The Republican Party remains out of sync with the views of the American people on abortion rights. An Associated Press-GfK poll reported:
Support for legal abortion in the U.S. has edged up to its highest level in the past two years, with an Associated Press-GfK poll showing an apparent increase in support among Democrats and Republicans alike over the last year.
Nearly six in 10 Americans — 58 percent — now think abortion should be legal in most or all cases, up from 51 percent who said so at the beginning of the year, according to the AP-GfK survey. It was conducted after three people were killed last month in a shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado.
While support for legal abortion edged up to 40 percent among Republicans in this month’s poll, from 35 percent in January, the survey found that the GOP remains deeply divided on the issue: Seven in 10 conservative Republicans said they want abortion to be illegal in most or all cases; six in 10 moderate and liberal Republicans said the opposite.
Besides trying to defund Planned Parenthood based on bogus attacks, the Republicans have been restricting access to abortion in many states. Vox has a series of maps showing where the new restrictions are. The article began:
States have enacted an unprecedented number of anti-abortion laws in the past five years, and 2015 continued that trend. According to a new report from the Center for Reproductive Rights, state lawmakers proposed nearly 400 bills restricting abortion in 2015, and 47 of those bills were enacted. Some of those 47 bills contained more than one restriction, and the Guttmacher Institute estimates that a total of 57 new abortion restrictions became law. Arkansas passed six new anti-abortion laws, the most of any state in 2015.
Vox broke down the new restrictions to include waiting periods and mandatory biased counseling, bans and restrictions on certain abortion procedures, and other types of restrictions. The maps show the new restrictions to be primarily, but not exclusively, in red states. Some of the new restrictions have been overruled in the courts, and if not for this would probably be even more widespread in the more conservative parts of the country.
Originally posted at Liberal Values
Copyright 2016 The Moderate Voice
I just don’t get how people can feel they are so entitled to get into the personal business of other people. I mean, you don’t like abortion, don’t get one. I always try at least a little bit to put myself in other people’s shoes, but it gets really tough trying to imagine making such a huge, life altering decision like that for another person. Religious folks like that really need to get a grip and stop worrying about what other people are doing. Same goes for marriage between consenting adults. You don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one. Watching religious folks get self righteous about telling everyone else how to live like them makes me think of a world where Amish try to legislate that no one can use electricity. Your beliefs, YOU live by them. Until what I’m doing affects you, piss off and mind your own business please and thank you.
The abortion debate is a classic example of two sides talking past each other. If you look at it from the woman’s point of view only, of course the “it’s my business” argument is easy to make. But to understand the other side you only have to understand that they/we see the life of the unborn baby to have rights also. And, in most cases, the right of someone to live supersedes the right of someone to choose whether or not they become a parent.
Pro-choice advocates dismiss this argument by saying that the point at which human life begins is a personal, philosophical, or religious opinion, so it should be left to the choice of the woman. But making that argument also chooses a point–birth–at which they’d like society to consider human life to begin. As evidence of this, it’s only necessary to point out that no one makes the argument that a born baby can be killed at the will of the mother. So, clearly, birth is the point in time at which they decide human life begins. This point of view is philosophical as much as the pro-life point of view. Actually, I’d argue that choosing birth as the point that human life begins is at least equally arbitrary, if not more so, as choosing conception.
I’m not trying to change your opinion on abortion, only trying to help you “get how people can feel” they way they do. Personally, I fall into the “abortion should be illegal in most cases” category. But as a compromise I’d be happy with taking the question out of the philosophical/religious realm and deciding that the point of viability to be the point at which we consider human life to begin. It is still arbitrary, but less-so than conception or birth. There’s still debate over when that point is, but at least that’s a scientific debate rather than a philosophical one. So I think that is the most pragmatic approach.
Well that there is the rub, we decide at what point a fetus becomes a being with rights, and that is highly subjective. Essentially, it’s one of those things where society just draws a line and that is that. Such as the age of adulthood, currently pegged at 18. Could make it 16 or 21 just as easily, but it’s 18. And society has decided that, and even though some people are going to disagree, that’s sort that.
The question of viability is also a weird one, because you have to determine if we let nature or modern medicine determine viable. If we let technology determine it, well that is going to get silly quicly. Within the next 100 years, likely a lot less, we’ll be able to fertilize and grown a human from an egg without a human womb at all. So essentially any fertizlied egg is viable at that point. But what about all those eggs that don’t get fertilized? Is that murder of a potential? Clearly that would be so ludicrous no one would back that idea. I’m all for using the natural viability as a standard, as that is universal.
But most(but not all) people that think abortion is murder do so on religious grounds. And if we start making laws about how people have to live their lives on that standard, we go back on a lot of legal tradition. Also, they really tend to cherry pick where they plant their flag on that stuff. Since in the end, the decision is going to be subjective, and we’ve made that decision, it is incumbent on those who disagree to simply enjoy the fact no one is going to force them to have one, but they don’t have the right to be making decisions for others any more than a modern day Aztec would have the right to commit human sacrifice because that is what they believe.
“Essentially, it’s one of those things where society just draws a line and that is that.”
I’m glad you agree that we can’t avoid drawing lines. The argument that drawing the line should be the choice of the woman merely draws the line at birth by default.
As for the line, there’s no reason why we can’t discuss and potentially change our minds about where that line should be drawn, as I’m sure you agree. It’s true it’s somewhat arbitrary. Law is generally binary (sort of–we don’t treat shoplifters and murderers the same, but there has to be a line between “legal” and “illegal”), but nature isn’t. But that doesn’t mean that some lines aren’t better than others at approximating nature for legal purposes. Clearly 18 is better than 2 or 90.
As for viability, I see your point that it gets tricky. I still think it’s more practical to debate what viability means rather than debate an intractable philosophical question about when human life begins. “Viability” doesn’t have to mean “potential exists to survive” unless that’s what we choose. The definition could involve some small degree of independent functioning–maybe lungs that can function with the assistance of machines. So choosing to draw the line at viability doesn’t resolve the question, but it puts it more in the sphere of science and medicine. Not entirely, I admit.
It’s simple- bodily integrity. Do I have the right to take anything from a man to save someone else’s life? Can I take your blood, a kidney, bone marrow or part of your liver ? No, because you have bodily integrity. You can choose to donate those things, but can’t be legally forced to contribute them. Either women have the same bodily integrity or they don’t.
Strangely, the other group of people lacking bodily integrity is children. As a parent, I could have my child donate blood, a kidney, etc… Because it is assumed that I would be acting in their best interests and they are incapable of making that decision. Hmm.
While they will not word it this way, the conservative attitude on abortion comes down to an underlying belief that a woman’s body belongs to the state, and not to her, and the state has the right to control her body.
It is rather contradictory to the pro-freedom rhetoric we hear from the right.
I appreciate that argument. At least it doesn’t entirely dismiss that there may be a second individual to consider (otherwise the liberty argument would be sufficient).
However, I don’t know of any other natural condition of humanity that would cause a person to be entirely biologically dependent on another person, and only one particular person, other than pregnancy. So I think it is a special case.
Also, I think many abortions take place not because the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, but primarily because she doesn’t want to have a baby. Such cases would not be able to appeal to a right to bodily integrity. Granted, legally speaking we can draw a line of legality based on the motivation of the woman.
But even if I were to accept the argument and allow the woman’s right to bodily integrity to supersede the unborn baby’s right to live, how should we regard that choice, morally? A common libertarian thought experiment places you on a boat next to a drowning person. A life preserver is nearby which you could easily throw to the person. Should you be legally obligated to assist? A strict libertarian would have to say no, but she would probably also say that choosing not to help is an extremely immoral and abhorrent choice.
Yes, being pregnant is more than a minor inconvenience, but it is still an inconvenience, most of the time, relative to loss of life. The logical conclusion of this position, then, is that while abortion should be legal, we should also do all we can to encourage people to make a different choice. We should put in place policies that minimize the chance that someone will make that choice, while still permitting that choice if they are absolutely determined. It seems to me that’s the effect the GOP policies mentioned here are after, for the most part.
x2
What GOP policies actually do is return to the past where the option is available for the wealthy, but not the poor.
Again, you can choose not to have an abortion- but, as a man, that will never be your choice. You can choose to believe it is immoral for someone else to make a decision you will never be put in the place of making- fine. Lots of things can be considered immoral that aren’t necessarily illegal. Continuing to argue that it is an inconvenience, however, is entirely inappropriate and shows a high degree of either ignorance or misogyny.
“Continuing to argue that it is an inconvenience, however, is entirely inappropriate and shows a high degree of either ignorance or misogyny.”
Agree, plus would again emphasize that the restrictions could be a major problem for poor women, such as if it adds travel expenses. If a woman has the right to control her own body, then it is wrong to either outright ban abortion (which is the ultimate goal of those who impose these restrictions) or to place restrictions and write them off as a mere inconvenience.
My point is only that a normal pregnancy is a much smaller burden than lose of life. Using the word “inconvenience” was unproductive and not how I really feel about it. I used the word to relate it to the strict libertarian idea that one cannot be obligated to help another person even if it would be a minor inconvenience. I should have said that pregnancy is in a different category than inconvenience, while still being a distinctly lesser level of burden than loss of life.
” Actually, I’d argue that choosing birth as the point that human life begins is at least equally arbitrary, if not more so, as choosing conception.”
Except that I’m not aware of a single supporter of abortion rights who would define birth as the point where human life begins. (Of course on the internet I’m sure you could find someone who argues for any position.) The whole question of defining when life begins is based upon conservative pseudoscience. This also distorts the abortion issue in suggesting that abortions are done up to the point of birth.
Most late term abortions (which are also generally well before birth) are done due to the mother’s life being in danger. Another common cause of delaying abortions is the same restrictions placed on abortions by conservatives.
As far as “birth”, if you want to be technical- birth is a form of ‘abortion’- the pregnancy is ended, that’s why we use ‘viability’ and I would still have control over what measures were taken at that point to save the life of my child or wether I would want to have anything to do with it at all.
+1 Slamfu – Every word of your comment hit the nail on the head. I don’t understand why there are those who don’t get it.
Maybe adelinesdad will explain his seeming need, nay responsibility, to tell others what to do and how to live?
< >
Kind of like guns.
Yes Kevin exactly like guns.
It was just the other day that we all read about an aborted fetus going into an elementary school to get into ‘the personal business of other people‘…
Or was that a packed movie theater… Or maybe it just stood in a Planned Parenthood parking lot and got into the ‘personal business of other people.’
Whatever… It’s obvious that a women who have an abortion and a guns are both just the same.
< >
What a silly thing to say.
I didn’t say “exactly” or “just the same”.
As you know, I was pointing out the problem with Slamfu’s statement that said:
< >
Keep up or keep out.
Someone getting an abortion doesn’t affect me, it’s their business. Someone with an AR-15 has potential to affect me greatly.
It was just the other day I read about thousands of late term aborted babies that didn’t have a chance to do something wonderful, let alone live.
As a firefighter, you must have given the breath of life many more times than I have.
I am pro choice and pro gun control.
No need to apologize, I know your comments were made in a huff
Am I to believe your words here or your use earlier use of anti-abortion and pro-gun rights talking points… All in a four words.
No need to apologize, I know you were just trying to stir the pot.
I have written several separate articles and in depth comments about being pro choice and pro gun control. I prefer you use those to define my positions rather than when I am stirring and you are huffing
To quote dduck quoting SteveK… Comment Read.
Hope your area is not too wet. We really got pounded with rain, hail, 60mph winds and water spouts. All’s well though.
Thanks Kevin… Yuma is doing fine. It did rain two days in a row (1/2″ total) but instead of concern everyone was thrilled… The whole neighborhood was outside standing it, getting soaked and smiling like the fools we are… But then our average rainfall is between 3 and 5 inches a year so it was a sight for sore eyes.
Hope your hills are holding up and that you and yours all have foul weather gear… I put on a pair of long pants the other day and no one recognized me. :o)
It’s winter when we resort to covering the extremities.
COLD nights.
I have closed the windows and lit candles that smell like leather.
So the house will smell like a golf bag???
I have never owned a golf bag. Is a wet golf bag good or bad?
It’s gotta be good.
Who would ride a leather saddle 100 miles in the rain // or play 18 wet holes and then bring the said gear inside?(!)
Then lite a candle.
Rhetorical.
Agree completely slam, and you just saved me the trouble of making a similar post. There would be a lot more credibility on the part of anti-choice folks if their general m.o. indicated the respect for life they claim, but when we look at a host of issues, positions, and policies their hypocrisy quickly rises to the surface.
Here are some counterpoints:
First, the article you linked leaves out the finding that is probably most directly relevant to the assertion that the GOP is out of sync with abortion. 37% think that abortion laws should be more strict compared to only 27% who think the laws should be less strict. Oddly, that fact is included in this article which is otherwise almost identical to the one you cited. Anyway, that seems contradictory to the views on abortion legality but I think it isn’t entirely: even the restrictions the GOP has imposed or proposed don’t make abortion illegal in most cases. Apparently, a significant group of people can still believe abortion should be legal in most cases while still supporting, or at least not opposing, recent GOP-imposed policies.
Second, given the timing of the poll, coming right after an event that garnered sympathy for abortion providers, and the fact that abortion opinions have been relatively stable for a very long time, I’d be skeptical of interpreting one poll, or even a set of polls around the same time, as any kind of significant or permanent shift. Here are the historical numbers, which do show a recent uptick in pro-choice views but also a history of stability that suggests we should be cautious of assuming a trend has begun: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Raw poll: http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/AP-GfK_Poll_December-2015-Final-topline_abortion1.pdf
Agree that tolerance of restrictions on abortion is contradictory to the overall result of greater acceptance of abortion rights. The problem is that many of the restrictions are intended to make it more difficult for women to actually obtain abortions, sometimes making it very difficult for poor women who cannot afford to travel in some areas of the country where there are limited options. Some people advocate for these restrictions with this intent in mind. Others accept them, not understanding the consequences, and I think that getting out the information on the consequences of the restrictions will reduce support for them.
I’m not so sure if the timing alters the result as abortion is not the sort of issue people change their minds on from day to day. On the one hand, you could be right that occurring soon after the shooting increased sympathy for abortion rights. On the other hand, it also occurred after months of bogus attacks on Planned Parenthood.
“we should be cautious of assuming a trend has begun”
True. We won’t know for sure until we see future polls. However, I’m optimistic regarding the trend in light of the overall trends towards social liberalism.
You could be right. We’ll have to wait and see how public opinion changes or doesn’t. I’m skeptical because we’ve been on an overall trend toward social liberalism for a long time (see gay marriage, marijuana legalization, etc) and it hasn’t changed the public’s view of abortion very much. I think that underscores my point from another comment that many people don’t see this strictly as a matter of liberty since, depending on when we decide human life begins, there is a clearly defined victim. I think that’s probably why we don’t see the same trend toward the liberal point of view on abortion as we see in other issues. But we’ll see if that changes.
x2
Okay, let me state the following up front: I’m a Roman Catholic, I don’t like abortion, I realize that I am going to get hammered (at least in thought if not in following comments) by some of you.
To the argument of whether or not a woman should have the right to withdraw her support of life of another: that someone can not be “forced” to donate a kidney, blood etc: Bogus claim! Instead ask, “Should a conjoined twin have the right to kill his/her brother/sister because of the inconvenience?” If you can’t understand this argument, then you have not thought through the entire dilemma.
We currently do not allow suicide (at least not in most cases), we prosecute women who take recreational drugs that may kill a fetus, we prosecute men who get girls under the age of consent pregnant (yet do not require doctors to get special permission to get much more personal with them when performing abortions); where are we going to get some CONSISTENCY?
A dentist can not work on a child w/o the parent’s (or legal guardian) consent. In some states, a doctor is NOT ALLOWED TO TELL THE PARENTS w/o the patient’s consent about an abortion. What??
Go ahead–start hammering me.
No hammer here. I still think a woman has the rights over her body, but I don’t like the idea of the abortion itself. I cant get those pictures of a moving fetus out of my mind.
Does a conjoined twin have the right to be separated? Yes. That is the point. If your life is physically dependent upon someone else’s body, they have a choice as to wether or not that continues. Would you actually want to force someone to stay a conjoined twin if they didn’t want to? Legally prevent parents from having twins separated?
I have no problem with someone choosing to stay conjoined or choosing to carry a child to term. I just believe those are their choices- not mine. You can choose not to have an abortion. You can choose to donate a kidney. Wether you do or not might be an individual decision that I disagree with. You might not donate an organ to your dying child. I will not force you to do so under law, because you have bodily integrity.
I have no concern ver people’s individual beliefs and them expressing them- my concern is the law forcing those beliefs upon others.
I am also appalled by arguments that express pregnancy as an ‘inconvenience’. It is a permanent body change. You can tell from a skeleton wether or not a female has given birth. Then, after expressing it as an ‘inconvenience’- you point out how women are jailed for actions undertaken while in this state. Urg.
The question Robert asked is whether you have a right to kill your conjoined twin, not just separate. There can be situations where one twin depends on the other but not vice versa. Would it be OK for one to decide to separate even if it will kill the other, against his will?
I did earlier refer to pregnancy as an inconvenience. I wouldn’t normally call it that. My intention was to point out that it is normally a far lesser burden than loss of life.
The conjoined twin example completely ignores a big thing. Conjoined twins are people, and fetuses are not. People like me do not see a tiny clump of cells growing as equal to a person. Hell, even the Bible doesn’t see it that way. The comparison is not apt. The fact that you’d even ask that question as if it pertains to this topic shows you are missing a huge perspective. Again, it comes down to your subjective belief vs. mine, except my interpretation doesn’t force you to do anything or make any life decisions for other people without their consent, while yours does, and THAT is the crux. Do you get to make decisions for me when they don’t concern you? No.
BINGO
It seems the ‘pro-live’ [sic] anti-abortion is more apt as once a child is born to poor person (doesn’t matter their race) they lose all interest. That’s the mothers problem… I mean she the one that had (they forced to have) the baby!
We’ve come full circle back to my initial response to your very first comment, slamfu. That’s the central argument: whether a fetus is a person, or like a person, or at some point becomes close enough to a person (clearly we’re not just talking about a “tiny clump of cells” because abortions are legal long after a fetus develops beyond that stage), such that it has the right to live.
In response to my argument that it’s not logical to assume no rights at all until birth (as arbitrary a moment to choose as conception), Lorie argued that regardless, a woman has a right to bodily integrity which overrides the rights of any dependent life. That’s where this comparison to conjoined twins comes from.
Obviously if the fetus is 0% like a person and has 0 rights (equivalent to a clump of cells, as you say), the “bodily integrity” argument is unnecessary and the conjoined twin dilemma is not apt. But if someone holds that (a) the fetus may have rights, but (b) the mother’s right to bodily integrity supersedes them, then they have to consider the dilemma of the conjoined twins.
I’m actually also against abortion. It’s a brutal and difficult choice to make, and it’s not a pleasant procedure for the women who choose to undergo it. That being said, I’m fine with making sure I don’t have one. But as a man, that isn’t going to happen. But if I did get some girl pregnant, I’d choose to keep it even if it was a huge disruption to my life plans. But that’s ME. If the girl didn’t want to I’d never in my life feel that I have the right to force a woman to go through having a child she didn’t want. The mere idea of making a decision of that magnitude for someone else is completely anathema to me. I would be outraged to the point of violence if someone did that to me.
I see a fetus as potential for life, but not a full person. While I think abortion is not a good thing, neither is it something that overrides all other considerations. I think the fact a woman is literally generating that life through the physical processes of her biological engineering actually gives her the final say in these matters. I think the point at which we limit elective abortions should start at the time when a fetus can survive with minimal aid. By minimal I mean shelter, warmth, and food, what our ancient ancestors could provide. Artificial breathing is not minimal aid, it is an extraordinary measure. Again, these are subjective and where I personally draw the line. But the main thing is that a woman should never be forced to have a child she does not want. That decision is made long before the child is viable in pretty much any definition of the word.
Again Slamfu you nailed it.
You make strong arguments.
< >
I lifeguarded SoCal oceans for seven years. Breathing life into someone is not extraordinary. It’s part of the job.
Abortion is often a conscience decision rather than medical emergency.
A woman may decide to proceed on her own // or be pressured by a man // pressured by other women // family // or finances.
There is always the risk that years later an abortion may be viewed as the _worst_ decision ever made by the woman or the man (or others).
Sounds like we agree on much.
Choose wisely.
Yup.
CPR is not extraordinary, but putting someone on a ventilator because their lungs simply don’t work on their own is.
No one is saying that it isn’t often a decision not a medical necessity. Only that late term abortions are extremely rare(<1%) and almost exclusively medical emergency in nature. To have that decided by anyone other than the patient and the doctor based on the situation is absurd.
That goes the other way too.
I so wanted to say that but…
+1
True true … like I said before, we mostly agree.
Slam, I really like your comment, especially the last paragraph. Thanks for writing that. Have spent a half hour or so reading through these comments and found myself wondering if there are any women speaking up on this topic. From what I’ve read, I don’t think so but I could be wrong.
I have so much to say on this topic — but no time to write it now. I was told in my mid 30’s that I couldn’t have kids — not that I wanted them — I truly didn’t, for all sorts of reasons — but part of me hurt from hearing that news. That there was no possibility. But I know if I’d ever found myself pregnant, I would never have had an abortion. I just couldn’t have done it – but at the same time, I so truly understand why women do go ahead with the procedure. Coming from my background, in the 50s when women just churned the kids out, and the kids suffered — my mom had 7 kids — it wasn’t easy, it was hard as hell on her. She died at 68, well before her time. She had her last one when I was 17 and she was 44 — she whispered to me she was pregnant and asked me if she should get rid of it, our neighbour lady, she said, knew a doctor. I told her no. Just don’t. And she didn’t. My littlest bro was born healthy but with cerebral palsy. Mom and I and the rest of the siblings looked after him, (she and dad are gone now), and continue to look out for him. There is more to this topic than philosophy by what seems to me to be mainly male commenters. Much more.
Joe Gandleman, I’m going on holidays tomorrow, I will e-mail you about this when I get back. This is a topic that aches and angers me and I have a lot to say about it. Some of it almost sensible! 😉 You need a woman’s POV here ducks – I’m back on the 15th. hugs to all!
I hesitate to reply because I don’t want to stir up any more ache or anger, as I’m sure my comments are a big part of that. The only thing I feel needs to be pointed out is that there is not a significant gap between the sexes on opinions on abortion. There is some gap, but not large enough where it would be the main driver in the leanings of a comment thread. Nevertheless, we need all the perspectives we can get, female or not. We all bring unique life experiences. Enjoy your holidays and don’t let the puritanical opinions of men like myself ruin it for you.
Have a great and safe holiday(s), Browniesgirl. We look forward to your return and your thoughtful words.
Bless your heart Brownies girl… Enjoy your hols.
Abortion.
As a man, I hesitate to pass judgment on what must be a woman’s most personal, crucial, painful and traumatic decision.
As a man who does not have a womb nor all the trials and tribulations associated with pregnancy — but also as one who has not experienced the miracle and bliss of a normal childbirth — I have to listen to a woman’s judgment.
As a husband, I listen even more when this woman is my wife.
Anyway, my dear wife, when discussing this subject, always reminds me that if we are so intent on bringing every fertilization to its natural conclusion — regardless of circumstances or factors affecting the pregnancy, the mother or the child itself; regardless of the emotional and financial burden additional childbirths may place on the parents and caregivers — we should also make every effort, as a society and as a nation, to respect, promote and support every one of those new lives which we so passionately encourage women to bring into this world by:
Helping provide the nursing, nurturing and specialized (and expensive) medical or psychological care such newborns need or may need, especially when serious physical, mental or medical problems arise, as so many ‘less developed’ nations already do.
Providing inasmuch as possible a social drug-free, gun-free, crime-free, ‘poverty-free’ environment for those newborns to thrive in. Not by skimping on or stigmatizing help with food, shelter and other social needs and programs.
Providing easily accessible and affordable education for these newborns to benefit from, as so many ‘less developed’ nations already do.
Not criminalizing abortion, but rather help make such as safe and rare as possible. ‘Rare’ through education, family planning, good advice, safe and accessible birth control methods, etc.
Not discriminating against those newborns because of their race, ethnic, social or religious backgrounds or, later in life, because they happen to be gay.
Not letting ‘compassionate conservatism’ end at birth, but rather by encouraging such compassion and respect for the sanctity of life to start or continue precisely at that magical moment.
These are my wife’s two (big, old) British pennies worth — with which I happen to agree.
I should add:
and by not so cavalierly using those new-born babies, so treasured in the womb, later in life as cannon fodder in unnecessary wars…
I can certainly appreciate the sentiment that we ought to make the world a better place for all babies born, though we might disagree on what that means or how to achieve it.
But this view reads to me like a consequence of being pro-choice, rather than a reason for it. If one values the life of the unborn, as pro-lifers do, why should it be among the last problems to be solved instead of among the first? Why not add “not electively killing unborn babies” to your list of aspirations for this better world to leave our children, and then work towards that?
I believe most of us aspire to make this a better world, Adelinesdad, albeit I disagree with your characterization of what, as I said, is a woman’s (and oftentimes a man’s) ‘most personal, crucial, painful and traumatic decision.’
Thanks for your thoughts.
This is, more or less, my sentiments. They are also my wife’s sentiments. Thanks DdW
Thank you, RC.
I still think this is about controlling women, and for many men it may not be happening on a conscious level, after all, gender based responses have been ingrained in our culture for a long time. Any of the several times I’ve suggested that abortion would be a non-issue if men were capable of becoming pregnant, there were no responses, which to me speaks volumes. Think about the history of women’s struggles to be full citizens in our society, a struggle which is ongoing… that is the context in which our opinions on abortion are taking place.
It is totally about controlling women. I forget who said it, but if men could get pregnant there’d be a clinic on every corner and it would be paid for by our taxes. Men would never be complacent with someone else thinking they get to make this choice for them, not on such a life altering matter.
How do you reconcile this view with the fact that many women are pro-life? It’s true that women are more likely to be pro-choice but the difference is not great. Are some women trying to control other women? Is male control so powerful that many women are basically brain-washed to support it?
I’m skeptical of those arguments but I’d be curious to hear a defense of them. Without that, I see no reason to believe a man who can become pregnant would see the issue differently than a woman. Which is to say, the man would not be much more likely to be pro-choice.
Responding to AD who writes: “How do you reconcile this view with the fact that many women are pro-life? It’s true that women are more likely to be pro-choice but the difference is not great. Are some women trying to control other women?”
It is not unheard of for some women to try to control other women, AD. More often than not, they are religious fanatics, IMO. And then there’s Phyllis Schlafly. Google her, if you want. It hurts me to type her name.
AD also writes: “Is male control so powerful that many women are basically brain-washed to support it?”
Yes. It is THAT powerful. For religious and poor women and those under the thumb of their husbands/partners, (millions of them) they do what they’re told. Then there’s the men in government who try, time after time, to limit the availability of birth control. The religious movement has convinced many large businesses in the US to eliminate the provision of birth control to their female employees on their health plans. Then there’s the strong attempt by your federal government to eliminate support to Planned Parenthood (that offers family planning along with a bunch of other services that poor women need).
So, less access to birth control, family planning and abortion (even in the case of rape(!) ). It’s a literal war on women!
Think of it! An unmarried 18 year old student with limited funds who can’t afford birth control on her own, finds herself pregnant, either through accident or rape or a failed condom, is told by you that that little fetus inside her is a person and needs to live and she’s gotta do it. So carry on Miss, you say – have the baby, it’s a PERSON. Until it’s born, you AD have a strong opinion on what she should/must do, according to your philosophy.
When the child is born — you have no further comments for concerns for that PERSON. If she finds herself on food stamps (for shame!), or welfare, or whatever – she’s on her own, and a drain on the state. You will spurn her in a heartbeat, I just know it. And she will have given up any chance she had to make a life for herself, get educated and become a contributing citizen to your country. But you won! Right?
At least you saved that little fetus by stopping a simple abortion and stuck by your philosophical beliefs. No midnight feedings or croup to deal with, no clothes to buy for the baby, no diapers or medicine, etc. And most importantly, NO 18 years out of YOUR life.
Your philosophy is grand AD — but worthless till you’ve walked a mile or 10 in her shoes. I could say a whole lot more, but I have the feeling I’m talking to a brick wall. But I’ll try.
Written here is THIS female’s POV. Back when I was a cop, I had to counsel a 14 year old grade 8 girl, 6 months pregnant by her uncle who lived in her house. He’d been abusing her for years. We charged him and he was convicted, but the tiny little girl, who was refused a late term abortion, died in childbirth. The baby lived. No family member wanted him (the girl’s mother, urged on by her husband, referred to her daughter as a slut) and the baby was given up for adoption. It was a case that darn near broke my heart, and I’ve never forgotten it
So don’t tell me about philosophy and all that **** AD, my mind got made up back then — and it ain’t changing.
Thanks Brownies girl, you’ve more patience than I. The one dimensional ‘concern’ that ends at birth coming out of the ‘Anti-Abortion’ (they’re NOT pro-life) crowd has worn thin.
And their conscious, mean spirited and intentionally misleading lies regarding Planned Parenthood, unspoken approval of the Denver Planned Parenthood Murders, along with their obvious disregard for women is inexcusable.
The road to hell is paved with photo shopped photos of fetuses and edited videos of events that never happened.
And welcome back, hope you enjoyed your hols.
You are a mature white man, how could anything you have to say be worthwhile
Thanks Steve — a topic like this almost drives me nuts when there seems only responders of the male persuasion. I really have to attack this topic one day — but first, I need to calm down. Yes, I did enjoy my holiday, thanks for asking – a week in Varadero, 1.5 days of sun, half a hurricane, 4 days of no swimming due to the undertow and 5.5 days of clouds and humidity. And lousy food. If I never see another piña colada again, I’ll be happy tho their rum truly is good, if you like rum, that is.
Met a woman there from Texas …. we all called her “The Trump Lady” …. who freely informed all who would listen that: Obama was adopted by white folks and that other old black woman who lives in the White House; 80% of all Americans are on food stamps because of Obama (!); Obama is absolutely a Muslim and refused to take his Oath of Office on the bible; Hillary will be divorcing Bill if she wins (and she won’t since Trump will); Hillary lies about everything; Benghazi was a huge coverup; Obama’s kids are tramps and the FBI is covering up their activities and in actual fact, Obama just sits around the office and does absolutely nothing. He puts his feet on the desk!! And she was totally sober. I swear.
I said I assumed she’d be voting for Trump if he gets the nom, and she said “You bet your ass!” Why? I asked. “He thinks the way I do, he speaks the truth no matter what and he’s right, we gotta stop the Mooslims (sic) before they take over and we need that wall ’cause the Mexicans are taking all our jobs, that’s why! Trump will do it and he’s gonna get my vote!” There were three of us Canucks, a German guy and a Brit at the table and her. We just stared at her silently. The Brit broke the silence when he said, “you’re daft, ya know that?!” Then he left.
The above is pretty much verbatim, I wrote it down when I left to go back to my room just before she hauled out her iPhone to show us pix of the rally she’d been at.
Gotta say — I’m praying for you guys down there! Gawd help you if he gets in. Am glad to be home – the doggies were happy to see me and it’s still relatively sane north of the 49th! At least for now, even with a 68¢ dollar 😉
Welcome back from your holidays BG, and thanks for sharing that conversation. I love the response from the Brit, and have concluded that the word, “daft” is vastly underutilized in American culture these days. Thank god there are still so many people who are capable of rational thought, I only wish there were more in the regions directly south of Canada.
< >
My view, that is where _more_ focus should be.
Heap the issues on men … fine … but women ought to wake up.
KP – I’ll heap more blame on women when they get at least 50% representation in both houses. Meantime, it’s the men making the laws mostly right now, but I DO agree with you — a lot of women gotta wake the hell up! I’ve been a fighting feminist since I was 12 yrs old — and am sick to death hearing women in their 20’s to 40’s saying there’s nothing to fight for now. They think they got into their high-paying jobs solely on their own. I want to tell them, “you’re standing on my shoulders dear, mine and the shoulders of millions of women in THIS country who fought for equal rights – wake the hell up! We’re not there yet!”
But they don’t listen. More’s the pity. Probably the same in the US.
There is a significant part of any push back against women that is generated by women.
As a mature white man with a wife of thirty years and two daughters who are university graduates and professionals, I would ask you to recall, whites guys are only part of the next greatest obstacle.
You get it …
Emphasis .. you get it.
Brownies girl,
I appreciate your answering of my questions. I don’t appreciate you telling me what I believe:
“When the child is born — you have no further comments for concerns for that PERSON.”
I have many comments and concern about how we should treat people after they are born. To list a few, I think we should educate all children (for example, I’m against private vouchers except under certain conditions to equalize access), I want to take care of the poor with a guaranteed minimum income (not minimum wage which is far less effective) that would exempt single mothers with young children from work, and I’m against the death penalty. I’ve expressed these views in comments on TMV before. I don’t expect you to remember everything I’ve said. I do expect you not to make assumptions about whether I care or not.
“You will spurn her in a heartbeat, I just know it.”
How do you know?
To clarify a few things, with respect to the young girl, in my view exceptions should be made for rape and incest. I’ve also already said that I don’t believe human life begins at conception. Also, your argument doesn’t take into consideration that adoption is an option for many.
But back to my questions:
If you believe that some women are interested in controlling other women, and that is their primary motivation for being pro-life, why wouldn’t men act the same way if they could be pregnant?
I respectfully disagree that women who are pro-life believe that way because they are beholden to their husbands.
The problem that comes part and parcel to being rational is that Ideologues won’t remember the bits that don’t fit their narrative.
*You are so patient.
“If you believe that some women are interested in controlling other women, and that is their primary motivation for being pro-life, why wouldn’t men act the same way if they could be pregnant?”
Oh some would, no doubt about it, but they would be castigated for it by the majority. The differences in gender psychology and brain chemistry (including but not limited to testosterone poisoning) would see to that. Men do not like others telling them what to do in their private lives (which isn’t to suggest that women do either). Just look around you and see who is calling most of the shots and why. I don’t buy for a second the idea that men would allow other men to force them into compulsory childbirth. And btw AD, while we disagree on this matter, I salute you for your willingness to discuss it sans all the heated and self-righteous rhetoric so common among anti-choicers.
Dear AD — I will respond once more, then leave it. Above you write: “I don’t expect you to remember everything I’ve said. I do expect you not to make assumptions about whether I care or not.
“You will spurn her in a heartbeat, I just know it.” How do you know?””
For my comment there, I apologize AD – you’re correct, I have no right to make such a suggestion, it was written in the heat of the moment, and I’m sorry. It was wrong of me to write that and I take that comment back.
I’m glad you, an anti-abortion guy, believe that exceptions should be made for rape and incest. At least that’s a start.
You also write: “… your argument doesn’t take into consideration that adoption is an option for many.”
Do you have any idea how many American babies and young kids are awaiting adoption, or the chance at a foster home? Over 25 thousand grow out of foster care in the US every year, with no hope of having a solid home to go to. Most of them non-white.
Little blond, blue-eyed babies are the first to go — the rest get fostered, often for their life-times.
Meanwhile thousands of women undergo in vitro fertilization at huge costs so they can have their own, or they go to Russia or the Ukraine to adopt. They pass up American kids. Google up “American babies waiting adoption” — and weep.
AD also writes: “If you believe that some women are interested in controlling other women, and that is their primary motivation for being pro-life, why wouldn’t men act the same way if they could be pregnant?”
There are loads of women who want to control other women, whether they’re pro-life (anti-abortion) or not. And I’m not sure that being pro-life is their primary motive — they just want to control, period — women, kids, government, whoever. But from my own observation – the vast VAST majority of anti-abortion folks are men. Men who badly need and want control and are angry most of the time.
As to why men, if they could get pregnant, wouldn’t act the same way (i.e. campaign for pro life), I just keep going back to Gloria Steinem’s great quote from the 70’s — “if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” Maybe some men would be pro life if they could get in the family way, but in all honesty, I can’t think of one single man I know who’d be willing to give up his prime earning years for 18 years or so, to raise a kid(s) if he had to use foodstamps, welfare and take care of all the other costs involved with little help from some form of social services. Raising kids is hard work when you’re poor, AD …
As to your comment: “I respectfully disagree that women who are pro-life believe that way because they are beholden to their husbands.”
I respect the fact that you respectfully disagree. However, most married and/or partnered women I know, and have known for over six decades, would rather jump off the CN Tower than go against their male counterparts on topics of this magnitude. Mainly to maintain peace and financial stability in the home, above all. With emphasis on the latter reason. Take a poll next time you see a bunch of protesters outside a Planned Parenthood office. My bet is you won’t find any of them are young, single women of child bearing years. They know better.
Nice discussion — all best in the New Year to you and your family
AD.
Apology appreciated and accepted. I wish you the best too.
As for adoption, I’m aware that many children age out of foster care and face a very challenging future on their own. My understanding is that healthy infants have a pretty good shot at being adopted though, and yes I’m sure it’s harder for black babies. I wasn’t able to find any statistics–I’d be interested in any you or others can share. I was able to find statistics that the number of infants placed for adoption has dropped dramatically over the past decades, due to lack of supply attributed to lesser stigma for single motherhood, which leads me to believe that the chances seem good for those infants who are put up for adoption. But I could be wrong–I can’t find the data. I agree with you that I wish more couples considered adoption before IVF.
I can’t imagine the kind of marriage where both partners aren’t able to have and express their own opinions. But I guess our experiences just differ on this one. FWIW, I don’t accept that Planned Parenthood protesters are a representative sample of the pro-life population.
Yes, good discussion. I don’t expect any opinions have been changed, but trying to see the other side, and help others do the same, is my goal.
Correction: yes, I can imagine that kind of marriage, and have probably seen it. Just not very often these days.
Reading carefully, it seems more than a few commenters are both anti-abortion and pro-choice.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/FosterCare/story?id=2017991
Lorie, foster care adoption and domestic infant adoption have very different dynamics. A pregnant woman considering abortion or adoption is operating under the latter dynamics.
I’ve still struggled to find reliable statistics on infant adoption, but the data I’ve see so far leads me to believe that infants placed for adoption have a very good chance of being adopted. Some websites (like http://www.adopt.org/types-adoptions ) claim there are more couples seeking to adopt than there are infants. I don’t know if that is true, but I haven’t found any claim–even in articles critical to adoption as an alternative–that there are more infants than couples in infant adoption system (not foster care). I also am not sure how disability or minority status affects these statistics.
““if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
Bingo.