Ammo For Sale

« « Uncle readers know that | Home | The Almighty says don’t change the subject; just answer the fucking question » »

More on the abortion is terror ads

Now, it’s been a while since I’ve discussed abortion on the old blog (and for good reason). So, a refresher of my thoughts on it:

  • Abortion is a vile and horrendous act.
  • Despite that, it should remain legal. After all, if there’s one sure fire way to make anything worse, it’s to have the government either 1) regulate it or 2) ban it. Guaranteed.
  • I saw the ads flying around town last week and wrote about it here. Joe says:

    Callers to Dave Foulk’s show constantly framed their anti-abortion arguments with false language and false arguments, and an eagerness to control human sexuality. When someone calls abortion “killing children” they present a false claim. Children are not aborted. It also isn’t “infanticide”, as both child and infant are lifeforms outside the womb.

    I’d like to have heard some of these comments on controlling human sexuality. Because the crazy-ass contingent of the pro-choice crowd often says that abortion is about controlling women or women’s sexuality. Sorry, crazy-ass contingent but that’s bullshit. People who oppose abortion do so because they take issue with killing babies. Period. Now, we can go all day arguing about when exactly a couple of cells become a baby but it’s a largely pointless semantic exercise. No matter how good anyone’s points are on the issue, it’s really a matter of faith for most folks as to exactly when said cells become a human or life or whatever else. And Joe has, obviously, decided where he stands on that. And so have the pro-lifers.

    So, when you start implying that people’s opposition to abortion is to control women and sexuality, you lose me.

    Of course, the crazy-ass pro-life contingent has issues as well. I don’t like seeing aborted fetuses flying around in the sky. I also don’t like when these bozos go protest at a clinic.

    30 Responses to “More on the abortion is terror ads”

    1. Nimrod45 Says:

      Sorry, Uncle, you lose me when you start calling people “crazy assed”. And since when did someone’s “faith” about when a bunch of cells become “life” give them the authority to interfere with the rights of others?

      It’s not a “pointless semantic exercise” – it’s a matter of physical capability: unless and until a fetus can survive outside the womb, wihtout heroric interventions by modern medicine, it’s basically pretty much a parasite. It may be “life”, but it isn’t *A* life, and therefore rights do not yet accrue to it.

    2. SayUncle Says:

      See, that’s why I don’t discuss it on the blog.

      And since when did someone’s “faith” about when a bunch of cells become “life” give them the authority to interfere with the rights of others?

      I never said it did. In fact, I implied the opposite when I spelled out my position on the issue.

      And I call people “crazy-assed” when they do things that I find to be, well, crazy-assed.

    3. chris Says:

      I agree with Uncle’s succinct framing of the issue, although I come down on the opposite side of the fence as to whether abortion should be legal.

      I respect the other side’s view, but vehementally oppose it.

      The issue isn’t whether the pro-life fundamentalists, or the high profile pro-choice crowd, are jerks.

      The issues are what abortion is and whether it should be legal.

      Maybe the airplane banner will come down and we will have the “Party at the Katch after the game” banner for the weekend.

      Interestingly, legal rights do accrue to in vitro fetuses, because courts routinely appoint guardians ad litem to protect their property rights (e.g. as unborn heirs in a will contest).

      This doesn’t impact on what the act of abortion is or whether it should be legal, but in vitro fetuses do have some legal rights.

    4. Nomen Nescio Says:

      the reason we keep saying the anti-choice crowd is all about controlling women and women’s sexuality is quite similar to the reason some people say gun control is all about control: we’re judging by actions, not words.

      if somebody was really concerned about life, and opposed “killing babies”, it stands to reason they’d be in favour of policies that would reduce the number of abortions performed, whether legal or illegal. but we just don’t see a whole lot of anti-choicers campaigning for sex education, prophylactics, and plan B contraceptives. (yes, plan B is contraceptive, not abortifacient. the crowd who claims differently are trying to mislead people – i’m just not sure if they’re doing so deliberately, or not.)

      if they were really concerned about “the babies”, it stands to reason they’d be in favour of policies like subsidized pre-natal health care, which could drastically lower infant mortality and improve children’s health. i haven’t seen a whole lot of pro-choicers supporting that kind of thing, myself; have you?

      if they were NOT concerned about controlling women’s sexuality, it stands to reason they would be at least moderately embarrassed about blatantly and obviously misogynistic outrages such as South Dakota’s ongoing abortion-ban scandal. (the governor going on public record claiming that only brutally sodomized virgins might deserve abortions, and so on.) such medieval barbarisms are not, however, widely denounced by anti-choicers for the blatantly anti-woman policies that they are.

      so, just as gun control is more about control than it is about guns, we tend to judge anti-choice to be more about women choosing to have sex than it is about “the babies”. if anti-choicers would like to change our opinion on that matter, they can feel free to start practicing more like what they preach at any time they find convenient.

    5. SayUncle Says:

      Thanks for the input nomen. They’re all for sex education, so long as it’s abstinence ;)

      it stands to reason they’d be in favour of policies that would reduce the number of abortions performed, whether legal or illegal

      On that, I would agree but I think they (like most activists) tend to put their ends before their means.

      it stands to reason they would be at least moderately embarrassed about blatantly and obviously misogynistic outrages such as South Dakota’s ongoing abortion-ban scandal.

      I tend to think that also depends on the particular they. The fringes may not be but others likely are.

    6. countertop Says:

      I’ve always been a big fan of the “Party at the Katch after the game.”

      As for abortion itself, its murder. No two ways about it.

      As I tell some of my “pro choice” friends – I make a decision every morning as to whether I am going to go out in society and kill someone (and pay the consequences) or not. The decision to have an abortion is no different, and if outlawed (in some states) women and their doctors will still have that choice.

      Now then, let me clarify this by saying that my position applies to any abortion after the end of the first trimester. If the crazy ass baby killers werent’ so zealously advocating for the complete and total right to kill babies at any time (and, dare I say, many of them would probably want to give women the right to kill babies post birth too if they found a child unduly interferring with their social life) they might actually be successful.

      I think the Supreme Court – however wrongly decided Roe was (and as a legal decision its pretty disgusting) – they at least got the distinction between life sustainable outside the womb right.

      I am certain in my beliefs for the last 2 trimesters, but willing to listen to discussions regarding the first trimester. While I have no problem with “morning after pills” which prevent conception from taking place, as a father of one with one on the way, who has listened to his child’s heartbeat within a few weeks of conception, I can’t believe anyone would have the gall to tell me my son is not a baby. But there you go, I just don’t know exactly when that point of conception is.

      As for Uncles thoughts regarding government regulation . . . I agree that government regulation is awful, but there really is no need for new laws here. Murder is already on the books and all we need is some distinction clarifying at which point the abortion doctor comits the horid act.

    7. Guav Says:

      I’m pro-choice but also hate when the pro-choice crowd makes it sound like the pro-life’s main focus is controlling women. Look, I know enough people who oppose abortion and personally know that they oppose it because they think it is killing a human being.

      I disagree completely, but “the woman” has absolutely nothing to do with their views that a zygote is a human being worthy of the same rights and protections as a full-fledged baby. As much as I think that’s absurd, these people’s beliefs and concerns are quite genuine.

      Painting the entire pro-life as motivated by wanting to control women’s bodies is as knee-jerk stupid as painting the entire pro-choice as people who just wanna have promiscuous sex and kill babies.

      Anyone who takes one of those views is, in my opinion, firmly in the “crazy assed” camp.

    8. countertop Says:

      Nomen

      My experience, and understanding, is that the increased access to prophalactics and sex education have a very minor impact on abortions. The fact is, (at least here in DC and in most urban areas – I don’t have knowledge on rural areas regarding this) the vast majority of abortions are performed on upper and upper middle class i) college girls who got too drunk and forgot to use protection or didn’t care about using protection or ii) career women (single or married) who had sex and got pregnant (either because their choice of protection failed or because they forgot to use it) and don’t want a child that might interfere with either their a) social life or b) career.

      Mark me as unmoved by either.

      Now, on to your other comments:

      I don’t know what a Plan B contraceptive is, but as I stated previously I support the morning after pill. I assume thats what it is, but maybe not.

      All for more education and more rubbers, but as I stated, I don’t think increases in either – at this point in time will have a noticeable impact.

      if they were really concerned about “the babies”, it stands to reason they’d be in favour of policies like subsidized pre-natal health care, which could drastically lower infant mortality and improve children’s health. i haven’t seen a whole lot of pro-choicers supporting that kind of thing, myself; have you?

      I do, and I have

      It stands to reason they would be at least moderately embarrassed about blatantly and obviously misogynistic outrages such as South Dakota’s ongoing abortion-ban scandal. (the governor going on public record claiming that only brutally sodomized virgins might deserve abortions, and so on.) such medieval barbarisms are not, however, widely denounced by anti-choicers for the blatantly anti-woman policies that they are.

      Abortion isn’t my issue so I have no idea what your talking about here. Is ” brutally sodomized virgins might deserve abortions” a quote or a paraphrase? If its a paraphrase, what exactly happened and what exactly did he say? What is the medieval barbarism? What is the blatantly and obviously misogynistic outrage that demands my embarrasment over?

      we tend to judge anti-choice to be more about women choosing to have sex than it is about “the babies”.

      I’m all for women having sex. However, I’m offended at women (and lets not forget the men who are involved) who don’t take responsibility for their actions.

    9. ausblog Says:

      Something for Pro-choicers and Pro-lifers to concider…..

      World estimations of the number of terminations carried out each year is somewhere between 20 and 88 million.

      3,500 per day / 1.3 million per year in America alone.

      50% of that 1.3 million claimed failed birth control was to blame.

      A further 48% had failed to use any birth control at all.

      And 2% had medical reasons.

      That means a stagering 98% may have been avoided had an effective birth control been used.

      I am a 98% pro-lifer, 2% Pro-choicer, who has no religious convictions at all . I didn’t need the fear of god or anything else to come to my decision, just a good sense of what is right and wrong.
      You see we were all once a fetus. Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that when your mother first learned she was carrying you, she may have considered her options? What if she had decided to terminate? Would that have been OK?
      You would not exist, if you have children they would not exist, and your (husband or wife) would be married to someone else. You would have been deprived of all your experiences and memories. In this day and age with terminations being so readily available and so many being carried out, if you make it to full term
      you can consider yourself lucky. Lucky you had a mother that made the choice of life for you. Don’t you think they all deserve the same basic human right, LIFE?
      I’m all for contraception, prevention is certainly better than termination.
      I think too many people rely too heavily on the last option (abortion), I think if abortions weren’t so readily available people would manage their reproductive system far better resulting in a fraction of the number of unwanted pregnancies.
      Don’t get me wrong, I suspect the percentages in Australia would be much the same.
      Just a hole lot of unnecessary killing.

      At the point of conception is when life began for you. This was the start of your existence. Your own personal big bang. Three weeks after conception heart started to beat. First brain waves recorded at six weeks after conception. Seen sucking thumb at seven weeks after conception.

      Bill Clinton once said that abortions should be available , safe and RARE. He is a wise man.

      I’d like to see an ultrasound in every clinnic to provide a more informed choice,
      before going through with something they may regret.

      I’d also like to see effective birth control made available to all who can’t afford it.

      I am convinced that in the not too distant future, people will look back at many of the practices of today with disbelief and horror.

      Want to know how to find humanity-?

      True humanity can only be achieved, by concidering others/ caring about others, as much as, if not more than yourself.

    10. Joe P. Says:

      For clarification, I heard several callers who were opposed to legal abortion say that “choice” occurs prior to being pregnant, and derided such “choices”. One caller said “her first choice was to spread her legs.”

      So my comment about controlling sexual behavior stems from those comments, though I apparently didn’t make that clear. Plainly, some opponents to legal abortion make their stand based on their ideas of conception, and others include the idea that behavior is “the problem”.

      As for my thoughts on when life begins, I think that the medical info regarding trimesters are fairly sound. Having an abortion anytime after that first trimester would surely be most traumatic for the woman and the fetus, as it is possible for a fetus delivered during that second trimester may survive given much medical assistance.

      (Oh, and thanks for the link, Uncle!!)

    11. Aunt B. Says:

      Ausblog, where did you get those numbers? According to the CDC, there are approximately 800,000 abortions a year in the U.S. not 1.3 million. If you don’t have that number right, I’m sorry, but it makes all your other statistics questionable.

      Around 50% of fertilized eggs (the point of conception) pass out of women’s bodies without them even noticing. Do you realy believe that that’s a human being? If so, shouldn’t you be advocating that every tampon be given a proper burial on the off-chance that it contains the remains of a human being?

      Countertop, will you be advocating for life sentences for women who have abortions or the death penalty?

      I hope I don’t come off as being flip. I’m really trying to understand if you guys think that abortion is actually murder or if you just think that it’s a very, very bad thing that women should not do and are using the rhetoric of murder in order to make your point.

      Because I don’t know anyone, pro or anti-choice, that thinks that abortions are great. Every pro-choice person I know thinks that abortion is one bad choice among many that a woman can have to make.

      Trying to determine what abortion rates before Roe v. Wade were is difficult, but in the 50s, Kinsey found that white middle and uppler class women were aborting about 25% of their known pregnancies. If that number holds for the whole population, it means that abortion rates are about the same now as they were in the 50s.

      So, unless you’re going to start prosecuting women as murderers, I’m not sure how making it illegal makes any difference. Abortion rates seem to stay pretty steady regardless of whether its legal or not.

    12. Nomen Nescio Says:

      my sincere apologies to Uncle for, apparently, helping drag this particular never-ending flamefest onto his blog. i had meant only to clarify why a bunch of people (myself included) make one particular judgement call, not start a huge debate about that judgement call; i guess i should’ve known better.

      countertop, that phrase was a paraphrase, not a quote. it wasn’t paraphrased very far, though; his actual quote is on video here, and transcribed here. discussion of just why his sentiment is abominable can be found all over the leftist and feminist-centered blogosphere, if you dig into the archives a little, since the issue has rolled off the front pages by now.

    13. chris Says:

      “The issues are what abortion is and whether it should be legal.”

      I still think that the above are the proper focus of inquiry.

      Not whether (a) birth control is better than abortion, (b) birth control (if properly utilized) would obviate the perceived need for an abortion, (c) there are jerks on both sides of the issue, or (d) people will break the law if abortions are outlawed.

      If the latter issue were relevant, why would we have any laws at all?

    14. tgirsch Says:

      After all, if there’s one sure fire way to make anything worse, it’s to have the government either 1) regulate it or 2) ban it. Guaranteed.

      Yes, because lead-based paints are a far more pervasive problem than they ever were before the meddling government got involved…

      So, when you start implying that people’s opposition to abortion is to control women and sexuality, you lose me.

      Women may be an overstatement, but sexuality, I’m not so sure. Because the same “bozos” (to use your term) that oppose abortion generally also oppose the very things — like comprehensive sex education, and promotion of contraception — that are most likely to reduce the number of abortions. Presumably, this is because they view the sex as a bigger sin than the abortion. Maybe not, but I’ve yet to hear a better explanation. But I see that Nomen has said that already. :)

    15. chris Says:

      “After all, if there’s one sure fire way to make anything worse, it’s to have the government either 1) regulate it or 2) ban it. Guaranteed.

      Yes, because lead-based paints are a far more pervasive problem than they ever were before the meddling government got involved…”

      I agree with you, tgirsch.

      And the regulation of lead-based paint actually affects interstate commerce, unlike so many laws that Congress passes while making the obligatory reference to their impact on interestate commerce.

    16. tgirsch Says:

      Nomen:
      i haven’t seen a whole lot of pro-choicers supporting that kind of thing, myself; have you?

      I think you meant pro-lifers in that context. I know plenty of pro-choicers who support such initiatives, myself included.

      countertop:
      I am going to go out in society and kill someone (and pay the consequences) or not.

      It’s not even close to the same thing. The only way you could even come close to making a case for this is if you made the ridiculous assumption that “deciding to have sex” = “deciding to get pregnant.”

      In any case, if abortion is murder, then by extension miscarriage is manslaughter. We’d better get cracking with all those investigations and arrests.

      The fact is, (at least here in DC and in most urban areas – I don’t have knowledge on rural areas regarding this) the vast majority of abortions are performed on upper and upper middle class i) college girls who got too drunk and forgot to use protection or didn’t care about using protection or ii) career women (single or married) who had sex and got pregnant (either because their choice of protection failed or because they forgot to use it) and don’t want a child that might interfere with either their a) social life or b) career.

      Got statistics to back that up? The plural of anecdote is not data. In fact, at least on a national scale, the AGI seems to directly contradict that assertion:

      Overall unintended pregnancy rates have stagnated over the past decade, yet unintended pregnancy increased by 29% among poor women while decreasing 20% among higher-income women.

      According to the same statistics, four in ten unintended pregnancies end in abortion. They also state that 57% of women who have abortions are economically disadvantaged, in gross contrast to your “vast majority” assertion. So it’s becoming less and less a problem among the affluent, and more and more a problem among the poor. Cases like you describe are decidedly the exception, and not the rule.

      Not enough? Have some more.

      All for more education and more rubbers, but as I stated, I don’t think increases in either – at this point in time will have a noticeable impact.

      Worldwide statistics would seem to disagree. Western countries with the most comprehensive sex education, and with the most liberalized contraception policies, tend to have the lowest rates of abortion.

      AGI has some interesting reading on how to effectively reduce the incidence of abortion without criminalizing it.

      Aunt B:

      The Guttmacher Institute, whose statistics are respected by both sides of the abortion debate, lists the number at about 1.2 million per year. See above links.

    17. straightarrow Says:

      If you can prosecute someone for killing a fetus in an auto accident or place a second charge of murder against them when a fetus dies as the result of the murder of the expectant mother, it seems rather hypocritical to say it is ok to kill that same fetus if you pay someone to do it. It is also hypocritical for it to be a human life in some circumstances and not if its conception is inconvenient to the conceivers.

      If left alone, will it be human? I mean, is there any proof that any woman anywhere gave birth to a dolphin? If it isn’t life then it wouldn’t grow, would it? I have never heard of a woman giving birth to a matching washer and dryer. Those are examples of things that aren’t life.

      I can see the headline “Woman gives birth to matching washer/dryer” GE sues.

      I don’t buy the choice argument either. How many choices do you get, before it is considered wrong to kill human life.

      One could choose not to have sex. I never did, but one could. One could choose to have protected sex. One could choose to keep and raise the child in accordance with the accepted risk and responsibility of pregnancy (goes for man or woman), funny how no one ever thinks the guy should get a choice. One could choose adoption over death.

      Yet the only choice that seems to fit the definition of choice for the killers is the choice to kill. I listed five choices above that don’t involve death. Why do none of them count as choice? Why does killing count as a legitimate choice?

      We have established that if not life, no growth, if not human what? Huh uh! Those are weak arguments made to cloud the issue for the comfort of those too lazy and irresponsible to live up to their duties. I don’t particularly give a damn if they are comfortable.

    18. Manish Says:

      When God made man and woman, he/she didn’t make things fair…this is the first thing that you need to consider. God made woman the one that carries the baby to term. The man only has one role at the very beginning. So what is the consequences of having unprotected sex that results in pregnancy? For the woman it is 9 months of pregnancy, cramps, moodiness, weight-gain, etc. For the man its pretty much nothing. So the question is how do we deal with this inequality. One method is to say tough luck to the woman…give birth and then give the kid away to adoption or keep the kid. The other is to give the woman the ability to terminate her pregnancy. There is no simple answer to this question, but abortion is more than just “killing babies” or “vile and horrendous”.

      Of course, then the argument comes about a man’s right to choose. The reality is that a man can’t do anything to bring a baby to term its only the woman. And it seems rather intrusive to force a woman to do something that she doesn’t want to do for the benefit of the man. I could say “Hey Uncle, go home and bake me a cake”..if you have no interest in baking a cake or eatin the cake, why should I have any right to make you? Now it might be true that I have no ability to make a cake (either ineptness or no ownership of an oven), but then life isn’t fair.

    19. Manish Says:

      countertop…I wanted to address something that you wrote..you said that you support abortion up to the first trimester. O.k. fair enough, now here are some questions:

      -When is the first trimester over? As I understand it, doctors assume that a baby was conceived 2 weeks after the last period. It could have been a day after, it could have been 3 weeks after. So when is the first trimester over? What day is it legal to have an abortion such that the next day it is illegal? And of course its the mother who will ultimately say when she had period last.

      -What should the consequences be? Should we be putting mothers who have an abortion in jail? Should they be subject to the death penalty? What about cases where there is genuine disagreement on when conception happened..what then? Do you want a woman to face the death penalty because of a dispute on which day it was legal to have an abortion and which day it wasn’t legal? What about the doctor? What should be the consequence to him/her?

    20. gattsuru Says:

      tgirsch, do you honestly want to make the claim that people having sex weren’t aware of what the natural result of such intimacy is? Or that the folks who need . Correlations drawn between significantly different cultures are effectively meaningless, you know that, just as trying to use Sweden’s crime rate or Brazil’s to compare to the United States would be.

      Manish, can we avoid the false dilema? I know you’d be hard-pressed to find an anti-abortion advocate that wasn’t fond of the option of holding negligent fathers responsible for the prices and care of the female in a pregnancy (please, let’s stick with reality – it’s anti- and pro-abortion we’re talking about, not “life” or “choice”). And, yes, it is “vile” and “horrendous” : the second and third trimester fetuses often have their skeletal system “passed”, which certainly fits the above criteria. You may argue that it’s not the worst alternative, although I’d be hard pressed to even compare mild discomfort and mood swings to destroying something that might counts as a human.

      And, of course, nevermind the part where the courts and legislature is able to define what a ‘human’ is, and when it gains the unalienable rights to life et all. It’s not like that’s ever gone wrong before.

      I’ll put it as simply as I can : I don’t want the government deciding what is “alive” or not, and not falling on the side of caution. And while I’m not a particular fan of letting folks that couldn’t figure out a condom reproduce anymore than they are currently, I’d also prefer that the same folks don’t get legal permission to destroy something that they might think is alive. Not to mention how the second derivative of humanity’s population growth rate has gone negative.

    21. gattsuru Says:

      I believe that there is only a small portion of time where a released egg is viable for insemination, and only a small slice of time where an egg is released. I’m quite certain the egg could not have been fertilized in a section of time as large as several weeks.

      From a structural viewpoint, the development of teeth buds and the closing of the fetal eyelids are important signs, as well as the creation of new red blood cells (usually found in the liver). Of course, picking the point where a fetus’s neural tube has completed construction and closed would make more sense and be even more visible, but why let logic get in the way of politics.

      As to the punishment, usually murder under extreme agitation doesn’t get life or even close. Voluntary manslaughter typically runs at 10 years maximum, although this varies by state. And the expentant mother would only be soliticing murder, or conspiring to it, not actually providing the act itself (outside of the rare abortificants, but medically those are usually iffy past the 1st trimester). It would be the doctors, if a mens rea and evidence that they were aware of the age of the fetus or choose to not check, which would be held to the highest standards.

      Ah, and as to the miscarriage arguement : most miscarriages are due to the fetus’ inability to survive, usually genetic issues, which express themselves in the first trimester. Later miscarriages still aren’t typically doesn’t provide a mens rea of criminal negligence (or any

    22. gattsuru Says:

      [ed: gr... sorry, missed a block of text]

      (or any mens rea at all), which would make them effectively impossible to convict or even try for.

    23. Joe Huffman Says:

      I’d like to have heard some of these comments on controlling human sexuality. Because the crazy-ass contingent of the pro-choice crowd often says that abortion is about controlling women or women’s sexuality.

      I obtained these quotes years ago from a biased source and haven’t bother to verify them but they do tend to support the claim that at least some anti-abortion people have wanted to control sexuality:

      Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions.

      -Phyllis Schlafy-

      It’s very healthy for a young girl to be deterred from promiscuity by fear of contracting a painful, incurable disease, or cervical cancer, or sterility, or the likelihood of giving birth to a dead, blind, or brain-damaged baby (even ten years later when she may be happily married).

      -Phyllis Schlafy-

      I think contraception is disgusting — people using each other for pleasure.

      -Joseph Scheidler-
      Director, Pro-Life Action League

    24. tgirsch Says:

      straightarrow:
      If you can prosecute someone for killing a fetus in an auto accident or place a second charge of murder against them when a fetus dies as the result of the murder of the expectant mother, it seems rather hypocritical to say it is ok to kill that same fetus if you pay someone to do it.

      That’s admittedly a complex issue, but it’s not as difficult as you paint it. Imagine a totally legal procedure like, say, having a tooth removed. If somebody punches you and knocks your tooth out, that’s a potential crime. If you pay a dentist to remove the tooth, no crime has been committed. It’s the same thing with terminating a pregnancy. Just because some of us argue that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy doesn’t mean that we’re arguing that having it terminated (especially against her will) is always acceptable. Unless you start from the premise that aborting an embryo or fetus is always wrong in all circumstances, your argument simply does not follow.

      If left alone, will it be human?

      Eventually, most likely yes, but I’m not entirely sure how that’s relevant. The argument has more to do with what it is than with what it will become. Is it self-aware? Is it capable of suffering in a meaningful way? Can it survive independently of its host? If the answers to these questions are all “no,” then I don’t see where the foul is.

      (And in the related case of the embryos used for stem cell research, the answer to your question is “no.”)

      Yet the only choice that seems to fit the definition of choice for the killers is the choice to kill. I listed five choices above that don’t involve death. Why do none of them count as choice? Why does killing count as a legitimate choice?

      Here you’re full of shit. Pro-choice people make these choices, and advocate these choices every day. They also include an additional choice — abortion — that you would exclude. To many of us, the choice to abort early in pregnancy should be allowed because we believe that while not getting pregnant in the first place would be better, early-term abortion is still preferable to giving birth to a child which you are unwilling or unable to care for. I want every child to be a WANTED child, and abortion is a necessary part of making that reality.

      And this is where you and I will never see eye-to-eye. You see abortion as a way of avoiding responsibility for past actions. I see it, in many cases, as TAKING responsibility for past actions. If you think abortion is an “easy way out,” you’ve probably never been close to someone who’s actually had one.

    25. tgirsch Says:

      gattsuru:
      do you honestly want to make the claim that people having sex weren’t aware of what the natural result of such intimacy is?

      No, I’m making the claim that there’s an inverse relationship between comprehensive sex education and unintended pregnancy. It’s more complicated than that, but nevertheless that holds true.

      And, yes, it is “vile” and “horrendous”

      No more so than dumpster babies, or neglected, impoverished, unwanted, undernourished children. In fact, I argue that all of these alternatives to abortion are worse. For the record, no I’m not saying that all aborted children would find themselves in such circumstances if carried to term, but statistically speaking, most of them would find themselves in one or more of them.

      I don’t want the government deciding what is “alive” or not

      That’s as compelling a pro-choice argument as I’ve ever heard. Leave the government out of that decision, and leave it up to a woman and her doctor. The same argument, for that matter, could be applied to PVS patients.

      The bottom line is that you do want the government to make that decision, and to err on the extreme side of caution in making it.

    26. straightarrow Says:

      tgirsch, you’re wrong on every count, including the assumptions you make about my proximity.

      If I am so full of shit, tell me the last time you saw a pro-choice rally pushing adoption or parenting. I have never seen it. They pay minimal lip service, but all their effort goes to killing fetuses.

      There is no goddamned way abortion is an acceptance of responsibility. Talk about Newspeak.

      As for Manish, I believe it was, you are correct that you can’t tell Uncle to bake a cake and expect he will do it. But you can expect Uncle to pay the bill if while baking a cake he carelessly burns your house down. Same as if he killed your would-be kid.

      Yeah, fathers should have a say in it. Only exception , cases of rape, or incest or life of the mother. Then the father should have no say, obviously. I don’t want to hear this crap about a woman being in bondage if she is forced to carry to term, either. That is so hypocritical it stinks. If that is your premise, then what is child support paid by fathers about, except bondage decided by the woman’s decision whether or not to have the child. Should an expectant father be allowed to demand an abortion, so he isn’t put in that bonded position. If not, why not? Especially if he didn’t want the kid(s). After all if the principles are held true that are being espoused in favor of abortion, should they not apply equally anyone apt to be trapped by the responsibility of children? If you can’t answer yes to these questions then your stand isn’t one of principle but of convenience. If you can answer yes, then your principles are intact but your humanity is ragged.

      A woman has a right to protect her own life, even at the expense of her unborn child. Many would choose the risk, but fault can’t be assigned when some do not.

      I have been a single parent with four children, and I will tell you there is little that is harder. So before you people think this is someone who hasn’t been there, back up.

      I eventually raised 8 children as my own. Four were biological and four weren’t, but I have to sit down and make a list to tell you which is which. Let me tell you something, except for the financial advantage men usually enjoy raising children alone is much harder for men than women. It is unbelievable the number of people that think a father would only care for his children for unclean reasons. I have smacked the Hell out of more than one that hinted at such. I had never suspected the prejucice against male parents until I became single and kept the kids. It is mind boggling.

    27. tgirsch Says:

      straightarrow:
      f I am so full of shit, tell me the last time you saw a pro-choice rally pushing adoption or parenting. I have never seen it.

      They were right across the street from the pro-life rally in support of providing contraception and comprehensive sex education for everyone.

      Then again, if you want to play games and conflate the larger “pro-choice” sentiment (held by something like two-thirds of the US population) with groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, then there’s probably not much chance of having a reasoned debate with you about the issue.

      Speaking of Planned Parenthood, whatever else you might say about them, at least they explicitly list adoption and keeping the baby as options. Pro-life “crisis pregnancy centers” don’t even acknowledge abortion as an option. And some pro-life groups are now masquerading as abortion clinics in order to run interference and prevent abortion through deception. Shall I pigeonhole the entire “pro-life” movement into this small category? It would only be fair, given your caricature of pro-choicers.

      There is no goddamned way abortion is an acceptance of responsibility.

      All I can say is you’re wrong. It is wholly and completely irresponsible to have a child if you are unwilling or unable to properly care for it (or care for yourself during pregnancy). While it’s clearly preferable not to get pregnant in the first place if this applies to you, it’s still preferable in most such circumstances to abort rather than irresponsibly give birth to a child for which you cannot or will not care.

      And even for those cases where health during pregnancy isn’t a concern, adoption is simply not a viable option. There are, on average, 155,000 children waiting to be adopted at any given time. If even a quarter of aborted fetuses were carried to term and put up for adoption, that would nearly triple that waiting list. Never mind the fact that it’s odd for a conservative to describe the “responsible” course of action as dumping your mistake off on someone else, which is essentially what the adoption-instead-of-abortion argument comes down to. Never mind the fact that most self-described pro-lifers would restrict adoption even further, prohibiting homosexuals, for example, from adopting.

      Let me stress here that I have nothing against adoption, and in fact I think it’s an extremely noble cause for those willing to go through with it. It’s simply not a viable replacement for abortion. Not by a long shot. When you show me that the number of parents willing to adopt comes anywhere close to the number of abortions, then we can talk about adoption as an alternative.

      Trying to calm down for a moment, let me say that I respect that you’ve raised children responsibly. I really do. My brother was a single Dad for several years (and of only one child), so I know how hard it can be. But just because you were willing and able to make the tremendous sacrifices necessary to do that effectively doesn’t mean that everyone else is, too.

    28. SayUncle » On my alleged libertarianism Says:

      [...] Here, I said: if there’s one sure fire way to make anything worse, it’s to have the government either 1) regulate it or 2) ban it. Guaranteed. [...]

    29. Kirk Parker Says:

      Nimrod,

      unless and until a fetus can survive outside the womb

      Sorry, dude, you just proved a little too much: no newborn can survive entirely on their own, either. Hello, Dr. Singer! How much infanticide are you willing to countenance?

    30. tgirsch Says:

      Kirk:
      no newborn can survive entirely on their own

      No, but it can survive without being physically tied to a particular woman, which was Nimrod’s point. At that point, a woman can absolve herself of the responsibility for the fetus/baby/child/whatever-you-call-it-at-that-stage without killing it. Someone else can take over that responsibility. Earlier in pregnancy, that’s simply not the case. That’s the key difference you ignore.

    Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

    Uncle Pays the Bills


    blog advertising is good for you

    Find Local
    Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


    bisonAd

    Categories

    Archives