…then Sarabeth is famous! :-)
For your viewing pleasure, here is her letter from Thursday, July 15th (you can also see the original here, but the Chronicle’s web site makes you register before you can read anything.)
One thing I have learned over the years is that you have to work with facts as well as reality when trying to find a solution to a problem. One problem, according to some, is abortions.The cause of abortions are unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. The solution, still being stated by many, is banning abortion and teaching abstinence. The solution has proven, however, to be ineffective. So where do we go from here? Maybe, to reduce the amount of abortions, we could look at communities’ sex education. We can continue to teach abstinence while offering forms of protection, such as condoms and birth control. We could allow Planned Parenthood to do more in our community. The organization can help teach sexually active people how to protect themselves so they don’t get to the point where an abortion is needed.Banning abortion and only teaching abstinence has proven to be a faulty solution in the past. What would make it work now?
Congrats on getting published, SB!
READ ME: Disclaimer
69 Responses to "If having a letter printed in the Augusta Chronicle makes you famous…"
How has it been proven faulty?
Sarabeth? You out there? Wanna tackle this one? ;-)
Do letters in the Athens Banner-Herald, Flagpole, or Red & Black make us famous? Anyway, what I hate about letters to the editor is the space constraint. The Rude & Bleak only allows 150 words — and they still cut it down! The Banner-Herald leaves it intact, but it is hard to support your position in 250 words without leaving holes that another writer is going to leap into with their 250 words.
And another writer, and another writer, and so on, so that there’s no lack of people writing to the editor.
Charles, I was going to ask the same exact thing.
when abortion was banned in the past it simply forced women to hvae illegal and unsafe abortions..it did not stop them or unwanted pregnancies
Do letters in the Athens Banner-Herald, Flagpole, or Red & Black make us famous?
If so, then I’m super-famous, because I’ve had 3 letters published in the Red and Black.
but it is hard to support your position in 250 words without leaving holes
…kind of like the 1,000-word limit of Haloscan, which some other people use to run their comments section on their blogs… ;-)
when abortion was banned in the past it simply forced women to hvae illegal and unsafe abortions..it did not stop them or unwanted pregnancies
One of the most disturbing scenes in a movie I’ve seen recently was the scene in If These Walls Could Talk where a 1950’s widow tries to give herself an abortion with a knitting needle (after she has been shunned and disowned by the family that she thought loved her unconditionally). It is horrible. Later she has a kitchen-table abortion from a sketchy guy who comes in with some dirty tools, does the deed, and leaves… we see her hemorraging profusely on the kitchen floor, trying to call a doctor but unable to hold the phone. We don’t know what happens to her after that… presumably she dies, or at best, survives with horrible injuries and not able to bear children.
Charles asks: How has it been proven faulty?
Well, I’d say that because we still have high rates of Teenage Pregnancy, STDs and abortions, the current crop of programs are proving ineffective. Can you show how they are working perhaps?
when abortion was banned in the past it simply forced women to hvae illegal and unsafe abortions..it did not stop them or unwanted pregnancies
Yes, banning abortion was just about as effective as banning liquor or banning drugs. Which is to say, it only got more dangerous and caused more problems once it was driven underground.
So, drugs shouldn’t be banned, or controlled at all? Just like abortion? Just like emissions? Just like murder?
As far as I can tell no one here is saying abortion shouldn’t be controlled or regulated, but that it shouldn’t be outright banned.
Ooh ooh, I’ve had a letter published in the Augusta Chronicle, too! Does our club have dues? Vows? Funny hats?
I don’t see how banning abortions can be considered one of our current “programs,” such that it receives blame for the sexual mess we’re in. People–roughly half of them–have been advocating that abortions be banned for the last 32 years, but abortions have actually been legal in that time. So I don’t see how those who want to ban it (but have been unsuccessful in getting it banned) are to blame for the current rates of STDs, teen pregnancies, etc.
Also, no one is seriously claiming that the number of “back alley” abortions before Roe v. Wade approached anything close to the numbers of legal abortions we see today, are they?
P.S: Amber, if you’ll write me a commenting program that I can plug into my blog template, then I’ll use it with good cheer. So far haloscan is the best I can find, because it actually loads up consistently. The 1k-per-post limit sucks, but it’s better than unlimited posts that only load 1/3 of the time (which is what I used to have).
So, as long as the pregnancy is an inconvenience, then an abortion is a good choice? Isn’t that what an “unplanned and unwanted pregnancy” is? An inconvenience? What kind of control or regulations would be acceptable in this situation?
People will still do what they do in the sack regardless of whether or not abortion is legal.
Does anybody use abortion as a method of birth control?
You’re not going to change things just by changing laws. You have to change the way people think. And that is soooo haaaard.
Also, no one is seriously claiming that the number of “back alley” abortions before Roe v. Wade approached anything close to the numbers of legal abortions we see today, are they?
Of course not, but the death rate was probably several orders of magnitude higher during the ‘back alley’ days of abortions.
So, as long as the pregnancy is an inconvenience, then an abortion is a good choice? Isn’t that what an “unplanned and unwanted pregnancy” is? An inconvenience? What kind of control or regulations would be acceptable in this situation?
Considering that over half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or spontaneous abortions, it seems that God himself has his own opinion.
Does anybody use abortion as a method of birth control?
The answer to that is probably yes, but one caveat: those women that would use abortion as a form of birth control probably do not have access to a) reliable birth control methods b) affordable pre-natal and post-natal health care c) education about sex, pregnancy and STDs. So it’s not fair to hold them up to the same standard that we might apply, say, to an upper-middle class white woman seeking an abortion due to some other circumstance.
So, if you keep information from people, they may end up using the last available resort to end unwanted or dangerous pregnancies. Without education and the availability of the above mentioned things, abortion may be the only solution to a poor, uneducated woman. And that’s why the pro-life crowd should just be called what they really are: the anti-choice crowd.
Epon or whoever else, what do you think of my argument that I posted a few months ago at my own blog?
The Case Against Abortion (Scroll up–my permalinks are at the bottom of posts)
Suppose we created a human being from one parent? Or no parents? It is theoretically possible. Is that still a person? What the hell is life? When does that life begin? When the scientist fuses the dna strands (or whatever)?
sorry to have caused such a stir! i am not saying that an answer to unwanted pregnancy is an abortion-there are 1000 reasons that could cause a woman to choose that but my point is it should be her choice-that choice should be avaible.
as far as the current programs are not working–i am looking at this from the standpoint of someone living in the south. where i am located everyone advocates banning abortion-and yet at the same time dont want anything aside from absistence to be taught. all i am saying is that it should be taught-but so should safe sex.
i wrote the opinion to try and express that viewpoint. (need to have sex ed-banning abortion only wouldnt work)
Xon, what we need is work on premise one, it is immoral to deliberately kill an innocent human being. This will be tied to the personhood question, though, and will become quite a mess. I’m sorry I only read a little of your post because I’m about to go back to work.
I would like to posit something here: If there is a likelihood that living conditions will be highly unpleasant for one in their early years, there is some case for saying that abortion is better for person than living.
Yes, I say people CAN be better off dead. Which is why consensual euthanasia should be accepted.
So we’re back to the morality of killing, and this often brings up the question of a creator’s intentions, and the existence and nature of a creator is a complex issue. Yikes. There’s too much going on here.
Well, I was going to give you credit for a very well-thought-out and well-written (if a bit verbose) post until I got to this gem:
The fetus is, afterall, just a temporary visitor, and almost always poses no threat to the life of the mother.
You need to read a little more about biology and childbirth firstly. Secondly, pregnancy is about the most dangerous biological activity human beings can engage in. Do you ever read history or even historical novels? Do you have any conception of how many women over the years have died in or around childbirth even after the widespread adoption of trained doctors and midwives? Even today, giving birth is still a dangerous procedure, dismissing it as you have belies a certain intellectual dishonesty or just plain ignorance on the issue. Ask an OB-Gyn, no pregnancy is ever ‘routine’.
Claiming the fetus is just a ‘temporary visitor’ obfuscates the fact that a fetus is a complex lump of developing cells, which, when coupled with the mother’s own system astronomically increases the possible health problems of the mother. I say ‘near-human’ because that’s what a fetus is. Since it’s not capable of surviving on it’s own, it’s a parasite until birth.
The problem with your argument is that you make certain assumptions at the beginning of your article and then you prove them. We call this ‘begging the question’ and it’s a nice way to preach to the choir but not a good way to convince someone who knows better.
Anyways, I’ll address what I have time to:
he abortion advocate must challenge the definition of abortion as “the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.”
No, I don’t. A fetus is not a human being. If a mother’s life is in danger or she does not have the capability to raise the child, her life takes precedence.
This fact may belie why pro-choicers are often reluctant to debate abortion is formal public debates
What are you talking about? I’ve debated many, many anti-choicers in my life in both formal and informal settings. The reason why I typically decline these days is the fact that not many of them even attempt what you’ve done, and even have the pretense of a rationaly arguement. Instead, I’m subjected to pathos-ridden propaganda, disgusting doctored pictures or just a complete lack of respect for the rules of debate. For example, last year my girlfriend (president of the ACLU) and I were invited to the Phi Kappa debate on abortion. We were given a specific question on the constitutionality of abortion laws and we were asked to respond to it. At the beginning of the debate, the anti-choicers immediately went into propaganda mode and disregarded even the premise of arguing the pre-arranged question. We were forced to retort on our feet and were somewhat unhappy with the way the Phi Kappa people ignored their own rules. This is not the first time that has happened, just try arguing with any anti-choicer at a rally or a protest and you’ll get the same thing. Many people I know who have worked with NARAL and Planned Parenthood over the years share this opinion and therefore often refuse debates. I realize you might be different, but many in your contingent do this and this is probably the reason for your opinion of them.
“When do we have a new living human being?” And the answer to that question is really quite simple–at conception. This is simply high school biology.
Yes, it is simple high school biology. It’s when a fetus is born that it becomes a person. Comatose people, the mentally infirm, or vegetables have all been born and are worth of protection.
What does a human being need to “have” before we can call him or her a person and thus demand that it is morally worthy of protection from violence?
How about being able to survive, with a minimum of life support technology, outside the womb? That would pretty much protect third-trimester fetuses (who I believe are deserving of protection under this criteria) as well as older individuals on life support or otherwise disabled. I’m not even going into the sentience argument, because you probably don’t want to hear my opinions about euthanasia and the right to die.
Oops, I guess you do.
But I imagine that everyone reading my blog would view these people (comatose patients, mentally challenged, infants) as human beings of sufficient moral worth that killing them deliberately would be a great moral evil.
Well, actually, were that person to have expressed a desire to die if ever in a state such as that or if their continued existence was devoid of brain activity and a drain on their surviving relatives resources, than no, I would not.
you see how hard is to come up with something that works for all fetuses but nobody else.
Not really, fetuses have yet to be born. The rest of us have. Sorry.
Look, I feel for you. I respect a certain contingent of the pro-life brigade when they too are consistent. All life is worth of protection, even that of monsters who are responsible for the deaths of living human beings. Otherwise, you’re arguing from the same (as you said) flawed position that you claim pro-choicers are.
In a perfect world, if every woman everywhere had total and complete access to pre and post-natal health care, contraception, sexual education, equal rights under the law and in the community; I could accept the illegality of abortion except in extreme cases of rape, incest or danger to the woman’s life.
However, we do not live in that world and I will not play games about ‘life’ and ’souls’ when a woman can be denied access to medical care, sexual education or even basic human rights and be expected to go through the incredible risks of childbirth just because you don’t like the idea of innocent babies dying. If you are so concerned with life, why are you not out educating women in poor nations about birth control so they don’t have unwanted or dangerous pregnancies? Why are you not advocating better standards of living for everyone? Why are you not arguing against armed forces that regularly utilize rape as a weapon of war? Abortion is not a big issue. There are more important issues that cause the deaths of untold hundreds of thousands every year. Let me know when we’ve got those licked and we can start talking about abortions. Until then, if you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. Women have a right to do what they want with their bodies and they should have the right to end a potentially dangerous situation before it progresses. End of story.
P.S: Amber, if you’ll write me a commenting program that I can plug into my blog template, then I’ll use it with good cheer.
Actually, I’m working on exactly such a thing. -Well, not just for comments. I’m working on getting my entire “blogging system” packaged up so people can download it, install it, and use it for their own blogs. At the moment I’m trying to work out a few annoying bugs, but hopefully it will be ready to go sometime in the not too distant future.
Don’t have the energy to delve into abortion-related comments. Must pack and eat and and go to airport soon.
Just one little thing. I am not in pontificating mode, but rather nit-picking mode.
Also, no one is seriously claiming that the number of “back alley” abortions before Roe v. Wade approached anything close to the numbers of legal abortions we see today, are they?
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss that idea. Seems to me that it’s similar to other situations such as the fact that nowadays, domestic violence is reported much more often than in previous decades. The reason isn’t because there is more domestic violence nowadays, but because back then not nearly as many people reported it. The same with mental illness, and many other things that carried a stigma back in the day. (And still carry a stigma to some extent in our present day, unfortunately.) It can also sort of be compared to the situation with divorce in the U.S. these days — there are more divorces now than in the past. Lots of people lament that as being a terrible thing. But is it really? Yes, some marriages end for the wrong reasons (of course, assuming that the nebulous “we” can somehow judge the relationship of two other people better than the two people themselves — but I digress). But, the good news is, nowadays people (women especially) don’t have to feel like they must stay in marriages where they and/or their children are abused or neglected. Empowering the individual is a wonderful thing, IMHO.
P.S. Dave- you keep putting eponymous.ort instead of eponymous.org. I fixed it in your first 2 comments but I thought I should let you know.
Uhhh…
On a different note for Adrian, I work at the Banner-Herald and you can write a forum which is longer than 250 words. You just have to write what you want and then submit it to the editorial department, and just denote it as you’d be interested in writing a forum rather than a letter to the editor.
That should work. I know the Chronicle and Red & Black have much more stringent policies on length.
OK, and now I’ll dip into this actual debate here…
eponymous (I wish that was your real name since that would rock…), I’ve enjoyed your opinions as I’ve visited here and your site, but we disagree on this one. I’m a rare breed … a pro-life liberal, so we’ll respectfully agree to disagree.
I do want to point out a couple of things which raised flags for me:
Since it’s not capable of surviving on it’s own, it’s a parasite until birth.
This just rubs me the wrong way, and it should do the same for anyone who reads it. I just don’t like the notion of referring to a growing life (one which ‘will become human’ for pro-choices and ‘is human’ for pro-lifers) as a ‘parasite.’ Perhaps an argument can be made that technically speaking it is, but I don’t think we should refer to it as so … especially since a parasite ultimately uses the host until it dies, not true with a fetus/baby.
If a mother’s life is in danger or she does not have the capability to raise the child, her life takes precedence.
OK, while I can entertain an argument for your first notion, I cannot accept the second one. Whether you support abortion rights or not, no one here can rationally think that abortion is a ‘good thing’ … and I find it difficult to believe that using abortion as a means of birth control is considered appropriate.
What message does that send? I screwed up and got pregnant so I’ll just terminate the pregnancy. Huh? You’ve got to take responsibility for your actions, regardless of your ‘financial situation.’ There are other options out there - abortion being the most prominent one in my book. I just can’t accept that concept.
However, we do not live in that world and I will not play games about ‘life’ and ’souls’ when a woman can be denied access to medical care, sexual education or even basic human rights and be expected to go through the incredible risks of childbirth just because you don’t like the idea of innocent babies dying. If you are so concerned with life, why are you not out educating women in poor nations about birth control so they don’t have unwanted or dangerous pregnancies? Why are you not advocating better standards of living for everyone? Why are you not arguing against armed forces that regularly utilize rape as a weapon of war? Abortion is not a big issue. There are more important issues that cause the deaths of untold hundreds of thousands every year. Let me know when we’ve got those licked and we can start talking about abortions. Until then, if you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. Women have a right to do what they want with their bodies and they should have the right to end a potentially dangerous situation before it progresses. End of story.
I agree with much of what you said, and disagree with it at the same time.
If we’re talking about spreading medical care throughout the world then that’s one thing, but I thought this focused on the legality of abortion here in America. And continuing on that thread, I honestly can’t think of what medical options would be declined to anyone who needed service. Full health care (as far as it relates to insurance, etc.) is not available to all (and we must change that), but actual medical service can’t be denied to those in need.
Along that line, that whole sentence is completely illogical. I have to pick something to be concerned with? I can’t be concerned about human rights and fair and equal medical access and health care AND the death of innocent babies. And have you re-read that sentence to consider how odd it sounds? You won’t play ‘games’ because I don’t like the concept of ‘babies dying?’ I hope you don’t like the idea of ‘babies dying’ either.
And, again, why can’t we be helping to offer better living standards in poorer countries in addition to opposing abortion? I didn’t realize it was an either-or kind of thing. I really think you and I see eye-to-eye in believing that most circumstances of abortion stem from poor economic circumstances and a feeling of being helpless and trapped in a life which you can’t escape, let alone your unborn child.
So, yes, we must make their life better to provide them the means to gain some stability in their lives so abortion (and, for that matter, crime and drugs) aren’t the only options they can choose. But can’t I oppose abortion in addition to holding those beliefs?
I mean, this is one issue right here. I wouldn’t think that you would oppose defending our country if we were under attack because of your comment that the military used rape as a weapon. So why would you think that Xon (or any other pro-lifer) would oppose improving health care or living standards simply because he opposes abortion?
Xon’s thoughts on the sanctity of the fetus stand for mine (on the whole … and it should be noted, one of the very few issues he and I agree on), so I don’t really feel the need to debate that. I say that simply because while I deeply disagree with your assessement of when ‘life’ comes into being, we can argue that until we’re blue in the face and abortions will still happen.
And we should all realize that abortion is not good, whether it’s a right or not. So the most constructive thing to do here is discuss how to eliminate abortions - whether is legislative (which pro-choicers would hate, and which I’m not so sure is the most appropriate at the time being) or through social actions. We need to stress adoption much more than we do. I think we jump to the abortion card in the deck too quickly and don’t simply consider all the alternatives to abortion.
Also improving quality of life standards and offering better health care are positive steps forward. Better job training and education can give people the tools to offer their children a life. And while abstinence is the most fool-proof effort, birth control has to be taught somewhere - where is another debate altogether.
But the point is that these are steps which can make abortion irrelevant.
Jmac, this isn’t Haloscan…
To JMAC:
i dont think abortion is necessarily a good thing, but as someone who works with children on a daily basis who have been neglected/abused becuase they are unwanted by their parents or are retarted because of drug use during pregnancy-well lets just say it makes you look at abortion in a whole other light.
and i know some will say adoption-and i agree that this would be a great alternative, but even though these people are awful parents, they have it engrained in them that adoption isnt a good choice-b/c of culture or upbringing i dont know.
How can we tell that teacing abstinence has failed? If the people never have sex, then they never get pregnant, and never seek an abortion. Therefore, there is no data to back up that comment.
I would also like to say that reading a historical novel is like watching Braveheart and thinking it portrays things just as they were.
“Considering that over half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or spontaneous abortions, it seems that God himself has his own opinion.” - I won’t even touch on where the scientific data to back up that statement might be, but I would agree that if a pregnancy ends in miscarriage or spontaneous abortions, then it was meant to be. The woman did not decide to play God up until the third trimester, instead, God played himself.
JMac - very well said. Abortion and teaching/healthcare have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The whole argument between pro-choicers and anti-choicers (could you be a little more condesending?) is the question of when a baby (or fetus for those of you trying to keep emotion out of it) becomes a human. This will never be agreed upon, and therefore, neither will abortion.
If you feel that something is just a lump of cells, then it is easy to get rid of it. There is no feeling or emotion in the act. You cannot think less of someone who feels that the lump of cells is a person with a soul.
No connection between the two? are you kiddding me? teaching abstinence does work with some, but obviously not with all. If you teach kids about prtoecting themselves and making condoms and birth control available-pregnancy is less likely. if you aren’t pregnant you dont have to consider abortion. how is there NOT a connection?
I wasn’t speaking of teaching in the terms of only teaching abstinence. I am speaking of teaching/healthcare as a way to control unwanted pregnancies. Teaching abstinance, condoms, adotion, Planned Parenthood. Not planned abortions.
If you were to ask the neglected/abused or retarded children if they would rather have been aborted than given a chance to live, I think, and this is only my opinion, but I think they would say no.
Abortion is far to often used as a solution for someone not wanting to take reponsibility for their actions. I don’t think it is primarily used in situations where the woman is a risk.
I don’t think that anyone here is arguing that people should not be taught better about sex in general. I don’t think that anyone here lives in a fantasy world where if you tell someone to never have sex they will take your word for it.
I think abortion is murder. I think you are killing an innocent child each and every time, no matter what the circumstances. My opinion on that will not change.
Jmac, this isn’t Haloscan…
What? Where … am … I?
I am not asking you to change your opinion, but i think its easy to say when you are not the one taking care of these neglected and abused children. And I think the idea that its not used with women at risk-i beleive it is and I also believe there are other real reasons that women have it done -such as rape, incest, or financial situations. it shouldnt be used as a means of birth control-i do believe that-but i also believe it is a choice every woman-and man-should have.
Things are always different when you are put in that siutation.
Jmac:
Thanks for your opinions. I respect your views, but I must disagree.
especially since a parasite ultimately uses the host until it dies, not true with a fetus/baby.
What, do ticks stay on for the life of the host? Sorry, as much as I love children (damn biological programming) I cannot think of a more proper term for them. Yes, they are potential human life. Yes, they leave the host before the host dies; but they are completely dependent on the body of the mother for their development and every single need they have until they are expelled. Therefore, they are parasitic. I realize it’s a poor choice of words and not likely to gain me any converts, but I’m not out to push my views, I’m only out to defend the actions of others.
OK, while I can entertain an argument for your first notion, I cannot accept the second one. Whether you support abortion rights or not, no one here can rationally think that abortion is a ‘good thing’ … and I find it difficult to believe that using abortion as a means of birth control is considered appropriate.
Abortion is not a good thing, I am not arguing for it to be used, but sometimes it might be the better thing for the potential child as well as the parent. As Sarabeth mentions, there are millions of abused, neglected, unloved, and otherwise unwanted children out there whose lives are miserable now and don’t have much hope for the future. Am I suggesting we kill them now as a way to relieve ourselves of the burden they cause us? Of course not, nor am I suggesting that we allow abortion to be a de facto method of birth control. I find that both abhorrent and offensive. But, the option must be there. The fact that someone can get pregnant who cannot afford to raise a child or who has neither the desire nor the sense to properly take care of themselves during pregnancy demands an alternative. As for adoption, that’s a great option, for healthy, white babies that is. There’s a waiting list a mile long for white infants whereas social services overflows with black and hispanic babies; not to mention the millions of no-longer-cute adolescents/teenagers currently in need of loving homes. How many of them do you suppose might not have been had the possibilty of abortion been available to the mother.
Every time I hear the suggestion of adoption, however, I must ask: how many children have you adopted? If you are willing to fight for their right to come into a world where they are not wanted, are you willing to step up and take the burden of them unto yourself? The anti-choice crowd is so damn concerned with unborn fetuses and the body of the woman carrying them, but they don’t seem to give two shits about the little rugrats once they’re through he birth canal. If they love ‘life’ so much, why aren’t they donating their time and homes to DFACS for foster care? Where are the hordes of abortion opponents running orphanages for unwanted children? Where are the ‘pro-life soldiers’ when the shrivelled crack babies are in withdrawal? I’ll tell you where they are: they’re ‘fighting’ to keep women’s options about their own bodies closed. They’re fighting choice. Choice isn’t nice and pretty and happy, choice can be hard and nasty and unpleasant. That’s just the way things are, sorry.
What message does that send? I screwed up and got pregnant so I’ll just terminate the pregnancy. Huh? You’ve got to take responsibility for your actions, regardless of your ‘financial situation.’ There are other options out there - abortion being the most prominent one in my book. I just can’t accept that concept.
Well, that’s fine, if you’re forcing them to ‘take responsibility’ and put themselves through 9 months of pregnancy and labor then are willing to take responsibility for the post-natal fetus? Are you willing to take responsibilty for the fact that, as a single pregnant woman, she may not be able to find a job? Are you willing to make sure she gets into rehab to fix her drug problem or moves out of her abusive household? Are you willing to pay higher taxes for health care, orphanages, day care, schools for motherless kids, welfare for poor single mothers, and higher school taxes for all the new children. Are you then willing to pay the astronomically higher costs of justice, incarceration and the legal fees involved in putting someone behind bars? Of course, I’m not assuming that all unwanted pregnancies will become problem children, but I do not doubt that a large percentage of children who go through the foster care system and social services will.
If you are willing to shoulder that burden, than I apologize for my tone and my confrontational attitude, but it really rubs me the wrong way when people bandy ‘personal responsibilty’ around like it doesn’t apply to them. We’re all responsible for ourselves as well as our place in society and it’s hypocritical to condemn someone for their choice (even a bad one) without looking at the associated costs of that choice. Then again, you self-identify as a liberal so you may be willing to feed, clothe, educate, and employ the hordes of unwanted children in the future. More power to you, but with a world that’s pushing 7 billion souls, do we really need more people?
I admire your committment to life and I like to think I share that committment, but only for the already born. I regret the millions of abortions every year but as far as the alternative, I’ll take the abortions over forced pregnancy any day.
Thank you eponymous! I could not have said it better.
How can we tell that teacing abstinence has failed? If the people never have sex, then they never get pregnant, and never seek an abortion. Therefore, there is no data to back up that comment.
Sure, and if we teach people not to rob from each other, then we can eliminate the police force. Even though we teach abstinence (in lieu of safe sex), kids still have sex. Still get pregnant. Still get STDs. Hell, the more you stress abstinence, the more you’ll drive sexual behavior underground and behind closed doors. Are you really of the opinion that we should deny our programmed biological behavior (and a damn good time) when we have the technology and the knowledge to make it safer? Tell kids not to have sex until they’re ready. Then, tell them how to prevent pregnancy and STDs because, dammit, they’re going to do it. Twenty years of ‘Just Say No’ must have shown you something. Denial is not an effective way of dealing with a problem.
I would also like to say that reading a historical novel is like watching Braveheart and thinking it portrays things just as they were.
I agree. I meant novels written in historical times by women, mostly. It was a very common theme (and even minor plot point) in many an 18th or 19th century novel that men would typically have multiple wives due to their annoying habit of dying in labor.
“Considering that over half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or spontaneous abortions, it seems that God himself has his own opinion.” - I won’t even touch on where the scientific data to back up that statement might be, but I would agree that if a pregnancy ends in miscarriage or spontaneous abortions, then it was meant to be. The woman did not decide to play God up until the third trimester, instead, God played himself.
And if a woman makes a choice to end the pregnancy herself, isn’t that what’s meant to be? I was being flip with that last comment, but what I was trying to point out that even women’s bodies sometimes decide that it’s not a good time to have a kid growing inside of them. Why should we deny ourselves, as thinking beings, that same ability?
Abortion and teaching/healthcare have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
No, if everyone had equal knowledge, access and choice when it came to healthcare, birth control and sex there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies and, ergo, fewer abortions.
The whole argument between pro-choicers and anti-choicers (could you be a little more condesending?)
Yes, I could be more condescending, I could call you anti-sex, anti-woman, anti-freedom zealots, but I don’t want to upset the harmony of the forum.
If you feel that something is just a lump of cells, then it is easy to get rid of it. There is no feeling or emotion in the act. You cannot think less of someone who feels that the lump of cells is a person with a soul.
As someone who has driven more than one girl to the abortion clinic (not mine, friends), I can tell you that the choice is not an easy one nor is it an emotionless one. It is a hard choice, based on the life circumstances of the people involved and may not be the correct one, but dammit, it’s their choice and it should remain their choice. The second you take that away from them, you ask them to cede their body over to you, since you seem to know what’s best for them.
If you were to ask the neglected/abused or retarded children if they would rather have been aborted than given a chance to live, I think, and this is only my opinion, but I think they would say no.
Well, some retardedd adults may disagree with you. Not that this is a majority view, but maybe, for some people, non-existence might be preferrable to a life of misery. Then again, I think suicide should be legal and available so who am I to judge?
“so who am I to judge?”…excellent choice of words…perhaps you should reread your comments and think about that statment.
Also, I still believe that it IS being used as a form of birth control…was this not the case for the friends you drove to the clinic?
“if everyone had equal knowledge, access and choice when it came to healthcare, birth control and sex there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies and, ergo, fewer abortions.”
Pretty sure I said the same thing in a later post, albiet-not as verbose.
And I could call you pro-murder, pro-bandwagon and pro-ignorance, but I wouldn’t want to upset the harmony either.
and Sarbeth, you take care of these children and still you think they would have been better off dead?
Why not make sterilization mandatory for some people. You have said yourselves that some people are terrible parents. Wouldn’t that be easier? Then no babies would have to die. They would just never be conceived.
I will admit that I do not help out the social services groups. Kids are not my thing. But if I do want kids, I do want to adopt. Why can’t we teach the public about adoption of these children. Why is making a difference in the world today such a bad idea? Just because it is hard doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done.
And why is teaching abstinence such a terrible thing? That is the only, 100%, way to stop unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc. Shouldn’t that be the starting point?
it is harsh to say they are better off dead-but thats not what i am saying. what i am saying is why allow a child to enter a world where they will be abused, neglected-and if they live-be shuffled from home to home. who would want that?
and in all honosty-in some cases…the worse ones-you wonder….
teaching abstinence is not awful. i think it is great…its just that it doesnt always work. no one method works with everyone…and i think its great you want to adopt. the sad thing is not enough want to and of those who do-most want newborn, heralthy babies. these are not the type that are in our system. its sad, but true. (i am not trying to blame people for this either. taking a child with lots of problems is not easy at all.)
What the heck is up with your comments Amber? I posted something after my haloscan comment and it never showed up…
A conspiracy I tell ya!
Anyway …
eponymous, thanks for the response. No need to worry about the confrontational tone since I too have often drifted toward a standoffish-like manner more than once in my life. You did pretty much resolve your concerns in one of those final graphs addressed to me. I would be willing to share more of the burden, and no I have not done enough of it to this date.
But I’d pay higher taxes and call for more involvement from everyone to combat these types of problems. I think it’s what we as a people should do (I can quote Bobby Kennedy if you like, but that’ll just bore folks probably…)
We do need to push adoption more. I don’t have any plans to adopt any children now, but that isn’t to say that I won’t reconsider that either tomorrow or five years from now. I know several people who have adopted children (including black and Hispanic and Asian children from all over the globe) and it’s a wonderful, noble thing. I do think, though, that just because I don’t choose to adopt myself doesn’t mean that I can’t advocate for adoption.
And now I must go to a meeting … must continue later.
Jmac: I’m glad we understand each other. I respect both the consistency and humanity of your position. I only wish more people were like you then there wouldn’t be a need for such a fight.
My name is David, BTW, for whomever asked…
~D~
This is the 47th comment. I like the number 47 because my first two initials are A. K.
eponymous - Thanks for your kind words. I think that regardless of the situation, both sides in a debate should strive to reach an agreement or understanding. And here, as I see it, we both can comprehend making abortions unnecessary.
I mean, sure I’d like to see abortion outlawed but that won’t change the fact that abortions would still occur. So I’d like to promote education and adoption and other methods to make abortion, as I said earlier, irrelevant.
Let me also say in defense of Bly that she is indeed pro-woman (considering she is one). I’ve know Bly for many, many years and one thing I don’t see is a woman who could be considered ‘anti-woman’ or someone who is opposed to women’s rights. She just happens to disagree with you over abortion and both of you probably got caught up in the heated exchange (as we all do … ask Bly or Xon to revisit my ‘how can a good Christian vote Republican’ post, and you’ll get a whole host of irrational comments made by yours truly).
Something I am trying to learn to do is to not automatically lash back when someone makes a pointed jab at me during a debate, and rather try to focus on what the nature of our disagreement is and then try to find common ground. I did that here, hopefully well.
And I lied about no Bobby Kennedy stories … going back to eponymous’ comments about ’shouldering the burden’ I thought of this:
RFK gave a speech to some med students in the midwest during his 1968 presidential campaign and he was busy laying out his plan for expanded health care and Medicare and etc., etc. One of the students raised their hand and asked ‘where are you going to get all this money?’ Without batting an eye, Kennedy responded ‘From you of course.’
Gutsy.
Well kids, I’ll take a very brief break from my Vegas vacation to just throw in one comment. Someone (can’t remember who, don’t feel like searching back through all 48 comments to find the line to quote) said something like, “we can’t blame those who advocate teaching abstinence for unwanted pregnancies.” No, but we can blame a narrow, blind view of what “sex education” should be, one that ignores reality and thinks only in terms of the ideal world they are striving for — even though that world is not in existence right now. I think it is extremely important and relevant to note that countries where sex education covers the entire spectrum, where sex is not popularly thought of as something “dirty” or “sinful” or some secret to be kept from children, have the lowest rates of teen pregnancy, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and abortion. I have a link with the statistics on this in my bookmarks on my home computer. I’ll post it later.
Now, back to gambling! -Not really. I lost a dollar yesterday and that was enough for me. I’m ruined!!
There have been around 45 million abortions performed in the US in the last 30 years. There are no matching statistics for illegal abortions, since obviously such statistics weren’t kept, but I don’t think it comes close to that many within a 30 year period. That’s close to 1/6 or 1/7 of the US population killed since Roe vs. Wade. 1 out of 4 pregnancies in the US ends in abortion. I think we can reasonably conclude that it is far more common now than when it was illegal.
But complaints that illegalizing abortion won’t stop it are unconvincing anyway. Laws aren’t intended to stamp out an activity entirely. If they were, all laws would be declared failures.
The three most common reasons for abortion are ‘child would interfere with work/school/other responsibilities’, ‘can’t afford it’, and ‘don’t want to be a single parent’. All three reasons are ultimately selfish, and they’re all related to birth control in some form.
I don’t think a fetus can be realistically called a parasite, unless we are going to consider newborns, some elderly people, and some disabled people parasites as well. Why can’t we kill them?
Man, don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m kinda glad there aren’t 50+ million more people in the U.S. today than are already here.
Well Matt, I had only said that abortions will happen regardless to illustrate a larger problem. I mean, just because murder is outlawed doesn’t mean that murder doesn’t happen … and that we should take steps to lower the crime rate.
So rather than lop off the arms of the beast, let’s stab it in the heart.
Legislating an answer via a ban - while reducing greatly the number of abortions - wouldn’t ultimately solve the problem of abortion. I was just proposing that since it’s most likely abortion will not be banned completely, shouldn’t we begin to take some other options to lower the abortion rate? So I’m not really complaining that banning abortion wouldn’t stop it, I’m just stating more of a reality. And that’s abortion is going to happen regardless and all we’re determining is how many. But if we’re really supposed to be ‘pro-life’ shouldn’t we strive to pursue policies which can, as I said earlier, make abortion irrelevant.
I didn’t really direct that at anyone in particular, but yeah, I don’t need the symbolic victory of outlawing abortion as murder if it just disappears due to other factors. However we can stop the slaughter, that’s what we should do. Regardless of what happens legally, a culture shift is definitely needed.
Laws aren’t intended to stamp out an activity entirely. If they were, all laws would be declared failures.
That’s a pretty horrible thing to say. Surely you don’t mean it the way it sounds. Because the way it sounds is, you don’t mind that there will be some women having dangerous, life-threatening, back-alley abortions… it’s just collateral damage.
The three most common reasons for abortion are ‘child would interfere with work/school/other responsibilities’, ‘can’t afford it’, and ‘don’t want to be a single parent’. All three reasons are ultimately selfish, and they’re all related to birth control in some form.
I would be interested to see where you got these statistics. What is the sample size. What was the sampling mechanism. What is the sample demographic. And so on. Also, people tend to not be completely honest when it comes to something so difficult and painful, especially when it is something that they know plenty of people are out there judging them for already. I don’t think you are doing a very good job of really trying to put yourself in the shoes of such a woman. I can only hope and pray that I will never be in such a circumstance. But if I am, and I end up choosing abortion, you better believe it will not be easy, it will not be ‘birth control’, and it will haunt me for the rest of my life, and anyone on a soapbox who would try to make me feel worse than I already felt could go straight to hell as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t think a fetus can be realistically called a parasite, unless we are going to consider newborns, some elderly people, and some disabled people parasites as well. Why can’t we kill them?
I think Dave already cleared that one up. Newborns and the elderly have already been born, whereas a fetus has not been born. (See above, somewhere in the tome of comments.)
This is the article I was talking about before: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.htm
I can’t get anything to post.
Well, I’m awfully disappointed that my long comment never posted back on Monday (I clicked “Post Comment” and then left my computer on-line while I ran errands, and it still never posted).
One of the things I pointed out in that ‘lost post’ is that Dave’s answer doesn’t “clear up” the parasite position. As I said in my own argument on my blog six months ago (and Dave said he read this, which is why I bring it up again now), the same argument that would make a fetus a parasite would also seem to make other human beings parasites. To come back with “Nuh-uh, because all those other human beings have already been born, while a fetus hasn’t” is a textbook example of question-begging (which, ironically, Dave accused me of committing). You’re saying that fetal humans are significantly different from non-fetal humans because fetuses are….fetuses.
We all agree that fetuses have not yet been born. The question is how on earth does that make a lick of difference in determining the moral value of a person, such that a fetus is a “parasite” who can be killed without incurring any particular moral culpability, but the non-fetal persons (who also do what might seem to be ‘parasitic’ things) are off the hook? How can it simply come down to where the non-fetal humans happen to be located (i.e., outside the womb)?
It is difficult to see how this intended distinction between mere human fetuses and morally valuable (non-fetal) persons can possibly work without simply begging the question (Only non-fetuses are morally-valuable persons worthy of protection from violence, and the reason this is the case is that fetuses are still in the womb (i.e., they are fetuses)) or reducing to ad hoc special pleading (the one thing that makes a fetus different from all other living human beings also just happens to be the one thing that makes them less morally valuable than all other living human beings).
I am familiar enough with circular reasoning fallacies to know that I am capable of committing them without realizing it. But I don’t think I do so in my argument against abortion, while it can be argued that Dave does.
Chris: the argument you half-raised to the effect that we are better off without those 40+ million people in the world (the ones who have been aborted since Roe v. Wade) is illustrative of the way pro-choicers are starting to argue more and more (in academia, for instance). Human beings aren’t inherently valuable, and in fact we already have too many of them. So a few million less is a good thing. If more people would argue this way up front, then we could at least have more clarity on where the two sides in the abortion debate actually stand. Usually, when pro-lifers say that abortion is murder, the pro-choicers deny the claim vehmently. But now you have come out and given the other possible response, which is simply to say “So what if it is murder? There are too many people around anyway.” This argument is more chilling to most people, but at least it’s more honest.
If you believe that it is sometimes okay to deliberately kill innocent human beings, then you are denying the first premise of my argument. This is okay, but no one has come out and done it yet. What most people do is accept that premise, but then try to show somehow that abortion is not an example of deliberately killing an innocent human being (they deny the second premise of the pro-life argument). Fetuses aren’t really persons, or they’re parasites (so they aren’t really ‘innocent’), or something to that effect.
I get your last post and I think you’re right on (for once, haha ;) ) Honestly I’m not sure where I stand. I can understand both (in the traditional sense that there are only two) sides of the argument. I think that I can believe that, yes, you can be correct that life begins at conception and therefore deliberately ending that life is murder. At the same time, I can turn around and say, well ok we’re putting an end to a life but in this case we’ll put a little asterisk here next to this so-called murder and just say so what?
According to your line of thinking I am placing a greater value on the life of born human beings. Call it what you will. We can call it “old enough that you gain protection under the law”. We already put a higher value on living persons today. Can’t vote til you’re 18. Can’t invade a country unless you’re an American… Personally I’d consider someone unmurderable somewhere in the 2nd or 3rd trimester.
But I’ve already lost you. You have an ultimate lawmaker that doesn’t make exceptions. He’s already laid down the law and that’s that. I don’t operate under those conditions so I feel I’m free to think otherwise. I think that you think everyone operates under God’s law whether we like it or not. We’ll face judgement one day for it. I don’t see it that way. I think this is the ultimate divider and the reason the abortion issue will never be settled.
Hell Chris, I think you pretty much summed it up in the last graph. We’re on opposite sides of the debate, but that appears (to me at least) to be a pretty rational final graph which effectively summarizes the the majority of the differences.
Well, in this particular debate perhaps.
I can’t get anything to post.
Xon, the only thing I can figure is that you must have a cached version. Maybe it is not automatically updating with the newest comment when the page refreshes after you hit ‘post comment’.
Well, I’m awfully disappointed that my long comment never posted back on Monday (I clicked “Post Comment” and then left my computer on-line while I ran errands, and it still never posted).
(Meant to put this in the last comment but I accidentally hit Return and poof! the comment was gone.)
So anyway Xon, if you right-click in the comment window there should be a “reload” or “refresh” option. Try that. First, empty your cache, though.
And as for losing long comments, having learned the hard way, I now usually write anything of substantial length in TextEdit and save it frequently, then copy and paste it in.
Yeah, Amber, I save too, and I have a copy of the “long thing” at home on my computer. But I’m in Greenville now, and the debate has for the most part moved on.
But thanks for the advice about caching. That sounds promising, and I’ll see if it works when I get home on Sunday evening.
But I’ve already lost you. You have an ultimate lawmaker that doesn’t make exceptions.
I don’t believe that there any ‘exceptions’ to God’s law, but I do believe that His law is more “situation-based” than you might expect. IOW, I don’t envision God’s las as being some sort of list of simple rules. I think that the Law is summed up in the 10 Commandments (and even more powerfully and succinctly in the “two greatest commandments”–love God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love your neighbor as yourself), but that the rest of Scripture “fills out” what those commandments mean. The 6th commandment, for instance, says that we ought not kill, but reading the rest of Scripture makes it clear that this is no an “absolute” prohibition against any and all killing.
He’s already laid down the law and that’s that. I don’t operate under those conditions so I feel I’m free to think otherwise. I think that you think everyone operates under God’s law whether we like it or not. We’ll face judgement one day for it. I don’t see it that way. I think this is the ultimate divider and the reason the abortion issue will never be settled.
I don’t really see how this is the issue in the debate over abortion. I mean, you’re correct concerning my belief that God’s law applies to all whether they like it or not, but how does this settle the abortion debate? Philosophically, you could agree with me about God and about there being some universal law that He wants all people to obey–but then disagree with me that abortion is forbidden by that law. We could both be “God’s law” advocates, but disagree as to what the law is.
On the other hand, I can agree with you (and I do) that we are “free to disagree.” Here we sit, disagreeing with one another, and no one has yet been struck by lightning. The fact that God will one day judge us all (assuming my belief on that is correct), doesn’t mean that He isn’t allowing us to have some genuine disagreement right now.
Furthermore, do you really think that my arguments against abortion have been little more than bald appeals to “God’s law, like it or not”? If this is how they come across, I’d like to know. Because I feel that I did a decent job of arguing on more “theologically neutral” premises. If you think innocent human life is valuable, then you should be against abortion. If you don’t think it is all that valuable, then we could have a discussion on that. And, in that discussion, I don’t think I would just say “You know, Chris, God already laid down the law here and that’s that.” I do believe that God has “laid down the law,” but I also believe that He has given His people the responsibility of persuading others of the truth in love. God, as I understand His revelation on this matter, is okay with me arguing the value of human life without simply saying “God says I’m right, so get with the program.”
My major point is this. I might believe that life begins at conception, but that it’s ok to end that life up to a certain point. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I believed that according to God that would be undeniably wrong. You’re right, I did not expect God’s word to be so flexible especially in the matter of the Commandments. Shows how much I pay attention. Obviously there are numerous reports of God-sanctioned killings in the Bible.
Is this subject a matter of internal debate among pro-lifers? That sometimes it would be ok to end a life? If so I had no idea.
I really do think that human life is very valuable. For some reason I can’t get myself to apply that to a fetus. Even if it is human life. Hm.
I’m trying hard to write my thoughts. I think I need to hear more about this before saying more. Now I’m going to use the “it’s late, I’m tired” excuse and duck out. ;)
Furthermore, do you really think that my arguments against abortion have been little more than bald appeals to “God’s law, like it or not”? If this is how they come across, I’d like to know. Because I feel that I did a decent job of arguing on more “theologically neutral” premises.
Well, you certainly make arguments that are more than “God says this and so that’s the way it is.” But I don’t know if theologically neutral would be the appropriate way to describe it. I think what Chris was trying to say is that everything comes back to God’s word in the end for you. Right? I mean, that’s what I get from reading your blog as a whole. Arguments and viewpoints must be based on God’s law, or use God’s law as a jumping-off point.
If you think innocent human life is valuable, then you should be against abortion. If you don’t think it is all that valuable, then we could have a discussion on that.
I think that is waaaay too simplistic of a statement. Especially since you were just saying how the issue is too complex to just lay down simple truisms or blanket statements and be done with it. It’s not a matter of black and white, either/or. I am in favor of abortion remaining a legal option. Does that mean I do not value human life? If you think that’s what it means, then I don’t know what to say. But I certainly do value human life.
I just wanted to say that I’ve just finished printing out this entire comment thread, and it was 12 pages. DAMN!!
(Also, I wanted there to be 69 comments.)