BlogHer - soldiers - Comments

Pro-choice

Suzanne Reisman — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:13:16 -0500

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I think the whole point of being pro-choice is that you support every woman's right to make a decision for herself based on her life circumstances and her beliefs and values. Many people who are pro-choice would not opt for abortions either if they discovered that they are unintentionally pregnant. But we do not feel comfortable insisting that everyone has to act as we do. I think that is why we are pro-choice rather than pro-abortion. (And I think that no one really wants to have an abortion.)

Dr. Tiller was special because, in the face of extreme violence against himself and family, he helped women who made the hardest choices they ever had to make in their entire lives. I think he was a saint.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

So much to consider

JennSpastic — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:34:13 -0500

This abortion topic has come up in so many of the blogs I've been reading, I suppose this is due to Dr. Tiller's death. Reading all of these different thoughts and beliefs has forced me to take a close look at my own. I had asked one blogger, when we went to discussion about it, if I could be Pro-Choice and Christian at the same time.

She had made an attempt to educate others on what it really means to be Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. And she made the statement that in order to be Pro-Life you must be TOTALLY against abortion in any circumstance. Period. I had never even considered such a narrow-minded view, especially on such a complicated subject.

I had always considered myself to be Pro-Life because I do believe that a fetus is living. Without interference "it" has the potential to become a very successful being. But this is from my own personal BELIEF that I can't ever imagine MYSELF having an abortion. But it is not to say that I believe we should remove a person's choice. Something that concerns me with the Pro-Life movement is the lack of provision for the child after birth. While I don't condone being sexually irresponsible or using abortion as a birth control method, there is no denying that things just happen. Some things are beyond a person's control. I, for one, could not say that a person should be forced to have their rapist's baby, for example. Even with the argument that the mother could have the baby and give it up for adoption, what about the psychological and emotional toll this would take- for starters. And has it been considered what kind of effect that emotional strain would cause for the fetus? What about the emotional stability of the child who is given away? Sure, sometimes babies find great homes and grow up to be very well-adjusted adults, but it doesn't always work that way. Has it been considered what this child's life would be like once born and placed into the system for adoption? What about the financial effects on an already shaky economy?

While I believe in the potential of a fetus to become a healthy new born baby I can also see the other side. We live in a country where we have the luxury of choice. I call it a luxury because not all countries could claim the same. Who would want to live in a country where they are limited to the amount of children they can have and be forced to kill/abort any additional babies? In the same way that you wouldn't want to be forced to kill your baby how can you say that it's ok to force someone to carry an unwanted child no matter the consequence to the mother, or the child after it is born.

*And I do find it quite appalling when people use God to support this belief that anyone has the right to force a person to do anything. I was sort of under the impression that God offered us all choice. He didn't force people to follow him. He gave us the choice and advised us not to judge others lest we be judged just as harshly ourselves. (I will be stepping off my soapbox now.)*

So, I am wondering what this makes me. I can only assume that it makes me Pro-Choice because I can't see any of these points of view being accepted by the Pro-Lifers. Does this mean I am going straight to Hell along with Dr. Tiller?

Please note that I did bold "belief" because the abortion debate isn't really a matter of opinion so much as it is belief. There isn't any scientific evidence for or against the human soul; it is either believed that we have a soul or not believed. In the same way, it is a matter of belief whether or not abortion is acceptable.

Late term abortion

Suzanne Reisman — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:27:46 -0500

Late term abortions are complicated situations. I would prefer that women did not need to have later term abortions at all, just as I would prefer that we could prevent 100% of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Why do people have later term abortions? There are many reasons. Some people don't know that they are pregnant until the first trimester is over. Some people want to get an abortion early, but can't afford it and in the time it takes to gather the resources to pay for it, they suddenly find themselves later in the pregnancy. Some people have to drive hundreds of miles to the nearest clinic, which requires them to take time off work, arrange for child care for their families (if they already have kids, and a good percent of women seeking abortions already do), and gather the money, and the time it takes on these logistics again pushes them farther along.

The other cases for late term abortions are due to health issues. Many tests can't be done until 20 weeks. Sometimes after a problem is detected, it takes a lot of follow up to determine if the problem is correctable. In these cases, women have been planning a pregnancy and make the decision to alleviate suffering that would be caused if they carried to term. Or if the fetus would die in utero. Or if the mother's life or health is at risk.

It is not my business to judge women for the decisions that they need to make. To me, not bringing a child into the world who can't be cared for or who will suffer is a responsible decision. To say that one should never have sex unless she can accept that she might have a kid as a result is ludicrous. Unlike other species, we don't just go into heat when it is time to reproduce, so your analogy is not accurate.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

Just curious...

makeohiored — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:01:26 -0500

Do you believe late-term abortion is a right? If this is all about a woman's body and there's nothing but a clump of cells in there, she should have the right to remove it up until the last minute, correct? Or is there a point when the fetus becomes viable in your mind, which means that it may be "alive" before it's born?

Though I'm against abortion in any form, I will grant the cases of safety of the mother (like conjoined twins, sometimes one life must be lost for another to be viable) and rape (because I think it can be linked to safety of the mother, in this case emotional safety). So I can weave reason into my argument, even though I'm (in your eyes) a knuckle-dragging anti-women's rights activist. And, it can just as easily be said that people who DON'T believe a fetus is a baby and a life are going to believe that, no matter what.

I understand personal matters. People make choices...and there is responsibility that comes with actions. Anywhere else in the animal kingdom it's pretty obvious that sex is about procreation. We always talk about women's right to choose after the fact...how about responsibility for her actions in the first place? (Then again, I don't knokw why I expect people who equate human life to uterine liposuction to be able to distinguish these types of nuances, but that's another story altogether.)

Good

Nordette — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:07:52 -0500

Now that that's settled, will you please leave me alone? I think I've suggested this before.

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer CE & you can find her other stuff through Her 411.

Yet another sigh from you

Norma156 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:10:08 -0500

Yet another sigh from you Nordette? AND the energy for an "Oh, brother." How tough it must be...how tiring...how wearisome...how...oh, boring...and inconvenient to be asked to back up assertions when you make them or to respond to comments when you make them.

I do hope your vitamins are full potency since you seem to need them so. But, you win, lucky you. Because I, too, am feeling fatigue, boredom and not a little disgust at your intellectual posturing, vacuity and laziness. Self-described passion doesn't mask these sins in a writer.

So, I won't read or comment on your posts further. And, don't bother replying...you seem to need all your energy.

Hope you never find another critical reader. You seem to have such trouble with them.

sigh

Nordette — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:05:32 -0500

Oh, brother.

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer CE & you can find her other stuff through Her 411.

Nordette--Somehow every

Norma156 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:10:37 -0500

Nordette--Somehow every response I make becomes very personal...and oh so very tiresome for you. And...yet...I thought part of the reason you post is to elicit reaction and commentary...but it seems to tire you so.

Listen to me for a change. You bolded the word choice in your post. Unless it was a mistake, you meant something by it. I made the logical assumption about what you meant and then tried to show that Tiller also made choices. If you want to be opaque now or say that bolding the word didn't mean anything or accuse me of the Rush Limbaugh school of quotation...fine. But don't fault me for reacting to something you wrote and thought was important enought to bold face.

As for your "passion." I'm fine with passion if you write it with clarity and purpose. I don't regard what you wrote in your original post as clear or productive and in fact I think it is below what I know you are capable of...that is, Nordette, I think you are capable of clear thinking in addition to your passion about various subjects.

I hope I'm clear so I'll say it again. I think you write well on a number of issues, however, you sometimes allow yourself these unproductive, vemonous and self-indulgent rants. And, yes, I occasionally, not often, but sometimes call you on them. You can do better.

"You seem to think you score points for pointing out that people are
angry or feel passionately about subjects. What the hell is that about?
No need to answer the last question. That's between you and you." I don't have any idea what you're talking about here. What is between you and me??? Nothing, I hope, but an occasional dialogue and a genuine effort at least on my part to understand a point of view that is different from my own. And, it's because I make the effort to understand you that I sometimes react critically to things you write. That I do make an effort to understand you is a compliment to you.

Just to be clear

Nordette — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:29:01 -0500

The phrase "smirking hypocrisy" is specifically referencing criticism and the chastising of one blogger about the use of the word "hate." It is not a statement about beliefs about abortion but the pretense that there's no hate of pro-choice people in the pro-life movement. Clearly there is guaging by some of the pro-life people's rhetoric following Tiller's murder.

Now, the second to the last paragraph of my comment you referenced does indeed allude to hypocrisy of another sort, but the adjective "smirking" is not applied to it because I don't think pro-lifers are smirking when they're talking specifically abortion. I think they're smirking when they take to rapping their opponents on the knuckles about civility and the use of language. I don't care that pro-lifers use sarcasm and sniping. I think people should be who they are, but if you're going to be who you are then you should let other people be who they are too.

The abortion debate is a bloody discussion, and I think it's one on which there will never be compromise because people who believe a fetus is also a baby and a life are going to believe it no matter what. The science doesn't matter because there will never be science that proves or disproves the existence of God and the human soul.

Neither can science change people's opinions when it comes to believing that they have the right to regulate other people's choices about personal matters. You either believe you have the right to make choices for other people or you don't. And history shows us that when you throw religious beliefs into the mix, folks who think they have the right to rule others' lives are only more emboldened to do so because they think they speak for God.

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer CE & you can find her other stuff through Her 411.

Civil discussion

makeohiored — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:00:37 -0500

Though pro-life myself, I read this blog and found enlightening points made. I do think that those who call out Bill O'Reilly but never chastise those who called W. "Hitler" are only seeing one side of the story, but I digress.

What I take exception to is the final line. Apparently the science is over, and it has been determined that a fetus has no feeling, is unsustainable, and therefore is not "life" until the exact moment it pops out of the mother. Or perhaps, since the doctors may need to suction out liquid until it can cry, perhaps it isn't REALLY alive until it gives that first cry. Now I understand that, despite my college degree, I am unable to understand nuances because I don't believe the same thing the eminent Dr. Reisman (I'm assuming the MD part because of her expert medical testimony) does about human life. Yet it's the pro-life crowd that owns the monopoly on "smirking hypocrisy" (as your fellow blogger states)...

Pvt Long versus tiller

yotuelellostodos — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:21:28 -0500

along the way it became long vs tiller that is ridiculous ive never responded to any article in this manner but when i was reading a nonrelated "news" story i came across a poll that asked if the lllleffffft should acknowledge Private Longs' murder this angered me because the leftists state run media barely mentioned his murder but reveled in the untimely passing of dr tiller. so now ive come to your she blog to write this Private Long signed up to defend every American life and this may have put him in a situation to kill a few enemies trying to wipe out his life or that of his fellow soldiers---this may or may not have ever happened we will never know --- what we do know though is that dr tiller definitely profited from murdering as many babies as he could between normal business hours

Tiller and Long

wuggaslady — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:47:09 -0500

I appreciate the points made in the original post.

In both cases, murder was committed, families and friends mourn and those of us who learn of the events are saddened by the events and angry with the perpetrators.

The notion that either individual deserved to be murdered is offensive.

The original post points to a series of differences between both cases, which does not in any way imply that either murder was justified. It does point to a significant difference in the two murders, that speaks volumes of the more ... uh... passionate people involved in the "pro life" movement. Namely, the celebration of Dr. Tiller's death by those who claim they were doing God's work.

How can they claim that they are pro life, with the exception of those who perform legal medical proceedures that the said pro-lifers disagree with? Reasonable people will note the inconsistency. The thing is there are a disturbing number of unreasonable people out there.

Please stop projecting

Nordette — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:34:07 -0500

You close with the assertion that Pvt. Long made the choice
to serve in the military and although not explicit, your implication is
that because of that choice he was somehow complicit in his murder.

Whoa! Really? You read all that into the bolding of the word "choice." What it tells me is that you're projecting how you see Dr. Tiller's murder onto my words, that you feel he made a choice to perform abortions and got what he deserved because the full quote of what I said is:

No one should be murdered to make a point to a government or protest a policy or for his or her choice to serve in the military.

That is the opposite of what you say I mean.

What did you do, go to the Rush Limbaugh school of quotations?

I bolded the opening since you didn't see it the first time apparently.
Maybe you have a problem with any stand against extremist violence because the extremist may support whatever it is you believe.

Norma156, I don't even think our brains are wired the same way at this point. Can't prove it, but I'm gonna take it on faith that they're not. I said what I said and if you can't at least be honest enough to quote me in context, then why should I or anyone else, for that matter, bother answering you further?

And yes it was a rant. You seem to think you score points for pointing out that people are angry or feel passionately about subjects. What the hell is that about? No need to answer the last question. That's between you and you.

What I would like to say is that if you want me to keep defending that the sky is blue to you, Norma, (because you do seem compelled to respond to my comments asking for such a defense) you really should start sending me checks for my trouble. *Sigh.*

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer CE & you can find her other stuff through Her 411.

Nordette, having read

Norma156 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:12:36 -0500

Nordette, having read through your rant a couple of times, I wonder what opinion you are trying to get out there.

You say that the bloger who chastized another for using the word hate in the abortion discussion showed nothing but "smirking hipocrisy." That's one opinion and opinion is exactly what is it since you don't back up the charge by any fact at all and simply move on to the general assertion that there are people in the pro-life community who hate people in the pro-choice community.

Then you go on to say you're "sick of the self-righteous posturing, the holier-than-thou, we're-closer-to-god B.S" of the pro-life community and make a suggestion that these "whiners" move abroad or work in dangerous slums.

That's another opinion and very close to the opinion suggested by some people back in the bad old days that blacks who didn't like their treatment here should move abroad.It's an interesting echo, Nordette.

You close with the assertion that Pvt. Long made the choice to serve in the military and although not explicit, your implication is that because of that choice he was somehow complicit in his murder.

I'd point out that whether you agree with late term abortion or not and I don't, Tiller lived a brave and, according to his lights, a principled life. I think I recall reading there were two earlier attempts to kill him and numerous instances of harrassment. Despite this, he continued to operate his clinic. He must have known the risks but he made the choice to take them. Does that make him complicit in his murder, Nordette, in the way that you seem to believe Pvt. Long was?

As Mata points out, people don't mourn loss equally. However,questioning the motives of one group in such a vemonous way isn't productive. And that's my opinion.

So sick of the double standard

Nordette — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:57:23 -0500

I remember a post here in which a BlogHer CE who is pro-choice said something to the effect "you hate us and we hate you," which I took simply as use of colloquial speech. She was immediately chastised by a pro-lifer for using the word "hate," claiming that they don't hate anybody and lecturing her that she shouldn't hate them either.

This kind of "tsk, tsk" grandstanding gets on my last nerve because of its smirking hipocrisy. Some of them could probably argue that they mean sincerely that they hate no one but speak only for themselves. However, they can't deny that there are people in the pro-life community who hate people in the pro-choice community.

Shortly after that Dr. Tiller's murder was in the news and it was clear that some pro-lifers "hate" pro-choice people. How much hateful can you be than to applaud Dr. Tiller's murder? It's a matter of fact that he was a person. It's a matter of faith that a fetus that can't survive outside the womb is a person.

And now with this whining that pro-choice people didn't show enough outrage over Pvt. Long's death ... Really I'm sick of the self-righteous posturing, the holier-than-thou, we're-closer-to-god B.S. If you care that much about life move to India or Africa and dedicate yourself to saving the people who made it through the birth canal and breathe on this Earth now. Go into high crime, low-income neighborhoods and risk a bullet to save the living by helping however you can or at least stop complaining about any of your tax dollars that may go to save a living, breathing child. I know what I've said will make some of the same people who had words for the blogger who used the word "hate" spiral out of control and spit bullets, but I had to get that opinion out into the light.

Pvt. Long, may his soul rest in peace. No one should be murdered to make a point to a government or protest a policy or for his or her choice to serve in the military.

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer CE & you can find her other stuff through Her 411.

BlogHer - soldiers - Comments

Pro-choice

So much to consider

Late term abortion

Just curious...

Good

Yet another sigh from you

*sigh*

Nordette--Somehow every

Just to be clear

Civil discussion

Pvt Long versus tiller

Tiller and Long

Please stop projecting

Nordette, having read

So sick of the double standard

sigh