22
Jan
07

Democrats run from abortion debate

I don’t know what the deal is but Democrats can’t own up to reproductive rights. Especially politicians. Hillary hates the abortion issue. She wants abortion to be “rare but safe”. Any legislation introduced to make abortion “rare but safe”? Nada. Nothing. Will it be a core idea of her campaign for President? Of course not.

Hillary, rare but safe is how I want my steak prepared at Applebee’s.

Now Harry “Never Smiles” Reid (D-NV) is introducing legislation to “increase funding for family planning and to improve access for emergency contraception”. The article states he’s an abortion foe. So, how about this, Harry– if you guys don’t like abortion, how about proposing legislation that makes abortion illegal? Then we’ll see just how much of a foe you are?

Oh, but they can’t do that. Can you imagine the firestorm that NARAL would kick up? I’m sure Amy Richards would handcuff herself to his office door in protest. No way some rich old white man from Nevada is going to tell her she needs to buy the big jar of mayonnaise!

The article goes on to say what great support the bill has amongst the democrats and it infers that the legislation is “pro-life”. Reid’s press statement on the issue said:

“There are few more divisive issues in America today than abortion, but there is an opportunity to find common ground if we are willing to join together and seize it,” Reid said recently. “The rate of unintended pregnancies is unacceptably high.” Legislation such as his, he added, “can reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and the resulting abortions in America today.”

I’m sure that the legislation proposed is going to somehow miraculously reduce the abortion rate in the country. Well, I hate to mention it, but “emergency contraception” is abortion. What it does is it prevents embryonic implantation through a big hormone-bomb. An embryo was destroyed through conscious intervention by the mother & pharmacist. That’s still abortion. But you have to remember the abortion argument is all about labels, and the more non-human things sound, the more likely they are to be acceptable to the general public.

Embryo = just a bunch of cells = not a person.
Fetus = organism inside a womb = not a person .
Emergency contraception = induces miscarriage = not an abortion, it’s contraception!

The Democrats are also putting funding into issues for contraception (fine) and helping support mothers with at-risk and unintended pregnancies. It’s something the “Democrats are really getting into”.

But the problem still exists– abortion is legal. Democrats somehow think there’s going to be a “middle ground”. And all of this legislation is somehow going to make the pro-life sector thing, “Oh, yeah, they don’t want to abort all the babies now, so let’s vote for them now.”

It’s like someone coming up to me and saying, “OK, we are going to kill 5 million of every 15 million children born. What do you think?” I say that it sucks. Then they say, “OK OK. Sorry. How about 3 million?” Again I say no. Then they say, “How about this. We kill 3 million, but we give the other 12 million cute teddy bears.” And I will say, “What’s your problem?”

The issue still remains. Abortion is killing humans, and not just any humans, but the most fragile humans– children. We can’t compromise when it involves the deaths of so many innocents.

And the Democrats don’t get it. They never will, because it means giving up abortion. And abortion’s been their bread and butter issue amongst young women for a very long time.

************************************

In similar news, I left a note about abortion & the sanctity of life with Bob Geiger over at the PuffingTons Host. And, surprise surprise, my post was deleted. Again.

Conservative bloggers, for the most part, let all comments land on the boards. That’s the way I do it. All comments are allowed so long as their on topic. I don’t cut out opposite views. But Bob Geiger, along with many others, don’t get my posts. They’re censored.

It’s like they’re taking a page out of Al Gore’s book. Or is he taking one out of theirs? Stifle debate. That way it seems like nobody is disagreeing with you.


34 Responses to “Democrats run from abortion debate”


  1. 1 suckonthis
    June 21, 2009 at 3:52 am

    “But the problem still exists– abortion is legal. Democrats somehow think there’s going to be a “middle ground””

    If according to what you claim there’s “no middle ground”, then what’s the point in having a debate? If you automatically state that a consensus with the opposing view will never be reached (unless that consensus involves basically just admitting that you’re right, of course) because you characterise those who hold is as being cynical and immoral and say they will “never get it”, then are you not the one running from the debate?

    How nice of you to dismissively mention the pro-contraception and pro-pregnancy-support measures that are being taken by the pro-choice camp. But you should maybe consider that that’s really where the debate lies. Not in whether or not abortion is morally acceptable, but how to make sure that people don’t seek abortions in the first place. And don’t say “make it illegal”, because it’s quite obvious that women will seek out abortions whether they’re legal or not.

  2. 2 Matt R.
    June 21, 2009 at 8:17 am

    I think Doc is trying to point out contradictions in the Democratic platform. They try to pander to both sides, when this one of the issues where there is no middle ground. Either its a life or not.

    Keep in mind that we’ve always told ourselves “It’s not a human life.” just before we kill a human. It’s a kraut, jap, a target, an embryo, etc. It’s a concentration camp mentality. Sure we want to go there?

    The illegal argument is fallacious. Might as well say, “Car jacking is illegal but people always find a way to do it. So we should legalize it.” Just because people will circumvent the law is no reason to make something legal.

  3. 3 suckonthis
    June 21, 2009 at 8:55 am

    You’re not getting it. There is no contradiction in the Democratic platform. The pro-choice argument is not “It’s not a human life” or “It’s okay to kill”. The pro-choice argument does not consider those considerations to be relevant to the REAL LIFE implications of the issue, i.e. those that exist outside of the mind of religious moral absolutists. And furthermore the pro-choice view is that even if you do consider those questions, they are best left up to the one person who has to deal with the outcome of the situation, i.e. the mother. Not the church, not the state, not any kind of self-appointed moral authority – The mother.

    The legality argument is not fallacious. The point is that abortions occur either way, but if it’s legal than at least we can ensure that mothers don’t also die in the process. There is no point in making desperate women into criminals. And your comparison to carjacking is pretty much an insult to any woman who’s ever had to make the decision, whichever option she chose.

    The pro-life view is that in order to end abortion you have to make it illegal. The pro-choice view is that in order to end abortion we have to solve the causes of abortion. It’s not difficult to see which one makes more sense. I don’t care about assuaging the moral consciences of pro-life activists. I care about working towards a society in which all women feel like they don’t have to make that kind of difficult decision. But you don’t achieve that by taking the decision away from them, you achieve it by removing any reason they would have to make one in the first place. These women need your help, not your judgement.

    • 4 docattheautopsy
      June 22, 2009 at 6:10 pm

      “The pro-life view is that in order to end abortion you have to make it illegal. The pro-choice view is that in order to end abortion we have to solve the causes of abortion.”

      Ha ha ha ha! Seriously? What causes abortion? Sex. The Democratic view is that people should be having lots of sex, but should use condoms or the Pill to protect themselves. The conservative view is that people should be having responsible sex, not “free love” (because, if there’s anything we’ve learned from years of ever-expanding government, nothing is “free”).

      The real cause of abortion is a social perception. Sex is glorified. In fact, any selfish behavior is glorified. Why is Paris Hilton famous? She’s rich and has a sex tape. Kim Kardashian? Rich + sex tape. Remember the “Brittney is a virgin” hub-bub when she was rocketing to stardom? What was the big media furor? “Will she have sex with Justin?!” These are the role models of our children, happily propped up by a voyeur media. If you stand up to this behavior, you’re a conservative prude.

      Look at John Edwards. He has a child out of wedlock, and the story is quietly put out to pasture by the media, only to be factually reported by… the National Enquirer! If there was a Republican out-of-wedlock lovechild, you’d be damned sure it’d be frontline coverage on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC.

      Regardless of the whole idea that sex is cool. But it’s the sex that got everyone into the scandal.

      Got to run to dinner.

      • 5 suckonthis
        June 23, 2009 at 7:21 am

        “What causes abortion? Sex.”

        One of these days I’ll explain to you how we establish a cause-effect relationship in order to not confuse a “necessary condition” with a “cause”.

        Enjoy your dinner.

  4. 6 Matt R.
    June 21, 2009 at 4:33 pm

    I always love it when people use the words “insult” and “judgement” in an argument instead of reasons. Pathos is not dead.

    The pro-life argument is that “Life is sacred, all life. When there is a debate as to whether something is alive or not, choosing life is the safest moral case.”
    The pro-choice argument is “my body, my business.” Read Roe v Wade. Its not about “oh, how sad.”

    I’m glad you brought up the topic of judgement. So what is the only way a woman could avoid making “that” decision to begin with? Abstinence or use contraception. (precluding rape) Seems pretty do-able right now. What’s missing?

    You seem to feel the need to take reasons away from women and push back decisions until we achieve some utopia. I would counter we can count on their judgement right now.

    Half the people killed by abortions are women. How do we insult them?

    Oh, and you handle hardly marks you are a champion of women’s rights.

  5. 7 suckonthis
    June 22, 2009 at 3:56 am

    Just so you know, the pro-choice movement does not just look at Roe v. Wade for what to think. But yeah, there is a significant side of “my body, my business” involved, and in a way it still kind of surprises me that you think you should have the authority to ignore that.

    And, smartass, we’re talking about already pregnant women not having to make a decision. I suppose you guys would rather sit around saying “I told you so, now you’re stuck with it” to women who need help. And maybe that wouldn’t be so much of a big deal if a fat chunk of the pro-life movement weren’t also trying to prevent people from getting hold of contraceptives.

    Would you counter that we can count on women to just do as you say? Because in countries where abortion isn’t legal, you know what they have? You guessed it, a load of backstreet abortions, a load of mothers dying in childbirth, a load of stillbirths, a load of babies being born with terminal malformations. As we all know, making abortion illegal doesn’t prevent abortion, but what it does do is guarantee that a lot of people will continue to die from pregnancy. Working towards a situation where women don’t have to make the decision is significantly less of a utopist fantasy than working towards a situation where everyone subscribes to your unrealistic brand of moral absolutism.

    You, personally, insult women by comparing the decision to have an abortion to the decision to steal a car. One can tell that you’ve never sat down and talked to women who’ve just had to make that decision.

    And my handle is directed at neither sex and does not indicate an object. Therefore its misogynistic implications are entirely in your head. That’s what I mean by judgement. You see what you think is right according to your narrow views and instantly assume that it must be the case. And such is the extent of this arrogance that you, “some guy”, presume to be in a better position to speak for an unborn fetus than the women carrying it.

    • 8 docattheautopsy
      June 22, 2009 at 11:11 pm

      “I suppose you guys would rather sit around saying “I told you so, now you’re stuck with it” to women who need help. And maybe that wouldn’t be so much of a big deal if a fat chunk of the pro-life movement weren’t also trying to prevent people from getting hold of contraceptives.”

      Well, talking to the side that instead tells the pregnant woman “You should kill, I mean, abort it!”, you should understand that contraceptives are readily available, regardless of what the mean ol’ Republithugs says and do. And with the increased availability of contraceptives, abortion has also increased.

      People are well aware of how sex works. Sex ed has been on the books in schools around the country. Contraceptives have been doled out. And despite all of this, the data continues to show a reliance on abortion. Conclusion? Education and free availability of contraceptives has done little to retard the reliance on abortion.

      The only meaningful change was the introduction of “Abstinence-only” classes, and we see how well those worked. Introducing such an idea was rather muddle-headed, as sex pervades our culture. Simply blocking access to contraceptives does nothing to de-emphasize the sexual content teens get from music, movies, advertising, TV, the internet, and video games.

      The truth of the matter is that the sexual revolution of the 60’s has brought about a blight, and as much as those on the left will try and blame the Rethuglicons and their “banning of contraceptives” for these evils, the blame lands squarely in their lap. Divorce, out-of-wedlock births, abortion, sex-crimes– all of these increases can be directly tied to the advent of the “casual sex” mentality introduced in the 1960’s.

      Trying to defend such a position is merely the act of the desperate holding on to ideology.

      • 9 suckonthis
        June 22, 2009 at 11:56 pm

        You obviously have no idea why it’s called “pro-choice” and not “pro-abortion”. Do you actually listen to what anyone else has to say, or is it all just noise in your head until you get your turn to talk?

        And I guess you’d know a bit about desperately holding onto ideology, wouldn’t you.

      • 10 docattheautopsy
        June 23, 2009 at 6:28 am

        “Do you actually listen to what anyone else has to say, or is it all just noise in your head until you get your turn to talk?”

        I do listen to what you have to say, hence the rebuttal.

        As you could say nothing to refute my argument and only offer a pithy “You don’t know what pro-choice means!” comment, I will consider the matter closed.

        Conclusion: the 60s resulted in a radical change for the worse in sexual environment. As much as we’d like to say the sexual freedom movement was awesome, all it’s done is erode the greatness of America.

  6. 11 Matt R.
    June 22, 2009 at 8:13 am

    SOT, you’re angry, so I guess that means I scored a few hits. Hurts when someone forces you to think beyond a bumper sticker, doesn’t it?
    Couple of things, this a blog, so of course I put forth an opinion. Why does this surprise you?

    Next, I was calling your “crime is illegal” ARGUMENT fallacious. You do know what fallacious means, right? Preggers aren’t bad, your argument was. I was insulting you, not them.
    Next, “straw man” statements where a pro-lifer says inane things is weak. I might as well make up a pro choicer saying inane things as well.

    In a similar vein, please tell me these countries where abortions are illegal. Unlike you, I’ll use a REAL country where abortions are legal, China.

    In China, there are “backroom” sonigram vans. (ref:60 minutes). In these trucks, parents pay a few bucks to see if their baby is going to be born a boy or a girl. If a girl, the baby gets aborted before they tell the govt.(You see, there is a shortage of girls in China now and the govt wants more.) Apparently, the tie to womens’ rights and abortions is not as absolute as the Democrats would have us believe. Oh, and notice the sourcing?

    You seem to want to rescue women and that’s nice. I am saying women are perfectly able of avoiding the every day situations where abortion becomes an option. Further, stop assuming you know what women find insulting. Women are perfectly able of defending themselves. I’ve heard the knight-in-shining-armor stuff before, but usually only from guys who think bleeding sympathy will earn them some affection. Women know guys like you well, so you aren’t fooling any one.

    Finally, as for your monnicker..OH COME ON! What a load. (You judge what I mean by “load.”) And yeah, in my judgement (not a dirty word, see?) suckonthis is an rude, sexist invective, because it is. Try it. Go out and shout it to few people (with or without the customary crotch grab) When they are through beating you up, you can whine about how they leap to judgement through swollen lips. Come on, fess up.

  7. 12 suckonthis
    June 22, 2009 at 10:57 am

    “because it is”?

    Really?

    Also, I’m interested, why is there always a point in these discussions where the pro-lifer says “Oh, I scored a few hits, check me out”? Put me in front of a compelling argument that I haven’t already heard a hundred times from people far more eloquent than you, and then we’ll talk.

    But seriously, if anyone needed a clear indication that you plainly don’t give a shit about the women involved, there it is. I KNOW women who have had to make the choice resent it being compared to crime (in particular by people who have no idea what it’s like to be pregnant), because they’ve told me so. It’s not an assumption, unlike your assumption that an internet handle with a possible non-specific undertone of sexual invitation must automatically constitute misogyny.

    El Salvador. 23 of the 69 women prosecuted for having terminations there since 1998 (after the blanket ban on abortion) were apprehended while seeking medical treatment for botched backstreet abortions. Some of them were self-induced using coat hangers. My source, the Center for Reproductive Rights. I can find you more examples if you like. And El Salvador’s a real country. You can find it in an atlas and everything.

    I don’t know why you bring up China. Are you suggesting that because I’m pro-choice I must automatically be in favour of the deeply sexist culture in China that leads to families wanting a male child at any cost?

  8. 13 Matt R
    June 22, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    You brought up how abortion is illegal. You compared it to crime. I was, again, stating that the way you expressed it was poor.

  9. 14 Matt R
    June 22, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    I love the way you use ten dollar words to backpedal on “suckonthis.” Done my test yet? Yelled it at few people? Try a mix of men and women. Take a poll. Will the women think you are pig or Sir Lancelot? If they vote for pig, then yeah. It is sexist. Maybe you could ask these women you talk to for their perspective.

    I brought up China, because, like I said, it is a country where abortion is very legal and we were discussing abortion rates in countries where it is legal vs illegal, remember? My point, again, and it seems you agree, is that abortion is not necessarily part and parcel of womens’ rights. Could you confront that rather than give them a pass? Several million women having abortions in a country where abortions are even encouraged? That needs to be discussed.

    I’m glad you have a degree in Anthropology and can judge the whole Chinese culture. Now, is El Salvador mysogamist too?

    It’s getting tedious repeating things for you. Maybe “that point” actually comes from people getting frustrated with your points.

    It would be much easier for me to take you seriously if you didn’t rely on cussing and insults. I usually only see that from people most do not take seriously. Thank you for finally bringing up a real, if biased, source.

  10. 15 suckonthis
    June 22, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    I don’t yell stuff at anyone. Is that how you determine is something is offensive? You go yell it at people and see if they hit you? Get over my handle, it’s not misogynistic and it’s not the point.

    You brought up China to drag a peripheral issue in, so you can characterise abortion as bad, because in some cases in China abortion is used to enforce sexist cultural imperatives. And that’s not my judgement, that’s a staement of fact, and you don’t need to be an anthropologist to know about it (apparently you only need to watch 60 minutes).

    And what the hell is “mysogamist”? Seriously, you don’t have a clue what you’re on about. It would be a lot easier for me to take YOU seriously if you didn’t just make up words. You’ve done it all, compared women to car thieves, tried to pick at my nickname, dragged male-biased Chinese culture in, suggested I go yell at people, and now you’re just making random shit up.

    This debate clearly isn’t about abortion at all for you, is it. And you wonder why democratic legislation doesn’t side with you.

    • 16 Matt R
      June 22, 2009 at 5:01 pm

      Okay. Don’t yell at people, politely walk up to someone, and ask, “Excuse me young miss. But would consider ‘suck on this’ to be vulgar?” Or as I suggested get ahold of one of the women that will talk with you and ask them if “suckonthis” is vulgar. A second opinion is often good. As for yelling, it’s just that I’ve never heard “suckonthis” used any way but yelling. I’m just pointing out how the nickname “suckonthis” undercuts your credibility. What, “Eatme” was already taken?

      mi·sog·a·my Listen to the pronunciation of misogamy
      Pronunciation:
      \mi-ˈsä-gə-mē, mī-\
      Function:
      noun
      Etymology:
      Greek misein to hate + English -gamy
      Date:
      circa 1656

      : a hatred of marriage

      source: webster’s online dictionary

      So I’m making stuff up? Please tell me what. I am sorry if my facts, reasons, unbiased news coverage and superior lexicon confuse you. Thanks for cutting down the cussing and invectives though.

      • 17 suckonthis
        June 23, 2009 at 12:17 am

        If you didn’t merely pluck the word out of thin air, then explain to me why bringing up attitudes to marriage is suddenly relevant to El Salvador’s abortion laws. And make it good. Or actually don’t, because at this point I’m no longer particularly interested in your “superior lexicon”.

        And finally, like I said, it’s a non-specific instruction aimed at no-one in particular and which mentions no object. To humour you though, I asked a bunch of women if they thought it was offensive to have that as an internet handle. They said that no they did not. On the other hand, they did confirm that they found the notion of comparing abortion to car theft deeply, deeply offensive, and furthermore that people who are above all interested in punishing women who get pregnant without planning to are, in the words of one young mother I spoke to, “stupid ignorant assholes”. And that’s from a lady who chose to keep her child because she doesn’t personally like the idea of abortion.

        Make of that what you want.

  11. 18 suckonthis
    June 23, 2009 at 7:23 am

    “As you could say nothing to refute my argument and only offer a pithy “You don’t know what pro-choice means!” comment, I will consider the matter closed.”

    I don’t honestly think you ever considered the matter open.

  12. 19 Matt R
    June 23, 2009 at 7:29 am

    I have to explain to you what marriage has to do with family planning, I have to explain a definition to you and, apparently, I have to explain to you what a fallacious argument is. Boy, who’s doing all the work here?

    I like the way you ran off, misconstrued everything I said and talked about me. Very High School.
    “OMG did you hear what Matt R. said on the Autopsy?”

    No need for them to read what I said for themselves?

    Women are adults who are responsible for their own actions. Part and parcel of responsibility is facing the consequences of one’s own actions. What’s more pro-choice than that?

    Okay, for the last time. Re:preggers are carjackers? I was explaining how your ARGUMENT was bad. It was too much like the “if guns were outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” argument the NRA uses. It was a tautology. I doubt it will do any good. You sound like a guy the British call “dim.” Once your get a thought in your head, right or wrong, there’s no shifting it.

    I’m sorry if I made you feel stupid.
    I’m sorry you don’t own a dictionary.
    I’m sorry you are product of the US educational system.

    • 20 suckonthis
      June 23, 2009 at 7:48 am

      A: I’m a product of the British and French education systems.

      B: I’m not sure where or how you think I was talking about you, but you can be sure that any criticism I have of the pro-life movement isn’t limited to my impressions of your narrow views.

      C: Yeah, you’ll have to explain why you apparently thought it was relevant to drag marriage into the issue of the effects of criminalising abortion in El Salvador, because it has fuck-all to do with the issue.

      D: I understand why you think my argument is fallacious, but that’s down to your lack of comprehension, not mine. The problem with illegal abortions is not that they are illegal. The problem with them is that they are vastly less safe than legal abortions. It’s a fairly simple distinction, why do you not understand it?

      E: I’m sorry if I write in terms too complex for you to grasp.

      • 21 Matt R
        June 23, 2009 at 7:57 am

        Oh, I like D’s restatement. Much better. Now, was that so hard?

        re B: I asked a bunch of women …On the other hand, they did confirm that they found the notion of comparing abortion to car theft deeply, deeply offensive, and furthermore that people who are above all interested in punishing women who get pregnant without planning to are, in the words of one young mother I spoke to, “stupid ignorant assholes”. And that’s from a lady who chose to keep her child because she doesn’t personally like the idea of abortion.

        C: Dude, I am already sick of spelling everything out for you with blocks. You figure out what marriage has to do with a stigma of being an unwed mother.

        A: as product of the British ed, maybe you can tell me why England, the second biggest user of contraceptives in Europe still has a rising teenage mother rate, especially among the poor (source: BBC)

  13. 22 suckonthis
    June 23, 2009 at 8:22 am

    What? You think that the stigma of being an unwed mother is what causes women in El Salvador to have backstreet abortions? And what if it does? What the hell has that got to do with anything?

    And frankly, you told me to go test out concepts on people, so I obliged. It ain’t my fault if women find your ideas more offensive than mine.

    As a product of the British education system, and a current British resident, I can tell you with a fair amount of authority that the primary causes of the rising rate of teenage pregnancy are a progressive decline of primary and secondary education standards, and a general societal breakdown at a community level amongst what we still laughably refer to as the “working class”. All indications are that these girls receive virtually no sex education, do not employ contraception, and largely make no attempt to prevent pregnancy at all. More than a quarter of teenage mothers in the UK were themselves born to teenage mothers. Ultimately, teenage pregnancy is a phenomenon that primarily affects socially deprived areas where unemployment is rife, and girls frequently see young motherhood as an acceptable situation as it guarantees a (small) level of welfare support.

  14. 23 Matt R
    June 23, 2009 at 8:54 am

    Good for you. Finally, some cogent statements. No cussing either. Was that so hard?

    Liked the comment about the working class.

    Now about consequences…if the teenage mothers were cut off from welfare payments, would they be, as a whole, more prudent you think? If the government did not shelter them from the painful consequences of their actions, would that force a sea change in the cultural acceptability of teenage motherhood?
    Or would be hurled back to Dickensian days?

    “It ain’t my fault if women find your ideas more offensive than mine.” It is, if you misrepresent everything I said. But what can I expect from a fan of the Gaurdian?

    • 24 suckonthis
      June 23, 2009 at 9:16 am

      I don’t think that teenage mothers would be more prudent if their welfare were cut, no. I honestly don’t think they’re well-educated and socially supported enough to make those kinds of constructive decisions. I think what would make them more prudent is if they were able to see some sort of future for themselves beyond the end of the street where they live. We’re largely talking about girls who have been so low down the ladder of social priorities for so long that they would probably be unable to get a job at McDonald’s. It’s far more likely that if their welfare were cut they’d still have the babies, but turn to petty crime to support them. Either that or we’d just end up with far more children in state care. People don’t start to better themselves if the society that rejected them in the first place then cuts off what little support it still gives them.

      I should probably point out that the women I was speaking to generally tend to find men telling them what they should or should not be doing with their pregnancies, or their bodies in general, extremely distasteful.

  15. 25 Matt R
    June 23, 2009 at 9:01 am

    re El Salvador
    So you don’t see how a stigma of an unwed mother, in a country where abortion is illegal and backroom abortions has to do with a thread regarding abortions? Heavy sigh.

    Okay.
    Maybe the problem is the stigma, not the abortions.

    • 26 suckonthis
      June 23, 2009 at 9:25 am

      Not in the context in which you brought it up, i.e. challenging me to find evidence of a country where criminalising abortions has led to the victimisation and endangerment of women.

      But if you want to mention rigid right-wing judgement as an added pressure for unwed Salvadorian mothers to have abortions, then sure, why not. But you’re arguing in favour of my point there – Like you say, the problem is that these women are being demonised, not helped. If they were fully supported instead of judged or even ostracised for being promiscuous, then chances are they’d be far happier to carry their pregnancies to term. But because Salvadorian law was changed (again) to ban all abortions before they’d solved the social causes of abortion, these women were forced into unliveable situations.

  16. 27 Matt R.
    June 23, 2009 at 10:26 am

    re: El Salvador
    Good. Glad the spoon feeding worked. Okay. We are all for compassion. I don’t see it very compassionate when a woman comes to me for help I offer to kill her kid.
    Even if the woman got pregnant through prostitution, she deserves compassion. Even if she is ostrasized by her family, she deserves compassion. Even if the woman is called an “animal” and disowned by her family she deserves compassion.

    And if the woman is called “merely a fetus” and “unwanted” she deserves compassion.

    I think be both agree abortion is a lousy thing. What I find revolting is people championing the act of infanticide as it’s some kind of triumph of human rights when its a lousy, stinking thing.

  17. 28 suckonthis
    June 23, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    “people championing the act of infanticide”

    Okay, so just so we get the terminology right, infancticide is the killing of a child, not of a fetus. In the same way that infanticide is not the killing of a grown man. So the use of that term is completely inappropriate.

    Secondly, the pro-choice movement does not “champion” abortion, because that suggests that we think it’s the preferable option. We do not. Abortion is a deeply traumatic event for any woman, and to suggest that it is not would be an insult, just as would be the suggestion that any woman would take the decision lightly or out of mere convenience. We merely think it should be legally and safely available, because the alternative to that is far worse.

    And no-one is suggesting that a fetus does not deserve compassion. However in the pro-choice view, if a woman feels unable to carry a pregnancy to term, the meeting of her needs is more important than the meeting of the needs of a fetus, and in that case we deem her to be the person best placed to decide what her needs are. We deplore abortion in any case, however we recognise that no-one is better placed to evaluate the situation than a pregnant woman who believes she is unable to give birth to a child.

    I appreciate that you disagree with that view on moral grounds, however the fact remains that that is our view, and the view of a large proportion if not the majority of our society. And I respect your beliefs (even if at times it may not appear so) but ultimately the beliefs of the women involved are far more relevant to the issue.

    • 29 docattheautopsy
      June 23, 2009 at 6:14 pm

      Okay, so just so we get the terminology right, infancticide is the killing of a child, not of a fetus. In the same way that infanticide is not the killing of a grown man. So the use of that term is completely inappropriate.

      What I find absolutely amazing about many brain-dead pro-choicers is their absolute denial of science.

      Make no mistake. When it comes to abortion, the entire argument is based on the denial of fundamental biology.

      Human reproduction involves the meeting of the egg cell and the sperm cell. At that point, the embryo that is formed (conception) is the beginning of a whole new person, independent of the father and mother. That embryo is different by DNA. We know that all humans start from the embryo. You, me, Matt, the annoying people who write the Russian spam code– we all started when egg and sperm combined. This is fundamental biology.

      However, in order to validate the argument of abortion, pro-choicers must deny that all humans start from the same biological step. They must define different growth stages of the embryo and assign viability to each phase. Embryo, fetus, blastocyst, zygote– whatever is used, they must avoid what it is– human. Abortion is the destruction of an individual human — not an incomplete human, either. The embryo or fetus are at their maximum development for that phase of their lives. You can’t say that a 3-month old fetus is less of a human because its an illogical conclusion. All living humans were 3 months past conception at one point. We were complete at that point in development, just as we are complete 6-month old fetuses at 6 months, or complete 21 year olds at 21 years.

      Now, switch the argument a bit and talk about evolution. People who deny evolution are hillbilly bumpkins who deny science. However, they at least have a point. Evolution is nearly impossible to prove experimentally, and there are huge holes in the fossil record, missing gaps of certain special development. Are they right to say the Earth popped into being 6000 years ago? Probably not, IMHO. But at least they are taking the data in total and raising valid scientific skepticism of an existing theory, whereas the pro-choicer must deny established, fundamental science for their premise to hold fast.

      The fetus is human. Abortion says humans of a certain age are open to destruction at the hands of another. It’s an argument that doesn’t empower women– it simply sidesteps science and logic to allow the perpetuation of our oversexualized culture.

      • 30 suckonthis
        June 24, 2009 at 2:08 am

        Umm – okay. Relax.

        My comment was not about science, It’s vocabulary. Infanticide is the killing of a young child. Not a fetus, not a teenager, not a grown man, not a pensioner. A young child. Abortion, terminologically, is not infanticide any more than abortion is matricide or regicide. The use of the term infanticide is inappropriate to describe abortion.

        The correct term is feticide. Aborticide can also be used.

        No one’s denying that a fetus is biologically human and technically alive. Our view is merely that it isn’t the point. As I pointed out in the part of my post you didn’t quote (and misread).

      • 31 docattheautopsy
        June 24, 2009 at 11:07 pm

        No one’s denying that a fetus is biologically human and technically alive.

        So, you’re ok with murder. Killing humans is A-OK.

        However in the pro-choice view, if a woman feels unable to carry a pregnancy to term, the meeting of her needs is more important than the meeting of the needs of a fetus, and in that case we deem her to be the person best placed to decide what her needs are.

        OK. Stop and listen to what you’re saying. It’s OK for a woman to kill someone else if that other person makes her circumstances less desirable.

        Look at what’s happening in Iran. Because there are people who are making the regime’s life less comfortable, they find it OK to go out and kill those protesters, as ending the protests will make their life more comfortable.

        Is it ever OK to kill someone else to improve your circumstances?

      • 32 suckonthis
        June 25, 2009 at 3:01 am

        A. You see abortion as “murder”. We don’t.

        B. As far as I’m aware, none of the Iranian protestors who were killed were at the time growing inside the bodies of Ahmedinejad or Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

        Again, the problem here is that your argument relies on comparing things and then declaring them to be exactly the same. Any loss of human life caused by another human is automatically murder.

        However, I just came across your article on waterboarding, where you state that one person’s torture is not another person’s torture, imply that waterboarding isn’t torture, and then provide some not-so compelling reasons why we really should avoid defining what torture is. You know, like people might not like America if it admits to having tortured people. The national conscience might suffer.

        And since you bring up Iran, I was surprised to find that all of the articles you’ve written about the war in neighbouring Iraq, and most of them are about how we should all be really positive about it. Does that include being positive about the four-figure US body count (which you never mention) and the six-figure Iraqi civilian body count (which you never mention)?

        So I’m just confused as to how a person can so totally and utterly opposed to a woman choosing to end a life of something growing inside her own body, but on the other hand so totally and utterly for a war that directly caused the deaths hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Civilians, women, children – hell, even some pregnant woman.

        I dunno, it just seems to me that anyone who has a view that it’s wrong to do harm to any living human would be an avowed pacifist. You’d think that if it’s not to kill a fetus to improve your circumstances, it would definitely not be okay to kill scores of our own people and even more of theirs so some dumb redneck can go a settle his dad’s old fight and make a few bucks for his friends while he’s at it.

        Think about it. You’re saying it’s okay to kill people in Iraq, and it has yet to improve anyone’s circumstances (apart from a few of Bush’s business buddies, who made out like bandits).

  18. 33 Matt R.
    June 24, 2009 at 11:37 am

    Infanticide is the killing of a newborn the tribe cannot support. For example, the Bushmen of Africa kill a new born child when the hunting is bad. if they had access abortion, the motive would be the same. Bushmen do not see it as a right.

    Now we come to the “line in the sand” side of abortion.
    You live. You meet my criteria.
    You die. You do not. Yes. You may be growing and dependent on another but you do not meet the subjective list of “alive.”
    Mengele.

    • 34 suckonthis
      June 24, 2009 at 5:23 pm

      Infanticide is just a word that specifies the subject of a kill. It has no inherent circumstantial meaning. African tribesmen have nothing whatsoever to do with pro-choice thought.

      To properly understand pro-choice thinking, you have to start from the pregnant woman. She is the focus of our approach. For you it’s 100% about the fetus. We don’t focus on the fetus. We have no ill will towards the fetus, we have no personal or collective interest in ensuring that the fetus is not born, our concern is for the woman’s wellbeing only. Once you understand that, you might start to see what our point is, even if you still don’t agree with it.

      But this debate is not going to last much longer if you start talking about Nazis, because that’s just a slightly more academic way of shouting insults at people. Okay?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


About Me

My name is Doc. Welcome to my blog. If you're visiting from another blog, add me to your blogroll (and I'll happily reciprocate). I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry and live in Wisconsin. If you have any questions, feel free to email me. My email is docattheautopsy at gmail. (No linking to deflate the incredible spam monsters).

Categories

Archives

World Temp Widget

Blog Stats

  • 129,328 hits

RSS The Autopsy

The Autopsy

%d bloggers like this: