BlogHer - Abortion is Barbaric - Comments

abortion or not

lilyanasmom — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:13:59 -0500

http://lilyanasmom.blogspot.com

POV without regret

ssimet — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:30:21 -0500

I would like to thank-you for sharing your point of view. Abortion is never an easy decision nor do I think it should be. I have many girlfriends who have had abortions, some regret their decision while others like me do not.

You brought up many questions that I was faced with when making "my choice". I was in a controlling relationship, where our fights had started getting physical. I knew that I did not want to be with this man, but how was I going to afford this child? what kind of life could I provide for this child? Would I be able to give this child up for adoption?

I would actually be due very soon, around the time I would also be finishing up my PhD, starting a postdoc, paying back student loans, trying to start a career..... alone.

Quite frankly I didn't know how I was going to afford a child, with $800 student loan payments, $600 in rent, baby food, diapers, daycare, etc. and I didn't want to be a single mom. I watched my mom raise 2 kids on her own and that is not what i wanted.

By no means was it an easy decision. I talked to my family, friends and councelors. But in the end it was mine to make and I made the best decision for "ME".

For some the choice is easy, for some the choice is hard. Some live with regret, some don't.

I was always the girl who supported pro-choice, but would never have an abortion myself. I don't think you can really say what you would or wouldn't do until you find yourself in the position of being pregnant. Do I think that some women abuse the right to have an abortion? yes, yes I do. But they have to live with their decisions not me.

"Slave" and "Negro" Were Just As Accurate

FamilyValuesTustin — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:44:49 -0500

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying that the baby is not a fetus made up of tissue, which is made up of cells. I'm saying that we use those terms as a means to avoid recognizing the humanity of the life that the pro-choicer seeks to terminate.

In pre-abolition America, we used the terms "Slave" and "Negro" much the same way. They were accurate terms, but their point wasn't accuracy. Their point was to avoid dealing with what was really going on. Their point was to denigrate the humanity of the individual whose rights were being ignored.

You wrote:

"And as for whether they should be protected under the law, I believe they are - up to the point where the well being of the fetus cannot take precedence over the well being of the mother."

Similarly, a slave owner could have magnanimously pronounced that "slaves have rights. It's just that those rights cannot take precedence over the rights of the slave owner." In point of fact, that was precisely the holding in the Dred Scott case.

No amount of squirming can change the simple reality here. Abortion is just the latest form of socially-acceptible subjegation of the weak at the hands of the powerful. A slave owner's claim was "I own this slave, and I'll do with him as I please." Today, a pro-choicers claim is "I own this womb, and I'll do with it as I please."

You seem to think that your views are somehow more enlightened than those of the slave owners past. Well, they aren't. You excuse the humanity of the fetus in exactly the same way that the slave owner excused the humanity of the negro.

It's just the same play with different players.

The words "tissue" or "cells" are not euphemisms.

zchamu — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:19:20 -0500

They are scientific facts.

And as for whether they should be protected under the law, I believe they are - up to the point where the well being of the fetus cannot take precedence over the well being of the mother.

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick (all that's green, cool and Canadian).

Nice Try, But No Cigar

FamilyValuesTustin — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:53:08 -0500

The same argument was used to support slavery in the Dred Scott case. They argued that slaves were not legally recognized as "persons" under the Constitution, and they were not recognized as such by society. In some circles, people argued with a straight face that blacks were not even fully human.

Darwin's right hand man Thomas Huxley wrote that blacks would continue to fail in a society that judged success by the quality of one's thoughts, rather than the size of his bites. These ideas were commonly accepted in polite society. Today, we recognize them as abhorent.

Yet, because society was bigoted, the Court permitted the tragedy of slavery to continue.

Some societies do not recognize woman. Others have extended the bigotry to larger groups. In Nazi Germany, Jews were dehumanized and people accepted their slaughter simply because they were not legally protected.

So, I do not accept your argument that fetuses are not legally protected. Really, you are not making an argument. You are merely restating the issue. The question is whether they should be legally protected. We even see people in polite company use dismissive language to diminish the status of the unborn, just as they diminished the status of slaves 150 years ago. We call it "tissue" or "cells." Even the term "fetus" is used to avoid dealing with the reality that it's a baby - a human baby.

People have engaged in all sorts of atrocities for centuries. To illustrate the silliness of that argument, I seriously doubt that you would use the historical prevalence of rape (and legality in some societies) as an argument for the acceptance or legalization of forcible rape.

Truth be told, the legal status of the unborn is just the latest form of bigotry our society accepts out of convenience.

I suggest you read this

rhea — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:20:55 -0500

I suggest you read this article in the NY Times about a doctor who treated patients with self-imposed abortions before Roe v. Wade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/views/03essa.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1216303817-vwRBe47lX9Pwn2bhdXIy/w

In my opinion if you had access to safe medical care you did have a ‘choice’. The women before Roe vs. Wade had none.

Not why we have laws

Jill Miller Zimon — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:26:21 -0500

The manipulations of laws to enforce certain behavior some choose to name "moral" or "immoral" is not what the purpose of the law is intended to be. The annals of law in this country are to ensure that as a conglomerate of individuals with a range of interests and beliefs we can live without constant civil war and threats of annihilation. The basis for forming a society and a government can be studied and have been studied for eons, but unless you are suggesting, Sarah, that the USA is a theocracy that uses the King James or other Christian-only bible (as opposed to the Koran, the Torah or other religious texts), this country's legal system is not used well when it's used to enforce or define what is morally okay or impermiissable.

I write pretty regularly about what a lousy job our laws do when they try to legislate social behavior and the range of opinions and perspectives in this thread are precisely the reason why our legislators should be spending their time on job creation, the economy, helping those who will always need help and so on.

I appreciate anyone who knows what they believe and works to maintain a consistency in their life related to what they believe. But when what you believe becomes the basis of what you want to legislate as what I should believe, or else? Nuh-uh.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Nicely said Anissa

Angie The Average — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:55:41 -0500

I tried to talk about education, but you said very nicely. This debate will continue forever, I don't care how nice or eloquently someone posts their side, they will always feel that they have the best arguement and everyone else needs to abide.

If you really want to travel down that road and make it legally a "baby" from conception, then you must be fair to all and start including the fathers rights. The fathers have to pay child support from the second the child is born, right. Thats their responsibility. What if the father wants custody of the child?

There are soo many things to consider that would have to be "exceptions". How are we supposed to tell who can have one and who can't? Will there be a questionaire? Fill out this form and please tell a complete stranger that you would like an abortion because daddy likes you better than mommy.

Also I don't why Pro- Life has a problem will the morning after pill? Hello that would stop alot of abortions, and it occurs BEFORE conception. Just like the pill, it does'nt kill anything. I would think you guys would like it. No RIPPING< SUCKING<etc.... involved. Everyone has done their homework so you know conception can take up to 3 days after intercourse.

I really hope everyone is prepared for the fall-out. Taking away the immediate choice is not going to solve the situation, telling us how inhumane, cruel, loose, and other choice words will not change our minds no matter how smart or nicely put. Funny thing is, I'm still on the fence. Yes, I think it's horrible and I also think that there are situations where it needs to be a safe viable option.

So far no one has answered my question of who has either adopted or fostered? You can't expect all these babies to come into the world and be taken care of properly. I think that a better plan needs to be made before bringing in thousands of unwanted children. I can't imagine dying in a dumpster is less tragic then being taken from the womb.

If Pro-Life really cares about the babies, then you need to come up with a better plan on what to do with the consequences.

I'm nt a very good writer, my puctuation is avaerage at best, but I hope I got my point across.

As someone else has written, I used to be pro now I'm not. She wanted to express the feelings of PRO-Life without the name calling and so on. In the end, although smartly and well written, it came down to the same I'm RIGHT and you're wrong. Well this is from the other side, not quite as well written, but all the same.

PRO-CHOICE does not mean Murderers, and other names. I can not speak for all but I can see both sides and sympathize. I will not take it upon myself to tell others how to live, and we can see the many degrees of difficulty of this problem. I will not compare abortion to Hitler or cancer or any other attrocity that has occured, that my friends in plain wrong, I consider that spewing hatred against those who think differently, and does not bring women together.

Like Anissa has said, Education including birth control, is the answer. Not taking away the choices we have.

ANISSA, keep being strong. My son was in the hospital for 3 months and I saw the pain and agony other parents went through. I feel for and your child, best of luck.

Who knows, maybe it's better these babies go straight to heaven instead of having to walk through hell first.

It's only a part of you...

VDog — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:04:00 -0500

until you poop it out.

(Like this comment I find that argument totally ridiculous.)

Victoria, aka VDog
http://www.vdogblog.com

Who's right is right for me?

AnissaMayhew — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:15:23 -0500

I am neither amoral or agnostic and I go against a lot of Christian beliefs in saying that I am pro-choice. I am the mother of 3 fantastic kids, my first was a surprise baby that I CHOSE to not abort, but I was able to make that decision based on all of my options. I am in a day to day battle with my baby's cancer, so I can 100% say that I value the lives of my children...more than my own. I believe my children are gifts and blessings and miracles.

I will never forget that during my second pregnancy a test came back
positive that my daughter would be born with Down's Syndrome and they
wanted me to come in and talk about my "options". I chose not to
address those test results because there would never have been a
difference in my choice to carry to full term and to love my child.
However, it AGAIN, was a choice made knowing that I had options should
I feel I needed them.

I also believe that my body is mine. If at any point I give someone else the right to tell me what I can do with my reproductive rights, when do we cross the line that after telling me I HAVE to have a baby, do you tell me I CAN'T have one if I want. We have to realize that your body is your most sacred possession, to care for it or to abuse it is a decision only you can make. To allow someone the right to tell you how to use your body is a rape of that right.

I wholeheartedly agree that teaching responsibility, accountability and educating about these issues is the core of what will put abortion clinics out of business...never the stamping of feet and beating of religious morals.

Anissa Mayhew

www.hope4peyton.org

www.onevoiceproject.ning.com

Freedom

Adriennevh — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:03:25 -0500

Because we "choose" to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, that means we are all entitled to our own "truths". Your truths are not mine and mine are not yours. I would never dream of making you make a choice that wasn't right for you and your family. What gives you the right to make me make a decision of what is what for me and my family?

I'm going out on a limb here, but I would guess that the (and I'll say it because it has been said the other way many times on here) Radical Evangelical Conservatives that are trying to force away my choice here, are also po'd about gay marriage being legalized. And holy cow, did you know that Marijuana is legal in California too? Bet that just blows your mind. As small and closed as it is.

My open minded Heartily Conservative uncle did a blog today about what constitutes an open mind. http://jgbeau.blogspot.com/2008/07/are-you-open-minded.html

Yes, your truths hurt, but I am strong and brave, and I know my own truths, in my own heart. So all I have lft to say to you is "whatever".

Because...

zchamu — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:19:16 -0500

A fetus isn't a human being under the law, nor is it one functionally or in our society. A fetus is is a clump of cells that has potential to become a human being, but a lot of things have to go right for it to actually become a human being.

If a fetus is a human being, we would have funerals when women miscarried at 8, 12. 16 weeks. We don't. We grieve the potential, what might have been. We are saddened, if the child was wanted. But we do not hold a funeral. We do not issue a birth certificate. A fetus is not a child.

Women have been casting out unwanted children from their wombs for centuries. This isn't a modern phenomenon. If we are truly an enlightened society, we would eliminate the circumstances that caused women to need to cast these children out, rather than berate the women for making the decisions they had to make.

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick (all that's green, cool and Canadian).

Adriennevh, I admire your bravery.

lildb — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:01:48 -0500

Thank you for sharing your story. What hard decisions those must have been.

((((you))))

Blows my mind

Angie The Average — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:59:53 -0500

It blows my mind that you think that type of comment is going to get people to change their mind.

For all the names and labels you put upon pro-choice, in the end the Anti's look like the cold hearted.

"Choice" is a Euphemysm

FamilyValuesTustin — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:47:00 -0500

I fear that if I speak my mind about the issue in general that my words will be hurtful. I wish there were a way to do this without that risk, but there isn't. Truth is truth.

Your first decision was to kill a child to save it from the pain of being born into your life. Your second decision was to give a child to another family to avoid the pain of being killed.

The second decision is admirable, not the first.

It blows my mind how women will justify killing a baby by claiming it was what was "best" for the child. Seriously, how bad of a person would you have to be in order to rightly claim that your child would be better off dead than raised by you? There are maybe only a handful of such creatures in our entire society - people so bad that death is better than being raised by them.

If there really were such an ethic in our society, then why do we take children away from bad parents and give them to foster parents? Why not just kill them? Honestly, if the ethics of abortion are sound, then we could justifiably terminate bad parents' parental rights and then murder the kids. It's the same decision. The only difference is the timing.

I would challenge any person to justify the ethics of abortion while recognizing that the fetus is a human being. Frankly, you can't.

Abortion is Barbaric

BackyardConservative — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:51:32 -0500

There is nothing enlightened about abortion. And now that cameras can see into the womb, life is undeniable. Now that preemies survive life outside the womb at a younger age than many of those aborted, the barbarism of this practice is clear to those who have eyes to see.

As a matter of advancing the cause of women, why is someone who treats her body as a commodity to be admired?

Why is a woman with so little self-respect as to have sex without commitment to be admired?

Why is a woman who has so little care for her child that she would sentence her to death be lauded as enlightened?

No. A thousand times no.

Abortion is a moral wrong.

Feminists scream about choice, but what choice does this child have, ripped from life?

And do you know the leading cause of death in black America?

Roe v. Wade should be overturned, if only to turn this debate back to the states--which is all it does. Abortions do not suddenly become illegal if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it merely restarts the arrested development of the debate summarily cut off by the courts from the people back in 1973.

There are arguments that need to be resolved, and it's long past time.

Women have more opportunity now than in the early ’70’s. Surely fair-minded observers will note that feminism in the US has largely succeeded from an economic and educational standpoint. To bear a child as a single mom these days brings no shame, though the breakdown of the family was one of several negative cultural consequences, including abortion:

One of the greatest ways women have devalued children is by accepting abortion. A respected feminist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, once said “"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

Overseas, abortion is associated with sex selection, which more than likely leads to the abortion of girls. During this election process, talk of the hanger coming back is fear-mongering. While abortions are in decline in the US, abortion pills have made the process easier, the internet as well. Of course, all this has unintended consequences--the ease and social complicity in sexualizing younger and younger girls, their being abused by older men, or in some cases coerced by members of their own family to have abortions or take abortion pills--a significant number with life-threatening or even fatal consequences--I guess I should say not just fatal for the baby.

I am not absolutely opposed to abortion for any reason, but the start of the debate should recognize that abortion snuffs out innocent life.

Putting a baby on death row for the crime of simply being conceived is pure evil.

And repeated use of abortion as birth control is criminal.

There are alternatives.

In all honesty, can we really look our daughters in the eye, or sons for that matter, and tell them that living a sexually hedonistic lifestyle is just fine, all about "personal fulfillment" and without hurtful consequences? That some lives are more "equal" than others? That is the unacknowledged subtext of being pro-abortion.

A society that holds life so cheaply is not admirable. It is neither enlightened nor civilized. It is not a guardian of individual and civil liberty when it so easily sanctions robbing its most vulnerable and innocent of life.