Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiRecenter Abortion Debate on Equality of Sacrifice
I am sickened by the death of Dr. George Tiller, a physician who displayed lifelong respect for the woman and her body. Operation Rescue condemned his murder, though in language that tacitly encourages violence. Randall Terry, calling Tiller a "mass murderer," even accused him of performing late-term abortions for women who had simply decided they did not wish to have a baby. Terry never lets facts stand in the way of his vicious war against the rights of women. Grand juries in culturally conservative Kansas rejected Terry's charges.
Some pro-life forces engage in or tolerate "acts of political terrorism." Melissa Harris-Lacewell, writing in a blog for The Nation, convincingly argues that Terry's goal is to isolate and humiliate poor and pregnant women many of whom already face desperate health issues. Demonstrators routinely intimidated Tiller's patients.
Political symbolism also counts for more than the lives of the unborn. Writing on the Common Dreams Web site, Cristina Page reminds us: "That Clinton presided over the most dramatic decline in abortion rates in recorded history left them unmoved." Once the "pro life" George W. Bush assumed office, health and family plan-ning options and education diminished, abortions skyrocketed - and the demonstrations stopped.
Most abortion opponents do not condone this murder. Many are repelled by Terry's rhetoric. They believe that life begins at conception. Their concern is the preservation of innocent life. I don't believe a distinctively human life begins at conception, but neither I nor my opponents have ironclad cases on this point. Nonetheless, if protection of innocent life is one's motive, responsibility must be shared equally between men and women.
In this society, denying women abortion imposes all the risks of sustaining innocent life on women.
The late Ellen Willis once advocated re-centering the abortion debate on equality of sacrifice. (See "No More Nice Girls, From Forced Pregnancy to Forced Surgery.") What a privilege it is to be a male! Pregnant women must sacrifice their careers, comfort, health and sometimes their lives to have a baby. If my child - or any child - becomes gravely ill and needed my body, e.g., for bone marrow, I might feel a moral obligation, but government can't compel me to accept these risks.
If there is an absolute obligation to sustain innocent lives, men need to accept dramatically increased risks and responsibilities. A detailed portrayal of the medical demands that might reasonably be made of men, especially as the frontiers of transplant and genetic medicine expand, could shake up the abortion debate.
Some citizens might demand a draft for male kidneys, livers and bone marrow. Others within conventionally gendered families might still maintain the "natural" role of women as primarily responsible for the health of all life. Such an argument might be hard to sustain in a world where the possibility of motherhood and the proc-ess of having a baby are now so heavily medicalized. My suspicion, however, is that even some pro-life families would entertain the notion that if men will not sacrifice their health for children, women should not be forced to bear such sacrifices alone.
Nonetheless, children are our future. Society must move beyond expanding "choice" for women to a more complete appreciation of the sacrifice involved in parenting. Many women face unrelenting physical, emotional and economic distress. It is hard for some to acknowledge let alone address any inner doubts about the ideal of motherhood to which one devotes so much of one's life. It becomes all too easy to regard abortion rights defenders as selfish or even evil.
Society must expand the cultural and economic space for women in all modes of life - better family planning resources and sex education, paid paternity and maternity leave, more free time for families, more opportunities for a voice in their children's education, jobs that pay men and women equal and sustaining incomes.
The boundaries in the culture war are not fixed and impermeable. Progressives can expand opportunities for many families to live out their own values. Such a course may not convert all cultural conservatives to progressive causes and probably won't sway Randall Terry. Nonetheless, the foundation and the hope of democratic politics is that subtle transformations in moral and political vision will allow more of us to live together even as we continue to disagree on some core principles.
34 Comments so far
Show AllJohn Buell writes: "I don't believe a distinctively human life begins at conception, but neither I nor my opponents have ironclad cases on this point."
Somewhere I saw two photos, one showing a human fetus at three months, and the other showing a pig fetus at three months. You wouldn't be able to know which was which without the caption.
"Pro-lifers" aren't really in favor of life, they're in favor of pregnancy. They believe in CONTROL OF WOMEN. They really couldn't care less about the woman, other children in the family or anyone else.
They just want her PREGNANT ... GOD DAMN IT WOMAN, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SEX, YOU'RE GOING TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.
The Control Freaks need to get a life ... and I don't mean some fetus's life.
lf life begins at conception, then how come you can't get claim dependent status on your taxes until after birth?
Legally, life begins at birth. The issue with abortion is moral, not legal.
The law against abortion was overturned because women were not punished and the men who impregnated the women were not punished,only the providers were punished.This was not justice. When I asked a woman who was anti-abortion how much time should the woman get she said "none, because that is between her and her God". But the woman who contracts to have the illegal procedure done must be punished according to the criminal justice system.And she cannot make the choice between her and her God if the State has denied her access to Reproductive Health Clinics where she can get a safe abortion to save her life, if she has health problems or is suicidal.Or if the mother is getting an abortion to keep her job to support her existing children. Besides studies prove that making it illegal does not stop abortions. When the mother dies from an unsafe, illegal, abortion there is no chance that the unborn will be born. How is that pro-life?
The law against abortion was overturned because women were not punished and the men who impregnated the women were not punished,only the providers were punished.This was not justice. When I asked a woman who was anti-abortion how much time should the woman get she said "none, because that is between her and her God". But the woman who contracts to have the illegal procedure done must be punished according to the criminal justice system.And she cannot make the choice between her and her God if the State has denied her access to Reproductive Health Clinics where she can get a safe abortion to save her life, if she has health problems or is suicidal.Or if the mother is getting an abortion to keep her job to support her existing children. Besides studies prove that making it illegal does not stop abortions. When the mother dies from an unsafe, illegal, abortion there is no chance that the unborn will be born. How is that pro-life?
"I wouldn't assume that the anti abortion side is all religious or anti birth control".
If it isn't then the argument/logic has not been followed far enough back. JMO, of course.
"It's *easy* to understand when you know that many people think abortion is murder. That's all you have to know."
If someone uses the word "murder" their argument most likely has not been challenged by logic, JMO again.
"If someone uses the word "murder" their argument most likely has not been challenged by logic,"
Please outline your challenge, if you would. I brought that up because there is a certain slice of the population that can't be convinced otherwise, rightly or wrongly. So how would you do it?
"Please outline your challenge, if you would. I brought that up because there is a certain slice of the population that can't be convinced otherwise, rightly or wrongly. So how would you do it?"
Well first off we would have to define the term "murder", based on the legal definition alone, abortion is not "murder". This is a semantics debate, and doesn't get to the heart of the debate, IMO.
Before I bring up my second point I would like to say that I do respect the view point that life begins at conception, as long as it is followed out to it's logical consequences, ie the birth control pill is also a form of killing, and anyone involved in the killing of a human being must be legally punished. The first one is easy, the second one weeds out just about everyone who claims they are pro-life (well actually what usually happens is the pro-lifers give up the debate, throw their hands in the air and declare that it's just "wrong" and the debate ends). But, this is the crux of my second point, nobody really believes that a fertilized egg is equal to a full human being (more on that if need be). Once you have proven that point you are left only with degrees, and whenever you are working in degrees you have to have compromise. Nobody compromises where "murder" is concerned.
"Well first off we would have to define the term "murder", based on the legal definition alone, abortion is not "murder"."
Thanks for your response. The above statement is untrue. The anti abortionists see abortion as murder by a *moral* definition. If this were not true there simply would be no issue, but there is. It is disengenuous to simply ignore this.
"This is a semantics debate, and doesn't get to the heart of the debate, IMO."
I think this is quite wrong. The heart of the matter is that as long as millions of US citizens see abortion as morally wrong, there will be a national debate concerning it's legal status.
"I do respect the view point that life begins at conception,"
Good.
"the birth control pill is also a form of killing,"
What "dies" when a birth control pill is used?
"nobody really believes that a fertilized egg is equal to a full human being"
Totally false. Millions of people beleive just this, and it is doctrine in the Catholic church.
"Once you have proven that point you are left only with degrees, and whenever you are working in degrees you have to have compromise. Nobody compromises where "murder" is concerned."
I don't understand what point you are refer to in "proving". It is demonstrably true, scientifically, that at conception there is all the compined DNA required for what we call an individual human, i.e. it is a form of an individual human life apart from the parents. That is a special threshold at which point millions have decided that a human being worthy of legal recognition now exists, an admittedly debatable point. It's a matter of legal definiton from that point on.
"Thanks for your response. The above statement is untrue. The anti abortionists see abortion as murder by a *moral* definition. If this were not true there simply would be no issue, but there is. It is disengenuous to simply ignore this."
The anti-abortionists can see abortion as a "ham-sandwich", for all I care. That's why I said it's a semantic debate that means little if you are dealing with issues of logic. I don't believe I am ignoring anything, I stated that is was not a logical argument, and the abortion argument is not logical, it is emotional.
"I think this is quite wrong. The heart of the matter is that as long as millions of US citizens see abortion as morally wrong, there will be a national debate concerning it's legal status."
If you are debating legal issues though, you have to use legal terminology. Abortion is not "murder" in the legal sense. If you can finally prove it is legally murder then you must penalize everyone involved in the "murder". Why is it that pro-lifers don't want the women who have abortions criminalized ? It is immoral to not convict people who commit murder, unless it is self-defense, right ?
If I told you I murdered my 10 year old because I didn't want to me a Mother, I would be (and should be) instantly penalized. If I tell you I murdered my 1-year old same thing. Yet, if I tell you I aborted my 6-week old pre-born, you may castigate me, as is your right, but you would not call the police because I had committed murder. Why ?
What "dies" when a birth control pill is used?
Quite often a fertilized egg, check out how the pill works. Is it a person because it has been conceived or does personhood begin at implantation ? Or is it at some other random time ?
"Totally false. Millions of people beleive just this, and it is doctrine in the Catholic church."
Nope, they say they believe this, and think they believe this, but their actions show that this is an emotional belief only, not a logical one. About one out of every four (approx) menses of sexual active women, not on bc, ends in a fertilized egg being expelled with the uterine lining. Where are all the funerals ? Why aren't we digging through the waste to find the body ? It doesn't happen- why ? Because we all realize that a fertilized egg and a person are not the same.
"I don't understand what point you are refer to in "proving". It is demonstrably true, scientifically, that at conception there is all the compined DNA required for what we call an individual human, i.e. it is a form of an individual human life apart from the parents."
This is nowhere near a scientific truth. Conception for one is not a point in time, it takes up to 48 hours. Even scientists cannot agree when human personhood begins. Your view point is one called the "Genetic View, and is far from agreed upon in the scientific community.
"That is a special threshold at which point millions have decided that a human being worthy of legal recognition now exists, an admittedly debatable point."
Which was my point exactly. Millions of people in the world believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.
"It's a matter of legal definiton from that point on."
And abortion is not legally murder, no one believes it is the same, or there would be no question of whether women who abort should be legally penalized. It would be immoral not to do so.
"The anti-abortionists can see abortion as a "ham-sandwich", for all I care."
I think that's a grave error on the part of pro choice people, to somply ignore the other side. There are political realities just for starters.
"it's a semantic debate that means little if you are dealing with issues of logic."
Are you saying that it is illogical to say that an abortion cannot ever be murder from any non legal standpoint? If so, how?
"the abortion argument is not logical, it is emotional."
It's both.
"If you are debating legal issues though, you have to use legal terminology."
I don't think anyone on the anti-abortion side sees it as just a legal issue, and the pro-choice side had better not either. I think there is acceptance of the current legal status, and then the rest is moral.
"If you can finally prove it is legally murder then you must penalize everyone involved in the "murder"."
I agree.
"Why is it that pro-lifers don't want the women who have abortions criminalized ?"
I am sure that some do.
"Quite often a fertilized egg,"
OK, if true, I am sure there would be objections on that basis.
check out how the pill works. Is it a person because it has been conceived or does personhood begin at implantation ? Or is it at some other random time ?
"Totally false. Millions of people beleive just this, and it is doctrine in the Catholic church."
"About one out of every four (approx) menses of sexual active women, not on bc, ends in a fertilized egg being expelled with the uterine lining. Where are all the funerals ? Why aren't we digging through the waste to find the body ? It doesn't happen- why ? Because we all realize that a fertilized egg and a person are not the same."
No. it's because that is a natural occurance that little can be done to prevent. Same with miscarriages. Artificial abortion is intentional and is different for that reason.
"I don't understand what point you are refer to in "proving". It is demonstrably true, scientifically, that at conception there is all the compined DNA required for what we call an individual human, i.e. it is a form of an individual human life apart from the parents."
"Conception for one is not a point in time, it takes up to 48 hours."
Conceded.
"Even scientists cannot agree when human personhood begins."
Conceded. But the original issue is whether people believe "life" begins at conception. You haven't shown this to be false IMO.
"Your view point is one called the "Genetic View,"
I haven't yet given you "my" opinion. I've been speaking of others.
"Millions of people in the world believe the earth is only 6,000 years old."
Not a good example, it's demonstrably false, end of story. The question of when life begins is a matter of opinion along a continumn of development.
"And abortion is not legally murder, no one believes it is the same,"
People believe it is morally the same, and most of them understand the legal status as a fact.
"or there would be no question of whether women who abort should be legally penalized. It would be immoral not to do so."
You can't legally penalize them, because of the law. Their moral status or what "should be done" is a whole other question.
"I think that's a grave error on the part of pro choice people, to somply ignore the other side. There are political realities just for starters."
The problem is, as I see it, that the pro-choice people let the pro-life set the debate perameters. My point is that we all see a human fetus, as less than a born person, and to different degrees. To not admit this is ignoring the 1000 ton elephant in the room, IMO. We ALL pick an arbitrary point of when a human person becomes valuable to society. Once you concede that point, then you can proceed on the debate in a logical fashion.
"Are you saying that it is illogical to say that an abortion cannot ever be murder from any non legal standpoint?"
Abortion can be "releasing of a soul back to the universe". It doesn't matter what individuals think, when dealing with logic it matters what is and what can, and can't be proven.
"It's both."
OK, I agree, but it needs to be argued logically. Morality and emotion cannot often be reasoned with.
"I think there is acceptance of the current legal status, and then the rest is moral."
The killing of Dr. tiller would not bear out your assertion.
I said: "If you can finally prove it is legally murder then you must penalize everyone involved in the "murder"."
You said: "I agree."
But this would be seen as the extreme position, and not the current pro-life one.
"I am sure that some do". (want the women who have abortions criminalized)
Again the extreme position, not typical of pro-life arguments.
"OK, if true, I am sure there would be objections on that basis."
It's true, the pill contains basically two hormones, one to prevent fertilization and one to block implantation if an ovum is released. That brings me to another point: 30 million women have taken the pill over more than 30 years, would we really have had room for all those children, is overpopulation immoral ?
"No. it's because that is a natural occurance that little can be done to prevent. Same with miscarriages. Artificial abortion is intentional and is different for that reason."
Why is it different ? Why is it OK for "God" or some outside force to decide when the bearing of young will occur, but not ourselves ? At this point in the argument you must bring in some other outside force that gives the bearing of young more morality than the choice not to.
"Conceded. But the original issue is whether people believe "life" begins at conception. You haven't shown this to be false IMO."
But my point was not to show that it is false, how could I when scientists don't have the answer and religionists only have belief ? All I can do is make the best logical assumption.
"I haven't yet given you "my" opinion. I've been speaking of others."
The view you stated then.....
"Not a good example, it's demonstrably false, end of story."
And yet millions of people believe it and believe the means of proving it are trickery, and you can't prove them wrong. There is in fact an entire museum devoted to the "truth" of the creation story.
"People believe it is morally the same..."
They think they do, but they are not being totally honest. You have not addressed my scenarios of the difference between killing a ten year old, and killing a six week old zygote. If I told you I had had an abortion you would have a different reaction than if I said I'd killed my child. Why ?
"You can't legally penalize them, because of the law."
That's the wieniest answer I've ever heard. Talk about circular reasoning. You would not be saying that if there were a law protecting women from legal action had they killed their 2 year old (2 year olds can be so difficult), you would be outraged, as would every person in this country, if abortion and murder are equal, why not the equal outrage. Because we all know it is not the same.
"Their moral status or what "should be done" is a whole other question."
Of course it is.
"the pro-choice people let the pro-life set the debate perameters."
I might agree.
"My point is that we all see a human fetus, as less than a born person, and to different degrees."
And even if you and I agree that it is true for you and I, how do you tell the strictest anti-abortionist that they too see it that way?
"We ALL pick an arbitrary point of when a human person becomes valuable to society."
Or in God's eyes, and conception seems to be the point there.
"It doesn't matter what individuals think, when dealing with logic it matters what is and what can, and can't be proven."
And that's the problem with logic, when you get to a belief that can neither be proven or disproven, logic comes up short. That doesn't mean the discourse stops.
"Morality and emotion cannot often be reasoned with."
Again, this doesn't mean the end of discourse.
"The killing of Dr. tiller would not bear out your assertion."
I think it most likely that the killer accepted the legal status of Tiller's practice on the intellectual level, but went with his moral side on the emotional level. That's a problem of course, you always go with the emotion and if it doesn't agree with the intellect there are bound to be problems.
"Why is it OK for "God" or some outside force to decide when the bearing of young will occur, but not ourselves ?"
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Pose the question to a very religious person believing in "God". They will answer that God's will trumps all others. Isn't this obviously true for them?
"At this point in the argument you must bring in some other outside force that gives the bearing of young more morality than the choice not to."
I would only say that whether you are religious or not, there is virtue in having children because it's the only way to continue the species.
"I haven't yet given you "my" opinion. I've been speaking of others."
"The view you stated then....."
""Not a good example, it's demonstrably false, end of story.""
Concerning the age of the earth.
"And yet millions of people believe it and believe the means of proving it are trickery,"
People dismissing the fossil record etc. as trickery can safely be ignored in a scientific discussion. I still don't see the analogy to the levels of development of a fetus/baby etc. Maybe if you can clarify the original point a different way.
"They think they do, but they are not being totally honest."
OK, let's say that I agree this is sometimes true. Now you have to go and actually tell those people that they are deluding themselves. How can you seriously convincve them of that?
"If I told you I had had an abortion you would have a different reaction than if I said I'd killed my child."
If I were deeply religious as regarding the status of abortion I may very well have the exact same reaction.
"Talk about circular reasoning."
Not so, you posed the idea "And abortion is not legally murder, no one believes it is the same, " with the assumption that the current legal status is the way it is while not addressing the moral beliefs of millions.
I think there is a good chance your point did not get through here too, maybe you can try again.
"if abortion and murder are equal, why not the equal outrage. Because we all know it is not the same. "
You are right in one sense: Those seeking abortions seek professionals who do them by the thousands. Women who kill their toddlers do it themselves. What you call an unequal outrage may simply stem from the fact that abortionists do it premeditated and by the thousands, whereas individual women may be seen as maybe having had a difficult time that would be more understandable and more worthy of forgiveness. Just an idea.
"And even if you and I agree that it is true for you and I, how do you tell the strictest anti-abortionist that they too see it that way?"
How do you tell someone that God didn't place dinosaur bones in the soil 6000 years
ago ? I realize that you dismiss this out of hand, but it is as cherished a belief as the one that life begins at conception. We keep dialoging, IMO, it is the only way. Arguing in a vacuum (Much like this debate) only goes so far, and frankly it's getting tedious. I can't change what you think people think, no matter what I say. I do it because I'm hoping it at least gets people to think. I personally don't care that someone holds the view that life begins at conception, I do care that they try and legislate my choices based on those beliefs.
"Or in God's eyes, and conception seems to be the point there."
Only in modern history, say the last 100 years. Previous to that the common view was that life began at "quickening" (when the fetus became animate). Even the Catholic Church up until the 1700's believed it was 40 days for a male and 80 days for a male, based on Aristotle's theories of embryology.
"Again, this doesn't mean the end of discourse."
Of course not, have I advocated any such thing ?
"I'm not sure where you are going with this. Pose the question to a very religious person believing in "God". They will answer that God's will trumps all others. Isn't this obviously true for them?"
Of course. We can still ask them why ?
"I would only say that whether you are religious or not, there is virtue in having children because it's the only way to continue the species."
But there is also virtue in NOT having children as overpopulation and better outcomes for smaller families would also be desirable. I notice you didn't answer my hypothetical question about the pregnancies prevented by 30 million women.
"And yet millions of people believe it and believe the means of proving it are trickery,"
And yet they managed to get it into the court system less than 5 years ago.
"I still don't see the analogy to the levels of development of a fetus/baby etc. Maybe if you can clarify the original point a different way."
... a fetus becomes a human being at conception is as much a belief as a young earth. A fetus with no heart beat and no brain waves in scientific/medical terms as human beings go is non-living. It only has the potential for life.
"OK, let's say that I agree this is sometimes true. Now you have to go and actually tell those people that they are deluding themselves. How can you seriously convincve them of that?"
At least you can get people to think, that was my first point wasn't it.
"If I were deeply religious as regarding the status of abortion I may very well have the exact same reaction."
To be moral you must. The pro-life movement believes no such thing. Find me just one pro-life web-site where there is a call for punishing women who have abortions. Hint: you won't find one.
"You are right in one sense"
I'm right in more than one sense, but even you won't address my direct questions regarding those. That is why I believe one on one conversation is so important I can't really get anywhere when it's me against "They think". "They" can keep thinking that little green men abduct them every night for anal probing and "they" never have to actually think (since you're doing that for them). The best I can hope for is that others are reading and thinking, but I think we're the only one's left watching this debate. Thanks for the discussion.
Thank you for your long post, I am not sure how much of it I can address (maybe later). I think we are losing focus, so I wish to bring it back to this point that you made:
"If someone uses the word "murder" their argument most likely has not been challenged by logic, JMO again."
I contend that it is *logically* reasonable to beleive that life begins at conception, based on the merged DNA. If we are charitable towards those we are debating, and then concede this point as reasonable if not necessarily fact, we can then procede with logic. If there is life at conception then abortion can reasonably be seen as murder. Yes or no?
I may not be available to respond until Monday.
"I contend that it is *logically* reasonable to beleive that life begins at conception, based on the merged DNA."
I disagree, my hair follicles each have an individual set of merged DNA, as do my skin cells etc. And yes, they are different from the parent that created them. They may be alive, but they are not human beings. This point is far from settled.
"If we are charitable towards those we are debating, and then concede this point as reasonable if not necessarily fact, we can then procede with logic."
I can't concede on what I do not agree upon no matter how nice I am being.
"If there is life at conception then abortion can reasonably be seen as murder. Yes or no?"
There is life BEFORE conception, sperm and ova are both alive. Life does not "begin" at conception, that is a fact. What we are debating is really when human personhood begins. I do not believe that human personhood begins at conception, nor do many in the scientific/medical or even spiritual communities.
If one carries the "belief" that life begins at conception, then one can believe that abortion is murder, or a free pass to heaven, or a ham sandwich, etc etc.
Like I said, I respect beliefs to the point that they interfere with my own in a legal sense.
Sioux Rose
DUBET: We women have a saying, that if men got pregnant, there'd be far more reliable birth control.
The other day I saw this young mother with 5 kids under 7... this is really insane, if not diabolical. While I think China's policy of allowing only one child per family is a bit ruthless (if pragmatic), for people in the U.S. to just keep popping those kids out as if it glorifies "their God," is appalling at a time when resource depletion along with careless abuse of fossil fuels, added to thoughtless destruction of interconnected ecosystems threatens long-term sustainability for all. Birth control should be seen as an ecological necessity today!
"We women have a saying, that if men got pregnant"
But then they wouldn't be men. Seriously.
"mother with 5 kids under 7... this is really insane, if not diabolical."
"resource depletion"
Right. And many would agree with these points, especially in Europe where most countries have birth rates below the 2.1 per woman that is the level for sustaining a population. Japan is shrinking fast. Meanwhile, "third world" countries have booming populations, and they aren't particularly known for environmental concern in those places. Comments?
Sioux Rose
JAKE: I think you are getting more open-minded! Good on you! Latin America is predominantly Catholic and whether it's the church telling women that birth control (or abortion) is a sin, or a lack of access to decent contraceptions, these factors certainly play into high birth rates.
I think you know that G. Bush tied aid, and cutbacks on family planning, to his own religious delusions. In other words, contraceptions and family planning programs were cut back substantially under Bush the lesser. Now with Obama talking about Jesus and putting a Catholic on the Supreme Court, and appointing that awful woman (can't think of her name) to health services (who is into abstinence only), who knows if he will continue these policies that give the appearance of being "right to life" while more accurately consigning poor women to higher likelihoods of dying in childbirth or seeing one or more of their live children die due to malnutrition. Poverty is a large contributor to child mortality, and we sure don't see enough programs working on that end of the spectrum. Those programs that do exist more often than not allot too much money to operating expenses and salaries, and whatever is left to the real problem at hand.
"JAKE: I think you are getting more open-minded! Good on you!"
No changes here. Just trying to parse out the issue.
"Latin America is predominantly Catholic and whether it's the church telling women that birth control (or abortion) is a sin, or a lack of access to decent contraceptions, these factors certainly play into high birth rates."
At the same time is the idea of quantity over quality. Either one could lead to extending the genes. But quantity at the expense of how life unfolds vis a vis resources etc. is something that I think would be of concern.
" Poverty is a large contributor to child mortality"
Agreed.
" and we sure don't see enough programs working on that end of the spectrum. "
Worldwide, consider failed or absent political leadership as a primary cause of poverty, as with Somalia. Please.
"less understandable is when it is agonizing for others not intimately involved..."
It's *easy* to understand when you know that many people think abortion is murder. That's all you have to know.
Given: abortion is murder. How would you prevent it, then?
First, I wasn't trying to claim myself that abortion is murder.
You prevent abortion by carrying the child to term or by preventing the pregnency. You prevent pregnancy 100% through abstinence, then less effectively through other birth control methods.
Trick question?
Perhaps...this is a very personal subject with no up side, only degrees of down...having people fight about it, and impose will, even death, upon one another over it, makes it worse, not better...if only life laid out as neatly as you suggest...prevention and control are such authoritarian words...would this prevention and control be internal, or external?
"Perhaps...this is a very personal subject with no up side, only degrees of down..."
I agree.
"if only life laid out as neatly as you suggest..."
I agree too, it is not.
abortion can be an agonizing decision for those intimately involved, which is understandable...less understandable is when it is agonizing for others not intimately involved...
Siouxrose___Many good thoughts in your post and could not agree more. It is insane to preach "pro life" policies against all abortions and at the same time try to prevent birth control, especially the "morning after" pill. Apparently those people believe women should be consigned to a lifetime of bearing children that they may be unable to feed, clothe, or educate. What kind of life is that? With today`s stressful society, it is a daunting job to raise a small family, let alone a large one. Many of those same people rail against social programs also, which those large families may have to depend on for basic needs. There is much hypocrisy involved in this debate.
Sioux Rose
KERNEL: Thank you. I still can't get the image of the impoverished mothers in Haiti feeding their hungry children "mud" cakes in a world where those who push Wall St paper fly around in expensive jets and probably discard more food in a week than many families have a chance to consume in a month. Real conscience means working to create a more equitable kind of economic justice. There is no reason why some should be billionaires when so many starve. It is unconscionable. I do realize a few of the wealthiest actually fund programs that help the poor; but sometimes it seems to me this is like throwing a gold coin into the charity pot at church, rather than altering the system that inevitably leads to these extremely disparate human estates. There may always be rich and poor, but as we all have read in a variety of articles posted on CD, a great deal MORE wealth has aggregated at the top of the global fiscal pyramid, while due to disgusting machinations like commodities trading, the price of rice has gone up leaving more with empty stomachs. How dare they gamble on another's lifeline(s)? Of course, something similar is happening in the US through health care run like a lottery. When $ matters most, every sin that flesh is heir to is given a pass.
Sioux Rose
Since human beings act from a variety of motivations, the reasons why persons get behind pro-choice versus pro-"life" policies are varied. One thing is glaringly clear however, from the "religious" side of this debate and that is a wish to control female sexuality in general. This explains why contraceptives are also being denied in so many places. It's not just about protecting the unborn, it's about reducing females' access to that which would allow them sexual pleasure while avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.
It was always something of a joke when I grew up that females were divided into only two categories, that of good girls and bad girls. This dichotomy (largely an outgrowth of patriarchal religious programming) is being deliberately intensified as a gigantic porn industry uses a few twisted women (porn "stars") to graphically depict the "bad girl" as worthy of major forms of degradation, thus formulating a destructive view of women in general. To not be cast in this ilk, the opposing polarity of "good girls" is offered, and in this grouping females are expected to abide by the wishes of their fathers, would-be spouses, or church leaders and opt for "abstinence" only.
We are becoming a highly divided society where freedom less and less represents any form of healthy, joyous expression. Rather it's frequently about embracing a behavior that harms self or other. The kneejerk reaction to presumably avoid all the harmful and dangerous things happening is to live by authoritarian rules. These promise a false sense of safety and protection, while ultimately exacerbating a false dichotomy between "good" and "evil" as if no shades of gray, nor independent choices are possible or allowable given these narrow cultural/religious (and increasingly political) guideposts. The result is a schizophrenic society, one that speaks of peace while making war; speaks of God while killing other; speaks of justice while wiping hard-won Law and Principles OFF the books... the rein of pragmatism, disguised as Mammon and Mars is positioned to wipe a great many living beings off the globe, but it will be called other than what it is. Right to life is an oxymoron like the vast majority that advocate this position.
Cultures based in monotheism have always had a hard relationship with "the feminine" and female sexuality. These are male-dominated societies, led by the male clergy who are not immune to frighteningly unwelcome sexual urges. The direct impulse has always been to control at the source, the female body. I don’t think this explains the pro-life (anti-abortion) position, but it certainly sheds light on why sexual pleasure, and the prophylactics to make it safe and possible, are so often decried.
Sioux Rose
IPENEK: Right on!
Sioux: I wouldn't assume that the anti abortion side is all religious or anti birth control.
Sioux Rose
JAKE: If they try to take on the moral argument that their position constitutes the high ground, it has religious roots. Of course religion IS sexist (patriarchal bias) so that also explains why many controling men take this stance.
"If they try to take on the moral argument that their position constitutes the high ground, it has religious roots."
I don't agree. I am not at all religous but pretty sensitive to morality in all it's general and specific manifestations.
"Of course religion IS sexist (patriarchal bias) so that also explains why many controling men take this stance."
Igenerally agree, it is often true at least. But not always, that was my point.