Abortion & Race
I did a slightly modified version of this post on my own site but I assume most people are pro-life so I’m changing it a little bit. I’m pro-choice but I think that the discussion on this subject is especially bad in a sea of awful. So, I have a few questions and I’d love to hear your answers.
I started thinking about how the issues of race and abortion meet when I was on the road a couple of months ago working on the Pigford story. Eddie Slaughter (one of the black farmers I interviewed) and I had a talk about abortion. Not an argument or a battle; a talk. Think about that in today’s political heat.
He’s pro-life and he told me a personal story about how he came to that position. (Which I won’t repeat because it’s personal.) But he also mentioned that he thought abortion was the modern day equivalent of slavery. This is essentially exactly the same thing that Rick Santorum would say a few weeks later and get pummeled for.
Santorum was accused of ‘injecting race’ into the debate but the reality is that the issue is a real one and it’s just not discussed much.
Is there some contradiction about being both pro-choice / legal abortion while at the same time understanding why some black people might be worried about the disproportionately high number of abortions in black communities?
Why do you think so many pro-choice people seem ADAMANT that it’s wrong for groups to want to reduce the number of abortions in black communities with ads like this?
Is it completely backwards to call such ads ‘racist and sexist’?
This is discussion worth having, I think. My answers are – no, there’s no contradiction. Nope, it’s not wrong and censoring the ads (as was done in New York) is messed up. And no, it seems the opposite of racist and not sexist, either. What do you think?
Getting rid of “undesireables” has always been part of the pro-abortion position.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 4/2/2011 @ 10:08 amAsk Margret Sanger or Ruth Bader-Ginsburg.
I’m pro-choice in that I think it’s important that individual mothers have the authority to decide, for themselves, whether they wish to bear a child to term. Imposing legal sanctions or government-constructed hurdles (like waiting periods) reduces the power of women to decide for themselves.
But I’m anti-abortion in that I think abortion is rarely ethically the correct choice, and think it want it to be – in President Clinton’s famous words – safe, legal, and rare.
As such, I have no problem with ads designed to persuade people not to abort.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 4/2/2011 @ 10:18 amMe, have never (even once), engaged in discussion of the issue. And its complexity (like many issues we face today) … dunning. I appreciate all the points of view, held by all. And really, I don’t have the tools to actually participate (in any discussions/debate).
Bbbbut … here goes:
My only stance, be that of a young girl, in trouble (as it were). Doing what women have been doing for thousands of years. And that won’t change in the face of any legislation, which outlaws the practice. I just think it barbaric to subject such to a back alley, and a coat hanger [and I’m not discounting the barbarity of the (medical) proceedure neither].
I think it would be a great help. If we armed our children, with the knowledge they need, to survive. As in the simple basic mechanics of reproduction. And nooo, I’m not voting for fisting demonstrations in grade school (live or otherwise).
We can’t legislate morality. And yes, tis a righteous shame how cheap, how degraded, how transitory … oft meaningless, actual human … life has become.
My two yuan/blah blah
man myth legend enigma (c0a8c4) — 4/2/2011 @ 10:46 amIf somebody chooses to frame facts as racist and sexist, it is usually pretty easy to point out the racists and sexists in the debate.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/2/2011 @ 11:21 amI think it’s important to read your link to get the full context of this issue.
With that, in reading Cynthia Tucker’s accusation “It’s both sexist and racist to suggest that black women don’t have the intellectual and emotional firepower to make their own decisions.”, one could just as easily make the accusation that Ms. Tucker doesn’t believe black women have the intellectual and emotional firepower to make their own decisions while being fully informed and armed with as much information as possible.
If black women are fully capable, both intellectually and emotionally of making such an enormous decision that will impact them for the rest of their lives, wouldn’t she want them to consider and think through all possibilities and process accordingly? The ad clearly suggests a real possibility and clearly targets the black community, bluntly and truthfully. Why is she afraid of that being considered in the decision making of ending a life? Isn’t that precisely what the intellectually competent woman is going to be inclined and compelled toward – fully understanding all potential ramifications, unintended consequences, and fully grasping ultimate seriousness of the decision?
I’m sorry to see Ms. Tucker short-sell a selective group of women simply based on her own biases. She reveals a fear of too much information being disseminated to a select group of people, which on it’s face appears discriminatory in assuming the worst about the levels of intellect and capabilities of black women.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 11:28 amWhat it boils down to is the relative value of the unborn versus that of the mother.
Few people would argue that the unborn have no value; the ancient Jews believed that the taking of unborn life was wrong absent sufficient justification (Exodus 21:22, 23) But neither did they believe that unborn life was equal in value to born life.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 4/2/2011 @ 11:32 amIs there some contradiction about being both pro-choice / legal abortion while at the same time understanding why some black people might be worried about the disproportionately high number of abortions in black communities?
I think there is a contradiction in the question: If one is pro-choice/legal abortion, wouldn’t one assume that the owner of this belief does not believe there is a baby in the womb being killed, but rather a mass of blood, tissue and the potential for life being eliminated?
And if that’s so, why would it make anyone worry or be concerned that so many black women were having abortions? There’s clearly no moral or ethical dilemma involved.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 11:39 amand the potential for life being
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 11:40 ameliminatedremoved?The only thing I can think of is that this is a truth that must not be uttered, so the one way to end it is to declare it racist…I will never understand pro-choice advocates not wanting women to be fully informed before deciding to abort, btw…I fall in the, ‘keep it safe rare and legal’, catagory myself (I think the slippery slope works both ways, and don’t want to live in a society that either forces women to have abortions like China, *or* forces women to carry a pregnancy to term)…I have real respect for those who are urgently trying to get the word out about the disproportionate amount of abortions in the black community…I think it’s fairly obvious that the black community is being targeted by the abortion industry, and, given what’s known about Sanger, it should be alarming.
Ellen (a13e9f) — 4/2/2011 @ 11:41 amDana – I agree with your comment.
Lee’s link goes back to a piece(s) making the poverty argument for higher abortion rates among blacks, but does nor actually prove the case. In Illinois, there are a larger number of non-hispanic white people living below the poverty level than black people. The appropriate comparison would be the abortion rate for those specific groups, rather than the statewide black population and statewide white population. For some reason, I don’t see people drilling down to that data. I don’t know why.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/2/2011 @ 11:42 amMy comments, trying to be clear and succinct (which I have problems with).(So much for my original intent.)In general (I think) people desire “the freedom to do what I want”, and for some that means wanting others to have “the freedom to do what they want” even if I don’t want to do it myself, thinking if ethical restrictions fall on others, soon such restrictions will fall on me and my desires as well.
Likewise, I think, very few people want to think of themselves as “paternalistic” or to appear “paternalistic”. Even those who think it is good to be paternal in the correct setting and manner do not like the idea of being “paternalistic”.
Put the two together, and the vast majority of us are in general against abortion, but also feel reluctant to prohibit someone else from having one, and come to the position of wanting abortion “safe, legal, and rare”, as aphrael and President Clinton vocalize.
The problem is, it is not rare, and “safe” requires significant clarification; only legal is an essentially correct adjective. Some can face this reality and how it conflicts with their values- I assume that aphrael thinks and feels that it is a problem that abortion is as common as it is and wishes it would be much less, because there are less people in a situation where the desire arises, rather than people are told they cannot do it. Aphrael sees how reality conflicts with his desires, but not his principles, as he is secure in his conviction that he does not have the right to enforce this moral judgement on others.
Others, however, are much less clear and secure in their beliefs, convictions, and feelings. To them to say, “Abortion is ethically wrong in your situation, but I can’t make that decision for you” is a terrifying thought. There is the spector of paternalism- “Who are you to think you know what I should do” and the spector of being told they are going to do something morally “wrong”, that they will be a “bad person”, a person of “lower standing” than those who were able to avoid making the same decision.
To this latter group of people, they will be satisfied with nothing less than the idea that abortion is a choice of equal moral standing with carrying a baby to term and not having an abortion. The poster above clearly gives abortion a negative connotation, it can cause guilt in the woman who had an abortion, or confusion and stress in the woman considering to have an abortion. For some that is putting an “unfair burden” on the shoulders of the one making the decision.
I think that is a perfectly reasonable and understandable construct for a given set of assumptions. It is not a construct I agree with, as I have a different set of assumptions.
Emotionally I am pulled to the same perspective of aphrael and Clinton, but cognitively I disagree. We do legislate morality all of the time, unless you want to claim that all laws, including laws against murder, have no moral standing but are simply an arbitrary standard of societal behavior that we’ve decided to impliment. In such a case a society would be just as morally correct to make murder legal, and what would bring “order” to society (if there was any) would be how people manage the risk of being murdered with the possibility of murdering someone else first. Typically we call such a society “primitive”. One could be persistent in claiming moral equality, but simply mean that an “advanced” society is different only in technological expertise, largely won through having time and energy for creative and cooperative thought and action because you don’t have to worry that your lab partner will kill you if yuou turn your back for 10 seconds.
MD in Philly (f0e1bd) — 4/2/2011 @ 11:46 amConsidering that they are using
Obama’s face, perhaps there is a
legitimate concern that what is
being suggested is that aborting
more black babies is a good thing.
Or at least aborting babies like
Barak Hussein Obama. Maybe that
is where the racism comes in.
I mean, lets face it, no one ever\
says, “Thank God Jimmy Carter was
elected President.”
In fact the opposite is true, and
Jack (f9fe53) — 4/2/2011 @ 11:49 ammy guess is that in the future,
a lot of people won’t be saying the
same thing about Obama.
The “racist” narrative is what has been constructed by the left or pro-choice movement to avoid discussion of an inconvenient truth and a good example of what Lee was talking about yesterday.
Another shining similar example for me was the complete absence from MSM coverage of white people living in poverty in New Orleans affected by Hurricane Katrina. It was all about how George Bush hates black people and how all these poor black people were displaced by the tragedy. Poor white people, not newsworthy.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/2/2011 @ 11:53 amRight, daley. It’s a selective extraction of data to fit the company line. I was reading at Lee’s link, the (I hate to bring them up) Planned Parenthood comment and fairly recoiled at what it’s really suggesting,
Planned Parenthood of Illinois provides care to more than 60,000 men, women, and teens each year. More than ninety percent of our services are preventive, and include: lifesaving cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, contraceptive consultations, and GYN exams. In 2010, we provided 34,770 STI tests, 161,678 family planning visits, 15,440 contraception consultations, 19,572 cervical cancer screenings, and 21,393 clinical breast exams. Sixty percent of our patients live at or below the federal poverty level.
We know that African-American women are disproportionately affected by the current health care system which involves multiple barriers to accessing quality, affordable care. This results in higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, unintended pregnancy and abortion.
The 2nd para is telling:
*the current health care system negatively impacts black women – not white, nor Hispanic, nor Indians, nor Asian women – is this selective racism or do the other groups not count – or possibly, is there another possibility as to *why* they would not be included in this?
*undefined multiple barriers prevent quality and affordable care
…and here’s the disgusting soft-bigotry:
This results in higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, unintended pregnancy and abortion
What are we saying here? That black women are more promiscuous? That black women can’t say “no”? That black women can’t do their family planning *before* spreading their legs? That black women end up pregnant and forced to have abortions because we have inadequate health care services in America? The idea that a group of women are incapable of making a sound decision before it becomes a problem is bigoted on it’s face, and infantilizing a collective group by justifying their lack of responsible decision making and blaming in on an outside entity is also bigoted and assumes the worst of the individual.
Talk about racist, sexist and treating adults like children.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 11:58 amThat ad is the best argument I’ve ever seen…in favor of legalized abortion.
Dave Surls (70848b) — 4/2/2011 @ 12:01 pmGiven that the eugenics movement led by Sanger helped give political legitimacy to the concept of abortion as an individual right and liberty, this ad hits precisely at the core of the evil.
When evil is directly exposed, it does anything it can to deflect, else it be neutralized by good.
Forgive my ignorance as to authorship…”The Devil’s greatest trick is to make it seem he does not exist.” This ad exposes him as few things ever have. (If you choose to make this about BHO, have at it.)
Ed from SFV (206325) — 4/2/2011 @ 12:01 pm“What are we saying here? That black women are more promiscuous? That black women can’t say “no”? That black women can’t do their family planning *before* spreading their legs? That black women end up pregnant and forced to have abortions because we have inadequate health care services in America?”
Dana – I don’t think Margaret Sanger could have written that PP copy any better.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/2/2011 @ 12:17 pmCan anybody tell me what I use that thang for?
Where do babies come from?
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/2/2011 @ 12:19 pmIn reverse order:
1. The ads may or may not be racist or sexist but labeling them that way is a way of avoiding the core debate on abortion. I’d rather have the debate, so I’m not going to fall for the racist/sexist strawman.
2. Pro-choice advocates are adamant that ads like this are wrong because they know they may contribute to limiting the number of abortions and, ultimately, the unfettered right to an abortion. That possibility is anathema to them.
3. To me, there is no contradiction in supporting abortion while also worrying about whether abortion unduly impacts black babies. It’s the same as being for capital punishment while also being concerned about its disproportionate impact on minorities. You can be for or against a policy but still have concerns about its consequences, although at some point those consequences may make you rethink your support for the policy.
DRJ (fdd243) — 4/2/2011 @ 12:19 pmAbortion is a tough issue for me. I’m philosophically and ethically a libertarian. From that POV I should generally be Pro-Choice. At the same time as an adopted child born in 1953, I have to wonder if I would be alive had abortion been as widely available and acceptable as it has become. Yes I know one position is based on reason and logic and the other is based on emotion. But it is hard to reject emotion when it is your own life you are potentially discussing.
Cecil (7e2b2f) — 4/2/2011 @ 12:19 pmMaybe this is why Obama wants to start sex education in kindergarten, you know, so his daughters don’t get punished with a baby.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/2/2011 @ 12:21 pmAnyone else doubt the number of cancer screening Planned Parenthood claims they performed? That’s a very, very large, and thus oddly precise number.
My guess is they are counting all the screenings others performed and taking credit if they have referred people to the actual practitioners performing these screenings. If so, Planned Parenthood is not a needed part of that equation at all.
I think we’ve seen first hand just how honest Planned Parenthood is with reporting information, so their claims alone are worth nothing.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/2/2011 @ 12:22 pm“We can’t legislate morality.”
Don’t be absurd.
Pretty much all laws are aimed at enforcing morality.
Murder and theft are bad things, so we pass laws prohibiting people from engaging in those activities.
If they were good things, then we wouldn’t bother.
Dave Surls (70848b) — 4/2/2011 @ 12:30 pm“I’m philosophically and ethically a libertarian.”
Same here, right up until the moment folks want to start killing and thieving, then I start getting all authoritarian.
Dave Surls (70848b) — 4/2/2011 @ 12:36 pm_________________________________________
Why do you think so many pro-choice people seem ADAMANT that it’s wrong for groups…
It’s somewhat analogous to the peculiar biases that various people on the left throughout the Western World have that cause, as one example, their sympathies to be directed to those who, in effect, are ultra-conservatives in the world of Islamism.
The left has a knack for being “useful idiots” and ultimately contributing to the law of unintended consequences. So no thanks to them, the socio-political fundamentalism of Islam will be fostered throughout modern Western society, and a larger percentage of black America (ie, fetuses of African-American women) will be sacrificed at the altar of pro-choice politics.
BTW, I think anti-abortion politics is to the right what pro-school-integration politics was to the left. It’s technically and legally — and socially — unrealistic or naive to think that legislation (or judges mandating that school districts do A, B or C) will be a magic pill, mainly because of the phenomenon of humans voting with their feet. So history shows that people either moved away from neighborhoods where public schools were being desegregated, or — should abortion be restricted as it was decades ago — they will be very clever and resourceful in finding a place to get an abortion.
What’s sickening is how in today’s culture quite a few people believe it’s a sign of their wonderful compassion and humanity to shed tears over the way that household pets (or animals in general) are treated compared with the way that human fetuses are dealt with. So you have people in places like super-blue California believing that single, underaged girls do not need to obtain parental consent before getting an abortion, while mandating that owners of horses be outlawed from selling their animals to rendering plants.
Yep, we live in an era of such true compassion and sincerely big hearts.
Mark (411533) — 4/2/2011 @ 12:38 pmDave Surls:
Well said.
DRJ (fdd243) — 4/2/2011 @ 12:52 pmSome thoughts;
1) I think Abortion should be legal.
2) I think an Abortion results in the termination of a life.
3) I think that children are taught to be human by their parents and society over time, and that therefore a newborn is not human. I have known people well into their third decade who had not learned to be human, and the existence of the likes of Mao proves that some never learn.
4) I DON’T think that I can prove the truth of ‘3’ above. I don’t think that it can be disproved either. I therefore believe that no tax money should ever be available for abortions, unless is has been given over to an individual (as, say, a social security payment) with no strings attached.
5) I think that, by opposing Parental Notification and restrictions on Partial Birth Abortions, the Pro-Choice people are positioning themselves (not deliberately) to lose a whole lot more. These positions are political poison.
6) As Parental notification laws spread, I expect to see some pro-choice fanatics helping young women to circumvent them by crossing state lines. When this inevitably leads to a young girl dying at an abortion clinic she was taken to illegally, I fully expect these idiots to be outraged to discover that they are considered the bad guys.
7) I believe that the best possible solution would, in the end, be a patchwork of laws made locally, with it always possible for a Parent or Guardian to take an underage girl somewhere where Abortion is legal.
8) I also believe that ‘7’ above will be accepted by certain fanatics on both sides of the argument when it can be scientifically demonstrated that Hell has frozen over.
C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968) — 4/2/2011 @ 1:01 pmevery 21 minutes our next possible murderous drug dealing rapist is aborted
happyfeet (71628d) — 4/2/2011 @ 1:01 pmIn Chicago and Cook County candidates for office fall all over themselves to point out how tough they are on guns. Why? Due to the high death rate among blacks. Yet I have never heard any candidate for office in Cook County talk about the high abortion rate among blacks and what might be done about it. Interestingly, while Jesse Jackson has consistently lobbied against the private ownership of firearms (and has demonstrated against that right with big TV coverage) I am not aware of anything along those lines that Jackson has participated in concerning abortion. It could be that he just doesn’t want to upset his white liberal backers. Kinda like how Budwiser bought of him off by throwing a Chicago area distributor to one of his kids.
BT (74cbec) — 4/2/2011 @ 1:01 pmAs someone who is personally pro-choice, I’d say that the defining characteristic of the *extremist* pro-choice activist is that they not only think that unlimited abortion on demand is a ironclad constitutional right–they further believe that anything that makes a woman (or man) feel uneasy about the effects of that choice should be forbidden.
M. Scott Eiland (27aed4) — 4/2/2011 @ 1:14 pmspeaking of teh racisms many people last night were talking about this … it’s an LA thing and our friend Mr. Eugene is involved
Now I have to find the original video for you to see for yourself. brb.
here it is I don’t think she goes beyond what a kajillion stand-up comics do but I’m not an uptight UCLA administrator douche what lurvs him a racial wankfest like Mr. Chancellor Block.
there’s a billion parodies already here is a pretty good one
Anyway UCLA has successfully driven young Alexandra from the school so that’s pretty much that. For now anyway.
happyfeet (71628d) — 4/2/2011 @ 1:19 pmC.S.P. at 27 – There was a case in (IIRC) Pennsylvania back in the early ’90s when a woman took a minor (not her own child) across state lines for an abortion to evade a parental notification law. The operation was botched and the girl started to bleed heavily on the drive home. At which point she kicked her out of the car and abandoned her on the side of the road.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 4/2/2011 @ 1:19 pmShe was a minor cause celeb for awhile among the “liberal” set. Even after it turned out that the reason she was helping a thirteen year old get an abortion was that her son was the father and was guilty of statutory rape.
“every 21 minutes our next possible murderous drug dealing rapist is aborted”
No doubt there’s some truth to that.
But, I have this old-fashioned idea that we ought to kill folks for doing bad things AFTER they do them, and not before they perform an act of unspeakable evil.
As far as I know, no unborn child has ever been executed as punishment for an evil deed. Pretty much all unborn babies are executed for the same reason.
Some worthless tart doesn’t feel like being pregnant or being saddled with the responsibility of taking care of a baby…so, they get an abortionist to kill the baby, thus relieving them of an unpleasant responsibility.
That’s what the vast majority of abortions are all about.
And, it’s cold-blooded murder.
Dave Surls (70848b) — 4/2/2011 @ 1:26 pmhf,
Fascinating story. UCLA has a code of conduct for library users that prohibits disruptions and unacceptable cell phone use, among other things. I wonder if Alexandra tried asking for help from a Library staff member? It would have been a better way to handle her problem than posting a YouTube video that effectively ended her semester.
DRJ (fdd243) — 4/2/2011 @ 1:34 pmI think you’re right but my guess is Alexandra is maybe not very strong with the problem-solving skills. Me I think UCLA specifically and maybe America generally needs a new gear we can engage somewhere between apathy and she’s a witch burn her.
happyfeet (71628d) — 4/2/2011 @ 1:37 pmI’ve concluded, after watching the abortion debate rage for decade, that it is just not possible for the decent people who see what’s inside a uterus as a mass of blood and cells– and the decent people who view what’s inside a uterus as a tiny human with a face and wee hands and feet– to reach each other or change minds.
Therefore, what I immediately liked about this new ad campaign and billboard is, that regardless of how one views the contents inside a woman’s body, the campaign merely posits that whatever that energy inside her uterus is, when given a chance has the potential to grow into great things. I’d love to see this campaign run similarly to the “Got Milk?” ads. Just like the president, feature other well known Black achievers on the billboards (both historical and current) to remind that there might be a five star general, a business leader, an inventor, a genius musician or sports role model inside her. (with their permission, of course)
elissa (8f28a0) — 4/2/2011 @ 1:51 pmThey are paying for it today. Chicago is a huge beer market and Bud continues to fail. Yusef Jackson operates the distributorship in Chicago’s near north side, and he has what should be a license to print money. With a skillset that is limited to patronage and lacks imagination, he has his ass handed to him daily by MillerCoors. It’s a joke. He will end up being forced to sell at some point.
Good comments in this topic. I’m lukewarm about the abortion issue, but calling that ad racist is ridiculous, and does indeed expose the real racists in the conversation.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/2/2011 @ 1:53 pm“Pretty much all laws are aimed at enforcing morality.”
And yet laws do not cause moral behavior. They largely cause a cost/benefit analysis.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 4/2/2011 @ 2:06 pmhf,
I agree. College is the time when you are supposed to be experimenting and learning things. I’m sure Alexandra learned from this experience but the main lesson seems to be shut up.
DRJ (fdd243) — 4/2/2011 @ 2:10 pmAnd yet laws do not cause moral behavior
True. They do cause negative consequences when they are broken, though. And that is why laws are good to curb bad behavior, but not very good for encouraging good behavior (that goes beyond simply ‘not being bad’).
At least that is the idea when fairly made and justly and consistently applied.
MD in Philly (f0e1bd) — 4/2/2011 @ 2:17 pmLee, I agree it is wrong to level an accusation of racism on ads such as the one you have provided. The accusation seeks to squelch the very discussion that is being highlighted; the disproprtionate number of abortions in the black community.
Aphreal, I think pro-choice people should remember that to not abort* is also a choice, and adherents should seek to support both possible choices with information provided by proponents of each side.
I do not consider a waiting period to be in any way a reduction in power for mothers. On the contrary, it is my opinion that mothers are better served by a waiting period concerning an irreversable procedure of any type. I am not a lawyer, but are waiting periods in contract law (M&A, real estate, auto, etc.) considered a reduction of power for either party? Is it considered a protection for the purchaser or the seller?
Aphreal, I am gladdened by your use of the term of “mother” in the context of abortion. You have my respect.
* I am not suggesting that pro-choice people do not know this nor am I saying that you did say that – that would be a strawman. I wish only to point out that I hear very little about the other choice from proponents of pro-choice, and that this sounds, at least to me, that pro-choice does not mean the freedom to chose from a list of choices, but the freedom of primarily one possible choice at the expense of other choices through the restriction of information about those other choices.
Felipe (d37996) — 4/2/2011 @ 2:18 pm1) I think Abortion should be legal.
2) I think an Abortion results in the termination of a life.
This would suggest sanctioning murder, no?
It’s the pesky inconsistencies…
The pro-choicers refer to pregnant women as mothers and yet support their right to kill what has to be a baby – otherwise they wouldn’t be mothers would they?
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 2:26 pm“The pro-choicers refer to pregnant women as mothers and yet support their right to kill what has to be a baby – otherwise they wouldn’t be mothers would they?”
Dana – Heh. Maybe they should call them lump of tissue carriers or blastocyst carriers or something.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/2/2011 @ 2:38 pmExactly. They don’t increase moral behavior, they increase fear of consequences.
Moral behavior can only be increased through real conversation.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 4/2/2011 @ 2:41 pm“…decent people who see what’s inside a uterus as a mass of blood and cells”
Kinda like the decent people in Germany who decided to see Jews as sub-human. Makes it easier to kill folks, if you look at them and decide they ain’t really folks.
People see what they want to see.
Dave Surls (70848b) — 4/2/2011 @ 2:46 pm[…] Link: Abortion & Race […]
Abortion & Race | Liberal Whoppers (ed8beb) — 4/2/2011 @ 3:06 pmDana, you will notice I didn’t say I thought an abortion ended a HUMAN life. (See point ‘3’ which followed in my original post).
Have Blue, I have some recollection of that case too. My memory is that the Usual Pro-Choice Suspects championed that woman for about four days, or until her less-than-pure motives came out. Then they dropped her like she was a live grenade. But I was busy at the time, and may be remembering wrong.
In any case, my point is that the Progressive Left people who are the core of Pro-Choice can reasonably be predicted to a certain kind of behavior, and have given no thought to the probably PR costs of that behavior. They almost certainly ARE going to sneak girls across state lines to escape Parental Notification again. When that lands them in a PR nightmare, they are going to be shocked, SHOCKED!, that their transporting minors across state lines to circumvent that Law is held against them.
Women who take having access to legal abortion seriously should think about this. These idiots I am describing are going to lose you legal abortion if you don’t rein them in. You cannot afford the bad publicity that they will generate.
C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968) — 4/2/2011 @ 3:27 pmDave Surls–I understand why you might react the way you do to that “decent people” comment. My personal dilemma, though, (and one I suspect many of us may share) is that a few people with whom I work closely, and some others I have known and loved for decades–smart and caring people with whom I have vacationed, shared life’s joys and sadnesses with, learned from, and to whom I would trust my own life–do, in fact, take that stance. I may disagree with them, but there is no way I could ever consider them not to be inherently decent people, or put them in the same category for thinking something as I would put the the Nazi’s who actually, physically carted off and killed humans.
elissa (8f28a0) — 4/2/2011 @ 3:39 pmCPS,
I’m sorry, I thought point #3 was meant to be a joke.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 3:40 pmOh good grief, that should be CSP, not CPS…
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 3:41 pmeh, satire rather than joke.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 3:57 pmelissa,
Weren’t there a number of Germans who supported what the Nazis did, even if they didn’t themselves kill Jews? Some, perhaps many, of them may not have realized the true extent of the Nazi genocide, but I don’t see how pro-choice advocates can plead ignorance regarding what their beliefs entail. Instead, it seems to me they should admit abortion is something they think is necessary, even if it means killing babies. (Furthermore, it’s a cop-out to claim fetuses aren’t babies or humans. At best, we don’t know for sure so pro-choice advocates must consider that possibility when making their decisions.)
Personally, I understanding having a discussion about the limits of abortion — for instance, what if the baby probably won’t survive, or is seriously impaired or deformed? I have a far harder time understanding those who view abortion as one of a range of family planning tools.
DRJ (fdd243) — 4/2/2011 @ 4:08 pm—I have a far harder time understanding those who view abortion as one of a range of family planning tools—
Agree completely, DRJ. And, while I realize they’re out there, I don’t know anyone personally who professes to believe that abortion should be used in that manner.
Still, not everything is always crystal clear. While not directly related to the discussion at hand I offer the following link for consideration with respect to the larger issue of unwanted and improper teen pregnancies.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-us-newbornsbodyfoun,0,4107219.story?obref=obinsite
13 year old gives birth to stillborn baby whose father is a 16 year old relative. (brother?)
elissa (8f28a0) — 4/2/2011 @ 4:31 pmIn other words, there are consequences to what we believe and it doesn’t just apply to abortion. I support capital punishment, so I have to be willing to admit that I support it even though I know some innocent people may be condemned to death.
DRJ (fdd243) — 4/2/2011 @ 4:31 pmTo the left, abortion is a political sacrament [1] and as such, any debate, advertisement, poster, or propaganda that would de-legitimize it is treated just as other religions in the past have treated heresy, blasphemy, and apostasy: Silenced by the most potent weapon at hand.
In America, the most potent weapon to shut down debate on any topic is to accuse your interlocutor of racism. They cannot let that pass, and must then defend the accusation. Now, you’re talking about racism, and the other guy is on the defensive — you’re no longer talking about abortion. As Charlie Sheen would say: Winning!
“pro-choice” is not about choice; it never has been, which is why arguments like “what’s wrong with making the OTHER choice, for life?” never gain traction with the zealots. Even Clinton’s facile nostrum of “safe, legal, and rare” was met with criticism from the left — “there’s nothing wrong with choosing abortion, so why worry if it is rare or not?”
Some fellow travellers in the “pro-choice” camp may THINK the argument is actually about “choice” — but some research into the history of abortion politics in this country, and Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger specifically, would disabuse of that notion quickly.
[1] sacrament [n] — a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament; …that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality.
BobInFL (1361e3) — 4/2/2011 @ 4:32 pmelissa,
I commented at the same time you did so I did not see your comment before I left my follow-up. As for your link, those cases are not that common, are they? Should we really make policy for everyone based on cases like that?
DRJ (fdd243) — 4/2/2011 @ 4:34 pmIncest and rape are reportedly the reason for 0.6% of abortions. And regardless of whether we know people who have gotten abortions (and I do), even the Alan Guttmacher Institute’s statistics suggest 98% of abortions are related to lifestyle and/or convenience.
DRJ (fdd243) — 4/2/2011 @ 4:40 pmThere is no contradiction if one finds people to be of no intrinsic value; i.e. to qualify as neither racist nor sexist one must hold firmly that all people are of intrinsic value, or of no intrinsic value. The former precludes acceptance of abortion. To ascribe to abortion a moral neutrality is to assert the second proposition, which is the progressive proposition.
Paula Robinson (3c15c6) — 4/2/2011 @ 4:40 pmOne could be persistent in claiming moral equality, but simply mean that an “advanced” society is different only in technological expertise, largely won through having time and energy for creative and cooperative thought and action because you don’t have to worry that your lab partner will kill you if yuou turn your back for 10 seconds.
Comment by MD in Philly — 4/2/2011 @ 11:46 am
MD, Heh, you say the most appropriate thing at the most appropriate time.
Felipe (d37996) — 4/2/2011 @ 4:40 pmStranahan, so long as you think that the attempts to call such an argument “racism” are actually about the alleged racism of the argument, you’ll be baffled.
If you think of the cry of racism as just a way to attempt to shut up of a different political view, it will make a lot more sense to you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/2/2011 @ 5:02 pmDRJ, I can tell that this is an especially emotional issue for you. As a result I think you may be reading between the lines things that are not there, and this is very uncharacteristic of you. I don’t believe my 4:31 comment even hinted that I thought policy should be based on situations like the bizarre case in Michigan and I tried to make clear that I was posting the link, not because it was germane to the thread, but because I thought it was interesting because it offered a look into a scenario that social workers and police probably encounter more than we’d like to think.
As to your 4:31 post, again, I agree with you completely. I think I am confused about what I may have written that makes you think I am on a different page. Was it that I mentioned I have dear friends who are somewhat more permissive about abortion than I am, but that I value their friendship anyway?
elissa (8f28a0) — 4/2/2011 @ 5:08 pmI guess I’m as confused by your comments as you apparently are by mine, because I certainly don’t feel emotional about abortion. I think there is a place for abortion in society, but it should have far more limits than currently exist.
DRJ (fdd243) — 4/2/2011 @ 5:17 pmAll righty then. Let’s move on. *big sincere smile*
elissa (8f28a0) — 4/2/2011 @ 5:23 pmPaula Robinson @ 58,
There is no contradiction if one finds people to be of no intrinsic value; i.e. to qualify as neither racist nor sexist one must hold firmly that all people are of intrinsic value, or of no intrinsic value. The former precludes acceptance of abortion. To ascribe to abortion a moral neutrality is to assert the second proposition, which is the progressive proposition.
Well said. The entire debate really hinges upon this.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 5:28 pmDana, Daley, I do not recall hearing the term “mother” from any of the pro-choicers I know. They will eat nails before allowing “it” to be human. but just as Aphreal reveals, there are some who do allow it, and I do not believe he/they are wolves in sheeps clothing performing a sleight of hand.
C.S.P., #3 WRONG!
An excerpt from page 7 (introduction) of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Third Edition) by Keith L moore, M.Sc., Ph.D. Emphasis is in the original.
Significance of Embryology
The study of human embryology is important because it developes knowledge concerning the beginnings of human life and the changes occurring during developement.
However, I would not be surprised to read the exact opposite in a recently published textbook. Not only can history be rewritten, but so can science.
Also, I believe, while reffering to Mao you are confusing human and humane. Big difference.
There is no doubt that the fetus is a human being as opposed to a human voting, a human thinking, a human sleeping. No one needs to be taught to “be human”. You simply are. I would argue that we, all of us from conception to death, are developing and decaying humans.
Felipe (d37996) — 4/2/2011 @ 5:38 pmThey will eat nails before allowing “it” to be human. but just as Aphreal reveals, there are some who do allow it, and I do not believe he/they are wolves in sheeps clothing performing a sleight of hand.
I did not suggest any pro-choicers who use the term are wolves in sheep’s clothing, felipe, but the selection of words is inconsistent in that it acknowledges a role of mother to baby and yet condones the right to kill said baby. And also uses the term “child” which acknowledges life. Is that what he (and those who use the designation) mean?
I’m pro-choice in that I think it’s important that individual mothers have the authority to decide, for themselves, whether they wish to bear a child to term.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 5:53 pmFair enough, elissa, but that’s a shame because it was just getting interesting.
DRJ (fdd243) — 4/2/2011 @ 6:00 pmDana, Felipe;
I am not joking about #3. Nor am I alone. I believe Thomas Aquinas held that a newborn was not a person for 24 to 28 days after birth. What his reasoning was, I have no idea. There is certainly a legitimate point of view that holds that humanity begins at conception. There is another for beginning at delivery. My reading on the subject (hardly encyclopedic, I do have a life) has convinced me that there is NO point of view on the subject that is not at some point based on faith rather than fact.
I also know that MY opinion is well outside the mainstream. I’m OK with that; I’ve know for some time that I am what is referred to as a Crank.
If I haven’t made enough people angry with me, here’s another off the wall thought;
I believe that the Anti-Abortion (as opposed to Pro-Life) faction believe that the vast majority of people who currently use abortion as birth control are smart enough to modify their behavior if it becomes much harder to obtain. I doubt there is a lot of evidence for this.
Conversely, I believe that a significant faction of the Pro-Abortion (as opposed to Pro-Choice) faction believe that those people are too stupid to deal with the consequences of abortion being harder to obtain. I have a feeling (but little evidence) that THEY are wrong too, at least on a societal level.
Historically, increased wealth causes the birth rate to drop. There are probably exceptions that I don’t know about, but on the whole if you want people to stop having double digits of kids, making them wealthy by comparison to their ancestors seems to work – and it seems to work to a degree even when birth control is primitive.
What I said about the cost of defending Partial Birth Abortion and defying Parental Notification still goes. Both positions are poison. Advocates for legal abortion cannot afford either one, if they want to keep the core of what they gained.
C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968) — 4/2/2011 @ 6:06 pmYou are correct Dana, you did not suggest that: I did. I should have used the word “think” in place of “believe”. I did not mean to put words in anyone’s mouth.
Thank you for pointing out the inconsistancy of the words and position. In my joy of hearing the word “mother”, I let that point escape me.
“Is that what he (and those who use the designation) mean?”
That is a good question. Aphreal, would you answer this question?
Felipe (d37996) — 4/2/2011 @ 6:10 pmWhen would they usually baptize a newborn?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 4/2/2011 @ 6:23 pmC.S.P, Aquinas was giving his personal opinion on a subject of the day known as “ensoulment”. People, both religious and lay, had a curiousity about when God placed a soul into the body of a human being. Different writers had different ideas about it. The Catholic church tolerated all of these ideas as she tolerates many ideas today. the official stance of the Catholic church was, and still is, “before you were formed in the womb, I knew you”, Aquinas believed this also. But he was free to opine on many subjects, and did.
I know you are not joking about #3. Like Aquinas (who merely wondered) you are wrong. And, to put a fine point on it, Aquinas never said his ideas on ensoulment were true while you point to his musings on the subject in a mistaken appeal to authority where (by your own admission) there is none. You are NOT alone, but you should not count Aquinas to be in your company.
I always find it amusing when anyone defends a lack of knowledge (nothing wrong with having limitations) by virtue of having a life, as though the two excuse each other. It betrays a certain amount of insecurity.
Felipe (d37996) — 4/2/2011 @ 6:41 pmI believe Thomas Aquinas held that a newborn was not a person for 24 to 28 days after birth. What his reasoning was, I have no idea
And Jewish law holds that if the baby dies within the first month, it is buried without a funeral or full mourning. I think the core idea–which of course came into being when infant mortality was a daily fact of life–was that the tentativeness of human life at that point, before even the most primitive ideas of self hood and a world outside oneself begin to form within the baby’s mind.
And Jewish law allows abortion when the mother’s life/health require it all the way through birth, if necessary–as long as the baby’s head has not emerged. After that point, it’s homicide.
On the main point, progressives who explain themselves on this seem to believe that the fetus is not a person, and therefore is completely subordinate to the needs and wishes of the mother, who is the only real person (in their eyes) involved in the situation. The rights of an existing individual override the potential rights of a person who does not yet exist.
It is not only leftists who support abortion, btw. A significant number of libertarians are pro-choice. Ayn Rand was vehemently supportive of abortion–in fact, she wrote in terms which suggest that she felt all intelligent women should seek a successful career and if threatened with pregnancy, were morally obligated to get an abortion. Of course, there is circumstantial evidence which suggests she had an abortion herself in her earlier years, and the obvious fact that in her novels there are almost no children (in all of Atlas Shrugged, there is only child presented as an individual character and not merely passing scenery).
kishnevi (ede414) — 4/2/2011 @ 6:43 pmC.S.P.,
I hope you know I was not being sarcastic in my mistaken assumption re your #3 comment. Whether or not you’re out of the mainstream in your thoughts is neither here nor there to me, I am interested in any good faith comments (trolls clearly not included).
With that, IIRC Aquinas followed Aristotlean belief that boys became human at 40 days and double that for girls (which poses an immense problem right there…). Ultimately I err on the side of caution and believe there is a soul intact at conception, i.e. human,
At the sound of Mary’s greeting, Elizabeth’s child leaped within her, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Two women find themselves unexpectedly (and unreasonably) pregnant. One carries the Son of God, one carries John the Baptist. The women are well into their pregnancies and upon greeting one another and hearing Mary’s greeting, John the Baptist leaps in his mother’s womb and she is filled with the Holy Spirit. The inference is that the baby within the womb knew who was in Elizabeth’s womb and responded accordingly.
(Apologies for getting way off point of the original post but it’s that type of subject).
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 6:45 pmYes, Scott. there were people who wondered (but did they really believe?) if Baptism did the “ensouling”. Remember, Baptism was considered a second birth – “born again” into the family of Christ. Today there is no more talk (outside of a classroom) of “ensoulment” just as there is no more talk of “angels dancing on a pin”. Thank goodness.
Felipe (d37996) — 4/2/2011 @ 6:54 pmKish, I believe you are correct. IIRC, In Jesus’ day, Children were not accorded (what today are considered as protections)the same respect as adults. It must have been quite startling whenever Jesus would take child and say “the kingdom of heaven is for such as these”, and “unless you become as one of these, you will not enter the kingdom”. I wonder if anyone thought “what is Jesus talking about? This child can’t even walk”
Felipe (d37996) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:11 pmwho was in Elizabeth’s womb
I’m assuming you meant Mary, not Elizabeth just then.
The OT parallel is Jacob and Esau fighting each other in Rebecca’s womb
kishnevi (ede414) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:16 pmThe inference is that the baby within Elizabeth’s womb knew who was in Mary’s womb and responded accordingly
FIFY
Felipe (d37996) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:23 pmYes, of course, kishnevi, Mary…
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:24 pmThis is what happens when simultaneously commenting and *trying* to watch Eat Pray Love…
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:26 pmDana, what did you think of the movie “Eat, Drink, Man, Woman.”?
Felipe (d37996) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:29 pmFelipe, trying was the operative word. Shallow, posturing, contrived…little more than the story of a woman on a quest to find herself and justifies her self-indulgences along the way. The character did not find sympathy in me. Frankly, she made me weary. But hey, the fabrics of India were stunning.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:37 pm“Historically, increased wealth causes the birth rate to drop.”
C.S.P. – I think there are some interesting theories which explain this behavior. I would be interested if you can point out a society which has been wealthy enough for a long enough time to see its birth rate drop significantly then experience a reversal of fortune? What has happened to its birth rate? I have my expectations, but a one direction observation is really not of much value.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:37 pmOh for heaven’s sake – Felipe, I was talking about Eat Pray Love – you were talking about Eat, Drink, Man, Woman! Heh.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:40 pmDana – Up at #17, I wanted to clear that I was not criticizing what you wrote. I was criticizing the language from Planned Parenthood which led to your observations, with which I agree. As I said in I believe in my first comment, usually the first ones crying racist and sexist are the ones guilty of the behavior, or at least that has been the tactic of the left.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:41 pmFelipe – What did you think of Sex in the City III?
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:42 pmoh daley, I didn’t take it as criticism at all. I knew what you meant. Thanks.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:44 pmPro-Choice. Interesting choice of terms here. All about the choice to end a life but no reference to the choice to preserve it.
My parents taught my siblings and me that we could do anything we wanted in life, but that everything had a specific price. And that we should closely examine the price before deciding what we were going to choose in life. So I think everyone should adopt this attitude.
I am Pro-Choice but with caveats.
I believe that before the choice is made, the person should have to spend at least an hour of so having ALL the available options explained to them. Adoption, single parenting support programs, social services, counseling services, etc., in addition to abortion and all the possible and probable emotional and psychological issues that can and do result in the aftermath of having an abortion.
I also believe that if you choose to have an abortion, you should have to pay for it. (Obviously there are exceptions in case of rape, etc. Shades of grey do exist.) No insurance policy or government health care should pay a cent to cover this procedure. It is, after all, your choice. And to use other people’s money, taken from them by the government to assist you in your choice, is both ethically and morally wrong.
So, being FULLY informed about ALL of the options, each woman should have the choice of what kind of person she wants to be and what she can live with. Just remember that the price may not actually be paid during life…..
Jay H Curtis (8f6541) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:53 pmFelipe, trying was the operative word. Shallow, posturing, contrived…little more than the story of a woman on a quest to find herself and justifies her self-indulgences along the way
HAHA!, dana you made me laugh!
My girlfriend (at the time) tried to take me to see Sex in the City, but I resisted. They made TWO more? O.K., I actually knew that.
I initialy resisted watching Eat, drink, man, woman, but being a chef, my curiosity won out. If I had three daughters, I would totally be the father in that movie.
Felipe (d37996) — 4/2/2011 @ 7:56 pmFelipe, I was just reading about Eat, Drink, Man, Woman. I don’t know how I missed seeing it but I just added it to my Netflix queue as it certainly looks interesting.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/2/2011 @ 8:13 pmFelipe – I was was just yanking your chain.
It’s nice to have you around.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/2/2011 @ 8:30 pmBad news folks. Apparently the internet is destroying the planet because it gives climate change deniers a place to talk. Why take a chance?
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/2/2011 @ 8:37 pmmy two cents, in order:
1. yes it is a contradiction to be pro-choice and yet care about a group of people, any group, who apparently have the opposite view. to me abortion is a moral issue, and you’re either pro-abortion or pro-life.
2. pro-choice people are simply promoting abortion to a loyal customer. it is racist but it is also good marketing.
3. it is no more backwards than pro-choice people targeting blacks as in #2. the ad isn’t racist because it uses the President’s image. It wouldn’t have been racist if they used President Carter’s picture either.
love your blog but just don’t comment much since I mostly read it at work.
deskbox
deskbox (22b367) — 4/2/2011 @ 8:57 pmI assume that aphrael thinks and feels that it is a problem that abortion is as common as it is and wishes it would be much less, because there are less people in a situation where the desire arises, rather than people are told they cannot do it.
Yes on both counts.
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 4/2/2011 @ 9:28 pmMy problem with this kind of ad is that it applies equally to contraception. But contraception is not murder; abstinence is not murder.
All (like abortion) result in the future non-existence of potential humans.
I personally favor better contraception. I would like to see contraception improved so that there are no unintended pregnancies, and no excuse for abortion except for genuine medical necessity.
But then all those future leaders would be just as absent as if aborted.
Rich Rostrom (988b43) — 4/2/2011 @ 9:46 pmI’m going to give a link to a “terrible” song for any who would venture to hear it. “Terrible” as in the phrase “terrible swift sword” in the Battle Hymn of the Republic. It is a song based primarily on the account of “the slaughter of the innocents” in the Gospel of Matthew. The kind of Bible passage Mark Twain was talking about when he said that the parts of the Bible that bother him were the parts he understood, the parts that Dostoevsky’s “Grand Inquisitor” objects to. It does link the episode to accounts in the Old Testament and to abortion today. If you have never heard it, it will probably make you upset; though the way in which you are upset will likely depend on your beliefs about the topic. If you personally struggle with guilt/not to have guilt over having had or planning an abortion I suggest you not watch it unless you have supportive friends with you. The song and its historical background bother me, too.
MD in Philly (f0e1bd) — 4/2/2011 @ 10:05 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT8OPGrTg-c
“abstinence is not murder.”
Oh yeah?
Feels like murder to me.
😉
Dave Surls (7d1e4f) — 4/2/2011 @ 10:18 pmIt is not only leftists who support abortion, btw. A significant number of libertarians are pro-choice. Ayn Rand was vehemently supportive of abortion–in fact, she wrote in terms which suggest that she felt all intelligent women should seek a successful career and if threatened with pregnancy, were morally obligated to get an abortion.
Comment by kishnevi — 4/2/2011 @ 6:43 pm
— Hence the problem (okay, one of the problems) with the Libertarian Party and the Ayn Rand Institute. The concept of absolute liberty WITHIN an organized society is just as daft as the liberal concept of absolute community within a diverse group of individuals.
Icy Texan (ed81d9) — 4/2/2011 @ 10:34 pmThe left has to define anything they dislike as racist ( or sexist or some other ist ). This prevents any need to discuss troublesome facts. The ad has less racial content than the average attitude in the DOJ.
I have a question for Lee and any others in the pro-abortion ( and no, I won’t accept the weaselly “pro-choice” label, the only choice under discussion is abortion ) movement. I am adopted. If abortion were legal in 1947 there is a very good chance I wouldn’t be here. Why then would it have been okay to kill me?
Ken Hahn (a84daa) — 4/3/2011 @ 1:12 amComment by Dave Surls — 4/2/2011 @ 12:30 pm
“We can’t legislate morality.”
Don’t be absurd.
————————————————-
Larger context ….
Simply enacting legislation, the very act, the doing/passing of a law. In and of itself, won’t/will not magically/instantly change the (millenia) existing behavior under discussion (good luck).
An uphill battle, as in vertical. Against the even taller, more robust wall … of Hollyweird/MSM/New media … sexualizing our children (menses now arriving ever earlier).
For any law to work, to be followed, there has to be some willingness on the part of the populace. With an underpinning of knowledge and understanding, of the law. These children are not in possession of such. And I don’t see criminalizing them, changing that (nor of course, Hollyweird/MSM changing the steady diet of sexual themes/imagery/songs/media that they provide).
Starts at the cradle. Once upon a time (in dee wayback musheen), a friend o’mine and I, went to visit her sister. And me, was overwhelmed by her (the sister’s) five year old daughter. When recounting to her aunt and myself, during the visit. ‘Bout her and her family’s 4H activities.
While in the garage of the family home, and she proudly showing us her rabbits. And speaking as a learned member of society, matter’a factly regaled us with this most priceless/precious gem:
you hafta keep the boy rabbits away from the girl rabbits … or they’ll make baby rabbits
Unlike say much of the Middle East. Where children are nursed … from day one, minute one. On Islamism, sharia, and kill’n da Joo. Which IS in non dhimmi versions, of the quran. And yet, here in ‘Merica murder is illegal, and we do teach such to our children. But Islamism, obviously, is different (bein thuh ree legion uh pieces).
Elmo (546630) — 4/3/2011 @ 5:13 amAnd as a further aside, would add a pragmatic note (coming from a lifetime largely spent, tilting at windmills).
In the topic under discussion, say allowing for human error. In this case, by children. And not shackling them with further burden. But acknowledging we/they are human, aren’t perfect.
Unlike … say in Iran, where young women have been attacked, and raped. For being out in public, unaccompanied by a male. And then stoned to death, for being unchaste/adulterer.
(Yet) a further aside, red light cameras (and human error). (Reading yesterday) that possibly extending the length of the yellow (light) interval. Accomplishes the task of reducing accidents at/in intersections [by allowing for human error (even adding an all not clear, longer [all directions] red interval, before the next green cycle/cross flow is allowed to even commence)].
But then of course, the five hundred dollar ding … goes wanting, in the city/county coffers.
Elmo (546630) — 4/3/2011 @ 5:47 amdaleyrocks,
You bring up an interesting point, which I have not researched. One thought does occur to me;
France’s economy has been in the toilet for quite a while, with high unemployment and general stagnation. I haven’t read deeply, but my impression of the situation is kind of interesting as regards your question.
The “native” population of western caucasians is not even breeding to replacement numbers, but the non-caucasian immigrant population is exploding. An inquiry into birth rates IN France vs. birth rates in the countries of origin might be fascinating.
C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968) — 4/3/2011 @ 7:01 amWhy then would it have been okay to kill me?
Comment by Ken Hahn — 4/3/2011 @ 1:12 am
It might not be okay to kill you. But–this is the point of the pro-choice argument–only the pregnant woman has the right (and, although this is said less often, the responsibility) to decide that question for herself. No one else has the right to interfere.
That, by the way, is the pro-choice argument. It’s not my position, which is this: the fetus may not yet be a person (as the pro-choice side argues), but it will be a person within nine months if nothing interrupts the process, and that consideration by itself should be justify banning abortion.
kishnevi (d785be) — 4/3/2011 @ 7:50 amC.S.P. – Sure, France has been in toilet, but has it actually been in decline? If so, surely not long enough to measure an impact on birth rates.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/3/2011 @ 8:24 amC.S.P. – Further to my 103, with the socialized nature of some European countries, you have influences mitigating the need for large families now legislated into the fabric of the societies themselves. The heavy hand of government adds a distorting factor which formerly was not there.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/3/2011 @ 8:28 amI agree with CSP’s take on economics. If you read Hitchens’ book on Mother Teresa (for instance), it’s hard to take the Catholic church’s “pro life” stance seriously, at least when it comes to the 3rd world. Women’s reproductive choice and prosperity are certainly positively correlated across most of the world. I realize that the correlation is only one direction (daleyrocks), but that seems to be a good thing, that we haven’t had many societies completely tank in a couple of centuries since birth control was a reality.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/3/2011 @ 8:46 amThat last sentence needs an “or” in there somewhere…
carlitos (00428f) — 4/3/2011 @ 8:47 amdaleyrocks,
I agree that the influence of declining culture VS the influence of nanny government is hard to sort out in France. I am by no means as convinced that correlation means connection with this as I am with the rise in wealth and the decline in births. I was simply intrigued by the question you posed and throwing out data. But I would argue that France is clearly in decline, and has been since the Franco-Prussian War.
C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968) — 4/3/2011 @ 8:59 amThere are those who opine that the difference between homo sapiens and other species is the ability of the former to be able to reason.
So, if anyone ever answers the question “What do you think…?” with an opening phrase “I feel…”, can we make the assumption that they are not members of the species homo sapiens, and thus eligible to be hunted “in season” Don’t forget to get your hunting permit…
Horatio (55069c) — 4/3/2011 @ 9:53 am“But I would argue that France is clearly in decline, and has been since the Franco-Prussian War.”
C.S.P. – Have no idea what metric or “feelings” you are evaluating, but I don’t believe the data support your conclusion.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/3/2011 @ 9:57 amI think Ronald Reagan sums it up perfectly.
MSL (f060a0) — 4/3/2011 @ 10:17 am“Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.”
the fetus may not yet be a person (as the pro-choice side argues), but it will be a person within nine months if nothing interrupts the process, and that consideration by itself should be justify banning abortion.
It throws a bit of a wrench in that rationale when considering a baby can survive outside the womb before a full-term nine month pregnancy: born at 34 weeks gestation, a baby can survive on it’s own without intervention. Are they then not yet a person?
Even younger than that can survive, but with serious developmental/health issues – are they any less human at that point?
Dana (9f3823) — 4/3/2011 @ 10:19 amI wonder why.
Did French girls forget how to have sex?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 4/3/2011 @ 11:20 am–Did French girls forget how to have sex?–
Nah, I think they just miss those manly GI types offering nylon stockings and chocolate bars as encouragement.
elissa (f9391d) — 4/3/2011 @ 11:56 amI think that this issue is so sensitive it cannot be allowed to enter public discussion. It is a deal stopper, driving an unstoppable wedge between two bedrock Democrat voting blocs.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 4/3/2011 @ 5:12 pmAmphipolis – Stop talking about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 4/3/2011 @ 5:16 pmNo they just prefer their men to use soap.
I personally believe that abortion is murder in every single case. But like murder there are occasional extenuating circumstances that make the act not only legal but moral. But the operative word there is OCCASIONAL. the abortion rate among blacks is nothing short of genocidal, and it is being perpetrated by other blacks at the behest of what are essentially their white masters. Slavery never went away, it just changed forms. And as an aside, was it not Arab slave traders that introduced the practice to the new world? If so, why is it that blacks find such an affinity for islam when it was islam that enslaved them to begin with?
Rorschach (7a2fd6) — 4/3/2011 @ 6:57 pmComment by Dana — 4/3/2011 @ 10:19 am
Perhaps I was being unclear. I meant that, unless a miscarriage or abortion intervened, the fetus would be born, and therefore undoubtedly be a human being, sometime within the next nine months–which would of course include the premature babies you refer to. IOW, we know that, if a woman is pregnant now, the fetus she carries will be born and a buman being endowed with the usual inalienable rights no later than nine months from now.
And since the right to an abortion is considered to be one of the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution, surely a progressive will be understand that the the penumbra and emanation of the fact that the fetus will be a human before a set date will protect that fetus.
kishnevi (cc1ec4) — 4/3/2011 @ 7:43 pm“And since the right to an abortion is considered to be one of the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution…”
I’d like to take the SCOTUS by the scruff of the neck and give them an emanation upside their penumbra, for spewing that nonsense.
Dave Surls (83f711) — 4/3/2011 @ 7:52 pmIt’s right beside the right to mooch off the taxpayers don’tcha know.
/Sarc
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/3/2011 @ 7:53 pmI’d like to take the SCOTUS by the scruff of the neck and give them an emanation upside their penumbra, for spewing that nonsense
that was very funny, as long as one doesn’t try too hard to make specific definitions of the terms involved
…my position, which is this: the fetus may not yet be a person (as the pro-choice side argues), but it will be a person within nine months if nothing interrupts the process, and that consideration by itself should be justify banning abortion.
Comment by kishnevi
I agree with that statement as a general framework. The point was not that it was not yet a human being while in utero or before 9 months, but that the outcome of usual events apart from human intervention is that the embryo/fetus/unborn child is destined to be a human being and nothing else. Since there is no clear delineation where “personhood” explicitly begins, the emphasis should be on the continuity of the process and recognizing the humanity of the developing unborn child.
This is a significant difference from birth control that prevents the fertilization of the ovum. The natural destiny of an unfertilized egg or an individual sperm is death of the specific cell.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/3/2011 @ 9:00 pm