Hampered

Wow. You really want to start an abortion discussion here?
OK, I’ll bite. If women were totally free to make their own decisions, roughly how many abortions immediately before labor would be performed in this country per year? Does that really even need to be debated, or is this more like a “but what if the terrorist knows exactly where the bomb is, and we can find out only by torturing him” argument?

Okay, I know that at 9 months pregnant, I wasn’t ready for him to be born, wasn’t ready for me to be a mom, and absolutely wasn’t willing to be pregnant ONE MORE DAY.

But I knew he was a human being.

However, at three months pregnant, I had the option of aborting and I was in an abusive relationship, and I had to really think it through. Seriously and hard and honestly.

My son knows, whatever else is true in his life, that having him was MY choice. He was in no way forced on me, he was wanted. But my best friend in the same situation made a different choice, and I never stopped loving her and she may have questioned her choice, but it was her choice to make, not mine. And I respect that.

So give me choice any day. Every day.

Pope Benedict XVI told reporters last month that Catholic legislators in Mexico who had recently voted to allow abortion had effectively excommunicated themselves from the church. A Vatican spokesman immediately issued a clarifying statement saying that politicians who voted for abortion rights should “exclude themselves from communion.”

Is it just me or are the greasiest, slimiest, most vile, bloodless, and truth deficient jerks the ones who become spokespersons? Apparently I’m going to be mercilessly edited the rest of my miserable life - the down side of being pope. Mary, Mother of God!!!

What I find interesting is the way that Giuliani’s marital and extra-marital history is glossed over, as is Newt’s, and a host of other Republican politicians. And then there’s the occupation of Iraq which, if I recall correctly, Pope Benny’s predecessor was opposed to. Any word yet on this one’s opinion of it? I just listened to a snippet of an NPR story today about Iraqi parents who take their horribly bomb-injured children to Jordan and Syria for surgery and medical treatment that they cannot get at home, and once again I just wanted to scream.

“foreign policy novice w/ an authoritarian streak”? Hillary?
Nothing like a new family member to change one’s mind on abortion. It’s abhorrent.
Siobhan, my wren are nesting again, is this normal? This time they prefer the camo fanny pack to the batting helmet.

Oh, and Adam - if you want to get some idea of what you just let out of the box, after you read DBB’s post, read all the comments …

Not a person until the mental capacity to speak is present. Birth is just a convenient shorthand.

(placing the liquor bottles back up on the bar (with shot glasses for the crowd) while still hiding behind it)

(slowly peeping head out and reluctantly clearing throat)

Can’t believe I’m actually entering the fray, but I was thinking about this a bunch this afternoon

I have my own feelings about the issue (and not surprisingly given my presence on this blog they’re generally prochoice), but the strongest one is that whether it’s life and death issues like the death penalty or abortion, or lifestyle isses like going back to work or staying home once kids or born, or many many other examples people can use, the world is not always black or white.

You can feel incredibly strongly about something and believe that you know what is right (or at least what is right for you), but until you are in the actual situation, you will never know. I’ve met fervent pro-choice activists who found that when the time/situation came, they had a visceral reaction to the idea of terminating their pregnancy. I’ve met dyed-in-the-wool folks from the other side who were faced with a pregnant rape victim relative or a 14-year-old who got too serious with her boyfriend, or a friend who was in a terrible economic situation and wouldn’t be able to provide for her child and realized that the best way for all was to go ahead with the abortion.

You can see folks in the news who preach against the death penalty until their sister/niece/daughter is raped and murdered by a serial offender or people who believe executions are justice that have a change of heart after meeting people on death row.

And I have numerous examples of girlfriends who either a) were sure that they wanted to be career women and go back to work after their babies were born who realized once they started taking care of their kids that home was absolutely where they needed/wanted to be and b) those who had always believed that they should/wanted to be home to raise their child fulltime and started it and realized that it wasn’t a healthy or right solution for them.

So what’s the point of this longwindedness? It probably will still not satisfy and might even offend those on the firm end of either side of the argument, but I’ve just come to the conclusion in life that very few of those things that seem absolute and black and white are always so. And the best I can do is to stay true to what I believe is the right thing to do, but be aware never to get too smug about it knowing that someday, the chess pieces might switch and what was right might seem wrong.

(and before you accuse me of moral relativism or anything goes permissiveness or of having no sense of right or wrong — that wasn’t my point. I believe I have a pretty well defined sense of what I believe to be right and wrong. I’m just also aware of the fact that I don’t know everything and haven’t experienced everything and that my world view on some things could change with life experiences)

So I agree with those above that say that it’s the person in the situation who in the end will know what ‘right’ is, but even more so with Adam that the position one supports is not always right 100% of the time and the hardest conversations are those that deal with those chinks in the armor.

(ducking back down behind the bar and covering my head with my arms)

Actually, Adam, objecting to or deviating from Papal rhetoric is a sin. Hold out your hand - whack! whack! whack! whack! whack! Now 150 “Hail Marys”. Go, child, and sin no more.

(Hee! Hee! Damn, that’s fun! It’s good to be Pope!)

The only real “common ground” is easy access to birth control, and the Religious Wrong has proven time after time that that’s not what they are really interested in. What they are really interested in is controlling women’s bodies and women’s lives. The most chilling part of the recent Supreme Court ruling on this matter is the implication that a pregnant woman cannot make rational decisions for herself. This is the start of a very slippery slope.

Boomer, what a fabulous graph! Scary.

Adam, of course I should have realized you knew what you were doing.

Sharon, you hit on a very good point. The best solution for abortion, of course, is birth control - if conception never happens until everybody is ready for it, then we don’t have these issues. And the best solution for birth control, along with the obvious chemicals, is education, preferably beginning at about age 11 for both genders. Knowledge is power. But the Religious Wrong (great term) does not regard women as full human beings with free will. As evidence I cite the common argument, from the Bible, that wives should submit to their husbands’ leadership; when the Southern Baptist Convention adopted this as its formal position, Jimmy Carter (to his great credit) left the church.

It’s important to note that the verse, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord”, does not come from the Gospels or the sayings of Jesus. It comes from Ephesians 5, and in a slight variant from Colossians 3; that means it comes from the letters of St. Paul. It doesn’t take a very deep reading of the writings of St. Paul to realize that the man hated and feared women, and wanted to keep them back in the house where he felt they belonged. He is the source of the requirement that women cover their hair and behave modestly so as not to distract men from their important work. I am continually astounded by the disconnect between the sayings of Jesus as reported in the Gospels, and the doctrine of the post-Crucifixion church as promulgated by St. Paul.

Sorry, I allowed a little Biblical exegesis to distract me from my point, which is that the state of mind which believes that women should submit to their husbands’ leadership, obviously doesn’t believe that women should be able to make independent decisions about whether or not to have children; and therefore, objects to sex education, to the use of birth control methods, and of course to abortion. All the flap about abortion being murder is merely camouflage for the real position which is that women should not be able to make important decisions because they are inferior to men.

Before I go to the front yard with the rest of the kooks…

Not a single woman in the world would wait until 9 months in to terminate a pregnancy. Not one. The only people who have had “partial birth abortions” were those who agonized over the decision because the mother’s life was in serious danger. It was the only option left.

Now, because of some sexually frustrated old men didn’t want that option available anymore, that option has been taken off the table. They put the life of the child ABOVE that of its mother. It is no longer the choice of the mother or her husband or their doctor. The Senate has made the choice. They have decreed on high that the child comes before its mother.

Most late term abortions were performed because the mother’s life was in danger. The choice to risk complications has been taken away. It is not my place to say this option should not available. Thus, in no way shape or form should the right to choose when to terminate a pregnancy be in anyone else’s hands but those intimately involved. If that means that I’m a kook — I plead guilty as charged!

I did forget to add that, waterfowler, but it was partly because all I seem to hear from the people talking about this issue is the first quote.

I give up on the comment I tried to post this morning and again this afternoon. Bon appetit, Fanny.

Thanks, DouglasG, for making a very important point that resonates with my family because of just such a situation for an uncle and aunt back in the 50s. My uncle was very troubled, but my mother asked him quite simply, if your wife dies, who will raise the 5 children you already have? My uncle made the right decision, a decision that I gather would now be prohibited by law. I regret that I was too young to know all the details and that everyone who could give me a full picture of the event is now deceased. But I must ask, by what right does the government decree that a woman must face the real possibility of her own death to deliver a fetus, regardless of where the fetus is in the gestation period. I take nothing away from Laura Bush’s courage and determination to give birth to Barbara and Jenna, but since when should a decent government decree that she do so when the possibility of her own death was very real?

Yes, I am more than willing to hear any and all views on abortion, but I think the majority of Americans actually lean toward compassion and common sense, not blind ideology. Yes, waterfowler, I think your attitude toward abortion is blind ideology, and if you have any daughters, it is hard for me to imagine that you would prefer one of them to die rather than have an abortion because the fetus is a real threat her life. And I have seen the prayer route in action when a young couple who were friends were told that a pregnancy would likely kill the woman. They prayed, they concluded that God gave his blessing to the pregnancy, she became pregnant, and the pregnancy killed her. They were both God-fearing, religiously devout, and very good human beings. The doctors gave good advice. Would you or would you not have preferred an abortion if, when she became pregnant, it was medically quite clear that she would die because of the pregnancy?

Thanks, DouglasG. I didn’t think there was any likelihood of that scenario either, but Adam thinks it should be discussed. OK, we’re discussing it. If a woman wants to have an abortion just before labor begins (and there aren’t any physical health issues), she’s emotionally or otherwise disturbed—and a law against it isn’t going to stop her.

Is anyone surprised that WF thinks pregnant women aren’t rational? Funny how they’ve managed to survive through the entire history of human life, sometimes even without male oversight! While WF insults his wife, we’re left to ponder some of her other fundamental choices.

And if we start comparing lapses in reason, I could come up with any number of instances of male irrationality, many with much more far-reaching effects than an abortion. But that’s another topic.

Cooper, you beat me to the punch; but this is good, too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_ main.html?name=Toles&date=06262007

By the way, did you know Ayn Rand was a Rooskie? Born Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum. And that she threw rocks through living room windows like a girl?

I tell you, a girl goes out on a Tuesday night for a couple of beers and when she gets back to her computer, she finds out that she’s been beaten to the punch. I used to be the comic queen. No more. Oh well, maybe I can be the blog’s next political junkie. And another bites the dust…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070626/griles-abramoff/

We have a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade 5-4. I think that is pretty clear. We will either elect representatives, senators, and a president who will pass and sign legislation reflecting whatever is the most reasonable position to the majority of Americans regarding abortion, or as Adam correctly observes, American women will lose the right to an abortion altogether, and then only the wealthy will have access to safe abortions.

Viability is a moving target and artificial wombs a looming reality for a number of reasons, and we are confronted not just with the question of a woman’s right to choose but also who has ownership authority over the fetus? Coupled with this is the very troubling question that Adam raises: in the case of which abortions does the death of a person occur? Can reasonable people arrive at a reasonable consensus on these issues? In America? I don’t know. I know that every abortion of which I am personally aware was, in my judgment, a reasonable choice, and in the judgment of a dearly beloved cousin, murder.

We cannot win this one in the courts, nor will the two sides change their minds. The somewhat passive middle group will have to become someone’s ally, although it can just passively let whatever happens happen. I think the general sentiment of this group is to allow whatever they consider to be reasonable abortions, but I have no idea how that will play out in elections, and ultimately elections determine where we go as a body politic. Sadly, reasoned debate apparently does not.

Ann, when life begins IS precisely the issue. Tumors are alive also, but no one objects to their removal.

If we were all to agree that life begins at conception, then few would want to end a life at any stage of growth up until after college, (OK other than parents at various stages), if we agreed that life begins at birth, than who cares if a 9 month fetus is aborted. The problem is that people DON’T agree when it is a new life and deserves rights and protection.

Each camp has its absolute knowledge that life begins at one end or the other of the pregnancy continuum. I’m just saying that a good place to look would be the beginning of Brain waves.

I don’t believe that life is sacred. That would require a belief in a deity to confer what is sacred. (Always interpreted by some person or other). But I do believe in right or wrong. My own belief is that a pregnancy past the first 3 months is a potential new life and should be seen that way. If this child were mine or my grandchild, I would do what I could to see to it that the child comes to term. That being said I don’t want the government to make that decision and if the mother insisted it would ultimately be her choice.

David, I’m afraid you misread my attitude. I would not prefer that any woman die during child birth. My wife would’ve died had it not been for modern medicine & C-sections. The problem is that Planned Parenthood deems the “health” terminology to mean “on demand”. How do we prevent that? If the life of the mother is truly @ stake, I’m all for the doctor’s intervention. But, we’d have to agree on the hurdles to get to that point.
Lighten’ up Ann. I just happened to be the one that thought it out loud.
David, where is the aclu on the fairness doctrine? Wouldn’t it infringe on free speech?
Howdy, Mr. Coop. Been wonderin’ where you’ve been.

There’s another point we’re all dancing around here, on the subject of viability; so let’s lay it out on the table and stare at it.

Assume we reach a point where “snowflake babies” (what an awful term), or any fetus that might otherwise be aborted, can be transplanted into artificial wombs and brought to term, even though the mother is (for any reason) unable to care for the child(ren). Who is going to raise those children? Who will wipe their bottoms, cuddle them when they cry, take them to the doctor when they’re sick, make sure they do their homework, put aside money so they can go to college? If the mother can’t or won’t raise the child (and if she could, we wouldn’t be having this discussion), WHO WILL? The hell with what happens to the fetus - what happens to the CHILD??

I’m continually annoyed by discussions of the horrors of abortion in which the discussion of the child’s welfare stops cold as soon as the little critter is out of the womb. Oops, you’re on your own now, kid - don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

The 19th century, due to the high mortality rate coupled with the Victorian conscience, had orphanages for children who had no parents to care for them. Read Charles Dickens on the subject; they weren’t nice places.

I’m probably over-reacting here (too much science fiction), but what appalls me about this whole “snowflake baby” movement is the possibility that these embryos could be brought to term in their incubator wombs and raised in centralized facilities with a minimum of care and training, to be servants, and do the menial jobs currently being done by illegal immigrants. (I think we’re in Brave New World here, and we all know that’s fiction; just as 1984 was fiction…)

It probably wouldn’t happen; but don’t kid yourself that it’s impossible, especially if you consider that the whole setup could be located outside the U.S. How about Myanmar? North Korea?

Mr. Fowler, I’m right here, an organized bundle of electrons, as always. Stay dry, brother. Send a bit of that rain our way, okay?

Someone throws a rock… Which strikes the pate of the self-righteous Ayn Rand, God willing. Ah, I remember the days when I thought Ms. Rand a genius, after reading Atlas Shrugged. I was but a mere prat. Then I grew up and realized that we are all in this together, and recognized Ms. Rand for the selfish prig that she was.