We have learned recently from UW prof David P. Barash that childlessness is "profoundly human." Today, via this Seattle Times article about Marcy Bloom, the retiring executive director of a Seattle abortion clinic called the Aradia Women's Health Center, comes Bloom's own assessment that abortion is "normal and common," and a "moral good" to boot. The center has provided about 70,000 abortions in the last 30 years, according to the article.
She has described (abortion)...as a "normal and common" experience in the lives of women — a "moral good" that saves lives and prevents unwanted children....Under her watch, Aradia's budget grew from $300,000 to $1.2 million. She reached out to underserved women, including those in the gay, bisexual and transgender communities. Just last year she carried a suitcase of abortion implements with her on a vacation to Mexico to give to a women's clinic there.
Yes. I would imagine there are a lot of lesbians and transgendered women who must be very "underserved" with respect to abortions. At any rate, and disturbingly, some people do still find abortion "normal." Recently walking on the streets of Chicago I was struck to overhear a young man tell a companion, with a quick and admiring laugh, that his girlfriend had had four abortions. Other men, such as Michael Caine's devil-may-care archetype in "Alfie," have an entirely different and more thoughtful reaction, when they are close to the proceedings.
Preventing abortion is not the government's business, and access to legal (but not late-term) abortions should be maintained. However, it should be a last resort because it is essentially a tragic choice, as opposed to a "moral good."
Curiously, the article does not mention if Bloom has any children. The silver lining in this cloud of madness is that everyday, Seattle's liberal Left shows itself to be more dissociated from reality, and is laying the seeds for a political cultural revolution in the city.
If I started to market some t-shirts (high quality, various sizes and colors) with the word "Breed" front and center, would you order a few? Just wondering. I think this is what really needs to be said, rather than "abortion is murder."
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at May 13, 2006 12:15 PM | Email ThisAnother woman I read about had had EIGHT abortions. She had used it for birth control. She had been told ostensibly by the NARAL culture that it was her 'right' and that it would solve all her problems, but in fact inside it was eating her up and destroying her. Is that any way to live?? She is free now and walks in peace, but had to go through some spiritual things first to get there, but it is possible. She would never have chosen that path if she knew then what she knows now. But it keeps getting 'sold' as something freeing and it really isn't.
Posted by: Misty on May 13, 2006 01:08 PMThere is a very sizable minority out there that chooses to not have children - making sweeping statements that appear to proclaim those people as somehow evil or immoral is just asinine.
We currently have 6.5 billion people on the planet - I think we can slow down the procreation rates a bit.
Posted by: H Moul on May 13, 2006 04:36 PMVerrrrrrrrrry powerful comment. How can anyone have a retort?
I think what you really want to say is "we don't want to be held accountable for the consequences of our actions so we want unfettered murder in the womb".
At least have the balls to be honest about your motivation.
Posted by: Cheryl on May 13, 2006 05:40 PMThe US has about 30 people per square kilometer, which places us at 143rd in the most densely populated country list. (Wikipedia has a list of 193 countries--and quite a number of territories which are not counted-- under a list of countries by demographics. Most of the top countries are the microstates like Monaco, Malta, and Singapore, but Bangladesh (number 7) is about the size of Iowa, with 144 million people. (1002 people per square kilometer). If everybody in the US moved to Montana, we'd have about the same population density. If everybody in the US moved to Texas, we'd have about the same density as the Netherlands and Belgium, the most densely populated major European countries. New Jersey (our most densely populated state) would rank number 14, between San Marino and Tuvalu.
The problem is not population (or density) but mismanagement of resources by kleptocracies (mostly in Africa, but Latin America and parts of Asia are almost as bad.)
Posted by: timekeeper on May 13, 2006 05:55 PMSaving the planet by having fewer children only works 1.) if it really is a problem, and 2.) if every race/nation group realizes the problem.
Posted by: Ironic on May 13, 2006 08:06 PM
That is the most "profoundly" ignorant statement I've read in a long time!
Childlessness is the first step to.......extinction! A "Profound" Human extinction! A familial extinction. Who is this person to decide which gene pools should continue and which should be aborted to extinction? Isn't that what Hitler did?
Posted by: Deborah on May 13, 2006 11:40 PMIt's not a situation that I have put myself or my girlfriends or wife in, but I think it is impossible to judge every single abortion decision as imoral.
I think the far bigger cost to society is the normalization of abortion and the general hedonism and irresponsibility that it promotes. Child rearing takes a huge, devoted and selfless commitment that generally elevates those who take the time to do it right. That is an incredible good. But I simply don't want to see a world where every single abortion is judged as completely evil and/ or illegal. I think that would promote a lawlessness and a specific vilification of some women that would resemble that of a strict Islamic society.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 14, 2006 12:50 AM
So how many girlfriends do you have on the side...in addition to your wife?
I have not spoken to my mother for almost 3 years now. She stood before me and stated that if she was pregnant in this day and age she wouldn't hesitate and have an abortion. The look on her face told it all. What a thankless human being to tell your child you wish you'd never had them. At age 55 I never thought I'd hear those words now truly realize why my brother 29 years ago turned the tv on for his two little girls, went into the bedroom and committed suicide.
I feel sorry for anyone who feels abortion is a choice and not murder. God is the creator of life. Look at your children and granddchildren, aren't you thankful for the gift God has given you? I am so thankful for my two children and 8 grandchildren.
The back of Covanent Transport semi trailers reads: IT'S A CHILD NOT A CHOICE. How so true.
Posted by: mel on May 14, 2006 07:54 AMThis was after she'd worked for several years as the head of a "family planning" clinic operating out of a hospital (you know... the place where doctors attempt to heal the sick and injured?) in downtown L.A.
Later, as her ideology progressed, she announced her opinion that if the people in East L.A. and South Central L.A. (i.e. the barrios and the L.A. ghettos, respectively) couldn't control themselves and their breeding, that the proper course of action would be to introduce chemicals into the water supplies to involuntarily control pregnancies.
The perfect heir to Margaret S. Brown -- and the Nazis for that matter.
And one wonders why this dyke is a little on the 'right' side of this issue (and others)?
Posted by: FT on May 14, 2006 10:35 AMWhereever you are, "Lish": "Happy Mother's Day, you genocidal bit_h"
Posted by: FT on May 14, 2006 10:42 AMi don't think you'll find many libs or lefties arguing that abortion is a moral good. just tenured profs and activist types. and those are the ones the cons glom onto and shape their arguments to fit. so please sharky, the left ain't one size fits all.
First of all, the little line after the post that says Posted by Matt Rosenberg means this thread was posted by Matt Rosenberg, and not sharky. You must be new here, and perhaps not too bright, either.
Second, I disagree with what you said. There might be a smattering of liberals here and there that think abortion is an evil that ought to be eliminated, but I doubt it. Liberals by and large view abortion as a tool of doing good in the world. Can you name a leader of the liberal/leftist crowd who would proudly and openly disparage abortion?
Posted by: huckleberry on May 14, 2006 11:04 AM(Warning. Do not attempt)
1) Does she, having a somewhat narcissistic personality type, feel angry for having five children herself? And this was a way to express/deal with the anger?
2) Is she SO angry about the Church doctrine that this is the logical conclusion of her overt rebellion that began in the early 1960s -- and caused the rift between her and her parents and sibs (ranging from "raise hell on Saturday, confess on Sunday" to strict 7/24/365 Catholicism) that never was repaired?
3) Does she think that she (and other white liberals) are the only one's smart enough and with the means enough to 'help' those poor, uneducated, wallowing-in-poverty, black and Hispanic women? That is, to save them, we have to help destroy their fetus'.
4) Others?
5) All of the above, in a "Perfect Storm"?
6) Some combination of the above?
One only knows... And He's not saying.
Posted by: FT on May 14, 2006 11:13 AMFortunately, as we all know, teenagers are very well equipped (emotionally) to handle challenging (too much) information like that which I received at 15. LOL
I did. Unfortunately, the role model died 7 years later of a cirrohtic (ap?} liver when I was 22.
The "Flying Tiger" for whom my 'nic' is based.
To some that is a worthy objective.
Posted by: Dishman on May 14, 2006 01:26 PMWhat I can't understand is why so many lesbians and transsexuals think it's so important...
Posted by: cg on May 14, 2006 02:41 PMnah huckleberry, with a name like yours i'm sure you outpace me with brain cells. but yeah i shoulda caught that it was matt's post. my bad. the whole argument that childlessness is profoundly human is about as senseless as saying american society needs to be completely organized around the needs of small children and their parents. neither makes much sense to me.
Thanks for responding to my implication that you are not too bright. You did not, however, respond to my challenge to name a liberal/leftist leader who is openly hostile to abortion.
Don’t get too far ahead of yourself there. Most polls show that Americans support abortion that is “legal (but not late-term)” to the tune of about 65%, as you yourself seem too. Yet, the majority of your supporters here seem to be of the Randal Terry crowd that want to kill doctors to save lives. If you think that people in Seattle who support “legal (but not late-term)” abortions, as you yourself say you do, are more “dissociated from reality” than the anti-abortion crowd you brought out on this web site with this post, then you sir, are the one in a “cloud of madness”.
If you think this is the issue that will help you sew “the seeds for a political cultural revolution in the city”, well then, I guess we all now know why republicans are such a small percentage in this city and state, and don’t wield any power or control. If you think that Seattle is going to somehow turn into a conservative Southern Baptist city, and that republicans will win control on the Rove culture war issues, well I believe the phase “cloud of madness” might be appropriate.
Stick to economic and financial issues please, where you might actually be able to make some sense, and please don’t pander to the religious wing nuts that require you to tie yourself in a knot trying to support a reasonable position of “legal (but not late-term)” abortions while simultaneously trying not to lose the votes of the religious nuts. This is not a winning issue in the this city or state. (Dino came close to giving the republicans of this state something to hang their hats on, but I don't remeber him running on this losing issue - what got him votes was promises of balanced budgets, reduced taxes, & creating a more business friendly environment, those are winning issues, not this dead dog you brought up today.)
Posted by: philip on May 14, 2006 04:04 PMI agree that little will change Seattle -- although, one could argue that it changed once from a libertarian-type position that morphed (my 0.02) with the influx of people into a "hard left" orientation TGW the outflux of a large number of the centrist Democrats (the "Scoop" Jackson Washington Democrats) at the time of the Boeing bust. So, there's a small non-zero probability of a reversion to a center-left/center-right... But, still a small probability.
There has been, to echo a previous comment, some research into the phenomenon of hard left middle-income couples not breeding TGW a population of non-breeding left-oriented (predominantly) that might include both celibate singles and gay couples (although, there is a significant population of conservative gays/lesbians) TGW the result of abortions appearing to fall predominently on an "often Democrat voting" population (see my comments above about first-hand-observed thinking by advocates in managerial positions in Planned Parenthood clinics). Statistically, this report indicated that -- had the 'theoretical' children followed the parental ideology -- the margin of the popular vote would have swung in JFK's favor in the '04 Presidential election. And, the Congress might today be a "D" majority (at least in the House).
Posted by: FT on May 14, 2006 05:28 PMAs for the mother, she suffers all kinds of adverse effects: emotional guilt, higher breast cancer risk, infertility risk, death from the abortion procedure (RU486 is also a killer six dead in the USA from RU486 since its approval - toxic shock.) Abortion leads to promicuity and thus higher cervical cancer risk, as well as a higher risk for all the other reproductive cancers.
The negative effects for the father include but are certainly not limited to emasculation and anger.
Society suffers from abortion as the government grows, liberty contracts, and families become more rare as men and women stay single. Further with the killing of 50 million Americans we have imported 20 million Mexicans to replace them. This has put a strain on the American society and may lead to national collapse.
Murder is moral? Self-defense is moral which justifies the ending of tubal pregnancies, but murder? Murder is never moral. The frequency of tubal pregnancies is very rare, however the number of tubal or ectopic pregnancies in the US is up markedly in the last several decades. Do you wonder what accounts for this? A common correlation of tubal pregnancies is previous pelvic infection. Pelvic infections are also way up in the US. Why is that? A common cause of pelvic infection is an abortion procedure. Another common cause is promiscuity. There is also a strong correlation between the advent of nation-wide abortion on demand and promiscuity. The precursor of the 70's upswing in promiscuity was the release of 'the pill' onto the American market in the 60's. The pill, which often acts as an abortifacient (that means it causes an abortion in the very early stages post-fertilization, rather than acting as a contraceptive like a condom) also has wrecked havoc on society for most of the same reasons as an operative abortion procedure. RU486, the morning after pill (the pill overdoze routine), or just the pill are destroying America just as readily as partial birth abortion which results in the baby's brains being sucked out, saline poison abortion which burns the baby to death, and dismemberment and suction abotions - being chopped up and sucked down a vacumm tube cannot be a pleasant way to die. Such an abortion was filmed and later released in the movie "The Silent Scream" - The filming showed the baby actually physically fighting to live, its face contorted in pain, it was dismembered and then sucked away. The effect on the documentor of the abortion, a radical pro-choice abortionist, was to make him an instant pro-life advocate.
A former pastor of mine once said would you eat a brownie if it only had a small amount of feces in it? He spoke of sin. I speak of societal sin. How much state sanctioned murder can we expect to get away with in America and still prosper? Is killing one third of the Americans under age 33 enough? That is how many we have killed, that may surpass even Mao who some estimates put at having murdered 'only' 40 million Chinese.
You seem to say you want less abotion Jeff. How many do you want? Do you only want to kill one in ten Americans instead of one in three? Or would one in ten be too many? Would one in twenty be acceptable to you? Just how much feces do you want in your brownie Jeff?
I strongly urge you to rethink your position Jeff. Choose life and live, Jeff.
Posted by: Jericho on May 14, 2006 07:56 PMThere are a very few deeply religious people in this state and they feel very passionately about this issue, but they are the clear minority, hold no political clout outside the Confederate states, and should just shut their mouths, wait for the rapture, and be content in their belief that everyone else is going to hell.
Posted by: philip on May 14, 2006 08:12 PMA youth that supports abortion is like a Jew who is fond of Nazis. It is generally difficult to convince those whose peers you have murdered that those doing the murdering are doing a moral good.
The baby boomers are not going to be able to burn their draft cards to save themselves from the grave. And those who were in power when the boomers were marching - the "greatest generation" and therefore legalize abortion are now dropping like flies. Like slavery abortion will die of its own accord if left alone. I highly suspect however that like slavery it will not be allowed by God to die of its own accord. There is a reckoning coming. One cannot set up a society claiming all men are created equal, standing upon God's principals, expecting his blessings and then enslave 1/10th of the population. The War Between the States cost the lives of over 600,000 Americans - our bloodiest conflict. We placed property before liberty. In the 20th century we have placed liberty (faux liberty) before life. I'm glad God is merciful, but I also know He is just. We, as a nation will pay for these murders. A reckoning is coming.
Jefferson (who did become a Christian before he died - read his correspodence with John Adams among other testimonies) wrote of his fears of God wrath against America because of the nation's hypocrisy on slavery (clearly Jefferson portook of this hypocrisy himself) - "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."
Do not expect that God will give us an ollie ollie umpfree on abortion. The individual is freed from the penalty of sin by his acceptance of the work of Christ on the cross. A nation that sins is another thing altogether. God is patient with nations as he is with individuals. But God is just - America will pay for its sin. Pray for God's mercy - his wrath may be abated some by prayer, humble and repentant (even substitutive repentance - asking forgiveness for another's sin.)
Choose life and live.
Posted by: Jericho on May 14, 2006 08:21 PM1. "no one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable"
2. "and access to legal (but not late-term) abortions should be maintained. However, it should be a last resort"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=385968&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=&ct=5
Posted by: Steve on May 14, 2006 09:45 PMSo where are we? What have we learned?
1) You said that not all liberals/leftists think abortion is good.
2) I said you were stupid and challenged you to name one liberal/leftist leader that openly opposes abortion.
3) You said I was stupid, too, and then said children are not the most important asset of society.
4) I reminded you to name me one liberal/leftist leader who openly opposes abortion.
5) You had something to say about republicans, but I didn't understand what you were saying. I think your logic ran that most people like abortions, and republicans were stupid for opposing abortion... or something like that.
6) I pointed out the dangers of having such a subtle and nuanced position as you seemed to be claiming, such as the need that abortions be safe, leagal, and rare, or as our friend Matt puts it, legal (but not late-term).
7) You finally seem to be speaking your mind, which seems to be that abortions should be available to women at any time for whatever reason, and the right to abortion is so commonly accepted, that no wonder republicans, even Matt Roseburg, embrace legal but rare abortions as indispensible. At this point, you seem to be completely reversing your first statement. How could liberals oppose abortion in any way when even republicans who claim to be conservative feel obligated to support abortion in some way? Can you explain this inconsistency?
It took you a lot of work to finally reveal what was on your mind, but you finally did it and I congratulate you. In future, why don't you just say what is on your mind rather than pretending the positions you hold are different from what they actually are. Or maybe you don't realize when you have nuanced yourself into idiocy?
Your stike me as a basically deceptive person. You seem to be strongly advocating for abortion on demand, but are being slyly critical of Matt for accepting some restrictions on access to abortion.
Anything here you would disagree with?
Oh, and I am still waiting to hear which liberal/leftist leaders you think have strayed away from the abortion plantation...
Posted by: huckleberry on May 14, 2006 09:58 PMFolks, this is what the left really wants. That lawyer admits that it doesn't sound too nice, but he thinks it a swell idea and what everyone on the left believes but knows is too awkward to really admit out loud.
So remember when you see the mean-faced leftist women screeching at those who are onto this, know that this is really what the left is trying to do, while claiming to be 'compassionate.' Deception has always been the M.O.
NEED WE SAY MORE??????
Posted by: Michele on May 14, 2006 10:00 PMHappy Mother's Day to all Mom's that put up with their kids, and in turn earn the precious gift of love and the ever changing wonder of watching a child learn and grow.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 14, 2006 10:08 PMBut, I think it's also important to put the issue in the proper perspective. Many staunch anti-abortionists don't want to acknowledge that there is more to the debate than simply stating that no abortion is acceptable. That's just not real world. And as much as I disagree with most liberals on many social, political and fiscal issues, I think it's wrong to automatically condemn a women who might choose abortion.
Here are the reasons why I think this is wrong. Abortion is definitely the ending of a life. But the key in understanding the morality of this decision is that there is a difference between actual and potential. A zygote or fetus has the potential to become a full human life, but it is not a full life yet. A young women who's made the mistake of getting pregnant is an actual life. For that particular woman, the implications of going through with a pregnancy to bring a child into the world may be destructive to all of the goals and plans that she had for her own life. It's a harsh choice, but it is a lifeboat ethics question. If your seething, calm down and hear me out for a second.
Put aside the stupidity of getting pregnant in the first place and realize that sex is not going away any time soon. And that when we are young, we often make very stupid mistakes. I made many, I'm sure everyone here did. I dodged a few bullets. You probably did too. So can we honestly expect a young women who makes the mistake of unwanted pregnancy to go through with all of the implications of that to her own life and her unwanted child's life? And what if said young women is not religious? Does she have to have the religious views of those who believe that there should never be any abortion imposed upon her? And what of the fact that the procedures and knowledge to perform abortion are widespread? Even if we disagree with it, or pass laws to make it illegal, will that change the convictions of a young woman who knows she has made a mistake, and prefers not to bring an unwanted life into the world, and chooses abortion?
My point is simply to play devils advocate for a bit. I think the issue is more complex than a knee-jerk conservative dismissal of all abortions. Catholics believe that even birth control is wrong. I'm willing to bet that many conservatives and probably many Catholics that read and comment on this site use or have used birth control. And yes, there is a difference between preventing conception, and abortion. But there are many who have no religious problems with birth control.
And I say all this fully realizing the implications of a dwindling population because of too much abortion. Again, I'm not choosing or condoning abortion, I'm simply pointing out that it exists, that there are going to be some who choose it, and that I don't think that all women who seek an abortion deserve blanket condemnation. I'm sure it is a terrible decision to make. I'm sure it is heartbreaking. But I'm not willing to cast the first stone against a woman who truly belives she is making a moral choice in refusing to bring an unwanted child into the world.
In short, I think abortion should remain legal for some early term date, and that we should attach to it the incredible gravity of what it is and make it as rare as possible.
Whatever you believe, please respond rationally.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 14, 2006 10:42 PMPerhaps a 1 yr old would turn out to be "destructive to all of the goals and plans" that she newly formulated for her own life... shall she be allowed to kill him? After all, young women have been known to change their minds! You certainly seem to be arguing baby killing for convenience sake.
And let's talk about the lifeboat question. Do you actually know any Mom that would not run in front of a car to save her child? Or one who would use her child to protect herself instead of the other way around?
Regarding your life vs potential life, can you tell us why is it we can't find even one medical, scientific or biological text says that life begins at some other time other than conception?
You "think abortion should remain legal for some early term date"... so what's the date? Most women are 8-10 weeks pregnant before they even KNOW they are pregnant... do you know what the fetal development is at 10 weeks? In MONTH 1 the heart and lungs begin to form; by the 25th day the baby has a beating heart; by 8 weeks all major body organs and systems have been formed.
So what's your magic cut-off date to kill a baby?
Posted by: Cheryl on May 14, 2006 11:07 PMActually, the only lefty that I can think of that is anti-abortion is Jimmy Carter.
November 4, 2005 ...Former President Jimmy Carter yesterday condemned all abortions and chastised his party for its intolerance of candidates and nominees who oppose abortion.
"I never have felt that any abortion should be committed -- I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors," he told reporters over breakfast at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, while across town Senate Democrats deliberated whether to filibuster the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. because he may share President Bush and Mr. Carter's abhorrence of abortion.
"I have always thought it was not in the mainstream of the American public to be extremely liberal on many issues," Mr. Carter said. "I think our party's leaders -- some of them -- are overemphasizing the abortion issue."
While Mr. Carter has previously expressed ambivalence about abortion, his statements yesterday were "astonishing," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America.
"He has long professed to be an evangelical Christian and yet he had embraced virtually all the liberal political agenda," said Mr. Knight. "Maybe with Jimmy Carter saying things he never uttered before, more liberals will rethink their worship of abortion as the high holy sacrament of liberalism."
Good for Carter, he finally got one thing right.
The question is, WHY should it be rare? If, as the liberals and others claim, it is a moral good under any circumstances (as abortion-on-demand advocates declare), why should it remain rare? And if keeping abortion rare is the rational goal, why should state governments like South Dakota be barred from taking steps to discourage abortion?
"Safe, Legal and What? 'Safe, legal, and rare.' That was Bill Clinton's (and now Hillary's) mantra. Question: If abortion is a fundamental constitutional right, why should it be rare? Can you think of any other basic right that we would want to be rare?" ---Tony Perkins
Please be advised that many of us, on the Christian right (so-called) are doing something. Having children (breeding) , whose children are also carefully raised and trained (homeschooling) to read, write, think, work, and VOTE. We are genuine pro-lifers.
If I may take off my shoe and pound the table with it. We will bury the baby killers and their culture of death. The muslims are not the only ones having children.
Posted by: TomasM on May 15, 2006 12:23 AMRosenburg, you couldn't be more wrong, I guess I'm behind the times in that I still believe it is the government's business to prevent murder of any kind.
Bet you're trying to walk some nonexistent middle ground, either you're for it or against it, obviously you are for it.
You are nauseating.
Posted by: Mark on May 15, 2006 12:28 AMChristian talk radio host Albert Mohler suggests that Jimmy Carter, like philip and jeff above, has a nuanced and subtle view of abortion that makes his true position difficult to pin down.
As Peter G. Bourne, a former White House Special Assistant to President Carter, explains in his book Jimmy Carter: "Early in his term as governor, Carter had strongly supported family planning programs including abortion. He had written the foreword to a book, Women in Need, that favored a woman's right to abortion. He had given private encouragement to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit, Doe v. Bolton, filed against the state of Georgia to overturn its archaic abortion laws." Beyond this, he hired Sarah Weddington, the lead attorney who argued for abortion in Roe v.Wade, as a White House staffer. Clearly, this calls into question Mr. Carter's assertion that he has always opposed abortion. Further, if he opposes abortion now, what is he willing to do about it? His new book certainly offers no hope that he would now call for a reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Carter may indeed be opposed to abortion, but like philip's criticism of Matt R., he seems more interested in using the topic of abortion to beat up on Christian fundamentalists than in actually preventing abortions. Oh, for clarity and leadership...
Posted by: huckleberry on May 15, 2006 12:47 AMTry "Breed and and we won't need immigrants to keep SS afloat"; "Breed and we won't slip into the minority"; "Breed and train your children in the arts of math, science, and engineering unless you want to speak Chinese"; "Breed so we can pay off the national debt".... Just a few.
Oh and to the ridiculously hypocrtical greens eating numbskulls that are the environmentally out of touch left, we are nowhere near our max occupancy. Just stop being little girls about GM food (whcih can save billions of lives if we give the seeds to poor coutries and teach them to grow it) and suck up to the fact that the difference between a human and any other animal is that a human can change his or her environment to sustain himself or herself. We have the technology and the capability to output vastly more food than we do now, to output crops that are hardier, more resistant to bugs, can grow in more climates, have more nutritious value... and yet we argue about the moral good of relative special suicide.
Unreal. There's an episode of Bullshit ( a great show) that deals with genetically engineered food, and iut features this one guy (forget the dude's name, it's in season 1) who is credited with saving over a billion lives due to his work on basically engineering hardier crops so that food grows where it didn't before.
Posted by: Aaron on May 15, 2006 05:41 AMThere are a very few deeply religious people in this state and they feel very passionately about this issue, but they are the clear minority, hold no political clout outside the Confederate states, and should just shut their mouths, wait for the rapture, and be content in their belief that everyone else is going to hell.
Is that your opinion on every politial minority in this country? If the majority has an option tha minority should just shut up? Gay marraige advocates should shut up? Should Blacks shut up? Or should only conservatives shut up? Or is it simply conservatives with a Christian faith? Who are the TRUE bigots in the political arena? Look in the mirror Philp.
Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on May 15, 2006 08:59 AM
Matt congrats on the first successful FU ever used by a poster to the readers at SP who may disagree with your redefinition of murder with your use of Breed. Subtle; slipped that one right by the Shark.
Sadly Matt never tells us why he compromises with the Bloom's of the world. To what end? Of course Bloom has no kids and Matt will sell us all down the river as he has no faith in you, me or a God bigger than all of us.
and when someone does evil in God's name as does Marcy Bloom that is a dangerous person....God sent her to kill 70,000 people?!??!? I am missing that verse ...what is it..."and vacuum the bodies from the wombs to cleanse the world of my children said the Lord" in 1st Pervision Chapter 3 Verse 9
If you can stomach it search for abortion photos...they are there.....
This is truly pitiful that on Mother's Day weekend Matt and the Seattle Times would viscously attack a cornerstone of civilization, motherhood, this way.
steve, every time you post, you prove the exeption to the admonition against abortion. As Rodney Dangerfield once said, "Now I know why lions eat their young".
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 15, 2006 10:31 AMMaking a choice about whether and when to have children is something I support. However, Barash has it half wrong when he thinks declining birth rates are only about the choices women make.
Actually, the sad part of the tale, and the part that nobody wants to talk about, is that men are opting out of marriage and children. This is not just all about choices women make.
Public policy and a general culture of misandry and disrespect towards fatherhood has resulted in plenty of men staying out of the institution of marriage. And for good reason. Meanwhile, there is no shortage of women in the 30s and 40s wondering where all the real men are.
Posted by: BananaLand on May 15, 2006 03:56 PMWhatever you believe, please respond rationally.
I'll do my best.
Basically I see your approach to this topic as one driven by compasssion but misplaced due to logical fallacies.
Let's take them one at a time.
Many staunch anti-abortionists don't want to acknowledge that there is more to the debate than simply stating that no abortion is acceptable.
I doubt that this is true. I know many Staunch Pro-lfe people and none of them fail to acknolwedge that there is more to the debate. I think you fall victim to the characterization of pro-life people by thier opponents. News highlights the radicals, not the normal. Unless you have good data on this, don't make such a blanket statement. Why is it that if people think murder is wrong they are demonsized for not being compassionate enough to excuse the murderer? This point will be clarified later.
I think it's wrong to automatically condemn a women who might choose abortion.
Again, a mischaracterization of the position of pro-life people. For the most part their ire is directed at the machines, and politics and major proponents who advocate for "Abortion without restriction", and "abortion for kids without parental consent", and the foisting of aborion as the "only real alternative", and other "staunchly pro-abortion" agendas. Pro-lifers see many women as victims of a society and culture that has put them in that position in the first place.
Abortion is definitely the ending of a life. But...
Here is where I think you make your biggest logical fallacy. Either abortion is ending a life or it is not. There is no "but" about it. you cannot call it "Definately ending the life" and then in the same sentence mitigate it with an excuse.
the key in understanding the morality of this decision is that there is a difference between actual and potential.
So, it is NOT definately ending a life according to this. It is a potential life according to your implication. You are making a moral value judgement. A bug is a life but we do not consider the extermination of the bug to be a moral issue. The human life outside the womb is morally superior to the one inside of the womb. that is your implication. So, what is inside the womb is not fully human in nature and therefore not fully "life" as you use it. But that is not the real problem in your argument. If that which is in the womb is NOT full human life, and it is morally aceptable to end it, then it is morally acceptable to end it at any time for any reason. It HAS no value or it has all value. it's value CANNOT be conditional on the convenince of another person and still HAVE value. (Note: the author is excluding situations of self-defense wrt this discussion.) When you decide that some life is subject to the will of another to the point of termination, it has no vlaue but what is imposed upon it by the person in the position to terminate its life. However, if you believe in the vlaue of the unborn as fully human life, it has intrinsic value independent of the will of any other person and cannot have it's life terminated.
So, my question to you, is do the unborn have intrinsic life or is it only intrinsic upon birth?
Does she have to have the religious views of those who believe that there should never be any abortion imposed upon her?
Here is your next logical fallacy. You are in effect saying that morality is a personal decision. Morality of life is a personal decision. I can counter this by saying that maybe my religion does not think murder of a born-human to be morally wrong. Is it right of a society to inflict its morality upon me and disallow me from killing whom I wish for whatever reason I wish? Murder in all other situations are not conditional. So, you seem to imply again that you make a disticntion between the born and unborn. The unborn cannot be murdered by your argument because you actually do not think they are human yet. If you did, you would not make it conditional on the morality of an individual but would hold its life as a universal just the same way you would a born person's.
For that particular woman, the implications of going through with a pregnancy to bring a child into the world may be destructive to all of the goals and plans that she had for her own life. It's a harsh choice, but it is a lifeboat ethics question.
This is where your compassion comes in, but it is also the place where I have the strongest disagreement with you on. It is the crux of the whole issue in regards to the moral compass of our society. You see, you have compassion for a person whose life might be "tragically" altered by an unexepcted child. There is another implication here that is subtle and insidious. It is this: Life as a mother, as a child rearer, and a parent is less valuable than other persuits that one can make. The truth is, as much as we value our "freedom to be what we want to be", MOST of our choices in life are strongly dictated by the circumstances OF our life. Where we were born, to whom we were born, the financial realities of our life, etc. Having a child is just one of many circumstances that will alter our lives. It is just that we consider THAT one to be preventable. The question is, SHOULD it be prevented? If a child comes at the worng time and interrupts your college career, do you kill it? What if your mother takes ill and the care for her forces you to leave college? Do you decide to kill her so you don't interrupt your "life"? Can you not see just how self-centered this argument is? YES the child interrupts the current plans of one's life, but just how tragic is that really? If you value, even in the slightest, the worth of the child, NOTHING else has sufficient "value" to trump that. The real shame of this situation is the devaluing of the role of parent and care-giver. That other pursuits are more noble, are more worth-while, are more valuable.
If we as a society truly valued life, we would rejoice in a pregnancy and birth, even an unplanned one. If we truly had compassion of the mother-to-be, we would not shame her and condemn her for the pregnancy (which is EXACLTY what we do, which DRIVES her to abort in many cases) and instead support her in the responsibilites of her circumstances rather than making excuses and taking the "easy" way out.
The Pro-life people have compassion for both the mother and the unborn child. If one is intellcutally honest about what they believe about valuing all life, then they CANNOT abide the murder of one child, and especially the culture which makes the murder a "right" and a "preferred" option. and yet, to speak up on our conviction that life IS life is to be condemned as intolerant, as radical. Since when did protecting the innocent, and the belief in life become radical and marginalized qualities? One cannot have Murder for thee but not for me. If it is murder than it is murder no matter who does it. The argument, "Don't like abortion, than don't have one" is morally bankrupt. I can counter with "Don't like the murder of (insert any group or class of human here) then don't murder one." You cannot be agianst abotion personally on moral grounds and still say it is ok for others to do it without tossing out every basis for a common morality in society.
Eyago
The historical reverence for "life" has been for people outside their mothers. Why? I suppose even a newborn exhibits looks and behaviors that bring out our loving and protective instincts as members of the same species. These reasons simply don't apply to a young fetus.
Of course, this creates the terrible dilemma of deciding when we should protect the fetus. Any line we draw is largely arbitrary. This is a tough moral problem. But that doesn't mean that a fetus at 1 day is morally equivalent to a fetus at 9 months.
Posted by: Bruce on May 16, 2006 01:09 AMOf course, this creates the terrible dilemma of deciding when we should protect the fetus. Any line we draw is largely arbitrary. This is a tough moral problem. But that doesn't mean that a fetus at 1 day is morally equivalent to a fetus at 9 months.
It is you who is making the problem tough by struggling to draw a line where none really needs to be drawn. If more of us rejected abortion on the grounds it is an immoral option, then we would be free to view day old fetuses as morally equivalent to 9 month fetuses. Love all the fetuses in all their glorious diversity.
What would Jesus do?
Posted by: huckleberry on May 16, 2006 02:20 AMYou really contradicted your own statement in saying that I am making a black and white issue of a gray issue and then going on to say that we have the moral dilemma of deciding how much gray is grey enough, you have clarified why it IS a black and white issue.
We are ALL in some sort of state of "becoming." All humans in in a state of flux and are becoming what they are not. Fetus to infant to child to adult to elderly in a physical sense, there is mental growth, there is emotional growth, there is spiritual growth. It is hard to draw ANY line between is not and is. But once you start the ball rolling, the inevitible growth has begun.
Now as an analogy, you have a bucket of white paint. The process of inputting drops of black paint, one drop at a time. You put one drop of black paint in, is it still white? Looks white. Put in another and another and another. Eventually it will clearly no longer look white. However, when did it stop being purely white? even though we could not "see" the change, it existed from the very first drop. Now paint is not moral, and you can use "not quite white" paint on your house, but can you with honesty say that once a life has begun its self-developing march to it's full enventuality that you can "determine" when it goes from non-morally valuable life to morally valuable life?
Any decision you make will be necessarily arbitrary and based primarily on a basis of "selfish" convenience, focussing on the impact to OTHERS rather than on the child itself and its rights. That is the crux of the "moral dilemma". When can we "safely" kill and not call it killing so that we can avoid the inconveniences of this not-life we have created.
I cannot accept that. Others might be able to do the moral gymnastics in their own minds, but I cannot, and thus I MUST see abortion as taking of a human life and therefore I MUST speak up for what I believe. What is sad is how others can marginalize THAT conviction on human life as being without compassion. It is a world upside down. It is one thing to disagree with pro-lifer, it is another to "hate" them for their steadfast commitment for life and the protection of the innocent.
Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on May 16, 2006 09:17 AMBut "bashing" is your term for disagreeing with strong words, I guess.
Posted by: Michelle on May 16, 2006 10:36 AM2) To all of those who are pre-lifers (that's what I call what's generally referred to as"pro-lifers" which to me is a ridiculous term. I rarely meet pre-lifers who actually believe that our government should be funding policies and programs to reduce poverty, homelessness, hunger and sickness in our communities - issues that affect children AFTER they are born.): please, this is not hard to understand, so please please please listen and now you'll know: women who have abortions are the SAME women who have babies!!!!!!!! 61% of women who have abortions are ALREADY mothers. The vast majority of young women who have abortions because they feel ill-equipped to nurture and care for a child for the next eighteen years of their lives are the SAME women who go on to have children - yes, even 2, 3 or 4 children. Can you believe it?! I'm so tired of hearing this pre-life line that endlessly drones that a woman has an abortion and, ohmygod!!!, that's it - she's sacrificed her chance to have a child forever. These women are already mothers - they are wonderful, loving, caring mothers. These women are the women who become mothers - wonderful, loving and caring mothers.
Last time: women who have abortions are the same women who have children. We are your mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts. At Aradia we see, gasp!!!, many, many, many women who self-identify as pro-life!! Can you believe it? We see many, many, many women who self-identify as Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish. And, please, don't go off about how you know this proverb or that proverb. These women come in with the bible in hand. They say, I am pro-life but I just am not ready to have this child right now - I am 32 years old, I am 24 years old, I'm 14 years old, I'm 17 years old. They say, I have 2 children, I am a single mother, I'm not ready. They say, I have a child and I'm married and I just can't have another child. They say, my father raped me and I'm in junior high school and I don't want to have a child now - later, yes - now, with my father, no.
3) To the poster who made reference to Marcy Bloom being rich I just want to laugh uncontrollably. Rich?! Rich?! I really do invite you down to Aradia Women's health Center. I would invite you to see my paycheck and the paycheck of every woman who has ever worked at Aradia - of which there are hundreds. I wish I could invite you to see Marcy's paycheck but of course I can't. I wish I could invite you to see where Marcy lives. You people are so sadly misguided it would be depressing if it weren't so frustrating.
We all know that those of us an each side of the debate are NEVER going to change each other's minds. I am clear, after having worked as a reproductive rights and health activist for the last eight years, that there are those who believe abortion is evil and wrong and those who believe it is a decision a woman must be allowed to make legally and safely without government interference.
Why do we continue this ridiculous arguing? Clearly on a public policy and social policy level this kind of endless debating serves only to distract from the most important issues that government needs to tackle.
And, yes, I have spoken endlessly to pre-lifers who are 100 % committed to their perspective that abortion is murder - as clearly as if you were murdering a person on the street. To that I say then you MUST believe that all women who have had abortions or who have abortions should be prosecuted, jailed and punished. Please don't insult women's intelligence - one in three women's intelligence in this country - by saying we are all seemingly innocent victims.
Please think through this perspective. You honestly cannot believe that we can institute a policy whereby abortion providers are all jailed and prosecuted while all women are somehow pardoned based on.....?
The truth is 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester when the fetus is barely formed. And, yes, I have two beautifully wonderful children so I do understand what it's like to feel life growing inside you. In fact, women come into the clinic and say, "I know there is life inside of me. I have named my baby. I love my baby and I will see my baby in heaven someday." Some women come into the clinic and say, "I feel nothing towards this clump of cells growing inside me."
The fact is, as a man, you will NEVER know what it's like to feel or be pregnant. And, lord, don't retort that if public policy were based solely on what one could only personally feel we'd be screwed. The truth is men are terrified of the fact that women have the power to grow life and yes, women have the power to destroy the growing life inside of them. We do. And we'll always have that power regardless of whether or not you try and make it illegal. Women will always have abortions regardless of whether or not it is legal - or safe unfortunately. I cannot be more clear on that point.
Should we try and reduce the number of unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies in the world? Yes! Should we try and ensure thorough and accessible pre-natal care for all pregnant women? Yes! Should we encourage young people to abstain from sex? Yes!
However: Women are fertile for approximately 37 years. 37 years!!! And pre-lifers honestly believe that women will follow some miraculous standard of being that will ensure that they will never ever ever get pregnant when they don't want to be. And, then, if they do, that hey - they'll just grow this life inside of them and give it away if they aren't ready to have it.
I feel sad for those who fight so hard on behalf of the unborn. I do. I work so hard in my life as an activist on behalf of children who are actually alive in this world - who fall victim to poverty, hunger, war and sickness. I raise money for these issues; I lobby my representatives to fund policies that will wipe out these horrible problems that befall our children. Please, if we stood together for those issues, our world would be very different. Stop obsessing about women's bodies and our personal decision-making and trust women for god's sake.
Put your obvious passion and concern for humanity to better use. You will NEVER stop women from having abortions when they are not ready to grow and birth a life inside of them. You can call it murder; you can say that the millions of women who have had abortions since time began are ALL somehow victims of society or poor public policy. But you simply do not have the right to tell all women that they cannot decide what is best for them and the life growing inside of them - you may want to, you may want to with every cell in your body. That's okay. You just do not have the right to enforce that on every woman in our country - you just don't.
Posted by: Sabina on May 16, 2006 11:29 PMBut you simply do not have the right to tell all women that they cannot decide what is best for them and the life growing inside of them - you may want to, you may want to with every cell in your body. That's okay. You just do not have the right to enforce that on every woman in our country - you just don't.
Do you not see the irony in your own statement? You are trying to say I have no rights as a citizen to try do to what I think is right.
What we have here is a conflict of rights. Someone's rights get trampled. You advocate for the trampling of 2 rights in favor of one. The right of the mother to choose to deny the rights of the unborn, and the right of me to advocate for the rights of the unborn.
Now, quntity is not the issue. The issue is what rights are paramount. And in pretty much every other situation where rights come into conflict that involve life, the one that trumps is the one that protects life. Except in abortion. For many, the question isn't a matter of the right to chose over the right to life IF, and this is key, IF one does not equate the unborn with fully human life. If you do NOT, then the balance of rights might shift sufficiently to allow you to logically advocate for the rights of the woman over the unborn.
However, I do think it is life, and in doing so CANNOT put the rights of the unborn below those of the mother. And you have no justification to disallow me the right to call for a protection of that life.
Put your obvious passion and concern for humanity to better use. You will NEVER stop women from having abortions when they are not ready to grow and birth a life inside of them.
I will never stop MANY of the things mankind does that I think are hurtful or harmful, but I will not let that stop me from doing what I can to call them to attention and find ways to reduce them in an effective manner within the law and with as much compassion and heart as I possibly can.
And as far as your generalization of pro-lifers, you are making the same error as Bruce did earlier. I DO put my passion and concern for humanity to very good use. Mother Theresa was very pro-life, and there was no lack of concern and compassion she had for the poor and afflicted, and other pro-life people do as well. The fact that you can point to others who do not does not take away for the fact that there are those who are quite morally consistent.
I understand YOUR compassion and do not denigrate your efforts or your beliefs as they are stated in the above posting. However, they are not fully represented by the pro-abortion population as a whole. It is a matter of world-view, a philosophical divide. The one that says value comes from the self and the realiztion of one's own personal fulfillment as the epitome of human existence, and the other that sees the sacrifice of self to that of others knowing that in that sacifice and denial of self one gains a greater fulfilment of their humanity.
In an ironic way, you seem to describe your work as somehting you give of yourself to help others, but in a way that perpetuates the opposite of what you are doing for your own self-fulfilment. In effect, in a selfless effort, you help people to act in a selfish way.
From sacrifice and doing what is both hard and self-denying comes the wonderment of accompishment that is meaningful. While it might be easier to take a different road, it denies the person their personal growth and leads to an emptier fulfilment. The greater one's sacrifice, the higher the reward for accomplishment. The person who has an easy road to success can never feel the satisfaction that the one who had to struggle to achieve the same ends. When society works too hard to remove the obsticles to life it also removes the rewards that come from overcoming those obsticles. It's like winning a race in which you are the only runner. You get the trophy, and it sits shining on your mantle, but inside you know it is an empty award and you long for a true mark of accomplishment. Man is in constant search for achievement, not for the end result (though many mistake it), but for the ability to say "I overcame" in REACHING that result.
This is a convoluted way of saying that not all trials and struggles and sacrifices SHOULD be avoided, and probably less than we even imagine.
When I was strugging to put my wife and I through college, I dealt with bouts of envy over those whose parents paid their way. Now that I look back on it, I am glad I had to go that route. My accompishment is more meaningful to me.
Now I am not stupid enough to equate a college education to raising a child. I have 3 special needs adoptees that I am raising now, so I know the work involved, but the principle still holds. Tougher sacrifices yeild greater rewards, even if we do not wish to see it from the beginning portion of the trial ahead of us.
Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on May 17, 2006 12:36 AM