I'm grinning, but it's a bitter grin.

I was talking with my friends last night over dinner about the ruling, and when one of my friends commented that the court had little reason to care about women, being it that is mostly comprised of men, I said, "Yeah. I guess it was more of a SCROTUM decision than SCOTUS."

Knowing that five MEN who will never be pregnant, who will never have to carry around a dead fetus in their bodies, who will never have to have any type of abortion AND WHO ARE NOT MEDICALLY TRAINED IN THE LEAST - get to gleefully make decisions that will "save" absolutely no "babies" but will certain harm or kill countless women makes me realize that this country is not a place I want to be.

Anyone know Canada's immigration requirements?

1. Men are more pro-choice than women.

2. Roe was decided by seven rich, white, educated guys.

3. During the Roe opinion, almost (or all) of the clerks were male.

I prefer the caption "There, we've all promised to never get a partial-birth abortion ever again."

Men are more pro-choice than women.

Do you have some citation for that? I've never seen that before.

Yeah, oenophile, except that unlike the 5 men who decided Gonzales, those 7 guys who decided Roe weren't telling women what to do with their bodies.

I remember that second picture so well. I used it as the center of my first "reaction paper" for my Women and Politics class.

It's all so aggravating, but not at all surprising.

@Ann:

Was that not oenophile's point? Or am I mistaking your point? ;)

Being male is not any reason or excuse to come to that decision. I haven't checked but I'd guess the term "religious nutcase" probably applies to a few of them too.

I don't know if you've noticed, but all five of these guys are conservative Catholics as well. Now where did I leave that separation of church and state...?

Quick note -- Roe majority included Thurgood Marshall who was African-American (and who was strongly pro-choice throughout his career on the Court).

I don't know if men overall are more pro-choice than women but there are guys in this country that are passionately pro-choice and think this week's ruling was awful.

In my own case, I have been personally touched by the issue (abortion rights in general rather than specifically the late term abortion issue) twice, although not through the experience of a partner. Despite what unfortunately too many men think, I believe the fact that I am able to cross having a Y sex chromosome with very strong support of women's rights, including the right to choose, makes me that much more of a man.

I wish I could scrape their fucking eyes out.

And not all white, rich guys are on the wrong side...

This from the current DNC chair when the vote took place (when he was running for president in '03):

“As a physician, I am outraged that the House of Representatives has decided it is qualified to practice medicine. There is no such thing as 'partial birth abortion' in medical literature. But there are times when a doctor is called upon to perform a late term abortion to save a woman's life or protect her from serious injury. Today the House took a step toward making it a crime for a doctor to perform such medically necessary procedures.

“This bill will chill the practice of medicine and endanger the lives of countless women. Despite what politicians tell you, there is not an epidemic of third trimester abortions in this country. This kind of legislation serves the sole purpose of chipping away women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights and overturning Roe v. Wade.�

What could have been with that particular physician in the WH from Jan '05 till now. Sigh...

Still, isn't it disheartening to see a group of guys making this type of decision and then another group of guys justifying it? It holds a type of superiority & authority to it -- well, if the Supreme Court said it, they're the smartest ones around, then it must be the correct decision. Yuck. And maybe it was the "men in charge" who ultimately made the right decision with Roe, but wasn't that only after much protesting and lobbying from women's groups & feminist advocates? What's scary is that historically many legal gains women make in the legislature are often slowly chipped away as time passes, especially in the states. Rich, white men tend to be the ones who do the chipping, albeit they may not be the *same* men who passed just laws in the first place. But, under political pressure, sometimes they ARE. We simply need more women in the legislature (and on the courts) like RBG and a more diverse representation in general. Then maybe I'll start to feel like women get a fair shot at justice.

I never really liked the argument that anti-choicers are just men oppressing women, as I'm not sure it's true. I grew up in a very religious and VERY pro-life family. The county pro-life group was dominated by women, including the leadership. I've been looking for the link to a 2004 survey on the public's views on abortion (I can't seem to find it) which showed there was no gender gap on abortion attitudes--this makes intuitive sense, because even if someone is a mysogonist, that person doesn't necessarily want to have to raise a baby with a woman he happened to get pregnant.

Even if you, hypothetically, remove from the picture the issue they're actually deciding, it's still depressing that they're all male.

No one has said the anti-choice party is just men oppressing women. In this case it was all men who made the anti-woman ban stand. So, in this case it is - quite literally - men taking a nice big shit on women.

justin,

While it is true that there are very many women that are pro-life, the rhetoric used by many pro-lifers, in particular the rhetoric used by Kennedy in his opinion, kind of reeks of anti-woman. In his opinion, Kennedy goes on at length about women changing their minds and the need to protect these women. The opinion robs women of their bodily integrety, making us into vessels for the sole purpose of "protecting fetal life"

I know there are lots of really awesome men out there who are pro-woman and who realize what a horrible decision this was. And I know there are plenty of crazy women out there who support idiotic legislation like this.

That said, I felt a horrible sick feeling in the pit of my stomach when I looked at that disgusting second picture. It's such a gleeful "we got 'em, boys" attitude. This sick feeling in the pit of my stomach reminded me of something, so I tried to think back to when was the last time an image made me feel so crushed, so sickened, so demoralized, and so angry and powerless at the same time.

And then it hit me: it was when the news channels showed images of terrorist extremists in the Middle East celebrating after the attacks on the Twin Towers.

And I say this not for shock value, but because the two images really and truly, honest to God, made me feel the same way -- and nothing else has, apparently, in about six years.

I was going to say the same thing about feeling sick to my stomach, TLF. The second picture is so disturbing.

And... while anti-choice policies are rooted in misogyny, there's no shortage of misogynist women. In my experience, men and women are equally represented in the pro-life movement. Men just happen to have more institutional power over-all, so it always looks like they're in the majority.

Even if you, hypothetically, remove from the picture the issue they're actually deciding, it's still depressing that they're all male.

YES! I could not have said it better myself.

FYI: I don't buy the pro-life woman as misogynist woman argument. I've met a lot of really amazing, caring pro-choice men; I've met even more men who are pro-choice because abortion allows them to screw without consequences. (I've dated men who have gotten cranky when I won't sleep with them because I don't want to risk pregnancy; they typical response is to "just" have an abortion.) Likewise, there's some men who are incredibly pro-woman but also think that part of being pro-woman is protecting the vulnerable, and there's no one more vulnerable than (their words) an unborn child.

I simply don't see why the same could not apply to women. If we run around attacking each other as misogynist or sluts, there's no way that we're ever going to reach (what should be) the ultimate goal of ensuring that women don't HAVE to make the decision to abort. With the wealth and the technology in the US, 2 million unplanned pregnancies a year is appalling.

Likewise, there's some men who are incredibly pro-woman but also think that part of being pro-woman is protecting the vulnerable, and there's no one more vulnerable than (their words) an unborn child.

Eh. I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what counts as "pro-woman" if that counts. Saying "I'm pro-woman because I think that it's important to protect the vulnerable" sounds a lot like "women are weak and need men to take care of them" and that's good old-fashioned misogyny.

As the great Percy Sledge once sang: "It's All Wrong but It's All-White"!

As the Daily Show once famously reminded us, this is one of those occasions when the right wing managed to garmer 100% of the African-American vote.

Yep, oenophile---that some men abandon the privilege to treat women like shit doesn't actually disprove that it is a privilege.

With the wealth and the technology in the US, 2 million unplanned pregnancies a year is appalling.

Ironic isn't it - that none of the major pro-life organizations in the U.S. supports comprehensive sex ed policies or increased access to BC. Pro-CHOICE organizations are the ones supporting policies that *actually* reduce abortions.

Oh, and I'm certainly not under the impression that all pro-choice men respect women. I'm sure a big percentage of them are pro-choice for completely selfish reasons; I've met a whole lot of them myself.

RoymacIII:

I can agree that, in certain situations, that line of reasoning is really bothersome (at best!).

Nevertheless, as a huge civil rights advocate, I don't think that, for example, men have the right to rape women simply by virtue of superiour strength. The poor in our society are more vulnerable in a thousand ways than I am, and I think that makes them worth additional protection (whether via private aid, public defenders for those accused of crimes, Head Start, or whatever).

What I'm trying to say is that, to me (and many other people who oppose abortion), civilisation's duty is to ensure that ALL people are protected, not just those who are able to protect themselves by virtue of strength, political clout, intellect, or any other advantage. We're not going to run around and have every man for himself, or not care that women and blacks are underrepresented in our political system, so tough luck and good luck changing the status quo.

If you meander over to the Dudefest post, it's pretty obvious that women don't hold nearly the political clout that men do; in my world, that doesn't mean that we should be shut out of politics or get shafted on laws. To analogise: back in the 19th century, blacks didn't hold public office, were not allowed to vote, and were enslaved in many states. Good, moral people realised that African-Americans needed protection that they could not give themselves - not out of inherent inability, but due to complete disenfranchisement.

If I'm not making sense, please let me know.

Ignore the first clause of the third paragraph. I'm jet-lagged.... mea culpa!

Yep, oenophile---that some men abandon the privilege to treat women like shit doesn't actually disprove that it is a privilege.

As usual, you aren't making much sense. Care to elaborate?

Vera, I'm starting to think Canada should start offering American progressives refugee status. Getting all of you up here to vote might help our little Stephen Harper problem, too.

Oenophile: No, I'm not sure I get you or where you're coming from.

I never suggested that women or anybody else should be shut out of anything just because they're currently being discriminated against. In fact, I'd argue that I've rather taken the opposite position- that it's fundamentally unfair that women are discriminated against.

Perhaps I'm hung up on the semantics, but I have a problem with anyone who calls himself "pro-woman" because he thinks women need protecting. Women don't need protecting, they need equality. There's a difference. Women need to have society stop treating them as "less than" and to stop giving men unearned advantages. That's not protecting women because they're vulnerable, that's stopping discrimination.

And I just don't see how one gets from "pro-woman" to "anti-choice." Any definition of "pro-woman" that mandates completely disregarding the needs of a woman in regards to her own body in favor of an Other is a pretty shakey definition of "pro-woman."

I think I agree with Amanda.

There's a difference between not discriminating against women because you think that women are people too, and not discriminating against women because women are special and need taking care of.

One is the pursuit of equality.
The other is just a different form of asshattery.

One treats women as people.
The other treats them as children.

I consider one "pro-woman."
I consider the other sexism.

But what it comes down to oenophile, and what we will probably never agree on is who do you respect more - a fetus that nature (never mind the woman) may or may not grant a future life to, or the right of women to control their bodies.

I find it depressing that the most women we've ever had on the Supreme Court was two, and that we're down to one again now. But in all fairness, Harriet Miers was Bush's first pick for the Alito spot.

What I don't think folks are acknowledging, and yes, I do realize I'm a white male, is how close the reasoning of the majority opinion is to the reasoning of the dissent. Both agree that women have the right to an abortion, and that any undue burden on that right is unconstitutional (which is why Scalia and Thomas had to write a "concurrence" departing from the central logic of the ruling). Where they differ is on the very narrow issue of whether there is adequate medical consensus to establish that the specific procedure of live intact D&X is in any way necessary, and whether getting rid of it poses a subsequent undue burden.

Kennedy was very clear in his ruling that if live intact D&X could be shown to be necessary in some cases, not counting emergencies in which the woman's life is at risk (because there is already an exception for those cases written into the legislation), his opinion would change.

I am sure that Justice Ginsburg would support a ban on a nonessential abortion procedure that is dangerous to women. Where they disagree is on the issue of whether Congress can ban a rare abortion procedure that's squicky to think about, but not necessarily dangerous to the woman undergoing it. Kennedy, Alito, and Roberts said yes; Scalia and Thomas went along with it because they support any restriction on abortion that they can get.

Cheers,

TH

Perhaps I'm hung up on the semantics, but I have a problem with anyone who calls himself "pro-woman" because he thinks women need protecting. Women don't need protecting, they need equality.

roymac, thank you. Brilliantly put.

oenophile, as to Amanda's comment (and Amanda, please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to wrongly attribute any words/thoughts to you) -- I took her point to be that just because some men will, for selfish reasons, give up the privilege of having more control over their bodies than women do(they give up this privilege in some sense by being pro-choice), doesn't make that privilege any less of a privilege. I kind of took her to be somewhat agreeing with you, in fact, that, yes, there are asshole men who are pro-choice for bad reasons -- just pointing out that just because there are asshole men who are pro-choice for the wrong reasons, isn't itself an argument against being pro-choice. There's still an inequality issue there that needs scrutiny.

But in all fairness, Harriet Miers was Bush's first pick for the Alito spot.

Well, TH, much as I hate to disagree with you :0) I have my suspicions about the sincerity of the Miers nomination. I really and truly believe that Bush had no intention of actually getting her on the Supreme Court -- she was his decoy. She was a straw (wo)man put up for it in order to prove that Bush was trying to nominate a woman/minority to the court. There were scores of qualified conservative women and minorities who would have had chances about a billion percent better than hers of being confirmed by the Senate. Bush nominated her KNOWING she would not be confirmed, so that he could then nominate who he really wanted -- another conservative white male -- and still have a rebuttal to the people who complained that he didn't nominate a woman or minority to sit on the court. He's smarter and more devious than we give him credit for.

"...there was no gender gap on abortion attitudes--this makes intuitive sense, because even if someone is a mysogonist, that person doesn't necessarily want to have to raise a baby with a woman he happened to get pregnant."

Justin, I'm confused by your comment. So---if a man hates women, he probably won't want to raise his baby with a woman? Well, no kidding...

Anyway, the pro-life strategy of aiming to restrict abortion through the political process is not as effective (meaning actually stopping abortions) as they'd like to think it is. What would make more sense (for their goals) would be to try to influence women's decisions through publicity rather than restricting legal access.

All of this legislation is just infantilizing women: women don't know what's good for them, so we JUDGES are going to tell them what's best for them regardless of a doctor's opinion or their personal health.

I am pro-choice. That doesn't necessarily mean that I would have an abortion myself. What that means is that I don't have the right to make that decision for ANYBODY ELSE BUT MYSELF.

This legislation is proof that our society is terrified of women who make their own decisions, especially about their bodies. The reaction from the pro-life camp clearly illustrates that this is about control and power. If pro-lifers care so much about the "innocent," why aren't they leading crusades to end poverty, provide pediatric care, and to increase adoption?

They forsake the living children who need care in order to force their morals and beliefs on all women.

TLF, you may well be right about that one, but I have traditionally seen the Miers appointment as the right wing's first betrayal of Bush--Bush's attempt to put his own attorney on the Supreme Court, and conservatives' refusal to support her with any enthusiasm when Democrats pointed out the conflict of interest.

Cheers,

TH

RoyMac:

I was trying to say what you said! We agree - I think it's just that, had I used a word that wasn't "protect," we would fully agree.

Maybe "protecting" is the wrong word, but I do think that civilisation involves protecting ALL of its members. Not because they are "weak" or whatever, but because we don't run around trampling on people's rights - that whole "brother's keeper" thing.

And I just don't see how one gets from "pro-woman" to "anti-choice." Any definition of "pro-woman" that mandates completely disregarding the needs of a woman in regards to her own body in favor of an Other is a pretty shaky definition of "pro-woman."

I've always seen unplanned pregnancy as balancing two competing rights: that of the woman to not be pregnant when she does not want to, and that of the fetus to its own bodily integrity and life. I don't think that feminism mandates that the woman win every battle of competing rights, no matter how strong the rights of the other side. (Thing is, for years, women LOST every battle of competing rights, which is utter b.s.)

FWIW, I really do respect women who see the same balancing of competing rights and think that the woman's right trumps. The one thing that pisses me off is to pretend that the fetus has NO rights. AnnaJCook mentioned wanting to discuss the moral issues of abortion but fearing that it was a concession to the pro-life/anti-abortion side.

Who do you respect more - a fetus that nature (never mind the woman) may or may not grant a future life to, or the right of women to control their bodies.

I do respect the right of women to control their bodies. I would kick, scream, and fight for birth control. If there were a procedure to remove a fetus and install it either in an artificial womb or another woman's body, I would fight for women to be able to do that.

I simply think that the right stops when it comes to the life of another - as the right to life trumps the right to avoid temporary bodily discomfort at the expense of ending another life. THAT is where we disagree.

I also see "future life" as a medical and scientific inaccuracy. IMO, life begins shortly after conception. If it's not alive, you've miscarried. Most of the Feministing posters disagree with me, but, frankly, it is something I fully respect and understand.

We are both internally consistent with our logic: you don't see a fetus as being alive and therefore don't, in the balancing of its rights v. the woman's, give it much weight. I see it as both living and human, and therefore give its right to bodily integrity and life a lot of deference.

I SINCERELY hope that we all agree that 2 million unplanned pregnancies a year really, really sucks, whether she ends up raising the baby, giving it up for adoption, or aborting the fetus/embryo. I also really hope that we can all agree that we ought to work towards a society that does not put women in the position of NEEDING abortions, because pitting women against every single genetic survival instinct isn't good for their bodies or their psyches. When I see a woman who aborts, I don't think, "Slut who should have kept her legs shut," I see someone whose partner should have been man enough to use a condom; someone who should have had access to affordable birth control; someone who should not have been raped; someone whose decision to not have sex should be respected; or someone whose parents shouldn't have threatened to kick her out of the house unless she aborts or whose partner should have been man enough to support her - emotionally and financially - throughout pregnancy.

Pro-lifers, FYI, do provide a lot of private funding and support to pregnant women. Bush also changed the Medicare law to provide prenatal care for pregnant women.

Rant over. Many (sincere) thanks for enlightening discussion.

Harriet Miers was a ploy nomination to make it look like they tried to find a capable woman for the position, but, you know, because women are stupid, they just couldn't.

just pointing out that just because there are asshole men who are pro-choice for the wrong reasons, isn't itself an argument against being pro-choice. There's still an inequality issue there that needs scrutiny.

Law Fairy, that makes a lot of sense. I guess I look at "privilege," unencumbered by any mention of some ability to which the privilege attaches, and get confused.

So we do agree: my point was that there's lousy reasons to be pro-choice and lousy reasons to be pro-life, but neither one of them means that the entire side is illegitimate.

Oenophile, thanks for your thoughtful post.

There's just one thing I'd like to point out.

You wrote:

Pro-lifers, FYI, do provide a lot of private funding and support to pregnant women. Bush also changed the Medicare law to provide prenatal care for pregnant women.

The key word in all of that is "pregnant." It just seems to me that most pro-lifers are pro-life until the baby is born. True, prenatal care is good to have, but I think giving birth is the probably the easy part of raising a child! These women need more than an ultrasound.

Oenophile, thanks for your thoughtful post.

There's just one thing I'd like to point out.

You wrote:

Pro-lifers, FYI, do provide a lot of private funding and support to pregnant women. Bush also changed the Medicare law to provide prenatal care for pregnant women.

The key word in all of that is "pregnant." It just seems to me that most pro-lifers are pro-life until the baby is born. True, prenatal care is good to have, but I think giving birth is the probably the easy part of raising a child! These women need more than an ultrasound.

I do respect the right of women to control their bodies... ...I simply think that the right stops when it comes to the life of another - as the right to life trumps the right to avoid temporary bodily discomfort at the expense of ending another life.
...
We are both internally consistent with our logic

I disagree.
It seems to me that your logic is not very consistant. You're granting the fetus a right to life that extends to controlling another person's body. Do you extend women that same right? That is, if a woman is in need of an organ, or blood, do you extend her the right to impose upon another for those things? I suspect not.
I also question the idea that pregnancy is "temporary bodily discomfort." Pregnancy is a serious medical condition that typical lasts roughly nine months. There are myriad side effects, some of which can be quite serious, including post-partum psychosis, post-partum depression, exhaustion, indigestion, heart-burn, bloating, acne, dizziness, significant weight loss/gain, nausea and vomiting, altered appetite, skin discoloration, incontinence, headaches and migrains, pica, congestion, nose-bleeds, hemmorhoids, cramps, breast pain, high blood pressure, anemia, breathing problems, bleeding gums, joint swelling and pain, hair loss... and let's mention the permanent side effects, too- including stretch marks, loose skin, weight gain and redistribution, abdominal and/or vaginal muscle weakness, pelvic floor disorder, varicose veins, scarring, osteoporosis, increased proclivity for hemmorhoids.
Should I mention hyperemesis gravidarum, back injury, prolapsed uterus, pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension), eclampsia, gestational diabetees, placenta previa, torn abdominal muscles, mitral valve stenosis, embolism, thrombocytopenic purpura, hemorrhages, and ectopic pregnacies?

It's ridiculous to refer to pregnancy as a "temporary bodily discomfort." It's a serious medical condition, and none of the above takes into account the serious financial and emotional investment of being pregnant, or the months of restricted activity, the potential job ramifications, and other life-style altering complications of being pregnant.

I see it as both living and human, and therefore give its right to bodily integrity and life a lot of deference.

I see it as both human and living, too. I just don't see how that gives it a right to another person's body that nobody else has.

Plus this is the same Bush that cut funding for women's health (including birth control) worldwide and promoted an absitence only nutcase. Furthermore, he appointed Tommy Thompson as Secretary of Health and Human Services, a man who created a welfare to work program that has no exceptions for a woman that needs to go on bedrest.

thanks roymac, for reminding me of why I want to get an IUD put in :P

I also see "future life" as a medical and scientific inaccuracy. IMO, life begins shortly after conception. If it's not alive, you've miscarried. Most of the Feministing posters disagree with me, but, frankly, it is something I fully respect and understand.

Really? I think I've met ONE pro-choicer in my life who argued that fetuses aren't "alive." And he was 14.
Pro-choicers know fetuses are alive. But not all living things are people.

roymac, Don’t forget having to take care of it for 18 years, or having to give it up your child. Temporary bodily discomfort my ass.

And craney, further, as roymac excellently describes above -- even if they are people, they don't get to control another person's body without her ongoing consent and permission. No one gets to do that.

I was discussing with my mother just last night how amazing it was to read the Ginsburg dissent, and see how she grounded it in a feminist ethic of women's right to bodily integrity and full participation in society. It's not that I don't think a man could have written that opinion--but I do think that it would take a rare strength of imagination for a man to understand what it would feel like to be the body at the center of this ruling.

I also really hope that we can all agree that we ought to work towards a society that does not put women in the position of NEEDING abortions (oenophile)

I, at least, firmly believe that IS something we can all agree on, oenophile. I was furiously making a list this morning of all the things people who really wanted to reduce abortions could do: provide universal health care coverage, subsidize the cost of contraception, make EC available to everyone, protect teenagers right to privacy and access to healthcare independent of their parents if the teenagers feel they can't consult them about an unplanned pregnancy, etc., etc., etc. There are a whole raft of things that we could do as a society to reduce abortions and make sure those that do happen happen earlier, and those that happen late are only because of dire medical need. It is so upsetting to me that reproductive rights and sexuality make us so crazy that we can't agree on the universal good these measures would do for us all!

You wrote in your post that I "mentioned wanting to discuss the moral issues of abortion but fearing that it was a concession" . . . I want to reiterate that despite my fears I do continue to believe in the value of discussing all moral issues related to abortion. I am a firm believer in the more conversation we have, and the more open it is, the better for us all. Even the thinking and talking I have done in the past 48 hours has clarified some of my ideas on these issues.

But, emotionally, it is very, very, very difficult for me to speak openly about these issues when my right to self-determination and bodily integrity is vacated by federal law. I try not to let this determine, ultimately, how I speak about these issues, but it is always an effort.

And craney, further, as roymac excellently describes above -- even if they are people, they don't get to control another person's body without her ongoing consent and permission. No one gets to do that.

But no one gets to kill, either.

An honest question: when do you think that a woman's ongoing consent is no longer necessary? Your posts are usually really thoughtful, and I'm wondering if you think there is a point at which a woman just has to suck it up and remain pregnant - mostly because I don't think you're arguing for the right to abort at 8.5 months.

I have to re-write it, because my computer ate it, but, on organ donation: I don't think it's a good analogy.

My organs are great. I have a right to them. If someone needs them, tough luck. First of all, I did not create that person's need of my organs, and, secondly, the government cannot change biology by its mandate. Those organs are in my body, not the body of the person who needs them. Great for me, sucks for them, but government doesn't get to step in and remove my kidneys.

Contrariwise, a pregnant woman and her partner created the situation that necessitates the use of her body for nine months. FWIW, this is the reason why I fully approve of abortion for rape victims: they in no way did anything to create life that needs their bodies for survival. Yeah, the men also are responsible for creating the pregnancy, but biology is completely discriminatory.

Usually, in a balancing of rights, we put the burden on the person who is either most able to bear it or the one most able to avoid the problem. In the latter situation, it is the woman: her unfertilised eggs can hardly un-ovulate themselves or force her boyfriend to wear a condom. She (and her partner) have the ability to prevent pregnancy (failure rate of birth control + condom is something like one in five thousand - far, far lower than the rate of unplanned pregnancies... and this is why I'm the huge BC advocate); the fetus lacks the ability to have stopped the pregnancy.

That's also why I'm such a huge advocate for stricter child support laws. In my perfect world, men would also be required to pay for prenatal care, post-natal care for the mother and the child, and delivery costs. Oh, yeah, and any necessary economic support from lost wages and other job-related problems. I feel horribly for women who abort because their partners won't make the financial and emotional commitments to support them in pregnancy... and we ALL agree on that, I really hope!

On that note, women who have job-related economic issues from pregnancy are very real - I would not want to trivialise them - but, IMO, the correct solution is to ensure that women receive the full protection of the laws and, where applicable, a change in our laws and our society to ensure that pregnant women don't face financial crises for having kids. The society that makes it tough for women to bear children is one headed for disaster... and you just don't pick on pregnant ladies! (So says the chivalry-ridden conservative in me.)

Furthermore, if the government were to mandate that my super kidneys were to be given to someone else, it would be CHANGING the biological status quo: that my kidneys are in my body. Government regulation of abortion does not change the status quo: evolution, not our laws, are responsible for pregnancy.

We can respectfully and intelligently disagree on whether or not that makes a difference and how big of a difference it makes, and when it should make a difference. (For example, women are not as strong as men. That means they will be, under normal conditions, underrepresented in firefighting. Should the government try to correct the results of the biological inequality?)

I disagree - REALLY REALLY STRONGLY - with gov't created inequalities. My feelings are different when it is an issue of legal and medical means of rectifying inequalities, especially when those means are (arguably) morally questionable. We would not, for example, rectify sexual dimorphism and its attendant inequalities by operating on men so as to make them weaker.

The violinist analogy, IMO, describes rape victims, not all women who get pregnant.

Pro-choicers know fetuses are alive. But not all living things are people.

So it's a frog? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but the progeny of a human is, undoubtably, a human. If you mean that there's a difference between a human (in the technical sense) and a person who should receive the protection of the laws, that makes a lot of sense... I disagree with the application, but it's not at all irrational.

Anna,

Great points.

provide universal health care coverage, subsidize the cost of contraception, make EC available to everyone, protect teenagers right to privacy and access to healthcare independent of their parents if the teenagers feel they can't consult them about an unplanned pregnancy

We don't need universal health care, but we can expand Medicare to cover both pregnant women, children, and any pregnancy-related issues that come up after delivery to ensure that women don't abort because of the cost of health care. Semantics, but I disagree with universal health care but want more state funding for pregnant women.

I assume, with regards to teenagers, you meant that they should be able to receive pre-pregnancy health care (such as the Pill) if their parents are not amenable. (If not, that tops my list of ways to reduce abortions... although there are so many ways to mess up with the Pill, like taking antibiotics, that I also really favour education that emphasises the limits and failings of contraception.)

I'll add, to that list, support for pregnant and parenting students. Sadly, the only group who seems to do anything about that is Feminists for Life.

I'm a huge libertarian and really want gov't out of my business, but split with most libertarians on pregnancy issues. I honestly don't see how there could be too much gov't support for pregnant and parenting women. I also think that, in terms of preventing pregnancy and providing health care for pregnant women, children, and mothers, it is something that ultimately SAVES money for our society. I could be wrong, but my intuition says that a dollar spent on ensuring that a baby is healthy will save much more than a dollar later, whether in reduced costs that the child will have on society or in increased productivity of the mother or that child. (Yeah, this is the cold, heartless, economic conservative in me, but there's some advantages to that perspective.)

But no one gets to kill, either.

Um. That's not true. Let's ignore the military and police, since they have no bearing here. Let's consider that I'm perfectly within my legal and moral rights to kill someone who is threatening me- that is, in self defense. Or, maybe we should look at the Terry Shiavo case?

In the case of a fetus, the fetus can't survive outside the womb. That's unfortunate for the fetus, but should not be the primary concern of the woman, since her womb does not belong to fetus, the fetus cannot be said to have some kind of right to it.

An honest question: when do you think that a woman's ongoing consent is no longer necessary? Your posts are usually really thoughtful, and I'm wondering if you think there is a point at which a woman just has to suck it up and remain pregnant - mostly because I don't think you're arguing for the right to abort at 8.5 months.

I think that her ongoing consent is always required. If, at any time, she no longer desires to be pregnant, she should be allowed to end the pregnancy. If the fetus is viable, then they can save it.

My organs are great. I have a right to them. If someone needs them, tough luck. First of all, I did not create that person's need of my organs,

It wouldn't matter, even if you did. If I stab a man, and he's bleeding out and requires blood to survive, I am not legally compelled to give him my blood, despite the fact that I'm the one who caused the need (Of course, it would be in my legal best interest to give him blood, but that's not the same question).

secondly, the government cannot change biology by its mandate.
Those organs are in my body, not the body of the person who needs them.

I'm not seeing your point here. The womb isn't part of the fetus, either. The fetus develops inside of the womb, but why does that matter?

FWIW, this is the reason why I fully approve of abortion for rape victims: they in no way did anything to create life that needs their bodies for survival.

Again, I'm not sure why this matters. That's logically inconsistant. The fetus has no control over how it was created. To grant a fetus that was created through consentual sex special status doesn't make sense. Also, that absolutely reeks of using pregnancy as a punishment. "Well, they had sex, so they have to deal with it, now."

Usually, in a balancing of rights, we put the burden on the person who is either most able to bear it or the one most able to avoid the problem.

Uh. Really?
Usually we treat them as a hierarchy, and we place the burden on whoever has the lesser right. The fetus has a right to life, maybe, but that right to life does not extend to taking control of or using another person's body. I have a right to life the same as anybody else. That right to life means that I have a right not to be killed unjustly. That does not mean that I have a right to use another person's body. The fetus' potential right to life does not mean that it has a right to live like a parasite at the expense of the woman.

I feel horribly for women who abort because their partners won't make the financial and emotional commitments to support them in pregnancy... and we ALL agree on that, I really hope!

Would you feel as horribly for the women who experience the life-altering consequences of forced pregnancy I mentioned above?

Government regulation of abortion does not change the status quo: evolution, not our laws, are responsible for pregnancy.

We're not slaves to biology. Oddly enough, BC changes the biological status quo, too. So do condomns. Weird, that, isn't it?
Abortion, on the other hand, does occur in nature. Not that it matters.

So it's a frog? I'm not trying to be sarcastic,

Well, except that you rather clearly were.

but the progeny of a human is, undoubtably, a human. If you mean that there's a difference between a human (in the technical sense) and a person who should receive the protection of the laws, that makes a lot of sense... I disagree with the application, but it's not at all irrational.

Human = a biological status.
Person = a moral/legal status.

If you already knew that, why the frog comment?

I don't know if you've noticed, but all five of these guys are conservative Catholics as well. Now where did I leave that separation of church and state...?

Not to mention that the other four are not Catholic.

I fully approve of abortion for rape victims: they in no way did anything to create life that needs their bodies for survival.

So this isn't about "protecting innocent human life" at all. If it were, you'd want to protect ALL unborn life, regardless of how conception occurred. Why don't fetuses conceived of rape deserve protection?

And I think roymac answered your final question quite well.

failure rate of birth control + condom is something like one in five thousand - far, far lower than the rate of unplanned pregnancies... and this is why I'm the huge BC advocate

So those of us who've been that one in 5000 should have just took our lumps, then?

As for healthcare, I greatly appreciate having universal healthcare in Canada. It meant that I could get an abortion regardless of my financial circumstances. Good thing, since I was supporting two people on minimum wage at the time and money was more than a little tight.

And you know what? My partner was ready to "be a man" and support me. I was the one who decided that I'd rather chew off my own right arm than go through with having a baby at that point. If I was pregnant now, that choice would be different, but it would still be mine to make.

Don't go putting your judgments on people until you're there, oenophile. It's a damn hard place to be, and not a choice I made lightly. But it was my choice, and I don't regret it.

Semantics, but I disagree with universal health care but want more state funding for pregnant women.

I'm not sure what I think about the actual practicalities of health care--I just want everyone in this country, regardless of their economic status, to be provided with comprehensive medical care. (That conversation is happening on another thread, so I won't muse further here :).)

I assume, with regards to teenagers, you meant that they should be able to receive pre-pregnancy health care (such as the Pill) if their parents are not amenable.

Absolutely I include access to birth control. I think we need to give teens all the support they need to make decisions about their sexual health, both pre-pregnancy (obviously preferable!), but also if there are--as there will be unplanned pregnancies. As Justice Ginsburg points out in her dissent, teenagers are at high-risk to be among those seeking abortions later in pregnancy (post first-trimester), for a whole host of reasons. Giving them safe places to discuss options, with non-judgmental adults (let's hope their parents, but not all kids are so lucky) is crucial to getting those numbers down, in my opinion.

I'll add, to that list, support for pregnant and parenting students. Sadly, the only group who seems to do anything about that is Feminists for Life.

I am surprised that you believe this is the case. I will have to look into this, since my understanding is that feminists have always made better support for parents (of both sexes) and children central to their political and philosophical approach. I don't know the specifics of advocacy for teen parents. Do any of the other posters have info on this?

When I see a woman who aborts, I don't think, "Slut who should have kept her legs shut," I see someone whose partner should have been man enough to use a condom; someone who should have had access to affordable birth control; someone who should not have been raped; someone whose decision to not have sex should be respected; or someone whose parents shouldn't have threatened to kick her out of the house unless she aborts or whose partner should have been man enough to support her - emotionally and financially - throughout pregnancy.

I have a huge problem with this statement. I agree that these are all reasons why a woman might choose to have an abortion, and would like to prevent these abortions if they would have otherwise not taken place. But it would NOT end abortions, and even if we eradicated all of these cases, I would still support abortion rights. Some women simply do not want children. Ever. And they do not want to give up their own body for nine months so that they can put a child they don't want up for adoption and really, really hope that someone takes him or her. You may call that selfish. I think that it's self-awareness. And I don't want any child to have to live with a parent who does not want him or her. I think that it's stupid to give birth to and raise a child that you do NOT WANT. I don't think that there's any good reason. I'm one of those women who does not ever want children. My husband and I take every precaution to avoid an unplanned pregnancy. I hope that I never have to deal with one. But if I do, I can say with almost complete certainty that I would choose abortion, and I don't think that's anything to be ashamed of.

Also, roymac, I just want to say that you are the King of Awesome.

Double Fantasy,

I'm a huge, massive, proponent of access to sterilisation procedures. I never want children, and I would personally rather chew off my arm than abort for that reason, but no doctor in this country will perform a tubal ligation on me at age 26. It's complete crap.

As Jessica once pointed out, some 60% of women who abort already have kids. To the extent that many of them had their final kid and really did not want more (could not afford more or were just done with childbearing), they should have had the option of tubal ligations or vasectomies. It really appalls me that it's easier to abort than to get your tubes tied and avoid the need for abortion in the first place.

I do agree, oenophile, that it's incredibly difficult for someone young to get either a tubal ligation or a vasectomy. I don't ever intend to have a tubal ligation, because it's incredibly burdensome compared to what my husband would have to go through on his end. But at 25 years old, no one is going to perform that proceedure on him. There is also, as always, an issue of moeny. These are expensive proceedures to have done, even with insurance because it's an elective surgery. This is reason number one million and eight why I support full public healthcare. It's also an issue that many men are not nearly as enlightened as my husband, and would not undergo a vasectomy. While a vasectomy (though painful and serious) is an outpatient surgery, tubal ligation is MAJOR surgery. I didn't get the impression that you were arguing for mandatory sterilization of those who don't want children, but it is something to consider that just because someone doesn't want children, it doesn't mean that they want to go through a steralization proceedure either.

DF,

I'm not in favour of mandatory sterlisation - that's just freaky - but am a supporter of the option. I also - quite fully - agree that vasectomies are a lot less invasive than tubal ligations (unless done during a Caesarean delivery)... and it's really sad that men don't want to go through with it.

I just think there is something deeply wrong with a society that would rather see an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy than a (possibly regretted) vasectomy.

I do not want to force sterlisiation, but really think that medical ethics should dictate that OB-GYNS discuss it with their patients. Not force, not pressure, but discuss, at every pregnancy, if the couple wants it to be their last and, if so, how they intend to achieve those ends.

Don't go putting your judgments on people until you're there, oenophile.

I've tried my best to not be judgmental, because I know how hard it is for women to make those decisions. My ENTIRE point is that we should not be putting women in that situation anyway.

If you read that as being judgmental, perhaps you have some issues to work through yourself. There are any people who are so fearful of judgment that they see it everywhere. You're one of them.

Bird,

I too had an abortion as a result of failed birth control (ladies, I warn ye, the mini-pill didn't work for me).
I just wanted to say I REALLY understand what you went through.
It was the hardest decision I've ever had to make, but it was the right one for me at the time.
((Internet hugs across the Pacific))

we should not be putting women in that situation anyway

I just want to highlight what I and a few other women have said about the question of preventing pregnancy as a way of preventing abortion.

1. I absolutely, positively agree that everything we can do to prevent an unplanned pregnancy before it starts is a hands-down good thing.

BUT

2. As doublefantasy has pointed out, "it would NOT end abortions, and even if we eradicated all of these cases, I would still support abortion rights."

In a utopian world, perhaps, where individuals had completely control over their reproductive capacity and complete support and self-knowledge to make decisions about childbearing, we would have no unplanned pregnancies, and no unexpected complications. Until that day, there will always be situations in which we face the difficult decision of what to do in the face of an unplanned/dangerous pregnancy. We need to be realistic that supporting pre-pregnancy prevention will not eliminate these instances and, as we struggle with how to understand a woman's right to bodily integrity and the rights of a developing fetus in relation to the pregnant woman, it's important to remember that prevention will mean not an end to all cases of moral ambiguity.

Anna,

I completely agree, although I would like to make two points:

1) I see dangerous pregnancies as inherently different from unplanned pregnancies. Most, if not all, pro-lifers have no qualms about the former.

2) As someone who just hates the idea of abortion and even more hates how so many women have them - despite our incredible wealth and technology, the abortion rate has not changed in 100 years - I wouldn't really have an issue if, say, ten thousand women ended up aborting every year because birth control failed or their husbands were abusive or they were raped. For a lot of people who see a fetus as a child and worthy of protection, though, the current abortion rate of 1.3 million per years is barbaric, to both women who have to suffer through it and the fact that it ends a human life.

I hate to put specific numbers on an "acceptable" abortion level, since the ideal is zero, but I think it's a lot like putting an acceptable level of, say, pollutants. We know we can't reduce it to zero, but we can try to come close.

If 40% of women abort in their lifetimes, then we live in a society that has outright failed nearly half of all women.

It's not just dudes; it's five Catholic dudes. It was the Republican strategy to appoint Catholic justices so they could label pro-choice activists "anti-Catholic." e.g. the Marcotte-McEwan affair

Yes, Thomas is Catholic and goes to mass with Alito. Wikipedia says Raised Roman Catholic (he later attended an Episcopal church with his wife, but returned to the Catholic Church in the late 1990s), Thomas considered entering the priesthood, attending St. John Vianney's Minor Seminary on the Isle of Hope near Savannah, and he briefly attended Conception Seminary College, a Catholic seminary in Missouri. Thomas told interviewers that he left the seminary (and the call for priesthood) after hearing racist comments there following the assassination of Martin Luther King.

Thomas has one child, Jamal Adeen, from his first marriage. This marriage, to Kate Ambush, lasted from 1971 until their 1984 divorce. Thomas married Virginia Lamp in 1987.

Since joining the Supreme Court, Thomas requested an annulment of his first marriage from the Catholic Church, which was granted by the Tribunal of the Catholic Diocese of Arlington. He was reconciled to the Catholic Church in the mid-1990s and remains a practicing Catholic.

As for rape...

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the logic that if one life is worth protecting, then they all are, regardless of circumstances. Under that theory, a woman should also be forced to die if it's between her and her baby. Or, under the logically consistent theory that the woman's rights should always trump, she should be able to harvest her baby's organs to survive.

My point is logically consistent, if you consider all aspects of it. I see abortion as the weighing of competing rights: those of bodily integrity of the woman and those of bodily integrity and life of the fetus. The latter rights are always the same, but the rights of the woman change depending on her circumstances. To make it more clear, I'll assign arbitrary numerical values. The fetus's rights are consistently held at a 7. The rights of a healthy woman who consented to sex (and therefore at least was open to the idea that she could get pregnant) is a 5. A woman who is raped, who has already suffered an incredibly traumatic event and may be further damaged by having her bodily integrity again violated and did not do anything to risk pregnancy would be a 10. The rights of a woman who would risk death or severe effects from a pregnancy would range from, say, a 7 to a 10.

Obviously, it's somewhat silly to assign numbers to the "quantity" of rights, but it shows that one can support the rights of the woman in certain situations but not in others, while the rights of the fetus do not change.

Consequences are not the same things as punishments. Various punishments for sex include firing a woman from her job, not allowing her an education, denying health coverage to a pregnant woman, denying a promotion to a woman who is pregnant, social ostracism, kicking a pregnant girl out of National Honours Society but allowing the boy to stay in, expulsion of a pregnant student, kicking a daughter out of the house, or any other horrible thing that can be done to a woman because she had sex. Pregnancy is not designed to punish a woman for having sex: sex is, after all, the mechanism by which the species begins the process of reproducing itself. That is about as non-pejorative as you can get.

I refuse to be cowed by the cries of "Babies aren't punishments!" or "We shouldn't punish women for having sex!" No, we shouldn't punish women for having sex, and if abortion were outlawed tomorrow, we wouldn't be doing that. We would still fight for students to retain academic honours, for teachers who are unwed and pregnant to not get fired, to not ostracise women who have had premarital sex, and the like. Pregnancy is a logical, natural consequence - the effect part of cause and effect - of sex, but that does not mean that it is a punishment.

Women are intelligent beings who understand that, when they have sex, they could get pregnant. They do - and should - try to so avoid if they wish, but that does not change the fact that yeah, if they get pregnant, then they knew that it could happen and acted to so risk that anyway. If you go skydiving and get hurt doing it, even while taking every precaution to the contrary, who should bear the burden of that injury? Certainly not the person who did not make the decision, if we are to assign the burden.

So those of us who've been that one in 5000 should have just took our lumps, then?

Why not? Also, as I pointed out earlier, it's not like the abortion rate is anything near the birth control failure rate. The majority of women who abort don't even use BC.

We're not slaves to biology. Oddly enough, BC changes the biological status quo, too. So do condomns. Weird, that, isn't it?

What's your point? My point was that, in terms of organ donation, the government would be changing the status quo of organs, whereas, with abortion, the abortionist changes the status quo and ends life. The fact that the distinction is lost upon you is, frankly, your own issue. It has nothing to do with being a slave to biology and everything to do with how rights are granted by the State.

So this isn't about "protecting innocent human life" at all. If it were, you'd want to protect ALL unborn life, regardless of how conception occurred. Why don't fetuses conceived of rape deserve protection?

Actually, it is. As I said earlier, I think that rape and life-threatening issues are the two times when a woman's right to bodily integrity trumps the right to life of the baby, not because the latter has fewer rights, but because the former has more rights.

Substitute "sick mother with cancer" for "rape" and you can see how logical my position is and how illogical the counterarguments are.

I'm saying this in the nicest way possible, but it really seems as if many posters here cannot even comprehend the idea of competing rights of the mother and the child. They therefore see the rape exception as inconsistent, and think that all pro-lifers hate women. Frankly, it's a thought process that hinders any sort of potential for detente on this issue.

By the way, I have to be a bit sarcastic here: whaddya want, a situation in which even rape victims cannot abort? Or is there a cruelty in the HARSH application of a principle that everyone wants to avoid?

Would you feel as horribly for the women who experience the life-altering consequences of forced pregnancy I mentioned above?

No. I mean, if a woman gets stretch marks, should I be upset for her?

If you rephrase your question into something that is both rational and can be answered in a thoughtful manner, I'll happily give it the attention it deserves.

I don't speak for all of those who oppose abortion - being an atheist, I speak for very few of them - but I can try my best to thoughtfully discuss why half the country opposes abortion and more than half the country opposes partial birth abortion. What I cannot do is answer cheap shots or character attacks in a thoughtful manner.

The frog comment was because I had to import a tremendous amount of data into the "fetuses aren't people" statement - data that go far beyond the statement - in order for it to make any sort of sense. The logical, not sarcastic, response to "fetuses aren't people" is to ask what they are, then, if they aren't human.

That right to life means that I have a right not to be killed unjustly. That does not mean that I have a right to use another person's body. The fetus' potential right to life does not mean that it has a right to live like a parasite at the expense of the woman.

But the woman lacks the right to evict the fetus by killing it. If there were a procedure to remove the fetus from her body and into another womb (artificial or surrogate), then yes, your rationale would provide really freakin awesome justification for not outlawing such a procedure. Nevertheless, the woman lacks the right to evict the fetus by dismembering it and killing it. If there is a homeless man in my home, I may evict him. I cannot evict him, however, by throwing him out of a 20-story window and letting him plummet to his death. I cannot kill him in the house and then throw his corpse out the door.

Likewise, the woman lacks the right to meet the threat of temporary, non-life threatening bodily harm with death.

I wish that Law Fairy or LegallyBlondeez would comment, because there are many situations in the law where a right exists but there is no means to exercise that right or there is no remedy for an infringement of that right. IMO, until medicine advances until women can give the fetus to someone else to carry to term, there will be no real remedy for this situation.

Let's consider that I'm perfectly within my legal and moral rights to kill someone who is threatening me- that is, in self defense. Or, maybe we should look at the Terry Shiavo case?

I find the Terry Schiavo case to be appalling. Her husband had every right to not take care of her, but her parents should have been allowed to. It's like the case of a child: you don't have to care for your child, but you get thrown in jail if you let your child die instead of putting her up for adoption.

That all said, you've just justified abortion when the woman's life is at risk. What about the other 97% of them? I'm debating that 97%, not the 3% of life-threatening pregnancies.

Those organs are in my body, not the body of the person who needs them.

I'm not seeing your point here. The womb isn't part of the fetus, either. The fetus develops inside of the womb, but why does that matter?

You're missing my point and failing to make your own. I never said that one must be inside the other in order for protection to exist. "Inside" is entirely pedantic. The fetus is, because biology works that way, attached to the mother. Because biology works that way, I have both my kidneys, even though someone else might need them. THAT is why I see the organ donation as a poor analogy. Our laws frequently reflect the difference between commission and omission. I may keep my kidneys and kill someone by omitting to donate them, but I may not kill by destroying someone's kidneys, even though the results are the same. Likewise, you can refuse to donate kidneys or lungs, but cannot actively kill a fetus in order to expel it from your body.

Uh. Really?
Usually we treat them as a hierarchy, and we place the burden on whoever has the lesser right.

Yes, really! I've been to law school. The theory about placing burdens on those able to bear or avoid them is the basis of everything from informed consent law to contract law. Heck, we compel speech, apparently in violation of the First Amendment, in order to protect those who have a right (albeit one that is not in the Constitution) to know what medical procedures they are undergoing. Under your theory, the First Amendment right would trump labeling laws, informed consent, or the like, and the consum