My Mom: The Undercover Reproductive Justice Activist


As many states tighten the noose around abortion access, a heated debate about young women’s apathy or activism in the reproductive rights movement has emerged. I believe that young women are some of the fiercest advocates because I see them in action every day both online and offline. Some of the basis of this argument is that there is a disconnect because Generation X, Y and the “millennials” have no firsthand knowledge of what it’s like to live in a country where abortion is illegal. While I think there’s some truth to that idea, it also suggests that there’s a lack of exchange and candid discussion between the generations that needs to be addresed. If we want to rouse more young people then we should be passing down history, not condemning their purported indifference.   

That’s why I want to thank my mom for inadvertently making me a reproductive health and justice advocate. I’m sure she had no idea what she was fostering at the time and I know her main goal was to prepare me to make good decisions for myself and my body. Yet her words (and warnings!) continue to stick with me as a woman.

I remember being a newly menstruating pre-teen with a piquing interest in boys, and my mom let me know very matter of factly that I would not become a teen mom under her watch. This did not come from a shameful place but because she had seen family and friends struggle as young mothers, especially as women of color in this country. Ma Dukes also told me many a day about fast boys who “just want to practice on girls.” I laugh now because I understand this was a scare tactic to keep me from having sex and/or being promiscuous (I think everyone just wanted to practice) but it also made me think about how I valued my body and sexuality. I used to roll my eyes and giggle about her dramatic and embarrassing diatribes but she wasn’t playing games with me. She told me that if I ever got in trouble (i.e. pregnant) that I better let her know right away so we could take care of it. At first I had no idea what she meant, but she quickly made it clear that she was referring to abortion. My mom explained to me what back alley abortions were, how woman were butchered by coat hangers, and how frightening, traumatic and scary abortions were when they were illegal. It was a matter of life and death. I was horrified that women would have to suffer so much to end a pregnancy. 

I was also angry. I couldn’t fathom why our government would allow these things to happen.  But here we are decades later and our bodies continue to be a battleground for legislative control, despite Roe v. Wade. The tactics are just trickier and more underhanded. This is why we need to encourage candid discussion between moms and daughters, and all generations of women…I mean raw, no-nonsense honesty. We can’t expect young people to buy in if we don’t talk about what’s at stake. Think about if abortion was a regular part of sexual health discourse, inside and outside of schools?  Let’s have these conversations with young people while their minds are still open and they are shaping their opinions. History needs to be shared, not forgotten.

My mom made me really appreciate the freedoms we have to make reproductive decisions of our own. Now we laugh at how I get riled up about women’s rights and reproductive justice just as I used to laugh at her. If I go to a protest she wishes me well and asks me to try not to get arrested. Who knew this would become my passion? On second thought, I guess my mom knew all along…mothers have an uncanny way of just knowing everything.

Thanks Mom and to all the mothers (with or without biological children), you make the world go ‘round. Happy Mother’s Day!

 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with Janna Zinzi please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • bei1052

    It’s the pro-choice, not the pro-life, assertion that making abortions legal made them safe and that making abortions illegal would lead to “back-alley/coat hanger” abortions (Good luck finding statistics or any kind of data to substantiate that claim).

     

    That’s not me wanting it to not be that way; it’s you wanting it to be that way, for if it isn’t, then you have no argument as the whole “abortion needs to be legal so it’s safe!” line goes out the window. And, just for the record, a ban on abortion would be as stupid, pointless and a waste of tax payer’s dollars as is a ban on, say, murder.

     

    *hint hint, wink wink*

     

    Why is it that pro-choicers somehow fail to realize that the reason abortion is a big issue, and continues to be a big issue, is because it involves the deliberate end of the life of another human being?

  • prochoiceferret

    It’s the pro-choice, not the pro-life, assertion that making abortions legal made them safe and that making abortions illegal would lead to “back-alley/coat hanger” abortions (Good luck finding statistics or any kind of data to substantiate that claim).

    Oh, we’ve had it, thank you. The best that the other side can do is make silly arguments (“Abortion must have been safe back then, otherwise old folks would support it!”).

    That’s not me wanting it to not be that way; it’s you wanting it to be that way, for if it isn’t, then you have no argument as the whole “abortion needs to be legal so it’s safe!” line goes out the window.

    Yeah. If reality weren’t the way it were, we wouldn’t have much of an argument. But since it is, we do. And that’s where you, the reality-defenestrator, come in.

    And, just for the record, a ban on abortion would be as stupid, pointless and a waste of tax payer’s dollars as is a ban on, say, murder.

     

    *hint hint, wink wink*

    Wouldn’t that be funny, if denying little Timmy Cratchet the kidney that he needs to live were not murder?

    Why is it that pro-choicers somehow fail to realize that the reason abortion is a big issue, and continues to be a big issue, is because it involves the deliberate end of the life of another human being?

    And here I thought the whole wanting-to-control-womens’-bodies thing was just a passing fad, like pet rocks and bell bottoms.

  • bei1052

    Oh, we’ve had it, thank you. The best that the other side can do is make silly arguments (“Abortion must have been safe back then, otherwise old folks would support it!”).

     

    Hmmm, funny. I distinctly remember you mentioning something about “morons” and “revisionist history” and “no firsthand knowledge”… But I can’t quite remember what that was all about. Ah well.

     

    At any rate, is this the part where I start quoting different people and the CDC? Because I’m pretty sure I could, and I’m just as sure that as I will, you’ll ignore it and engage in some ridiculous strawman (*hint hint, wink wink*).

     

    Yeah. If reality weren’t the way it were, we wouldn’t have much of an argument. But since it is, we do. And that’s where you, the reality-defenestrator, come in.

     

    Reality you say? All right. I’ll bite. If you had to guesstimate, what percentage effect do you think abortion legalization had on the number of women dying from abortion?

     

    Wouldn’t that be funny, if denying little Timmy Cratchet the kidney that he needs to live were not murder?

     

    You know what would be even funnier? If ripping Timmy Cratchet open and taking back the kidney I already gave him wasn’t deemed murder.

     

    …No, wait. I forgot. I just wouldn’t be giving little Timmy the gift of life. It wouldn’t be murder.

     

    And here I thought the whole wanting-to-control-womens’-bodies thing was just a passing fad, like pet rocks and bell bottoms.

     

    For someone who likes to deal with reality, you sure do love ignoring the fact that no one– man, woman or child– has absolute control over their own bodies.

  • princess-rot

    For someone who likes to deal with reality, you sure do love ignoring the fact that no one– man, woman or child– has absolute control over their own bodies.

     

    If that is truly so, and everyone’s body is not really theirs, why the need  to make sure a certain class of people are doubly constrained, if not by law then by societal stigma – and only in regard to one particular event that exclusively happens to them? Seems a bit… unnecessary. Yet interestingly, you want it so that no woman is to have control over when she bears children, assuming that consent to hetero sex or contraceptive inaccess/failure is consenting to gestation, birth, adoption or parenting. That is a major tenet of patriarchy and rape culture: the disadvantaged group shoulders all the responsibility but has no power to reject or refuse that burden, because the deck is stacked against them if they try. Unless, and I’m certain, that this isn’t really about semantics regarding bodily autonomy, or preserving life.

     

    At the risk of envoking Godwin’s Law, “the great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie, than to a small one”. No matter how many times repeated, nor how great of a sound bite it is, the whole back-alley/coat-hanger abortion line is still, and forever will be, a myth.

     

    Your evidence for this is… what exactly? It’s obvious you haven’t done your homework but still feel qualified to outright dismiss our righteous concerns about what steady chipping away of reproductive control will do to women? Maybe crowepps will come along to beat you over the head with her Google-stick, but lieu of that I shall leave you with an admonistion to get off your ass and learn the basics yourself.

     

    • The coat-hanger thing is the popular soundbite and campaign image. Do you wonder why that is, why it became such a powerful political symbol to second-wave feminists and all thereafter? Do some research.

     

    • Do you wonder what happened to the pre-Roe homes for unwed mothers mentioned in the article? Most of the old guard evolved into CPCs. Do you wonder why this happened, why poor women continue to be targeted by such organizations which have and still do practice coercive adoption policies, which is well documented by women of that era and now?

     

    • Have you read the accounts of hospital doctors pre-Roe who worked on septic wards, stuck between legislation that required them to report suspected abortions to the police and saving the lives of women with deadly infections from folk procedures gone wrong? What about doctors in countries that practice this now, and how that creates a hostile environment for women regardless of whether they wish to abort or not?

     

    • Have you spoken to any women who were born before woman-controlled BC was available, asked her about how it affected her life, how a culture of secrecy and shame worked together to deny her or her peers opportunities based on the status of her uterus? There are at least three women of relevant age on this site, who have already written about their experiences or witnessing the experiences of others.

     

    • Have you read about the “children who went away”, and what this meant for them and their birth mother’s lives because of shame and lack of choices?

     

    • There was a seemingly sudden shift in argument from contraception “causing” promiscuity to claiming it “kills babies” – babies being defined as babies from the moment of conception. Why does this sound like a modern homunculus theory (lay term: sperm magic) and how does it correlate with masculine anxiety in a changing world? Why is the labor of women to build that cell into a viable living thing consistently minimized or forgotten or written off?

     

    • Why is a nulliparous woman still seen as “less than”, particularly so if she has been known to freely choose it, or had an abortion before? How does the denial of choice over pregnancy for some demographics end up in denial of childbearing for others? How and why does this invariably affect the poor and disadvantaged the most?
  • liberaldem

    to Princess Rot for eloquently providing Bei with some much-needed facts about reproductive rights.

    Yes, pre-Roe, women had illegal and dangerous abortions. Some women died from those procedures, or suffered permanent damage to their health. That isn’t myth. It’s reality. 

     

  • bei1052

    If that is truly so, and everyone’s body is not really theirs, why the need  to make sure a certain class of people are doubly constrained, if not by law then by societal stigma – and only in regard to one particular event that exclusively happens to them? Seems a bit… unnecessary. Yet interestingly, you want it so that no woman is to have control over when she bears children, assuming that consent to hetero sex or contraceptive inaccess/failure is consenting to gestation, birth, adoption or parenting. That is a major tenet of patriarchy and rape culture: the disadvantaged group shoulders all the responsibility but has no power to reject or refuse that burden, because the deck is stacked against them if they try. Unless, and I’m certain, that this isn’t really about semantics regarding bodily autonomy, or preserving life.

     

    Oddly– well, it’s not that odd– enough, I’ve noticed a common theme in the posts here. Instead of debating the morality of abortion, which is a losing argument for pro-choicers, they want to go on about patriachy and empowering women and whatever other nonsense they can think up, which is, well, quite irrelevant.

     

    *shrugs*

     

    But I’ll bite. Abortion results in the death of one human being. Ergo, it shouldn’t be legal unless it’s absolutely necessary. That has little to do with wanting to control women, and a lot to do with preventing one segment of the population from being killed at the leisure of another. See how incredibly easy that was to answer?

     

    Your evidence for this is… what exactly? It’s obvious you haven’t done your homework but still feel qualified to outright dismiss our righteous concerns about what steady chipping away of reproductive control will do to women? Maybe crowepps will come along to beat you over the head with her Google-stick, but lieu of that I shall leave you with an admonistion to get off your ass and learn the basics yourself.

     

    Oh, just how fun this will be.

     

    The coat-hanger thing is the popular soundbite and campaign image. Do you wonder why that is, why it became such a powerful political symbol to second-wave feminists and all thereafter? Do some research.

     

    Why is it? Because, as I said, it’s a great, useful even, sound-bite when claiming that 1.2M illegal abortions occurred each year (For the record, that statistic was taken from a 1955 conference regarding abortion, and the actual quote was that there were between 200K and 1.2M abortions per year. Pro-choicers have simply chosen to choose the high end to argue their point, which is in itself ridiculous as you would have to believe that making abortion legal reduced the the number of abortions, as the number of abortions annually in the U.S. didn’t reach 1.2M for approximately 5 or so years after Roe v. Wade), which invariably ties into the whole claim of 10K+ women dying a year from illegal abortions (Which, also for the record, originally comes from a 1936 report written by Dr. Frederick Taussig, which he claimed was wrong in 1942), a false statistic in 1970′s(ish) and a fact testified to by Bernard Nathanson (Oh, wait. He’s a liar), while ignoring the fact that Mary Calderone, the director of Planned Parenthood in 1960, stated that “abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians” and estimated that 90% of all abortions were done by a licensed physician, while Nancy Howell Lee estimated that 89% of all abortions were done by licensed practictioners, and in both cases that problem arose when a woman tried to self-induce herself, and that only a few hundred deaths occurred via illegal abortions per year, if that, as the number of deaths had been falling steadily since the late 1930′s, seeing as how the majority of abortions were performed by people who knew what they were doing in sterile environments.

     

    /megarunonsentence

     

    But, seeing as you’ve done your research, you knew this, and as you knew this you’d know that what I said initially was 100% correct, so I just wasted my time pointing all of this out, as I’m preaching to the proverbial choir.

     

    (And my question to PCF still stands to you. If you had to guesstimate, what percentage effect do you think abortion legalization had on the number of yearly deaths via abortions?)

     

    (Also, find me an example of a woman using a coathanger to induce an abortion. Srsly. You’re going to be hard-pressed to find one example, much less a meaningful number of examples.)

     

    Do you wonder what happened to the pre-Roe homes for unwed mothers mentioned in the article? Most of the old guard evolved into CPCs. Do you wonder why this happened, why poor women continue to be targeted by such organizations which have and still do practice coercive adoption policies, which is well documented by women of that era and now? Do some research.

     

    Do I wonder what happened to them? Not in the slightest. Do you care about organizations such as, say, Planned Parenthood targetting the poor? Not in the slightest. So I guess that makes us even, now doesn’t it?

     

    (And, yes, that was me humoring a response which surprisingly enough, totally had nothing to do with what I typed out.)

     

    Have you read the accounts of hospital doctors pre-Roe who worked on septic wards, stuck between legislation that required them to report suspected abortions to the police and saving the lives of women with deadly infections from folk procedures gone wrong?

     

    …Yeah. Forget the fact that the above is a false dichotomy (I’d absolutely love for you to find me an example where a doctor had to choose between treating someone and reporting them to the police. That’s like saying a doctor has to choose between treating a thief who was injured during the process of stealing and reporting the thief to the police), it’s completely wrong. There wasn’t a single law on the books which prosecuted a woman for having an abortion. Not one. You think there was? Fine. I totally want you to find me one. Go ahead. Amuse me. I’ve got time.

     

    The above is what happens when you get bogged down with disinformation and blatant fearmongering.

     

    What about doctors in countries that practice this now, and how that creates a hostile environment for women regardless of whether they wish to abort or not?

     

    I live in the U.S.; what about you?

     

    Have you spoken to any women who were born before woman-controlled BC was available, asked her about how it affected her life, how a culture of secrecy and shame worked together to deny her or her peers opportunities based on the status of her uterus? There are at least three women of relevant age on this site, who have already written about their experiences or witnessing the experiences of others.

     

    This might come as a shock to you, but I really don’t care about what women did before the pill. Indeed, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere before, it’s a total non-issue, as the fact of the matter is that the “secrecy and shame” of being an unwed mother is gone. So you have no argument on that front. Well, for the most part anyway. I think it bothers most of the super feminist groups whenever someone facing an unplanned pregnancy gives birth.

     

    Have you read about the “children who went away”, and what this meant for them and their birth mother’s lives because of shame and lack of choices?

     

    I’m a little too busy reading about the “children who aren’t there” due to being killed off. You should read it some time, though I get the feeling you won’t.

     

    Here’s a serious question for you. Explain to me how you argue for abortion under the basis that it’s sometimes in the mother’s best interest to do so while ignoring the fact that abortion is never in the abortees best interest? Explain to me how you ignore the effect an action has on another when arguing whether that action should be allowed? I ask, because it’s non-sensical, and I’m deathly curious as to how you rationalize it away. Surely you realize just how much of a losing argument for you that is, correct? You have to.

     

    As it is, I’m pretty sure you’d much rather be a child who went away then a child who was killed. But I’m just guessing.

     

    There was a seemingly sudden shift in argument from contraception “causing” promiscuity to claiming it “kills babies” – babies being defined as babies from the moment of conception. Why does this sound like a modern homunculus theory (lay term: sperm magic) and how does it correlate with masculine anxiety in a changing world? Why is the labor of women to build that cell into a viable living thing consistently minimized or forgotten or written off? Do some research.

     

    1.) You’ll probably ignore this all the same, but here’s hoping:

     

    http://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/jklick/32JLS407.pdf

     

    2.) Babies are magic.

     

    * If the woman wanted to get pregnant, it’s a baby.
    * If the woman decides she ditching the guy and doesn’t want his kid, it’s a fetus.
    * If the woman remembers that the man has a great job and will have to pay child support it’s a baby again.
    * If the woman sees that the guy quit his job so as to duck support, the baby can be a fetus again.
    * If the woman gets depressed and uses cocaine to cheer up, she can be prosecuted for harming her baby! By American law, you can remove your fetus, but you cannot harm an unborn baby.
    * If the woman gets tired of all this baby disappearing and re-appearing crap, she can drive to an abortion clinic, and it’s just a fetus again.

    * If she is hit by a drunk driver on the way to the abortion clinic, and the guy is a rich doctor, she can sue him for the loss of her magically re-appeared baby!

     

    Good ol’ Unencyclopedia. It’s also so useful.

     

    (And, in the interest of fairness, a baby as in newborn isn’t a baby; it’s a neonate. But god forbid pro-choicers use the actual term for a newborn.)

     

    3.) Newsflash! Not all women are pro-abortion, and indeed women are more apt to take the extreme pro-life position then men. But, please, do continue going on about “masculine anxiety” or whatever.

     

    Quite possible because people tend to diametrically oppose kiilling another human being out of convenience. But that’s really just a total stab in the dark.

     

    Why is a nulliparous woman still seen as “less than”, particularly so if she has been known to freely choose it, or had an abortion before? How does the denial of choice over pregnancy for some demographics end up in denial of childbearing for others? How and why does this invariably affect the poor and disadvantaged the most? Do some research.

     

    They’re not– just the ones who have an abortion because they can, because laws aren’t selectively applied, it doesn’t and you should take your own advice instead of mindlessly telling people to do some research. Especially when you haven’t done the very thing you’re demanding of others.

     

    <enter all sorts of excuses why you can’t bother responding to the above here>

     

    (I’m just saving you the time.)

  • prochoiceferret

    At any rate, is this the part where I start quoting different people and the CDC? Because I’m pretty sure I could

    Sorry, Lifesite “articles” don’t count.

    Reality you say? All right. I’ll bite. If you had to guesstimate, what percentage effect do you think abortion legalization had on the number of women dying from abortion?

    Sorry, I’m not a statistics wonk. You’ll want to talk to Jodi for that.

     

    Is that a critical part of your “We should make abortion illegal again! Not that many women will die!” argument?

    …No, wait. I forgot. I just wouldn’t be giving little Timmy the gift of life. It wouldn’t be murder.

    Yes, just like abortion. Like Julie Watkins was saying, continuing a pregnancy is giving the fetus the gift of life. Withholding that is simply withholding that gift, not murder. Thank you for making my argument for me!

    For someone who likes to deal with reality, you sure do love ignoring the fact that no one– man, woman or child– has absolute control over their own bodies.

    Really? So the state can mandate someone to take a vaccination, or give a blood transfusion, or donate an organ?

  • prochoiceferret

    Oddly– well, it’s not that odd– enough, I’ve noticed a common theme in the posts here. Instead of debating the morality of abortion, which is a losing argument for pro-choicers, they want to go on about patriachy and empowering women and whatever other nonsense they can think up, which is, well, quite irrelevant.

    It certainly is to you!

    But I’ll bite. Abortion results in the death of one human being. Ergo, it shouldn’t be legal unless it’s absolutely necessary. That has little to do with wanting to control women, and a lot to do with preventing one segment of the population from being killed at the leisure of another. See how incredibly easy that was to answer?

    I must have missed this great concern for “one segment of the population from being killed at the leisure of another” when it came to racial disparities in the criminal justice system (including capital punishment).

    and in both cases that problem arose when a woman tried to self-induce herself, and that only a few hundred deaths occurred via illegal abortions per year, if that, as the number of deaths had been falling steadily since the late 1930′s, seeing as how the majority of abortions were performed by people who knew what they were doing in sterile environments.

    “Acceptable collateral damage.”

    Do I wonder what happened to them? Not in the slightest. Do you care about organizations such as, say, Planned Parenthood targetting the poor? Not in the slightest. So I guess that makes us even, now doesn’t it?

    You don’t really care much about anything except controlling womens’ bodies, do you?

    I live in the U.S.; what about you?

    I think she doesn’t consider the lives of non-U.S. women to be disposable.

    This might come as a shock to you, but I really don’t care about what women did before the pill. Indeed, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere before, it’s a total non-issue, as the fact of the matter is that the “secrecy and shame” of being an unwed mother is gone.

    Yeah, being a single mother is a cakewalk these days!

    Here’s a serious question for you. Explain to me how you argue for abortion under the basis that it’s sometimes in the mother’s best interest to do so while ignoring the fact that abortion is never in the abortees best interest? Explain to me how you ignore the effect an action has on another when arguing whether that action should be allowed? I ask, because it’s non-sensical, and I’m deathly curious as to how you rationalize it away. Surely you realize just how much of a losing argument for you that is, correct? You have to.

    Well, you said you would keep your kidney, and little Timmy could go get bent. I shouldn’t have to explain this to you, because you seem to understand it pretty well already.

    As it is, I’m pretty sure you’d much rather be a child who went away then a child who was killed. But I’m just guessing.

    Obviously you are, without knowing what those children went through.

    1.) You’ll probably ignore this all the same, but here’s hoping:

     http://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/jklick/32JLS407.pdf

    Yes, and seat belts cause people to drive with less caution. So let’s ban seat belts, to make the roads safer!

    2.) Babies are magic.

    No, English is imprecise. You don’t technically have a “baby” (or “neonate”) before birth, you have a “fetus.” That doesn’t stop people who are looking forward to the birth from calling it a “baby.”

     

    But of course, if all you had in favor of banning abortion was word-game semantics, you’d be in pretty bad shape. Better stick to the “abortion is murder” spiel.

    3.) Newsflash! Not all women are pro-abortion, and indeed women are more apt to take the extreme pro-life position then men. But, please, do continue going on about “masculine anxiety” or whatever.

    Newsflash! Not all women reject the social mores that disempower them. What’s next, are you going to tell me not all slaves were pro-freedom?

    Quite possible because people tend to diametrically oppose kiilling another human being out of convenience. But that’s really just a total stab in the dark.

    It sure would be convenient for you to hang onto that kidney, wouldn’t it?

  • saltyc

    I love you. If your living quarters start feeling cramped, I have a nice corner of woods for you, with no dogs and all the ferrets treats you want.

  • the-abortioneers

    @Bei1052

     

    You asked where to find statistics on changes in maternal mortality with changing legal status of abortion — this is actually illustrated quite well by the case of Romania, which went from legal abortion to illegal abortion and back again over the course of several decades, and there are lots of resources online for you to look it up, including a rather famous graph. You can search the World Health Organization’s website, or public health journals like the Lancet (e.g. “Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic” 2006, 368:1908-1919).

     

    As another example read “The impact of age on the epidemiology of incomplete abortion in South Africa after legislative change.” British Journal of Gynecology (2005) 112:355-359. (Huge drops in abortion-related infection and mortality in South Africa in the four years following legalization). 

     

    For more general information you can also read http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafeabortion_2003/ua_estimates03.pdf (34 abortion-related deaths per 100,000 childbirths in countries that restrict abortion more, and 1 or fewer per 100,000 childbirths in countries that restrict abortion less).

     

    As a general rule, however, we find that mortality from illegal abortion is greatly underreported, as it’s it’s notoriously difficult to get good estimates on pretty much any illegal and stigmatized activity; in the US, many death certificates listed “sepsis” or “hemorrhage” as a cause of death instead – or even “food poisoning,” as Caitlin Flanagan wrote about (in a rare moment of clarity on issues of women’s status).

  • the-abortioneers

    Yep. An easy case to google: Gerri Santoro. 

  • prochoiceferret

    I love you. If your living quarters start feeling cramped, I have a nice corner of woods for you, with no dogs and all the ferrets treats you want.

    Yay! It’ll be just like this, only more so!

     

    But of course, a ferret can only do so much. Statistics and stuff aren’t my forte (we ferrets are lousy with numbers). It’s unfortunate that there isn’t an “Abortion 101″ site (like there is for feminism, and racism), so we don’t have to debunk these bogus arguments again and again….

  • prochoiceferret

    Yep. An easy case to google: Gerri Santoro.

    Also, Becky Bell, an “acceptable casualty” of Indiana’s parental-consent law.

  • crowepps

     Instead of debating the morality of abortion, which is a losing argument for pro-choicers

    Like so many here, you just can’t comprehend that ‘pro-choice’ includes people who think abortion is immoral and would never get one themselves, but who do NOT feel entitled to impose their moral beliefs on others.  That’s why it’s called PRO-CHOICE, because it allows other people to conform their behavior to their own personal conscience.

     

    The discussion is not about ‘the morality of abortion’ but instead ‘in a country with freedom of conscience, can a majority impose their personal philosophy/religion/moral beliefs on others’.  Leaving aside, of course, the fact that those who oppose ALL abortions and ALL birth control are actually a MINORITY who feel entitled to impose their personal philosophy/religion /moral beliefs.

  • saltyc

    includes people who think abortion is immoral and would never get one themselves

    Or at least they think that until they get an abortion.  If you polled women who get abortions, many of them previously said they’d never get one. I think the percentage wouldn’t be far from the general population. It’s actually a harder decision to make than they would think. I never thought I would either, but at least I didn’t go around bragging about not ever having one in the future.

     

    But you’re right: the battle ground doesn’t have to be on the morality question, but the legality question. Although….

  • crowepps

    There are sincere vegetarians who think eating meat is ‘murder’ but nobody would ever take seriously the argument that they are justified in insisting nobody else gets to eat meat.

     

    There are sincere teetotalers who think alcohol is ‘immoral’ but Prohibition proved pretty conclusively that incorporating their opinion into law and banning alcohol was a disaster.

     

    The same is true with sexual ‘sins’ including abortion.  Many, many countries, including our own, have demonstrated that banning sex, birth control and abortion may drive each underground but does NOT stop it.

     

    In addition, attempting to enforce laws based on religious purity tenets leads to this type of obscenity:

    An Islamist rebel administration in Somalia has had a 13-year-old girl stoned to death for adultery after the child’s father reported that she was raped by three men.

    Amnesty International said al-Shabab militia, which controls the southern city of Kismayo, arranged for 50 men to stone Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow in front of about 1,000 spectators. A lorry load of stones was brought to the stadium for the killing.

    Amnesty said Duhulow struggled with her captors and had to be forcibly carried into the stadium.

    “At one point during the stoning, Amnesty International has been told by numerous eyewitnesses that nurses were instructed to check whether Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was still alive when buried in the ground. They removed her from the ground, declared that she was, and she was replaced in the hole where she had been buried for the stoning to continue,” the human rights group said. It continued: “Inside the stadium, militia members opened fire when some of the witnesses to the killing attempted to save her life, and shot dead a boy who was a bystander.”

    Amnesty said Duhulow was originally reported by witnesses as being 23 years old, based on her appearance, but established from her father that she was a child. He told Amnesty that when they tried to report her rape to the militia, the child was accused of adultery and detained. None of the men accused was arrested.

    “This was not justice, nor was it an execution,” said Amnesty’s Somalia campaigner, David Copeman. “This killing is yet another human rights abuse committed by the combatants to the conflict in Somalia, and again demonstrates the importance of international action to investigate and document such abuses, through an international commission of inquiry.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/03/somalia-rape-amnesty

  • ahunt

    Snerk…here on the farm…’tis work season, and time is limited. And engaging Bei is a waste of time. Like most people insisting that the BZEF is a person entitled to equal protection of the law…he fails to consider the logical consequences of his POV…and I’ve been around this block on one too many occasions.

     

    The one point that Bei made still has me scratching my head is the “demand/income” question he raised: the “demand” for abortion increases as income rises, but low-income younger women account for 57% of all abortions…due to higher rates of unintended pregnancy.

     

    I wonder if the “demand” question is less that of income, and more one of “age?”

  • bei1052

    Sorry, Lifesite “articles” don’t count.

     

    Why would I quote Lifesite articles when there are so much better things to quote?

     

     

    Sorry, I’m not a statistics wonk. You’ll want to talk to Jodi for that.

     

    Is that a critical part of your “We should make abortion illegal again! Not that many women will die!” argument?

     

    You don’t have to be a statistics wank; you only need to know how to use the internet. Well, not to guesstimate. Just to fact check.

     

    Yes, just like abortion. Like Julie Watkins was saying, continuing a pregnancy is giving the fetus the gift of life. Withholding that is simply withholding that gift, not murder. Thank you for making my argument for me!

     

    And, on the same token, killing little Timmy isn’t murder because you’re simply refusing to give him the gift of life.

     

    …Oh, wait. I just said this and you ignored it, unsurprisingly. Any guesses as to why that was? Really now, your wit leaves much to be desired.

     

    Really? So the state can mandate someone to take a vaccination, or give a blood transfusion, or donate an organ?

     

    No idea. That really has no bearing on dictating what what you cannot do though, which was kind of the central point of what you quoted yet seemingly didn’t understand. You can continue to speak around this point if you will, but I’ll just continue to point out that no one has absolute control over their own body. It’s just a fact (Which I thought you were big on, but I guess not).

  • bei1052

    Like so many here, you just can’t comprehend that ‘pro-choice’ includes people who think abortion is immoral and would never get one themselves, but who do NOT feel entitled to impose their moral beliefs on others.  That’s why it’s called PRO-CHOICE, because it allows other people to conform their behavior to their own personal conscience.

     

    The discussion is not about ‘the morality of abortion’ but instead ‘in a country with freedom of conscience, can a majority impose their personal philosophy/religion/moral beliefs on others’.  Leaving aside, of course, the fact that those who oppose ALL abortions and ALL birth control are actually a MINORITY who feel entitled to impose their personal philosophy/religion /moral beliefs.

     

    I’ve responded to this one quite a few times, but one more time can’t hurt. How far, exactly, do you want to extend the whole “It’s wrong to force your beliefs on others” argument?

     

    How about rape? If you don’t like it, don’t do it, but don’t force others to follow your moral code. How about murder? If you don’t like it, don’t do it, but don’t force others to follow your moral code. How about child sacrifice? If you don’t like it, don’t do it, but don’t force others to follow your moral code. How about theft? If you don’t like it, don’t do it, but don’t force others to follow your moral code. I don’t think I need to continue, because you see where this is going. You’re not going to extend the same benefits to abortion as the aforementioned activities. But why not? Surely, you wouldn’t merely be picking when and where to apply the argument that it’s wrong to force your personal beliefs on others, would you?

     

    You see, the reason it’s called “pro-choice” is because that sounds better than “pro-abortion”, which it is. “Choice” denotes freedom, and we all love freedom, as it’s as American as American pie. However, the “choice” in this issue denotes the choice to kill another human being at one’s leisure, which is never a choice granted to someone outside of abortion. It’s called political framing, but I’m sure you knew this.

     

    And is this the part where I point out that support for abortions outside of cases of rape, incest, fetal defects and issues of maternal health have less than 50% support? Because, if it is, then I’d like to point out that support for abortions outside of cases of rape, incest, fetal defects and issues of maternal health have less than 50% support. Most pro-lifers would willingly limit abortion to the aforementioned cases. It’s the pro-choice community who would, and do, fight against limiting abortion to those specific cases.

  • prochoiceferret

    Why would I quote Lifesite articles when there are so much better things to quote?

    Because when you blab on and on about having “facts” on your side, and yet never bother citing them, Lifesite provides endless possibilities for your fantasy fact repertoire.

    And, on the same token, killing little Timmy isn’t murder because you’re simply refusing to give him the gift of life.

     

    …Oh, wait. I just said this and you ignored it, unsurprisingly. Any guesses as to why that was? Really now, your wit leaves much to be desired.

    So you don’t see any problem in killing little Timmy at your discretion by refusing him a kidney in order to avoid the inconvenience of a minor surgical procedure so that he can live? That doesn’t sound very pro-life of you!

    No idea. That really has no bearing on dictating what what you cannot do though, which was kind of the central point of what you quoted yet seemingly didn’t understand. You can continue to speak around this point if you will, but I’ll just continue to point out that no one has absolute control over their own body. It’s just a fact (Which I thought you were big on, but I guess not).

    So does that mean that someone can be forced to provide biological life-support to someone else against their will?

  • ahunt

    So Bei…am I correct in assuming that you would make any action KNOWN to end the life of the BZEF illegal?

     

    Also…let us get back to income and demand…still not understanding the math.

  • bei1052

    It certainly is to you!

     

    It is to most Americans. You’d do well to actually look things up sometimes.

     

    To the extent that abortion attitudes have been shaped by social movement organizations, it appears that the pro-life movement has been more successful at framing the abortion issue than has the pro-choice movement. The two social attitude constructs that have become more closely correlated with abortion attitudes are attitudes toward sexuality and belief about the sanctity of human life. These are the two central issues that have been emphasized by pro-life media campaigns (Ferree, 1998). The pro-choice movement, on the other hand, has focused on the claims that legal abortion is an entitlement of the right to privacy, that the state should not be coopted by religious views, and that abortion is necessary for gender equality (Ferree, 1998). Our results indicate the correlates that increase in strength are sexual liberalism and belief in sanctity of human life, the values that have been emphasized by the pro-life movement. The frames most utilized by the pro-choice movement, feminism and religiosity, have remained stable or weakened in their association with abortion attitudes.

     

    http://hlmoon.com/docs/2312_week6_reading1.pdf

     

    I must have missed this great concern for “one segment of the population from being killed at the leisure of another” when it came to racial disparities in the criminal justice system (including capital punishment).

     

    Considering how you seemingly believe that pro-lifers care about controlling women’s body, I can’t fault you for missing it. You see what you only want to see.

     

    “Acceptable collateral damage.”

     

    Only to you.

     

    You don’t really care much about anything except controlling womens’ bodies, do you?

     

    To the same extent that I don’t care much about anything else except controlling everyone’s bodies.

     

    I think she doesn’t consider the lives of non-U.S. women to be disposable.

     

    Oh… And here I thought she was trying to divert the argument to women in some other country.

     

    Yeah, being a single mother is a cakewalk these days!

     

    Indeed it’s not. Fortunately for those single mothers, it’s not shameful to be a single mom, or else they might have it really hard.

     

    Well, you said you would keep your kidney, and little Timmy could go get bent. I shouldn’t have to explain this to you, because you seem to understand it pretty well already.

     

    That I’m not obligated to give anyone anything yet I am obligated not to do something which deprives of someone else of their life? Ugh, yeah. I figured this out years ago. I’m still waiting for you to catch up, however.

     

    Obviously you are, without knowing what those children went through.

     

    The irony here is that, on one hand, you go on about women being able to decide what’s best for their own lives, while on the other hand you argue that same women be able to decide whose life is worth living and whose is not. How’s that work?

     

    Oh, that’s right. It doesn’t.

     

    Yes, and seat belts cause people to drive with less caution. So let’s ban seat belts, to make the roads safer!

     

    No, seatbelts don’t. Insurance does, though. I’ll also take the fact that you didn’t respond to what I was typing out as an admission that you don’t have a response to what I typed out.

     

    No, English is imprecise. You don’t technically have a “baby” (or “neonate”) before birth, you have a “fetus.” That doesn’t stop people who are looking forward to the birth from calling it a “baby.”

     

    But of course, if all you had in favor of banning abortion was word-game semantics, you’d be in pretty bad shape. Better stick to the “abortion is murder” spiel.

     

    English isn’t imprecise. At least not in this instance. As I said, the same way a baby in the unborn state is a fetus (Or embryo or zygote), a newborn baby is a neonate. If pro-choicers want to play this word game, insisting that a fetus isn’t a baby, then they should at least be consistent in doing so, and realize that the baby they call a baby is a neonate.

     

    Newsflash! Not all women reject the social mores that disempower them. What’s next, are you going to tell me not all slaves were pro-freedom?

     

    Perhaps you should read what I was responding to. It’ll do you well in the future. Also… lol @ feminist ranting. Yet again, I point out to you that all this “disempowering women” talk is, well… Kind of pointless.

     

    It sure would be convenient for you to hang onto that kidney, wouldn’t it?

     

    Indeed it would. You know what would also be convenient? Not killing someone else. Well, maybe not convenient, but certainly moral.

     

    Anyway, are you quite done? This is easier than taking pellets from a ferret and just as boring, too.

     

  • bei1052

    Changes in the legal status of abortion do not change where or not abortions are safe or unsafe. What changes whether or not an abortion is safe or unsafe is whether or not the country they are performed in have access to the latest medical technologies. This is the reason why the biggest drops in the number of deaths via abortion in the U.S. fell the most prior to any kind of legalization (Either state in 1967 or nationwide in 1973), not after it, or why the abortion death rates in countries such as Ireland are so low, even given abortions illegal status. If you look at countries which have high instances of deaths via illegal abortion, you’ll find that they’re all developing countries. That’s not just a coincidence. That’s due to the fact that developing countries tend not to have access to the same medical resources that developed countries do.

  • bei1052

    Because when you blab on and on about having “facts” on your side, and yet never bother citing them, Lifesite provides endless possibilities for your fantasy fact repertoire.

     

    Funny. Every time I do, it gets ignored. Or, I should say, you engage in some rather poor attempt at a strawman and ignore what I copy and paste (*hint hint, wink wink*).

     

    So you don’t see any problem in killing little Timmy at your discretion by refusing him a kidney in order to avoid the inconvenience of a minor surgical procedure so that he can live? That doesn’t sound very pro-life of you!

     

    Yes, because refusing to be an organ donor is the same thing as ripping Timmy open and taking back the kidney I’ve already given him.

     

    So does that mean that someone can be forced to provide biological life-support to someone else against their will?

     

    Nope. They simply can’t take away the other’s life.

     

    …And around and around and around we go.

  • bei1052

    So Bei…am I correct in assuming that you would make any action KNOWN to end the life of the BZEF illegal?

     

    Nope.

     

    Also…let us get back to income and demand…still not understanding the math.

     

    What math? It’s simple economics. Abortion is a normal good with respect to income. The more money you make, the more likely you are to have an abortion if you’re faced with an unplanned pregnancy. This is why a greater percentage of pregnancies end in abortion at the 100% FPL > x > 200% FPL than the x < 100% FPL, and more at the x > 300% FPL than the 100% FPL > x > 200% FPL.

  • wendy-banks

    Yay! It’ll be just like this, only more so!

    *laughs* What a bunch of clowns! Like my Ex-Step-Mother’s crazy cat Pearl. I don’t know, I think getting bit by a ferret (like most members of the weasel family) would really hurt. Not to mention being stubbornly persistant and pretty damn tough.

  • prochoiceferret

    It is to most Americans. You’d do well to actually look things up sometimes.

    Yes, most Americans aren’t interested in examining the many inequalities faced by women in our society. You’re in good company.

    “Acceptable collateral damage.”

     Only to you.

    Nope, sorry. And I wasn’t the one trying to minimize the lives that would be lost if abortion were to be made illegal.

    To the same extent that I don’t care much about anything else except controlling everyone’s bodies.

    Men everywhere quake in their boots.

    Oh… And here I thought she was trying to divert the argument to women in some other country.

    I’m sure she’ll lay off the references to other countries when you stop arguing for a legal regime on abortion like the one those countries have.

    Indeed it’s not. Fortunately for those single mothers, it’s not shameful to be a single mom, or else they might have it really hard.

    Yeah, it’s not so difficult that it might lead one to have an abortion early in her pregnancy or something.

    That I’m not obligated to give anyone anything yet I am obligated not to do something which deprives of someone else of their life? Ugh, yeah. I figured this out years ago. I’m still waiting for you to catch up, however.

    No, I agree. Pregnant women are not obligated to give anyone (the fetus) anything (life support from their bodies). Similarly, you’re obligated not to do something (deny a kidney) that deprives someone else (little Timmy) of their life. It seems to me that you are feeling remorseful for telling Timmy to “get bent” the other day. Don’t worry, he’s a forgiving kid. Just give him your kidney, and it’ll all be water under the bridge.

    The irony here is that, on one hand, you go on about women being able to decide what’s best for their own lives, while on the other hand you argue that same women be able to decide whose life is worth living and whose is not. How’s that work?

    The lives that their own bodies are in the process of constructing, using their bodily resources, and affecting their health and circumstances?

    No, seatbelts don’t. Insurance does, though.

    I’m sure your policy will absorb the force of the impact as your head flies through the windshield.

    I’ll also take the fact that you didn’t respond to what I was typing out as an admission that you don’t have a response to what I typed out.

    I don’t care about the “OMG, abortion/contraception is causing people to have more sex!” discussion, because it presumes that sexuality is a negative thing in and of itself, and because the converse (restrict abortion/contraception so that fewer people have sex) is too unhinged even for you.

    English isn’t imprecise. At least not in this instance. As I said, the same way a baby in the unborn state is a fetus (Or embryo or zygote), a newborn baby is a neonate. If pro-choicers want to play this word game, insisting that a fetus isn’t a baby, then they should at least be consistent in doing so, and realize that the baby they call a baby is a neonate.

    I guess they were too distracted watching the mother happily playing with her (wanted) baby to stick with the medical terminology. Besides, “Who’s a cute little neonate?” just doesn’t roll off the tongue as nicely.

    Also… lol @ feminist ranting. Yet again, I point out to you that all this “disempowering women” talk is, well… Kind of pointless.

    Yes, just like White people like to point out that the whole racial-analysis things is, well… Kind of pointless.

    Indeed it would. You know what would also be convenient? Not killing someone else. Well, maybe not convenient, but certainly moral.

    Which is why your donation is not optional!

  • wendy-banks

    Poor kid, that’s just sick! That’s what happens when religion runs things. If there’s any mercy, I hope she became unconscious quickly so she didn’t suffer too much. I hope wild animals eat the basterds that did this to her.

    I dought very much anyone there was without sin enough to cast the first (or any) stone. The only decent people there got shot.

  • ahunt

    So Bei…am I correct in assuming that you would make any action KNOWN to end the life of the BZEF illegal?

     

    Nope.

     

    So, what actions that are known to end the life of the BZEF are you willing to accept?

     

    Here’s the thing, Bei…if the demand is higher among the much  fewer unplanned pregnancies of high income women…why does that mean we should not be concerned that low income women have a higher incidence of unwanted pregnancy and susequent abortion?

     

    Also…interested in how age figures  into your “demand” theory.

     

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Yes, because refusing to be an organ donor is the same thing as ripping Timmy open and taking back the kidney I’ve already given him.

    Oh, okay—so you’re cool with abortion, then. After all, the mother is not taking back anything that she’s already given to the fetus. She’s just refusing to continue donating to it the life support produced by her organs.

    Nope. They simply can’t take away the other’s life.

    Yes, and you wouldn’t take away Timmy’s life by denying him what he needs to live, right?

  • prochoiceferret

    I don’t know, I think getting bit by a ferret (like most members of the weasel family) would really hurt.

    When we’re properly trained, we only nip. It’s like our teeth are tickling your finger (or toe) more than biting it!

     

    Of course, that does depend on proper training, plus not being in a bad mood (due to mishandling, mistreatment, etc.). For my part, I only bite the folks who clearly deserve it ;-)

  • prochoiceferret

    Poor kid, that’s just sick! That’s what happens when religion runs things.

    Much agreed :’-(

     

    And I’m sure that they’ll admonish us that they don’t “hate women,” and that all this talk of feminism and equal rights and (dis)empowerment is unpopular and irrelevant.

  • emma

    Oddly– well, it’s not that odd– enough, I’ve noticed a common theme in the posts here. Instead of debating the morality of abortion, which is a losing argument for pro-choicers,

    No, what you mean is that you, personally, don’t agree that there’s a moral argument for abortion. That doesn’t mean one can’t argue that abortion is moral, or that such arguments aren’t made by pro-choicers. I think it’s profoundly immoral to force a woman to spend nine months having their bodies violated by an entity setting up camp in their uterus when she doesn’t want that entity there. I think it’s profoundly immoral to force a woman to endure the birth of that entity, given that birth always carries risks, is damned painful, may involve surgery, and so forth. I think it’s immoral to require an unwilling person to go through a process that can put their health or lives at risk.*

    they want to go on about patriachy and empowering women and whatever other nonsense they can think up, which is, well, quite irrelevant.

    No, you think it’s irrelevant, which says a lot more about you than it does about the argument. This whole debate specifically politicises women’s bodies, and abortion bans police only women’s bodies, and allow the state to determine what women may or may not do with the contents of our uteruses. And yes, you keep claiming that all they do is prevent women from killing another person; however, that which you call persons and I call zygotes/blastocysts/embryos/foetuses happen to reside in women’s bodies. Placing the sole focus on foetal rights ignores the fact that illegalising abortion has specific effects on women’s bodies, lives and autonomy, requires sacrifices that men will never have to make, and polices women’s bodies to an extent to which men’s bodies will never be subjected. Those are all political issues, whether you want to think so or not.

     

    Are you the same person as BornIn1984?

     

    *I realise that you see as some kind of trump card the argument that most women do not list health effects as their primary reason for terminating pregnancies, thus the health effects of pregnancy and abortion are irrelevant. I would argue in response that this does not change the fact that it is immoral to force an unwilling person to go through a process that carries significant health risks.

  • wendy-banks

    Yes, pre-Roe, women had illegal and dangerous abortions. Some women died from those procedures, or suffered permanent damage to their health. That isn’t myth. It’s reality. 

     

    Yeah, my Grandma was a R.N.. Some of the tales she told about her hospital duties would curl your hair.

    And I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks Bei needs an enlightening with a 2X4 upside the head as well… I’m a carpenter’s daughter, I have access to many, various lengths. Any taker’s? ;)

  • colleen

    And I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks Bei needs an enlightening with a 2X4 upside the head as well… I’m a carpenter’s daughter, I have access to many, various lengths. Any taker’s? ;)

    The worst thing anyone could do to Bei or the other sock puppets is to not read his drivel and ignore him. He does not have anything interesting to say nor is he interested in communication. He’s interested in trolling and verbally abusing women and he’s not even very good at that. He’s not worth anymore of our time than the dog shit I stepped in today

  • bei1052

    Oh, okay—so you’re cool with abortion, then. After all, the mother is not taking back anything that she’s already given to the fetus. She’s just refusing to continue donating to it the life support produced by her organs.

     

    If the mother wasn’t taking anything away, then the ZEF wouldn’t die, now would it? No, it wouldn’t, as it’d be no worse off then it was before.

     

    …But, oh, then you turn around and say that she’s just refusing to continue donating to it the life support produced by her organs which, ugh, would mean she’s doing the thing you say she’s not doing. Illogical argument is illogical?

     

    Yes, and you wouldn’t take away Timmy’s life by denying him what he needs to live, right?

     

    Only if denying him what he needs to live wouldn’t be taking away Timmy’s life.

     

    (I’m sure, however, that you have absolutely no idea what I just wrote out.)

  • bei1052

    So, what actions that are known to end the life of the BZEF are you willing to accept?

     

    Abortion, depending on the circumstance.

     

    Here’s the thing, Bei…if the demand is higher among the much  fewer unplanned pregnancies of high income women…why does that mean we should not be concerned that low income women have a higher incidence of unwanted pregnancy and susequent abortion?

     

    Ummm, that’s just the thing. The poor do not have a higher incidence of abortion than higher income groups. They have a lower incidence of abortion than higher income groups, as a greater percentage of higher income groups pregnancies end in abortion than do lower income groups due to the fact that higher income groups are more likely to have an abortion when faced with an unplanned pregnancy (Restated). What lower income groups have, is a higher incidence of pregnancy than higher income groups.

     

    When you make abortion more accessible/easier to afford, you increase– hell, you even create– demand for it, which is what I said in that other thread multiple times.

     

    Also…interested in how age figures  into your “demand” theory.

     

    Age doesn’t change anything. And it’s not a theory. It’s the basic law of demand.

  • bei1052

    Yes, most Americans aren’t interested in examining the many inequalities faced by women in our society. You’re in good company.

     

    Yeah. That’s precisely what it is. It couldn’t possibly be because most people do not see abortion as a matter of “women’s rights”, but as rather a matter of morality. Nope. Most Americans are women haters, including many, many, many women themselves.

     

    …So, whenever you decide to join us in the real world you proudly proclaim you live in, lemme’ know.

     

    Nope, sorry. And I wasn’t the one trying to minimize the lives that would be lost if abortion were to be made illegal.

     

    I’m not the one who stated that making abortions legal made them safe, now am I? No, I wasn’t. The onus is on you to prove your assertion true but, alas, I asked a specific question to two people that went totally ignored. Ah well.

     

    Men everywhere quake in their boots.

     

    Don’t you know it.

     

    I’m sure she’ll lay off the references to other countries when you stop arguing for a legal regime on abortion like the one those countries have.

     

    She should lay off the references to other countries because it has no bearing on this country.

     

    Yeah, it’s not so difficult that it might lead one to have an abortion early in her pregnancy or something.

     

    I was about to fault the U.S. educational system for your subpar reading skills, but then I remembered you’re a ferret, so I can’t really expect you to know how to read all that well.

     

    No, I agree. Pregnant women are not obligated to give anyone (the fetus) anything (life support from their bodies). Similarly, you’re obligated not to do something (deny a kidney) that deprives someone else (little Timmy) of their life. It seems to me that you are feeling remorseful for telling Timmy to “get bent” the other day. Don’t worry, he’s a forgiving kid. Just give him your kidney, and it’ll all be water under the bridge.

     

    So if you don’t have any money, and I don’t give you any money, I’m depriving you of your money by not giving you my money? Because, ugh, that’s precisely your argument. Of course, most people would readily be able to distinguish between not giving someone money and taking away money that you’ve already given someone. Hell, I’m sure even you could tell the difference. So why, then, do you somehow seem incapable of noticing the difference between not giving to someone and taking away from someone when it comes to abortion? I have no idea. Maybe it has to do with the fact that ferrets have small brains (Compared to us humans, anyway). In any case, I realize that this concept is very hard for you to understand, put please try.

     

    The lives that their own bodies are in the process of constructing, using their bodily resources, and affecting their health and circumstances?

     

    Well, first and foremost, a ZEF is self-contained. A woman doesn’t construct it. She provides it a place to gestate. Your comment is, at best, projecting your own personal views onto science.

     

    Anyway, it’s still ironic how you dismiss the very same argument you make for abortion when it’s used to argue against abortion. Where’s the honesty in using an argument that you, yourself, don’t even like?

     

    I’m sure your policy will absorb the force of the impact as your head flies through the windshield.

     

    What policy? Or is this one of those times where you respond to something no one typed out?

     

    I don’t care about the “OMG, abortion/contraception is causing people to have more sex!” discussion, because it presumes that sexuality is a negative thing in and of itself, and because the converse (restrict abortion/contraception so that fewer people have sex) is too unhinged even for you.

     

    …Yeah, see. I point you towards the post about “homonculus theory” and “masculine male anxiety in a changing world”. Since you don’t realize why I copied and pasted what I did.

     

    I guess they were too distracted watching the mother happily playing with her (wanted) baby to stick with the medical terminology. Besides, “Who’s a cute little neonate?” just doesn’t roll off the tongue as nicely.

     

    No. I think it’s because they were too busy being hypocrites to notice they’re hypocrisy on the matter. But I’m just guessing, really.

     

    Yes, just like White people like to point out that the whole racial-analysis things is, well… Kind of pointless.

     

    No, it’s more like a White person pointing out the fact that simply because some Black person’s ancestors were enslaved hundreds of years ago doesn’t entitle him to special privileges, nor is it even relevant today.

     

    Which is why your donation is not optional!

     

    Not killing someone requires a donation? Only in your world.

  • bei1052

    No, what you mean is that you, personally, don’t agree that there’s a moral argument for abortion. That doesn’t mean one can’t argue that abortion is moral, or that such arguments aren’t made by pro-choicers. I think it’s profoundly immoral to force a woman to spend nine months having their bodies violated by an entity setting up camp in their uterus when she doesn’t want that entity there. I think it’s profoundly immoral to force a woman to endure the birth of that entity, given that birth always carries risks, is damned painful, may involve surgery, and so forth. I think it’s immoral to require an unwilling person to go through a process that can put their health or lives at risk.*

     

    No, what I meant was exactly what I said: That instead of debating morality, most pro-choicers would rather focus on things which are actually unrelated to the actual issue at hand. In any event, I’ll bite at the above with a simple question: Which is more wrong? “Forcing” someone to do something they might not want to do, or allowing one to kill another?

     

    No, you think it’s irrelevant, which says a lot more about you than it does about the argument. This whole debate specifically politicises women’s bodies, and abortion bans police only women’s bodies, and allow the state to determine what women may or may not do with the contents of our uteruses. And yes, you keep claiming that all they do is prevent women from killing another person; however, that which you call persons and I call zygotes/blastocysts/embryos/foetuses happen to reside in women’s bodies. Placing the sole focus on foetal rights ignores the fact that illegalising abortion has specific effects on women’s bodies, lives and autonomy, requires sacrifices that men will never have to make, and polices women’s bodies to an extent to which men’s bodies will never be subjected. Those are all political issues, whether you want to think so or not.

     

    You see, your argument rests on some notion that people can do to and with their bodies as they please, regardless of the effect it has on another. This is not only false, it’s patently and decidedly false. Ignoring abortion for a moment, tell me any other circumstance where you can do with your body as you please regardless of the effects it has on another. Just give me one example. That’s all I want. Of course, I’ll save you the trouble and tell you now that you won’t find an example, as it doesn’t exist. So why should it be any different for abortion?

     

    Of course, your inevitable response will be “Because it’s the woman’s body!” but that merely begs the question. And not only does it beg the question, but it requires you to explain how a ban on abortion is any different than a ban on say, murder, or a ban on prostitution (Which, funnily enough, most feminist organizations seem to look down upon) or a ban on ellicit drug use, among numoerous other examples. The simple fact is that it’s no different, and no more of a violation of the “right to bodily autonomy” than is any other restriction on what you can and cannot do, which is why at the end of the day pro-choicers tend not to address the morality of abortion (The fact is that abortion kills another human being. All arguments have to start there), but rather go on about “patriarchal society” or “hating women” or “rights to privacy” and such other types of argument– all of which are thoroughly irrelevant.

     

    …Oh, and for the record, if laws banning abortion only affect women, it’s because only women get pregnant. If men got pregnant, laws against abortion would affect men, too.

     

    Are you the same person as BornIn1984?

     

    Can’t say I’ve heard of him/her, though I’ve always wanted to be someone else. Well, not really. But it sounded like a neat thing to say.

  • bei1052

    The worst thing anyone could do to Bei or the other sock puppets is to not read his drivel and ignore him. He does not have anything interesting to say nor is he interested in communication. He’s interested in trolling and verbally abusing women and he’s not even very good at that. He’s not worth anymore of our time than the dog shit I stepped in today.

     

    This made me lol inside. Who says pro-choicers aren’t angry people?

  • elyzabeth

    I like this site because of the wide variety of articles that cover all the facets and nuances of reproductive health-care.  However, it may not be my place to comment on this since I haven’t been here very long, but it seems like whenever the article in question even tangentially touches on abortion, we always have the same discussion.  Since we always start over at square 1, we never get around to actually talking in depth about the points whatever article mentioned.

     

     

    Anyway–back to the article.  It was my understanding that the “disconnect” between generations of feminists stems from the fact that abortion only became a “moral” and national political issue in the late 1980′s.  During Roe v. Wade, only the Catholics opposed abortion.  Of course, back then they also took a harder line with members of the congregation suspected of using birth control (as evidenced by having less than 14 kids, I guess?).  Other religious groups that were more interested in social justice didn’t exactly embrace abortion, but acknowledged its necessity to improving the lives of the disadvantaged. 

     

     

    However, the reason many pro-lifers are young is because my generation is open to accepting several beliefs that older people, at least the older people in my life, would find completely irrational.

     

     

    The idea that a ZBEF is a child and just as valuable as a living baby is relatively new.  This concept was hard to sell to generations that remembered the high infant mortality rate and frequent miscarriage and stillbirths that characterized the period before advances in medical technology.  My grandma was born in a time and place where couples would have 5 kids just to ensure that at least 2 survive to adulthood.

     

     

    For instance, given the (admittedly completely unrealistic) scenario that you are in a burning building and you have a choice between saving a sleeping baby or saving a whole tank of frozen embryos, my grandma would be completely stumped that this was any sort of moral dilemma for some people. 

     

     

    Also, the rhetoric that “abortion is a Holocaust” or “abortion is the worst massacre and the biggest tragedy ever” appeals to my generation because we have no context for horrible tragedies.  Try saying that when Holocaust survivors were still numerous and see how well it goes over. 

     

     

    While our population still has many veterans and survivors of other catastrophic events that faced humanity at its cruelest, there are fewer of them in proportion to the whole population than there were in the generation following WWI or Vietnam.

     

     

    Similarly, the horrors of self-induced or other medically-unsound abortions have been a reality of human existence for the last few thousand years.  Safety is a relatively recent innovation, and still has not reached many parts of the world, either due to lack of resources or restrictive legislation driving it underground. 

     

     

    I’m way too young to remember America before Roe v. Wade, but my mom has some stories.  Someone older who remembers may have to confirm this since I can’t find any statistics.  Apparently in the 1960′s, it was fairly common for white, middle-class teenage girls to suffer from “menstrual irregularities” that required a trip to the doctor and a D&C.  It wasn’t an abortion–it just fixed a missed period. 

  • heather-corinna

    If men got pregnant, laws against abortion would affect men, too.

     

    I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest that if men got pregnant, we’d be far more unlikely to ever have HAD any laws against abortion. Or contraception, for that matter. The chances of even having conversations like this, and with the kinds of things that have been said and endlessly get repeated, all around, seem like they’d be greatly diminished.

  • princess-rot

    Those questions were designed to get you to think about the intersectionality of gender, class, race, politics and ethics within the reproductive rights movement and how it effects everything currently debated about, an essential thing to know about even if you oppose abortion. It’s essential to know the history and to understand the continuum of reproductive rights from past to present and how they all affect each other. I rather expected you would respond with circular arguments, condescension and snark, but I am surprised about one thing: that you did not make the logical connection between denial of pregnancy rights and bodily autonomy and denial of birth and parenting rights. If you can mark women as too incompetent to decide what to do with a pregnancy, you can mark them as unfit to parent, too. Thus, we get coercive sterilization and/or adoption procedures, which are documented.

     

    You will also get dangerous home abortions occurring, and, when a climate of fear and distrust abounds, women may fear seeking help for pregnancy problems lest they be accused of procuring or causing an abortion and be subject to intimidation and suspicion. This happens now, here, under RvW, with the specious anti-procured-miscarriage law in Utah which we had a long thread about here, and with the coercive laws in Alabama. That law allows a physician to not inform potential mothers about illnesses or birth defects in a fetus, even if they are fatal ones, in case they are accused of “counseling abortion”. Which is ridiculous, because the decision lies ultimately lies with the patient. No time to prepare, no time to gather resources to care for a sick child, or prepare to grieve. You won’t know till you give birth or can afford to seek treatment out-of-state because third party anti-abortionists have decided you can’t be trusted to know what’s best for your situation. I am not going to do your search for you. I get sick of trying to drum into anti-choicers heads that there is far more to it all than wanking about the collective morals of millions of women and screaming about the potential babies that someone else should be compelled to sacrafice for, which conveniently won’t effect you.

  • princess-rot

    I have sometimes speculated that if women evolved an ability to end a pregnancy with a voluntary biological procedure, like some animals already can, would we be having this conversation or would there be even more outside attempts to control reproduction? It’s an interesting philosophical question, like the pregnant men thing, or possibly the basis for a sci-fi.

  • princess-rot

    Also, the rhetoric that “abortion is a Holocaust” or “abortion is the worst massacre and the biggest tragedy ever” appeals to my generation because we have no context for horrible tragedies.  Try saying that when Holocaust survivors were still numerous and see how well it goes over.

    Argh. That annoys me so much, it makes me ashamed to be part of younger generation. How can someone be so blitheringly hateful? It betrays such a lack of thinking, it’s a knee-jerk reaction. Pregnant women are equivalent to sadistic Nazis (you probably know the characters of such men who were put in control of camps so I won’t preach to you) who slaughtered for kicks? Mindless fetuses are equivalent to murdered Jews, who were actual people with minds and personalities, family and friends? I’m not even going to get into the rape of POWs and forced childbearing. You are right about the lack of context, but don’t think it can wholely be blamed on ignorance. It’s just an illogical shlock argument that goes for gore and inaccuracy in order to make the unthinking recoil.

  • saltyc

    Not killing someone requires a donation? Only in your world.

    He’s been pwned and doesn’t even know it.

     

    If an embryo is self-contained and doesn’t require the woman’s efforts and blood to become a baby, why don’t you just collect all the first-trimester abortions (which come out intact) and raise them yourself?

     

    n00b.

  • crowepps

    I’m sure she’ll lay off the references to other countries when you stop arguing for a legal regime on abortion like the one those countries have.

     

    She should lay off the references to other countries because it has no bearing on this country.

     

    On just which facet of American exceptionalism do you base this assertion?  Are American women physiologically different from those in other countries?  Psychologically different?  Are our cops, courts and prisons different?  Considering that your position is that women should be required to continue unwanted pregnancies because of the purported ‘right to life’ of a zygote, how do you balance that ‘right to life’ against the American enthusiasm for demanding capital punishment to eliminate other ‘unwanted’ persons?  Or are you referring to the tortured theology underlying the uniquely American heresy of ‘born-again’ Christianity? 

  • crowepps

    So, what actions that are known to end the life of the BZEF are you willing to accept?

     

    Abortion, depending on the circumstance.

     Sorry, I may have missed something, but I don’t understand this.  What circumstance exactly do you believe makes abortion acceptable?

  • crowepps

    Another possible reason for the generation gap on this issue is that its really easy to be sure of the ‘right answer’ when you have not yet been in the position of having to deal with the issue.  Consider the number of childless young people who are absolutely sure that THEIR children are all going to be perfectly behaved because all those brats out there just have incompetent, lazy parents.

  • crowepps

    Which would ‘prove’ why so many rich people are grossly obese, right?  Because having more money would increase the ‘demand’ for food and make people hungrier.

     

    Just as it would ‘prove’ that having more money increases the ‘demand’ for dental care, because poor people per capita spend less money on root canals and crowns and that means they actually don’t have anything wrong with their teeth.

  • saltyc

    Oh, you know, rape and stuff, because we filthy sluts who enjoyed the coitus already relinquished our bodily autonomy. Not sure how he defines rape, probably dark alley stranger rape with a weapon, and the women presses charges. And it’s not fully human if it was a product of rape, or something.

    Nevermind that in Brazil, where his philiosophy is law, it’s extremely rare for a rape exception to allow for abortion, since it requires that the woman file a police report and even when she does everything right, usually she’s forced to stay pregnant because of ignorance of the exception by officials, or outright sabotage of her rights. Oh yeah, other country therefore lalalala.

    Forgetting that rape is actually very hard to prove in a court of law, rape kits and rape exams make scant difference, because teh accused will say it was rough sex.

    Also nevermind the fact that oftentimes in OUR country, if a man is cleared of rape charges, the woman accuser is incarcerated for making a false report, discouraging many women from doing so, and nevermind that many women who are raped do not even recognize it as such or if they do face severe sanctions for stating it. 

    Edit: I just found out that in March of this year, the Brazilian government Health Ministry removed the police report requirement, but:

    ..the Federal Council of Medicine, the national regulatory body for physicians, based in Brasilia, has advised its doctors to ignore the directive and continue asking for an incident report.

     

    http://www.womensenews.org/story/the-world/050515/brazil-begins-talking-openly-about-abortion

  • crowepps

    You’re not going to extend the same benefits to abortion as the aforementioned activities. But why not?

    The difference, of course, being that a person who is not allowed to indulge in rape or child sacrifice or theft, is in exactly the same position after being prevented from doing so that he/she was in before.  Whereas a pregnant woman, unable to get an abortion, does NOT remain in the same situation, but instead faces increased physical, emotion and social risks.  She may suffer complications, she may have a nervous breakdown, she may have to drop out of school or lose her job or get buried up to the neck and stoned to death.

     

    A pregnant woman is in a position where the substance of her body is dissassembled by the fetus to be converted to the substance of the fetus.  While this may be seen as a ‘passiv activity, on a biological level it is not passive at all.  It is the equivalent of ‘passively’ continuing to hold a 20 pound weight over your head for nine months.  When women choose to be pregnant or choose to continue an unwanted pregnancy they volunteer to do take the risks and suffer the ‘inconveniences’.  When women do not want to be pregnant, and do not have their own moral convictions to convince them to continue anyway, weighing whether someone else thinks their reason is ‘sufficient’ and then substituting that other person’s convictions for their own and forcing them to do so is inexcuseable.

     

    Their bodies do NOT belong to us, and their freedom of conscience is just as protected as ours.  The situation is a lot closer to that of the child needing an organ from an unwilling donor than you are willing to admit.  If you were more aware of the physiological consequences of pregnancy, you would have more respect for the cost to woman of her contribution to the process of gestation and I think you would be less likely to take it for granted that her contribution is ‘no big deal’ and therefore can be required.

  • bei1052

    He’s been pwned and doesn’t even know it.

     

    If an embryo is self-contained and doesn’t require the woman’s efforts and blood to become a baby, why don’t you just collect all the first-trimester abortions (which come out intact) and raise them yourself?

     

    n00b.

     

    What are you? Like eight? <_<

     

    At any rate, you don’t know what’s meant by self-contained, do you? Apparently not. Oh well.

     

    (I’m also going to point out how you totally ignored the whole gestating part.)

     

  • bei1052

    I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest that if men got pregnant, we’d be far more unlikely to ever have HAD any laws against abortion. Or contraception, for that matter. The chances of even having conversations like this, and with the kinds of things that have been said and endlessly get repeated, all around, seem like they’d be greatly diminished.

     

    The above is a good example of how misandry is somewhat of an acceptable form of discrimination in our society. On what basis do you make the above assertion? Do you think that all/most men are hypocrites?

  • bei1052

    On just which facet of American exceptionalism do you base this assertion?  Are American women physiologically different from those in other countries?  Psychologically different?  Are our cops, courts and prisons different?

     

    Just the culture.

     

    Considering that your position is that women should be required to continue unwanted pregnancies because of the purported ‘right to life’ of a zygote, how do you balance that ‘right to life’ against the American enthusiasm for demanding capital punishment to eliminate other ‘unwanted’ persons?  Or are you referring to the tortured theology underlying the uniquely American heresy of ‘born-again’ Christianity?

     

    If you take the life of another, you forfeit your own right to life. Easy as an American apple pie.

  • saltyc

    If you take the life of another, you forfeit your own right to life. Easy as an American apple pie.

     

    AH so according to you, I could be murdered and my killer get off scott free because I wasn’t raped and had an abortion. Idiot n00b.

     

    Also, n00b, what is the difference between Brazilian culture and US culture that makes what happens to women obtaining abortions in Brazil irrelevant to our discussion?

  • saltyc

    Well for one thing, embryonic stem cell research that deals with creating human embryos for destruction is male dominated, and the discourse around that controversy almost never includes the word ‘murder.’ Even Obama allows federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research whereas none for abortion.

  • crowepps

    All/most men aren’t opposed to or aren’t trying to control the decisions of women getting abortions so that exempts them from the charge.

     

    But I don’t think this statement is about hypocrisy.  It’s about the assumption that what men want/need is ‘normal’ and facilitating what they want/need is permissible.  Just as a for-instance, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ‘moral’ discussion about the use of Viagra by unmarried men or a pharmacist state that he would check marital status on those prescriptions and yet there is a controversy about unmarried women being on birth control pills and pharmacists who require a ‘health’ reason to fill the prescription.  The underlying assumptions being apparently that it is ‘normal’ for men to have sex and their decision to do so is nobody else’s business but it is abnormal for women to do so and everybody gets to have an opinion on their choices.

  • bei1052

    I’m only as snarky as people want to try to be snarky; only as condescending as people try to be; and never as apt to engage in circular reasoning as others are. It’s just the way I am. You get what you try to give. But I digress.

     

    Most of that history that you went on about has no bearing today. Why? Because society and culture have changed. Most of the stuff that you go on about how already been accepted by mainstream culture, and is just a part of life. No one rejects them. What they do reject, however, is somehow trying to tie those things into abortion. Equal pay, for example, is seen to have nothing to do with abortion. Being allowed into, say, the same job as a man is seen as having nothing to do with abortion. Being allowed to divorce your husband is seen as having nothing to do with abortion. Etc. etc. etc. and so on and so forth. Trying to tie abortion into a matter of “woman’s rights” is a losing proposition, not merely because feminism isn’t exactly a strong predictor of attitudes on abortion, but because opposition to abortion is linked with broader social movements, often times being progressive.

     

    Furthermore, you state that if I can tell someone that they can’t kill someone else that I’m deeming them to be incompetent of being a parent? That’s not true, and it’s an incredible stretch to assume as much. I know I’ve stated this before, but the opposite of telling someone what they can’t do is telling them what they have to do, or even dictating that they’re incompetent. If it was, then everyone would be deemed incompetent as we’re not allowed to do whatever we want. As far as parenting goes, children are taken away from their parents when their parents prove that they’re unfit of taking care of their children, not before. What you continue to go on about is something which hasn’t been true for decades, and wouldn’t be true if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, as Roe v. Wade didn’t cause a shift in public opinion on the matter.

     

    And on a slightly related note, the irony in your position is that, on one hand, you say how we should trust women to make the best decision for their lives, but then on the other hand claim that those same woman would throw themselves down a flight of stairs, jam a coat hanger into ther vaginas, kill themselves or engage in other such activities if they weren’t allowed to have a legal abortion. But how does that work? Why would you think a woman who would do any of the aforementioned activities to be competent enough to decide to have an abortion? Wouldn’t the fact that she engaged in the aforementioned activities mean that she’s not in the right state of mind?

     

    At the end of the day, I can boil your argument down to one sentence: “The woman should be able to decide what’s best for her”. While that’s a nice sentiment and all, it totally ignores the effects her actions have on another. I use this example a lot, yet I’ll continue to use it. If my next door neighbor wants to kill his kid, should I butt out and let him do so, as it doesn’t affect me? You’re going to say no, but then this begs the question as to why I should allow a woman to do the exact same thing, in effect? You can’t pick and choose when and where to apply that whole rationale.

  • crowepps

    Except of course if you’re a soldier, a cop, a homeowner defending their property, etc., etc.  I assume you’re not promoting the idea that if a woman dies during childbirth, the infant should be strangled immediately.

  • bei1052

    The Nazis defined entire groups of humans as non-persons based on some arbitrary distinctions (nationality, race, disability, etc. etc. etc.) in order to rationalize killing millions. Pro-choicers do the same thing today, using lines such as “It’s not sentient!”/”It’s not sapient!”/”It can’t feel anything!” etc. etc. etc. and so on and so forth.

     

    It has nothing to do with being hateful. It’s just pointing out the glaringly obvious (And let’s not forget the fact that abortion has killed more humans than the Nazis could have ever dreamed of doing). It doesn’t matter who’s doing it, when you’re defining an entire population out of the same rights held by everyone else on the basis of them being non-persons, you’re just as bad as they are.

  • heather-corinna

    I make the above assertion based on history and observation, and I don’t think there’s anything even remotely misandrist about it, especially considering I am saying this as someone who supports reproductive choice for everyone.  It’s not like I’d hold it against men, or feel they were somehow lesser, for wanting the right to choose should they be able to be pregnant.

     

    One of the rare helpful things that has come out of men dominating so much of the decision-making throughout history is that I think we’re able to get a pretty good idea of how men as a class react to certain things, particularly how men react to the actuality or potential of someone else having control over their lives or their bodies; potentially usurping that control.  We’ve got a hell of a lot of data to refer to on that.

     

    I don’t need to look much further than all the wars throughout history, and most of the legal policies worldwide, to draw some reasonable conclusions about the way men will tend to react in those situations.  And what history does not show me is that men tend to just acquiesce that they don’t get to have control over their own bodies, accept that their freedoms have been or will be limited or removed, or are inactive in taking what charge they can of their own lives and bodies if and when someone or something else threatens them, puts them in harms way, or may vastly change the way they want to and feel able to live their lives.

     

    I don’t think all or most men are hypocrites at all.  But I do think that no matter a person’s gender, when you don’t have a very personal stake and experience of something in or on your own body, that lack of experience and personal stake tends to have an influence. This is something we see a lot, for instance, in abortion care, with women who will tell us that before they were pregnant and/or in the given situations they are in, they didn’t understand what that was like, some even previously opposing the right to choose, a position they no longer take now that the situation is actual and personal.

     

    I feel very confident that if men could become pregnant and had a more tangible, real understanding of what that meant and could mean for a pregnant person, they’d likely want the same choices we do.

  • bei1052

    You do realize that in all of that, you didn’t address the whole thing about selectively picking and choosing when and where to apply a certain argument, and when and where to discard that same argument, correct? Don’t worry. I didn’t really expect you to get around to doing that, because doing so would require you to either argue that abortion should be impermissable, or choose a different rationale by which to argue for abortion.

  • crowepps

    And so, having reached the Nazi analogy, this discussion must have reached pointlessness.

  • saltyc

    Fetuses aren’t groups of people. You’re confusing groups of people with what is a life stage, just as eggs and sperm are stages of life.

    you’re just as bad as they are.

    yah, asshole. This from a man who says my whole life is forfeit. Now we’re as bad as Nazis too.

     

    But since we’re throwing nazi allegations around, I would say you have a lot more in common with them, in the use of irredentism (look it up.) This was the justification for Nazi usurpation of other lands with the rationale that they were trying to “redeem” their own citizens living there. Similarly, forced-birthers like you wish to control women with the rationale of “redeeming” a fellow citizen in her womb.

  • elyzabeth

    If abortion is truly comparable to the Holocaust, how come that comparison only appeared in the last 20 years, after the horror had left our collective memories and “The Holocaust” had become an abstract concept as opposed to a real tragedy that happened to real people?

  • crowepps

    Who, knowing that pregnancy meant concentration camp inmates were slated for the ovens, performed abortions to save women’s lives.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gisella_Perl

  • prochoiceferret

    Who, knowing that pregnancy meant concentration camp inmates were slated for the ovens, performed abortions to save women’s lives.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gisella_Perl

    Wow! I didn’t know the Nazis were so pro-life!

     

    (Amazing citation, crowepps, to blow the minds of those who draw the abortion-Auschwitz comparison…)

  • crowepps

    “I Was A Doctor in Auschwitz” was an extremely moving book, and Showtime released a movie based on it titled “Out of the Ashes” (which I haven’t seen).

     

    http://www.amazon.com/Was-Doctor-Auschwitz-Gisella-Perl/dp/0405123000

     

    “Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Story” by Lucie Adelsberger is also well worth reading.

     

  • jrm83

    From Wikipedia:

     

    Abortion was heavily penalized in Nazi Germany unless on the grounds of “racial health”; from 1943 abortionists faced the death penalty.[68] Display of contraceptives was not allowed and Hitler himself described contraception as “violation of nature, as degradation of womanhood, motherhood and love.” [69]

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_germany#Women.27s_rights

  • crowepps

    ARYAN women were not allowed to abort, in fact there was a Nazi ‘breeding program’, Lebensborn, to maximize the number of children produced by those of ‘good racial type’, but with those women who were NOT Aryan, who were Gypsies or mentally ill or disabled or Jewish, both mother AND fetus went to the ovens.

     

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Lebensborn.html

     

    Ironically, the children Lebensborn produced as the future ‘master race’ ended up being fairly ordinary.

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/world/europe/07nazi.html

     

    I’m reminded of the failure of that program when I see quotes from the subset of pro-lifers and Quiverfull adherents who are obsessed with the idea that the right KIND of Americans (white/Christian fundamentalist) aren’t being produced and who focus on that profile of (racially acceptable/like me) women as those who should be pressured to complete pregnancies. Happily, their assumption that the kiddies will all go along with this program once they’re grown up is likely an illusion.

  • julie-watkins
    I think, once the oligarchy realized what was happening, there would be more think-tank type efforts for advertising/propaganda to try to keep women from using the ability.
    .
    Right now there are thousands of messages from birth onwards that women and poor people are second class and pregnant women are community property and intersex babies cause such a freak-out!freak-out! because the she-or-he can’t be assigned to his/her Place in Life.
    .
    My science-fiction idea is that (if Nature wasn’t Sexist) that humans would be born without gender, and one’s gender wasn’t revealed until puberty — after primary education would already have happened – maybe childhood would be less geared toward enforcing gender roles. Or, even better, *any* time full intercouse it was 50/50 whether Person A or B would get pregnant. (I think that’s LeGuin’s Left Hand of Darkness?) The world might be better!

    .

    On the other hand, I suspect the thousands of messages from birth onwards would then be how the rich elite deserves to live off the work and resources of those less worthy. No, wait, that’s already happening. All the “gotta control your womem” stuff (as crowepps has pointed out) is One Big Distraction. So many distractions are needed to keep the vast majority of people-being-fleeched from seeing, comprehending, and doing something about the massive corporate welfare (Big Business, Big Agra, Big Pharma, Military Industrial Complex, Prison Industrial Complet, Wall Street, etc.).

  • bei1052

    AH so according to you, I could be murdered and my killer get off scott free because I wasn’t raped and had an abortion. Idiot n00b.

     

    No, but if you want to think that’s what I said then, by all means, believe that’s what I said.

     

    Also, n00b, what is the difference between Brazilian culture and US culture that makes what happens to women obtaining abortions in Brazil irrelevant to our discussion?

     

    Brazil is, for all intents and purposes, a third world country, and does not have access to the same medical technologies that the U.S. does. Any medical procedure in Brazil regardless of it’s legal status is going to be inherently more dangerous than that procedure if carried out in the U.S.

     

    Anyway, if you’re gonna’ use intrawebz lingo, at least be good at it.

  • bei1052

    Sorry, I may have missed something, but I don’t understand this.  What circumstance exactly do you believe makes abortion acceptable?

     

    If the woman is going to die, or have her health severely impacted, I’m “okay” with abortions in that circumstance. I lean towards illegal in the case of rape, but as a matter of practicality, I’m for making abortions legal then, as well. Hell, I’ll even throw in to protect the mother’s mental health, so long as she submits to a mental evaluation beforehand. Other than that, no, as it boils down to some economic or convenience issue.

  • bei1052

    Which would ‘prove’ why so many rich people are grossly obese, right?  Because having more money would increase the ‘demand’ for food and make people hungrier.

     

    Not the demand for food. The demand for certain types of food (i.e., filet mignon vs. bologna).

     

    …And, yeah, I’m gonna’ ignore the obesity thing, because I don’t think you really want to read me being overly condescending.

     

    Just as it would ‘prove’ that having more money increases the ‘demand’ for dental care, because poor people per capita spend less money on root canals and crowns and that means they actually don’t have anything wrong with their teeth.

     

    Indeed, it does.

     

    …And, yet again, I’m going to ignore the “they don’t have anything wrong with their teeth” comment, as I’m pretty sure you don’t want have to deal with me being facetious.

     

    Now are you quite done trying to poke a whole in what I wrote out, are do you want to continue down this path? Because we can, though it’s a waste of time as I’ve already given *three* different sources which all state the same thing, that being that abortion is a normal good with respect to income and follows the law of demand. I’m not even sure why you’re trying to argue this, as it’s– dare I say it?– common sense.

  • bei1052

    Except of course if you’re a soldier, a cop, a homeowner defending their property, etc., etc.  I assume you’re not promoting the idea that if a woman dies during childbirth, the infant should be strangled immediately.

     

    Because, as well all know, soldiers, cops and homeowners defending their property are all subjected to capital punishment on a regular basis. I don’t like it when people move the proverbial goal posts.

  • bei1052

    Your post rests on the faulty assumption that views on abortion mostly, or even majorly shaped, by gender. They’re not. Indeed, for the latter part of the last 30 years, men and women have held similiar views of abortion.

     

    Overall, women are a bit more likely than men to hold one of the more absolute views on abortion: that it should be either legal under any circumstances or illegal in all circumstances. However, majorities of both genders take the middle “legal only under certain circumstances” position.

     

    Within various age and partisan categories, men and women are mostly similar in their views. Only with respect to education, specifically those with a college education, is there a sizable gender gap. College-educated women are significantly more likely than college-educated men to believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances.

     

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/127559/education-trumps-gender-predicting-support-abortion.aspx

     

    (Page 2 has the graphs.)

     

    Which goes back to the question, “Under what basis do you make this assertion?”. It’d be like me saying, if women didn’t get pregnant, they’d be pro-life. There’s no way of knowing that, and asserting as much is nothing more than baseless conjecture.

  • bei1052

    Fetuses aren’t groups of people. You’re confusing groups of people with what is a life stage, just as eggs and sperm are stages of life.

     

    Ummm, yeah. Because someone decided they’re not. That was kind of the point there. Glad you caught it.

     

    yah, asshole. This from a man who says my whole life is forfeit. Now we’re as bad as Nazis too.

     

    I dunno’ what you’re reading, but okay.

     

    But since we’re throwing nazi allegations around, I would say you have a lot more in common with them, in the use of irredentism (look it up.) This was the justification for Nazi usurpation of other lands with the rationale that they were trying to “redeem” their own citizens living there. Similarly, forced-birthers like you wish to control women with the rationale of “redeeming” a fellow citizen in her womb.

     

    Ummm, no. “Forced-birthers” like me are more concerned with preventing one segment of the population from killing another.

  • bei1052

    I’ll respond to this one. Abortion for pure-blooded Germans = bad. Abortions for everyone else = Good.

  • bei1052

    If abortion is truly comparable to the Holocaust, how come that comparison only appeared in the last 20 years, after the horror had left our collective memories and “The Holocaust” had become an abstract concept as opposed to a real tragedy that happened to real people?

     

    Because twenty years ago was 1990, and the abortion debate didn’t really flare up until the early/mid-1980′s when it was repackaged and both parties took a stance, when prior to then both parties took the anti-abortion line. That’s why.

     

    Plus there’s been more abortions since 1990, so…

  • bei1052

    And so, having reached the Nazi analogy, this discussion must have reached pointlessness.

     

    I envoked Godwin’s Law days ago, as it was the first post in the thread. It seems to have disappeared, though…

  • wendy-banks

    *chuckles* Oh, just hates the fact that a bunch of women (and occational guy– Hi Harry) outwit him on a daily basis. He’s just a one trick pony, poor basterd. For his MO see “Troll defined” post. From the smart guy at Flayme.com in the UK.

  • heather-corinna

    Not gender, actually, but anatomical sex, since not all women have uteruses, and not all men have penises. 

     

    While popular opinion in polls — and in general, I’d agree — tends to be similar with both male and female-bodied people, I tend to think that the division of men and women in the antichoice contingency, especially in its leadership, which is overwhelmingly male-bodied, speaks volumes. I also think the stake women hold far more than men is apparent even in what you just quoted there. I think heteronormativity (so gender ROLES, sure) and the kyriarchy as a whole can also play a big part with some, if not many, antichoice women.  While antichoice lesbians absolutely exist, I think it’s pretty clear they’re an intensely small part of the pie.

     

    But absolutely, what I said was conjecture and a guess (as well as an utterly frustrated retort per every thread like this that shows up here). 

  • elyzabeth

     “prior to then both parties took the anti-abortion line.” 

     

    Well, no–abortion wasn’t a national issue so neither party took any line at all.  As I said, Catholics were the only ones that believed personhood started at conception.  Other conservative religions opposed abortion because it would promote “sexual immorality,” not because they believed a fetus is as valuable as a baby.

     

    The idea of ZBEF personhood was manufactured as an issue to gain political capital among conservative Christians in the late 1980′s.  The generations for which that message was tailored had grown up with all the blessing of modern medicine, and the subsequent lower rates of infant mortality, congenital defects, and miscarriages.  For the first time in medical history, a pregnancy seemed to be a promise of a healthy child–not a roulette wheel laced with heartbreak.  Therefore, that generation was open to redefining ZBEFs as people, like no previous generation would have been.

  • liberaldem

    Whenever someone introduces Nazis into a discussion, it’s a sure sign that they’ve run out of genuine arguments and they’re falling back on the Nazi card.  It’s a cheap shot, and the comparison of legal abortion to the Holocaust trivializes the enormous tragedy of the deliberate murder of six million Jews and the effort to extinguish their culture.

  • jrm83

    Sorry, crowepps, my last comment wasn’t directed towards you.  I seem to have posted it in the wrong place.  I get very annoyed when people compare pro-choicers to Nazis.  I think liberaldem got it right with their comment. And, when one looks at the Nazis actual policies regarding abortion and reproduction, they were neither pro-choice or pro-life.

  • crowepps

    Most of the people who make ‘you’re a Nazi’ comparisons have very little understanding of the Nazi policies or programs and they’re certainly unaware of the stunning ATTITUDE similarities.  ‘There is only one correct way to live, it is the duty of the State to enforce correct living and eliminate ‘diversity’ so people will recognize their proper duty is to live in a way of service to the State.’

     

    Certainly they use Goebble’s propaganda methods:

    http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html

  • squirrely-girl

    liberaldem – TOTALLY agree – I’ve made similar comments before. I think the part that irritates me the most is when people get the comparisons and analogies wrong. (Some) people think that throwing around a “Hitler” or the “Holocaust” makes their argument that much more awesome when all it really does is highlight their ignorance of history.