I get the feeling that the pro life movement is more anti sex than anti abortion. I can't tell you how many times I've discussed the issue and heard pro lifers characterize young sexually active women as sluts and whores. They talk about motherhood as more of a punishment for promiscuity than a joyous and profound part of the human experience. Usually the slut talk comes out when you get them a little angry.

It's interesting that these beliefs are held by a patriarchal segment of society whom are usually pretty OK with violence, poverty, torture, the death penalty, war, shock and awe, etc. I'm convinced that this seeming conradiction isn't a contradiction at all, because this issue isn't about life, it's about power. More specifically, male power over female sexuality.

Sometimes I ask pro lifers (both genders) if they would be willing to carry a woman's unwanted unborn child for her in order to save its life, assuming technology advanced to a point where it was possible. "No, it's not my responsibility" is the common answer, which supports my gut feeling that this issue is not actually about life. Another argument I use is "would you be willing to financially support a poor pregnant mother?", which also ilicits some telling (read: ugly) responses ("I wouldn't want to give financial incentive to unwed motherhood.") Shifting the responsibility from the mother to the pro-lifer is a good way to get to the subconscious core of these belief systems.

If the pro life movement was a bit more pragmatic, I think they could find some compromise with the pro choice movement, because people on all sides of the issue find abortion tragic and traumatic. I think more restrictive abortion regulation might be accepted in trade for more honest, more effective, more present sex education, counseling and free and easy access to birth control. Abortion is a symptom of unwanted pregnancies. Child abuse and neglect are also symptoms of unwanted pregnancy. What if we combined movements and focused on the root cause? Then again, if I'm correct in my hunch that this issue has more to do with sex and power than life, sex ed and free rubbers would be more offensive than abortion itself.

Good stuff, bea.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I have a better idea to keep kids from fcuking, or at least have them think twice: end all welfare payments, "reduced price" welfare food and "free" childcare for anyone unmarried, under the age of 25. No more society having to foot the bill for bastards. Shouldn't you arrogant atheists be a little more supportive of personal responsibility, since, after all, you're the Ultimate Morality, not any kind of religious or moral teachings?


Did you miss the part where she puts forward that Sex Ed might decrease the rate of unwanted pregnancies? There by reducing the need for government assistance in teenage pregnancies, among other things?

So let me get this straight... not only will condoms keep me safe from STDs and unwanted pregnancies, they'll also protect me from spending eternity with a bunch of delusional, self-righteous Christians? Fuckin'-A, I'm gonna wear a condom 24 hours a day!

>> ^Drax:
Why is there a camera cut every time he finishes a sentence? Is he laughing between takes?


I'm guessing the cameraman couldn't hold it together for more than 2-3 sentences at a time. Whether he was laughing or passing out from a stupid OD remains unknown.

>> ^Lann:
So why not just use a condom or something that works better if that's the end goal?


It's precisely because rhythm method and pulling out are less effective that they promote them. They want their followers to "be fruitful and multiply" even if by accident.

Microsoft once admitted that they would rather people pirate their software than to legally obtain a competing product. Why? Because their monopolies would be protected. If you use MS Office, legal or not, you are still perpetuating vendor lock-in.

Completion of this analogy is left as an exercise for the reader.

>> ^NetRunner:
How about dropping our puritanical discomfort with our own bodies, and one of the more important and wonderful parts of human relationships?
I think our prudish behavior about sex leads to a large variety of our society's sex-related issues, be it unwanted pregnancies, the transmission of STDs, and possibly even some subset of sexual harassment or sexual assault.

I think this is spot on. America is really the only non-Islamic theocracy where someone pushing for the end to porn would be taken seriously, and I think NetRunner and QM are spot on in that it stems from a puritanical religious streak. Further, I have no proof but I'd bet my last pair of pants that this is also the reason why porn is such a huge business in America.

The sickening hate for the human body evidenced by so many religious people is, I guarantee you, more psycologically damaging than porn.

>> ^thepinky:
Alcohol, cigarettes, and fatty foods are very, very different from porn. Cigarettes aren't as addictive as porn. 8-year-old don't often access alcohol from their computer chairs and become addicted for the remainder of their lives. Fatty food manufacturers aren't emotionally scarred and degraded. The only comparable example that you gave is drugs, and the illegal drug industry is almost as bad as porn. It is destructive to both creator and consumer.
Nothing good comes from fatty foods? I LOVE fatty foods! I can eat fatty foods without becoming addicted. My pizza consumption doesn't hurt anyone but me. The same cannot be said of porn.

There's so much wrong with this post. First, alcohol and nicotine develop physical dependency. Alcohol withdrawal, unlike many drug withdrawals, can actually kill you. A person can be psycologically addicted to porn but it is exactly that, psychological. Don't even compare those.

Next, a good parent is aware of what their child is looking at on the internet. An 8 year-old getting porn is a sign of bad parenting. That said, I'd much rather an 8 year old saw the completely natural sight of a naked body, even in the act of sex, than see half of the violence in the average movie/video game.

Third, your pizza consumption (or at least some people's) does hurt people besides you... America is dying at continually younger ages of early onset heart disease, diabetes, etc., largely thanks to unhealthy diets. I guarantee you that fatty foods are not only physically responsible for more deaths in America than porn but also lead to more psychological problems in the people who develop negative body image thanks to that bad nutrition.

Doesn't she know that Stormy Daniels is already running for Senate?

Seriously though, while I'm all for improving the working conditions of any worker, but I think mostly they just need a Porn Actor's Guild/Union, and they'd be fine. Employee Free Choice Act, anyone?

As for banning porn itself, bad, bad idea.

How about dropping our puritanical discomfort with our own bodies, and one of the more important and wonderful parts of human relationships?

Porn caters to people's sexual fantasies. Getting rid of the porn doesn't get rid of the fantasy, it just removes a safe outlet (or alternatively, a convenient instructional video for your significant other).

I think our prudish behavior about sex leads to a large variety of our society's sex-related issues, be it unwanted pregnancies, the transmission of STDs, and possibly even some subset of sexual harassment or sexual assault.

>> ^Doc_M:
>> There is as I understand it a waiting list for people in the US to adopt newborn babies who are up for adoption. Think about it. If you were wanting a child and you could not have one for some unfortunate genetic or other reason, you'd want still to raise a child from infancy wouldn't you?

That kind of sounds like a plea to turn women with unwanted pregnancies into handy-dandy baby making machines.


Basically most completely infertile couples who wish to raise a child want an infant. And I don't doubt that if you told them "if you don't take this child it will be aborted," most of them would jump to and do many things to get the child. Most Americans (at least) by statistics don't like the idea of abortion and would like to raise an infant who would otherwise be so aborted.

I'd like to see your source on that. Last I heard, Americans were about 6.5 to 3.5 in favor of keeping abortion legal.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

>> ^rottenseed:
We don't need to populate anymore.

I can certainly agree with that, and also with the assertion that troubles in childhood can lead to criminal behavior later in life. I just don't think that your original comment supported any stance on abortion.

It said, in essence, that when population size decreases, so does the total number of crimes committed. That's fine as a simple observation, but if you try to use that as an argument for abortion then it tends to lead toward the logical conclusions I stated earlier. The "troubled childhood" argument is a bit stronger.



<tangent>

I don't think abortion is evil, just unfortunate. Terminating an "accidental" pregnancy isn't altogether different from not getting pregnant to begin with.

If someone chooses not to get pregnant then aren't they preventing a possible child from growing to maturity and enjoying life? I don't have any children, but I'm sure I could have produced well over 10 by now (assuming one partner, both starting at age 18). Is it a tragedy that those 10+ children will never live?

Within ~20 years we'll have easy and reliable methods for preventing accidental pregnancy, so the abortion issue will fade away once such methods become widespread and affordable. No unwanted pregnancies = no demand for abortions.

Until then we can perhaps concentrate on education and contraception to reduce the demand for abortion. Trying to outlaw it (or demonize it) would likely be about as successful as the War on Drugs.

</tangent>

So if I am walking through a dark alley when I'm hit over the head/tied-up/whipped, then it's my fault, and I have no moral recourse?

I again dismiss the attempt to draw moral equivalency. Pregnancy is not a mugging. The mugger is an adult who chooses to commit an act of violence. The fetus an innocent life incapable of decision making. Holding the mugger responsible for his crime is the just punishment of a guilty adult. Aborting an unwanted pregnancy is the unjust punishment of a guiltless child in-the-making. They are diametric opposites.

Please support that assertion, a fetus does harm and contributes nothing, even children do harm, as they are troublesome and expensive to raise. While reproducing benefits the genes, it does not benefit the individual.

Until you have gone through the process of child-rearing and parenting, then I fear you will have very little capacity to understand what I'm talking about. Mothers form intimate bonds with children that stretch across the gamut of their existence. Mental, physical, social, emotional - and this begins in the womb. Your terminology regarding children relegates them to the status of a wart or a tapeworm. My perspective ascribes more inherent value to a human child than that, and therefore we are at cross purposes.

People without children are happier/healthier/richer than people with them, and I can show you numbers to back that up if you doubt it.

Happier is a subjective term. Healthier could be quantified I suppose. Richer is also a bit subjective since it could be many things besides raw income and people with children have support networks & assets that single people do not. These days people can find 'internet statistics' to support any claim though I guess. I'll bite. What are yours?

And if this mother or father is black? Does your world view really require that all these fetuses be white? Your little fairy story does not work for non-white newborns.

What's race got to do with it? My caucasian sister & brother in law adopted a half african/american girl and she's a fantastic kid. Black families adopt white babies & vice-versa. It's not a big deal.

Is it morally superior to bring to term one potential human, or to save hundreds of actual fully developed humans?

I see no viable reason why you can't do both. Framing the issue as a dicotomy is illogical.

Have you never known somebody who was pregnant? Are you really arguing that being pregnant is free? Are you aware that, even for people with good health care, pregnancy has a higher fatality rate for the mother than abortion?

Yes. MANY. I've also seen the adoption process, and for the mother giving up the child the transaction very much is 'free'. The adoptive parents pay for the whole shebang (no pun intended). The stats on maternal mortality vs. abortive maternal mortality are mixed depending on who & how you look at.

^ You cons will always be like that.

You will always extol the sanctity of life until you find yourself in that position: facing an unwanted pregnancy.

Suddenly your views will change very drasticly when it is you, or your sister, or your daughter.

But that won't stop you from shitting on people in the interim.

Never has.

Who are you kidding? If you ever found yourself with an unwanted pregnancy, you would surely have an abortion, your selfishness makes that obvious.

I would never find myself in such a situation because I have the ability to direct the action that causes pregnancy. What children I have exist because they were wanted. Hypothetically, if I were to find myself involved in an 'unwanted pregnancy' then I would avail myself of the many adoption families clamoring for infant children.

Regardless, the tone of your comments reflect typical neo-lib logic when confronted with a fair, reasoned argument. Defeated on substance? Fall back on insults, aspersions, lies, and assorted ad hominems.

And we know they all did what they were accused of doing...

Different argument. There is no perfect system. Errors in the system are not a logical argument with which to justify the elimination of the system.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

My question to the "Pro-choice" or "Anti-Life" crowd is similar... What is the reason to HAVE an abortion when there are many other options available? I see abortion as the most extreme choice to be applied only in the most exigent of circumstances.


Who are you kidding? If you ever found yourself with an unwanted pregnancy, you would surely have an abortion, your selfishness makes that obvious.

You cons are all alike; you love sticking your nose into other people's lives, then get quite haughty when somebody does the same to you.

>> ^Sniper007:
It's really quite simple. It all depends on the point at which you consider an infant child a human.


I disagree. That is not the issue.

I have yet to meet a pro-choice person who says "infants aren't people so they don't matter." That just happens to be where the public discussion leads because it is a simple talking point.

A more appropriate discussion is how to reduce the number of abortions. Some people think that outlawing it will stop it from happening, but this is the same reasoning that compels us to continue drug prohibition. As long as there is a significant demand for a product/service then it is going to exist, illegal or not.

The real question is this: "Is punishing those who participate in abortions (doctors or patients) the best way to reduce the number of abortions?"

People on the pro-choice side tend to be very receptive to methods of reducing abortions that don't involve outlawing it. If unwanted pregnancies could be eliminated, for instance, then abortion would disappear. Obviously that is not an easy task to accomplish, but it would be very effective.


As far as this guy killing the doctor, he didn't save any lives by doing so (or at best, only a few). Anyone who was planning on using his services will just go to someone else. As long as people have money and a reason to have an abortion, someone will be willing to provide the service.

In truth, Liberals don't like abortion either, not even Noam Chomsky. Most of us are both anti-abortion AND pro-choice - having the right to choose 'no'.

An abortion is usually the result of an unwanted pregnancy, and criminalizing abortion does nothing to stop an unwanted pregnancy. Beyond that, when pressed on the consequences of criminalization, many pro-lifers are reluctant to put a woman who has had an abortion behind bars, which suggests that maybe criminalization isn't the silver bullet they'd hoped for.

The best way to stop unwanted pregnancy is knowledge, in the form of sex education and easy access to birth control. Honest, frank, reality-based sex education and free birth control options offered to school kids (*gasp*). A bitter pill to swallow, no doubt, but this is the way.

If abortion activists ever decided to take a more pragmatic approach to abortion, and team up with those rascally liberals, we could probably cut the abortion rate in half in a few years, but it would mean having to let go of some of that fear of sexuality. You don't need all that fear anyway, it's just weighing you down.

Happy New Year Pinky

(edit: snarkiness removed after reading kp's comment)

Very well said, and I agree with you on many points. However, I don't believe that simple abortion is the answer. I think most people agree that fewer abortions in this country would be a good thing. I would have liked Palin's answer much more if she had said something more like my opinion, which is:

Yes, I do believe that abortion in the case of rape or incest is wrong and I would counsel a woman in that situation to go through with the pregnancy. It is, of course, a great sacrifice for her both emotionally and physically, and that is why I believe that it ought to be her choice. Her agency was taken from her by the man who impregnated her, and if she believe that her "life" (lifestyle) would be irreparably destroyed by the pregnancy, than she should be free to decide whether her life or the embryo's life is more human.

The answer to reducing abortions in general is not to make all abortions legal. There are steps that we must take in order to reduce abortion rates including providing healthcare and adoption programs for unwanted pregnancies, better and earlier sex education (with full consent of the parents), and free access to contraception. Abortion should be illegal for pregnancies more advanced than 24 weeks because when higher brain functioning and pain receptors are developed, there can be almost no doubt that the child ought to have human rights.

But pragmatics should never be a reason for a moral decision. That is why we ought NEVER to torture prisoners. Sure, we might save some American lives by torturing terrorists for information, but torture is something we do not (or should not) do as a matter of principle.

>> ^SDGundamX:
Two years ago, if you had asked me my position on abortion I would have told you I was pro-choice all the way. Then I saw an actual abortion performed and had everything I believed turned upside down. Seeing the doctor wash little dismembered body-parts--arms, legs, parts of a skull--and count everything up to make sure he got it all... that pretty much convinced me I needed to re-examine my beliefs. I have tried since that time to be open to all positions on the matter and to form my own opinion based on reason and logic. The conclusion I came to is very similar to swampgirl's--abortion is morally wrong but is also a necessary evil.
I'm an atheist, so I don't oppose abortion on any religious grounds. No, like swampgirl said earlier, I just think we should stop beating around the bush. We're taking human lives here. Granted, we're doing it as mercifully as we can (i.e. before the nervous and pain response systems are fully developed) and for ostensibly good reasons. But I think too many people try to gloss over the fact that a human life is ended in the process. I think people are uncomfortable with the idea and that's why we quibble over when a human is an officially recognized "person" or when certain rights should be ascribed.
However, although I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I do not agree with making abortions illegal. That probably seems paradoxical to most people, but it stems from the fact that I am pragmatic. There are serious problems with making abortion illegal: backroom abortions and their associated risks; a suddenly skyrocketing number of babies that need adoption placement in a system that is already burgeoning under the weight of unwanted or neglected children; massive population expansion at a time when resources such as clean water are becoming scarce; and so on. In an ideal world, we could make abortions illegal and provide superior care and support for all women who must carry unwanted babies and place all of those unwanted babies with caring, loving, families. But I've seen enough of the world to know that it is anything but ideal.
And so I believe that as horrible as it is, legal abortions are necessary in the world. It kind of depresses me a little bit that I can find something immoral and yet still condone it. I think maybe it's a sign that I'm getting old that I'm willing to compromise my morals for pragmatic concerns.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Waiting 3 months to take care of an unwanted pregnancy smacks of sloth.

While this would be true in a perfect world, the same folks who champion criminalizing abortion have also eviscerated sex-ed, through their absurd "abstinence only" campaign, and as a result an alarming number of people are not aware ( or are intentionally mis-informed) of their options, and can not, in their ignorance, act responsibly.

The anti-sex/pro-baby position is working at cross purposes, they want things that either defeat each other, or require fascism to keep in check. Obama, for all his faults, does synthesize a coherent third path, which is to do what works to reduce unwanted pregnancies, while providing realistic options to abortion. He says "let's have a little socialism, instead of a little fascism", I find it humerus that Christians who have a long history of socialism, and a long history of problems with fascism would prefer the fascist route.

cp420: nice downvote rampage on the comments, is that because you somehow think we are all trolling, or are you just offended that somebody might make a coherent point with which you disagree?