homocide purely accidental (likely not a crime) or due to negligence (most likely a crime in most states). The important distinction would be that abortions and miscarriages were two different causes of death and would be treated as such in the law.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Robert, by framing many of Amp’s examples as “political choices” is that, basically, you have basically affirmed Amp’s point: No one would say that it is an acceptable political choice to decriminalize the murder of infants and children. No one.
I understand that many people oppose abortion on moral grounds. However, the rhetoric of the foundational position that, in essence, a two celled zygote is equivalent to a 2 month old baby, is not matched by a corresponding passion to treat that 2 celled zygote as if it were a 2 month old baby. That leads many of us, me included, to the conclusion that a lot of pro-life reasoning is in fact little more than rhetoric. I can go around saying all day that I believe that the theory of gravity is a lot of hooey, but if I won’t even consider jumping out of a window one might conclude that I don’t really believe what I am saying — or at least that there is sufficient doubt about the issue that I have no business requiring other people to jump out of windows.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Robert, sorry for garbling the first sentence: By framing many of Amp’s examples as “political choices” you have basically affirmed Amp’s point.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Wally, yes, I wrote the chart myself.
Orim wrote:
Sorry that was unclear. Most of the abortion bans passed nowadays punish the doctor for performing an abortion, but exempt the mother from being charged with any crime.
Kyra wrote:
That’s how I’m hoping folks use it!
Robert wrote:
That’s assuming “dominant” is defined as “representative of the pro-lifers Robert has met.” However, I don’t use that definition. I define “dominant” as “having the ability to set policy at high levels.” By that definition, the “nutjobs” clearly are dominant.
As for your point-by-point rebuttal, I don’t doubt that special pleading can be made for all of these examples, and for any possible future examples. But the overall pattern remains striking.
In any case, I find a lot of your excuses to be dubious.
If “political compromise” is an acceptable excuse, for example, then what happens to the often-heard argument from pro-lifers that they can’t accept any compromise on what they consider murder?
Saying “they don’t oppose the vaccine, they just oppose it being used in the way that would be most effective and save the most lives” isn’t a very impressive defense. It still demonstrates an appalling indifference to the lives of women.
Your argument about intact D&X abortion is just plain wrong. I’ve read dozens and dozens of articles by pro-lifers about this issue, as well as summaries of their arguments in the various court cases. I’ve NEVER seen any argue that intact D&X abortion will not be replaced by other procedures.
Admittedly, maybe there are rank and file pro-criminalization folks who are ignorant enough to not know that other procedures exist. But this chart isn’t about the rank and file; it’s about the leadership, policy-writing class.
Finally, saying “we hate the UN, so that justifies a policy which leads to tens of thousands of children being needlessly murdered every year” just proves my point: Pro-criminalization people don’t actually take the lives of fetuses seriously at all. If they actually believed that the death of a fetus was a horrible thing, saving that many fetal lives would outweigh sticking it to the UN.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 2:24 pm
By framing many of Amp’s examples as “political choices” you have basically affirmed Amp’s point.
Not sure how.
Saying that something is a “political choice” doesn’t mean that you don’t believe what you believe. In fact, it can mean that you believe it so strongly that you’re willing to compromise to get the core value passed into the law.
Now it is true that the use of the word “murder” is often rhetorical. There’s a distinction to be made that I think Amp is eliding (not intentionally, I am sure). And that is the fact that the use of the word “murder” is more often for effect than it is an actual literal assertion about moral equivalency. Killing another human being is not always murder. Murder very much incorporates a sense of motive - and few pro-lifers believe that a woman getting an abortion thinks of her fetus as a full human being, and deliberately intends to deprive that human being of its right to life, which is what they’d have to think to really think that the aborting mother was committing murder. They’re much more likely to think an aborting mother is making a terrible mistake, or has been led astray, or is acting out of dire necessity rather than malice.
To analogize it to a popular lefty thought pattern, a lot of people think that capitalism is theft. I could make up a nice little chart showing how left-wing economic thinkers don’t live out this rhetoric, and instead just Hate Freedom. But the lefties would (rightly) argue that they don’t advocate that the solution to the problem is to lock up the capitalists for burglary; they want a systemic change that redefines our economic relationships. Similarly, pro-lifers want a cultural change that redefines our reproductive relationships.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 2:26 pm
If they actually believed that the death of a fetus was a horrible thing, saving that many fetal lives would outweigh sticking it to the UN.
If they accepted your characterization of the outcome, yes. They don’t.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Robert, you are mistaken. Proving the crime of murder does not incorporate a sense of motive. Proving murder requires proof of intent — but intent as a criminal law concept is very different from motive. The existence of motive may be evidence that someone in fact committed a crime where the issue is in doubt but it is in every way immaterial to whether the crime of murder was committed.
If a woman truly does not think of her baby as a full human being but that’s what the law says, it shouldn’t matter. Intent means that you intended to do that which you did. If I intended to have an abortion (as opposed to accidentally becoming exposed to a bacteria that led to the loss of a pregnancy) then my sincere belief that society is wrong about its definition of personhood is just not relevant unless I am mentally ill, in which case, my defense is totally different. Just as the fact that I am in dire straits, have been led astray (!!!) etc. would rarely excuse a homicide (unless, again, it rose to the point of mental illness).
Any way you stage this debate it comes back to the same thing: it is less than self-evident to many people that a fetus is equivalent to a human being, including those who advocate that position.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Excuse me, you are correct. I should have said “intent”, not “motive”.
That said, yes, your legal reasoning is correct. But very few of the people we are talking about are thinking in terms of legal reasoning.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 2:57 pm
As I stated above, the miscarriage side of things would then fall under man slaughter rules. Specifically, was the homocide purely accidental (likely not a crime) or due to negligence (most likely a crime in most states). The important distinction would be that abortions and miscarriages were two different causes of death and would be treated as such in the law.
I’m I reading this correctly? Do you think a miscarriage is manslaughter? Maybe I’m not understanding the argument here, because that seems like a very odd statement to make.
On the availability of birth control: I believe it was Denmark that made contraception free for minors in the 1990s. This cut the unintentional pregnancy rate, which, in turn, cut the abortion rate.
But this policy would obviously not fly with a large proprotion of the US population because of our sexual politics. If the pro-life groups had to choose between a higher abortion rate (legal or illegal) or the distribution of free contraception to teenagers, my guess is that the majority of the groups would choose a higher abortion rate.
There must be a reason that pro-life groups ignore the raw data about contraception and pregnancy from places like Denmark. I have seen a lot of disbelief that women would resort to illegal means to abort.
Personally, I don’t understand this reasoning. A woman can try a do-it-yourself abortion all by herself in her own bathroom. She doesn’t even need to leave the house. (Obviously, this is not safe and should NOT be tried. But how many teenager girls will know that it is life threatening? The cervix is the liver or an internal organ. It is very close to the outside of a girl’s body. I really don’t understand why people don’t think that girls won’t try to disrupt a pregnancy on their own.)
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Robert,
It’s too late to get into the rest of your first post, but what possible reason is there to not want to give an HPV vaccine to kids? I’ll anticipate that the answer is something like “because then kids will take that as permission to have sex,” but I don’t know many four year olds who ask whether the shot they just got at the pediatrician’s office was for polio or HPV, and I know even fewer who’d know which was which. Besides which, isn’t being able to prevent kids who are sexually molested from dying of cancer worthwhile?
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Ooops - I should have written: The cervix is NOT the liver or an internal organ.
My point was - the cervix is easy to reach. Girls put in tampons and touch their cervix on a monthly basis. Teenagers are stupid. Teenagers think they are invincible and they tend not to think of the possible health dangers of their actions. A pregnancy can be disrupted by inserting something into the cervix. Thus, this all equals a health problem if girls can’t get access to safe abortions.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 3:06 pm
HPV vaccine. As with contraception, there is very little opposition to the vaccine itself. There is opposition to giving it to kids. You may disagree with the pro-life logic, but we are not opposed to the HPV vaccine’s existence or use.
So, are those opposed to the HPV vaccine opposed to treating syphilis - in kids? Or are they opposed to tetanus shots for kids? After all, if they are innoculated won’t they just go out & play with sharp rusty objects knowing that they are now at much less risk? Even though we’ve told them time and again not to do so?
I dunno. That position seems awfully callous and uncaring about human - more specifically, woman - death. Do you (or those who oppose giving the HPV vaccine to kids) really think that kids even know that HPV exists? How is withholding the vaccine reducing the incidence of kids having sex?
It doesn’t seem like a coherent position to me. On the one hand, you claim to care so much about kids (moral wellbeing) that you’ll do whatever you can to stop them having sex. OTOH, you care so little about kids (physical wellbeing) that you’d rather have them die than give them a vaccine to prevent them dying from a (sexually transmitted) disease of which they are probably not aware.
To go down that strange, strange road… What if your daughter (or my daughter or anybody’s daughter) gets raped & contracts HPV & dies? Will you still be okay with your decision to withhold the vaccine (or the availability of the vaccine) from kids (specifically girls)?
I frankly find opposition to the HPV vaccine bewildering - unless you believe that medicine is morally bad. “The wages of sex is death,” is such a Barbara Bush circa 1992 thing to say, after all.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 3:08 pm
ADS, the principal line of argument by Christian conservative groups has been that parents should be the people who decide whether their children receive the HPV vaccine. The reasons for letting parents, rather than the state, decide whether children ought to receive vaccines have been hashed out many times before.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 3:09 pm
geoduck - what I’m saying is that if prenatal personhood was established and the killing of the unborn classed as a homocide, then miscarriage due to negligence could be classed as manslaughter. A similar situation might be leaving your child in the car while you run into the store and they die from heat or cold exposure. (remember that the context is that the unborn are just as much people as your 3 month old) The death certainly was not intentional, it certainly was tragic, but in many (maybe all) states you would be guilty of manslaughter. Now take it to the unborn. You engage in some activity that you know can be harmful to the unborn child. Say, you go to the state fair and ride every gut wrenching, bar across the stomach ride seventeen times. As a result, you have a miscarriage. Again, you didn’t intend that your unborn child died, and it certainly is tragic, but since the unborn are no different than your two month old, the same laws may apply.
Now, proving that miscarriage was due to negligence may be very difficult in some situations (and very easy in others). But so is proving any variety of parental negligence which results in death. The point is, the same manslaughter laws could be applied.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Jake, there is practically nobody who holds the beliefs/behaviors that you’re describing.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 3:13 pm
ADS, the principal line of argument by Christian conservative groups has been that parents should be the people who decide whether their children receive the HPV vaccine.
Ah. I see. Clearly I wrote before understanding. So things like MMR, smallpox (when it was done), etc. vaccinations should be left up to the parents to decide whether their kids get them or not. So much for public health.
I’m guessing that if that were the case that smallpox would still be around (yes, I know it still exists in some few locales) and that we’d have a lot more deaths from MMR, etc. today.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Robert,
Clearly there are people who hold those beliefs/behaviours else there would be no debate about giving HPV vaccines to kids.
Unless you’re talking about the syphilis/tetanus paragraph. In which case you’re right & have uncovered my nefarious plan while ignoring that the intent of the paragraph was to point out how absurd those positions are & how they are analagous to the desire to keep the vaccine from kids.
If, however, you are referring to my 3rd paragraph I think you’re very, very wrong. That is the basis for the position that you describe. And, finally, Barbara Bush said in an interview in 1992, “We have to teach our children that sex is death.”
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 3:26 pm
I think I have found the simple answer to Amp’s questions.
Do they really believe that abortion is murder? Yes, they do.
Are their policies consistent with the belief that abortion is exactly the same as child murder?Seldom - that doesn’t change their belief.
Are their policies consistent with wanting women who have sex to suffer consequencesCoincidentally, yes - that still doesn’t change their belief.
Is it clearer now???
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 3:34 pm
The point is, the same manslaughter laws could be applied.
Man, women are already so guilt-ridden durring pregnancy. This just seems cruel. What if someone trips and falls on ice? Or doesn’t take enough folic acid? What if someone can’t afford to get pre-natal care? I don’t like the direction of this logic.
Robert,
Of course parents have the right to make medical decisions about vaccines and other health issues. but I don’t understand the why any groups would be against the HPV vaccine, either, unless they are scared of the health effects of vaccines in general.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 3:41 pm
geoducks - I don’t necessarily like the direction of the logic either. I simply point out what logic might be employed.
Specifically
What if someone trips and falls on ice? It is not manslaughter if you slip and fall on the ice with your two month old. It would not be negligence. (I am not so sure about if you went skating with your two month old in your arms. That is pretty dicey)
…Or doesn’t take enough folic acid? Might be negligence if you have been instructed by your doctor to take a certain amount for fetal health. If you weren’t directed to take folic acid (or anything other kind of suppliment), you have not been negligent.
What if someone can’t afford to get pre-natal care? Woof. Now that’s an interesting one. Let’s see. If you can’t afford post-natal care and your child dies from what would have been a diagnosed condition, have you been negligent? I don’t know about that one.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 3:47 pm
[...] Amp provides a handy chart — the discussion in the comments is worth reading too. [...]
This comment was written by Feministe » Is the Abortion Criminalization Movement About Murder or Evil Women?.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Robert, a little while back you wrote:
…conservatives believe that we are responsible for the moral formation of young people, but that what adults do is their own problem
liberals work the other way. Kids have total agency and can’t be corralled - and since they’re going to have sex whether we like it or not, let’s make sure they have condoms and vaccines.
This comment was written by gwarek.Generally, kids are going to have sex whether you like it or not. There’s no debate about this one (how can you?). The difference between the two examples you wrote about is conservatives want to impose their own very evangelical moral framework on kids. Liberals tend to base their decisions on empirical evidence, like the abortion statistics from the more liberal countries out there. I see two groups: people basing decisions on the reality of this world, and people basing decisions on a fantasy world they wish they had been born in (1950s america, 1499 England, 35 bc, you name it). One group learns from the past, past mistakes (and of course, science), and one group sticks by a set of morals that seem very faith-based to me.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Jake, vaccinations are optional in this country. I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but MMR and polio and smallpox and all the rest of it, optional.
There are NO groups (that I know of, anyway) that are opposed to the HPV vaccine. There are many people (me among them) who believe that parents must be the arbiters of medical care for their children, vaccines included.
So the debate that you’re imagining is not the debate that actually has occurred.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:08 pm
gwarek - Actually, kids are not bound to have sex. They are not barn yard cats after all. Kids choose to have sex. That choice for most kids (I would say all) is both unhealthy and unwise. A very evangelical framework can influence that choice. It can and does convince many kids that waiting to have sex is the more responsible, healthy, and wise choice.
Kids having sex and kids choosing to postpone sex till later in life (we would hope until marriage) are both real world decisions. I agree that we should teach and influence kids to be as safe as possible if their choice is to engage in sexual activity. But there is equal merit in encouraging them to wait. That is why most if not all liberals I have read recommend a balanced approach to sex education which includes real encouragement to postpone sex as well as real biological and medical information if you ultimately choose not to head the abstinence advice.
The liberal countries you alude to are truly effective at getting the contraception message out there. We don’t deny that success. But since we think that it is irresponsible and ill advised for teens to be engaging in sexual activity in the first place, we aren’t impressed with any results that don’t include a corresponding drop in teen sex to begin with. And certainly, we would not promote any strategy that was “contraception only” any more than you would promote one that was “abstinence only”. I think we both should be able to agree that the balanced approach is the best.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:20 pm
BTW - Robert, I’m a “squishy” moderate? I certainly would have prefered something like “refreshingly open minded moderate” or “courageously anti-nut-job moderate”. Sheez ;-)
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:22 pm
“Courageously squishy moderate.”
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Well, since you put it that way…*puffs up and hitches up pants like Barney Fife*
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Very clear and precise chart, Ampersand.
Robert’s points don’t hold any water because even if you can come up with some other excuse (besides woman-hating) for the inconsistencies in the “pro-life” position, they are still inconsistencies and they all involve treating abortion like it’s not murder. So even if Robert comes up with some contorted argument for why these people don’t hate women, it still doesn’t change the fact that their arguments and their policies are utterly incoherent and completely fucked up.
Besides, it’s pretty telling that for every one of these inconsistencies that Amp cites, woman-hating is a good explanation for it (even if it doesn’t cover all the people who are prone to the inconsistency).
Are their policies consistent with the belief that abortion is exactly the same as child murder?Seldom - that doesn’t change their belief.
Are their policies consistent with wanting women who have sex to suffer consequencesCoincidentally, yes - that still doesn’t change their belief.
Is it clearer now???
Yes, it’s clearer, gengwall. You’re saying that we should just take the pro-lifers’ word for it that they believe abortion is murder, even though the policies they support aren’t at all consistent with that belief. In other words, we should just take their rhetoric at face value without examining their actions to see if the two match up.
Sorry, but I don’t believe that they believe abortion is murder. You know why? Because they don’t act like they believe this.
This comment was written by Lanoire.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:33 pm
But since we think that it is irresponsible and ill advised for teens to be engaging in sexual activity in the first place, we aren’t impressed with any results that don’t include a corresponding drop in teen sex to begin with.
Teen sexual activity is “irresponsible” because of the possible consequences, which can be nearly gotten rid of through birth control. So if there’s widely available contraception then the consequences are greatly reduced, which makes teen sexual activity no longer irresponsible.
Unless you’re going to argue that there’s something inherently irresponsible about sex, even if we find a way to control the consequences. In which case you’re kind of proving Ampersand’s point.
This comment was written by Lanoire.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Robert, you say:
But very few of the people we are talking about are thinking in terms of legal reasoning.
My point is that the people we’re talking about have to start thinking in terms of legal reasoning, because laws are now being passed to make all abortion illegal.
It is, today, a legal matter.
So, people have to start answering these questions, such as mine about miscarriage (see Rumania).
This comment was written by mg_65.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Lanoire - I believe abortion is a homocide (which is equivalent to the “abortion is murder” mantra without the legal terminology error). I do not hate women in any way. Of course, I should put in a caveat. I don’t think banning abortion is the right way to go about actually stopping it from happening. But all of my friends who do want to ban abortion share my lack of hatred for women.
Sometimes, things are exactly like people say they are. Sometimes, people act in ways that are contrary to what they actually believe. Sometimes, people have really dumb ways of solving problems and sometimes, those solutions won’t do diddly to actually solve the problem people think they will solve. And finally, sometimes people read other people’s actions all wrong, perceiving intent, motivation, and even effect where they don’t exist.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:41 pm
gengwall,
A very evangelical framework can influence that choice. It can and does convince many kids that waiting to have sex is the more responsible, healthy, and wise choice.
I don’t believe that waiting to have sex is a more responsible, healthy, or wise choice, although it can be for some people. Even if this is true in some cases and in some households, I don’t see how this justifies passing laws that impose very Christian morals on the whole population. I don’t think a balanced approach is best in this case, although maybe it is in others.
This comment was written by gwarek.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:44 pm
mg_65 - didn’t I answer your question about miscarriages? See post 21. Or are you saying I’m not someone (this coupled with Roberts “squishy moderate label cause genwall to feel extreamly paranoid)
Otherwise, I totally agree. The fundimental probelm with the conservative Christian pro-life position is that it ignores how law works in our country. (The same is true about their position on SSM, gay adoption, sex ed, evolution vs. intelligent design, and on and on…)
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Something else that makes me think women are being punished for having sex:
When I was a teenager, and a virgin, I was given birth control pills because I had polycystic ovaries, which 1 in 4 women have. The pill is the best medical treatment for it. Without treatment, I had a decent risk of developing ovarian cancer, which can’t be detected until it’s too late to save your life. Was this covered by my parents’ insurance? Absolutely not: the pill is classified as something that does not correct a disorder, and therefore it not to be covered by insurance. (This is the argument, by the way, for why Viagra is covered - it does correct a disorder.)
So even when the pill was a life saving preventative measure for me and 25% of the female population of America, it could not be covered just on the offchance that I might get some contraceptive use out of it as well. There was absolutely no exception.
If we were serious about preserving life, would we as a society tolerate 25% of women having to pay for a medicine to treat a condition just because that medicine also has a contraceptive effect?
The message I got was that it was better I die than a private insurance company be tainted by any action that might make it look like they sanctioned my having a sex life.
This comment was written by BetaCandy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:50 pm
I don’t believe that waiting to have sex is a more responsible, healthy, or wise choice, although it can be for some people.
Many even on your side would disagree. But you raise your kids your way and I’ll raise mine my way. OK.
Even if this is true in some cases and in some households, I don’t see how this justifies passing laws that impose very Christian morals on the whole population.
Oh, I totally agree. Did I imply differently? I did not intend to. I think this evangelical framework is something that should totally stay in the home. I sure don’t want some teacher trying to give moral instruction to my kid. Yikes! Or do you believe that abstinence education is completely a moral teaching? It isn’t. Abstinence education has significant biological, sociological, and psychological components that have nothing to do with the religious reasons for postponing sex.
I don’t think a balanced approach is best in this case, although maybe it is in others.
But we are talking about policy here. We can’t gear sex ed to the individual. Is a balanced approach a good policy (knowing that I don’t mean to include religious argument for abstinence) in your opinion?
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Exactly.
Yes. They’re willing for other people to pay just about any price so that they can get what they want without having to concede anything themselves.
“What, women will be inconvenienced by lack of sex ed and contraception, and women will be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, and women will be forced to have more children than they can afford, and women will suffer serious health consequences, and women will die? Whatever. Just so long as my teenage daughter doesn’t get to thinking she can have sex without lots of consequences!”
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Teen sexual activity is “irresponsible” because of the possible consequences, which can be nearly gotten rid of through birth control.
Not so much.
Forgive the digression, but what the hell, people are talking about all kinds of shit already. And I brought the thread back on-topic once, so surely I’m now entitled to head it into the deep weeds.
Teen sexual activity is irresponsible because the mental, spiritual and emotional energies that are involved in sexuality are generally (not universally, but generally) beyond the ability of teenage hearts, minds, and souls to competently handle. The results of incompetently handled sexual energies can be shattered lives. Sex that you aren’t ready for - and it’s a fairly rare teen who actually is ready for it - can really fuck you up.
The physical consequences - pregnancy, disease, messy sheets - are relatively unimportant, compared to this factor. Perfect birth control and impermeable disease barriers will not do much to reduce this truth.
You don’t have to believe in this factor, but we do believe in it, and it does inform our view of sex.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 5:21 pm
I’m going to add to the off topicness of this thread and ask for some more explanation of why postponing sex is inherently better for teenagers. I agree that many people have sex before they are mature enough to deal with the potential consequences, but I’m a little dumbfounded by the belief that teenage sexuality shatters lives, especially if we’re not factoring in sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Is there some kind of evidence that people who have sex as teenagers are more fucked up than people who wait until they’re older?
This comment was written by dorktastic.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 5:22 pm
The misogyny of anti-abortion arguments is so subtle sometimes, it seems easy to dismiss as a phantom. However, there is a link between the “strong father” family model gengwall talks about above and the roots of this mistrust of female moral choices. If the man is responsible for the spiritual direction of the household, then it follows (if not by intent then by interpretation) that the woman must subordinate her choices to his direction. This implies that women are incapable or somehow hindered from making a moral decision, that her moral decision-making is flawed. And it is this assumption that makes up the basis of many of the positions listed in the chart above.
The core question is the status of the fetus as a full blown human, a status that our legal reasoning makes ambiguous. This ambiguity makes the question of abortion a moral issue. Anti-abortionists do not trust women to make this choice. So women have to tell their husband, their parents, they have to go through interviews with psychologists and doctors and pastors. All because if it can’t be made illegal, we still have to prevent these morally impaired women from making the wrong choice.
Look at the laws that make it illegal for the doctor to perform an abortion but not for the woman to seek the abortion. There is an implication in that that the woman is not capable of understanding the consequences or somehow less responsible than the doctor. The notion of woman as an overgrown child, inherintly immoral is an old, old idea.
This comment was written by bradana.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Simple arguments
from Ampersand of Alas, a Blog on Why It Is Difficult To Believe Anti-Choicers Mean What They Say. As the recent Parliamentary debates on the abortion drug RU486 showed, the anti-choice movement here in Australia is still with us,
This comment was written by Hoyden-About-Town.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 5:45 pm
True, and up to the person in question to decide whether they themselves have sex or wait. (And I’d add the advice that if they’re not sure, wait until they are.)
*mad, hysterical laughter*
Hence, young people should be taught how to handle said sexual energies properly, and to understand and deal with the emotions relating to it, and to develop basic self-confidence and self-worth. And as well, to own their own decisions, to feel like whatever choice they made is theirs and chosen freely, not a response to pressure one way or the other and not a rebellion against pressure one way or the other.
There are life-shattering consequences to being threatened, intimidated, repressed, and constrained as well. I’d imagine the harm from “incompetently handled sexual energies” has more to do with kids for whom sexual activity is a rebellion against pressure to be chaste or a submission to peer pressure, without self-awareness and emotional understanding or in spite of feeling it wasn’t the right choice for them. That is, the choice ought to be made intelligently and for the right reasons, and the worst emotional consequences happen when it’s not.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 5:47 pm
G wrote:
“The fundimental intent is to stop murders from happening.”
If that’s the fundamental intent, why don’t you care about the “murders” of embryos that are perpetrated in massive numbers at fertility clinics?
This comment was written by Smokey.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Teen sexual activity is irresponsible because the mental, spiritual and emotional energies that are involved in sexuality are generally (not universally, but generally) beyond the ability of teenage hearts, minds, and souls to competently handle. The results of incompetently handled sexual energies can be shattered lives. Sex that you aren’t ready for - and it’s a fairly rare teen who actually is ready for it - can really fuck you up.
for all but the tiniest portion (like the last 50 years) of human existence, people who survived until reproductive age became parents at around fifteen or sixteen years of age.
This comment was written by emily1.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Fetuses are not U.S. citizens, according to the Fourteenth Amendment:
This comment was written by croatoan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Also, it would be interesting to see what the statistics are on teenaged sex in the “liberal” places. I’m not sure they would actually be having sex at young ages in any greater numbers - though I don’t have the numbers to back that feeling up.
Regardless - it makes no sense to discourage a behavior by increasing a penalty out of all proportion to the “crime”. You dared to have sex early and irresponsibly - therefore we doom you to nine months of body highjacking, followed by young (and in all likelihood impoverished) motherhood, or a lifetime of regret for an adoption, a likely case of STD, and an entirely preventable possibility of death by cervical cancer.
Seems a little excessive, doesn’t it?
This comment was written by Tapetum.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 6:10 pm
“The liberal countries you alude to are truly effective at getting the contraception message out there. We don’t deny that success. But since we think that it is irresponsible and ill advised for teens to be engaging in sexual activity in the first place, we aren’t impressed with any results that don’t include a corresponding drop in teen sex to begin with. And certainly, we would not promote any strategy that was “contraception only” any more than you would promote one that was “abstinence only”. I think we both should be able to agree that the balanced approach is the best. ”
Doesn’t this comment really kind of cede that it’s all about sex, and not about the personhood of the fetus? In terms of the fetus, there’s no difference between contraception and abstinence: either way there’s no pregnancy. So why would anyone care about the method unless the topic of concern really was sex after all?
This comment was written by Diana.Which is the point of the chart in the first place. Us lib’rls are perfectly willing to agree that we have different views from the conservatives about whether sex is O.K. or not. It’s just if we’re debating that point, it’s obvious it’s the sexual behavior of women that’s the issue, not the fate of the fetus.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 6:14 pm
“Teen sexual activity is irresponsible because the mental, spiritual and emotional energies that are involved in sexuality are generally (not universally, but generally) beyond the ability of teenage hearts, minds, and souls to competently handle. The results of incompetently handled sexual energies can be shattered lives.”
This comment was written by Diana.Generally shattered by their disapproving parents, of course. See Romeo & Juliet and all ripoffs (West Side Story etc.) thereafter.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 6:17 pm
[...] “Do they really believe that abortion is murder?” An interesting analysis arguing that pro-lifers are more interested in punishing women for sex than for the murder of fetuses. I think the fetus vs. 4-year-old question is worth asking, although I wonder if most pro-lifers view abortion as murder of a lower degree. (And if they do, what does that mean about the “a fetus is a person” claim?) [...]
This comment was written by crazymonk.org » “Do they really believe that abortion is murder?” | not the great american blog.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Teen sexual activity is irresponsible because the mental, spiritual and emotional energies that are involved in sexuality are generally (not universally, but generally) beyond the ability of teenage hearts, minds, and souls to competently handle.
I don’t think that the anti-abortion movement as a whole thinks this way, but only some individuals in the movement. Many of the anti-abortion churches (Mormons especially, but also Catholics and many conservative Protestant churches) accept or even encourage early marriage. Marriage and childraising are far more demanding and stressful in every way than sexual activity alone.
I think that sex outside of marriage is the big issue for most anti-abortion people. The general belief that women should be obedient to men is almost as big an issue. Early marriage solves both of these problems, since young brides and mothers are usually completely dependent on their husbands and are much less likely to be able to go to college or earn a good living independently.
Many parents who want their daughters to be educated will, for that reason, encourage them to have safe sex if they so wish. As all Christians know, even very fine people often succumb to sexual temptations which can be overpowering, and asking your daughters (or sons) to postpone sex until the age of 22, 25, or even later is to risk seeing them cut short their educations and damage or destroy their chances of ever having rewarding jobs.
In short, I think that the blockquoted passage is inaccurate and basically dishonest. I admire the civility of the anti-abortionists here, but their arguments seem sly and evasive to me.
This comment was written by John Emerson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Lanoire - I believe abortion is a homocide (which is equivalent to the “abortion is murder” mantra without the legal terminology error). I do not hate women in any way.
I will take your word that you don’t hate women, but you clearly do not trust women to make their own decisions about if, when and with whom they reproduce. Your faith fills you with certainty about the way other people should live their lives.
As far as the intent discussion: if the anti-choice people have not thought through the “unintended consequences” of enacting laws that support their viewpoints, I think they need to go back to the drawing board. Regardless of your intent, the effect is to punish women, in various unpleasant and sometimes fatal ways, for having sex.
And as far as gengwall and Robert not knowing any anti-choicers who are opposed to contraception or HPV vaccines - boys, you might want to take a look at who the public face of your movement is - they are opposed to contraception, sex education, HPV vaccines (for everyone, not just their own children), and they are okay with women having to bear the child of their rapists.
This comment was written by maurinsky.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 6:46 pm
I just came from the hospital.
A young woman is delivering a dead baby. I went to support her, and, with her other friends, to mourn the child who didn’t make it. The young mom began to cry in my presence, then bit her lip.
The baby had Down Syndrome. This was the sixth month of pregnancy.
Takeshi died spontaneously in utero, yesterday, as Down babies often do. There just wasn’t enough working right to make the grade, I guess.
The parents knew the diagnosis, of course, for some months. And Takeshi had a heart defect as well, which we knew about.
The pressures from the doctors, from the nurses, from nearly everyone, to abort this baby were tremendous. Partly, “well, he’s defective anyway”… partly “so much easier to raise a ‘normal’ child” … and partly, and most insidiously, “this child is going to be very expensive for medical insurers, and for society.” (Subtext: we don’t want the disabled here, and if you’re in a car accident and become a quadraplegic, watch out.)
Takeshi’s parents for personal reasons would never think of aborting this child. That is their right, I assume, under the rubric of “choice”?
So, why did they take so much shit from the medical establishment for it? What does the pro-choice movement make of this situation?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Was Down Syndrome the baby’s only problem, or were there known to be others? I don’t think that medical people urge aborting Down Syndrome babies, though I could be wrong.
This comment was written by John Emerson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 7:03 pm
gengwall, you said you would not be impressed by measures to curtail teen pregnancy and the abortion rate because they rely heavily on contraception and that doesn’t fit your evangelical framework. You then go on to claim that *why heavens no!* you’re not attempting to impose your views on others.
So would you not support those type of efforts in this country, even if most people don’t share your beliefs? Even if it were shown to have the potential of significantly reducing the abortion rate here?
You pose as a “squishy moderate” or whatever it was you called yourself but you’re looking more and more like a hardcore sexual-woman punishin’ wingnut with each post.
This comment was written by Sierrarenee.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 7:08 pm
[...] From Kevin Drum, a good link from Alas a Blog with a great comparison of what anti-abortionists say and what they legislate. Yep, only bad girls have sex and they must be PUNISHED. [...]
This comment was written by DilettanteVille » Only Bad Girls Have Sex.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Susan, that is absolutely their right to decide, and that is definitely part of the pro-choice movement. I suspect the doctors and nursing staff were suggesting otherwise because birth is dangerous business for women. More dangerous than abortion. For liability alone, I would imagine the medical profession would prefer to abort a stillborn baby, even late term, than to have the mother deliver vaginally.
Now, your friend made her choice, and she was able to have her way, and I hope it brings her some solace in what must be a horrible time for her. I’m sorry that she felt so much pressure. It does not follow that people should be allowed to limit the choices of a woman who would choose differently, though.
This comment was written by maurinsky.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 7:21 pm
I agree. Some do mature earlier, but generally that is true.
That is why most civilized societies have this thing called “Age of consent”, and laws related to it (they do not, and can not, take into account the fact that people mature at different times). Because we recognize that very young people are incapable of making that choice. For me, the matter is of consistency: Do I believe teenagers (under a certain age) are too immature to consent to sex? Yes. Should teenagers then be told that it’s their choice? No, and how could I?
It seems to me odd that people are even arguing about it.
I can not see how people are actually arguing otherwise.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Garbled the post, I wouldn’t mind seeing the last line removed.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 7:24 pm
I don’t think that medical people urge aborting Down Syndrome babies, though I could be wrong.
John (per impossible) get pregnant with a Down baby and find out. You are very wrong. The “urging” was very persistent, bordering on coercion.
Takeshi’s only problem was Down, but that involves an awful lot of course.
“Birth is dangerous business for women” as a reason to pressure her to abort, maurinsky? Come on, come off it. Bullshit. Double bullshit. The medicos pressured her to abort because a disabled child is not acceptible to them. For reasons emotional and, alas, financial.
My friend was “able to have her way” you say. Does this phrasing imply that “her way” was somehow wrong-headed?
The right to “choose” not to have a disabled child…where does it slide over into the “obligation” not to have one? This is not a nothing question, you guys. I’ve seen the pressures, subtle and sometimes not too subtle, on my friends. How soon will it be when parents who choose not to abort a disabled child find that, because of that, the child is not eligible for medical insurance? Given the mind-set of the insurance companies, any minute now.
Watch out, watch out. Disabled kids are very expensive. If we have private insurance, they’re very expensive for the insured. If we have - as we should have - socialized medicine, they’re very expensive for all of us. Watch for more pressure like that my friends experienced. It’s coming.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 7:24 pm
“So, why did they take so much shit from the medical establishment for it? What does the pro-choice movement make of this situation? ”
It sucks and the medical practioners were acting unethically. Pro-CHOICE means exactly that, their options (including abortion) should have been laid out and they should have been free to choose based on information about all the likely consequences of their choices. If this was not done then they should be able to lay some sort of complaint.
Can we also take it from your question that the pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions (denying women not just choice but health) represent the “pro-life movement”?
This comment was written by Anna.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Anyone here from Ohio and/or heard about HB 287? I just heard about it today in Twisty’s comments….
This comment was written by Anne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 7:34 pm
The right to “choose” not to have a disabled child…where does it slide over into the “obligation” not to have one?
is anyone here defending the behavior you described? being pro-choice means supporting a woman’s right to choose for herself based on her own personal values whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term or not. a person who is pro-choice does not support coercing a woman to have an abortion. i personally believe that allowing the state to have the authority to compel women to remain pregnant is just an invitation for it to compel some women to abort ‘undesirable’ children and to prevent others from becoming parents at all because they are ‘unfit’ to breed. i am very uncomfortable with government regulation of reproductive choices for many reasons unrelated to abortion rights and your nightmare scenario is one of them.
This comment was written by emily1.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 7:49 pm
emily1, thanks for your post at 7:34. Susan, you are reading way more into my post than I wrote. I didn’t mean anything by “had her way” except that ultimately, your friend got the outcome she desired. And I am sincerely sorry that she was pressured so heavily.
Having said that, it is not bullshit that delivering a baby vaginally is more dangerous than having an abortion. It’s true. That doesn’t mean that all women should abort, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the medical establishment should be exerting strong pressure on a woman to make one choice over another. I was perhaps giving too much credit to the medical establishment in your friends case - I thought it would be appalling to suggest to a woman who clearly wanted to give birth that she should abort, unless there was a legitimate medical reason to do so.
This comment was written by maurinsky.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 7:58 pm
If people will put up with me for a moment, I’d like to propose a scenario: Imagine a dystopian world in which a plague or plagues killed 70-80% of people within the first days of their lives. Imagine further that this world was a pretty rough place even apart from this plague and up to 6% of people (ie 1/3 of those who survived the plague(s)) were killed within the first few months of their lives. Now, bizarrely, this society actually has plentiful resources and probably could, if it had the political will to do so, reduce both the homicide rate and the “natural” early deaths greatly (although there is no guarantee that it could do either). Should this society a) try to reduce the number of deaths from both causes as much as possible, b) ignore the plague deaths because they may be harder to deal with (the children dying from it are very sick whereas essentially healthy children are dying from homicide) and try to reduce the homicide rate using methods that have worked in other places even though these methods don’t involve punishing the killers, c) ignore the plague deaths and punish the homicides severely, even though previous experience has shown that this will not reduce the homicide death rate because justice must be served, d) ignore the plague deaths, punish the homicides, and put more children in harm’s way by instituting public policies that make life harder for families?
If you believe that every conceptus is a person then the society described is ours. Up to 80% of concepti die from failure to implant or other early problems. Many, but not all, have chromosomal abnormalities. The reasons for these early failures is not entirely known, but some hints of reasons have been found. There are known ways to reduce the abortion rate. These include sex education, making birth control easily available, and providing financial and social support for new mothers. Yet the pro-life movement generally prefers answer d: punish those who seek abortion, ignore the deaths from failed implantation, make unplanned pregnancy more likely by limiting access to contraceptives and reducing support for poor women and children. This does not sound consistent with their stated belief to me. Rather, it sounds consistent with a desire to punish people, particularly women, for having sex. But I could be wrong. As gengwall pointed out, people are not entirely consistent. Nor is the pro-life movement a monolith-some parts of the pro-life movement are, in fact, interested in helping poor families and preventing unwanted conceptions, though I fear that the majority of the movement is not. But I still wonder why no one in the pro-life movement is interested in preventing all those early miscarriages.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:02 pm
emily1, I could not agree more with what you have said!
I’m just reporting the conditions on the ground, the conditions resulting from the free availability of abortion. In my reproductive career, no one would have known that Takeshi had Down Syndrome, and abortion was illegal, so the problem didn’t arise.
Now that Tim and Debbie have the information, and have the “choice”, the Powers That Be attempted to force the choice in the direction which favored their financial interest. Did they ever!
Just reporting, here.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:05 pm
If I might, I’d like to play devil’s advocate on behalf of conservatives opinions on these matters & clarify some things.
Policy: “Opposing Contraception & comprehensive sex education.”
On the question of whether this policy is consistent with the belief that abortion is child murder the cutout says No, based on the fact Belgium has the lowest abortion rate in the world due to comprehensive sex education & promotion of conraceptives.
On the first front, with regards to contraceptives, this IS consistent with a belief that abortion is murder. Most people who believe that “life begins at conception” believe most contraceptives are abortofacients I.E. they prevent fertilized embryos from implanting in the uterus & therefroe, left to starve & expire. This doesen’t bother many people but for those who believe that life begins at “conception” these are no different from surgical abortions.
On the second front, attitudes towards Sex Ed. Firstly it’s important not to confuse correlation with causation. The type of person who believes that a human life begins and is imbued with a soul at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, is also one who is likely to hold very tradionalist views about sex, marriage & birth control.
Secondly, it makes the mistake of assuming bad faith on behalf of the pro-life faction because they don’t share the same views as the pro-choice movement on how to prevent unwanted pregnancy I.E. If you REALLY opposed abortion you would support X. You shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that those in the right to life movement must obviously be hypocrites because they don’t believe as you do , that advocating contraception (of which much is considered abortofacient in nature) and sex education outside a focus on abstinence and sex only within the bonds of marriage is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They’ve got their own ideas of the best ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I’ll continue in a second post.
This comment was written by Dustin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Susan,
1) Feminists have a long history criticizing the medical establishment, particularly in relationship to labor and birthing issues.
2) As others have said - choice means choice. For example, I also advocate that economic measures should be provided by the state that give economically disadvantaged people aid in raising their children. I’d suggest that pro-life people could actually help by offering substantial economic scholarships to poor families that would like to have more children.
This kind of economic aid could actually lower the abortion rate. In Sweden the doctors are required to tell women that the state will help them raise their children before abortions. And in Sweden, this is actually a true statement.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:18 pm
This cutout, upon asking if favorability toward a ban on “partial-birth” abortion is consistent with a belief that abortion is no different from murder answers surprisingly NO, on the basis that if the procedure is banned, Doctors will simply adjust to different procedures that may have more consequences for the mother.
I find this the most difficult to defend intellectually in that it assumes a particular malevolence on the part of the supporter that I just don’t think exists. It may indeed be an unintended consequence of a ban on the procedure that it’s supporters were not aware of , but I feel pretty confident in asserting that the majority of this ban’s supporters, did so with neither the knowledge nor suspicion that it’s intended effect would be nil & that it would seriously endanger the mother. The number of people supporting this measure with the express knowledge that it would save no lives & supported out of a desire to endanger the mother to punish her for having sex is almost immeasurably small.
I’ll start another entry.
This comment was written by Dustin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:21 pm
People “worried” about teenagers having sex. What parallel universe are these people inhabiting?
Teen agers have been having sex for tens of thousands of years. It was the norm before the birth of agriculture, citites and RELIGION.
What I cannot figure out is what these folks are missing in their lives that they have to resort to formalized religion.
This comment was written by Chief.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:24 pm
geoducks2
1) Feminists have a long history criticizing the medical establishment, particularly in relationship to labor and birthing issues.
You betcha, and I was right in the front ranks 40 years ago. The creeps.
I’d suggest that pro-life people could actually help by offering substantial economic scholarships to poor families that would like to have more children.
Why just pro-life folks? Shouldn’t pro-choice people also be in the front rows on this, supporting that choice? It’s customary to criticize the pro-life movement on this, and that’s justified, but where the heck are the pro-choice people in supporting that choice?
Socialized medicine, a la Sweden? I’m all for it, believe me.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:34 pm
On the question of whether advocating less generous welfare benefits for single mothers is consistent with a belief that abortion is murder, the cutout answers NO, on the grounds that if conservatives believe that welfare encourages having children, conservatives would support it to lower the child murder rate.
This type of reasoning is near nonsensical, and in my opinion, does no honorable service to the pro-choice movement. On the first count, demonstrating the inconsistencies of the anti-choicers when they make exceptions for rape or incest is not the same thing as a belief that their should be less welfare & that is plainly obvious.
Secondly, conservatives don’t think welfare causes mothers to have children so much as they believe it incentivizes out of wedlock childbirth, which they believe, contributes to poverty. Even if they really believed that welfare encouraged motherhood, there’s difference between a belief that one shouldn’t have babies out of wedlock (or even babies at all) and a belief that if you do end up pregnant, it’s okay to terminate the pregnancy.
This also makes the two mistakes of “If you REALLY believed X, you would support Y” & a belief that those advocating a position are aware of it’s (often unintended consequences) wingers oppose welfare because they think it discourage single motherhood & increase children born in wedlock, not because they think it would lead to more abortions.
This comment was written by Dustin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Let me issue this challenge.
“Pro-choice” shouldn’t mean just “the ability to have an abortion at will.” It should mean, if we’re really feminists, “support for whatever choice the woman makes.”
This is not the case now in this country. A woman who chooses to carry a disabled child, one known ahead of time to be disabled, to term, to bring him or her to birth, is subject to every sort of disadvantage, beginning with emotional pressure in the ob’s office and ending up with insurance discrimination at the other end.
Do we support choice? Really? Or is it just one choice that we support? And what does “support” mean exactly?
This is the kind of criticism which is customarily aimed at the other side, but one which we might take to heart over here. Screw them, what can we do about them, but we can control our own behavior.
IS there a choice? To carry the disabled child, the child the result of rape, the abandoned child, to term? Will we be there, we feminists, for the mother? The feminist community, generally? Will we, collectively, support that choice? Will we be there with the diapers, the baby food, the child care? The respite care the mom of a disabled child needs?
Or is she on her own, the mom, because we secretly believe that the Down kid, the retarded kid, the sick kid, the kid who doesn’t have a male (SHAME ON US! SHAME ON US!!) to support him, should be aborted? How honest is this “choice”? How honest is our support of that choice?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:41 pm
As for people who support abortion in cases of rape & incest, I would ask those pointing out this obvious hypocrisy to consider whether those advocating such a position aren’t considering politics when doing do, whether or not they really believe it, or whether they are even aware of the inherent contradictions of their poistion sometimes.
Most people opposed to or at least squeamish about abortion, don’t consider a blastulae the same thing as a 2 year old child. They obviously however, believe that a fetus is something other than just “not a human being”
This comment was written by Dustin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:42 pm
The fact that the baby spontaneously aborted suggests to me that there were more problems than just Downs Syndrome, and that the doctors knew that.
Susan, the people who support socialized medicine and the like are almost all pro-choicers. That’s why people were suggesting that you get to work on your anti-abortion friends and allies. Anti-abortionists are mostly affiliated with right-wingers on most issues, and by voting comsistemtly right wing they stand in the way of lots of positive pro-family stuff, socialized medicine being only one example.
Age of Consent: even in recent times, the age of consent was as low as twelve here in the US. The maturity of children and their ability tobehave adults has never really been the issue. It’s the sexual freedom of unmarried women that is the issue.
Yes, I’d rather have my 13-year old daughter, if I had one, practicing safe sex, than have her married and raising a baby. Neither option is a good one, but I’d overwhelmingly prefer the former. It’s astonishing the way sexual conservative believe that girls who aren’t mature enough to have a sexual relationship are old enough to raise a child.
This is not a one-way street. This isn’t morality against amorality. Many anti-abortion people hold very offensive, cruel attitudes about many things, above all the freedom of women. They aren’t all fundamentally good people who hold beliefs I disagree with. Many of them are cruel, ugly, evil people.
This comment was written by John Emerson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:43 pm
[...] Ampersand of Alas, a Blog has a useful chart. It convinced me. [...]
This comment was written by Balloon Juice.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Jake, vaccinations are optional in this country.
Sure, as long as your children won’t be attending public school or any public school sponsored activities. So, there is, in fact, strong pressure brought to immunize your children. Most people don’t wish to or are unable to homeschool so these vaccinations wind up not being optional for the vast majority of the population. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Who opposes making the vaccine available/required/strongly encouraged as other childhood vaccinations in this country (MMR, etc) are? The Family Research Council, for one. This flies in the face of the fact that many people contract HPV the first time they have sexual intercourse. Sure, if you believe that modern medicine is morally wrong I can understand your position. If that isn’t your position, what can possibly justify putting your child at risk for cervical cancer 40 years after the fact?
Or perhaps it is just that HPV only has life or death consequences for women. I’m willing to bet that if there was a syphillis vaccine (that, like the HPV vaccine, is much more effective when received before sexual activity commences) that there wouldn’t be nearly the same opposition to having it become one of the standard childhood immunizations.
Susan,
Those medical pros were acting unethically. This is not unusual. But, to me, the most important fact is that the mother was able, legally, to choose to continue the pregnancy. Were abortion made illegal, somebody who would have chosen otherwise (even if there were no coercion) would not have had the legal right to make their own decision.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Why just pro-life folks? Shouldn’t pro-choice people also be in the front rows on this, supporting that choice? It’s customary to criticize the pro-life movement on this, and that’s justified, but where the heck are the pro-choice people in supporting that choice?
Of course they should! And in terms of the people I know, we all support the type of economic choices provided by Sweden.
I singled out pro-life groups, because in America their energy is centered on criminalizing abortion.
Earlier in this thread, I asserted that criminalizing abortion does not actually lower the abortion rate. (See evidence from various countries around the world for empirical evidence of this fact.)
Thus, providing economic choices might actually fulfill the stated goal of these groups of lowing the abortion rate. However, why don’t they pursue policies and plans that would actually lower the abortion rate?
I suggest that one reason is the political interest in controlling women’s sexual and reproductive choices.
I would also suggest that certain political groups want to prevent poor women from having babies. They want certain women to have children, and prevent other classes of women from reproducing. (Or if poor women do reproduce, they want them to put their children up for adoption.)
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Why just pro-life folks? Shouldn’t pro-choice people also be in the front rows on this, supporting that choice? It’s customary to criticize the pro-life movement on this, and that’s justified, but where the heck are the pro-choice people in supporting that choice?
liberals, who make up most of the vocal pro-choice advocates, support more generous social spending. this would allow women who feel compelled to have abortions because they are poor to choose not to have abortions.
liberals support socialized health care. other governments have succeeded in providing acceptable levels of univeral coverage, judging from the high rates of satisfaction reported by the citizens who use those systems. it would significantly lower the costs of carrying a pregnancy to term because pregnancy and childbirth require a lot of medical intervention to achieve the low infant and maternal mortality rate of a first world country. it would also remove an enormous obstacle for raising disabled children because they require a lot of medical attention.
so, pro-choicers do support ‘choice’ in a real sense instead of a symbolic one because they overwhelmingly support liberal goals.
This comment was written by emily1.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 8:56 pm
John Emerson:
FTR, I am pro-choice. Alternative to 13-year olds having safe sex isn’t 13-year olds married and raising babies. False dilemma.
I can not see how one can simultaneously hold belief about age of consent, and argue that people under the said age can give consent to sex. Historical variance on age of consent is a good point, but it begs the question: Do you support reducing the age of consent to an age when teenagers are physically capable of having sex (12-14, roughly)? I don’t.
Seems contradictory to me. Can some of the folks who have argued that every teenager makes his/her own choice independently, and all are equally good, explain this oddity to me?
They aren’t all fundamentally good people who hold beliefs I disagree with. Many of them are cruel, ugly, evil people.
Sadly, cruelty, ugliness and evil are not restricted to some nifty category. And I don’t see what ugliness has to do with anything anyway.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:07 pm
FTR, I am pro-choice. Alternative to 13-year olds having safe sex isn’t 13-year olds married and raising babies. False dilemma.
when a 13-year-old girl gets pregnant, it’s not usually a 13-year-old boy that got her pregnant. young teenage girls who have sex often do so because they are coerced by a man who is five or more years older than she is. i don’t see this fact brought up in discussions about abortion and parental notification/consent very often.
This comment was written by emily1.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:11 pm
A couple of things….
It annoys the hell out of me to see or hear pro-choicers say that pro-lifers do not trust women to make their own choices. It’s an emotional statement with no basis in fact as far as I am concerned. I am a woman, so to assume that I do not trust women is ludicrous. A person ( either a woman or a man) can have a PhD, an MD and a JD and still be DEAD WRONG. I do trust women, that does not mean that I believe that everything that every women does is a good thing or that it is the right thing to do.
I also do not believe that unfettered access to abortion for any and every reason is necessary in order for women to be equal participants in society.
I do not want to control womens bodies. I trust women to make their own choices regarding contraception if they are giving all pertinent information to do so and the financial resources necessary. Unfortunately, many women throughout the world are poor or uneducated and so they are not able to make informed decisions regarding their reproductive health. Believe it or not, most pro-lifers are of the “prevention via promotion of contraception” variety.
///dorktastic Writes: I’m going to add to the off topicness of this thread and ask for some more explanation of why postponing sex is inherently better for teenagers….. Is there some kind of evidence that people who have sex as teenagers are more fucked up than people who wait until they’re older?///
The vast majority of teenagers are not ready for the emotional or financial toll that sex can and often does create in the life of an adult. If you are living under your parents roof, eating the food your parents paid for, driving the car that your parents are putting gas into, or going to the doctor using the insurance provided by your parents health care then it should be obvious that not only are you not an adult and unable to provide for yourself it shouldn’t need to be said that placing yourself in the position to create another life that needs to be provided for is not an intelligent idea.
In every country that I can think of the responsibilities of adulthood are gradual foist upon children. They are able to drive at one age, and able to drink at another, and they might be permitted to vote at yet another age. This is because we all inherently know that the mind of a teenager is not the mind of an adult. Studies have proven to this to be true in a variety of ways and it is why we don’t allow 13 year olds to do things such as vote or make contracts.
I know 45 years old that make unwise decisions regarding regarding relationships and are emotionally shattered after breakups, why would it be a good idea for teenagers to be introduced to the intensity that an intense relationship calls for when their minds are not read for it?
Let them worry about what college they are going to go to instead of whether or not their boyfriend or girlfriend is cheating on them and what to do about it. If the average life expectancy was still 30 then it would make sense for teenagers to have sex but as society changes the age of first sexual experience should change also.
This comment was written by SBW.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Very true (and sad). That is one reason why I believe the sex education should
1) Provide all the biological facts, a no-brainer.
2) Be wary of encouraging kids to have sex. Slightly more “conservative”, IMO. The “teenagers WILL have sex” basically pressures every teen to have sex just to fit in and not be outcasts (teenagers, for all their rebellion towards their parents, are hugely worried about appearing cool and fitting in.) The predators who have sex with 13 year olds are probably very happy to help making the teens cool in getting rid of that ‘childish virginity’.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:29 pm
The pro-choice crowd wasn’t there.
Today.
When Deborah was in labor with the dead baby, it was the pro-life folks, her church members, who were there. Who brought the coffee. Who sat there, with her. Who talked. Who supported the father. Who held the line against the medical weirdos.
When the pro-choice mom loses a six-month Down fetus (assuming she didn’t abort it as soon as she got the diagnosis) where will the feminists be? Will they be there with the coffee? I hope so, but somehow I doubt it.
No, there was nothing wrong with the baby but Down Syndrome, John. Something like 80% of Down conceptions don’t make it to live birth and survival. A lot goes wrong.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:35 pm
It annoys the hell out of me to see or hear pro-choicers say that pro-lifers do not trust women to make their own choices. It’s an emotional statement with no basis in fact as far as I am concerned. I am a woman, so to assume that I do not trust women is ludicrous.
Then you must be pro-choice, right? Because you cannot know the circumstances behind every single abortion, so you cannot say that they are all made capriciously or stupidly, or for reasons that are inappropriate, or silly, or not well considered. Whether you think they are right or wrong, you do not and should not have the right to make decisions about another woman’s reproduction. Otherwise, you do not trust women to make decisions, because why else would you feel the need to remove any of the reproductive choice options that are out there?
This comment was written by maurinsky.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:38 pm
The more I think about the arguments for anti-choice & anti-contraception/anti-vaccination(in the sense that it should be up to the parents), the more it seems those arguments are about control vs trust and control vs protection.
No matter what we teach teens there will always be SOME teens who have sex. Rather than talk to our kids about sex (the pros & cons) and trust them to make the best choices they can, anti-contraceptioners & anti-vaccinators want to try to scare their kids into not having sex with no concern about the protection they are denying their kids should their kids either make a choice of which they disapprove or become a victim of sexual coercion or rape.
The same is true of the anti-abortion arguments (for the most part). If we outlaw abortion, that will keep some women from having abortions & may scare other women away from sex altogether - or so the argument goes. After all, the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence & if you take the risk you will suffer the consequences.
Why is it so important to control women & children? Why do we want our daughters to suffer the consequences of what we may consider to be a bad choice decades after that choice (in the case of HPV)? How often are women who are forced to have children due to lack of access to abortion abstinent from that point forward? They have, after all, had to take responsibility for their choices, you’d think that they’d have learned their lesson.
Control, control, control. Live your life according to my dictates (never mind what I actually did when I was a teen) or suffer the consequences. How hypocritical and anti- most major religions is that? Judge not lest ye be judged? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Not quite. Control over caring is what it looks like from where I sit.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Let them worry about what college they are going to go to instead of whether or not their boyfriend or girlfriend is cheating on them and what to do about it. If the average life expectancy was still 30 then it would make sense for teenagers to have sex but as society changes the age of first sexual experience should change also.
Quite frankly, we shouldn’t encourage pre-teens or teenagers to date if we don’t want them to get obsessed with relationships. We encourage them to get dressed up and go to dances and to date, but then expect “virginity.” This is engaging ina kind of sexual brinksmanship that is, frankly, stupid.
What is sex and virginity, in this context? Is kissing sex? Second base? “Making out”? Mutual masterbation? Oral sex?
What is acceptable “sex” in this context of emotional saftey?
I’d suggest that any dating relationships can become emotionally problematic for teenagers and pre-teens.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Susan, I’m pro-choice, and I’ve been at a few hospital bedsides for happy events and tragic events. What, do you think pro-choice people don’t have friends and loved ones?
RE: The subject of teenagers having sex. I have a teenage daughter, and I’ve encouraged her to wait until she is in a position to handle the consequences of an unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease. I was a teenage mother, because I was ignorant about birth control (more specifically, about how some antibiotics render the birth control pill ineffective.)
My daughter also knows that she can come to me about anything that is going on in her life, and she will get help/advice rather than punishment. She’s a great kid, and I’m glad I had her. I want to make sure that she will grow up in a country where she has autonomy over her own body. I don’t think she’ll have an unplanned pregnancy - she is much more knowledgeable about sex and the consequences than I was at her age. But if she does, I want her to be able to make her own decisions about what to do about it.
This comment was written by maurinsky.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:45 pm
When Deborah was in labor with the dead baby, it was the pro-life folks, her church members, who were there. Who brought the coffee. Who sat there, with her. Who talked. Who supported the father. Who held the line against the medical weirdos.
What is your point here? That pro-choice friends and family don’t support one another when they end up in the hospital?
When someone is having a medical and emotional crisis - it’s family and friends and one’s social network (church/temple) who come and give support.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 9:49 pm
When the pro-choice mom loses a six-month Down fetus (assuming she didn’t abort it as soon as she got the diagnosis) where will the feminists be? Will they be there with the coffee? I hope so, but somehow I doubt it.
OK. That’s just insulting. I could talk about disability studies and Berube’s blog here, but what’s the point?
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Susan, do you know what ‘projection’ means?
gengwall, from way back when, I’m sorry, but from personal experience I have to disagree. As a very young person, I was ‘pro-life,’ and I assure you that the brand of opposition to abortion I was taught was a) very much endorsed by women and b) tied into all kinds of anxiety and weirdness about women’s sexuality. The ‘caveman’ may be a minority, but the pro-lifer who blames ‘abortionists’–but not women, at least as long as they’re sorry afterward–isn’t.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 10:14 pm
gengwall, you can say you and other pro-lifers believe abortion is murder all you want. The trouble is that you don’t act like it.
Teen sexual activity is irresponsible because the mental, spiritual and emotional energies that are involved in sexuality are generally (not universally, but generally) beyond the ability of teenage hearts, minds, and souls to competently handle. The results of incompetently handled sexual energies can be shattered lives. Sex that you aren’t ready for - and it’s a fairly rare teen who actually is ready for it - can really fuck you up.
1) When you talk about “teens,” you’re talking about a group that ranges from 13-year-olds to 19-year-olds. What’s suitable or not for a teen at one end of that spectrum is very different from what’s suitable for a teen at the other end.
2) Is there any evidence that sexual activity damages older teens more than, say, twenty-somethings?
And here’s my biggest objection:
3) The pro-abstinence movement doesn’t say “wait to have sex till you’re older and ready.” It says “wait to have sex till you’re married.” According to this view, an unmarried thirty-something shouldn’t be having sex, so all your talk about those vulnerable teens is actually irrelevant to their (your?) argument.
This comment was written by Lanoire.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 10:15 pm
maurinsky Writes: Because you cannot know the circumstances behind every single abortion, so you cannot say that they are all made capriciously or stupidly, or for reasons that are inappropriate, or silly, or not well considered.///
More talk of the emotional loose cannon variety, I see. Who said that all abortions are decided capriciously or stupidly or for silly reasons? I have never seen or heard a pro-lifer say that and chances are that neither have you.
I am not asking to make decisions about another womans reproduction. Pregnancy is 100% preventable when abstaining and up to 99.9% preventable depending on what combination of birth control is used.
Every choice is not a good choice and just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it. Abortion is not just about the woman. It is also about the fetus that she is aborting and the effect that the legalization of abortion has had on society.
I don’t see any inherent value in having a multitude of options if all options are not created equal.
This comment was written by SBW.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Chief:
How very compelling. People have also been murdering, raping and oppressing each other for tens of thousands of years. Slavery was the norm for black people not so long ago. But if you want to hate RELIGION for one reason or another, be my guest.
It doesn’t make any of those behaviours good or desirable for a civilized society, nor does it invalidate the fact that in a modern society childhood and youth does not, by the force of necessity, have to end by 13 or so.
What if they do not resort to formalized religion?
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Lanoire,
I provided a link for you that I think would answer most if not all of your questions about the negative outcomes that result from teens having sex. It also addresses the differences between a 13 year old having sex versus a 19 year old. All of this information is readily available to anyone that wanted to find it.
///3) The pro-abstinence movement doesn’t say “wait to have sex till you’re older and ready.” It says “wait to have sex till you’re married.” According to this view, an unmarried thirty-something shouldn’t be having sex, so all your talk about those vulnerable teens is actually irrelevant to their (your?) argument. ///
I am not a Christian but I will do my best to explain this from a Christian perspective. If you are a Christian then the pro-abstinence says that you should not be having sex outside of marriage whether you are 20, 30, or 60. If you are not a Christian then this ideal doesn’t apply to you.
As a non-Christian I say that if you are going to have sex you should use multiple methods of birth control; namely some form of hormonal birth control such as the pill and condoms.
Link to heritage paper (pdf file)
This comment was written by SBW.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 10:58 pm
SBW, please learn how to make links.
Susan, you’ve been making a lot of hard but legitimate points. There’s a real bigotry against the disabled in this country, and that can interact with the right to abortion in disturbing ways. However, I think this:
…Is simply insulting, and goes too far. Pro-choicers love their friends and families too; pro-choicers sit at hospital bedsides too, just like pretty much all humans do, sooner or later. To imply otherwise is extremely rude and dehumanizing, not to mention inaccurate.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:14 pm
It is ironic that for many years HPV (the varieties causing warts genital and other places) was predominantly found in children. It is their gregarious and curious nature as well as poor hand washing that caused them to be readily passed. It makes sense to immunize against such things regardless of origin, the sooner the better.
The reference to Exodus 21:22 (post 15) that a miscarriage being of less value… the miscarriage is caused by a third party in that citation and is not intentional. The value assigned to the child is determined by the slave price of a similar woman who is pregnant as opposed to one who is not. (Rashi)
Amps chart illustrates the crazy reasoning we get into when we try and rationalize what should be treated with dignity, peoples free will for one. A similar chart could be made illustrating how pro abortion positions devalue human life. It would be equally distasteful for similar reasons. Blessings.
This comment was written by Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:15 pm
//Ampersand Writes:
March 21st, 2006 at 10:58 pm
SBW, please learn how to make links. //
Sorry, Ampersand.
This comment was written by SBW.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:16 pm
namely some form of hormonal birth control
Not everyone can use hormonal birth control. For example, being 35 or older is associated with increased risk of serious side effects from the Pill.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:18 pm
I provided a link for you that I think would answer most if not all of your questions about the negative outcomes that result from teens having sex. It also addresses the differences between a 13 year old having sex versus a 19 year old.
We should really define sex if we’re going to talk about this. I assume that everyone can agree that negative physical and emotional outcomes can result from sex other then coitus.
And kids get emotionally attached through many forms of physical sex, including kissing. There’s a large range of sexual activity that could be defined as “sex”, including french kissing, “making out”, mutual masterbation, “second base”, oral sex, and anal sex.
What’s the definition of sex in this discussion? And are we talking only about hetero-sex here?
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:19 pm
[...] A chart for your perusal, in which the considerable disconnect between certain points of view expressed by the pro-life lobby are examined. [...]
This comment was written by The D.C. Outsider » Blog Archive » Visual Aids.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:20 pm
namely some form of hormonal birth control
Also - women with high blood pressure and/or migraines.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Has no one pointed out that it can be emotionaly/spiritualy devastating to children to have sexual relations with out the necessary emotional maturity and relational commitment that should accompany such choices? Simply preventing babies and disease transmission is only a part of the issue with children having sexual relations (and many adults) devoid of the context of loving long-term relationship. Our children are the greatest wealth we have in our community; shouldn’t we teach and protect them from harm on all levels?
Abortion is abhorrent to many of us because it seems a callus treatment of a very rare and wonderful thing, life. No one has made any new life since it was first created. It can only be passed on. Nothing living has ever not been alive since the very first creat-ure; at no point is a human life not human, whether it is one cell or a billion. (We only act that way sometimes.)
If Religious conservatives are looking to punish folks for their choices than why limit it to sex? There are plenty of sins we all commit like not caring for the poor, judgementalism, materialism, failure to love our enemy’s etc. Having said this it is equally foolish to believe that our actions do not have consequences. Assuming one is mature enough to make choices regarding having sexual relationships, should imply one is willing to deal with the consequences of our actions. Pregnancy is a distinct possibility (one of many) of consensual sex and the value of that potential individual life demands (to some of us) a higher sense of responsibility for our actions than forcing that very creation to suffer consequences as a result of our choices. I have heard it said many times on this blog that men have no right to sex, neither do women. Even partaking with birth control entails some risks, “we tried” does not absolve one from responsibility, it is a risk that is assumed knowledgably at the outset, life is sticky and risky business. It is also precious and a miracle (IMO) and worthy of protecting at all levels. Blessings.
This comment was written by Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:35 pm
I apologize, I started writing after emily1’s post #120, got on a call and posted an hour later without thinking to see if more was posted before I did. Sorry for the redundancies.
This comment was written by Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:36 pm
I can not see how one can simultaneously hold belief about age of consent, and argue that people under the said age can give consent to sex. Historical variance on age of consent is a good point, but it begs the question: Do you support reducing the age of consent to an age when teenagers are physically capable of having sex (12-14, roughly)? I don’t.
But that isn’t how age of consent law works.
AOC law only kicks in reliably (I don’t know the situation in every U.S. state) when there is a significant age difference between the partners. It doesn’t criminalize horny 15-year-olds who have consensual sex with other horny 15-year-olds, and can’t, really, when the laws are gender-neutral — which 15-year-old gets to be the “perpetrator” and which the “victim”?
So AOC is not so much about younger teenagers’ ability to consent to sex as it is about their ability to consent to sex with adults.
I don’t think sex education or the availability of contraceptives constitute encouragement to have sex at a young age. They could just as easily be seen as advance preparation for the sex one is most likely going to have at some age, and while I haven’t personally experienced that many sex ed classes, I find it hard to believe that large numbers of sex educators are promoting the gung-ho “hey kids, sex is extra cool before you stop growing!” attitude some people seem to imagine.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Robert,
Regarding the HPV vaccine,
…that doesn’t sound like an argument for parental choice to me.
This comment was written by Auguste.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:58 pm
AOC law only kicks in reliably (I don’t know the situation in every U.S. state) when there is a significant age difference between the partners.
Elinor, this isn’t true. Age of consent laws vary widely by state. Some have the kind of “Romeo and Juliet” laws you describe, where the age gap between the partners is taken into account. Most, not all, have gradations in their age of consent; it’s still a crime to have sex with a 15-year-old, say, but it’s not as awful a crime as having sex with a 9-year-old.
The reason the laws get muddy is the attempt to combine two very different concepts:
This comment was written by mythago.1) People under a certain age are inherently incapable of consenting to sex.
2) Most of us believe it’s not so bad for older teenagers to have sex with slightly-older teenagers, or young adults–at any rate, it’s not as bad as if the older person is vastly older.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Auguste, that New Scientist article quotes the FRC spokesperson talking about the vaccine itself - probably by asking her “what would the reasons be for not getting the vaccine”? They didn’t ask her what the organization’s position was.
That position is here.
Money graf:
(My bolding.)
Dishonest reporting is the source for your beliefs concerning what pro-life organizations think of the HPV virus. You’re being lied to.
There’s a lot of other stuff in the statement itself.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:15 am
Age of consent laws vary widely by state. Some have the kind of “Romeo and Juliet” laws you describe, where the age gap between the partners is taken into account. Most, not all, have gradations in their age of consent; it’s still a crime to have sex with a 15-year-old, say, but it’s not as awful a crime as having sex with a 9-year-old.
Yes, although these laws are written so it is not a crime if two 12 year olds (for example) have sex with each other.
It would be child rape, however, if someone older then a 12 year-old had sex with said child. (This age difference may range from a few months to a few years depending on the child’s age, the law and the state.) In general, the larger the age difference, the more severe the crime, in child rape/ sexual consent statutes.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:16 am
//mythago Writes: Not everyone can use hormonal birth control. For example, being 35 or older is associated with increased risk of serious side effects from the Pill.//
I was making a blanket suggestion. I use the copper T IUD. The hormones are local ( can’t take the pill because I breastfeed and don’t want it getting into my milk) and its over 99% percent effective for the 10 years that I can use it. Once it’s removed I can get pregnant immediately.
Hormonal birth control isn’t the best for all women but there are a variety of birth control methods out there that every women should be able to choose one or a combination that is extremely effective.
This comment was written by SBW.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:27 am
At Alas, A Blog, Ampersand postsa fantastic chart showing the ways in which anti-abortionists are primarily motivated by sex, and not concern for the lives involved. Truly outstanding reasoning. Abortion is part of the key to getting back all branches of the government. The most important thing
This comment was written by Omphaloskepsis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:37 am
The only quibble I have with this is that most pro-lifers don’t oppose the HPV vaccine, they oppose being forced to give it to their children. The effect is the same for their daughters, but they aren’t opposing it for other people’s daughters — yet!
This comment was written by NAR.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:27 am
Tuomas, you missed my point, which I made very clearly. I would not want my 13-year-old daughter to have sex at all, but if she were, I’d rather have her have safe sex than give birth to a child. Historically, traditional conservatives, as shown by age-of-consent laws which are usually lower for marriage than for non-marital relationships, have generally believed that 13-year olds are mature enough to raise children, but I don’t believe that. And the hard-core anti-abortion people believe that 13-year-old pregnant girls should be forced by law to give birth. I really think that the maturity of young people is a red herring here, and if someone raises the question I’ll say that childraising is more threatening to very young people than sex is.
I am a woman, so to assume that I do not trust women is ludicrous. : that’s just plain stupid. A lot of women don’t trust either themselves or other women to choose freely. The churches which teach that women should be obedient to men have women members who also believe that.
How very compelling. People have also been murdering, raping and oppressing each other for tens of thousands of years. Tuomas, few of us think of underage sex as comparable to murder, rape, and slavery. Your comparison makes it pretty clear that you are exactly the sort of anti-sex, anti-female person Ampersand is talking about. Your statement is sick.
Susan, the reason your friend had a pro-life support group was because she was a pro-lifer who belonged to a pro-life community. Duh. Your very pointed statement about that was dirty pool, and silly to boot.
This comment was written by John Emerson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:39 am
On this thread a lot of reasonable anti-abortion people have made statements which are often reasonable. They talk about the reasonable anti-abortion people they know and want us to believe that they are typical of the anti-abortion movement. Based on what most of us have seen, this is just not true. A lot of anti-abortion people oppose sex education, all forms of contraception, and the HPV vaccine, and a lot of them let slip anti-female and anti-sexual feelings from time to time — sometimes accidentally, as perhaps with Tuomas above, and sometimes quite explicitly (”the woman is the weaker vessel and should submit to her husband”.)
Most pro-choicers are responding to the actual anti-abortion people we know about, and many of them seem harsh, cruel, bigoted, and right wing, and most of them have big political agendas beyond abortion. I have some small amount of sympathy for more reasonable anti-abortion spokespersons, but sometimes they just seem to be sly fronts trying to make an evil movement look good.
And I will repeat: this is not a struggle between morality and amorality, as the anti-abortionists always say it is. This is a disagreement about morality, and some of the anti-abortion leaders look evil to me, just as I do to them. Christians seem to think that they have a special deal with God so that everything that they is right, but if Christians do harm in the name of God or Jesus, they will be judged too.
This comment was written by John Emerson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:56 am
John wrote:
John, speak ill of pro-life leaders and politicians all you want, but please don’t personalize things or make personal attacks on other posters here on “Alas.” Attack the argument, not the person. Thank you.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:58 am
This thread has really degenerated. Seizing on the availability of contraceptive as a stick to beat over the heads of teenagers because you don’t want them to have sex “for their own good” is simply and purely punitive.
I actually have a 14 year old daughter and I don’t want her to have sex and I don’t permit her to be in situations where that could happen. Sure, she could evade my control measures and so forth, but the point is, I do everything within my power to prevent it, and so do nearly all other parents I know whether they are pro- and anti-choice.
Having said that, many teenagers have their first sexual encounter before they turn 18. I was such a teenager and I bet many people posting here were too and I am glad I had access to contraception. There are degrees of everything. There are girls who drop out of school to marry older men (knew a few of those when I was in high school) and there are those who have a couple of encounters with a steady boyfriend before they go their separate ways to college, and there’s everything in between.
I am no longer young, but I can still call up the memories of that period of my life. It was counterproductive and confusing to have a steady boyfriend, but the mess of my life, to the extent it was a mess, was far more affected by the fact that I had a mentally ill father than it was by the fact that I had a steady boyfriend. In fact, I gave the boy more slack than I should have because of the mentally ill parent. Something about needing emotional support from someone in my life.
Which is all to say that whether a particular teen has sex and how well they deal with its consequences, is probably not much affected by how hard it is to get contraception but by the quality and structure of their family life — whether it is filled with conflict and hardship or the opposites of those things.
I also see that no one has put forth a persuasive argument as to why anti-choices say one thing and do another. And this isn’t just a matter of policy, it’s a matter of actions: lots of self-proclaimed pro-life women have abortions. They don’t, however, murder their already born children.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:03 am
Susan, saying that a baby “only” has DS isn’t very illuminating. One of my babies “only” had an unsurvivable trisomy — the reason why chromosomal anomalies are almost always fatal is because of the havoc they wreak in nearly every organ system. Many of these specific system deficits can be picked up on a u/s, some can’t.
Just for the record, nobody pressured me to have an abortion and death of the fetus was basically a foregone conclusion. And it is safer to have an abortion than to carry around a dead fetus (I assume they were closely monitoring her to avoid sepsis or other complications).
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:20 am
Amp - boy this is a way cool thread. I love the eb and flow of the discussion.
I’m way behind so it is probably best I just clarify a couple of things about my position.
I have never claimed that the pro-life position is consistent at all. Clearly from Amp’s chart, it isn’t. I can only assure you that for a majority of pro-lifers, hatred of women is nowhere on the radar as far as a motivation for their position.
Regarding contraception.
Someone way back made the comment that pro-life groups (as opposed to pro-life individuals) are against contraception and sex ed. They are against neither as a general concept or policy.
They are against some (maybe most) sex ed programs because of various flaws (in their view) in the materials. But nowhere in their policy positions do they say that sex education conceptually is bad. In fact, they are very much in of sex education. They just have a different view of what who should teach what.
And I still know of no non-catholic pro-life group that is universally against contraception. Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, Staver…none of these people have ever, that I know of, uttered a word against contraception as a general concept or practice. They are against RU-486 because it is abortive. They are against EC because in their view it can also be abortive. A very few are even starting to be against regular hormonal birth control because there is a slight possibility it could be abortive (again in their view). But nowhere do they have a blanket policy against contraception.
Regarding sex ed.
The conservative Christian hope is that people will stay abstinent until marriage. Actually, I really don’t think that is necessarily an exclusively conservative hope or an exclusively Christian hope. I know liberal athiests who hope for the same thing for their children. (Also, for the record, many, or even most, Christian parents failed in this regard themselves.)
The conservative Christian policy is to teach “abstinence until marriage” in the home. What we desire from public policy is to simply teach abstinence as a healthy and wise choice. We don’t expect public policy to relay religious dogma.
In reality, we release our children at some point and, again, hope that they have taken our teaching to heart. But, once they are adults, they make their own choices. My girls are 18 and 20 and I no longer exert any influence on them as far as sexual choices (although I still certainly offer counsel). I suspect, and hope, they will remain virgins until marriage. I also suspect, and hope, that if they choose not to that they will be as safe as possible in their activities. And finally, I suspect, and hope, that they know that whatever their choices are, we will never stop loving them. Do any of you really think this is a bad way to bring up kids?
This is predominant Christian parenting model. Some parents don’t follow it and their kids end up just fine (whatever “fine” is). Some parents are masters at it and their kids still end up screwed (literally and figuratively). Let’s face it, parenting is not an exact science. Of course, neither is sex ed. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do our best in either endeavor and strive to find ways to improve the model.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:37 am
The age of consent where I live is 14. 14 is very young, and I have a hard time imagining most 14 year olds being mature enough to handle some of the physical/emotional/mental aspects of sex. I don’t know if the same is true for 16 year olds or 18 year olds.
As for SBW’s comments:
I think you’ve taken me out of context - I was responding to Robert’s suggestion that the emotional/mental/spiritual consequences of sex were too much for most teenagers, aside from the issues of pregnancy and STIs. Of course, you are also assuming that the sex that teenagers will be having is heterosexual PIV sex, which is, as far as I know, the only sex that can lead to reproduction.
I think that Heather at Scarleteen has smart things to say on this issue, and the idea that sex between young people is somehow emotionally unsafe:
“It seems that a lot of what we hear in terms of safeguarding our emotions — if we hear anything at all — in regard to sex (and remember that here at Scarleteen, when we say “sex” we mean any number of sexual activities, not just sexual intercourse) is that either sex is okay, or it isn’t, and we just shouldn’t engage in it if we don’t want to be hurt or hurt others. Or, that only sex within marriage is safe emotionally, but that simply isn’t so: people are no less likely to become hurt by sex within marriage than they are outside it, especially if high divorce rates and spousal sexual abuse rates are any indication.”
She goes on to say:
” Sex is not something that need be hurtful, or that we have to avoid so as not to get hurt or hurt anyone else. When entered into with a solid basis of self-awareness, empathy, care, good judgment and an arsenal of accurate information, sex has no more the capacity to hurt than anything else in life, and has the capacity to be something wonderful, empowering and beneficial.”
(The rest of the article is here.
I’m sorry, but this just seems so far removed from the reality of most teenagers, who as far as I know, aren’t going to college.
This comment was written by dorktastic.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:38 am
More talk of the emotional loose cannon variety, I see. Who said that all abortions are decided capriciously or stupidly or for silly reasons? I have never seen or heard a pro-lifer say that and chances are that neither have you.
Wrong - most of the anti-choicers I know, including some very good friends of mine, believe that all contraception is abortion. The extremely religious ones think that any contraception is interfering with God’s will. The less religious ones simply think that life begins as soon as sperm meets egg - even a couple who have been through IVF or other assisted reproductive technologies, who know that more has to happen than just fertilization, believe that.
The more moderate anti-choice people I know favor mandated waiting periods, counseling that discourages abortion, and other policies that essentially provide an additional layer of shame and guilt to the whole process. Why would they want this? Because they think too many women do not not think about their decision, that they lightly enter into it.
I am not asking to make decisions about another womans reproduction. Pregnancy is 100% preventable when abstaining and up to 99.9% preventable depending on what combination of birth control is used.
So you aren’t wanting to make decisions about another woman’s reproduction up until the point they are actually pregnant, but after that, tough luck, you think it’s wrong and a bad decision, so they can’t end the pregnancy? That means that you do want to make decisions about another woman’s reproduction, SBW.
Every choice is not a good choice and just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it. Abortion is not just about the woman. It is also about the fetus that she is aborting and the effect that the legalization of abortion has had on society.
What affect is that? Contraception and abortion have freed women to get educated, build careers, contribute to our economy. For some women, it has saved their family from extreme poverty. For others, it has saved their lives.
I don’t see any inherent value in having a multitude of options if all options are not created equal.
que? I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.
This comment was written by maurinsky.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:38 am
gengwall, it’s just very hard to overlook that the “noise machine” of the pro-life movement does not by and large share your apparently reasonable outlook. Calling contraception abortifacient (wrongly, by the way) is a way to be against contraception without having to be forthright about it. Just like permitting pharmacists to refuse to serve rape victims in order to protect their conscience is a sly and devious way to prevent access to contraception. And “not hating” women is a far cry from treating them equally and respecting their autonomy.
And you can say conservatives really want this or that all you want, but it seems to me that they are rarely happy unless, in fact, children are being taught to value precisely and exactly what they value. No holds barred. It’s an issue of maintaining cultural and religious dominance that an authoritarian church culture values and has never had to fight for in the past but that is clearly under threat.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:02 am
gengwall, you wrote:
I think it is very important to distinguish between an individual’s personal feelings about women and the feelings about women that are endemic in a culture. It is entirely possible, it seems to me, that someone can espouse an anti-choice position, arguing that abortion is murder and should be outlawed as such, and still be profoundly respectful, caring and loving towards the women in his or her life. Such a person could even be sincerely empathetic towards the bind his or her position about abortion puts women in. This does not change the fact that the anti-choice position…whatever its particular motivation in the psyches of individual people…gives expression to a cultural hatred of women and, more specifically, of the female body, that is endemic and ubiquitous.
By way of an example that is not about gender: Imagine a literature teacher whose circle of friends includes many people of color, who might even have a lover who is a person of color. Now imagine that this instructor has never once included in the syllabus for the survey of American literature course that he or she teaches a single work by a writer of color. (You could posit the same scenario using gay and lesbian literature.) It does not matter how deeply and seriously that instructor loves and cares about the peeople of color in his or her life, the fact that he or she does not teach any American writers of color in a survey course, no matter what her or his motivation, would be an expression of the hatred of people of color that is endemic in United States culture.
My point here is not that a literature course and a pregnant woman are somehow in parallel circumstances. My point is that we need to make sure that when we are talking about the hatred of women in this thread that we distinguish between personal feelings and cultural values, which do not always coincide. To argue that abortion is murder, to grant the fetus personhood and then allow fetal personhood to trump the rights of the woman in whose body that fetus is growing is woman-hating because on some level it cannot help but dehumanize the woman and it dehumanizes her specifically because of the nature of the female body.
This does not mean that someone who is anti-choice does not sincerely love the women in his or her life; it does not mean that someone who is anti-choice consciously desires to punish women for having sex; it does mean that someone who is anti-choice and wants to see that position enshrined in law hates the female body to the extent that it is inhabited by a woman who can, left to her own devices, choose to end a pregnancy.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:04 am
But barbara - they don’t call “contraception” abortifacient. They call some contraceptive methods abortifactient. Name me one person anywhere who says wearing a condom is abortifactient. Or using a spermicide. I mean, the very thought is preposterous. Most don’t even consider “the pill” abortifacient even within their stricter view of what abortion is. And many are even willing to accept EC. So, I am just reacting to the notion that pro-life groups are against contraception. But maybe we are talking past each other again. Maybe you are using the global term but implying only some methods. Sorry if I missed that.
I have no qualms with the rest of your comment. Especially:
And ‘not hating’ women is a far cry from treating them equally and respecting their autonomy.
This certainly is true although in many cases the two are synonymous.
And you can say conservatives really want this or that all you want, but it seems to me that they are rarely happy unless, in fact, children are being taught to value precisely and exactly what they value. No holds barred.
True enough. I don’t know that is so bad or universally a conservative parenting desire. Doesn’t it make us all happy when our children are taught to value precisely and exactly what we value? Now, persons of all political stripes recognize that the teaching of these values which we value should take place in the home, not the school.
I will conceed that there are many Christians who cross that line and want their particular values to be ingrained in public policy and instruction. Believe me, they frustrate me more in the Christian forums I participate in than virtually anyone I have ever met over here at Alas has. I guess you will just have to take my word for it that they are the vast minority.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:10 am
Okay, I got lost in my own post. The second paragraph in my previous post should have read:
“My point here is not that the people of color in that white professor’s life (and I realize I left out the “white” designation in the original post) and a pregnant woman are somehow in parallel circumstances. My point is that the difference between personal feelings and cultural values is one that needs to be taken into account when we talk about things like abortion. To take the position that gengwall takes, i.e., that because the people who want to criminalize abortion do not personally hate women, the hatred of women is not part of the position they advocate, is to reinforce male privilege in the same way that arguing that literature written by people of color somehow does not measure up to the standards of excellence set by the universally recognized masterpieces of white authors reinforces white privilege. So, we need to make sure that when we are talking about the hatred of women in this thread that we distinguish between personal feelings and cultural values, which do not always coincide. To argue that abortion is murder, to grant the fetus personhood and then allow fetal personhood to trump the rights of the woman in whose body that fetus is growing is woman-hating because on some level it cannot help but dehumanize the woman and it dehumanizes her specifically because of the nature of the female body.”
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:17 am
Richard - Yikes. You aren’t going to write about my capacity for metaphorical thought again, are you?
Seriously - I definately can see your point. And I think it really is applicable when talking about things like sex ed and sexuality in general. I certainly recognize the sexual double standards that exist in society and the repressive sexual heirarchy that exists in patriarchal societies where there always seems to be an emphsis on male “dominance” in the relationship (sexual and otherwise).
But abortion does have this nagging extra component with conservative Christians. They believe another human being is involved in the equation which makes it not an individual choice. To them, it is a balance of rights issue. So, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the effect of their stance might look, feel, and even actually result in woman hating from a pro-choice point of view, but it is in reality driven by child loving.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:18 am
I do like that you separate the leaders from the rank and file. In my experience, most people don’t try very hard to think about the internal logical consistency and long-term operational consequences of their political attitudes, so I have no trouble believing that any given anti-abortion advocate really does think that it’s all about fetus-murder.
I’ve known some of them who seem so permanently distraught about what they perceive as the greatest mass baby-murder in history going on all around them that they’re barely able to function; any conversation they have about anything eventually rolls around to the horror of the dead fetuses. It’s hard for me to accuse these people of bad faith, though on the other hand their beliefs usually don’t seem to be much in line with the wider anti-abortion movement.
But there’s no excuse for the movement’s leaders not to have done the reasoning, and I think your analysis of motives is spot-on.
This comment was written by Matt McIrvin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:23 am
Richard - we keep crossing in cyberspace. My response to
To argue that abortion is murder, to grant the fetus personhood and then allow fetal personhood to trump the rights of the woman in whose body that fetus is growing is woman-hating because on some level it cannot help but dehumanize the woman and it dehumanizes her specifically because of the nature of the female body
is, no, it does not dehumanize her. It simply puts her on a human (and legal) par with the child.
Now, I agree that pregnancy is a unique human condition which requires out of the box thinking when it comes to policy. Conservative Christians are loathe to think out of the box here. Their dogma is often out of whack in dealing with the unique realites that pregnancy presents. I think that even if fetal personhood were recognized, there are still right to liberty arguments that could be made that would trump right to life arguments for the fetus and therefore still leave abortion a justifiable homocide. The point is that these pro-lifers are not dehumanizing women in any way. They are, instead, ultra-humanizing fetuses.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:27 am
gengwall, war has an “added component”: it consigns any number of young men and uninvolved civilians, all separate human beings, to their death. Early Christians were “extreme” pacifists because they did not accept any political rationale as a sufficient basis for consigning other human beings to death. Eventually they made their peace with warmongers “for the good of the social compact.”
Willingness to accept death as a reasonable loss under the circumstances reflects a person’s willingness to value some things as greater than human life. Wars are rarely “life and death” decisions within a reasonable meaning of that terminology. They reflect society’s determination to impose its own values on others notwithstanding loss of life, in some cases even in most cases, totally innocent human life.
It’s not only a question of valuing life. Anti-choice people do not accept female autonomy as a greater or even an equal good relative to the fetus she is carrying. In many cases, they do not value her life to the same degree that they value the fetus.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:31 am
[...] This chart pretty much nails my feelings on the anti-choice, anti-sex brigade and details exactly why I don’t buy their bullshit “pro-life” excuses when they are really lobbying to reduce choice and prevent women from having sex (but not men, ‘natch). [...]
This comment was written by e p o n y m o u s.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:31 am
[...] Ampersand at Alas a Blog seeks an answer to the question, does the right really think abortion is murder? A lot of people who favor forced childbirth for pregnant women say that they believe that an abortion, even early in pregnancy, is identical to child murder. Have an abortion, shoot a four-year-old in the head; morally, it’s the same. Or, anyhow, that’s what they claim to believe. [...]
This comment was written by Sherry Chandler » Not About the Children.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:35 am
Barbara - true enough. That is what I was getting at by stating that pro-lifers “ultra-humanize” fetuses. They place greater value in them in contrast to others. Man, now that I say that I see how it dehumanizes the other people in the equation. Crap! I guess I owe some a big Emily Litella “Oh…never mind”
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:40 am
gengwall, I am off to teach and so can’t give you the full response that is beginning to take shape in my head, but consider this statement of yours:
I will, for the moment, accept your semantics–though I ultimately disagree with them–because whether you state the situation my way or yours, “a hierarchy of humanization” is being created with the woman on the lower end of that scale. It reminds me of Orwell: “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.” (Apologies if my quote is not precise.)
Anyway, I will respond more fully when I have the time.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:11 am
Gengwall,
You say that everything hinges on the claim that the fetus is a person. But it doesn’t follow from accepting that claim that abortion is morally impermissible. It *would* follow only if this principle is true: if something is a person, it is morally impermissible to kill it. But that principle is false: I may kill an enemy soldier in combat without doing anything morally impermissible.
Thus, showing that the fetus is a person isn’t enough to justify your anti-abortion position. To do that you’d need to show that the fetus’s rights as a person trump *every single one* of the woman’s rights to her body and integrity of person. That is a very difficult thing to show.
Personhood isn’t the issue.
This comment was written by Randolph.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:37 am
Personhood is the issue when regarding the question “Do they really think abortion is murder”. Never-the-less, read my post 165. I recognize that there are possible arguments that could justify the fetal homocide of abortion and make it not murder. That doesn’t mean that some don’t have a reasonable belief that abortion is an unjustifeid homocide. It still al hinges on fetal personhood. No anti-choice person I have ever know has made the argument: “I know the fetus isn’t a person but I still believe it is wrong to kill it.”
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:58 am
[...] Jane Hamsher, firedoglake, “Aw Shucks, Brady, You Shouldn’t Have” Ampersand, Alas, a Blog: “Do they really believe that abortion is murder?” [...]
This comment was written by The Mahablog » Bloggy Goodness.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:08 am
On the personhood issue, a test question for me would be “Could I have this ‘person’ in my eye and not notice it?”
When they get militant about the morning-after pill, anti-abortionists award personhood to pre-fetusses consisting of 8, 16, or 32 cells. That’s loony.
The best overall explanation of anti-abortionist behavior remains what Ampersand said it was: hostility to, and fear of, the sexual freedom of women.
Defenders will say that “Anti-abortionists are not consistent” as though that were a small, unavoidable glitch, but at some point you have to think that it’s bad faith.
This comment was written by John Emerson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:22 am
Richard said,
I think it is very important to distinguish between an individual’s personal feelings about women and the feelings about women that are endemic in a culture. It is entirely possible, it seems to me, that someone can espouse an anti-choice position, arguing that abortion is murder and should be outlawed as such, and still be profoundly respectful, caring and loving towards the women in his or her life. Such a person could even be sincerely empathetic towards the bind his or her position about abortion puts women in. This does not change the fact that the anti-choice position…whatever its particular motivation in the psyches of individual people…gives expression to a cultural hatred of women and, more specifically, of the female body, that is endemic and ubiquitous.
Yes!!! Richard’s post summarized the situation.
I get chills when I hear anti-choicers who want to get rid of health exceptions. I literally cannot comprehend how people could force a woman to suffer liver failure or stroke for the sake of their philosophy. It’s like they negate the existence of the person who is actually carrying the embryo/fetus in order to promote their ideology.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:29 am
maurinsky Writes: Wrong - most of the anti-choicers I know, including some very good friends of mine, believe that all contraception is abortion. The extremely religious ones think that any contraception is interfering with God’s will. The less religious ones simply think that life begins as soon as sperm meets egg - even a couple who have been through IVF or other assisted reproductive technologies, who know that more has to happen than just fertilization, believe that.
Thats not what I asked you. I said I have never seen or heard a pro-lifer say that all abortions are decidedly stupidly or capriciously, not that all contraception is murder and interfering with God’s will. The Catholic church does not support contraception; thats nothing new.
Second of all, you are alive from the moment of contraception. The scientific community has already decided upon the 7 to 6 characteristics that all living things and a fertilized ovum fits the bill. A woman is not pregnant until the ovum has implanted in her uterus but the ovum is alive before that point.
The more moderate anti-choice people I know favor mandated waiting periods, counseling that discourages abortion, and other policies that essentially provide an additional layer of shame and guilt to the whole process. Why would they want this? Because they think too many women do not not think about their decision, that they lightly enter into it.
The key word that I asked you about was “all”. You have yet to tell me that anyone has said “all” women have abortions capriciously. Are there some women on their 3rd, 4th, and 5th abortions because they are irresponsible? Sure! All you need to so is look at the statistics on who is getting abortions and why to see that this is true. Are there women that use abortion as a primary form of birth control? Yes, these women do in fact exist whether you acknowledge their existence or not.
The people that you are referring to seem to be anti-abortion because of they are religious. Their anti-abortion stance is just a small part of their general disdain for female sexuality; these people do not represent the entire pro-life movement.
So you aren’t wanting to make decisions about another woman’s reproduction up until the point they are actually pregnant, but after that, tough luck, you think it’s wrong and a bad decision, so they can’t end the pregnancy? That means that you do want to make decisions about another woman’s reproduction, SBW.
No, I don’t want to make decisions about another womans reproduction. Its not ALL about the woman. My concern is that the fetus shouldn’t be killed because she was irresponsible or the birth control failed. I don’t think someone should have to die over your responsibility.
Not ready to handle raising a child? Don’t have unprotected sex. If you do have sex and the protection fails your fetus shouldn’t be paying for your accident.
que? I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.
Killing a perfectly healthy fetus because you just had to have an orgasm is a bad choice. It’s selfish, irresponsible, and lazy; not to mention has a host of other negative effects on women and society.
This comment was written by SBW.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:38 am
Killing a perfectly healthy fetus because you just had to have an orgasm is a bad choice. It’s selfish, irresponsible, and lazy; not to mention has a host of other negative effects on women and society.
It’s all about control. You wanted an orgasm so bad (as if all women orgasm via intercourse) now you will have to give birth. It’s a scare tactic to keep women from having sex.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:44 am
Gengwall,
1. Personhood is relevant to whether killing a fetus counts as murder only if it’s true that every killing of a person is a murder. But that’s false: my killing an enemy soldier in combat isn’t my murdering him. Note, too, that it’s also false that every killing of an *innocent* person is a murder. Suppose that you fall from a great height and that you will land on top of me, killing me in doing so. I am morally permitted to kill you–though you’re innocent–out of self-defense.
2. I think you may have missed my point. Pro-lifers usually argue for their position by claiming that the fetus is a person. But that claim doesn’t support the view that abortion is morally impermissible any more than the claim that the enemy soldier is a person–surely true–supports the claim that killing him is morally impermissible.
The point is this. To show that the pro-life position is the right one it isn’t enough to show that the fetus is a person. More argument is needed. (For the record, it strikes me as obviously false that fetuses–certainly early fetuses–are persons. But even if they were nothing anti-abortion follows.)
These ideas, by the way, are very old ones. They’re from the classic paper “A Defense of Abortion” by the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson.
This comment was written by Randolph.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:45 am
An implanted ovum which has divided a few times may be alive and it may have individual human DNA, but it’s not a person and people who say that it is are loony. There are no 32-cell human persons. There aren’t even any 32-cell dogs or cats.
The energy behind anti-abortion politics comes from people who want to push the line a long way. There are reasonable people with reasonable concerns in the anti-aabortion movement, but they’re as irrelevant to it as the moderate Republicans are to the Republican Party,.
This comment was written by John Emerson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:55 am
Yes, and because I made a possibly bad choice, I lose my right to bodily integrity? I made a bad choice so I have no right to control whether another person can use my body to survive?
What if I got raped? Have I made a bad choice to be around men, and therefore I don’t get to have an abortion? Or is my pregnancy no longer my fault therefore I can end it if I want to?
On the subject of rape, someone a while upthread said that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy. To that I would say: being completely segregated from any male capable of ejaculation is the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy. Well, I suppose that somebody could sneak in a turkey baster, but that would be getting even more ridiculous. In other words, in the real world, there is no 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy. In the real world, even the most religious, well-behaved virgin can find herself pregnant and may possibly desire or need an abortion.
This comment was written by Denise.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:01 pm
A few points made above were never answered, as far as I can tell:
Robert pointed out that the Family Research Council (one of James Dobson’s groups) supports the HPV vaccine. And no one can identify any actual pro-life organization that opposes the vaccine. The original chart is inaccurate in implying that pro-lifers oppose that vaccine.
Jivin J pointed out (comment 20) that if pro-lifers are really worried about punishing women (as opposed to protecting fetal life), then it makes absolutely no sense that they would generally exempt women from serious punishment for procuring an abortion. True, exempting women from punishment isn’t necessarily consistent with the belief that abortion is murder, but neither is it consistent with the notion that pro-lifers are just trying to punish women who had sex.
One more point of my own:
Amp’s argument could be applied to pro-choicers as well.
Here’s how it would look:
How do you like having your own beliefs explained away in that fashion? How do you like having various positions attributed to you that you might not believe in, as if all pro-choicers believed the exact same thing? Is it fair to say that because a person’s positions are not all perfectly consistent, his or her real motivations can be portrayed in the worst possible light?
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:03 pm
How will killing him prevent his body from falling on you anyway? :-P
Personhood is relevant, in my opinion. If the thing being killed isn’t a person, then killing it cannot be murder. However, even if the thing being killed is a person, that alone is not enough to establish murder. In other words, personhood is necessary, but not sufficient, to be able to call a killing a murder.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:04 pm
By the way, it might be best to transfer personhood discussions to this thread.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Also, the row about partial birth abortion is tendentious: It claims that “the other procedures that doctors switch to may have a higher risk of injuring the mother, thus making it more likely that she suffers consequences.” Thus, opposition to partial-birth abortion is because people want women to suffer consequences.
That’s a silly argument. 1) All pro-life literature that I’ve seen has emphasized that there is zero medical evidence that partial-birth abortion is ever safer. Whether that’s true or not, that’s what pro-lifers believe. 2) Pro-lifers are well aware that banning partial-birth abortion will simply cause doctors to use a different procedure. They nonetheless like this legislation for at least two reasons: (a) They believe that our society is on a slippery slope to infanticide, and that we simply must draw the line here; and (b) Just as pro-choicers always like to talk about blastocysts, pro-lifers like to focus public attention on a form of abortion that is particularly easy to depict as horrifying.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Killing a perfectly healthy fetus because you just had to have an orgasm is a bad choice. It’s selfish, irresponsible, and lazy; not to mention has a host of other negative effects on women and society.
thanks for kind of making the point - you think women should be punished for having sex (unless they have sex within your approved parameters and no one has an accident or a mistake.) That is the affect, regardless of what your intent is. That nasty little slut* shouldn’t have been careless or irresponsible, and even if she took precautions because she didn’t want to have a baby, she’s stuck now, because that clump of cells is a higher priority to you than the woman is.
*I realize you didn’t say this, but man, is it ever implied.
The key word that I asked you about was “all”. You have yet to tell me that anyone has said “all” women have abortions capriciously.
Once again, it’s implied - you don’t think women should have the right to terminate a life that cannot survive outside the womb, you have stated a few times that it’s a bad choice, regardless of circumstances. You have decided that abortion is an unacceptable choice for all women, and that they should have to give birth if the sperm meets the egg**, regardless of what precautions they may have taken. You have very neatly demonstrated Amp’s point, and yet I’m not sure you see that.
There probably are plenty of women who decide to abort like they might decide to go to the Outback Steakhouse for dinner; but I think there are also many, many women who find themselves in dire circumstances, facing a difficult choice that may cause them no small measure of grief. You would have all these women give birth, no matter their circumstances, because you think the fertilized egg is more important than the life of the woman who is carrying it. I disagree. Why should you get to make that choice for everyone? At least with my belief, women are free to make the decision for themselves, because I trust women to manage that decision for themselves. No one is forced to have an abortion (even in Susan’s friends case, with the unethical pushing for abortion from the medical community, she ultimately was able to fulfill her choice. Another woman might choose differently, and she should have the right to do so.
**Bearing in mind that sperm+egg does not yet equal baby - the fertilized ovum has to implant in the uterus, and survive through the 1 in 4 chance that it will spontaneously abort without developing further, and make it through the various health risks that face the mother during pregnancy, like HELLP, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, incompetent cervix, exposure to German Measles or Fifths Disease, not develop any chromosonal abnormalities that are incompatible with life, and ultimately survive delivery.
This comment was written by maurinsky.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Re: pro-life groups and the HPV vaccine.
It is disingenous of Niels and Robert to suggest that the religous pro-life groups SUPPORT the HPV vaccine. They do not want it to be mandatory, presumably so they will not have to give their children the vaccine, because they are concerned about the message the vaccine sends, and they believe that some children might take the vaccine as a license to engage in sexual activities thinking they are protected from disease. That is not the same as supporting the vaccine, and not as severe as fighting against the vaccine.
I will take a wait and see on the subject. I don’t trust the pro-life movement, as they spread a lot of dishonest information about sex.
This comment was written by maurinsky.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Niels, there is a difference between a clump of cells that doesn’t have a functioning brain, and a nearly full-term baby. I acknowledge that. It’s not really an inconsistency, though. A lot of changes happen before a fertilized egg becomes a baby. It’s not the same thing. A fertilized egg - even an implanted egg, even if it is much wanted, does not equal a baby.
This comment was written by maurinsky.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:29 pm
The reason why Amp’s analysis is so compelling is that it exposes the fallacy that anti-choice proponents have any right to claim that they are standing on an existential or theological concept of personhood. First, by defining where “life begins” by resort to the lowest common scientific denominator of separate human material (i.e., single cells with separate DNA imprint), they have virtually ceded that traditional religion has nothing to tells us about the nature of personhood. Presumably, if science tracks back further, they’ll happily follow suit.
In addition, having ascribed to the reductivist notion that a separate DNA sequence is tantamount to separate personhood, they are unwilling to follow that claim where it leads. Instead, they hit us with hopelessly confused pastiche of moral reasoning that, in the end, does nothing more than draw the line more tightly around women’s autonomy without actually embodying the sacred concept of personhood upon which they base their right to infringe personal liberty in the first place.
There is no moral basis upon which to conclude that personhood begins at fertilization. There is no moral basis upon which to conclude that drawing the line at rape or incest rather than, say, health of the mother, more consistently advances the claimed ethic of personhood. If it’s “just politics” as Robert and others say, then it’s just politics — and there is no good basis for allowing politics to trump fundamental personal liberty.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:45 pm
It’s All About Sex
So are pro-lifers anti-baby-killing? Or anti-women-having-sex? Amp looks at the rhetoric and comes to the only logical conclusion.
This comment was written by Blog of the Moderate Left.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Having children is a not a punishment for having sex. Children are a natural occurence where sex is involved. When you take drugs, you get high. When get into a car, you are taking the risk that you will get into an accident.
If you don’t want to get high, don’t take drugs. If you don’t want to be responsible in case of an accident then don’t drive.
If you do not want to be responsible for the creation of another life then either don’t have sex or have sex as safely as possible.
Its like a person gets into a car, has an accident and kills someone and then they say, “I didn’t think it would happen to me“. If you didn’t think it would happen to you then you should have, furthermore the fact that you thought you would be the exception to the rule doesn’t absolve you from responsibility for your actions.
I’m not in favor of forced parenthood, I’m in having of not treating a fetus like its garbage. I’m in favor of valuing all life, including those that are not yet born and certainly cannot speak for themselves.
Personhood is irrelevant, its just a way of creating a sliding scale to determine whose life is valuable and whose life isn’t. If pro-choicers wanted to be consistent they would say that all human life is valuable, not just whether or not someone wants you. Or would you say that once someone stops being wanted they are no longer worthy of life?
This comment was written by SBW.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Not this argument again! Life doesn’t begin at conception. It doesn’t begin at birth. Life began in the precambrian and all life has come from other life since that time. The sperm is alive. The unfertilized oocyte is alive. The zygote created by the merger of the two is alive. It is not yet, however, anything that could be properly addressed as “you.” Brain activity is the basis for the distinction between alive and dead in our society. No brain activity, no live person. A brain dead person may still contain live cells and functioning organs–that’s where some donor organs come from, after all–but they are nonetheless not considered alive once the brain is no longer functioning. Clearly, a one celled organism does not have a functioning brain. Therefore, it is not a living person yet. But a living cell it is ajust as it was before fertilization.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:19 pm
So suppose the possessor of a current driver’s license gets into a car while not drunk, not on any mind altering substances, and proceeds to drive. Despite driving at the legal speed, using proper turn signals, and otherwise following the rules of the road, he or she gets into an accident and is badly injured. Should the EMTs treat such a person or should they ignore him or her because, after all, if he or she didn’t want an accident, he or she should never have gotten into a car?
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Robert wrote:
No, he’s accurately stating what the FRC’s public statements were in October/November 2005 - which was, crudely stated, that vaccinating 11-12 year olds was bad because it would encourage sexual activity. The statement you link to is from February, and reflects severe backtracking on the FRC’s part, no doubt due to the fact that their earlier statements were a public relations debacle for them.
Anyhow, on the key issue, the FRC is still lobbying the ACIP to make sure the vaccine is not effectively distributed to children. From the letter to the ACIP you linked to:
Since most public schools nationwide follow the ACIP’s recommendations, and federal funding and insurance (without which no vaccine becomes widespread) is contingent on ACIP’s recommendation, asking the ACIP not to recommend it for public school requirements is the same thing as saying, in practice, that no provision for widespread immunization of 11-year-olds should be made at all. So I stand by my argument; pro-life groups like FRC are pushing for a HPV vaccine policy that will cause more deaths among sexually active women.
There’d be very little question of the ACIP’s decision if that decision were going to be made purely on scientific grounds. Unfortunately, Bush has appointed a former Focus on the Family leader, Reginald Finger, to the ACIP’s decision-making committee. According to Finger, “Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teen-agers that, ‘We expect you to be sexually active.’ There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe.”
Finger went on to emphasize that he himself was still open-minded on the question; he was just repeating what “some people” think.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
If all human life is valuable, regardless of personhood, then a severed toe kept alive with machinery would have a right to life, and shooting the toe with a shotgun would be murder. After all, the toe is made of living human tissue, and so is human life. Do you really endorse that position?
Alternatively, if you don’t think shooting the toe with a shotgun would be murder, on what basis - apart from personhood - do you make that distinction?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Sure there is: the development of herd immunity. Basically, the idea is that enough people are vaccinated, the disease will die out or be severely limited, so even if a few people are missed, an outbreak can’t occur. If only a minority or a small majority of people are vaccinated, the unvaccinated serve as a resevoir (sp?) of infection and keep the disease active in the population. And, of course, an active virus can mutate, leading to decreased vaccine efficacy. So attempting to vaccinate 99% of the population makes sense, even for a disease which is not spread by casual contact.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:30 pm
First, let me state that I am not a Christian (though I have great respect for Christ’s work and those who actually follow Christ’s path). That said, I feel that the debate around abortion is largely centered on the question, “is life sacred?” As well as the questions of “when is life actually life?” and “who’s life is more sacred, the mother’s or the fetus?”
Now let me say that I am not pro-abortion. I hope that abortion will become extremely rare, however it is far healthier that abortion become rare because a woman is empowered to utilize contraception and equually important that a woman have the economic ability to raise a child that is conceived.
The biggest challenge I see regarding the anti-abortion movement, is that they rarely back up their belief that life is sacred with programs that support those lives after birth. Where are the programs that will help a pregnant woman get pre-natal care, money to support and educate her children or care for them in any way once they are born? Where are the programs that ensure that we create peace, prosperity and FOOD for all the children of the earth? Why is it that many of the people who are anti-abortion, are also those who are pro-war and pro-death penalty?
If our religious obligation is to see that children are brought to term, does our obligation end there? And what about QUALITY of life? Does bringing a child into a life that is hell, and then abandoning them fulfil our moral obligations?
I’ll give you a personal example here. About 17 years ago, my sister got pregnant. She did what some folks here might think was the “right thing” and had the baby. The father of the child was a wife-beater and additionally had been accused of child-molestation of his daughter by a previous wife. Eventually my sister wised up and got out of the marriage. Despite his record as a beater/molestor, the courts continued to give him rights to the child. My sister’s second daughter was born (the “right thing?”) as a result of him raping her after she’d left him. Both daughters were subjected to molestation as well as mental mindgames by their father. The younger child was forced to watch slasher-horror movies at the age of 5. Both were subjected to watching their father beat their mother. Both were subjected to poverty because their mother couldn’t afford them and their father, though ordered to pay child support, rarely did, claiming unemployment (in reality he dealt coke). Today the older daughter is not yet 17 and is pregnant with her 2nd child. The first child is the son of a “slow” man who her father encouraged and allowed her to have sex with. Several weeks ago the baby was found with a babysitter who was allowing him to play on the floor with a bottle of antifreeze and with a high fever. The 2nd baby’s father is unknown, but it is potentially a policeman who has been accused of having sex with more than one minor.
Now before anyone denegrates this with “oh it’s just the usual crack-whore mentality” or “oh those rednecks” let me say that my sister is a highly intelligent woman from a middle income family, who happened to fall in with the wrong guy (while she herself was far too young - 18 when the 1st was born) and didn’t leave fast enough. She is well educated. She didn’t want to have an abortion because she couldn’t “take it’s life”. My sister didn’t choose to become a single parent, but she did choose to take her child away from a wife-beater rather than 1) end up a statistic and 2) have her daughter grow up thinking “wife beating is normal”. (In fact her mother-in-law actually stated that “a man who doesn’t beat his wife doesn’t love her.” My sister’s divorce was in large part due to the fact that she couldn’t bear to see her child grow up with this idea.)
Could she have given the children up for adoption? Well when she had the first baby, she THOUGHT she was in a relationship. Not condusive for giving up a baby. Nor is it easy to give up a child after you’ve carried it for 9 months.
But my question is: Did she (and the state) “give them life?” What chance did they have from the beginning? What constitutes a “life” and more importantly, a life worth living?
So for those of you who are anti-abortion, I ask this:
What have you specifically done to see that those children who are born have food, education and a decent life? Do you donate to food shelters? Do you monitor your local child welfare system to ensure that children are being treated ethically? What do you do to ensure that your elected officials go after deadbeat dads? Are you in favor of government subsidies to not merely primary and secondary education, but for college as well? Are you in favor of welfare - not as a permanent fix, but as a way of helping women get free of abusive spouses and have a chance to rebuild their lives? (BTW my sister is NOT on public assistance, having weaned herself from that as fast as she could, as most women who CAN will do.)
So, if you are anti-abortion, then does your care for children stop after that, or if not, what specifically have you done to ensure that children are cared for once born?
If life is sacred, then is it right to send people to die in war? (Especially one which our congress did not vote for?)
Some interesting points were brought up above:
D) Partial birth - Your argument doesn’t hold up, because the people wanting to ban these procedures don’t think that doctors will find alternatives. You might be correct about the actual impact of the law, but your opinion of the impact isn’t the opinion of the pro-lifers involved.
Whether or not pro-lifers believe that doctors will find alternatives, they will do so. The alternative to D&X is cesarian. The fetuses who are suggested for D&X are generally hydrocephalic and if they manage to be born at all, are born unconscious and generally die shortly after birth. This proceedure is done to protect the life of the mother and shorten her suffering.
What if someone can’t afford to get pre-natal care? Woof. Now that’s an interesting one. Let’s see. If you can’t afford post-natal care and your child dies from what would have been a diagnosed condition, have you been negligent? I don’t know about that one.
A very good point! Why is it that many women can’t afford pre-natal care? Have you (not the person I am quoting, but all of you who read this) contacted your elected officials to ensure that women can get inexpensive or free prenatal care?
Generally, kids are going to have sex whether you like it or not. There’s no debate about this one (how can you?). The difference between the two examples you wrote about is conservatives want to impose their own very evangelical moral framework on kids. Liberals tend to base their decisions on empirical evidence, like the abortion statistics from the more liberal countries out there. I see two groups: people basing decisions on the reality of this world, and people basing decisions on a fantasy world they wish they had been born in (1950s america, 1499 England, 35 bc, you name it). One group learns from the past, past mistakes (and of course, science), and one group sticks by a set of morals that seem very faith-based to me.
For thousands of years, children were marriagable at around age 13, and sometimes as young as 9. This is because until recently, someone who was 45 would be considered “old” and many didn’t live to the age of 20. (Actually most age statistics are skewed just slightly because the largest death rates were due to death in childbirth and death in the first couple years of life. Which brings us back to prenatal care. Even so, a 45 yr old would be “old.”) Because of this our biology makes us fertile and sexually interested beginning at puberty.
Do I WANT my children to have sex at that age? Gods no! In fact I have lectured my 13 yr old neice on abstinence. However, despite I that I would PREFER that they remain abstinent till they are older, I am also aware that the sex urge is a biological imperative, and a challengning one to overcome. It makes sense to me to encourage children to wait until they are older, but to prepare them to be SAFE in case they cannot.
For those of you who don’t want to educate your children about birth control, let me ask you: Which would you rather - that your child had premarital sex and was safe thereafter, or that your child came down with HIV or got pregnant. If your answer is “if they mess around they get what they deserve,” then I truly worry about you as a parent.
As a parallel consideration, drunk driving is one of the major dangers for teenagers and young adults. Now many of you may object to your child drinking, but statistically, the numbers of minors who do so are HUGE. (And if you never drank before you were age 18, believe me, you’re in the minority!) And the numbers of young kids who get hurt in drunk driving accidents (or who have sex because they are drunk) is correspondingly enormous. So, would you rather teach your children about the dangers of driving while drunk, or forbid them to drink? (When they will drink anyway.) And is that really any different than the choice between forbidding them to have sex and making sure that IF they choose to have sex (even if you’ve warned them against it) they will be safe.
Actually, kids are not bound to have sex. They are not barn yard cats after all. Kids choose to have sex. That choice for most kids (I would say all) is both unhealthy and unwise. A very evangelical framework can influence that choice. It can and does convince many kids that waiting to have sex is the more responsible, healthy, and wise choice.
Remember that childhood is all about learning to make decisions. How many bad decisions did you make when you were a child (not just about sex)? I feel that when we give our children information and allow them to draw their own conclusions, we empower them to make healthier decisions. An evangelical framework may certainly influence that choice. But which way it goes . . . ? When I was a child I had a girlfriend who was brought up in a strict evangelical family. She was not even allowed to leave her yard unless under adult supervision. Well by the age of 15 she’d run away and was pregnant. I find that the more you inform children and then allow them to make their own decisions regarding what is right for them, the more likely they are to make intelligent decisions for themselves. This doesn’t just go for sex, but for any life decisions.
Hence, young people should be taught how to handle said sexual energies properly, and to understand and deal with the emotions relating to it, and to develop basic self-confidence and self-worth. And as well, to own their own decisions, to feel like whatever choice they made is theirs and chosen freely, not a response to pressure one way or the other and not a rebellion against pressure one way or the other.
One of the most intelligent and thoughtful statements I’ve seen here. (Not that certain others weren’t intelligent and thoughtful.)
As a last thought, before I close, let me ask, who is it, who benefits from this debate? It’s obvious that we all care about our children. We all want what is in our own beliefs, best for them. However the politics of abortion benefit those who would like to see us mass at polls and vote for them.
Are issues like abortion, healthcare, education important? Absolutely! Should we allow abortion to be a knee-jerk issue which is more important than any other? When there are issues such as poverty, the defecit, the war, the corporate stranglehold on America, freedom of speech, worship, and so much more? However if we let this debate become more important than any other . . . does that benefit us as a society?
Ultimately I would like to see abortion be legal and rare. Unless we really do (as this very informative post suggests) see women as a 2nd class citizen who are to be controlled by their “betters” and who are “evil” for having sex, then the best way to reduce abortion is to make contraception and sex-education more available. If we truly care for children then we must support them PAST birth.
And btw, if women are being punished for sex, then who are men supposed to have sex with? Since the same people who are against abortion are generally those who oppose homosexuality, then we either need to make our sons more responsible for protected sex or . . . ?
This comment was written by Lemur.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:32 pm
So is the body of a brain dead person, so organ donation would be out: even though some parts would live longer in their new bodies, it would kill the connective tissue, fat, toes, and all the other unused pieces, so donation is out.
So is an infected appendix, so appendectomy is murder.
So is cancer, so chemotherapy is murder. (Actually, at least some cancer cells can be used to create new organisms: take the cancer cell nucleus, insert it into an enucleated egg, and gestate. After an appropriate amount of time, new critter appears. New critter is very cancer prone, but it is alive, making, if I follow the logic, the cancer cell equal to the fertilized egg in the anti-choice view. No, this has NOT been tried in humans. It’s been done in mice.)
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Are there women that use abortion as a primary form of birth control? Yes, these women do in fact exist whether you acknowledge their existence or not.
Abortion are expensive and are a medical procedure. Women in the United States have a low rate of using abortions as a primary form of birth control. For example, compare the abortion rate of American women with the rate of women in some of the ex-Soviet states, such as Romania and Russia. Women in those states have less access to good contraception and are more likely to use abortion as the primary form of birth control.
And, let’s break down the “pro-life” position. The “pro-life” position is not about one’s personal use of abortion or one’s personal beliefs.
The “pro-life” or forced birth position is one that advocates the criminalization of abortion. These groups have the goal of criminalizating all abortion. That is an obvious attempt to control the sexual practices and the reproductive choices of all fertile women in the state.
What’s particularly stupid about the advocates of criminalization is that it doesn’t work. It will not lower the abortion rate. It may lower the legal abortion rate, although that depends on the actual application and practice of the law.
If you don’t believe me - look at Romania as an example. Even a totalitarian state couldn’t lower the abortion rate after the first year or so of their forced birth policies.
For more evidence: compare the abortion rates of countries from around the world. Ask yourself who has the lowest rate of abortion? What are their legal policies and, more importantly, the legal practice and availability of abortion on demand?
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:41 pm
For the record, I don’t understand how a being without a brain can be considered the equivalent of a human or a person with rights.
Embryo’s don’t have brains.
When someone’s head is filled with fluid, instead of brain tissue, how can that being be considered the equivalent of a person?
Brain death is the measure for when organs can be harvested.
I just don’t understand these people.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I personally think that Barbara hit the nail on the head in post 188.
This comment was written by dorktastic.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:55 pm
“pro-forced birth position”. Now that is an interesting twist. Is that the same as calling a pro-choicer “pro-abortion” or “pro-death”. I love labels.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Thanks for comments #193(Amp), and 192 & 195(Dianne). These are some of the salient points that the anti-choicers are either blatantly ignoring or entirely misrepresenting. You’ve both said it better than I could.
No requirement for immunization in this country, indeed.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:33 pm
“Are there women that use abortion as a primary form of birth control? Yes, these women do in fact exist whether you acknowledge their existence or not.”
To say nothing of the men who rely on women having abortions as a form of birth control… Just sayin’.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:35 pm
“pro-forced birth position”. Now that is an interesting twist. Is that the same as calling a pro-choicer “pro-abortion” or “pro-death”. I love labels.
It’s not meant as a personal swipe. But an individual can advocate legalized abortion and be personally against abortion as a choice for themselves.
If a pregnancy isn’t voluntary, then what is it? (Especially when there is no exception for rape - how is that pregnancy not a forced birth if the mother has no personal choice?)
19th Century suffragists advocated for something called voluntary motherhood. I do like that phrase: voluntary motherhood.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:42 pm
No requirement for immunization in this country, indeed.
Actually, Jake, I meant to address your comment about that, and it slipped off the queue in the comment flood. Thanks for the reminder.
Sure, as long as your children won’t be attending public school or any public school sponsored activities. So, there is, in fact, strong pressure brought to immunize your children. Most people don’t wish to or are unable to homeschool so these vaccinations wind up not being optional for the vast majority of the population. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
It may vary by state, but in every state where I have lived, immunizations are not required to attend the public schools. Those who are opposed to immunizations, for whatever reason, can fill in a waiver form which is kept by the school administration, and the student then attends class normally.
In the event of an epidemic or outbreak of one of the immunized diseases, unvaccinated students are barred from campus.
So yes, it’s voluntary, and it doesn’t require people to behave in a certain way to take advantage of their rights as citizens. Only in the event of an actual medical emergency do unvaccinated people have to clear the zone. These vaccines are both theoretically and practically optional, which is as it should be.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:50 pm
It may vary by state, but in every state where I have lived, immunizations are not required to attend the public schools.
Huh. Color me ignorant on that, then. Everywhere that I’ve lived where I’ve been aware of the rules of the public school district it has been as I’ve described. No vaccinations? No entry to public school.
But then I went and looked and although you are technically correct, most people will not know it. Go look at the “School Immunization Requirements” that you will find on most public school district sites. It states that you cannot attend school w/o meeting those requirements. It is only much later on the page where it mentions the policy that you correctly point out. No wonder I (and my parents & most parents in the US) believe it to be a requirement.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:53 pm
gengwall, I really appreciate your forthright arguments and reasoning, and your willingness to discuss the issue with those who disagree. I have enjoyed reading all of your posts.
I have a question:
Given what you’ve said about miscarriage:
Would you really support legal investigation into every incidence of miscarriage?
I have had a miscarriage — let me tell you, it would have been horrifying to go through a legal investigation as well.
Also — there are thousands, if not millions, of miscarriages every year. Who would pay for all those investigations? What about overloading the courts, etc.
I would hope that you do not support this. However, you seem to support criminalization of abortion — and if abortion is illegal, it seems to me that routine legal investigations into miscarriages would be necessary to enforce the law.
I look forward to your response.
This comment was written by prog rock.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:59 pm
In response to Niels Jackson (post 184), I have always wondered why so few pro-choice advocates are willing to endorse the right to infanticide. If one endorses the right to practice post-viability abortions, there is no compelling logical or ethical reason to oppose the right to kill an infant. There is much anthropological evidence that this practice is common to some other cultures. There is a strong ethical brief supporting this practice that has been made by philosophers such as Peter Singer. By embracing infanticide, pro-choice advocates would signal their intention not to yield an inch in this fight. Consistency in argument and thought mean much.
This comment was written by Not A Hypocrite.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Yep, the state will not go out of its way to make sure we’re aware there are options. Fascists. (Uh oh, thread collision imminent.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Our oldest daughter had a severe reaction to her first MMR shot. We had no problem getting an exemption for her for the second dose.
But in general in MN, you need to have your immunizations up to date to attend school. We had a foreign exchange student from Romania live with us last school year. Imagine her surprise when they told her she would have to get all these shots before she could go to school. We were not able to get a waiver for her - they basically forced her to get them. (It’s strange how the foreign exchange service didn’t pick up on that. I never did ask them why they didn’t tell her prior to coming here.)
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:24 pm
[...] Check it out here. [...]
This comment was written by The Lady Speaks » Pro-Life or Anti-Women?.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Robert,
I live in Louisiana, and in my parish it is mandatory that all students attending public school be vaccinated against the regular childhood illnesses. There is no “option” that I am aware of that allows a child to attend without proof of immunization. And I’m sure that this (like most policies varies from location to location).
I am one of those people that is personally not for abortion. However, I firmly believe that I do not have the moral right to force that choice onto anyone else. I wouldn’t even force it onto my own children.
Two of my children are the result of “failed” birth control, and my third child was an intentionally planned pregnancy. For me, they were alive and “persons” while they were still in utero.
The only sticky issue for me is very late term abortion, when the fetus would be viable if delivered. Other than that, I am for full access and availability of abortion. I also advocate for full sex education without religious dogma attatched. Because, I feel the place for religious and moral education is in the home, and rests on the parents.
So, I would be fine with a sex education class that taught everything from the major forms of birth control for both males and females, as well as the biological aspects of sex from the physical to the emotional. And I would include in that class that abstinence is one way to avoid pregnancy and the only sure way to avoid a STI.
So, I’m one of those weird people whose personal views do not match thier political views. Part of autonomy is the idea of free will and free choice. To place a woman in a position where she is forced to give birth or conversely forced to abort for economic or social reasons are both wrong. The choice rests with the woman alone, and those options should be both legal and readily available.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:59 pm
At many Universities and Colleges, student are required to give evidence of the Mumps, M & R shot before they can enroll in classes.
I know people who had to get booster shots because they were unable to get their childhood records transfered to the University.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:00 pm
No it isn’t. There’s no reason we can’t have a situation where the vaccine gets funding and insurance, without public schools mandating the vaccine. We have a situation where the mandatory vaccination camp is trying to force an inenviable choice upon people in order to get their way. They’re then blaming the people who are having the choice forced upon them for the possible consequences of a choice they should never have had to make and didn’t want to make.
It would be very simple for funding and insurance to take place in the absence of mandatory vaccination (which is the vaccination policy of most other counties). But the mandatory vaccination side of the argument is so intent on forcing people to comply with their will they’re not willing to shift ground.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:24 pm
The conservative Christian policy is to teach “abstinence until marriage” in the home. What we desire from public policy is to simply teach abstinence as a healthy and wise choice. We don’t expect public policy to relay religious dogma.
Yes, you do. Maybe not you personally, but the pro-life movement actively opposes teaching anything about contraception, lobbying for an abstinence-only curriculum in public schools. The movement is not just about conservative Christians teaching their own kids not to have sex until marriage–it’s about using the public school system to teach all kids that abstinence until marriage is the only way.
This comment was written by Lanoire.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Most states let parents get vaccine waivers, some have more formal policies than others, and, generally, the waiver must be based on objective evidence of health risk or philosophical opposition. There’s no need to advertise. It’s just an internet search away:
http://www.unhinderedliving.com/statevaccexemp.html
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Here’s another, better site:
http://www.909shot.com/Issues/state%20exemptions.htm
I had occasion to revisit the whole issue of infant immunization in particular so I went through a lot of this stuff several months ago.
Of course, if your children are in a private school, especially pre-school, don’t look for much sympathy from teachers and administrators, or other parents for your decision not to vaccinate. They don’t have to accommodate non-compliant parents in most states, and they will most likely view such parents as a free rider on their decision to do take the minuscule risk of vaccinating their children in order to protect the herd. Herd protection is more important for highly contagious diseases, especially those that are likely to be very serious: polio, measles, diptheria and whooping cough, for instance.
I know that some kids have a tough time with MMR, and I certainly wouldn’t get the booster if my kid had problems with the first shot, but of all the vaccines that I would want for my kid, measles and rubella would be two of my highest priorities. It is possible to get doses of vaccine for the individual diseases to cut down on side effects, but you often have to resort to a lot of legwork. The problem with measles, in particular, is that there are alot of immigrant adults who never had the vaccination, and the herd protection against measles is now at an all time low over the last 20 years. Outbreaks of measles are no longer uncommon.
Other diseases, like Hepatitis B, are infectious but not likely to be spread from child to child. The CDC’s “mandatory” vaccine policy for Hep-B is based on two annoying ideas: that it’s good to get parents in the habit of vaccine compliance, and vaccination is better than testing at-risk mothers for the disease (maternal transmission is really the only way to transmit the disease to infants). I declined this vaccine when my child was born until I could talk further to my pediatrician.
I would vaccinate my children against HPV. I think as was said above that most kids aren’t all that interested in what they are being vaccinated against — they get so many shots I can barely keep up. My six month old has had 16 separate shots already.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:21 pm
[...] The latest piece of crap had something to do with “In God We Trust” being on our currency and leaving the country if I didn’t agree. I wrote back that I was packing my bags. I included a few choice links to people who wrote rather well about how wrong these pseudo christians are to expect the country to bow down and follow the religion they chose. I doubt the links were clicked. Even if they were, I doubt the articles were read. Still, if I ever get an anti-choice email from this particular pseudo christian, I shall write back and include links to these three pages. I don’t expect them to be read, either, but they are really worth a click. (Thanks to Shakespeare’s Sister –> Alas, a Blog for the trail to Molly.) [...]
This comment was written by Zen Zoo » Blog Archive » Hello, Molly, it’s so nice to see you….Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:22 pm
One other point regarding vaccination, particularly for hepatitis B and HPV: Both of these viruses live only in human hosts. So these diseases can be eradicated with vaccination, at least potentially. Vaccinate enough people in this generation and you may never need to vaccinate anyone for these diseases again. It happened with small pox. It could happen with polio and other viruses if we only have the will to do it.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:47 pm
There are several potential reasons:
First and foremost, an infant is not dependent on any other person for its food, oxygen, etc. And its life does not jeopardize any other person’s life. A fetus, even a nine month old fetus, is, biologically, a parasite and its existence can and relatively frequently does endanger its host.
Second, there are numerous differences between a fetus, even at nine months development, and a newborn baby. The ciruculatory system, hemoglobin, digestive system, and nervous system all change profoundly at or very soon after birth. Do any of these changes matter in terms of the “personhood” of the fetus versus the baby? Possibly. The uterine environment may not provide enough oxygen to allow for cortical function, so the fetus may always be unconcious whereas the newborn is certainly concious. The newborn also receives a huge amount of sensory input that may be helpful or even necessary for conciousness.
That having been said, I’m a conservative type, personally. I favor restricting abortion in the third trimester (ie around the 25th week of gestation) to cases in which the fetus has a fatal defect incompatible with life outside the uterus or endangers the mother’s life. I feel that while it is more likely that these fetuses are not concious, the evidence is not conclusive and therefore one should err on the side of caution. However, if a fetus has a defect that is not compatible with life or is endangering the mother, then the more cautious thing to do is to perform the abortion. In fact, this is treating the fetus much like an infant would be treated: a newborn that had a defect that was incompatible with life would probably be treated with comfort care only to ease its suffering as it died rather than torturing it with futile care.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Got this via Balloon Juice. Read Wilhelm Reich’s THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM. Fascist regimes and religions want to impose sexual restrictions on the proles. Frustrated, guilty populations, fearful of punishment for thinking about what comes naturally (sex) are easy to steer into other venues, like warmaking and attacking the “other.”
This comment was written by Bob in Pacifica.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:34 pm
I just had to jump in on this:
This comment was written by Lu.an infant is not dependent on any other person for its food
Excuse me? Have you ever been anywhere near a baby?
Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Gengwall said “The liberal countries you alude to are truly effective at getting the contraception message out there. We don’t deny that success. But since we think that it is irresponsible and ill advised for teens to be engaging in sexual activity in the first place, we aren’t impressed with any results that don’t include a corresponding drop in teen sex to begin with. And certainly, we would not promote any strategy that was “contraception only” any more than you would promote one that was “abstinence only”. I think we both should be able to agree that the balanced approach is the best.”
Well I have some news about this one. The “liberal” countries that have better teen sexual health outcomes, including negligible abortion rates, and have open access to information and services ALSO have teens who delay first sexual experience longer than American teens (USA 15.4, Netherlands 17.7) and they also have fewer partners by half. This has been researched and I recently studied this exact thing last summer. Contrary to American conventional wisdom, being more “liberal” in the approach to sex ed does NOT equal more sex. It has the opposite effect. It is a fact. If you truly believe young people are valuable assets you would believe they have a RIGHT to accurate sexuality information and access to reproductive health services, we would RESPECT young people to make informed, healthy decisions regarding their own lives, and therefore they would have the RESPONSIBILITY to be good citizens by protecting their health and the health of others. They have approached issues of sexuality with an attitude that is a normal, healthy part of being a human. The result of this culture is one that sees less STI’s, unintended pregnancies, and abortions in teens, all while delaying sex longer than American teens and having fewer partners. Perhaps we should pay attention.
This comment was written by velouria.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:48 pm
I think Dianne’s point is that it’s not dependent on one specific person (i.e., the person who’s uterus it occupies).
This comment was written by dorktastic.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Lu,
Infants, like small children, the bedridden, the paralyzed, the comotose, the severely disabled, the elderly, older children, teenagers, and most adults other than self-reliant farmers are dependent on Society for their food.
But we do not have people who are entirely dependent on another specific person (with some to a greater extent than others) for food.
The hospitalized require doctors and nurses, but not any particular doctor or nurse. The severely disabled require assistance, but not any particular assistant. Other than the lone hunter-gatherer, we all require assistance from Society, but none of us get to name the specific person.
For an infant no one person is required- not even the biological mother- otherwise the entire concept of adoption- and of course wetnurses- wouldn’t be possible.
This comment was written by Helen of Troy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:20 pm
The arguments for one extreme or the other are so out of balance they become obtuse.
I find it difficult to understand how a person can clearly see the rights of a woman and potential mother and the rightful authority she holds over her body and not see the sovereign life of a child and their body and how respect for that life is important as well. Hair splitting over killing at home being legitimized by killing on a battle field shows little real thought and no compassion. Just because GW says its OK doesn’t make it so. Even with Augustine’s Just War arguments, (very few conflicts ever truly make the marks,) killing a person in war is barbaric and murderous. What can we possibly justify in 100,000 people dead in Iraq and nearly 3000 of the Allied troops? For what? That is the basis of an argument to kill more human life?
As far as the criminalization of the abortionists or those using them, have our brethren in Christ forgotten the first great gift of the Creator is that of free will? The first and still most prevalent sin was not sex or the flesh (as Platonic beliefs would have it) but choosing our own self over the better choice of others. Why single out one sin? Take the beam from your own eye, and then help your neighbor with the splinter in theirs.
My goodness, a toe? A parasite? Weighing the relative worth of a miscarriage? Saving people from disease is weighed on the vector that could get them sick? Mosquito OK, sexual contact not? That argument leads to the stupid thinking that HIV and HEP C folks got what they deserve. Barbaric! If we are waiting to solve the argument before we come to realize the truth before us, we will only see it was too late.
What would happen if the energy in this dialog were directed to loving each other and helping with each others burdens? Maybe more folks would have their baby’s if they knew the body was their to help them instead of condemning? Maybe we would stop trying to fill the void in each of us with sex and stuff if we experianced the true love of sacrificing for someone else? You can’t legislate it and you can’t claim to know what is a mystery, the oragin of a soul is not for us to weigh, it simply is. Blessings.
This comment was written by Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:37 pm
BTW. The frequent references that Catholic is synonymous with Pro-Life and no birth control are out of touch with many in the faith. Most Jesuit scholars I read are Pro-Choice as is a lot of the laity. Most of my devoutly Catholic friends have small families, it isn’t just rhythm.
This comment was written by Rock.Also while we are pointing out stereo types, I am Evangelical, Holiness, Christian, Socialist, anti war, anti death penalty, pacifist, Anti criminalization, and all for making abortion a thing of the past accept for ending pregnancies that would result in a terminal child or endanger the mother. There are lots of us, we just don’t get on the news.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 12:05 am
I feel kinda in the middle about this debate…I do not believe in suffering of any kind…..I also believe it is wrong to judge another human being..period. I had two unplanned children….it was the hardest thing I’ve had to do….I don’t know if I could do it again, at my age….thank heavens for adoption…. But if I did have an abortion if I ever, felt I had no other choice,(the irony of it that legalized abortion is called “Choice” when infact most women who have them feel that they have no other choice) I would want my tubes tied or removed as to prevent another pregnancy,and I would feel like I had done murder and most likely drink myself to death. I am an animal lover, but I know animals are more protected from suffering than humans….with the exception of cows, pigs chicken,deer,ducks,lab mice and monkeys…..ALL SUFFERING MUST STOP….STOP IT NOW….think about it!
This comment was written by Rebecca.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:22 am
[...] Interesting article about hypocrisy and “pro-life” [...]
This comment was written by jeremyjarratt.com » mud up the plates, Jim! » links to see and do.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 4:51 am
Lu: dorkatastic and Helen of Troy have already said it, but…a baby isn’t dependent on any particular person. Any competent adult can feed and care for the baby, not just its mother. This is, of course, different from a fetus which is dependent on one particular person for its nutrition and other needs. Sorry about the confusion caused by sloppy writing in the original post.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 6:49 am
I’m afraid this thread has run too long for me to be prepared to spend the rest of my day reading it. I read slow, and I’ve got other things I want to do.
But, a few points:
Whatever the views of “the pro-life movement” as perceived by anti-abortion people in this thread, the fact is that the ones who oppose sex education have commandeered our educational apparatus in the US and forced “abstinance-only” miseducation on American students. I have not heard an outcry against this from the anti-choice movement.
This is disturbing because - as I would assume any person truly concerned with ways to prevent abortion would have studied and learned - early sex education in schools reduces the likelihood of early intercourse as well as reducing the rate of teenage pregnancy and of unwanted pregnancy (and abortion) in general, as well as STDs.
Laws against abortion do not prevent abortion or reduce the rate of abortion, they simply increase the rate of illegal abortion and thus the rate of maternal death.
Comprehensive sex education is the only thing we know of that really reduces the likelihood of pre-marital and pre-adult intercourse and thus the need for abortions - yet there is no discernable voice from within the anti-abortion movement to demand such sex education. Abstinance-only sex ed, especially as it is currently being practiced in the US, is actually counterproductive to this end, yet it is the one the anti-choicers support.
Europe makes early sex education in schools mandatory and yet European young people engage in reproductive sex later than Americans who receive abstinance-only sex “education”. We have known this for a very long time, yet it is hardly acknowledged in America. Instead, Europe is portrayed as being unusually debauched.
This is consistent with other lies that familiarly emanate from the American right-wing, such as that Europeans receive inferior medical care because they have “socialized” insurance or medicine.
It’s not an accident - the very things that would be most likely to reduce the “unwanted” nature of a pregnancy are at the top of the list of things conservatives - includling most anti-choicers - wish to eliminate. This is absolutely manifest in their support for increasing the level of economic hardship for most Americans.
I’ve had many, many arguments with people who believed “abortion is murder” and/or supported laws against abortion over the last 35 years, and I have yet to find one whose position did not require them to misunderstand women who have abortions.
Some of the people I’ve had that argument with were female friends of mine, but it did not change the fact that at rock bottom they did not believe the needs of women who seek abortions.
The anti-abortion people in this thread have been unusually polite and thoughtful, but I have not seen a single thing in this thread (having read about two-thirds of it) that disabuses me of Ampersand’s original point and the perception I have held of the anti-choice position for more than three decades.
Ultimately, I believe that anti-choice people fall into two categories - those who have been very lucky, and those who haven’t, but neither of whom understand that they are really no better than anyone else.
This comment was written by Avedon.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:12 am
Rboert, in Maryland your child must have all of the vaccinations to go to daycare and to preschool as well as to primary, secondary, and tertiary educational institutions. Waivers must be signed by a physician, and there is a very short list of allowable criteria. My daughter actually got rubella from her first MMR (true for 1 in 3,000 vaccinations), and followed that up with a series of ear infections, so we had to get a waiver to delay her chicken pox vaccine in order to let her continue in daycare.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:21 am
gengwall, you wrote:
I have been thinking for the past day or so about whether or not I wanted to take this bait–and while I know you meant it as lighthearted non-malicious joking, and I accept it as such, it is bait nonetheless–and I have decided I want to, if only briefly. The post to which you are referring (which, for anybody else who may be interested, is on my blog and is called Know Thine Enemy: Fetal Personhood as Metaphorical Thinking) was not about you specifically, though I used your words as examples of what I was talking about. The piece was about applying to the anti-choice argument for fetal personhood the idea that metaphorical thinking is something we all engage in, that metaphorical thinking is how we create the fundamental ideological, ontological and other infrastructures of our psyches and of our cultures. This is not something we are conscious of doing, though it is something we can become conscious of in terms of how it shapes our lives.
I would submit that at the most fundamental levels the differences between the pro- and anti-choice movements boil down to different metaphorical ways of constructing not only the existence of the fetus–is it a person? is it something that is alive but “less than” a person? is it an object that has no status whatsoever?–but also a pregnant woman’s body–is she a life-support-system for a fetus? is she a vessel carrying a person waiting to be born? is she a free and autonomous individual, whose decisions are entirely her own and no one else’s business? All of these ways of understanding are metaphorical on some level, and while you and I can agree to disagree personally on, say, whether or not the fetus is a person and whether or not it is therefore just to view a pregnant woman’s body as, basically, the vessel in which that person exists before it is born, when we start talking about making social policy based on those views, it is, I think, extremely important that we be as honest as possible in investigating and interrogating not simply each other’s underlying assumptions, but also the metaphorical infrastructures of those assumptions.
I recognize that this may seem ridiculously abstract, but metaphors matter quite a lot on this level, and they can mean the difference between life and death. It is metaphorical thinking that allows racists to define non-whites as non-people; it is metaphorical thinking that allows the military to talk about civilian deaths as collateral damage; it is metaphorical thinking, ultimately, that allows torturers to do their jobs (i.e., this is not a human being like me that I am hurting; it is something else); George W. Bush’s famous “axis of evil” is an example of metaphorical thinking; and, finally, deciding whether or not abortion is homicide, justifiable or otherwise, is also a case of metaphorical thinking: is it like the homicides that are reported on the nightly news or not?
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:21 am
Rock, I used to think that it was nice to stay above the fray, to show disdain and exasperation for all sides — with charity, of course — to those who seek and have abortions, and to those who seek criminalization; to pretend that we can both celebrate autonomy of the mother and the “sovereignty” of the fetus (an oxymoron if there ever was one). Then I decided that the cause of liberty was simply more important.
This is for anyone posting who keeps saying: but I personally don’t feel this way or that –” I don’t personally hate women, I personally think contraception should be available,” or my personal favorite, “most Catholics don’t really feel that way” etc. It’s not about what you or I feel. It’s about how society is ordered. Either you think, in the end, that it’s okay to force women to bear children they don’t want under certain circumstances or you don’t. I think it’s okay to significantly limit the availability of abortion after 24 weeks with very liberal exceptions for the mother’s health. I think this because of any number of discussions I’ve had on this board and others about fetal development, legal concepts such as laches, and so on. These discussions, however messy or gruesome you seem to think they are, are how people make fair, rational and practical policies.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 9:18 am
*clap**clap**clap* Barbara, you go, girl! You’re absolutely right - public policy does arise out of the “sense of the meeting” that our elected representatives get from us (however slanted, distorted, edited, or censored by staff, lobbyists, and media outlets it may be). I think the U.S. is facing a sea change in how people perceive the intersection between personal beliefs and public laws and policies. The abortion debate is where we have front-row seats to witness the sea change in progress.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:04 am
Lee - A new thread just started in the Ethics and Morality forum at christianforums.com addresses your point on a universal scale. The title - “Legislating morality”. I, for one, hope you are correct. I welcome an environment where personal belief and public policy are separate but equal in how we live our lives and interact with each other.
Incidentally, I think the Sex Ed debate is even more illustrative of the effort to interject presonal beliefs into public policy. I think that is what Lanoire was getting at in responding to my statements about Christians’ position on abstinence. I will readily admit that “abstinence only” policies are a direct attempt to force personal beliefs and morality into public policy. But not all Christians are abstinence only devotees and many, none moreso than me, would prefer that the school not say anything about the moral aspects of abstinence.
It is true for many in the abortion debate as well, of course. But we don’t need biblical morality or what God thinks to make a case against abortion (even though many of us foolishly use that reasoning anyway).
I don’t want to stray too far off topic. But I think your’s and Barbara’s observations have relevance.
velouria wrote - “Well I have some news about this one. The “liberal” countries that have better teen sexual health outcomes, including negligible abortion rates, and have open access to information and services ALSO have teens who delay first sexual experience longer than American teens (USA 15.4, Netherlands 17.7) and they also have fewer partners by half.”
Well, if this is true, great. It has definately not been my experience either personally or anecdotally from anyone I have ever heard talk about the subject. The general consensus that I have heard straight from Europeans’ mouths is that Americans are a bunch of puritanical prudes. Every European I have ever heard talk about sex practically brags about how they do it younger, more often, more extramaritally, and more guilt freely than we Americans. I would love to get a link to the research you alude to. I would be everjoyed if it were true. But so far, I have only your word against the hundreds of Europeans I have engaged directly in conversation on the subject.
Richard - every time you write something I get smarter. Glad to have inspired you.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:27 am
Richard - I just realized my above comment could be interpreted as sarcastic and egocentric. I didn’t mean it that way. I actually mean that your writing helps me undertand things better.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:41 am
I’ve also read about teenagers in the Netherlands engaging in sex later then American teens. I don’t have a link, but I found it when I was googling comparative abortion rates.
The Netherlands also has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world. The rate is, I believe, 6.7 per 1000 women. In contrast Canada and New Zealand and the US is around 20 per 1000 women. This info. is all over the web if you google “abortion rates”.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:50 am
It takes pretty creative reasoning to start with the natural relationship between sex and pregnancy and then arrive at the conclusion that pregnancy is “punishment for having sex.”
In fact pregnancy is the normal, natural, fully predictable consequence of sexual behavior. Which means that abortion, for the most part, is simply a device for helping people escape the consequences of their actions.
One doesn’t need a moral compass to foresee the problems of a society where people are “protected” from the consequences of their actions.
This comment was written by johngaltline.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:52 am
I’ve also read about teenagers in the Netherlands engaging in sex later then American teens. I don’t have a link, but I found it when I was googling comparative abortion rates.
The Netherlands also has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world. The rate is, I believe, 6.7 per 1000 women. In contrast Canada and New Zealand and the US is around 20 per 1000 women. The information on pregnancy, abortion, and sexuality can be found on the web if you google “abortion rates”.
This comment was written by geoduck2.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Thanks, gengwall, I appreciate it!
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 12:53 pm
As a result of conversations here and elsewhere, I wrote a LTE that was published in the Trenton Times yesterday about Contraception for Life (cross-posted at dailykos, land of comment threading) Spread that meme!
This comment was written by Doctor Science.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:16 pm
I find the opinions of some of the pro-abortion crowd in this thread very strange. On the one hand they are (rightly) opposed to pregnant women being coerced into a situation where their bodies are used for the benefit of someone else without regard to their wishes. On the other hand they’re really enthusiastic about coercion being used to get people vaccinated, on the basis that others will benefit from something being done to the vaccinees body. You just can’t logically hold both of those positions at the same time - this is a case of someone wanting a policy enacted and selectively choosing principles in order to justify this.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Is Abortion Murder?
Via smijer comes a continuation of the consistency debate (which includes a great chart!).A lot of people who favor forced childbirth for pregnant women say that they believe that an abortion, even early in pregnancy, is identical to child murder….
This comment was written by 10,000 Monkeys and a Camera.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Barbara,
This comment was written by Rock.It is not trying to be above the fray. (I live and work in the middle of the “fray”) I thought I made it clear that dictating a person’s choice is wrong. Free will and free agency are IMO God given. The logical extension of that thought is that all effected stakeholders rights need to be taken into account when one decides to exercise free will as it can impinge on others. You have every right to swing your arms, until one of them hits someone’s face. Our choices have consequences that can affect others. My hope is that folks acknowledge that there are inherent rights and freedoms people are endowed with, however there is a way to live that does the least harm to others while going about seeking the things we feel are important. Attempting to relegate the time or point a life is or a person isn’t does nothing to increase the value we see in each other and our worth. When we compartmentalize the killing of people it gives tacit approval that others use to devaluate and support their excuse for killing or harming others. Why is it so hard to see that as we raise the consciousness of the value of all life it will help in how others are treated in other areas? Love is the one power that raises us all. Blessings.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:37 pm
So you see forced pregnancy/childbirth as equivalent to mandatory vaccination? Okey-dokey. It seems to me that vaccination against deadly infectious diseases also benefits the person being vaccinated. But maybe I’m mistaken. How does being forced to give birth benefit the person being forced to give birth? What potentially fatal illness are they now protected from suffering themselves & spreading to the rest of their community? How does 9 months of significant impact on one’s body compare to the effects on one’s body of vaccination? Perhaps a better analogy would be forced pregnancy vs forced sterilization? But I don’t think you’ll find any pro-choicers here in favor of forced sterilization as public policy and law.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:54 pm
I will readily admit that “abstinence only” policies are a direct attempt to force personal beliefs and morality into public policy. But not all Christians are abstinence only devotees and many, none moreso than me, would prefer that the school not say anything about the moral aspects of abstinence.
I’m pulling this quote but also referencing the “but Christians support contraception!” statements made above.
On the one hand, good for you. On the other, I do not think you are the majority that you’re claiming to be. The people who elected Shrub and his handlers were demographically Christian, and part of his campaign platform both times was the ill-conceived *ahem* abstinence-only sex ed. People who voted him in knew he would take real sex ed out of the schools, and they knew his administration would deny funding to international family planning services who so much as mentioned abortion, and they knew the same administration would take down CDC information on preventing STDs. This wasn’t something hidden in a bill or shoved under the desk to sign, this was a major part of Bush’s campaign.
They voted for him anyway.
Not saying you did, saying that Bush’s supporters knew what he was pushing when they punched the card.
In Missouri earlier this week, the House passed a measure to eliminate funding for contraception for poor women, despite massive evidence that this will lead to an increase in MO’s abortion rate. Pro-choice people were not behind this measure; they fought it tooth and nail and still lost to the pro-life and the “let’s just not spend money on poor people, period” factions, all of whom were voted in. And again, your so-called reasonable pro-life people who favor contraception voted for these people.
If you say you are not a racist, and in your personal life you do everything you can to promote equality (though not too much equality, as the White man should provide spiritual leadership — not what you said, but I assure you, that’s exactly what women hear when you say it) and then cast your votes for politicians who have campaigned to bring back separate drinking fountains, you are as guilty as they are. Again, I am not claiming you personally vote one way or another, I’m saying that rhetoric about how the pro-life camp embraces contraception rings false.
Along those same lines, there are some (very few) people who are pro-choice and don’t support programs to teach and provide contraception, or social programs to assist young mothers providing for their children. These people are called libertarians, and they believe in a special reality where everyone would be much better off if no one had to pay taxes. Almost to a person, everyone else in the pro-choice movement understands that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to first reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and second, provide women with what they need for medical care and feeding and housing their children (including the children they already have).
A final thought on vaccinations: your unvaccinated kid can give my infant (who is too young for that vaccination) whooping cough, which can easily kill her. Your unvaccinated kid can spread it to any and all of his classmates who haven’t been vaccinated (or are among those for whom vaccinations are ineffective) and disrupt the classroom as half the kids are sick or taken out by their parents in fear of their getting sick, and if everyone is very lucky, none of them (or the people they contact) will die. That’s why.
This comment was written by M.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 2:11 pm
It is the nature of vaccines that if you don’t innoculate 80% of the population you don’t get the benefit of something called “herd immunity.” Herd immunity is important because there are always people who cannot get vaccinated. Case in point: infants under 18 months are not vaccinated with MMR. But if 80% of the overall population is immune, the unvaccinated are, for all intents and purposes, well-protected. If the rate of immunity drops below that, then outbreaks of communicable diseases are correspondingly more likely. In European countries where a sizable number of parents have exercised the right not to vaccinate, diseases such as measles and whooping cough have returned.
Other populations that cannot be vaccinated include some children with asthma and other conditions who take steroids; HIV+ individuals (for some kinds of vaccines); and other people who are immuno-compromised.
Technically speaking you don’t HAVE to vaccinate your kids until they are going to be around other people’s kids in a formal, recurring way — e.g., in daycare, pre-school and school. That’s where the “coercion” kicks in, and even then, at least in the U.S. there are ways to get exempted. There is also a vaccine compensation board that is at least supposed to compensate children who have been adversely affected by vaccines.
So — vaccines represent a minimal bodily intrusion with a very small potential for adverse consequences that are compensated for in the event they do occur; there is a clear public health imperative for the majority of any given discrete population to have immunity against what used to be called comon childood diseases; everyone, vaccinated or not, benefits when herd immunity is established; and you can exempt yourself if you really want to.
So, where is the parallel to abortion?
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
In addition, many people who object to vaccines actually object to vaccines that are administered to preverbal children. In other words, they object more to the vaccine schedule than to the vaccines themselves. It used to be that many vaccines weren’t given until a kid was getting ready for kindergarten or first grade, but now, by the time a child is two years old, he’s probably been vaccinated against 10 or 12 separate conditions, some of which have combined vaccines, but some of which require multiple shots (or boosters):
Mumps, measles, rubella
Chicken Pox
HIB
Hep-B
Polio
Diptheria, pertussis, tetanus
Rotovirus
Pneumococcal virus (can’t remember whether that’s different from HIB)
And now, I am told, Hep-A is on the way (and has been in California for some time).
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
This entry was posted by Ampersand and is filed under Abortion & reproductive rights, “Partial Birth” Abortion, Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, ortrackback from your own site.
This comment was written by Roode History.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Jake;
No I don’t see pregnancy/childbirth as equivalent to mandatory vaccination, that would be a stupid thing to say and is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. I’m saying people are invoking one principle against abortion and its opposite in support of mandatory vaccination. And I’m saying they can’t logically and sincerely hold both principles at the same time.
Sure, vaccination protects the person vaccinated against infectious disease. But if you read what is being written people aren’t justifying mandatory vaccination on that grounds. They’re justifying it on the basis that school kids need to be vaccinated to protect other people from catching the disease from them (’herd immunity’).
Now, I am sure lots of you really support mandatory vaccination because the vaccinee benefits from the vaccine. But if you believe this then why are you just picking on kids who attend public schools? Surely you should support mandatory vaccination for everyone and not tie the program to school attendance? But you’re not willing to do this. So we get some rather dishonest and dubious logic about mandatory vaccination being okay for school kids because the intervention benefits other people. Even though you wouldn’t support that reasoning in other situations.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Nik, I think part of the reason for tying it to school attendance is the “herd immunity” — when you go to school you are exposing a large population (herd) to whatever diseases you may have, and conversely exposing yourself to whatever diseases that large population may have. (Every parent can tell you that with each kid who goes to school, the entire household goes through a round of colds and other illnesses before becoming immune to that batch of bugs.)
The other part, probably, is that it’s simply easier to enforce the requirement for kids who are going to school.
You are correct that both forced vaccination and forced childbirth are infringements on bodily autonomy. The first is a small infringement to benefit a large number of people, including the vaccinee; the second is a large infringement to benefit an embryo or fetus that, until sometime in the second trimester at the earliest, can’t be considered a person in any meaningful sense.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 2:58 pm
FWIW — I have never thought it appropriate to force people to be vaccinated, but I do think it’s appropriate that if they aren’t they shouldn’t be in certain settings — such as working in a hospital or in daycare.
I’m not picking on kids who are in school. This is how vaccine administration has been structured since I was a small child. Hospitals, colleges, public schools and so on make their employees get vaccinated as well — it has to do with a lot of people, many of whom are vulnerable, being in very close contact in less than completely hygienic conditions.
It’s annoying to be told that one “really thinks” things that one hasn’t actually said.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Boy this post has legs. I can’t wait to see what is here when I jump on Alas tomorrow. Thanks all for the civility.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Barbara;
Firstly, I personally don’t buy mandatory vaccination for reasons of herd immunity what-so-ever. If you can’t justify a medical intervention based upon the benefit to the person receiving the intervention, I don’t feel you can justify it at all. I think that’s basic medical ethics, and I’m not sure that someone who disagrees with me on that could take the hippocratic oath.
Secondly, the ‘really thinks’ comment wasn’t aimed at you in particular. I am sure that plenty of people do support mandatory vaccination because it benefits the kid mandatorily vaccinated and wouldn’t happen otherwise. I think that’s the current reason for the push with HPV. But with HPV even standard reasons for mandatory vaccination (against conditions like measles) don’t work. The disease doesn’t spread like wildfire in the way that measles does. If you have HPV you’re not threatening someone just by breathing the same air as them.
And - most of all - with the HPV vaccine waiting until someone is a adult and letting them make their mind up themselves about vaccination is an option. That’s makes ethically justifying HPV vaccination very different to justifying most of the vaccinations we’re currently used to. I think it’s possible to question the wisdom of vaccinating children for HPV at all. So I’ve very, very sceptical about trying to push parents into vaccinating them.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:39 pm
And - most of all - with the HPV vaccine waiting until someone is a adult and letting them make their mind up themselves about vaccination is an option.
Except that by the time you’re an adult, unless you’re in the minority that has had no unprotected sex whatsoever (no intercourse, no heavy petting) by age 18, there’s a good chance you’ve already contracted HPV and the vaccine is useless. That’s why it makes the most sense to be immunized against HPV before the thought of sex has even crossed your mind. (My 9-year-old is getting carted to the doctor the instant a vaccine is available.)
If everyone (both male and female) got immunized early against HPV, it might be possible to create herd immunity at least to some strains (I understand the vaccine will not protect against all of them). If not, though, this is one case where there’s an obvious and huge benefit to the vaccinee.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Rock wrote:
I disagree. Once you have decided that a fetus is a person–and as I read you, that seems to be what you imply–you have already and by definition called into question how one understands the value and worth of the free will and free agency of the pregnant woman who carries that fetus, because once you have decided the fetus is a person you have decided that woman is not simply herself, but is also a container for someone who is not herself, and once you make her a container you have by definition devalued who she is as herself.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:58 pm
“If you can’t justify a medical intervention based upon the benefit to the person receiving the intervention, I don’t feel you can justify it at all.”
A person who is vaccinated benefits from the vaccine. I was trying to explain why it is that, from a public health perspective, it’s important to get as many people vaccinated as possible in order that others can ALSO benefit from vaccination even if they themselves don’t get vaccinated. Right now, those who opt not to get their children vaccinated are benefiting greatly from those who do. They won’t know it, of course, until they form a critical mass and childhood diseases make a comeback, as measles has already started to.
Re HPV: Wiping out a disease is a worthy goal no matter how the disease is contracted. A hundred years ago many people justified the poor treatment of TB victims, in particular, with the statement that “the wages of sin is death.” If you want to put your children at higher risk of cervical cancer to prove a point, I guess that’s your business.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Richard J. N.
I personally hold that I can no more make that distinction (when one has a soul) with certainty than I can tell how exactly all this life came to be. It is a mystery. I therefore lean on the reasoning that I know when all that is needed is there to be a person, accept nourishment, and that is conception.
I would not consider a mother as a “container.” Any more than does a nursing woman become merely a source of food. (Good Grief!) Once one recognizes that a fetus is a person we have acknowledged that consideration must be made for how ones actions can affect them too, not exclusivly. If the fetus is a person greater care might develop in how we treat the responsibility in our relationships that include sex. I see greater esteem, a woman with a baby never ceases to be herself, she is providing care and sacrificing for another in a most profound and intimate way.
Quite frankly much of what I see argued and debated here has more to do with power and with control than with caring for the people involved. True power is not something demanded or deserved it is something you express. The ultimate expression of power is love; it is the ability not to express power, but to restrain it… to love others as ourselves. (Cloud)
One of the most profound loves that we can share is the love we show towards those that are dependant on us for their daily needs. In taking care of a friend who was paralyzed from smoke inhalation (the fire she set passing out drunk while smoking) I was moved deeper into the margins of what is life, and what is personhood than I thought possible. Little did I know it was just the beginning. Since that time I have cared for MS, Down, stroke, victims of violence, brain damaged addicts, each time I thought I finally got it, than I held my children… I have come to doubt I ever will get it, until I have let go of the entire ego left in me. I see all life as a gift and what we do with it determines the value that we hold for others and ourselves. Blessings.
This comment was written by Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Barbara post 257,
Well spoken.
This comment was written by Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
As a generally left-leaning person, I still can’t find myself supporting abortion. I don’t believe that we have the right to commit violence against anyone, except a restraining type of violence, i.e., jail.
A foetus is of course going to become a full-fledged human being someday. How do we decide at which point in the life cycle someone becomes a full-fledged human being, you know, one who counts? Is it birth? Is it at 1 year? Maybe 21? Perhaps 6 months gestation? It all seems rather arbitrary unless we simply acknowledge that the life of a human begins at conception.
A woman certainly has a right over her own body. And we must work so that she may exercise that right from the very beginning. No woman should become pregnant, if she doesn’t so desire. With the contraceptions available today, this is a reality.
For me, realizing that there is vast disagreement over this issue, I’d prefer that both sides would discuss things more rationally. And I do mean both sides. I’ve seen lots of ‘pro-lifers’ who simply insult, and certainly not listen. But I’ve also been insulted, castigated, etc., by ‘pro-choicers’ for simply voicing my opinion. And I wish that we could work together to make abortions exceedingly rare, if not completely non-existent. It is a woman’s issue, as well as an unborn child issue. And women must be empowered to make their own decisions concerning sex, and to use proper contraception.
This comment was written by mike.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
DUH….
Ever notice at the congressional signing ceremonies for abortion bills that the attendees are all fat old bald white men?! and how about this from a state senator bill napoli in south dakota when asked if he can think of reasonable exception to the south daakota’s ban on abortion:
“A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”
only religious virgins can be raped? so as a younger woman my secular mother would have had to bear the child of her rapist?!
This comment was written by Len.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Rock said:
“Assuming one is mature enough to make choices regarding having sexual relationships, should imply one is willing to deal with the consequences of our actions. Pregnancy is a distinct possibility (one of many) of consensual sex and the value of that potential individual life demands (to some of us) a higher sense of responsibility for our actions than forcing that very creation to suffer consequences as a result of our choices.”
If a woman gets pregnant after having sex, having an abortion is one way to deal with it. It is not about maturity or immaturity, it is about believing that the fetus is worth more than the woman it is growing in. If the fetus has the same rights as a person, then the woman will accordingly loose the right to freedom and autonomy. People will always sex for pleasure, sex that is non-procreative. I surely wouldn’t want to live in a world where women could only have sex if they wanted to get pregnant and have children. Would you?
This comment was written by tonochujo.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:35 pm
[...] I’d say the latter, but since this is a matter of divining underlying motivations it’s a hard case to prove. Still, you can produce a lot of evidence in its favor, and today Ampersand does exactly that using the table format so characteristic of my own blogging habits. [...]
This comment was written by Patterico’s Pontifications » Kevin Drum Praises False Dichotomies Regarding Abortion.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2006 at 11:09 pm
On Richard’s post, this part bothered me a bit:
Specifically, the examples regarding a pregnant woman’s body seemed slanted: You provided a reasonable sounding pro-choice example (”Is she a free and autonomous individual?”) contrasted with two views that both relegate the woman’s status to an object (a life support system, a vessel) with the necessary implication that the pro-life view will be one of those.
I’m sure this wasn’t intentional, but I’d like to point out that rather then referring to her as a vessel, the pro-life “reasonable” view (balancing the pro-choice one) would be more along the lines of: “Is she a person who’s autonomy may be considered against those of the fetus”. Or something like that. As it stands, there was a clear bias that gave it a disingenuous feel.
This comment was written by Daniel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 5:20 am
[...] So anyways, in another thread on Alas, vaccinations have surfaced due to the controversial HPV vaccine. What was interesting to me was that instead of the debate being about whether or not trace amounts of mercury are going to cause reactions, or whether by immunizing against everything we are weakening ourselves against everything, the theme is whether forced immunizations are similar to forced pregnancies. Gee wiz, I’d never even considered it that way, but I can see how the comparison could be made. So it got me to thinking, and here is how I feel the two are different, and how they are the same. [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Are Vaccination Requirements the Same as Forced Pregnancy?.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 5:46 am
Daniel–
Your point deserves a response. Unfortunately, I will be out of town today and might not be around tomorrow either. I will respond when I can get back to a computer.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 6:46 am
Ampersand:
Hmmm. Let’s apply this analysis to the pro choice-for-women anti choice-for-men position (+C4W-C4M). It’s a little more complex, because +C4W-C4M advocates argue that they have two goals: That women should have the sole decision about what happens to their bodies, and that born children should have the support of both parents. (By support I mean either or both financial support and care.)
In contrast, C4M advocates tend to think that the +C4W-C4M movement is motivated by a desire - perhaps a subconscious desire - to deny men any post-copulative reproductive choice - essentially to punish them for getting women pregnant.
I can’t make a nice chart, but let’s look at some of the policies supported by +C4W-C4M advocates to see how well suited they are to meeting these goals:
1. Policy: Pregnant women should be allowed to have abortions, even if the father is opposed.
Women’s Bodily Autonomy? Yes.
Support Children? Yes. Mother may want the abortion because she is unwilling to support the child. If denied an abortion, the woman might evade her legal obligation to do so, so allowing abortions in this case ensures that any children which are born are more likely to be supported by their mothers.
Punish Men? Yes. Some men may have deep moral or emotional objections to the destruction of their unborn children. Others may wish to become fathers.
2. Policy: Pregnant women should not be required to have an abortion, even if the father wants her to have one.
Women’s Bodily Autonomy? Yes.
Support Children? No. Father may want the abortion because he is unwilling to support the child. Such a father might evade any legal obligation to do so, so not requiring abortions in this case ensures that any children which are born are less likely to be supported by their fathers.
Punish Men? Yes. Men are made fathers against their will. Some are forced to support their unwanted children.
3. Policy: Pregnant women should not be required to have an abortions, even if she is unwilling or unable to support the child.
Autonomy? Yes.
Support? No. See 1 above.
Punish? Yes. In addition to 2 above, mother’s unwillingness to have an abortion means that it is more likely that the full burden of supporting the child will fall on him.
4 Policy: Children not given up for adoption must be supported by both parents.
Autonomy? Weak No. Any obligation which attaches to a choice reduces the mother’s freedom to make that choice, i.e., not to make another choice. Nevertheless, she still has choice.
Support? Yes.
Punish? Yes. Since the father has no other choice, this is a strong ‘No’.
5. Policy: Children may be given up for adoption if both parents agree.
Autonomy? Weak Yes. If the father agrees, then a woman who does not wish to support the child has another option than abortion.
Support? No. In this case the child will be supported by neither parent.
Punish? Weak No. This is the only post-coital choice the man has, but it is ‘weak’ because it is contingent upon the agreement of the mother.
6. Policy: Children may not be given up for adoption unless both parents agree.
Autonomy? Weak No. See 4 above.
Support? Yes. If children are not be given up for adoption, they must be supported by their parents.
Punish? Yes. If the mother does not agree, then the father has no post coital choice at all.
7. Policy: Children may be abandoned in a safe place by a parent, with no penalty.
Autonomy: Weak yes. Since this will in practice lead to the adoption of the child, possibly without the father’s knowledge, it represents yet another post-coital choice for the woman.
Support. No. By support we mean parental support. This policy allows the parent to withdraw support from the child.
Punish: Yes and No. Yes, because this makes it easier to deny fathers their parental rights, or even knowledge of their child’s existence. No because fathers could abandon the child themselves, though in practice they are less likely to have physical custody of the child, nor is it likely to lead to adoption without the knowledge or consent of the mother.
Totals:
This comment was written by Daran.Autonomy? 5 Yesses (2 of them weak), 2 weak nos.
Support? 3 Yesses, 4 Nos.
Punish? 6 Yesses, 2 nos (1 of them weak).
Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 7:37 am
Daran, you’re conflating pregnancy with a child, a common misperception among Men’s Rights proponents.
Women have the right to keep or terminate a pregnancy as they choose because women are the ones who are pregnant.
Reread that last sentence. Out loud if necessary.
Pregnancy kills over half a million women per year. Pregnancy can lead to diabetes, hypertension, constipation, hemherroids, permanent loss of bladder control, and also homicide (number one killer of pregnant women, usually by intimate partner).
The side-effects men suffer from pregnancy are … *crickets chirp* I can buy “homicide” if the wrong man finds out, but really, no.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Yes, this includes the elimination of a potential child at the same time, but the term itself means “to stop,” and what is stopping is the health-endangering, life-threatening condition known as pregnancy. Abortion is a form of taking responsibility for a pregnancy, even if people disagree with it as an option.
Men who claim that they are being persecuted because they aren’t allowed to give the legal yes or no nod to an abortion come across as though they think they should have the say over what will happen to someone else’s body. They don’t. Couching it as “OMG, you’re oppressing my rights” is inaccurate and stupid. Imagine if you will having to get a signed and notarized permission slip from your girlfriend before you get a vasectomy (after all, you’re impacting her reproductive future).
As for the adoption question, I assure you that while I have known plenty of women who have given up children for adoption, not one of the biological fathers in question wanted the least thing to do with the children. Claiming there’s a huge number of men being disenfranchised in this manner is a straw man argument not backed up by anything close to reality.
Children have rights. They have the right to be taken care of by a loving, supportive family. Whether this is provided by an adoptive family, a biological family, or by a single mother whose income is supplemented by an unwilling biological father is immaterial. Children need resources to grow and continue, and yes, unless the male in question had a vasectomy to ensure he wouldn’t cause a pregnancy, he knew what he was getting into, and that he wouldn’t have a say over his partner’s options regarding an abortion. DNA testing has made it easier for women to prove paternity; that just means fewer men can sneak away to avoid responsibility. Arguing that it’s unfair ignores that the brunt of reproduction doesn’t fall on men anyway, and is disingenuous.
This comment was written by M.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Well here’s a European challenging your assertions! (save for the puritanical prude bit).
Here in the UK, the age at which young people lose their virginity is actually getting later - and this directly correlates to the expansion of more comprehensive sex education. All people in the UK have access to free contraception and all women and girls have access to free abortion should they need it. There are no parental notification laws.
From: [UK] National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (printed in The Lancet 2005) :
“The average male age for loss of virginity is 15 for black Caribbeans, 17 for whites and black Africans and 20 for Indians and Pakistanis.
Among women it is 17 for whites and black Caribbeans, 18 for black Africans, 21 for Indians and 22 for Pakistanis.”
On average, the British lose their virginity the earliest in Europe and we also have the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe although it is only a quarter (pro rata) of that of the US.
I also found this:
“¢ In most of the developed world, the majority of young women become sexually active during their teenage years…the proportion who have had intercourse reaches at least three-quarters by age 20.
“¢ Levels of sexual activity and the age at which teenagers become sexually active do not vary considerably across comparable developed countries, such as Canada, Great Britain, France, Sweden and the United States.
“¢ Teenagers in the United States are more likely to have sexual intercourse before age 15 and have shorter and more sporadic sexual relationships than teenagers in Canada, France, Great Britain and Sweden. As a result, they are more likely to have more than one partner in a given year.
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 8:28 am
A foetus is of course going to become a full-fledged human being someday. How do we decide at which point in the life cycle someone becomes a full-fledged human being, you know, one who counts? Is it birth? Is it at 1 year? Maybe 21? Perhaps 6 months gestation? It all seems rather arbitrary unless we simply acknowledge that the life of a human begins at conception.
Are you willing to face all the consequences of deciding that? If the life of a human begins at conception, then the single largest cause of death in human beings is the natural failure of the fertilized zygote to implant, which kills over 50% of what we then define as people. We should spending so much money on piddling things like cancer and AIDS, and funnel massive medical effort into intervening to make sure every egg that gets fertilized ends up implanting and developing into a baby.
Of course, this is problematic, since there’s no way to tell if a particular egg is fertilized prior to implantation short of taking it out and putting it under a microscope. So in order to avoid violence against zygotes, we’d have to ban any form of contraception that might conceivably prevent a fertilized egg from implanting (some IUDs, for instance; many anti-contraceptive activists would also include the birth control pill, though they don’t have much in the way of evidence).
But wait–most of those same methods also prevent normal ovulation, and therefore actually reduce the rate of natural death of zygotes by an enormous margin, by preventing the eggs from getting fertilized in the first place. But if zygotes are people, are we willing to allow the faint possibility that contraceptives will kill one in order to prevent many more others from dying naturally? This now becomes a calculus of human lives, albeit single-celled ones. And so on.
In my opinion, defining human life with full legal rights as beginning at conception is just as arbitrary as defining it as beginning anywhere else, and would in addition have particularly horrendous practical consequences since the moment of conception is something that can’t even be directly observed. The people who insist on this most strictly are usually intent on banning some kinds of contraceptive, just in case.
I’m more with the people who say that the question of when a human life begins isn’t really the right question. We don’t force people to donate kidneys, even when it’s the only way to save a life, and we shouldn’t force women to go through with pregnancy and childbirth, which is at least as dangerous and physically disruptive as donating a kidney.
This comment was written by Matt McIrvin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Spicey - OK, I’ll accept that. But then there is some real contradiction out there. Explain how Americans having sex earlier and having more sexual partners than Europeans makes Americans prudes? I mean, promiscuous prudes seems quite the oxymoron. If your evidence is correct, (and I have no reason to believe it isn’t) then how are we the puritanical prudes. Maybe I’m missing something obvious.
I am also very curious what this more comprehensive sex education contains that encourages kids to wait longer to have sex and to have more serious and enduring sexual relationships. I mean, I’m being serious here. Are there any links you know of off the top of your head that outline the ciriculum that is being used? It certainly is something that even fundimentalist Christians would be very interested in seeing. (I will do my own research as well. But if you know of something, I would apreciate the time saver)
And finally, where does that leave all of the people I have talked to from Europe. Are they all just a bunch of lying America bashers?
(BTW, I had a Swedish girlfriend in college. Her mother put her on the pill when she was 15 because it was assumed she would be sexually active. According to her, this was the norm. My sister married a Swede. He confirmed this attitude toward sexuallity, i.e. it starts early in life, in numerous conversations we had. All this was in the 80’s. So maybe the comprehensive sex education you speak of is a more recent development. All I know is I have no reason to doubt these two people regarding Swede’s attitudes toward sex.)
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Aren’t these two statements contradictory?
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 9:44 am
gengwall, no they are not necessarily contradictory. The average age may be the same, but the number of younger people who engage in sex may be higher — just not high enough to materially change the average. Alternatively, the European data may be more clustered around the average, while the American data may be spread out across a wider age range. You would have to look at the raw data, or a description of the raw data.
Prudishness does not mean “does not engage in sex” so much as it means, “does not want to talk or act as if anyone engages in sex.” It also means in this context, I am speculating, that one becomes horrified when one cannot deny that someone else is or was having sex — the French reaction to Francois Mitterand’s love child, for instance, was pretty low key in comparison with what the presumed American reaction might have been to a similar revelation.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Mike,
Let’s go with the idea that a fetus is a full fledged person, starting at conception. If I, as a woman, am being chased by a man with a knife, who intends to cut out my uterus, I have no ability to put that person in jail. I can run away, but there’s a good chance he’ll be faster than me. Do I have to submit to having my uterus cut out rather than doing whatever I have to do, up to and including killing him if need be, to stop him? And if not, then why am I not permitted to have an abortion to protect my health? Why does a fetus get a greater level of protection than a person? (This, by the way, is exactly the scenario describes in Jewish Talmudic law to explain why abortion is permitted. A fetus that endangers the life or health of a woman is termed a rodef, a pursuer, and you take whatever steps are necessary to protect that woman’s life and health.)
And now, let’s take this a step further. Say I’m a mother. My child needs a kidney, and I am a potential donor. Should the law force me to donate an organ to my child? What about the father of the child? Should he be forced to donate part of his liver, if necessary? Pregnancy is not passive. A fetus is not a self-sustaining person. A fetus draws its support from its host, also knows as its potential mother, not unlike a tapeworm, or a tumor. (No, I am not saying children are tapeworms or tumors.) Nowhere else in law do we force a person to provide support to another person, because no situation is like a pregnancy. Therefore, you cannot equate the two. They are not the same.
P.S. - The Bible says a fetus is not a life, something that religious anti-choicers love to ignore. I think someone else may have mentioned this up thread.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Barbara - OK, I’ll accept both of those explanations.
Did some research oof my own. I found this study at http://www.durex.com. Durex, as you probably know, is a condom manufacturer. They did a global sex survey in 2004. 350,000 people were surveyed in 41 countries. The results reflect what Barbara suspected, that is that the European numbers quoted above are probably trans continental numbers. In other words, some countries have earlier and some later ages than the US. I found it interesting which countries fell on either side of that line.
The Global age of first sex number is 17.7
Here is how European countries, Canada, and the US compared in order of youngest to oldest first sex. (sorry I can’t get this in table form. I also left some Eastern European countries out because, quite frankly, I didn’t want to type that much) I have highlighted those countries mentioned above that supposedly have sex later in life than Americans.
Age of first sex
Germany…16.2
Austria…16.3
Netherlands…16.4
Sweden…16.4
Denmark…16.5
Finland…16.5
Norway…16.5
United Kingdom…16.7
United States…16.9
Canada…17.0
Bulgaria…17.1
France…17.1
Belgium…17.2
Hungary…17.3
Switzerland…17.3
Czech Republic…17.5
Ireland…17.5
Italy…17.6
Spain…17.7
Greece…17.8
Poland…17.9
Bottom line is that the US looks much better in this study. SPecificall, my contention that the low abortion countries are not necessarily more abstinent countries holds up.
Incidentally, in terms of number of sexual partners in the study, the US is way up there (10.3). Only the Scandinavian countries (11.1 - 12.3), Ireland (10.6), and Greece (10.4) were higher amoungst European countries and Canada.
Where the European countries really outshine the US is earliest age of sex education. Most are lower than the US (at 12.2). Interestingly, France, Poland, and Greece were much higher, all being over age 13.
Another stunning result was in unprotected sex. Of course, as we might presume from results reported by others, the Netherlands is one of the top countries in using protection (only 37% do not use protection). What is amazing are the countries that a poor performers in this regard. Sweden and Denmark are attrocious (both have 64% not using protection). I suspect their abortion rates are equally high. Norway isn’t much better (58%). The rest of the European countries fall at or below 50% unprotected sex.
Another interesting result was “who should teach sex ed”. The numbers are all over the map from Sewden’s 25% parents, 60% schools to Germany’s 72% parents, 18% schools. The US is more in favor of parents (61%) than schools (30%).
This is a fascinating study because it is done by a company that certainly has no problem with people having sex. Go take a look.
Global Sex Survey 2004
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 10:28 am
ADS - The bible is, at best, contradictory on fetal personhood. Some passages clearly indicate the unborn were not accroded the same value as the born, but others clearly show that the unborn matter a great deal to God. You are correct, though, that the Jews did not consider you a legally protected person until you were born. You are also correct that pro-lifers conveniently ignore the totality of what the bible has to say on it.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 10:30 am
I didn’t see the link to the 2005 survey before. I won’t bother posting results unless I see something that really jumps out as different than 2004. Here is the link
Global Sex Survey 2005
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 11:03 am
I meant with reference to social norms about sex rather than people having sex. For example, the responses to topless sunbathing, breastfeeding in public, inter-racial relationships, Janet Jackson’s ‘wardrobe malfunction’ and the like.
The government issued new sex and relationship guidance in July 2000. The guidance states that secondary schools should:
“¢ teach about relationships, love and care and the responsibilities of parenthood as well as sex
“¢ focus on boys as much as girls
“¢ build self-esteem
“¢ teach the taking on of responsibility and the consequences of one’s actions in relation to sexual activity and parenthood
“¢ provide young people with information about different types of contraception, safe sex, and how they can access local sources of further advice and treatment
“¢ use young people as peer educators, e.g. teenage mothers and fathers
“¢ give young people a clear understanding of the arguments for delaying sexual activity and resisting pressure
“¢ link sex and relationship education with issues of peer pressure and other risk-taking behaviour, such as drugs, smoking and alcohol
“¢ ensure young people understand how the law applies to sexual relationships
It goes on to say:
“Effective Sex and Relationship Education is essential if young people are to make responsible and well-informed decisions about their life. It should teach young people to understand human sexuality and to respect themselves and others. It enables young people to mature, to build up their confidence and self-esteem and understand the reasons for delaying sexual activity.”
More here.
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Spicy - very cool. Thank you.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 11:57 am
I’ve always thought that the “except in cases of rape and incest” is also something that ends up hurting most those it puportedly helps. If you outlaw all abortions exceptin cases of rape/incest, you end up with a situation where, because women who are not raped might be motivated to lie about it to get an abortion, all rape victims are treated suspiciously and assumed to be liars. Just how does a woman prove she was raped? It seems to me that you have to ask yourself, what matters more, a) stopping women from having abortions “for convenience” or b) protecting rape victims from being put in a situation where others “judge” whether they are a “deserving” victim, entitled to an abortion. I don’t think that preventing some women from having abortions that I don’t approve of is sufficient grounds for putting this burden of “prove you were raped” on rape victims who want an abortion. That’s why I’m for “abortion on demand” — you can’t say, abortion, but only in circumstances of which I approve. Who gets to approve? Let’s leave it up to women, their doctors, and their families. None of us are perfect, and any person of any age can be a rape victim. When you are a victim of crime, the last thing you want is to have people come in after the fact and criticize your behavior, and tell you that you didn’t “earn” or “deserve” an abortion.
This comment was written by Bucket.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
RE: the life begins at conception debate. A thought that occured to me sometime back is this: If the fetus/zygote/blastula is truly a full fledged human, shouldn’t women who drink, smoke, take illicit drugs while pregnant be considered guilty of breaking child endangerment laws? It is universally accepted that all these substances cross the placental barrier. What about women who gain too much weight during their pregancy? Just a thought.
This comment was written by russej.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
I’m curious.
When “forced childbirth” is mentioned negatively in the context of this thread, does that imply that one is always against any restraints on a woman’s right to abort the fetus?
At 5 months?
6 months? Later?
Roe v. Wade “forces” childbirth based on the trimester. Isn’t that allowing the right of the fetus to “trump” the autonomy of the woman?
And does that mean at some point that’s ok?
This comment was written by Daniel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
I f abortion is equal to murder, it follows that a miscarriage is equal to involuntary manslaughter. That’s one in four pregnancies…
This comment was written by Dennis J..Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Daniel:
Roe is the compromise. It stands between “abortion on demand and without apology at any point during pregnancy” and “life and full human rights begin at conception.” It’s a middle ground for people who are uncomfortable at the thought of the straw-(wo)man argument of the 38-week abortion of a healthy fetus but still think that women should in general have the right to decide what does and doesn’t grow in their bodies.
Could it amount to “forced birth?” Possibly, but in practice, it’s simply a way of trying to ensure equal protection for an adult female and what could be a healthy infant. Like most compromises, it won’t make everyone entirely happy, but you’ll notice that the pro-choice side has been largely concerned with maintaining that middle ground, as well as fighting for measures that reduce the overall need for abortions in the first place (bringing it back to Amp’s handy chart). You can try to make a point that it’s hypocritical, but really, it’s common sense.
This comment was written by M.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Tonochujo,
This comment was written by Rock.I would disagree that the discussion can be reduced to extremes of the baby has worth so the mother does not or vice versa. If our actions have the ability to affect others freedoms and rights those freedoms and rights must be considered in the decision to act. Consideration does not mean forfeiture of ones position, it means giving weight to the stake of the parties involved in the process.
Sex for pleasure for money or whatever motivation must encompass the possibility of procreation as a part of the process. Obviously pleasure, intimacy, communication, bonding, reconciliation, etc. all can be reasons as well. Again the effort to paint the discussion as “either/or” does little to create a genuine discussion of the possibilities.
Much of what I find offensive is the objectivism of a developing person. (One already implanted and growing.) It is the same discomfort I feel at the objectivism of women or other exploited people. It might be a stretch, however I have to believe that many women who are in the position where abortion as a compelling choice is because someone treated them as an object with no commitment to long term relationship or support. I would think that there would be an empathy for those often treated as objects towards those in a recognizably vulnerable situation. The Netherlands were mentioned as having very low abortion rates. One main reason is that women with children are secure in having their basic needs met in that society. When women are guaranteed support, healthcare, education and are not stigmatized, there is less pressure to abort a child. Good sex and relational education is also essential. IMO the effort is to minimize the need, this does not require the dehumanization of a baby. Blessings.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
M:
I have to wonder if it is indeed a compromise. A compromise implies that both camps moved (or were forced to move) closer to each other for the sake of pragmatism. I say this because I don’t believe that the “typical” stance of pro-choicers is “abortion on demand and without apology at ANY point during pregnancy” as you mention.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but that position sounds very fringe.
Instead, I’d expect that the average pro-choice position is “abortion on demand up to a point where the fetus had developed to a certain stage”. If that’s the case, then Roe isn’t so much a compromise so much as it is an almost exact manifestation of the typical pro-choice mindset.
Of course, that said, I don’t know that compromise is possible at all, truly, if one side insists on “life begins at conception”. But, if discussing the pro-life camp relative to the pro-choice one, Roe is no compromise.
In any case, it does sound like you do, at some point, grant the fetus some right to exist that can supercede the right of the woman to total body autonomy.
But its not equal protection if the woman can be forced to give birth, just as it isn’t if the infant can be aborted at will.
The whole messy issue of pregnancy will never afford either participant true equality, but it is interesting to hear from a pro-choice person that that might be a desirable aim.
This comment was written by Daniel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
gengwall, you wrote:
And later:
I’m not acquainted with the relevant data, so I have no idea whether Europeans actually start sex-life later than Americans.
That said, in my country (Finland) it is a relatively common for people to assume that teenagers start having sex earlier than they actually do. I remember reading about a study about Finnish teenagers that addressed this, but since I don’t have a link and the article was in Finnish anyway, you’ll just have to trust me. ;-)
The notion that we have sex younger, more often etc. etc. is just a myth that doesn’t necessarily have any connection to the reality. It may have, I don’t know, but truthfully most people do not have the necessary knowledge to say anything one way or another. They are probably just tossing general statements around, statements that are based on vague “this is the way I think it is” ideas. And we all know how terribly inaccurate those can be.
This comment was written by Helka Maria.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
ADS,
“P.S. - The Bible says a fetus is not a life, something that religious anti-choicers love to ignore. I think someone else may have mentioned this up thread.”
What part of the Bible? Certainly not the New Testament and I do not know of a citation that bears that out in the Old Testament. Show us where? Read Psalm 139; “You knit me together in my mothers womb…” “I praise You because I am wonderfully and fearfully made…” “My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place…” “Your eyes saw my unformed body…” etc. etc. In the Old Testament, the abhorrent to Yahweh are those that sacrificed infants to false gods. Jesus message (not what has been co-opted in name to meet worldly agendas) is of Peace, Social Justice, Spiritual Liberation, defense of the poor, the marginalized, widows and orphans, characterized by self sacrifice and servant hood, motivated by love for all, especially ones enemies. Emphasis is on serving the least; I can think of few folks in greater need of care and defense than a person faced with having to raise or abort a child and the life that has no voice of it’s own, what could be more defenseless and worthy of our compassion? Surly this is the body of Christ.
I think many are missing the point made by Rabbi such as Rashi. It is not that the unborn baby has no value, but that it must be taken into consideration with the mother. The mother’s life is not expected to be given for the child. (However after the advent of the cesarean that in fact has been elected by many.) The reference to Exodus 21:22 that has been misapplied here refers to a miscarriage caused accidentally by a third party, not intentionally like an abortion. The value in that situation assigned to the child is determined by the slave price of a similar woman who is pregnant as opposed to one who is not. (Rashi) In fact, in Biblical Jewish culture one of the greatest blessings given by God are children, the Jews in Biblical times would be perplexed by the thought of terminating a pregnancy if no apparent threat was eminent.
It is not my intention to highjack the thread to a defense of theist doctrine, however these gross generalizations need to be addressed. Blessings.
This comment was written by Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Rock, I agree with you that the issue of abortion is a complex one. I do not think there is room for compromise when it comes to a woman’s rights, and in order to give equal rights to the fetus inside her body some of her rights must be compromised. Can you give me an example of a situation in which we can accord a fetus the same rights as human being without restricting a women’s freedom?
You said “sex for pleasure for money or whatever motivation must encompass the possibility of procreation as a part of the process.” This is a nice sentiment, but it is not realistic. The reality is, women and men are going to have sex whether or not they want babies. What you are saying is that a woman should not have sex for pleasure (or