Into the Lions’ Den
Sinking into the den of leftists again, I made my way over to the Ezra Klein blog to respond to posts from commenter “Neil the Ethical Werewolf,” who posted on a recent abortion comment thread here.
These people just cannot have a debate without a) insulting you and b) lying about you.
In one comment I said:
The problem with the post is that it is predicated on the idea that adoption is a more gut-wrenching decision than abortion. That’s a strange justification for abortion.
Someone (named Dr. Squid, which raises the question why I am arguing with this guy) called that “quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read.”
Insults. Check.
I decided to fight fire with fire, and insults with insults:
Don’t you mean “lip-read”?
If this is the tone on this blog, I may as well respond in kind. . .
For the non-lip-readers, I’ll simply say that abortion is a convenient way to place the moral decision safely out of sight. The doctor doesn’t require you to confront the evidence of your deed. Adoption does.
Killing a fetus so a woman who made a choice to have sex can avoid feeling bad about giving the fetus up for adoption strikes me as cowardly and morally reprehensible. And, while this opinion is likely to be mocked here, I’ll wager it is the mainstream position. Americans may warily support abortion rights, but not for the purpose of making the decision emotionally easy for Mom.
Pretty clear, right? Adoption forces women to confront what they’re doing: giving up the child. Abortion allows them to avoid the evidence of what they’re doing, because no doctor makes you look at the fetal remains.
But some commenters seized on the phrase “evidence of your deed” to claim that the “deed” I was referring to was sex, not the abortion. This is the big lefty theory, remember: conservatives are just trying to punish women for sex. So they twisted my clear words, to interpret them as falling in line with their pet theory.
I responded to one such commenter:
If you take “evidence of your deed” to refer to sex then you are functionally as illiterate as Dr. Lip-Reader. The “deed” referred to was the abortion. It was no slip of the tongue.
Enter Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, who lied about what I had said to make her point:
Worst backpedaling ever. You said that adoption is better evidence of the misdeed than abortion. If the “misdeed” is abortion, then how is giving birth and giving the child away evidence of the severity of the woman’s “misdeed”? Even presuming that abortion is wrong–which it’s not, of course, and most of the time when it’s performed it’s the right decision–but even presuming it, why is adoption the proper punishment for the woman? She didn’t even commit the misdeed you’re accusing her of!
The word “misdeed” appears in quotes several times in this comment of hers, even though I never used it.
Lying. Check.
Your question is going to be: why did I bother arguing with such people?
Good question.
P.S. Thanks to Darleen for having my back in a related Ezra Klein comment thread. Since, as we all know, I hate women (according to these folks), it was refreshingly ironic for me to be defended by Darleen.
P.P.S. Lord knows what Amanda is saying about me at Pandagon. I can’t even access the site; my account “has been suspended.” I’ve heard of people being banned from commenting, but this is the first instance I’ve seen of software banning someone from even reading a site.
I can only conclude that she is scared to death of what I might say in response to whatever lies she’s peddling, given that the last time she tried to criticize me, I proved that she had lied about what I had said — or at the very least (in my opinion deliberately) badly misquoted me.
P.P.P.S. Never mind. I am not suspended from their blog. Their host has suspended them — apparently temporarily. Thanks to Darleen for the heads-up.
The Marcotte comment was esp. screwy, not so much ( I thought) because of “deeds” becoming “misdeeds”, but because of the her altering of your meaning of “evidence” and insertion of the idea of “punishment”.
These people just cannot have a debate without a) insulting you and b) lying about you.
But, not disagreeing with you, I’d point out that these are commenters you’re talking about. There are far more sensible proponents of the POVs they are so erratically advocating in their discussion with you. It’s quite convenient for you to set a couple of loose-nut commenters up as the poster children of the left.
As to your substantive point – You were saying that avoidance of the reality of the fetus/child is not a legit purpose of abortion as opposed to adoption – right?
My own response to that would simply be, of course it’s not. But accepting that we are weighing various interests here, the woman’s right to avoid the reality of the fetus is not a significant one. Pointing out that adoption has an emotional cost is not in itself an argument that avoidance of that emotional cost is a per se justification for abortion. You’re not quite setting up a straw argument, but I think you’re setting up a weak one in order to take it down.
Then again, I don’t know what the gist of the thread was. Maybe it was “does the fact that adoption is emotionally painful in itself justify abortion?” For all I know, it may have been.
biwah (f5ca22) — 3/27/2006 @ 8:23 amFollowed the links. Yep, that was pretty much the theme of the thread.
As someone who thinks the issues would be best fleshed out by discussing the scope, penalties, and enforcement of an “ideal” law banning abortion, I was intrigued by one commenter’s question as to how, if abortion is deemed murder, you can fail to punish the woman getting the abortion within the allotted range for homicide. Just punishing the doctor is neither here nor there.
Also, reading the thread, it struck me how measured many of the comments were, in contrast to the ones you highlighted. I understand you were pissed about the tactics of the two or three you mentioned, but just who is the “these people” you accuse of relying on insults and lies?
biwah (f5ca22) — 3/27/2006 @ 8:52 amPaterico,
I’ve had your RSS feed on my reader for a good 8 months to a year (I don’t really know), and I’ve always enjoyed it. However, I do need to point out something, because it’s killing me to see you make this mistake:
“The doctor doesn’t require you to confront the evidence of your deed. Adoption does.”
From that quote, it seems that the implied sentence is ‘adoption requires you to confront the evidence of your deed.’ The point that was being made on the other post was that this implicit sentence clearly implies that the ‘deed’ is sex. Adoption /cannot/ require one to confront the evidence of abortion, as the abortion wouldn’t have happened.
Your response was:
“If you take “evidence of your deed” to refer to sex then you are functionally as illiterate as Dr. Lip-Reader. The “deed” referred to was the abortion. It was no slip of the tongue.”
I think that this last sentence was incorrect. I understand that you were angry at the time, but why not just state it like it is: the deed was sex leading to a pregnancy. The evidence of the deed in the one case is a dead child, in the other case an adopted child. The deed you referred to in the original quote must have been sex. It makes no sense otherwise.
Josh Adams (cd28a8) — 3/27/2006 @ 9:00 amJosh makes a good observation, but Patterico seemed to be talking about the doctor spriting away the fetus without the mother having to see it and thus come face to face with its reality. By contrast, adoption does require the mother to come face to face with the reality of the fetus.
So “deed” seemed to refer to the “moral decision” that, in P’s previous sentence, would have been safely out of sight through the abortion (or kept in sight through adoption). But since, grammatically, a “decision” and a “deed” are not obvious stand-ins for each other, the statement was was a bit ambiguous, and to that extent it could have looked like a backpedal.
biwah (f5ca22) — 3/27/2006 @ 9:15 amAha, that interpretation slipped past me entirely. /me backpedals.
[Biwah pegged what I meant. Note also how Marcotte had to misquote me to make her argument. — P]
Josh Adams (cd28a8) — 3/27/2006 @ 9:19 amOut of all the blogs on the internet and all the people in the world, how did a good Fort Worth boy like you end up in a debate with a UT philosophy major and his merry men (and women)? Small world.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 3/27/2006 @ 9:20 amWell, he did say “The deed referred to was the abortion.” But having heard Patterico’s views on the issue a few times (!), that’s my lawyerly way of harmonizing the statement with its probable intention.
[In speaking about abortion, the “deed” referred to *was* the abortion. In speaking about adoption, it was giving up the child. When I said it was abortion, that’s because I was being criticized for the portion of the statement relating to adoption. When I originally made the statement, I wasn’t expecting lying Amanda Marcotte to come along and twist my words. In context, what I meant was perfectly clear, unless you’re *trying* to misread it. And these people were. — P]
biwah (f5ca22) — 3/27/2006 @ 9:22 amWhile I personally feel that adoption is a better option than abortion [being an adoptee myself.] I just want to state that it is not always a ‘bed of roses’ for the child.
paul (464e99) — 3/27/2006 @ 9:32 amPatterico
You’ll have to keep in mind that Amanda never argues in good faith. She fancies herself this great champion of the rights of womyn and rather than actually coming to the table with reasoned and cogent points, she snarks, insults, and lies.
And heaven forfend any one snark back at her!
As she said once about me on another blog, I only hold my opinions because Men Own My Vagina.
In Amanda’s world, you hate womyn and I’m a gender-traitor and your lackey.
🙂
Darleen (f20213) — 3/27/2006 @ 10:07 amPatterico,
I think it’s worth asking again, since you said it again…
unless you’re *trying* to misread it. And these people were.
Who is “these people”?
As a commenter, I don’t typically feel entitled to fire off questions to the host, but it would sure clarify the thrust of your post. Thanks.
biwah (f5ca22) — 3/27/2006 @ 10:39 amPerhaps i’m more forgiving of this sort of thing, but it doesn’t seem to me that Amanda was lying; it seems to me that she read your statement through the glasses of her preconcieved notions, found a way that your statement was consistent with them, and then remembered you as having said what she interpreted you as saying.
This appears to be a quite common means of discussion politics, unfortunately.
As for the more general issue of the leftist-belief that abortion restrictions are about punishing women for having sex: the existence of a movement to restrict or ban contraceptives, and the alliance between the people who desire such restrictions and those who desire abortion restrictions, contributes heavily to the conflation of the issues. This is not to say that anyone who wants to ban abortion is presumptively also opposed to contraception; it is merely to say that the conflation of the two is not as irrational as it might seem on first inspection.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/27/2006 @ 10:49 amNone of this addresses the incivility of the discussion, but adoption versus abortion vis-a-vis ‘confronting’ the evidence of the deed is a bit of an apples-v-oranges argument.
Abortions take place before the woman ‘bonds’ with the baby (by my definition, a woman who has bonded with the baby is not going to choose abortion), whereas adoption takes place after the woman has had many months of feeling the kicking and moving… it’s the same dynamic that results in mothers often feeling a faster attachment to the baby than the fathers, who only really experience the baby its birth.
Were it possible for a woman to hand off a one or two month fetus for adoption, doing so might very well be no more or less gutwrenching for those choosing to do so than for those choosing abortion.
steve sturm (e37e4c) — 3/27/2006 @ 10:51 amI don’t think it’s apples and oranges. As Patterico stated earlier, they’re both ways, in the context of partial birth abortion, that the women can “get rid” of the baby. Obviously, at that point, adoption and abortion have differences (that’s why we’re arguing). But they’re not so different that they’re “apples and oranges.”
Oh, I see you’re not talking about partial birth abortion. What is your point, then?
jinnmabe (63d52c) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:08 am“Even presuming that abortion is wrong–which it’s not, of course, and most of the time when it’s performed it’s the right decision–but even presuming it, why is adoption the proper punishment for the woman?”
If “most of the time” it’s the right decision when it is performed, what about the “some of the time” that it isn’t the right decision but is performed anyway? I wonder what answer Ms. Amanda would have…
Paul,
True, being adopted is not always a bed of roses. But then, being the child naturally of a couple isn’t always a bed of roses, either.
Steve Sturm,
sharon (e51965) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:10 amMany women “bond” with their babies from the positive pregnancy test, long before there’s kicking and squirming. As I always say, it all comes down to whether or not the woman wants it whether it is a baby or a fetus or “a clump of cells.”
would have… = would have been…
sharon (e51965) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:11 amaphrael
I don’t believe that a minority subset of the pro-life movement that has problems with non-marital sex is legitimate reason to tar anyone who even broaches the question of “does the government have a legitimate interest in protecting a fetus when it becomes viable” as Hater of Womyn and a member in good standing of the White Racist Patriarchy.
Choice Amanda quotes
On that small sample, coupled with pro-abortion supporters who wrung their hands when Scott Peterson was charged with a second count of murder because of 8 mo gestational age Connor, and other examples of people fully supporting even 3rd trimester abortions for any reason, that there is a subset of the pro-choice movement that is less concerned with the reproductive rights of women than with the personal/cultural POWER that abortion on demand gives them.
The majority of Americans is in neither camp.
Darleen (f20213) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:15 amI am not sure I really follow the above discussion or the links to the article. I would break it down to three parts to try to size it up:
for these reasons:
A. It presupposes the ‘child” one gives up, whether the single woman, married woman with husband, etc, is the ‘same’ child, or of the same quality. The child is clearly different at [1], [2] and [3] stage. One could take it further and say there is stage [0] where the embryo is also a child, as would organizations like Snowflakes which arranges and matches donor of embryo and donee of embryos called embryo adoption. http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeadoption.htm By using the word “adoption” for “embryo adoption” it employs the same language as “adoption” usually used for “child” , “adoption of children”. Thus are we fair to employ “child” for first trimester? Can we be very absolute that there is a ‘child” at first trimester? Just as can we very certain there is a “child” at the “embryo” stage, whether at implantation in womb or before implantation in the fertility clinic or after implantation in the womb at the fertility clinic? Who tells us of this certainty? How do we judge this certainty? Why are we so certain? Is this certainty pegged on a larger certainty that we cannot understand the world without the larger certainty? Does our view of our need for our larger certainty affect our view of this little area of certainty of the stage [0] stage [1] in that, the little certainty is part and parcel of the larger certainty and cannot be detached without also detaching the larger certainty, and it would take very much more to ever detach our larger certainty that we constructed bit by bit over the many years of our live….
B. It ignores the additional factor of bonding with the fetus especially in third trimester, between the pregnant woman and fetus and also between the potential father and fetus. There have been studies that suggest the father speak to the fetus during the trimester and the newborn can pick up the father’s tone and quality of voice, even in a room with many people talking. Amazing! Bonding can add a new dimension that then adds on to the moral question of giving up the child for adoption. The difficulty or additional difficulty as the case may be, could be attributed to the bonding that has taken place. Adoption is breaking the bond. A pregnant mother who has just delivered on seeing and holding the newborn, bonds; and thus after such bonding, there is the need to break bond to give up the new born.
I like ‘also’ nature’s rare unique love story of birthing process of the emperor penguins in the Atlanctic. The group of penguins yearly come out from the sea and take a long walk to the mating and breeding grounds where ice below their feet is thickest and so they will not fall in to the sea if the thinner ice breaks. Also they will be sheltered by ice cliffs, to break the cold wind a bit. ….. and after the female penguin has hatched the egg, she passes her egg to her male mate, and she goes away for about two months. The male father penguin incubates the egg above his feet and below his upside pouch, for about 2 months. He has no food to eat and so fasts. When the chick comes out of the egg, that is about the time, the mother penguin returns and takes over the brooding of the chick. The father penguin, not having eaten for about four months, walks about 60-100 miles to the sea to hunt for fish to eat. Many do not make it, because they are so exhausted and they cannot stand the cold wind, and they die in the march to the sea for food.
If men had an appreciation in the above birthing process, where :
1. male had to trek 60-100 miles to the mating ground and thus has no food for this 1-2 months’ trek;
2. male mate and wait for the female to hatch their eggs and male have no food during the hatching period;
3. male incubate the egg for about 94 days and the male have no food;
4. male feel very cold because of the cold biting Atlanctic wind in the middle of the Atlantic winter, and they huddle together in group to share body warmth ;
5. male lose about 50% of their weight because of their 4 months fast,
6. male run the risk of dying in their march to the sea for food after four months’ fast
………………..
Yi-Ling (3956c4) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:24 am#15 – are you sure?
#14 – I think Amanda Marcotte was acknowledging that some women regret their earlier abortions, so it’s subjectively the wrong decision. That’s a little different from the overarching legal/moral issue.
#11 – aphrael, with so many facets to these issues, this conflation is one that occurs quite easily as you point out. I do think the attribution to the anti-abortion crowd of the desire to actively punish women is a bit over the top. Even those who would say a woman “has made her bed, and she should sleep in it” – a relatively stern view whether or not you agree with it – is still advocating a view of childbirth as a mandatory consequence, not to be avoided through the intervention of a doctor. Isn’t this still short of punishment, which when coming from society, usually takes the form of being locked up, denied an incident of full citizenship, etc.
If my daughter tells a fib, she, she might get sent to her room – a punishment (though interestingly these are increasingly called “consequences” in parentspeak). If, despite my warnings, she waves her ice cream cone in the dog’s face, and he snaps it up, that’s a consequence. And if I won’t give her a new one, she might *claim* she’s being punished…but she’s not.
biwah (f5ca22) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:33 amDarleen – of course it’s not fair to tar everyone with the views of a minority subset. The problem is that, if you haven’t talked to people who are in the group, and are forming your opinions about it exclusively from the outside, it’s not clear that the minority subset is a minority subset. This is especially true when the minority subset gets significant press and/or the people you have direct experience with come from that minority subset.
How do you tell who is a minority, and who isn’t, within a group that you have no actual personal contact with?
I think you have a point, though, when you say that there is an element of the pro-choice movement which is more concerned with the power that women acquire by being able to procure abortion on demand, and that the people in that camp view the pro-life movement as being primarily concerned with limiting that power. I suspect that this is an outgrowth of that subset of feminism which was primarily concerned with redirecting power away from men and towards women.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:35 amGoing back a few threads we bandied[ at least I did] this business of viablity. And a quick review showed that these late trimester abortions weren’t really favored under any of the viablity
paul (001f65) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:37 amcriteria i.e. that when you would be doing these PBA, you’d be doing it on a viable fetus. So even if you are a fan of PBA you’re really on shaky ground with the viablity yardstick.
Who is “these people”?
The people in that post who are saying I hate women, that I stepped on my “weener,” etc.
See my update.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:39 amPatterico – I think the ‘account suspended’ is a technical problem. I get the same message when I try to load the site: “Your account has been suspended. We have sent you an email explaining why. This email should also contain information on how you can unsuspend your account.”
My first guess is that Pandagon’s hosting service has suspended *its* account for reasons unexplained.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:43 amI’m referring to certain fringe elements of the left. Not all people from the left. There’s too many rational lefties here for me to impugn all of them.
Luckily, I attract a better breed around here. I even put Neil in that category. I like his posts and comments, just not his commenters.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:44 amBiwah – your point about the distinction between punishment and consequences is a good one, and the parents who are conflating the two are doing the civil society of tomorrow a grave disservice.
However, I think you can make a reasonable argument that denying women the ability to avert the consequence is, in effect, a form of punishment. That would be an absurd argument in a world in which it was not technically possible to reliably avert the consequence, but that’s not our world.
[Note that I do not endorse the presumption that many pro-choicers make about the motivation of pro-lifers; the fact that an argument can be made that ‘X’ is a form of punishment does not imply that those who are promoting ‘X’ are doing so because it is a punishment].
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:53 amaphrael
In this instance, the attacks on Patterico (and later on me) did not come out of ignorance. Several times I stated quite clearly that my own views on abortion are held by the majority of Americans and I wasn’t arguing for a complete ban ala South Dakota. I was specifically addressing Neil’s post on whether something “without a mind” is due any moral concern.
When Amanda (or some of the other commenters) resort to the Womyn Hater Patriarchal Conspiracy charges, they are not dealing with people who disagree with them in good faith.
Darleen (f20213) — 3/27/2006 @ 12:00 pmYi-ling writes:
paul (001f65) — 3/27/2006 @ 12:02 pmIt ignores the additional factor of bonding with the fetus especially in third trimester, between the pregnant woman and fetus and also between the potential father and fetus. There have been studies that suggest the father speak to the fetus during the trimester and the newborn can pick up the father’s tone and quality of voice, even in a room with many people talking. Amazing! Bonding can add a new dimension that then adds on to the moral question of giving up the child for adoption. The difficulty or additional difficulty as the case may be, could be attributed to the bonding that has taken place. Adoption is breaking the bond. A pregnant mother who has just delivered on seeing and holding the newborn, bonds; and thus after such bonding, there is the need to break bond to give up the new born.
Presently, it is my understanding that, in the issue of abortion or adoption the father of an out of wedlock pregnancy has no rights to the disposition of the child unless he subsequently marries the mother. So ‘bonding’ seems to have a limited influence under the law. psychologically, I believe there is some pre-natal bonding with an involved Father.
As for your penguin analogy, while touching, I don’t understand where it fits in this discussion.
I mean I wish I could have helped biologically with the birth of my children but that’s not how it is for our species. That doesn’t mean I don’t have an appreciation of the birthing process!
BTW Patterico?
The Google cache of pandagon.net shows the last entries dated 3/24.
I suspect hosting problems (I got same error message as you).
Darleen (f20213) — 3/27/2006 @ 12:06 pmUPDATE
from Feministe
Ahhhhhhh….
Darleen (f20213) — 3/27/2006 @ 12:10 pmaphrael, I was thinking the same thing. When it is “technically possible to reliably avert the consequence,” then the consequence-punishment distinction becomes blurred. I would suggest that punishment by definition is an intentionally and artificially imposed consequence, and then we’d just have to figure out what “artificial” means. Consequences would be imposed by nothing other than natural process or deities.
#25 – Darleen,
Your point re Womyn Hater Patriarchal Conspiracy – I agree. There is no expectation of a resolution once this kind of hype gets cracked open. The same thing happens when war critics and people arguing for civil liberties and the like get called America-haters, freedom-haters, traitors, and the like. That’s not to throw it back at you. Just to say, those of us who want to talk substance need to be sheltered from our own fringes as much as from anyone.
biwah (f5ca22) — 3/27/2006 @ 12:27 pmPaul,
Please check, but there are 2 ways at least to see it. One is right of unmarried father to child and second is right of child vis a vis his unmarried father. On the first, he has right to “seek” [court ordered ] custody, once he establishes the paternity of the newborn child. He also has right to visitation. I mentioned the real story of a married couple who went to a fertility clinic, and the husband gave his sperms and the couple used a donor egg as wife was infertile, and the fertilized embryo from the husband’s sperm and third party donor’s egg, were then ready for implantation of the wife womb. It went well that the intended embryo so produced was implanted in the wife’s womb. But what did not go well, is that, one of these embryos intended solely for this married couple, went by mistake, to another single woman present there that same fateful day. One of these intended embryos by mistake went to another woman. She also became pregnant. After the mistake was discovered, the ‘genetic father’ [ the husband of the married couple ] established his paternity , and sued for visitation rights. He got it !!!! If it cuts this way, and if it is upheld on appeal, it also means, the child is entitled to right of support and right of inheritance ! I think if I am not mistaken he wanted joint custody but he was denied that and he was granted right of visitation. The biological mother was aghast at the right of visitation as she never knew this would happen and she eventually gave up her job to litigate the appeal. So the unmarried mother’s custody is a presumption especially if the father is not identified. If the father is named and if the father seeks custody and if he establishes paternity through DNA tests or some other tests, it is likely he can also get joint custody, whether he eventually marries the mother of the child or not.
Paul,
Yi-Ling (3956c4) — 3/27/2006 @ 12:47 pmI wonder whether there is any credit to the argument that those who undergo the birth process should have a say and if we look at the constitutional law privacy arguments, it shuts out the right of men, or that, the courts declare that the decision is with the pregnant women , which I can also see it as, men hand over the decision to women, at least prior to viability. If we see a unique story of how the male specie partake in the birthing process with attendant difficulty and risk, does it lend support to the argument that, that is why, we should leave the abortion decision to women, as the incubation and hatching process is all partaken by women. Also it is a touching movie that my husband and I and my mother in law have watched, surprised at how harsh nature is and how demanding men can be. For this, I am very endeared to the emperor penguins love story. The moral of the story is about the specie’s collective effort to procreate for the next generation seduced by the courtship, bonding and mating, and driven to ensure survival of the specie. There have been times when the father penguin cannot stand the hunger and he leaves the egg. Once he leaves the eggs for a few minutes, the egg is frozen and the unborn chick dies immediately. The father penguin then marches to sea for food because of uncontrolled hunger and fear of dying. In humankind, how much of what we do or rationalize is to ensure the survival of our specie? That intuitively, we have a hidden program or programming to have pro life attitude to ensure collective survival of our specie?
Got it. It stinks to be a man. We’re demanding, have no investment in the birthing process, but an equal share of the responsiblity. We sometimes have a say in our childrens lives and sometimes we don’t. We have to pay for children that aren’t are own AND those that are. DNA can assure our responsiblity but not abrogate our responsiblity if there is no match. And now I realize that we really have do not voice in the abortion debate because life doesn’t occur in our bodies.
paul (001f65) — 3/27/2006 @ 1:42 pmWell, I’ll be lurking out of interest to see what other responsibnlities will be heaped on my sons and grandsons by all of this. I’ll be interested what women and womyn work out for me.
# 11
Aphrael,
I think there is some incongruence and irrationality of these leftist arguments you refer to; issue aside of whether these popular arguments are waged by the leftists. Maybe a more proper leftist reasoning would be capital’s demand for more labor, and thus all pregnancies are potential labor and all pregnancies should be brought to fruition. Its not then about punishing women but about recognizing the need for human labor and enforcing measures to ensure steady supply of labor. Maybe it is more a feminist argument [ with the detesting of patriarchal system and structures and values. Maybe it is the alignment or conflation of feminism with left thinking that feminist discourse applied to this result, and to persuade against this result, produced a feminist leaning argument, that enters and occupies the left space and is thus wrongly seen as a left argument or thinking. Looks like feminist thinking has hijacked the left forum on this specific issue you mentioned above .
***************************
Steve Sturm
# 12
I did not read your comment until now, otherwise I would have addressed it, when I was writing # 17 B. My comment is
Stage [0] the fetus is still embryo and sitting in cold freezer. There is excess the woman does not need for her implantation anymore. She can donate it anonymously and she does not.
She could have reasons like
1. it has my genetic matter and I do not want someone to have the implantation and have a child with my genetic matter.
2. it has my husband’s or boyfriend’s genetic matter and he has strong views against his genetic matter being someone’s biological child.
3. it is our genetic matter and we [woman and her man] do not want another woman having our embryo and possibility of our genetic child.
and thus asks that the excess embryos be destroyed. She would therefore not be agreeable to donation of her embryos anonymously to the fertility clinic or to science for stem cell research. She just wants it destroyed, period.
Referring to my Stage [1] of your 1-2 months in first trimester, how much of the arguments for stage [0] above, would apply?
Why is there a presumption that stage [1] hypothetical on adoption is or can be compared favorably as stage [4] post birth adoption? Likewise why is there an assumption that the ‘child’ of stage [1] is same as child of stage [4]?
Yi-Ling (3956c4) — 3/27/2006 @ 1:56 pmI don’t know, Paul – while we do get invested in the mom’s pregnancy and birthing process, in our society this is voluntary. Our mandatory responsibilities would seem to kick in at birth. And of course, once the child is born, it can’t be moved away or put up for adoption without our consent, within reason. We also have visitation and custody rights, although in practice these are awarded with a fair amount of bias against us. But we do have essential rights post-birth. Society is not quite sure what to do with fetuses though, and sensibly (IMO) keeps discretion with the mother as a default.
As for the difficulty of DNA-based paternity acquittals, that’s a glitch in the system and the symptom of hungry state welfare agencies. It’s a travesty, but it’s not fundamental to our society, and I expect it will be improved – eventually – through the political process.
biwah (f5ca22) — 3/27/2006 @ 2:01 pm#31
Paul,
To add to the list … men like you went to court to ask the court to ask the women [ their wifes] to seek their consent before their pregnant wife aborts their child. The court thought it was an undue burden on the pregnant woman’s right to exercise her constitutional right to privacy, and disallowed spousal consent for abortion. It also disallowed spousal notification of their pregnant wife’s intent to have an abortion. So the pregnant woman addresses the abortion all by herself without being constitutionally required to get her husband’s consent or to let her husband know.
I think the equal share of responsibility is more of taking care of a new child, without which, it could fall on social services and tax payers fund. If the woman aborts, the man’s responsibilities also ends for the unborn child. The man benefits too.
But why are men not given the right to consent or not to abortion of the pregnant female? Why is there no right even for married men vis a vis their wife? Should the bright line be a bit blurred with, right of spousal consent but no right of boyfriend consent? I would personally lean to your argument that married men should have a right to agree or not to their wife’s abortion, or at least to be notified of it, than a carte blanche or blank cheque to the wife to abort the unborn child of the marriage before viability, but the bright line of the woman’s choice is unencumbered before viability is drawn per Roe v Wade drawing no distinction between married and unmarried woman and rejecting later arguments for such distinction even when the level of scrutiny of state laws calling for spousal consent or spousal notification as varying from state to state, had already been lowered from very high standard of ‘strict scrutiny’ to ‘undue burden on woman’. Even with lowered standard of vetting the state laws restricting abortion, post 1994 , post Planned Parenthood v Casey, the state law for spousal notification and spousal consent was still considered unconstitutional and infringing the woman’s constitutional right to privacy and thus her right to unfettered abortion before viability. Sorry.
Yi-Ling (3956c4) — 3/27/2006 @ 2:21 pmLord knows what Amanda is saying about me at Pandagon. I can’t even access the site; my account “has been suspended.” I’ve heard of people being banned from commenting, but this is the first instance I’ve seen of software banning someone from even reading a site.
I’ve heard of people jumping to conclusions, but never with such self-righteous (and, it’s gotta be said, embarrassing-for-you) wrongheadedness.
Auguste (92fde5) — 3/27/2006 @ 2:52 pmPatterico, damn it, quit hating women!
Isn’t it strange how people who respect women enough to equally respect their status as autonomous and fully accountable moral actors are always accused of “hating” women?
Sheesh.
Federal Dog (43c7eb) — 3/27/2006 @ 2:52 pmI’ve heard of people jumping to conclusions, but never with such self-righteous (and, it’s gotta be said, embarrassing-for-you) wrongheadedness.
The woman mocks me, I prove her a liar, I access her site and get a message that my account has been suspended. I don’t feel embarrassed at the logical conclusion I drew.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/27/2006 @ 3:02 pmPatterico,
Perhaps a contest is in order? Who can leave a comment defending conservative principles on dailykos.com without recieving any personal insults in return? Or conversely, who can leave a polite and friendly conservative comment and garner the largest number of insulting replies.
oneisnotprime (7900e3) — 3/27/2006 @ 3:33 pmI still wade in on occasion because I really want to learn what the other side is thinking.
But a lefty can leave a polite comment here without being insulted, I think. And that’s a good thing.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/27/2006 @ 3:40 pmAdoption is not a bed of roses? Is the murder of millions of children in the name of ‘birth control’ a bed or roses? I suspect there are millions of women under the care of mental health professionals that wish they had opted for adoption.
scrapiron (a90377) — 3/27/2006 @ 3:53 pm#32: Maybe a more proper leftist reasoning would be capital’s demand for more labor, and thus all pregnancies are potential labor and all pregnancies should be brought to fruition.
Perhaps. That would certainly be a Marxist argument. But note: while there is certainly a degree to which the modern American left derives from mid-century American Marxism, Marxism and leftism are not congruent, and Marxist economic and historical theories are not the only frames of reference leftists use.
My experience as a member of the left suggests that almost nobody uses a Marxist argument, or Marxist theory, in discussion of abortion. The issue is usually framed as a question of personal liberty, freedom, or power for the woman making the choice to abort. In that sense, the modern left’s position on abortion owes more to its roots traditional nineteenth century liberalism than to its roots in twentieth century Marxism.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/27/2006 @ 4:23 pm1. Never wrestle a pig in the mud. You will only get dirty and the pig will like it. 2. Never argue with an idiot. People watching will not be able to tell the difference. (Not mine. Attribution unknown.)[This Domenech thing has really made me nervous.]
There’s a reason this is the site I frequent practically exclusively. The host and commenters are civil and honest in their debates. (Paul is a little ill-tempered. Just kidding, Paul. Please don’t yell at me). Even as a lurker, I cannot stand most of the leftie sites. Too much potty mouth. (There are notable exceptions. Balkinization, for one. I was the rudest commenter there until I just got tired of the Bush-bashing.)
nk (54c569) — 3/27/2006 @ 4:58 pmJust a comment to add to the discussion of the inherent problems with adoption: A few years ago I had a client (I am a psychotherapist), a UCLA student who was unhappily and inconveniently pregnant. Despite having a sister who was able to have only one child and would have gladly raised the baby in peril of being killed by abortion, the mother-to-be was unmoved. The sister even promised to sign anything legal to give the baby back anytime the pregnant woman/sister wanted. Even so, the pregnant sister and the father refused to allow this baby to live, still wanted to abort the child. This belies a selfishness that defies all rationality. This couple actually preferred to KILL the nascient life within rather than accept the sister’s most generous, sincere offer. To this day I am astonished by this couple’s complete lack of any moral compass. (Although I suppose there are those who would say in this thread that the child was better off dead than with such immature imbeciles for parents.)
In light of this, no decisions pregnant women make surprise me, in whatever circumstances they find themselves. Something is very wrong, ill, perhaps even demonic, here, and no amount of “debate” and discussion seem to change this for me. That women find adoption repugnant in general just speaks to an excess of selfishness, period. If there was not enough generosity in their hearts to let the child live, why would they allow any one else to raise the baby? No, a clean start is better…although, is there ever a “clean start” after killing an unborn child? Having this child was just too inconvenient, too much a speedbump in the plans of this coed’s future. Her complicity in evil, given her sister’s offer, is just too enormous for contemplation.
I know what the choice was…it was expedient and it was cruel (especially with the options proffered), and it was murder. The mother and father’s emotional and moral culpability was staggering, period.
Marybel (744905) — 3/27/2006 @ 5:49 pmMost women get abortions early, before anyone knows they are pregnant. The theory is that no one will ever find out. Of course, this doesn’t happen because the woman always tells someone. Life is long. Secrets are hard to keep.
sharon (fecb65) — 3/27/2006 @ 6:07 pmRecognise?
Seems familiar?
Well the first is as you know the United States Declaration of Independence July 4 1776
And the second modelled on the first is the 1848 Women’s Rights Convention previously known as the Declaration of Sentiments at the first women’s rights convention, New York.
Women from the Left would have brought feminist ideas to the Left and that dominates then the Left’s perception of women’s rights as one of the agenda. If the left is liberal, it has been asked elsewhere, why did the liberal’s concern for the weak and helpless fetus not win the support of the liberal when the liberal is concerned for all quarters of weak and helpless. Why the exception? It is possibly the tension between the membership of its female members taking precedence, where after WWII, women at work in factories gave way to men’s higher priorty for jobs, even though when men were at war, women held the fort. The practical result would then be a caving in toand accomodation of the feminist discourse and thus presented wrongly as a liberal discourse.
Maybe the liberals should re-examine the root of the discourse on abortion and women’s right to abortion and not just take the given as liberal discourse.
Maybe the liberals can still reconstruct the abortion discourse on its own tradition without relying on the feminist discourse and maybe it might look different if so constructed.
It is thus an adoption of the women’s feminist discourse by the liberals [ males and females, as unborn fetus are not capable of membership to have a direct representation and voice] that is then [wrongly] presented as orginal liberal discourse.
Liberal married fathers should examine the root of this feminist discourse and reflect and ponder why they are excluded from being even notified of their liberal married wifes intent of seeking abortion during the first trimester, when they are in a happy liberal marriage, when in so many other matters, there is equality and rights as between each other, even the right of the woman [ as wife] to being the sole beneficiary of his insurance policy [life] unless she so otherwise waives it in writing.
Yi-Ling (bc0605) — 3/27/2006 @ 6:19 pmI think there are elements of ego and social/peer pressure involved in why people refuse to place a baby for adopttion.
When the biological parents are immature (regardless of how old they are), they usually view the baby as their possession to keep or dispose of as they please. The idea that someone else could raise their child successfully is an implicit criticism of their inability to do the same and thus of them as people/parents. It’s so much simpler to abort the ill-timed baby.
I sometimes wonder if one of the parents might like to keep the baby, or arrange for the baby to be adopted, but is intimidated into abortion by the other parent, peer pressure, or societal expectations. There was a time when society expected the young man to marry a girl he impregnated; today those expectations are reversed.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 3/27/2006 @ 6:25 pmLiberal married fathers should examine the root of this feminist discourse and reflect and ponder why they are excluded from being even notified of their liberal married wifes intent of seeking abortion during the first trimester [ see Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992 below link] , when they are in a happy liberal marriage, when in so many other matters, there is equality and rights as between each other, even the right of the woman [ as wife] to being the sole beneficiary of his insurance policy [life] unless she so otherwise waives it in writing.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Yi-Ling (bc0605) — 3/27/2006 @ 6:30 pm[1992] http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/306/
I can’t believe it. Patterico, you’re a
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 3/27/2006 @ 7:19 pmtrolldissenter now?Yi-ling writes:
… men like you went to court to ask the court to ask the women [ their wifes] to seek their consent before their pregnant wife aborts their child.
Don’t presume you know men like me.
Men like me never asked a woman to abort a child.Ever.
Men like me taught their sons values that include adopting another mans son and giving him his name Before he married the boys mother.
Men like me chose a profession out of a desire to help people despite stereotype and sexism in woman dominated industry.
I don’t want your kudos for the life I chose nor do I want you to labor under the illusion you know ‘men like me’.
Nk you’re right, I do get a little ill tempered. sorry. I’m just not a good lurker.
paul (464e99) — 3/27/2006 @ 8:06 pmPaul,
We have talked some time on this board on some topics and I would presume to know you are a fine person, concerned of and for others. Any aspersions , adverse aspersions were NEVER intended and you have my fullest apologies. As it was never intended to cast any aspersion, of any negative sort, the apology is easily and freely given. OK? You will still talk to me?
I like to explain, two items that you picked up, one goes back to # 30 a typo error, which should read nature makes great demands of the male penguins, but somehow, when writing the idea got written as demanding men. If you go back to this, see, if it is consistent with the overall story that it is a description of the harsh nature and great demands placed on the male penguin emperors. This could have led you reasonably to conclude that I had intended in fact and in intent, that men are demanding.
The second item is any suggestion that you would have asked any woman to have an abortion. If you look again, it was intended to mean that, the state laws seems to suggest that, men’s consent is required, and that men should have an equal say, on whether one half of them [ their wife] wants to abort their fetus though bodied in the other half [ the wife]. It seems to suggest that men could say NO and thus the abortion should not be allowed. Logically if wife says YES and husband says NO, then really it is a stale mate and it would result there is NO abortion. Maybe they can have a judicial intervention when there is a deadlock or let the deadlock stand as a NO. If judicial intervention, then it can be like the judicial bypass for minor pregnant women who did not get her parents consent. The judge can approve the abortion if the judge finds the abortion is in the minor’s best interest or the minor is mature enough to make the decision to abort, by herself without involving her parents. I disagree with that so long as the minor is staying at home with the parents and dependent on her parents financially. Anyway, the form of the judicial intervention in the case the hypothetical woman says YES to abortion and the hypothetical husband says NO, is an open and difficult question, for it is saying that the judge has right to sit in decision on a marital disagreement, but then does the judge not sit to adjudicate on divorce, custody of children, division of property? But in those instances, there are already set rules, by statute or other. So even if there are no statutes today, there can be tomorrow if we focus our minds on it, to set out the principles when a married couple can have an abortion during viability.
What then can these principles be?
What kind of guidelines are reasonable and fair and that the state can or should adopt as state laws to guide the judge when there is a need for judicial intervention in the case of deadlock between the married couple on abortion before viability.
Yi-Ling (bc0605) — 3/27/2006 @ 9:24 pmP.P.S. Lord knows what Amanda is saying about me at Pandagon. I cant even access the site; my account has been suspended. Ive heard of people being banned from commenting, but this is the first instance Ive seen of software banning someone from even reading a site.
Ha, Ha, you sir, no crap about how teh intarweb works. Apparently you know nothing about how the world works either.
[I “no crap about how teh intarweb works”? Yeah, that *is* funny. — P]
jerry (049afa) — 3/27/2006 @ 9:38 pmAnd what Auguste says about your jumping to conclusions? I mean, think about that. You are not only pre-Copernican, you’re positively pre-Keplerian. The world revolves around Patterico Magnifico!
[That’s because, to quote you, I “no crap about how teh intarweb works.” — Patterico]
jerry (049afa) — 3/27/2006 @ 9:47 pmYou wrote very well about the morally bankrupt issue of using abortion to avoid feeling bad about giving the baby up, but you did specify sex in that second paragraph.
There are two deeds, after two decisions: the decision to have sex and the deed of having sex; then the decision to have the baby/ give it up for adoption vs. aborting it. Once you decide on abortion, the deed is killing the fetus. If you decide on adoption instead, the deed is having the baby (and maybe giving it away, maybe keeping it).
When you say: “The doctor doesnt require you to confront the evidence of your deed. Adoption does.” — this implies you’re talking about just one and the same deed. Which was the sex, earlier. The abortion deed is different than the adoption deed, so the rhetorically nice “Adoption does” makes it easy to misunderstand. Fuller clarity would not have been as nice reading.
Keep up the good work.
[Tom, I wasn’t referring to sex. Period. — Patterico]
Tom Grey (839fb7) — 3/28/2006 @ 5:26 amPerhaps you’d like to check out this abortion thread on The Liberal Avenger.
So far I’ve been told:
And:
Neither I nor anyone else had mentioned God or a church or anything of the sort; and
Our friends on the left simply can’t discuss abortion without getting hostile.
Dana (a90377) — 3/28/2006 @ 4:08 pmI’ve long since given up trying to have an intelligent discussion on most of those sites.
Remember: the ability to express one’s self in a civil conversation with cogent thoughts and ideas and making a logical argument is inversely proportional to the number of four letter words and ad hominem one feels compelled to use.
It’s the pig wrestling thing …
Just won’t do it … wouldn’t be prudent.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 3/28/2006 @ 4:27 pmInteresting that we’ve had better than half a dozen threads on abortion here, fairly recently even. I’d have to say that the level of mutual respect and logical argument has been wonderful, even given the strong differences of opinion.
As for me personally, I’ve learned from both sides and feel that I’ve grown intellectually. At the very least I’ve come to appreciate a range of opinions.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 3/28/2006 @ 4:34 pmI quite agree with the sentiments Harry Arthur expressed in #56.
As far as these glimpses into threads on the topic at certain other sites: one would think that people of good will would be particularly loath to descend into the gutter on such a fraught topic. I guess that, by and large, one would be wrong.
AMac (dffe74) — 3/28/2006 @ 8:10 pmApparently (trackback #58), Amanda felt the need to add extra emphasis to what Harry Arthur and I had remarked on (#s 55-57). It’s nice when people of differing perspectives can find these points of agreement.
[Sorry, AMac. It’s gone. She’s now on the “ignore” list. — P]
AMac (b6037f) — 3/29/2006 @ 5:56 amHmm. Came over via Pandagon.
With medical abortions women see the embryo that they’ve passed, as it happens in their own home. Many women prefer a medical abortion for these reasons.
(RU486 causes cramps and a spontaneous miscarriage.) On the site _I’m not sorry_ women often are relieved at how the embryo looks like a small blueberry.
On adoption: it sounds like you think of adoption as a bad thing to do. Or of a newborn baby as “evidence.” It’s an odd word construction.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 3/29/2006 @ 9:54 amgeoduck2,
paul (001f65) — 3/29/2006 @ 10:45 amAdoption is not a bad thing. But it’s also not a rose-colored perfect answer to an unwanted pregnancy. It too has it’s societal consequences.
When held up against death, I must admit it looks pretty good.
Paul,
I do think that people should be careful about judging people who give up their babies. Adoption is, in my opinon, a very unselfish thing to do, and I deeply admire people who give up their babies for adoption.
The way the original comment was phrased, I can understand why people misunderstood it. That’s all.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 3/29/2006 @ 10:53 amAttention Patterico
Amanda is back and she is, indeed, lying about you
Amanda is so predictable.
Darleen (f20213) — 3/29/2006 @ 12:26 pmAphrael,
# 41
With due respect to your careful observation analysis and comment, can I ask you to consider the other fundamental rights usually grouped together with the privacy right to abortion; namely, right keep the family together, and right of parents to control the upbringing of their child, and consider these additional constitutional rights [ than just the right to abort] from a liberal perspective and from the principles as developed or as may be liberally developed from the roots of its fine 19th century liberal tradition?
In the matter of the married women’s constitutional right to privacy [and thus right to abort before viability at will ] versus the [married men’s ] constitutional right to keep the family together [ an expansive reading proposed of the constitutional right to keep the family together ]
whether a sole and wholly feminist perspective would tilt the court to abortion
but a balanced liberal perspective [ incorporating some aspect of its membership’s feminist perspective but not subrogating entirely wholly and irresponsibly to the feminist perspective] would tilt the court, to
a) consider not just the constitutional right to privacy for pregnant women to abort, but also the married men’s constitutional right to keep the family together, where possibly, some extension of ratio decidendi needs to be creatively done to include married men’s proposed constitutional right to require his wife not to abort thus paving the way to keep the family together vis a vis the unborn fetus with potential of taking life post natal as his child. [ This may not be far fetched if one considers that under criminal law, the crime of killing a pregnant woman takes into cognizance the life of the unborn fetus ! ]
b) balance the competing constitutional rights and find a rational methodology to enable the appropriate constitutional principles to be applied to arrive at a rational reasonable compromise between the two ‘apparently conflicting’ constitutional fundamental rights as may then be properly and rationally applied to the circumstances of each case to arrive at a just and reasonable and rational decision.
Further example.
In the matter of the minor unmarried women’s constitutional right to privacy [and abort ] versus her parents’ constitutional right to control the upbringing of their children ,
whether a sole and wholly feminist perspective would tilt the court to entertain minor’s request for abortion by passing even notification to her parents if she can satisfy the judge that she is matured enough to make her own decision or the judge thinks it is in her best interest to abort, without prior full hearing of the suitability of her parents to be notified given the parents constitutional right to control her upbringing, and whether her parents are better able to make a decision on their minor daughter’s ability to make a mature decision, especially if their minor daughter is staying at home with her parents and financially dependent on her parents for her lifestyle [college school etc]
while a balanced liberal perspective [as above defined] would tilt the balance for the court to require evidence that the minor daughter is not staying at home and not financially dependent on her parents, before even the judicial bypass can be utilized. A judicial bypass without even considering the constitutional right of parents to control the upbringing of their children, is an infringement or non consideration of the other competing constitutional fundamental right of parents to control the upbringing of their children.
Like any perspectives there are always shades, just as there are feminists who would advocate pro life choice and radical feminists who would advocate life without men. In between there again are shades.
However, when a young girl about college going age says on Fox news, “I do not want to be an incubator” the feminist discourse has slanted female’s maternal opportunity, privilege and process, and the discourse needs to be balanced, for our future generation.
Regrettably, the feminists view controlling the liberal dialogue and space needs to be properly balanced, not for the sake of this debate, but for the sake of our future generation.
Until we redress the balance, the tilt goes unchecked and gets further entrenched. Just as there once was a need to get the women the vote and get them out of the kitchen, and thus recognise them as people with right to vote , hold property, and right to hold a paid job by educating them and training them for a vocation or profession outside the kitchen [ thus the role of feminism and feminist theories] there is today a different need to strike a fair reasonable and rational balance with other competing constitutional rights as well.
I am sorry if I have upsetted or irritated anybody. Thank you.
Yi-Ling (9fa110) — 3/29/2006 @ 4:18 pmAuguste and jerry,
Note that, now that Pandagon is back online, many of the regulars thought that the “your account is suspended” language meant that their account was suspended. The proprietor had to e-mail a bunch of people to explain to them that they had done nothing wrong.
So if you think I was an idiot, you think the same about them.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/29/2006 @ 6:32 pmDana,
# 54
Thank you for your link on liberal avenger.
I would agree with your sentiments about no abortion under any circumstance.
However I draw a distinction between my personal stand and my public stand.
Why the double standard?
I think spiritual development cannot be hastened before its time nor thus can it be forced upon by laws banning abortion. I would lean towards perceiving life, and would feel the pain of making the decision to support pro choice. I would have self doubt as to whether it is the right thing to do, to support pro choice. I would wonder whether I am responsible for the loss of potential life, if I do not support pro life. But I will live by these uncertainties and in spite of these uncertainties and support others right to choice within limits carefully set out by society. I do not have the comfort that others have, like thinking the fetus is some parasite as expressed by one poster on liberal avenger. Instead I have the agonizing concern that it is life. So my support for pro choice within limits, is painful support because I understand life to be lived based on our personal choices, that we, as humans must necessarily make. We must choose to give a meaning to our life whatever that meaning be. Maybe because I feel the agony and pain of support of others choice that I ground this choice, within limits that can really benefit society. That it can and does benefit society and our family life and our children we bring up, would at least compensate for the painful choice to support pro choice within limits.
I think the concept of choice is so integral in my perception of life and meaning of life. Soren Kierkegaard, a Christian existentialist and said to be father of existentialism, saw his meaning of life, his meaning of existence as his commitment to Jesus Christ. He lived out his commitment. In the same way [ not suggesting you are a Christian because of that example] , you have expressed your choice of meaning of life [ the Kierkegaard’s example to cross reference the strong unequivocal uncompromising commitment you expressed on the many posts on liberal avenger you linked] , and purpose of life and that is to uphold life or potential of life under all circumstances. Example: When one poster posted a hypothetical situation that whether as parent [father] you would let your daughters who have been raped, abort. You uphold your meaning of life, by not going for abortion option for your own daughter and helping your daughter raise the child.
Everyone of us would have our meaning of life, that we have self chosen.
So for that reason that each of us must live according to what meaning we give to our life, and live by the consequence of our choice, that I lean to pro choice within sound reasons set by concerned thinking members of society. I now need to get back to my books. …please excuse me
Yi-Ling (713601) — 3/31/2006 @ 12:18 amA comment link because Blogger does not support Trackback: http://krites.blogspot.com/2006/04/roe-v-wade-not-only-do-not-children.html
nk (5e5670) — 4/20/2006 @ 6:38 pmFirstly, I have contemplated abortion myself, later finding myself unable to go through with it and since finding that all of the problems I imagined, though at times tough, are often surprisingly surmountable and indeed a pleasure to overcome with my lovely son who I now cannot imagine my life without.
May I say I feel a very personal guilt at even contemplating abortion.
On the other hand my best friend found herself pregnant at thirteen and wasnt confirmed until she was technically past the legal time allotment for abortion though her parents and the doctors agreed that there was no way she could be expected to raise the child and she was induced, at the age of thirteen, giving birth to a child, hair, fingernails, deficient lungs.
Ten years on I still anticipate the tearful phone calls on the anniversary of my friends induction.
Should she feel guilty?
Most definately not!
I believe that abortion is for most women (excluding one well publicised case of a British woman undergoing seven abortions through the NHS apparently in place of contraception !) a very traumatic experience as well as for their male partners, married or otherwise.
I also agree that the prospect of adoption is a horror for most pregnant women and that it takes an incredibly selfless person to go through with a decision to hand over the life you have helped create and are biologically programmed to love and bond with, accepting that you can not meet the requirements to grant that life all that you believe it requires, putting a great deal of unsure faith often into the hands of strangers.
In cases of underage mothers ( the grandparents have a perfect right to refuse to raise another child in my opinion )who I feel are incapable of dealing with the impact of their actions, be that the actual birth, raising a child when they are a child themselves or alternately handing over their child and rape victims who will be ricocheted between natural bonding barring them from considering adoption and a terrible yet blameless reminder of a horrific experience, I can see the validity of abortion as it would be detrimental to the mother and her capability to raise the baby and therefore detrimental to the life quality of said baby.
In both of these cases the mother should take precedence, either too young to comprehend the consequences of her actions or an unwilling victim.
The only other area in which I think the option of abortion should take precedence is when it comes to severe diseases and severe handicaps bought to attention before the birth.
I stress severe and feel that quality of life again comes into the issue for both the parents and the child and that caring for a handicapped child who would otherwise die is a terrific burden but for exceptional people with specific capabilities and a special dedication.
Otherwise I feel that the abortion debate has become a battle of the sexs when it should be a question of the rights of the potential child.
So long as a male partner can provide for the child, alone if neccesary, he should have equal say in the abortion debate and should the mother not want their offspring he should be granted custody of the eventual baby.
The child has a loving parent available to care for it which I feel forgoes any upset caused to the mother. As with the adoption issue.
No matter how upsetting it is for her it is not death which is the outcome for the child.
Upset, admittedly for a great deal of time or indeed the remainder of your life vs Death?
No contest really.
End of story.
An adult woman should be perfectly aware of the consequences of her actions in spreading her legs and equally aware that no contraception is guarenteed.
To reverse the roles an uninterested father should be required by law ( a problem arises where most inefficient child support agencies are concerned )to provide for the child he had no qualms about helping to create.
No sex= no surprises.
Too many people considering abortions focus on the problems without really being guided through their options to raise the child and the childs options are often an after thought.
Few people ever feel ready for the demands of parenthood, it is a very tough learning curve but one we are designed to go through.
Can we force women to give birth? Can we weigh life against circumstances?
These are just my personal beliefs.
amber (411826) — 9/25/2006 @ 3:23 pm