The Deafening Silence
It's been a week since The Lancet published the comprehensive Guttmacher Institute study which found that bans on abortion fail to reduce abortion rates. The researchers of the study also discovered that countries where abortion is legal (and the emphasis is on prevention rather than prosecution) experience the most dramatic declines in abortion.
Such news should undoubtedly give pro-lifers reason for pause. What with the endless railing about the immorality of abortion, and now it turns out their way of thinking does nothing to actually reduce abortions. It's only fair to give them a minute to collect themselves. Perhaps some careful (re)consideration is in order.
But there has been nothing but silence from the "anti-abortion" movement. There have been no press releases admitting the (now scientifically proven) error of their ways. Nor have we heard that anti-abortion groups are excited to discover that at least there is an approach that succeeds in reducing the need for abortion. (Doesn't that deserve a 'hallelujah' from the religious right?) Instead, the "anti-abortion" movement is silent about the newly revealed "pro-abortion" effects of their efforts.
I came across a blog about the Guttmacher study on a site called Mirror of Justice (it's "dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory"). It was posted the day the report was released and was written by Professor Eduardo Penalver of Cornell University. He wrote,
"Here's my question. If this study were true, and if it were the case that making abortion illegal would most likely only drive it underground, without having much effect on its actual incidence but making it far more dangerous for women to have an abortion, would that be a reason to rethink the Church's teachings, not on the morality of abortion, but on the tight connection between abortion's (im)morality and its legality? I've tried to get this conversation off the ground a few times at MOJ, but I feel like we often get side-tracked onto the question of abortion's morality or into the empirical question whether studies like this one are actually correct."
Pro-lifers clearly delight in discussing the morality abortion -- all merrily participating in the forced march to the same answer -- but when the discussion turns to prevention they're flat out of ideas. Those who can't do, preach. I wrote to Professor Penalver this morning inquiring about the responses he's so far received on this anti-abortion friendly site. He emailed back promptly to report his "disappointment" over "the general lack of a response." And so the silence increases in volume.
Now, to be fair, some spokespeople have spun. These few brave enough to go public with a reaction to this devastating study are engaged in this strategy: kill the messenger.
Randall O'Bannon, saddled with the oxymoronic title "director of education and research" at National Right to Life, said, "These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data." No doubt Mr. O'Bannon understands how Lancet editors let the researchers' agenda trump their science. After O'Bannon is done questioning the validity of studies published by one of the world's renowned scientific journals he can explain why 5 of 15 "fact sheets" on his organization's website offer no citations and 6 of the remaining 10 use the Guttmacher Institute, the very organization he claims has an "agenda", as a source. (Apparently a source can be both trustworthy and untrustworthy depending on the reader's agenda!)
You'd think genuine pro-lifers would be interested in knowing what results in low abortion rates. The fact that the only reaction that has come from the pro-life establishment is one of disbelief, cynicism and silence indicates that's not the case. Indeed, as we've known for a while, this whole ugly conflict isn't really even about abortion. For the anti-abortionists, the goal is to re-introduce the preventable consequences to sex as a way to scare people into abstinence. If that isn't the point, then why aren't National Right to Life staffers on a plane right now heading to the Netherlands to learn how that country managed to achieve the lowest abortion rates on earth? (Because it's free birth control, comprehensive sex ed, and a universal acceptance of sex for pleasure that did it. All solutions they appear to oppose more than abortion.)
It's worth offering up a comparison. What if a whole movement devoted to curing cancer insisted on only supporting techniques shown time and again to fail? What if they supported the ones that result in the highest cancer rates? Would it even be considered an anti-cancer movement? It's time to clean up the semantics: Is it possible that the "anti-abortion" is really a pro-abortion movement in disguise? (That disguise being obstinacy.)
For breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org
Follow Cristina Page on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cristinapage
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What's amazing is why anti-abortionists are leaping with joy at the findings this study made on how to make abortion disappear.
Nobody, nobody, gets up in the morning and says "I think I'll have an abortion today!". Abortions are born of desperation, necessity and despair. They have been practiced since humans became human--if you seek to make abortions go away, you cannot legislate them away. You must make them unnecessary.
But that is counter to the true agenda of the Ultra Conservative Christiano
Great point. Desperation, necessity and despair.
It's because the church made pariahs of the women who became pregnant out of wedlock. Who would not seek an abortion under those circumstances? So judgmental of women. They've encouraged abortion! I've never once heard them preach to men about not having sex. The men's rights groups are about reestablishing a man's role as head of the family. What does that mean? What makes men so special? They were conceived and born the same way women were. They had to learn to walk and talk and pee in the pot just like women. Men just want women to be miserable. There is no other explanation.
How about we fill those sperm banks and render men basically obsolete? We can live without them, but they can't get beyond this generation without us.
"Pro-Life" has never been pro-life--just anti-abortion and really, anti-sex. These same people are mostly pro-death penalty proponents.
George Carlin said it YEARS ago: The churches want to control people through SEX. They want to totally limit, if not eliminate sex from people's lives for ANYTHING but producing babies.
It was a BIG DEAL when the Catholic Church said it was OK for couples to actually ENJOY sex while trying to make a baby.
Preventing people from having sex except when you say it's OK, and making them feel guilty about it is a GREAT way to control them.
Testosterone-laden young men who can't get any relief (because you also make self-pleasuring a sin too) march into battle crazy and kill-ready.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone. They've ALWAYS been against all forms of birth control as well.
Exactly. These activists are not pro-life AT ALL. They are for penalizing the wrong kind of sex. They want it to be associated with death, disease and poverty -- none of which are "pro-life" positions in that the life they advocate is nasty, brutish and short for those who break the rules.
I would imagine it's next if they ever get their way to stop dispensing drugs for VD.
Loved the Hobbes reference. I think you're right on target. What really gets me about so much of the Religious Right is the insistence that they should stand in the place of the God they say they worship and take over the responsibility for judging others. And somehow in their assessments they never leave room for grace, forgiveness, or even understanding -- it's always just the harshest judgement possible.
Again, here we are discussing what the church thinks. It shouldn't even be an issue.
For example:
I think everyone should worship collie dogs because Lassie was a collie and, as everyone knows, she was a saint of a dog.
Now I can come up with all kinds of myths and stories surrounding my god-dog, AND I will force these stories and their morals, judgements, and lessons down everyone's throats. I will lobby Congress and take it to the Supreme Court.
This is silly and stupid and this is exactly how I feel about religion and the religious. They are delusional and should keep their world of make-believe to themselves.
In the meantime, let's move forward with personal choices, science, stem-cell research, euthanasia. The rest of the world is surpassing us because of our religious fanaticism. The religious right is keeping this country in the dark ages. And they are infringing on MY RIGHTS.
We should refrain from using the term "Pro-lifers" for those zealous anti-abort
I hope that your article stimulates some sincere, good-hearted anti-abortionists to reflect on their blind stance, if not to seek a deep soul searching.
None of the so-called pro-lifers care one bit about the babies who will or will not be born. It's all about control. Women are meant to SERVE their MEN and not have a mind of their own. Are any of them out there feeding the children who have no food because their mothers are destitute? NO. Are any of them out there putting a stop to child abuse, molestation, child rape, child murder, making sure these perpetrators are locked up and never again see the light of day? NO. What about the fact that these so-called pro-lifers WANT mothers to DIE? Is that pro-life? I DON'T THINK SO.
I personally would have NEVER had an abortion. All of my babies were wanted and loved before they were born, but GOD ABORTED 2 OF MY 4 BABIES. God is an abortionist. That's a miscarriage, for those who are interested. It's called a "Spontaneous Abortion" If you believe in God, then God is the abortionist. He is not pro-life at all.
What a woman decides should be HER CHOICE. Not these fanatics who don't care about the babies after they are here.
A republican woman called a show I was watching one morning and had this to say: "These liberals are all alike. They don't care about murdering babies, but they CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THEM AFTER THEY'RE HERE." DUH!!!!! DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?
I don't want to upset you, but as someone who doesn't believe in God, I just think something was wrong with the embryos you were carrying and your body simply expelled them, which happens often in nature. It's actually a good thing, to bring only the fit into the world. Thinking that a God would do it for some reason is a much harder contortion to contemplate - for me anyway. But I agree with everything you said about the anti-abortion movement. As a man I feel this a woman's decision, period. If I were a woman and found myself pregnant, I would want every choice open to me. The charge of murder by the anti-choice crowd is misdirected hysteria.
This matter of miscarriages is one I've thought about a lot while going through pregnancy loss of my own. I've read that a great number of conceptions -- more than half, I think, although I'd have to look it up -- end in miscarriage, often before the woman is sure she's pregnant. I'm sure demigod is right that it's a natural process.
The thing that bothers me is, if life truly begins at conception, if every fertilized egg is automatically a human being, then that's a tremendous number of souls being created only to be immediately destroyed. If there were a God running it all, he would be guilty of a vast slaughter of human souls, if only through negligence -- through engineering the plumbing or the process so badly.
This fact about pregnancy loss probably does more than anything else to convince me that the religion-based argument of "conception = soul = human, so no abortion" can't be right.
"You'd think genuine pro-lifers would be interested in knowing what results in low abortion rates."
That's because genuine pro-lifers don't care about women and their health and life in general. They care about forcing pregnancy on women to help assist in making their warped world view a reality. That world view is where men are the supreme dominate force and women are subordinate puppets who's sole existance is to please the male. Pro-lifers are misogynists.
I think it goes back to the instinctual desire of men to know they're rearing their own genetic heritage - chimpanzees get very excited in their own way (no Bibles involved) over the same thing - hence the need to hem in women's sexuality and the anxiety surrounding female sexual promiscuity. Pregnancies that can't be terminated are obviously a good way to keep women in line.
JohnJames sez:
". . . .I think it goes back to the instinctual desire of men to know they're rearing their own genetic heritage - chimpanzees get very excited in their own way (no Bibles involved) over the same thing. . . ."
Now, I realize this will be regarded as a tagent, but where are the Bonobos [?], the primates that use sex for all sorts of wild social interactions that the sexually repressed chimps regard as good a reason to go to war as any---if you think about it the entire left/right thing just might be a bonobo/chimp thing, varying quantities of different long strands of proteins. . . .
We think we think but really, it's just the chemicals flowing through our veins. We are so much closer to chimps and bonobos than we will ever be to that great gasseous diffusion and projection of male energy that folks in the west like to call 'God'.
I've always said - it take TWO to make that baby.
Abortion is a medical procedure - not a decision.
THAT decision (once it reaches the point of the "elephant in the womb") rests with THAT INDIVIDUAL and the ACCOMPLICE (if they wish)and THAT Individual's support people (doctor, minister, priest, shaman, relatives, etc.)
NO ONE WANTS to go thru the process of abortion.
And that process needs definite discussion in this day and age of birth control and "after the deed" pill availability.
BUT - the process should ALWAYS be available.
IF, as in Europe, we were able to go to a drug store and get any type of contraception we want, particularly the pill, abortion would be all but wiped out. I can guarantee it.
Denying young women the freedom to CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN, without the need to visit a GYN to get birth control, is the reason young girls get pregnant so often. Few of them have the $120-$160 it costs these days to go for an ANNUAL visit, and then the $45 a pack it costs per month, not to mention the fact that they can't be prescribed without advising their parent if under 18.
I was fortunate enough to have an older friend who took me to Planned Parenthood
I have but one argument with OTC birth control pills. Clots, stroke, etc. Considering how serious the side effects can be women using hormonal contraceptives really need to be educated and monitored by medical professionals. But, they should still have free access--aka universal healthe care.
Unwanted pregnancy is also a serious side effect.
I had a great "discussion" with a right to lifer about post natal care. The person was very adamant about right to life but totally lost interest in what happens after birth. faced with that question, the person got very vague. I pursued the question to its conclusion- if you insist that a woman who can't support the child have the child, will you, right now, sign a paper stating that you are willing to take responsibility for your moral judgment and support the child until he or she leaves college?
I won't detail what followed, but it can be best described as a bob & weave that would do Ali proud. Followed by a stomping off, and a thrown "you just don't understand!"
So typical of the biblicans- they pass moral judgment on others but don't want to accept the responsibility of what they inflict on others.
Very anti Christian.
Isn't that so true Azure? I have had MANY a "discussions" that resulted in "you don't get it" and a stomping off.
But I still do, and always will confront this type of thinking with the above logic... even if I can turn one ANTI-LIFER around... I will have done some good for the world.
"Moral indignation" is jealousy with a halo.
--H.G. Wells
This seems to describe the anti-choicers well.
It is all well and fine to be personally anti-abortion or pro-choice for that matter. Yet, it is intelligent to also view the question and probilities in pragmatic terms.
If Roe vs. Wade was overturned, what would happen? I speculate that anyone with $3,000.00 or less Visa/MC credit wishing an abortion would simply fly to the Caribbean, take a week off and have their procedure, and return well tanned. The poor would ingest pills, etc. in an attempt to miscarry. Other among the poor may attempt to crudely perferate the uterus. Perhaps there would be a few who would choose the adoption route. Bottom line, you can not legislate morality.
On a personal level, I do not condone abortion. I believe furthermore in taking care of the people who are already here, especially children! It is amazing how many practice their religion in a selective doctrine manner as they see as being applicable, but appear not to grasp the general message!
Roe vs Wade was about a woman who claimed to have been raped wanting to have an abortion. What in all these years have either side done to eliminate rape and incest and thus violent sex committed against women and children? No one, not the Bishops and Cardinals, the male religious leaders or the women who claim they want the freedom to abort. Yes, aborton is violence done in response to sexual violence.
The problem starts with permitting sexual violence, doing nothing about it, or worse hidding it behind abortions, because a pregnancy does expose the sexual violence. The non-violent response to abortions is to stop sexual violence committed against women and children. This is what those who represent religion should reflect. Jesus refused to committ an act of violence against the woman caught in adultry, because why respond to an act of sexual violence (all women were slaves at the time of Jesus) with violence.
Do something about sexual violence committed against women and children and abortons will be greatly reduced.
This is a well written and thought out piece. But, please can we try something different? This is not a "choice". It is a serious "decision". This is not like choosing which shoes to buy. Women, young and old, are faced with a myriad of spritual, social, and economic issues when this event occurs. If men, which they can never, stand in any young poor girl's shoes, it would not be a matter of the redemption of her soul, but the direction of her life. You can't stop "mistakes" from happening (another ridiculous word). If the men were punishable for conceiving an unwanted pregnancy, maybe they would care differently.
Well said.
The "mistake" is the one made by a society that pushes policies that do not accomplish said policies' stated ends.
I'm all for holding (my felllow) men accountable farther upstream that our current system, which only kicks in re child support, but NOT re the pregnancy itself.
prevention is better than abortion. Don't understand why we put more emphasis on prevention and education . In 2007 , there should be no need for abortion or unwanted pregnancies anymore. There must be some dumb people out there. Our daughter had her first child when she was married and 27. Our son had his first child when he was 24 and married. How stupid must you be these days to still put unwanted children on this earth. I have a feeling religion is one of the culprits that holds people back from being smart about sex. Do away with religion and you probably have no abortions. Religion is a curse and holds us back in facing the future sensible. Religion has nothing to do with the real God or our soul.
dora_rice,
maybe the two term election of an anti-choice, anti-contraception president who instituted the gag-rule on his first day of his vile presidency and has effectively undermined family planning initiatives has something to do with the lack of emphasis on prevention. This has made it enormously difficult for women, especially poor women, to get the proper family planning tools they need. Americans need to wake up.
Not stupid, ignorant. Abstinence only education has proven in multiple studies to not only be ineffective in preventing teen pregnancy, but to actually increase other risky behaviors. The author of this post hit the nail on the head: it's not about preventing abortion, it's about trying to prevent sex.
It's naive to think the abortion issue has ever really been about saving embryos and fetuses on the part of most the "pro-life" movement's leaders. The real purpose has always been to return this country to an idealized 1950's when good girls didn't have sex and bad girls really paid for it. It's significant in this regard that no social conservatives have lifted a finger to stop in vitro fertilization which necessarily produces far more fertilized ova than will ever be used and they're eventually destroyed - but they're not the product of sex, so who cares.
I like that. And where there's a BAD girl, isn't there a BAD boy?
No, as in their eyes 'Boys will be boys', and
on the wedding night a man is supposed to have'experience', while the woman is supposed to be a 'virgin'. I am not sure where the man is supposed to get this 'experienc
No, they're "just being boys".
What horrifies me is not the huge numbers of abortions which the "pro-life" movement points to, but the thought of a world where all those people were actually here, consuming resources, creating wastes, trying to find work and housing, and making more babies. This world cannot maintain the human populations we have now, signs of decay and environmental breakdown are everywhere. It's really what wars are about - resources and human conflict. What would the "pro-life" movement need to see to admit that humans are destroying the quality of life on earth ?
They don't care what kind of a hell hole they turn the planet into - they tend to be the same flag-waving superpatriots who push for every possible war - as long as they can re-establish patriarchy. Their talk of "life" is total bullsh!t and they use Christianity as a fig leaf. They don't care if we're headed for a future dog-eat-dog dystopia of death and destruction.
Population growth leads to overpopulation. Overpopulation leads to war. Check the Greeks. Walled cities equals war. We could all drive cars if the population were not so huge. Having children is not good. Having more than two should be a crime. No exceptions.
demigod you are the only one who has written of the terrible consequences of overpopulation. The Chinese lived with the consequences for ever. The population was controlled by war and famine. Now they have the one child policy and they are getting rich.
They are all expecting the rapture any day now. No need to worry about the consequences for the future. Besides, god always provides--right? And, didn't "he" create the whole universe to serve the needs and pleasure of humans? No problem.
JohnJames,
I recall an episode of the Bill Maher show years ago. The woman who was Paula Jones' "public relations representative" was on the show and one topic was the "right to choose." The woman was adamently anti-abortion. However, Maher pointed out she herself had had not one but two abortions. She angrily snapped back that that was no one's business. My, my, my. Oh, the hypocrisy.
BTW, Bush's veto of the S-Chip legislation was sustained: "Love the embryo, despise the child." The C-Span tally (that I saw) showed 153 pro-embryo rethugs voted to deny healthcare to poor and lower middle class children.
Interesting that in places such as New York City, a salary of over $80K isn't enough to afford health insurance. But do pro-embryo rethugs care?
"Just Say No?"
Hah.
Just Say "Law of Unintended Consequenc
One of the problems we on the left have had for a long time now is we have not framed our argument very well publicly. I am a liberal, and I am very much against abortion personally. That is to say, I would never advise it to a loved one if there were any other options to that person. However, I respect the fact that each person has the right to choose what's appropriate for them and would therefore stand by the decision of that person and help them in any way I could.
The republican
The whole "choice" argument has the wrong focus. The real question is what is society's obligation to the already-born.
dawlisgal that is the question that the antiabortion people feel is irrelevant. Take the veto against more health insurance coverage for children. Vetoed. Better to save a fertilized egg than a two year old.
The already-born don't count because by then it's too late to impose their arrogant, pious, religious, hypocrisy. No self-agrandizing fulfillment involved with the already-born.
You and I follow laws that are based on what others believe every day. I could try to tell a policemen that I believe I should be able to drive 70 mph in a 55mph zone because it's what I believe. I'm thinking it's not going to matter, I'll still get the ticket. The "imposing law that differ from my beliefs" is DOA.
Include the word murder in your statement in the first paragraph. "I'm apposed to murder, personally. That is I would never advise it to a loved one if there were any other options to that person. However, I respect the fact that each person has the right to choose murder for them and would therefore stand by the decision of that person and help them in any way I could." Abortion is killing a human being. It's not about a selfish choice. it's about murder. This is all about not dealing with consequences of our actions.
For the record. I'm a "republica
The short answer is education and contraception. Those two things have consistently been proven to work. Coversely, attempts to legislate abortion rights away and the promotion of "abstinence training" consistently have been shown to have the opposite effect.
If your real issue is pre-marital sex, that's another problem, but looking at the available data, the pairing of education and availability of contraception have so far proven effective in lowering rates of abortion.
Abortions will stop when wingnuts like yourself teach more than just abstinence to your kids.
Teach your children that while abstinence is best, sometimes your hormones get the best of them. In that case, condoms/Birth control pills are a must.
Teach them that sexual feelings are NOT dirty, they are NATURAL but there is a certain amount of maturity needed. I have been fortunate to follow through with the prevention methods I was taught so therefore, no unplanned pregnancies.
But no, you would rather your son/daughter be ignorant of prevention and feel guilty about their normal urges because some spagetti monster in the sky told you so.
So in order to answer your question, the only way to prevent abortions is to educate people on birth control methods. Telling humans to be abstinent is tantamount to telling them not to breath. It won't happen.
"Abortion is killing a human being." You had better read the US Supreme Court's ruling on the topic. The SCOTUS has ruled that fetuses are not human beings and are not due the rights that a person (post-born) is to be accorded.
That said, I don't like abortion, either. However, I believe that abortion should reamin available unless you provide a women and men with education, contraceptives, etc., prospective mother all the "options" - proper pre-natal medical care, etc. - and new borns with access to medical care, etc.
BTW, do you support the death penalty? I don't.
Peace!
Mark
But you can't reduce it to zero. Abortion has always been around and will always be around. The recognition of the pro-choice movement is that absolute prevention is a pipe dream so the better option is the lesser of the two: safe and legal.
As for your murder arguement, it falls quite short from a proclaimed member of a party that is resoundingly pro-death penalty.
And the poster already told us how to reduce abortions: Make it legal, and provide better sex education. Didn't you read the post?
Truly.... your arguments are as ridiculous are you are. You're comparing speeding to chosing to have or not to have children.
As soon as you sign a contract to take care of every child that is born into this world to a single, poor or teenage mother.... I will most certainly rethink my position.
But knowing that you would never do that and you do not have the forethought for such logical thinking, and would rather see a child suffer through malnutrition, abuse at the hands of an alcoholic father/mother, cold, heat, no healthcare, no clean water to drink and eventually end up on the wrong side of the tracks... I know my stand on this issue is safe for a long as I live.
A large part of the explanation of why the anti-abortion side does not care about such numbers is that they are not consequnetialists. The issue for them is not really the numbers of fetuses aborted. After all they are not bothered by the fact that most conceptions are spontaneously aborted, despite the fact that they contend that these are full people with souls and rights.
Opponents of abortion are more likely to be virtue theorists whose objection is more to what they see as the decline of society which is reflected in things like gay marraige and abortion. And so it is the sanctioning of these things through legalization that horrifies them. They only get sucked into consequentialist debates because they think they have to.
But it has long been true in this country at least that if one wants to rail against abortion one should vote republican. If one wants to reduce the number of abortions it is better to vote democratic.
"...not consequnet
Love it.
Reminds me of everything spewing forth from the Whiteout House.
You can't possibly be serious? The opponents of abortion hail from the racial superiorist who see an environment of 'abortion' in America, as dangerous to the survival of the dwindling 'white race.' If one were to follow your conclusions to their logical ends, one would naturally wonder why if the 'opponents of abortion' do not take up the charge for the care of those babies, in a general sense, who are being born into circumstances that their parent or parents feel is worthy of them aborting.
It would seem that if these 'opponents' have such natural opposition to the decline of society that they would be among those who sought not just to tell folks what is wrong, and what they can not do, but they would lead the charge in demanding pre-natal care and post natal care for the families who they want to have these children. It would seem that instead the 'opponents' are only opponents of their causes; not caring to understand the consequences of what society will look like if all are required to have children whether they want to or not. As well, they don't seem to respect that not all have the same experiences and should become parents simply because they become pregnant.
If the 'opponents' simply cared about society, they then would appreciate the need to recognize that 'one size' does not fit all. It would be smart for the republicans to pass a universal healthcare plan, then our so-call do-gooders would at least be morally consistent in having a way to take care of these newborns.
Yet, one understands that the 'opponents' only want what they want, not what may actually make sense for society.
Neither side wants to deal with the 'feral' children born to young teenagers who aren't capable of caring for and nurturing them. No matter how much a 13 year old wants to bear an adorable dependent child, she cannot possibly care for that child without a lot of help from grownups (the same grownups who failed to give her adequate supervision in the first place?).
Somewhere I read some crime stats that indicated that 16 or 18 years after Rowe v Wade, the states that the highest rates of abortion then had the lowest rates of juvenile crime later.
For decades I worked on research re mentally ill and delinquent children, I can assure people that life is hard for the unwanted (especially when they are children and grandchildren of the unwanted..
I NEVER hear anti-choicers advocating a well-funded, well-managed network of societal support to help unwanted children. NEVER....t
Now we have the National Review declaring that parents who can't afford care for all foreseeable medical emergencies shouldn't have children at all.
There is a HUGE disconnect between the most militant of the anti-choicers and the realities of caring for BORN children. And, the really awful part is that it doesn't seem to bother them.
I've got to admit that I don't have a clue as to how this is supposed to show that I am not serious. I said that the anti-abortion side is not concerned with consequences. And you responded by saying that if that was true they would be concerned with your list of consequences. But in reality, if they are not consequentialists like I said, then it is not surprising that they are not concerned with consequences.
Why does anyone who cares about society have to appreciate that "one size" does not fit all? I am not claiming that one size fits all is a good philosophy. But, particularly in the context of ethical theory, it is not one that anyone who cares about society must reject.
If abortion was the moral equivalent of murder, then it would be silly to argue that those people opposed to murder clearly don't care about society since they have a one size fits all approach.
I think the idea that abortion is murder is nonsense. But I think that there is a value in trying to understand where the opponents of abortion are coming from. It is useless to simply assign them beliefs they don't have and criticize them for failing to adhere to them.
The ultimate irony is that we could make the case that God himself is the biggest abortion provider.
How else could you explain (paraphrasing from Medline) the fact that almost half of all (if you count conception as pregnancy) pregnancies ("naturally") don't result in a baby being born due to a fertilized egg not implanting properly, spontaneous miscarriage, etc?
Why, in His infinite wisdom, would God design a woman's body in such a way that almost half of potential lives are lost?
asknig a serious question for those who are staunchly pro-life and religious (and were probably unaware of this point).
Apparently the human body is only about 25% less effective on average at preventing "life" than the morning after pill.
Good point. God seems to have overlooked genetic incompatibility between the fertilized egg and potential mother.
Re non-implantation, miscarriages, and even the "design" of a system which does such, I would guess the religious crowd would simply say, "Maybe so, but that's for god to decide."
That's their usual cop-out. Odd how, in this regard and many others, they worship a god they would condemn if he were a mere human being.
Simple. God chooses it, not Man. Abortions are desired and performed by those who seek to elevate themselves to the level of God.
I think it's humorous that your comment "..(and were probably unaware of this point)..." is a gross generalizations about people opposed to abortion. Anti-abortion people don't have a monopoly on intelligence. Debate the issue and refrain from stereotypes, please.
"Abortions are desired and performed by those who seek to elevate themselves to the level of God."
Sorry, but that simply isn't true. Have you ever actually met a woman who went through an abortion? Have you ever met a doctor who performed abortions? To be sure, these people don't have god-complexes in regards to terminating a pregnancy.
You may choose to live your life according to "God's will", but the rest of us look for real answers and real causes to problems.
Most of us who support the right to have an abortion are really against abortions. I would be thrilled if each and every child that is conceived is a welcome, planned addition to a family. I'd love it if all women had easy and inexepensive access to birth control. I'd love it if all men would use condoms each and every time they have sex unless they are intentionally trying to conceive a child.
But I never want to see a time again where women are forced into dark and seedy underground clinics and risk their very lives in order to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I never want to hear of another woman dying from a botched procedure.
Abortion should remain legal, but we should do all that we can to educate and arm men and women with what they need to prevent pregnancy. No pregnancy, no conception will mean no abortion.
1)-But WHY would God choose to terminate almost half of "life in the womb"? Isn't it relevant to at least *ask* that question? It's not even giving a *chance* to half of potential life (in your view, presumably).
2)-Oh, I totally realize that MOST people are unaware of the fact that almost half of potential births are ended "naturally". But that point isn't necessarily relevant to pro-choice people (why I addressed it to pro-lifers in that context).
In other words, don't bother accusing me of not debating the issue or of engaging in sterotyping.
Bull. Abortions are desired and performed by the desparate who see no other viable option. But thanks for your post's great irony:
"Abortions are desired and performed by those who seek to elevate themselves to the level of God."
Followed by:
"Debate the issue and refrain from stereotypes, please."
Practice what you preach.
How precisely can you say "debate the issue" and also "Simple, God chooses it" or use terms like logic? Since when do logic and faith skip down the road together hand in hand? With your own statement you make yourself into a stereotype (it's simple, you morons, my version of GOD chooses it to be so) Well, my version of God thinks that your version of God is a crock of shit. Can we now debate our own perfect versions of the invisible cloud being with logic?
I'm not a theologian, but it could be argued that if it were not for the effects of sin, 100% of fertilized eggs would develop into healthy children.
Obviously many reading this page won't believe in a literal Adam and Eve and the introduction of sin, but to a Christian this accounts for much (all?) of disease and death.
So for a Christian, the fact that many fertilized eggs don't implant does not make God an abortionist. It just proves that through disobedience people have ruined the good that was intended.
So the people of today have half of potential life unecessarily destroyed because of the sin of a woman who existed centuries ago?
Assuming this were true, wouldn't you have to question the motives and moral character of God?
I know I would. I might say "hmm...may
In fact, it seems like God is incredibly spiteful and vindictive.
Who gives their child ONE chance to do the right thing? Why would God have a zero tolerance policy with Adam and Eve? Couldn't he forgive and give ONE more chance rather than banishing them to earth?
And what about all those poor people who were caught between Adam and Eve up until Jesus came along to take away the sins of the world?
It's amazing how much people are willing to suspend all logic, or for that matter, illogic, to prevent their worldview from coming into question.
I thought "Christians" believed in the Bible. I'm not even religious, and I know the Bible says that life begins with the FIRST BREATH. That means, if you want to be literal about it, LIFE begins when the baby is BORN and can take it's first breath of air, outside of the womb.
If you wanna get all religious, let's really get religious, man.
Only deluded cowards base their ONE life on this earth on following MYTHS and FAIRYTALES, written by deluded, cowardly, ignorant, ancient MEN.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
