Maybe it sounds a little paranoid of me - but I feel like advertising a "recreation of the events" sounds like a threat on local abortion providers.

These people are just wacked and it pisses me off.

That is so fucked up. That's why I refuse to call anti-choicers "pro-life." For too long the conservative wingnuts have controlled the terms of the debate. Let's call them what they are--anti-choice & anti-women.

Fuck me. I'm going to Milwaukee (my hometown) for that weekend, heading up Friday night. I hope I do not run into any of this bollocks, lest I go postal. I volunteered at the Planned Parenthood that provides abortions when I still lived there. I feel terrible for them, not knowing what these twats may have in store. I do hope this disgusting group of people get a low turnout of nut jobs to their "celebration".

Might as well Godwin the thread now: This is not unlike anti-Semitic Christians cheering Hitler as a righteous warrior of God for his slaughter of the heathen unbelievers.

In short, praising murderers--even those who only murder people you don't like--leaves you on very morally shaky ground.

Too be fair, most of those who call themselves "pro-life" are not supportive of Hill or people like him.

With that said, the idea that a murderer is a "hero" and a "martyr" is sick and disgusting.

I with that mainstream pro-life groups would stand up and denounce this.

Moxie
I'm totally with you. For years now I've refused to call the anti-choice movement by their preferred name of "pro-life". I think that its important that other pro-choice supporters do so as well.

This is the real terrorism, people.

Whoa.

Right, but (people like this say) Islam isn't a real religion because of this exact sort of activity done in it's name. Grrr...

"there are others who believe as he does that Christians have to live above the laws of man, answering only to the laws of God; who believe that the Bible not only allows them but asks them, commands them, to kill in the cause of Christ"

I think these people need to work on their skills at logical inference. What part of "though shall not kill" is particularly unclear?

You know, I never thought I'd see a group that could outdo the Phelps for pure assholery, but these guys may have done it.

This is disgusting. It makes all pro-lifers - those who donate their time and money to helping pregnant women - look bad.

That all said, Moxie, if you use "anti-choice" or "pro-forced birth," don't be shocked if someone retaliates by pointing out that your stance is all about killing children.

FYI: I can't find anything about this on prolifeblogs.com or on any of the pro-life blogs I frequent.

Maybe it's all about freaks who are co-opting the pro-life movement for their own twisted ends... but that would mean that you're not supposed to pretend that the weirdos are not indicative of the entire movement.

From the FAQs on one of the sponsoring organization's website:

Q: How can Children Need Heroes possibly honor a convicted murderer like Paul Hill?

A: Paul Hill committed homicide; he killed a human being. Not all homicides are murder. We believe Paul Hill committed justifiable homicide. His killing of the abortionists was just; it was Biblically lawful. He used force to defend the innocent against unjust violence. The taking of a life in defense of another is recognized as justifiable in all fifty states (a reminder of our Christian heritage). If he had acted in defense of any other victims, anyone but preborn children, he would not have been convicted.

Wow. Isn't it amazing that, even while they're celebrating a murderer, they can twist it around so that they're the persecuted class?

Another thing I left out of the post was that the pro-violence wing of the anti-abortion movement seems to take a "just war theory" approach to justifying their actions. It makes me wonder, then, what's stopping the US Council of Catholic Bishops, for example, from one day declaring that murdering abortion providers (or even abortion-rights activists) is acceptable under the Catholic interpretation of just war theory? Seems plausible:

Just cause. War is permissible only to confront "a real and certain danger," i.e., to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence and to secure basic human rights.

Shudder.

Disturbing. Very disturbing.

Very scary stuff, indeed!

If only these wackos would put this much energy into opening day-care facilities for single working mothers or donating their time to feeding the homeless...

I know...my naivete is silly.

oenophile,

I'm unclear as to how pro lifers are "helping pregnant women" who have made a decision to terminate a pregnancy?

Holy fucking shit.

Okay, so abortions are bad, but killing people is good. I get it now.

Someone should ask a pro-lifer:

If killing someone who preforms abortions is okay, would it be okay to abort a fetus if we knew it would grow up to preform abortions?

whoa, ikkin.... whoa. Maybe the Army of God's website has a section where you can submit that question? Ha.

Today on "The View" there was a total nut-job. She's an African American right wing conservative (whose had four abortions, then was born again type and who though she was on welfare, hates "welfare queens") any-who, the point: hypocrites usually out themselves with their fuzzy thinking grounded in selfishness. Selfishness is at the core of hypocrisy. These "prolife" pro-murderers want to use the langauge of "life" and yet have purchase on violence and hate-crimes; they do so selfishlessly to put their views (force their views) on the bodies of others. Hosting events like these (and making the mainstream media aware of their true aims) is important. Inconsistency and fuzzy thinking needs to be exposed and pro-hate, pro-murder groups need to be outed for what they are--faschists.

Just something I noticed - since I'm in Madison and I damn well can make the trip over to protest these assholes - but it's not this week, but in July. July 26-29th. Thursday through Sunday.

Oenophile:

>This is disgusting. It makes all pro-lifers - those who donate their time and money to helping pregnant women - look bad.

But no *true* Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!

Sorry. You're in league with terrorists. Get used to the concept.

Hell, who are we kidding? The pro-forced-birth crowd has based much of its success on the intimidation of women and doctors. It's only when the terrorists make the movement look bad that they're disowned.

Q re-inactment? Oh...My..GOD!

They call themselves anti-abortion, too. They use pro-life and anti-abortion interchangeably. Look at the websites. We should call them anti-women or pro-fetus.

Ah, thanks for the clarification, Minervasp73! Got the dates wrong. Think I'll stay back in sweet home Chicago then where nut jobs like these are in the teensiest, tiniest of minorities.

Eliane - there's a huge difference between being anti-abortion and anti-choice (as if we don't want women to make any choices in life).

But no *true* Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!

Sorry. You're in league with terrorists. Get used to the concept.

Why don't you say that to every single Muslim you know and see how it goes over? :)

"there's a huge difference between being anti-abortion and anti-choice".

If one is "anti abortion" as you put it, I am assuming you would be against access to abortion. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I fail to see how there is any material difference between anti abortion and anti choice. If you advocate restricting abortion, then you are fundamentally anti choice.

AAAAAHH, NO, I'm going to be in Milwaukee that weekend for my friend's wedding!

I also wonder how many of these nutjobs are vegetarians...I love to bring that point up with pro-lifers and watch them sputter and spontaneously combust. (Not that I would ever normally scold anybody for not being a vegetarian, but come on, if you think you're so pro-life, at least be consistent.)

It's only when the terrorists make the movement look bad that they're disowned.

But have they even disowned this? I thought somebody said earlier that nobody in the so-called pro-life movement has spoken out against this murder re-enactment...But I'm too chicken to risk my sanity and faltering faith in humanity to go look at any of their sites and find out!

"Choice" refers to a lot more than abortion, Al. If we're talking about reproductive rights, it involves the choice of whether or not to have sex, the choice of which birth control to use, the option to get emergency contraceptives, access to sterlisation, etc.

It also involves choices for pregnant women: allowing students to be pregnant and finish their classes; preventing employers from firing or laying off pregnant women; adjusting tenure schedules for pregnant and parenting female profs; increasing the options available for adoption; mandating child support; etc.

The one choice that I don't find to be valid is murder - because I don't care if the intended victim is some random person on the street or your own child. Calling me "anti-choice" is completely wrong: I'm not against choice, just against abortion. In short, I don't think that abortion is the appropriate means to achieve the ends of reproductive freedom.

But you can call us anti-choicers - just don't get up in arms when someone gives you the much more accurate label of "pro-baby killing."

Ponies:

1. No pro-life site has even mentioned this event.

2. I'm a vegetarian. :)

(Arguably, though, there is a LOT of consistency in valuing human life above animal life. I can't understand the converse, though: pro-abortion but vegetarian. Because killing is okay so long as you don't eat it?)

pro-choice and veggie isn't that confusing if you take into account that most pro-choicers wouldn't call a single-celled organism a "baby", or consider it otherwise a person.

oenophile,

I have two problems with your argument.

One, suggesting you are really not anti choice in a discussion about abortion, then offering up several examples of where you support choice, when you in fact believe that abortion is not something women should access, is disingenuous at best.

Second, if you think that abortion is in fact murder, would you support the prosecution and life imprisonment of all those who have abortions? Because if you really don't see a difference, that is the logically consistent argument to take is it not?

"Because killing is okay so long as you don't eat it?"
Um, no because killing of creatures that live independent of my body rather than as a parasite, that have feel pain or fear is different than killing non-sentient parasitic beings. Yes, we’ve heard you’re vegetarian but you’re about the only anti-choice vegetarian I know of.

Oenophile, I know that you find this really hard to understand, but embryos are NOT BABIES. Almost sixty percent of abortions take place during the embryo stage. Fetuses are not babies, either, especially those between 9-12 weeks, when thirty percent of abortions are performed.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Hey, if you want to say that "life begins at conception," whatever. If you want to wax philosophical about "souls" and say with absolutely no evidence that embryos have them, be my guest. You can even say that the "soul" it has makes it human-- and yes, a human embryo is in fact human (though that certainly does not make it CONSCIOUS). But saying that an embryo or an extremely young fetus is a "baby" is completely intellectually dishonest. So stop trying to get back at us for telling you what you don't want to hear-- that denying a woman an abortion is in fact FORCING HER TO GIVE BIRTH and DENYING HER A CHOICE.

So ends my weekly masochistic endeavor of trying to speak rationally to oenophile. I'm out.

oenophile: I appreciate that you're replying to many comments, but I still don't really see to why you seem to object so strenuously to "anti-choice" as a description of your position.

"Pro-life" obviously doesn't defend all life, period. It's not inherently connected to being anti- death penalty, anti-war, vegan, anti-lumber, anti-florist or any other interpretation of protecting all recognized forms of life. It means being for "life" in this limited context, meaning vs. abortion.

Why is being "anti-choice" so offensive, it seems to be the other side of the coin. You're not against all choice. You're against free choice to do as you will with your body, in the context of abortion.

Calling yourself "pro-life" paints the opposing side as "anti-life" and I have never hear anyone defending abortion call for the end of all life.

You have all the good PR here. Pro-life vs. anti-life? Anti-abortion vs. pro-abortion? (No one is arguing for forced abortion)Insisting that you'll retaliate by calling people "baby killer" if they call you anti-choice seems like you haven't really spent much time thinking about the language here, and want to up the ante despite holding most of the cards with regards to terminology.

"The one choice that I don't find to be valid is murder - because I don't care if the intended victim is some random person on the street or your own child."

And you also don't care that the "person" being "murdered" would die almost instantly anyway without the support it is getting from the person whose "murder" of it is really not so much killing of a random other person as withdrawing from that other person. Withdrawing one's presence and withdrawing life-support that one has been roped into providing.

It is not as if the fetus is an independent life-form surviving on its own, breathing on its own, and somebody has entered its life and prevented it from continuing to do what it was accomplishing just fine on its own. No; that somebody has rather simply withdrawn from it. Ceased to have anything to do with it, for help or harm.

The "killing" part could be excluded from most abortions with little effort; a little extra dilation and a different tool or three and the abortion would still be a success because it's the disconnection that is the important part, the desired outcome. However, recognizing that the fetus will immediately die anyway, the doctors do not bother to keep it alive during the removal.

Sick.

This is what is wrong with this male dominated society. Violence rules and those who commit violence are worshiped. Nice message people.

Again... I do think it is very important to remember that the "Paul Hill Days" are being put on by extremists that most "pro-life" groups would want nothing to do with.

Would you want the Right to group you with the violent Seattle protests in 1999?

Paul Hill disgusts me, and I think you will find that he also disgusts almost all of those who call themselves "pro-life."

And you're "pro-baby-killing" if the woman was raped, Oenophile! How is that ANY better than being "pro-baby-killing" across the board? You think "killing babies" is acceptable if those babies exist as a result of rape. You are inconsistent and disingenuous.

>Why don't you say that to every single Muslim you know and see how it goes over? :)

They hear it all the time. From people like you who automatically equate "Muslim" with "terrorist" (why am I not at all surprised that you're a bigot, too?), to pundits saying how moderate Muslims must speak out more in condemning terrorism, or they're silently condoning it.

All the time.

You, on the other hand, need to be forced to face the truth. These people are your monsters, and you need to own them. Their not being mentioned in "Pro-life" publications isn't good enough. They need to be condemned, or they're still yours.

I want to point out that when people who are part of fringe minority groups do things that anti-choice groups characterize as "pro-choice," we're quick to call them out and say, "These people are NOT pro-choice, and are WAY out of step with the mainstream movement to preserve abortion rights -- and here's why..."

For example, we've written on this site about the reprehensible practice of forced abortions in China, and also decried a Maine couple who attempted to force their daughter to have an abortion -- two things the anti-choicers were quick to equate with our movement.

We work hard to distance ourselves from extremists who really aren't pro-choice at all. But I have yet to see many those who call themselves "pro-life" publicly decry the type of violence committed in their name by people like Paul Hill.

>
Again... I do think it is very important to remember that the "Paul Hill Days" are being put on by extremists that most "pro-life" groups would want nothing to do with.

>Would you want the Right to group you with the violent Seattle protests in 1999?

The problem with that is twofold, Dave:

1. The Left as a whole has gained no benefit from the Seattle protests. However, the anti-Choice forces have benefitted immensely from the existence of Paul Hills in the movement. As I said before, the murder and intimidation of doctors and patients has served your purposes very well. After all, how many doctors are willing to put their families in danger and wear flak-jackets to work every day?

2. Paul Hill is the logical conclusion of your movement. If you accuse someone of being a "baby-killer" over and over, it's hypocritical of you to act shocked...shocked! When someone takes the actions that most people would consider justified in protecting the life of an infant...i.e., anything up to and including killing the potential murderer.

Sarah,

"A foolish constancy is the hobgoblin of small minds."

I've stated rational reasons for a rape exception - essentially, it is tantamount to a mental health exception and acknowledges the fact that the woman didn't consent to the activity that created the child.

If you disagree, fine, but calling me "inconsistent and disingenuous" is bullshit.

Cara,

Ah! You're part of the "embryos aren't human" club? I'm sorry, but "baby" encompasses embryos and fetuses. Use the technical terms if you want - but that does not mean that my terminology is incorrect.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby

Check a dictionary. More than one of those definitions arguably applies to my usage - so get off my case.

I am NOT FORCING WOMEN TO GIVE BIRTH. Last time I checked, I'm not getting anyone pregnant, forcing anyone to fuck without using birth control, or running about in the middle of the night performing IVFs on women.

I'm sorry - did you miss the fact where sex is what causes pregnancy? Not me, not the government, and not the patriarchy. Sex. The fact that it supposedly feels good does not give you sanction to be free from its logical consequences, especially when such freedom is gained by murder (i.e. the deliberate taking of a human life).

You fail to comprehend what it means to force someone to do something. You certainly don't grasp the fact that the woman is forcing her child to DIE. You also fail to understand that you have NO right to aggress against someone else. None. The fetus is not aggressing against you - you're the one who created it. Don't want its rights in tension with yours? Don't create its existence.

By the way, when you oppose rape, does it bother your conscience that you are forcing men to be abstinent? That you are denying them a choice of how to express their sexuality? :) That "force" propaganda sounds really good, right up until you start to point out how a person would propose to achieve their ends.

Carly:

A single cell? Let's see: that doesn't even justify use of EC. After all, the cell starts dividing pretty quickly.
http://www.babycenter.com/fetaldevelopment

Five weeks after the last menstrual period, there is a heartbeat. Most women are just figuring out that they are pregnant.

(Wow, Cara - look at the name of that web page! "What your baby looks like.")

Well, what about the term pro-abortion? Certainly none of you would object to it. I mean, you are in favor of abortion, thus pro-abortion.

Roni,

I strongly disagree. Why call yourself "pro-choice" if you are really only about choice with regards to abortion? Just call yourself pro-abortion. The same arguments used against me can be used against your side. How 'bout "anti-life?" "Anti-fetus?"

I never claimed that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were perfect labels, but they beat the hell out of the alternative. The Feministing gals get their jollies by throwing around terms like "anti-choice," as if the only choice worth mentioning were abortion.

You also don't understand a LOT of the pro-life movement. Most pro-lifers I know are against assisted suicide - the idea being that human life is sacred.
"Pro-human life," however, is burdensome and unwieldy; I suspect that you wouldn't like it because it implies that you are against human life.

I have thought about the issues and the words. (May I suggest that the best way to piss someone off is to say that you know their own mind better than they?) I happen to disagree with the idea of y'all being called pro-choice while slamming the anti-choice label on us - as if any of you give a damn about fetal life.

Sojourner: pro-life vegetarian, please. Or anti-abortion vegetarian. Whichever.

Al,

One, suggesting you are really not anti choice in a discussion about abortion, then offering up several examples of where you support choice, when you in fact believe that abortion is not something women should access, is disingenuous at best.

Second, if you think that abortion is in fact murder, would you support the prosecution and life imprisonment of all those who have abortions? Because if you really don't see a difference, that is the logically consistent argument to take is it not?

First of all, I would agree with you EXCEPT for the fact that I made my "choice" comments specifically as to the reasons why "anti-choice" is a bad label for those who oppose abortion. The theory is that we "oppose women's choices." Well, unless someone will kindly elucidate what those choices are, it's perfectly valid for me to point out the ways in which I do support a woman's right to choose.

As for your second point: are you trying to say that all pro-lifers are women haters? Again, a foolish constancy is the hobgoblin of small minds - and the creator of bad policy.

Let me turn the question over to Feministing readers: no one really agrees with the idea of abortion on demand post-viability. (Distinguish from abortions for medical reasons, either of the mother or the baby.) What punishments do you deem appropriate?

More than that, you all disagree - STRONGLY - with the idea that men who beat pregnant women and induce a miscarriage, at any stage of pregnancy, should be only subject to assault. Should they be charged with murder?

Al, again:

Sweden decided that prostitution wasn't a good thing. It made it legal to be a prostitute, but illegal to solicit one. Where is the logical consistency?

Should we let logical consistency undermine really good policy? Should we stick with the usual method of preventing abortion: making it legal to seek one, but illegal to perform one?

Finally, if logical consistency trumps all, why do we force women to remain pregnant in the last trimester? (Think about it... there is no right to abort, and there's no real right to deliver early.) That doesn't allow for a woman to have a choice as to whether to remain pregnant and forces her to be a subject to a parasite. Should her rights really depend on the development of her baby? More importantly, should her rights depend on medical technology? What if we find a way to keep fetuses alive throughout all three trimesters?

Does logical consistency start to look a little creepy?

The "culture of life" is really just a misnomer. Conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives, commonly cite the 10 commandments as a reason for their opposition to abortion (thou shall not kill).

If abortion is wrong because it is murder and humans do not have the right to take another human being's life, then this is just one of many examples of internal inconsistency within Conservative rhetoric. If abortion should be illegal because "thou shall not kill", why are so many of the same anti-abortionists also pro-death penalty? Why are so many of the same also pro-war in Iraq?

Of course liberal rhetoric isn't always internally consistent, but that is a far different story.

What looks a little creepy is for you to take the better part of a page and not answer my questions. As I said, if we refer to abortion you are anti choice. Expressing what you do support choice for does nothing to change the fact that in regards to abortion, and this discussion, you are anti choice.

Of course my premise in my second question is ludicrous. I don't support punishment because I don't view abortion as murder. You however, didn't answer, but instead rambled on about several things unrelated to what you were asked. Which really speaks volumes about the supposed strength of your position.

My take on abortion is that people can have whatever moral position on it I'd like, but it's only logical that it should remain legal, even if you consider it morally reprehensible. In countries where abortion is illegal, abortions still take place, and in fact, they take place at a very similar rate to that of countries where abortion is perfectly legal. The difference is that in those countries, abortion is dangerous and takes the lives of many women. Therefore, if one is actually "pro-life," then it makes sense to support legal abortion, since illegal abortion is not an effective deterrent AND IT KILLS WOMEN.

Oenophile, do you support legislation that would make abortion illegal? If so, how do you see that playing out? How do you imagine that abortion laws would be enforced? If a woman miscarries, should there be a police investigation to make sure that the miscarriage wasn't induced? Should women who attempt to abort or who are rumored to be seeking an abortion be jailed for the duration of their pregnancy? I'm curious how , and whether, you envision a society where abortion isn't a legal option.

Al,

Um, no. You are well aware that you asked me a question for which there is no good answer. If I say that I don't think women should be punished for aborting, then it's not really murder. If I say that they should, I'm anti-woman. Pointing out the catch-22 in your question is completely fair.

If you would like a succinct answer: no, I don't think that mothers ought to be jailed for seeking abortions. Yes, I do think that abortionists ought to be jailed.

My questions were really relevant. I remember a Feministing post about a guy who killed his pregnant girlfriend; the fetus/embryo/baby died, too. A lot of Feministing people were happy that he was charged with two counts of murder, even though they don't find abortion to be murder.

Be contentious all you want; but I answered your questions and you refused to answer mine.

hahaha, whatever position on it THEY'D like. ha, ha.

Jeremy,

I'm an atheist, so I can't really begin to properly explain this, but let me try.

The Bible, like the Constitution, is meant to be read as a whole. For example, in the Constitution, you would interpret the 21st Amendment in light of the Commerce Clause.

Biblically, you cannot read the Ten Commandments in a vacuum. As there is nothing which supports abortion, and a few other passages which oppose it ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I haw appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)), the general consensus is that the Bible prohibits abortion.

Now, let's examine "thou shalt not kill" and the death penalty. Assuming for the sake of argument only that many religious pro-lifers are for the death penalty (which isn't really true), it's still okay. The word for "kill," if I'm not mistaken, refers to something which is not self-defense and which is not taken up in war or in justice.

Genesis 9:6 says, ""Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man." We can limit "kill" in the Ten Commandments to acts which are outside the scope of the death penalty.

Don't forget that the Bible is full of punishments for people that involved stoning. There was definitely the idea that your fellow man could kill you in the name of justice. There is nothing in the Bible, however, about killing children justly. Ergo, abortion is under the aegis of "thou shalt not kill," but the death penalty is not.

As for the war in Iraq: well, I must say, I'm glad that the Christians in the 1940s didn't take the same "thou shalt not kill" 'tude towards the Nazis.

Oenophile, if you don't think that women who seek abortions should be jailed, but people who provide abortions should be jailed, how would women who induce their own abortions be dealt with?

Part of the reason that abortion is so dangerous in countries where it's illegal is because medical doctors won't risk breaking the law, so they're performed by people who don't have the medical training necessary to ensure that the procedure is done safely. Doctors have too much to lose to go underground and provide black-market abortions, and the people who do don't always women's best interests in mind.

Either you think murder is wrong or you don't. Either you think someone should be punished or you don't. The catch 22 isn't in my question. It is in your inconsistent response to something YOU already stated was murder..

I don't support punishment because I don't think abortion is murder. See how easy that was.

As for your interesting interpretation of scripture, what exactly does it have to do with this discussion? i'm an atheist too, and I would think that the numerous contradictions in the bible would make it a text that is neither supportive nor condoning of your position.

Oenophile, I never said that an embryo isn't human. In fact, I specifically said that it IS human. My hair is also human hair. That doesn't mean that it's alive and I'm a "murderer" if I pluck a strand out.

If you can't tell the difference between a baby and a hardly visible clump of cells, you are even more idiotic than I originally thought. And that's quite a feat. I'd also say that you're the one devaluing human life by equating the two. A baby is a born, alive human being deserving of respect and protection. Embryos routinely get wiped away with toilet paper by a woman who thinks she has gotten her period a few weeks late. So get over yourself.

How many intelligent, thoughtful actually feminist posters do you think we've lost on this site because of trolls like this? Because of Oenophile specifically?

Pearl -

Hmmm. How to answer a question that was asked entirely in bad faith. Hmm.

Well, while it's true that we're in favor of women having abortion as an option and we're not at all ashamed of that fact, we also support the full range of choices. While some few anti-choicers are consistent enough in their beliefs to support comprehensive sex education and easy availability of contraception (and quite a few more are disingenuous enough to *say* they support them), most are more interested in trying to discourage fornication and making sure that women who *do* fornicate don't escape responsibility for their actions (i.e. they're punished with an std or a pregnancy that they're forced to carry to term). With that in mind, "Pro-abortion" is too limiting, and "Pro-Choice" remains the appropriate term.

I would not object to the term "pro-abortion rights" or "pro-abortion access," though. It does not cover the full range of my beliefs regarding reproductive rights, but no one term covers the full range of my beliefs about anything.

"Second, if you think that abortion is in fact murder, would you support the prosecution and life imprisonment of all those who have abortions?"

Don't forget the police investigation of anyone known to have irregular vaginal bleeding, in order to make sure the ones who have it from induced abortion (instead of miscarriage, perimenopause, first periods, etc.) don't get away with their abortions. You know, like the way cops are supposed to investigate anything that looks like a homicide, just in case...

"And you're 'pro-baby-killing' if the woman was raped, Oenophile!"

How about if the woman doesn't know she's pregnant yet and shares enough bottles of wine with her husband to cause more than just Fetal Alcohol Syndrome?

"most are more interested in trying to discourage fornication and making sure that women who *do* fornicate don't escape responsibility for their actions"

Some of them even seem interested in discouraging a lot of marital sex too. How many support of them exceptions for wives along with exceptions for rape victims?

God, another abortion thread. Well, I'm sure it will all be worked out and plenty of minds will be changed by the end of this thread.

BTW, wishing to jail abortionists and not mothers in a forced birth regime is a really silly, inconsistent position. The person who gives the order for the hit doesn't get prosecuted, but the hit man does? Interesting prosecutorial scheme.

And wishing to jail medical professionals for "murder" is about one hair's breadth removed from putting their names on a wanted list or taking deadly action to preserve the potential life of the thumbnail-sized organism.

So that solves it. No more comments!

Jenny Dreadful, I'm so glad that you made the distinction between 1) thinking abortion is morally wrong/questionable, and 2) thinking abortion should be illegal. People often fail to acknowledge this fact.

i personally am pro-choice, but i can see how a person - a feminist, even - could hold the view that abortion is morally undesirable or wrong. there are so many fuzzy areas here: when does a fetus become viable? does that point change as the medical world advances, and babies born premature at earlier points in gestation can be kept alive? is birth really morally relevant - i.e., does the act of being born make a fetus/baby into a person?

i'm just saying that rational people could hold either position...and that using one's stance on abortion as the litmus test for whether one is a good feminist or not, or refusing to acknowledge that some people in the other camp have some reasonable qualms - even if you don't personally agree with them - probably isn't the best way to go here. looking at events like this as representing the best arguments the other side has to offer is inaccurate.

that said, i think it's true that anyone who is truly pro-life would be in favor of a number of programs (WIC, HeadStart, or more progressive options) that really support the lives of these former fetuses.

So, am I to assume we're going to start racially profiling white fundamentalist Christian men?

Just curious, because I thought that's what they did with people who somehow look like they might be of the same heritage as terrorists these days. So I'm assuming white guys with close-cropped hair are going to be given a hard time at our airports.

Or is that just the people who appear to share a heritage with terrorists who don't pay kickbacks (campaign contributions, whatever) to the Party?

Has anyone ever thought of showing these people that this game has a two-player variant? I'm obviously not talking about the killing part; that we can leave to the pro-"lifers". But padlocking their offices and doing sit-ins in their places of business, etc., to obstruct their campaigns of terror and deception?

Personally, I just get the feeling that we've been way too nice to these people.

hey, guys... want to go to milwaukee in the end of july and stage a counter-rally where we reenact something that starts the moment a woman realizes that her contraceptives failed and she has to weigh what it would mean in her life to continue or not continue the pregnancy, and then she goes to a clinic where a doctor in a bullet-proof vest is immeasurably kind to her and safely performs a currently legal procedure and she is grateful that her life can go on with the decision she has thoughtfully made..?

or maybe we can re-enact something meaningful that happened in Dr. Britton's life or the life of the escort who was also killed.

People, I've said it before, I've said it again:
Just don't respond to oenephile, she has proven again & again that she has nothing useful to say.

*Stella: I think a silent vigil for the victims of these terrorists would be more effective.

I think a silent vigil for the victims of these terrorists would be more effective.

Perhaps including a photographic juxtaposition of this "hero" with George W. Bush, Timothy McVeigh, and Osama Bin Laden.

I want to point out that I, personally, do not think that abortion is morally reprehensible. I support a woman's full access to abortion up to the point of viability.

Moxie, I agree with you about not responding to oeno. It seems completely pointless. I’ll try not to, from now on.

I also agree. The problem is that I really do try, but it's so difficult when others are responding and she just keeps going and going. I almost feel like we would need some sort of pact to not respond to make it possible and effective.

Jenny Dreadful - didn't mean to imply that you thought abortion was morally reprehensible (or that i did for that matter) - just to acknowledge how complicated the issue is.

I hate the act of abortion, but I'm also realistic. Abortion has been around since women became aware of how they could become pregnant. Birth control isn't full-proof. Are people supposed to just stop having sex? Yes, apparently, b/c sex is dirty, sinful, & wrong.
Personally, I'd rather have manual vacuum aspiration or dilation & evacuation than bashing the brains of an infant in.
I'm sorry, I know it's crude, but there is a difference between a blastocyst & a healthy full-term baby.
I don't know if I could ever go through with an abortion. I do know that I'm not ready for a baby & I'm doing everything I can to prevent pregnancy. But I will never support the government taking away a woman's right to choose.
What bugs me is that I never hear "moderate" anti-choicers (is there such a thing?) decrying the acts of these psychopathic terrorists.

I've stated rational reasons for a rape exception - essentially, it is tantamount to a mental health exception and acknowledges the fact that the woman didn't consent to the activity that created the child.

Why should the manner in which the fetus was created have anything to do with whether it's "killable?"

You're compartmentalizing. I thought it wasn't about the woman's actions; it's about the precious, innocent "child" right?

Cara,

I promise. That makes 3 of us already.

Since when is a bundle of cells, which we don't even know if it's viable, more important than a woman?
Why even have women at all? Why not kill them all, extract their DNA, & then men can raise all the children in test tubes? I mean, if our only value in life is hosting an embryo, then why bother existing? And goddess help you if you're infertile--then you're an unwoman*!
*Cookies to anyone who gets the reference. But we're all smart men & women, I'm sure most of you will.

Oenophile said:

You certainly don't grasp the fact that the woman is forcing her child to DIE. (but it's different if she's been raped)

You also fail to understand that you have NO right to aggress against someone else. None. (unless you've been raped.)

All right, Moxie. It's on!

Awesome.

I agree with not responding to her faux attempts at discussion. I can see now it's never going to go anywhere.

Here goes nothing.

I'm with you ladies, too. :-)

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.�

Interesting how consistently *that quote* is used by pro-controlling-women, pro-punishing-women, pro-forced-birth, “pro-lifers� to try and defend allowing *only* rape victims to “murder� their babies.

Resorting to generic, out-of-context quotes is a sure sign that someone’s bag of tricks has gone empty.

The simple fact is that the instant you take into account the circumstances of conception when deciding whether a woman should be allowed an abortion, your motives are no longer concern for the fetus/�baby�, but are simply about punishing the woman *if* she willingly had sex.

All claims of “compassion� by pro-lifers who support rape exceptions are P.R. bullshit, reluctantly contrived and based on the simple reality that mainstream America will bounce them out on their ear if they try that South Dakota/2006 crap somewhere else.

If you would like a succinct answer: no, I don't think that mothers ought to be jailed for seeking abortions. Yes, I do think that abortionists ought to be jailed.

How does that make sense? If abortion = murder, then, logically, a doctor is a hitman. And if someone hires a hitman, both are charged with murder. So I'm not seeing how that flows logically.

Back to the main point, the idea of a memorial to Paul Hill is disturbing, but another example of why "God told me to" is a dangerous rationale. This is a powerful example of how religion can stop a thinking mind.

Oenophile, way back you said that "Five weeks after the last menstrual period, there is a heartbeat".

What does that prove? Scientists have induced heart cells in culture to mimic the real heart. One property the cultured cells have is a heartbeat.

::threadjack::
There are two "rights" that people seeking an abortion can claim: a right not to be pregnant, and a right not to have the obligations of being a parent.

There's a difference between the two claims. Asserting a right not to be pregnant is asserting a right not to be physically attached to an entity that acts as a parasite; it can be defended as a special case of a right to bodily integrity. If restoring one's bodily integrity by removing the entity and breaking its connection has the unfortunate side effect of killing that entity, well, too bad for that entity. If a homeless man knocks on my door during a blizzard and asks for shelter, I can legally refuse to let him in, even if there's a good chance that the homeless man will freeze to death if I do refuse.

Consider a hypothetical future technology that makes the point of viability the same as the point of conception. If the only right asserted is the right not to be pregnant, then, if that technology was available, replacing all induced abortions with "premature births" would still allow someone to choose not to be pregnant while still allowing the removed entity to survive. Furthermore, once a baby has been born, the right not to be pregnant, by itself, does not by itself permit parents to give up unwanted children for adoption; it provides no protection for one's time, effort, or property.

If the basis for the right to choose abortion is not bodily integrity, but a right not to have the obligations of parenthood, there is no obvious reason for that right to be one that only applies to pregnant women. If a woman can refuse parenthood by having an abortion against the father's wishes, then a father must also be given the right to refuse parenthood if the mother chooses to carry the child to term. (If the mother does not want to be a parent to the child but the father does, in addition to abortion, the mother would have to be given the option of allowing the father to become the sole legal guardian after the child is born.) Furthermore, a parent would be able to legally abandon a child of any age for any reason or no reason at all, including a desire to avoid child support payments.

(Oddly enough, a court in Kansas ruled that the circumstances of conception are irrelevant to a child's right to financial support from a non-custodial parent. The judge ruled that a 12-year-old non-custodial parent was, in fact, legally required to pay child support.)

The "right not to have the obligations of a parent" as grounds for abortion is harder to defend against a claim that the parasite's "right to life" supersedes the right of the adult to not have the obligations of a parent, as 1) there is no alternative other than continuing the pregnancy that does not result in the death of the parasite and 2) the obligation is limited in duration; it can be terminated at birth by transferring custody of the infant to another person or to the state.

Anyway, is there a "right not to have the obligations of a parent"?

To everyone who's refusing to continue to engage Oenophile: if talking to her just stresses you out, by all means ignore her. But I do hope that not everyone will take that route; I always read several extremely thoughtful, well-informed, and eloquent rebuttals on every abortion-related thread she comments on.

Anyway, is there a "right not to have the obligations of a parent"?

Good points, all. As I see it, the two underlying bases you mention exist simultaneously in the right to terminate or prevent pregnancy.

In the exercise of the rights to abortion and contraception, both rights are vindicated simultaneously. The right to avoid the burdens and dangers inherent in pregnancy, and to personal autonomy in deciding when to undertake the duties and obligations of being a parent are both protected. Vasectomy, tubal ligation, the pill, condoms, and abortions, to the extent effective and/or available, prevent both the pregnancy and the ensuing obligations.

In addition to the options that vindicate both aspects of the right, there are various options that deal specifically with the parental obligations aspect, the most obvious being voluntary termination of parental rights (and obligations) in the form of adoption, etc. Here, the parental obligations are terminated, at the cost of terminating the parental rights as well.

I would venture that there is a right to avoid the obligations of parenthood in some cases, on much the same basis that applies to the right to prevent or terminate a pregnancy. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that decisions concerning whether and how to bear or raise children fall within the scope of the personal autonomy guaranteed by the right to privacy enunciated in Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and other cases.

Now, a "right not to have the obligations of a parent" would be broader in scope than a right not to be pregnant, since it could at least potentially apply after birth, when the right to avoid or terminate pregnancy becomes somewhat less relevant. Given that there is a recognised state interest in ensuring the welfare of children — regardless of how little interest the state seems to be taking in it these days — any postnatal exercise of the right to avoid the obligations of being a parent would have to be inherently limited by the interests of the child. But I think it's at least reasonable to suppose that it exists.

Of course, there's one more right in play here: women's right of equal protection and the removal of barriers to equal participation in society. This is the view of abortion rights that has long been championed on the Court by Justice Ginsberg, though she has had only limited success in persuading her colleagues to adhere to it. In this view, in addition to the rights of bodily integrity and personal autonomy/privacy vindicated by the abortion right, the abortion right also serves to remove legal barriers to women's full and equal participation in society.

Don't stop engaging with Oenophile, she is actually providing us with a valuable resource. She is providing those of us who are pro choice a look into the thinking of the anti choice. Debating this with her gives us a chance to strengthen our arguments regarding choice which can help solidify our drive to keep choice legal and debate/argue it more eloquently in person. I know that her posts have forced me to read more about abortion and to research the statistics regarding abortion. I have watched videos online so that I would learn more, I even watched two abortions on the PBS website, which is worth a viewing as it is more than just the procedures: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/twenty/watch/abortion.html

If you watch that, then I also highly recommend this one: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/

I agree with ShifterCat and Sassygirl. I've become a lot more effective at defending my own position for being aware of the arguments frequently presented by the other side. I'm far better equipped to debate the issue today than I was a year or two ago, because of discussions like this one.

To that end, here are a few statements I'd like to respond to:
I am NOT FORCING WOMEN TO GIVE BIRTH. Last time I checked, I'm not getting anyone pregnant, forcing anyone to fuck without using birth control, or running about in the middle of the night performing IVFs on women.

What if they fuck WITH birth control, and it fails? I've asked you that question before, Oenophile, but you never seem to answer it. It does happen, you know. A lot.

You certainly don't grasp the fact that the woman is forcing her child to DIE.

The converse of this is the fact that the child is forcing the woman to KEEP IT ALIVE. It makes major demands on her body's resources, in all likelihood causing her serious discomfort, and possibly threatening her continued health and fertility. It may even force HER to DIE. But this is somehow more "fair"? If a woman dies in childbirth, would you call the baby a "murderer," or a "mother-killer"?

you all disagree - STRONGLY - with the idea that men who beat pregnant women and induce a miscarriage, at any stage of pregnancy, should be only subject to assault. Should they be charged with murder?

Actually, unless the fetus was at a stage of development where it could have survived outside the womb, I'd say "assault" sounds like a pretty accurate description of that scenario. Maybe aggravated assault?
But "murder of the preborn"? Please.
I suppose in your world, every woman who miscarries is guilty of negligent homicide, or involuntary manslaughter?

“unless the fetus was at a stage of development where it could have survived outside the womb, I'd say "assault" sounds like a pretty accurate description of that scenario.�

Vervain, I have to disagree with that. There are two violent crimes committed there: 1- Beating the woman. 2- Ending her pregnancy *against* her will.

Anyway, is there a "right not to have the obligations of a parent"?

Yes and no. Obviously, there is, because that's what it means to give up a child for adoption and/or to relinquish all parental rights, which people do all the time. And I believe on a previous abortion-related thread, somebody who was not me brought up a court case in which a man sued to prevent his ex-partner from having the embryos which they had fertilized and frozen prior to her undergoing treatment for cancer which rendered her unable to conceive otherwise implanted, because he no longer wished to be a father. In that case, the court found in his favor, and the woman lost her only chance of becoming a genetic parent because the man asserted his right not to become a parent against his will. Whether or not we think that's a fair decision (my personal point of view is that man's a heel), if the man has that right, I see no reason why a woman shouldn't.

Once there's an actual, living, breathing kid, I suppose one can give it up for adoption at any time--though again, it would be a cruel and abusive thing to do.

"For years now I've refused to call the anti-choice movement by their preferred name of "pro-life". I think that its important that other pro-choice supporters do so as well."

Well then I'll change my terminology too, and call y'all 'anti-lifers'. Has a nice ring to it. You get to call yourselves something positive and slap a negative label on the other side? Pfffft.

To take an extreme example like this and attributing it to every person against abortion IS akin to calling every Muslim a terrorist...it doesn't matter though, does it? Any one who doesn't share your views doesn't matter as a human being.

And, why the hell mix issues? Making whether someone eats meat or not the litmus test for whether they are serious about being 'pro-life' borders on the ridiculous, unless you really don't use any leather products,don't use insulin or heparin,and don't eat Jello. You see how ridiculous this can get?

Don't stop engaging with Oenophile, she is actually providing us with a valuable resource. She is providing those of us who are pro choice a look into the thinking of the anti choice.
Normally, I love debate.
What I don't love, is her general tone of rudeness & disrespect. A few threads back, I wish I could remember the one, she insisted that Law Fairy "snipped" at her b/c she didn't take her Midol & that women aren't as good as men at science. Do you really want to waste your time engaging with someone like that?

Your side IS negative, Crella. And the term "prolife" doesn't accurately describe you at all.

Oenophile, quit whining that you're damned if you do (support rape exceptions) and damned if you don't. That's right - because either way you're our opposition. Just be HONEST, because we're going to think you're anti-woman no matter what.
The fact that you're willing to allow rape/incest exceptions just proves that to you, it's not "pro-life" so much as it's "anti-sex-without-unappealing-consequences."

I told you ladies that ignoring her wouldn't be as easy as it looks!

Yeah I can't ignore idocy. Sorry gals.

Can we please stop arguing over whether an embryo or a fetus is (1) a baby, (2) human, or (3) neurologically responsive? Because the central issue here is whether a woman has the right to control what happens to her own body. Anti-choicers say No, if she's pregnant. Pro-choicers ought to be saying Yes, without reservation. I have yet to see an anti-choicer demand compulsory blood or organ donation to born people even though refusing to do either means that born people will die. Until they take a stance about that, they have zero credibility about "unborn babies."

I agree with ShifterCat and Sassygirl. I've become a lot more effective at defending my own position for being aware of the arguments frequently presented by the other side...

I've asked you that question before, Oenophile...

Oenophile frequently avoids answering people's questions. She is rather selective that way.

Whether or not you ignore oenophile, know that oenophile is already ignoring you.

Vervain, I have to disagree with that. There are two violent crimes committed there: 1- Beating the woman. 2- Ending her pregnancy *against* her will.
That's a fair point, sojourner. I think an argument could be made about intent in that instance, though. In my mind, a guy who kicks his pregnant wife/gf in the stomach in a *deliberate* attempt to cause her to miscarry is far more culpable (and evil) than one who beats a woman and causes her to miscarry while unaware she's pregnant at the time.
I'm no lawyer of course, but I imagine adding some sort of malicious intent to the assault charge, or additional counts might do it. You could check precedent in cases where the victim suffered permament loss of a limb or organ--making the miscarried fetus comparable to a(n irreplaceable) body part--and come up with a similar charge based on that. Regardless of the intent behind the assault, I would want the man to be prosecuted for his crime(s) against the woman and not against the fetus. "Murder" would be right out, for the reasons I gave earlier.

Well then I'll change my terminology too, and call y'all 'anti-lifers'. Has a nice ring to it. You get to call yourselves something positive and slap a negative label on the other side? Pfffft.

Oh, so innocent. You lot have been doing just that for years. What exactly did you think the label "pro-life" was intended to imply?
At any rate, we're not "anti-life" or we'd be fine with women dying from botched do-it-yourself abortions, wouldn't we? Neither are we "pro-abortion," unless we take a page from your book and start trying to pass legislation that forces ALL pregnant women to have abortions, even if they WANT to have a baby. THAT would be the equivalent polar opposite of the sort of anti-choice legislation "pro-life" groups are always trying to pass--and it'd be about as reasonable, too.

Any one who doesn't share your views doesn't matter as a human being.
That's a bit of a stretch. The fact is, I very much respect that some people feel abortions are immoral and wrong, and because of that I would never suggest they go and have one, or support passing legislation that forces them to do so. I'd just like for them to respect that some of us don't feel that way, and stop trying to impose their morality on the rest of the world. How fucking arrogant do you have to be to assume that YOUR beliefs are somehow more "right" or "valid" than anyone else's?
Unless you're the sun, the Earth doesn't revolve around you.*

*Sorry, that turned into a bit of a rant toward the end, there.

Peepers- Yeah, I know. But she primarily ignores the points she can't logically dispute, and I like to remind her of them.
I'm kind of a bitch that way. ;)

Any one who doesn't share your views doesn't matter as a human being.

Au contraire. I think even anti-choice women should have legal access to abortion. :)

But, Sarah, sometimes idiocy is best left ignored.

I quit lurking just to say that I'm sort of disappointed with a lot of what I'm reading on Feministing comments lately. A dissenting opinion is necessary for debate, not just in this thread but in all of them. It would really be a shame if we all ignored Oenophile because I think her points are just as valid as any pro-choicer's. I don't really agree with her ideas, but that doesn't mean it isn't good for her to express them and for me (all of us) to consider them.

Like Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Of course it is, Cara. Doesn't mean I don't find debate tempting. And I like to offer up talking points for my fellow choicers.

I quit lurking just to say that I'm sort of disappointed with a lot of what I'm reading on Feministing comments lately. A dissenting opinion is necessary for debate, not just in this thread but in all of them. It would really be a shame if we all ignored Oenophile because I think her points are just as valid as any pro-choicer's. I don't really agree with her ideas, but that doesn't mean it isn't good for her to express them and for me (all of us) to consider them.

Like Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Then feel free to argue about whether or not abortion and rape are moral equivalents, Jessica. I've heard her say it before, I've been sufficiently offended, and I've both argued calmly and shouted back at her to no avail. No one is stopping you from taking our places if you feel that such a ridiculous argument is necessary.

We've been entertaining the "embryos are people and women are not" argument for ages.

A dissenting opinion is necessary for debate, not just in this thread but in all of them. It would really be a shame if we all ignored Oenophile because I think her points are just as valid as any pro-choicer's. I don't really agree with her ideas, but that doesn't mean it isn't good for her to express them and for me (all of us) to consider them.
That's not the point. The point is that oenephile has been consistently hateful & rude to other posters, including accusing one of "not taking her midol." She consistently derails good discussions with her "abortion is the same as rape" arguments.
& I swear, this is the last I'll say on the subject.

I hate the act of abortion, but I'm also realistic. Abortion has been around since women became aware of how they could become pregnant...
I am glad Moxie brought this up. Women have used herbs to this end for generations. My mom has a book that contains a 19th-century recipe.

Women still do use herbs to "induce miscarriage" or "restore their periods." I have met some. I worked in an herb shop as a teen.

Women have various reasons for choosing herbal methods, even though they can be medically dangerous. Some mistrust the medical establishment or want to avoid any surgical procedure. Some feel intensely private about their unwanted pregnancies. Still others, I suspect, anticipate more compassion and respect from their midwives and herbalists than from medical doctors. Whatever their reasons, they make full use of the largely oral and largely underground network of information on herbs.

None of this is to suggest that this is a good idea. It can be for some people and it can be horribly dangerous if you do not know what you are doing. Women are willing to take all kinds of risks to end unwanted pregnancies.

Pretending that illegalizing surgical abortion is going to prevent women from aborting is extremely misguided. Without safe, legal surgical abortion, women would make recourse to other methods. They already do.

Women still do use herbs to "induce miscarriage" or "restore their periods." I have met some. I worked in an herb shop as a teen.
In high school, it was well-known that I was a wiccan. One of my guy friends confessed to me that his girlfriend was pregnant & asked if I could give her something herbal as an abortive. I wouldn't do it. I'm not a midwife and althought I'm familiar with which herbs are abortifacient, I have no clue about dosing. I couldn't be responsible for her health.
This webpage I used to go to--I'm not sure if it's still around--used to have a section devoted to growing a garden of abortifacients. It also had sections devoted to gardens of poisonous plants, plants that will attract bats, etc.
I read an account in Bitch magazine, I think, about a woman who induced her own abortion. She drank an herbal tea & had a massage that pregnant women aren't supposed to get. I think she just wanted to avoid the medical community.

Another Jessica: I have no problem engaging people who are anti-choice, and in fact, I think I've helped to change many people's opinions about a woman's right to a safe, legal abortion. People who are choosing to ignore someone on this thread are responding to a series of remarks, some of which would surely raise your eyebrows. I'll debate with someone who's anti-abortion, but if they're anti-abortion, AND racist? Can. Not. Engage.

I wouldn't do it...I couldn't be responsible for her health.

I read an account in Bitch magazine, I think, about a woman who induced her own abortion...

I missed that Bitch. It sounds a lot like Inga Muscio's story (author of Cunt). The FAQ on Muscio's Web site explicitly refuses requests for advice on abortifacient herbs. You're in good company.

I think one reason this topic comes up so seldom in discussions of abortion is that few people who would promote using herbal abortifacients while safer methods are still widely available.

...there are few people who would promote...

Argh.

I think one reason this topic comes up so seldom in discussions of abortion is that few people who would promote using herbal abortifacients while safer methods are still widely available.
I agree. However, if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, I do plan to study hebrology intensely & do what I can to provide safe abortions. It's a shame that we've lost this knowledge. I read somewhere that part of the reason that we lost the knowledge of herbs & midwivery is when the male medical establishment took over. For years, in America, you could become a doctor with little more than a high school degree.
That's why I'm so glad to see the popularity of midwives rising. As the government takes control of women's bodies, we need to establish control.

Another Jessica, there is nothing wrong with debate, if you're joining in on a conversation and you bring up something that does disagree with the group expect to be called on your shit. I've disagreed with a few majority posts and I explained myself and engaged with the other posters. The reason a lot of us get indignant with oenophile on these abortion threads is that she often doesn't address the harder questions posed to her (making up excuses as to why she can't if she does) and often posts shit like this, which, as far as I've seen no one else has addressed:

By the way, when you oppose rape, does it bother your conscience that you are forcing men to be abstinent? That you are denying them a choice of how to express their sexuality? :) That "force" propaganda sounds really good, right up until you start to point out how a person would propose to achieve their ends.

If anyone wanted to dismiss any of oenophiles arguments there you go. I don't care if there is a smile emoticon there to indicate she's "joking" or not, she equated denying women abortions to denying men the right to rape. If anyone wanted a peak into her psyche, there ya go. Rape is never funny and there is NEVER a reason for men to rape.

(and if someone has already addressed this I apologize)

However, if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, I do plan to study hebrology intensely & do what I can to provide safe abortions.

Reasonable, safe, legal options are better than risky options. Risky options are better than no options at all. I am right there with you, my Wiccan sister :)

LoL cool, Peepers.
We could have this whole underground movement, like in The Handmaid's Tale. *Shudders* Is it bad that I'm thinking of the Republic of Gilead in terms of modern day America?

That's not the point. The point is that oenephile has been consistently hateful & rude to other posters, including accusing one of "not taking her midol." She consistently derails good discussions with her "abortion is the same as rape" arguments.

Moxie, you told me to take a quarter and buy a brain. I'm hateful but I can't point out when y'all are absolutely horrible? Sorry, double standard need not apply.

Yeah, and I stand by what I said. I can't remember the context, but I prolly only would have said that after one of your usual rants.

In my mind, a guy who kicks his pregnant wife/gf in the stomach in a *deliberate* attempt to cause her to miscarry is far more culpable (and evil) than one who beats a woman and causes her to miscarry while unaware she's pregnant at the time.
I'm no lawyer of course, but I imagine adding some sort of malicious intent to the assault charge, or additional counts might do it.

Vervian - we can at least agree on that.

It's pretty simple: you have a mens rea requirement. If the crime includes the deliberate ending of a pregnancy, we would require that the person to know (or have enough reason to know that lack of knowledge constitutes willful blindness) of the pregnancy.

If there was no deliberate ending to the pregnancy, the woman could still file a civil suit.

Random aside:

I don't live by the internet. If I don't answer questions, it is often because I simply don't see them immediately.

What if they fuck WITH birth control, and it fails? I've asked you that question before, Oenophile, but you never seem to answer it. It does happen, you know. A lot.

It's a risk that you take. (Interestingly, I've noticed that a lot of people here are against the part of abstinence ed where they emphasise failure rates.) Use better birth control. Use it regularly. There's an oft-cited stat that roughly 50% of women who abort use birth control. Right underneath it, though, they tell you that roughly half of those women weren't using it consistently when they got pregnant. Generally, it's more likely that you got pregnant when you had sex without a condom than when you had sex with a condom.

You don't like my answer, but I don't see abortion as back-up birth control. The latter prevents a human being from existing in the first place; the former ends its existence early on.

---

There's a really common logical fallacy running around. Almost every pro-lifer agrees that women should be allowed to abort to save their own lives. Yet, there's a chain of logic seen above: pregnancy is really uncomfortable and stresses the body [obviously, not as bad as abortion]. It can have really negative effects on the woman's health. It can even kill her! Ergo, you should allow all women to abort, unless you are for killing women!

Um... the proper response is to allow for a life and/or health exception, not to allow 1.3 million women to abort every year because they don't quite feel like being pregnant.

===

There's always a balancing of rights. Always. You cannot simply declare that there is a hardship on one party and grant that party any conceivable means to remove the hardship.

Yeah, the woman is "forced to donate her organs." (Note: they don't meander outside of her body. They stay there.) She is "forced to be pregnant." (She and her partner got her into that situation.)

Siamese twins are "forced to sustain the life of another." Do we allow them to kill the other? Would we allow a "dominant twin" to end the life of the other? If one were to become concussed, would we say that he is no longer sentient and the other twin may have him removed?

Forced organ donation is a bad analogy. We don't make people responsible for the crappy turns of fate that happen to someone else, but we do make them responsible for what happens to them. Siamese twins are more accurate: it's a biologically-created dependency, not a socially created one.

(Interestingly, wouldn't a woman's abortion to save the life of her fetus be considered forced organ donation on the part of the fetus, although she does not actually take control of the organs??)

Back to the main point, the idea of a memorial to Paul Hill is disturbing, but another example of why "God told me to" is a dangerous rationale. This is a powerful example of how religion can stop a thinking mind.

Ditto that.

(Often, religious ideals have some pretty sane rationale - i.e. allowing us to live together instead of shredding each other to pieces. Even conceding that, though, why not merely work off the rationale?)

Jenny Dreadful - there is a reason why I (very reluctantly) do not support an immediate, wholesale abortion ban.

Cara,

If you can't tell the difference between a baby and a hardly visible clump of cells, you are even more idiotic than I originally thought. And that's quite a feat.

You're a cashier; I have an engineering degree. Don't play that game unless you're prepared to lose.

So babies can't be "hardly visible clumps of cells?" Again, at six weeks after last missed period, it has the beginnings of most of its organs. The "clump of cells" argument is biologically inaccurate.

If size matters: I'm really tall. Does that mean I have more worth than someone else? Does that mean that men have more worth than we do?

Pro-choicers often play the "clump of cells" card. They liken it to routine shedding of skin cells or hair follicles. Now, let's play:

What is the substantive difference between having someone pull a strand of hair out of your head or rubbing a few skin cells off your arm; amputating your arm; and killing you? (Three things to distinguish.) I would say that the first mimics a natural process (although that is an unsatisfying answer) - or, more to the point, that hair replaces itself. If someone amputates your arm against your will, a new one doesn't grow back. Likewise, death is permanent. (Sorry to anyone who believes in reincarnation.) We could compare the amount of cells taken, but I would much prefer someone to cut my hair that take my eyeball out. (There is also the biological issue that surface skin cells are dead, as is the hair outside of your body.)

From there, I'll go with a standard for harming another person via cell removal: if such removal causes permanent damage, it is per se unacceptable.

Whether or not a fetus has a small number of cells does not change the fact that abortion ends its life (and often does so by a series of amputations). It can hardly be likened to removing skin cells by brushing up against someone - as I said earlier, I would prefer that someone hack off most of my hair than to take out one of my eyes, even though the eye contains fewer cells.

Clearly, "number of affected cells" is a ridiculous way to measure the harm done to a person. (Sure, I would be pissed if I had a buzz cut - and it would take about seven years to regrow - enough to be nearly permanent, but it beats losing an eye.)

Another intellectually dishonest way to analyse fetal rights is to declare that, since it has a heartbeat and hearts can be replicated in the lab, it doesn't matter that it has a heartbeat. It is a very, very miniature, underdeveloped human. It's not a heart cell; it's not a single cell; it's a human.

Al - I believe that the Bible question was asked. I answered it. If you don't think it's relevant, why not bitch out the person who asked in the first place?

Yeah, and I stand by what I said. I can't remember the context, but I prolly only would have said that after one of your usual rants.

I said that LawFairy forgot her Midol when she said that I was RACIST. (Caps hers.) My comment was that Mexicans don't have our educational opportunities. Apparently, pointing out that Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Princeton, and the like are all in the US (and that we are privileged to have those institutions) is racist and calls for a rant. I stand by what I said - she went off on me out of nowhere. It was seriously Midol time.

I am not a stupid person. I didn't get to where I am now by being an idiot or not using my brain. We can play the game of figuring out, objectively, who is more intelligent - but that's not in your rational self-interest.

One of my friends (who attends an Ivy league school) said that nothing pisses off progressives like seeing a young, intelligent, pro-life woman. Apparently, she's correct. You, Cara, and Tabitha bend over backwards to pretend that I am not such - either by denying my gender or my intellect. I'm calling bullshit.

Ah, me.

Yeah, funny how you mentioned my job and your degree, but not MY DEGREE (I have a degree in English, to anyone who would like to know) and YOUR JOB. I gauge people's intelligence based on what they say and do, not where they work. Profession and education level are HARDLY the same thing. But with your outrageously small capacity to process logic, I shouldn't be surprised.

And that, for everyone who is in on the "ignore oenophile pact," is the last I will ever say to her. Not that I really expected any of you to take her personal attacks seriously, but I did feel the need to defend myself in front of people I respect and point out that the facts there are highly skewed.

Oenophile,

I wanted to say thanks for taking the time to sit down and respond to the questions and comments of people on this thread that were directed toward you. I couldn't disagree more with some of your answers! But I'm glad that you took the time to respond and not just bash people (though I wish we could all quit arguing about who has more brains, the ivy league education, etc . . .)

I'm not going to follow up on everything you've written . . . but I continue to be confused about your rejection of the organ donor/bodily integrity argument put forward by a number of people on this thread. It's valid for you to argue that it's not a good analogy, but I don't understand your reasoning about WHY. In all legal situations in which one person's bodily integrity will be compromised in order to repair or even save the life of another person (organ donation, blood, sperm, egg donation, or any other situation in which you could--if you put yourself in the way of bodily harm--save someone's life), the decision is left with the person whose body will do the saving, not the person whose body is saved. If I'm terminally ill, I can't compel anyone to save me, even if they could do so simply by donating a renewable resource like blood.

If the person I've denied assistance to dies, our society doesn't view this as organ donation by the person who died to the person who refused to help them . . . why do you think that's a better analogy where fetuses are concerned?

We can make moral and ethical arguments about whether someone SHOULD donate organs or blood, or not have an abortion, but legally we do not compel people to violate their bodily integrity to save another person's life . . . so I think the same should hold true for abortion.

While I understand that in no other situation is a human life or potential human life so inextricably bound up inside another person's body, I still don't see why the bodily integrity legal framework does not at least give us a starting point here in finding ethical medical protocol. Why does this not make sense to you?

Whether abortion is legal or not is a somewhat separate issue from (privately, religiously, ethically, whatever) feeling it is almost never morally right to choose an abortion. I might argue with you about that . . . but I don't deny you have a perfect right to hold that personal position and argue for it . . . just that you shouldn't be able to legislate against it. THAT is where I feel the pro-life/feminist positions run into conflict.

Cara,

I'm a law clerk in a litigation firm.

You said that I was completely idiotic. You then said that I have an "outrageously small ability to process logic." Personal attacks? No, it's okay - after all, I think abortion is murder, so everything is fair game.

Hi, Cara. My respect for you is not subject to dimunition by oenophile's ranting. Those cracks about education, employment and intelligence were in extremely poor taste. I find them insulting even though I am not her target.

"Hi, my name is oenephile. I have a 165 IQ & an engineering degree, so I get to treat other people like shit! Yet I still use the same hackneyed responses whenever anyone calls me on my idiocy. I constantly troll a feminist blog yet I haven't read anything beyond Camille Paglia or Christina Hoff Summers. Men can't help raping, why would you deny them their right to sexual expression? Take your Midol and shut up, bitch."

Hey Moxie, you promised you were done! :)

Moxie,

The way to foster a civil tone on this thread (and others) is not by upping the ante when someone says something you find insulting. It's by calling them on it and trying to model an alternative way to disagree. I find your mocking in poor taste, just like I sometimes find Oenophile's insults in poor taste.

I know, I know, I can't help it. It just really pisses me off when people are all, "I have such & such degree, I am THIIIIIIS smart."
My dad's wicked smart but back in his day, only rich kids went to college so he became a firefighter. He was supposed to go out on 9/11 but his captain told him not to b/c he's in poor health & he was about 6 months from retiring. He helped extensively in the 9/11 cleanup. Beyond that, he's a brilliant arson investigator, can fix & build pretty much anything, & has trained dozens of younger firefighters that look up to him. But, you know, he doesn't have a degree so he's dumb.
It's this elitist white-collar upper-class attitude that I can't stand. People like oenephile couldn't wipe their own asses without blue collar workers. I'd love to see her walking a beat with a cop, try to fix her own electrical work, or do pretty much anything that didn't involve microwaving a Lean Cuisine & hooking up their chardonnay IV.
Besides, a good 3/4's of the people in college are nitwits & don't belong their. America practically gives out degrees. It's like on The Simpsons when Otto was trying to get the Harvard degree from the claw machine.

Sorry, anna, I know I was lowering myself to the lowest common denominator.
She just pisses me off so much. If she were a guy who said these things she'd be banned in an instant.

Actually, Moxie, I do a fair amount of repair work on my car. :)

Anna,

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I do see the right to bodily integrity as a fundamental right (which is why I hate rape so much - my psyche is not messed up, to whomever wrote that!) - as is the right to be alive.

My intuitive reaction against the organ donation analogy is actually a legal, not a moral, one: there is no real legal right to overcome biological happenstance. (Let me explain a bit more.) When the conflict is created by biological (i.e. non-human, non-governmental factors) there is a right to alleviate the suffering, but not the right to harm another in changing the status quo.

I'm a libertarian. I don't think that anyone has the right to aggress against another. Abortion is an act of aggression.

Organ donation changes the status quo and harms another person in doing so. A conjoined twin who separates himself from his twin, to his twin's detriment, changes the status quo and harms another in doing so.

I see pregnancy as a Siamese-twin situation: biologically, the mother and child are intertwined. They are born with the right to bodily integrity, but often lack the means to carry out the right to an independent existence.

I'm not biologically intertwined with someone who would want one of my excellent vegetarian kidneys, which is why someone could not take them from me.

Moreover, there is a huge legal difference between omission and commission. (This is related to the biology issue above.) When I omit to save someone's life by not donating blood (I have scar tissue on my veins now, actually :( ), I am not responsible for the results of my omission. If I stab someone and they bleed to death, I'm responsible, because I affirmatively did something that caused that person to die. (That is also why we would not prosecute women who miscarry.)

While forced organ donation is a good starting place to analyse conflicting rights, it is an affirmative act of aggression against the donor. Pregnancy is not an affirmative act of the embryo/zygote/blastocyst. Abortion is an affirmative, aggressive act. Refusing to donate is an act of omission.

Interestingly, we do require some affirmative acts - out of parents. They are responsible for ensuring that their young children eat. If they don't want to parent any longer (such is their right), they are still responsible for the well-being of their children until someone else takes over. You can't decide to not parent, kick your kids out of the house, and let them die of exposure while you wait for social services to pick them up.

There are very often rights without a remedy. Parents have the right to cease being parents, but they cannot do so by kicking their 2-year-olds out of the house in the middle of a blizzard. It's not their fault that there is a blizzard and that no one can temporarily care for them; it is still incumbent upon them to provide care (even after consent has been withdrawn). Abortion is a similar situation. Unwanted pregnancy is a right without a remedy, IMHO. The only existing remedy is to kill - but that's not the embryo/fetus/baby's problem.

I also see a HUGE distinction in that women did choose to have sex. They did take the risk of pregnancy. There is every right to prevent this situation, but I can't help feeling like you would be hooking a person up to you, knowing that such an action could destroy his right to independent existence. Most of the time, the person can be unhooked at will; however, sometimes, they need to remain that way for nine months. Do you have the right to unhook him, simply because you were unlucky? (Not a rhetorical question - I do think it elucidates the divide between pro-choicers and pro-lifers.)

In short: I see where you are coming from, but it's not a trump card. Omission v. commission; analogies to parental responsibilities; and the right to bodily integrity without a good remedy. Yeah, it's a good starting place - but I think that you are ultimately going to conclude that women have a moral, legal, and philosophical right to an artificial womb (if such a thing exists) and to prevent conception, but it doesn't get you all the way to abortion.

As for the issue of bodily integrity as a good starting point: yes, I agree wholeheartedly. I just think that the fetus's right to bodily integrity ought to be analysed as well.

Peepers,

I am very sorry that you were insulted.

I honestly, though, wish you would feel the same when someone tells me to shut the f- up, calls me an idiot, tells me to "Take a quarter and buy a brain," says that I lack the ability to process logic, or the like. The amount of garbage hurled in my direction is an order of magnitude larger than what I give back.

Men can't help raping, why would you deny them their right to sexual expression

That is the exact opposite of what I said. There's no need to twist my words. I hate rape with every cell in my body.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Oenophile. Here are some of my thoughts in return.

I see pregnancy as a Siamese-twin situation: biologically, the mother and child are intertwined.

Does anyone know the legal/medical precedent for dealing with conjoined twin cases? I'm afraid I don't . . . so I'm not sure how this particular analogy changes the idea of bodily integrity.

When I omit to save someone's life by not donating blood, I am not responsible for the results of my omission. If I stab someone and they bleed to death, I'm responsible, because I affirmatively did something that caused that person to die.

I appreciate the difference between omission and aggression. However, in this particular case, it would be more an act of withdrawal (of life support) prior to consent.* Where does that fit on the spectrum of omission/aggression?

*you and I disagree on whether voluntary sexual activity with a partner constitutes consent to being a parent (see below).

Pregnancy is not an affirmative act of the embryo/zygote/blastocyst. Abortion is an affirmative, aggressive act.

But pregnancy is an affirmative (aggressive or not) act against the status quo: the woman used to NOT be pregnant and now she is. Your argument would be (if I read correctly) that she and her partner are actually the active parties in this situation, in that they chose to be sexually active and thus opened the woman up to the possibility of being pregnant.

As I have written before, I have grave misgivings for a moral and legal system that equates consensual sexual activity with the consent to pregnancy and/or parenthood. I don't think partnered, heterosexual sexual activity should be the exclusive right of those willing to procreate (and I see no practical way to enforce this legally). Until birth control technology and public health resources improve to a miraculous extent, that is going to mean that there will be a need for abortion (hopefully early and rare, but still safe and legal, without undue burden on the woman and her partner seeking to end an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy).

It's not [parents] fault that there is a blizzard and that no one can temporarily care for them; it is still incumbent upon them to provide care (even after consent has been withdrawn). Abortion is a similar situation.

Except that, in a parenting situation, there is no transgression of bodily integrity involved. Feeding a child and keeping them in your house is very different from incubating a developing fetus in your body for 9 months.

Also, if a full array of family planning services are available to women and men who become parents, both prior to pregnancy and during pregnancy, I think there is an increasing burden on parents to provide for their children--either by caring for them themselves or terminating parental rights . Ideally (in my mind), our system would be set up to provide the broadest array of choices to women (and their partners) pre-pregnancy and during early pregnancy . . . a window in which to actively consent to becoming parents.

As a pregnancy progresses, society and the government is recognized (by Roe v. Wade as well as by cultural convention) to have an increasing interest in protecting potential life, viable unborn fetuses, and born children. I'm sure you could find feminists who would argue that women have a right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason at any point in gestation . . . but that has never been the law and I don't think most pro-choice feminists would demand that (as long as exceptions were made for life and health after viability).

Do you have the right to unhook him, simply because you were unlucky? (Not a rhetorical question - I do think it elucidates the divide between pro-choicers and pro-lifers.)

Let's say I agreed, voluntarily, to assist someone who was dying by donating blood, which s/he needed every day for an indefinite period. I actually don't think, unless my explicit contractual consent was obtained, that anyone would have the right to keep me donating blood if I changed my mind. And if the situation changed (let's say my health started to deteriorate) any consent given under previous circumstances should be void.

I suppose you're right that this elucidates a difference between us, in the sense that you believe sexual activity is blanket consent to parenthood in a way I do not.

I just think that the fetus's right to bodily integrity ought to be analysed as well.

I agree with you that, if we were to conclude that a fetus were a child with full human rights (or even a potential child, with some human rights), then bodily integrity issues absolutely should come into play. However, even if the fetus/child has a right to bodily integrity, it doesn't have that right insofar as it impedes on someone else's (the woman's) right to bodily integrity. So in my mind, we're back to the organ-donor situation . . .

I mean, ideally, someday we will be able to clone replacement organs, repair faulty ones, and similarly somehow negate the conflicting bodily-integrity question of women and fetuses (hopefully by perfecting birth control). Until that happens, I can't reconcile with being against abortion and being for reproductive justice and women's full social and sexual humanity.

Looking forward to your further thoughts . . .

Oenephile, then why did you say, "By the way, when you oppose rape, does it bother your conscience that you are forcing men to be abstinent? That you are denying them a choice of how to express their sexuality?"
A smiley emoticon does not a joke make. If that was a joke, you're about as funny as Dane Cook.

Moxie,

I consider abortion and rape to be heinous acts. I was not making a joke about rape; I was pointing out that the pro-choice reasoning falls flat on its face. You cannot simply ignore the rights of another human. When you do that, you justify every crime imaginable, as the nature of crime is an act for the supposed benefit of one person at the expense of another.

The emoticon would, in the real world, be best described as a twitch of the mouth, a raised eyebrow, and a huff - "Do you want to go down that road" in a gesture.

I am sorry that you misunderstood it. I would prefer, in the future, that you at least give me the chance to explain myself (or actually read my comments in their context) before attacking.

Also, Oenephile, if you want people to stop calling you names, here are some tips. Lay off the snark. Seriously, I know that I'm pretty much the snark queen, but do you ever see people calling me names? No, b/c when people disagree with me, I don't tell them to take a Midol. I don't call them baby killers or tell them that they prove that women aren't good at science.
I address their concerns & sometimes admit that I'm wrong. You never do that.
You seem smart, goddess knows you brag about your degrees enough, but you don't seem to have read the basics of feminism & it's not our job to educate you. So when you say things like feminism promotes victimhood, well, you're going to piss people off. Plus, it just means you've read too much Camille Paglia.

P.S. Your first reference to abortion was confusing, if Moxie's flippant paraphrase was completely opposite of what you meant. You wrote:

. . . when you oppose rape . . . you are denying [rapists] a choice of how to express their sexuality? :) That "force" propaganda sounds really good, right up until you start to point out how a person would propose to achieve their ends.

I understood you to be making the point that absolute choice is not always acceptable, even when exercised by autonomous individuals, because our social contract limits us from imposing ourselves on the autonomy of others.

However, it's a problem (in my mind, and the minds of some other posters here) to equate sexual violence with sexual expression. Rape is NOT about frustrated sexuality, it's about power and violence.

Further, I think it's an problematic equation even if rape were about freedom of sexual expression. Saying that giving women the right not to be pregnant (through, if necessary, abortion) is morally equivalent of arguing that rapists have a right to rape seems grossly inaccurate!

On the one hand, you have a rapist who (if your suggestion were to be taken seriously) is being granted the right to violate another person's bodily integrity against their will; on the other, you have a woman whose right to bodily integrity is being protected. There is no way, in a sexual assault situation, that the aggressor's right to bodily integrity is violated if they are not allowed to assault the other person. In the abortion situation--even if we consider the fetus to have rights equal to the pregnant woman--there is at least a question of both persons' bodily integrity. So I think it was a very poor analogy.

Further, I think it's an problematic equation even if rape were about freedom of sexual expression. Saying that giving women the right not to be pregnant (through, if necessary, abortion) is morally equivalent of arguing that rapists have a right to rape seems grossly inaccurate!

From the perspective of your ultimate paragraph ONLY - and, of course, you are narrowing the scope of the debate much beyond what I responded to. (The question was about "choice," not bodily integrity.)

I wasn't arguing that women have no right to not be pregnant; neither was I arguing that men lack a right to sexual expression. What I am arguing about is that METHODOLOGY of achieving those ends.

Simply put: humans lack the right to sexual expression at the expense of other people; women lack the right to choose to not be pregnant when it is at the expense of others.

I find abortion and rape to be morally abhorrent. It's really WEIRD that people take my analogy to mean that I don't care about rape... because the whole point is that I find both to be disgusting crimes, for pretty much the same reason.

Peepers,

I am very sorry that you were insulted.

I honestly, though, wish you would feel the same when someone tells me to shut the f- up.../i>

That's considerate. Thank you.

I actually don't give a shit about name calling. As Moxie pointed out, the comment sounded very classist.

In the space of a single thread you have confounded Muslims with terrorism and implied that people with lower levels than yours of SES and education are unintelligent and should avoid arguing their beliefs.

That kind of stuff offends me.

Why are we dealing in analogies? If the point is to wear folks down by virtue of dissipated interest, it is well nigh acheived.

The question was about "choice," not bodily integrity.

But the "choice" was specifically in reference to abortion, which I believe is about bodily integrity: we have the ultimate right to choose what happens to our bodies--what is allowed to cross the boundaries of the body. That is what the "choice" in "pro-choice" refers to.

I find abortion and rape to be morally abhorrent . . . I find both to be disgusting crimes, for pretty much the same reason.

I understand that abortion and rape are equally abhorrent to you; what I don't understand it how they are abhorrent for the same reason, because to me they seem like radically different types of situations! (As I explained above). I do not believe "women lack the right not to be pregnant when it is at the expense of others"; I believe the state of pregnancy to be qualitatively different from the state of a person's sexual or violent desires.

For Christ's sake...

Someone said that I was in league with the terrorists. I pointed out, by analogy, that such is a really lousy thing to say. The thought was that since this whacko calls himself a pro-lifer, all pro-lifers are whackos. My response: well, you wouldn't say that all Muslims are terrorists.

I can apologise for my own behaviour, but I can't apologise for deliberate misconstruction of my words.

I also can't be responsible for people taking small poetic liberties with my words, like removing the "not" and pretending it's the same thing.

As Moxie pointed out, the comment sounded very classist.

If it makes you feel better, I'm a zillion dollars in student loan debt.

Anna,

With all respect - I wasn't responding to you or to your conception of the abortion debate.

No offense taken.

I was just trying to explain why your comment about rapists upset some people (including myself).

Of course it doesn't make me feel better. I have student loan debt of my own, being far better educated than any reasonable person has any business being.

I did not deliberately misconstrue your statement about Muslims. I misunderstood it, apparently.

Student loan debt is not an excuse for arrogance.

Meanwhile, I once knew someone who condemned abortion and used the "what if you were never born?" argument.

When he was asked about other things that prevent birth, like virginity, he said virginity is OK because if you let a fertile virgin stay a virgin that's an act of omission instead of commission. Never mind that for a lot of girls out there, getting raped in forced marriage is the default and avoiding sex takes a lot of commission...

Oenophile, do you support legislation that would make abortion illegal? If so, how do you see that playing out? How do you imagine that abortion laws would be enforced? If a woman miscarries, should there be a police investigation to make sure that the miscarriage wasn't induced? Should women who attempt to abort or who are rumored to be seeking an abortion be jailed for the duration of their pregnancy? I'm curious how , and whether, you envision a society where abortion isn't a legal option.

Long-overdue response to Jenny Dreadful:

I part ways with a lot of pro-lifers on this one.

If you are going to make something criminal, there should be a mens rea requirement. As a libertarian, I'm also a huge believer in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. In short: if you are going to make abortion illegal (either via prosecuting the mothers or the doctors), a statute needs to be written in a way to encompass the deliberate ending of human life by purposeful action. It needs to exclude accidental miscarriage; miscarriage due to stress; or miscarriage due to health reasons. (A requirement of, say, deliberate ending of a pregnancy via surgical or medicinal means, may be appropriate.)

I am a huge fan of Plan B; I recognise biological reality that many women spontaneously abort during the first few weeks. I recognise that saying that all women could be pregnant and therefore we shouldn't be allowed to do x, y, an z is a huge infringement on our liberties. I would not mind a restriction on an abortion ban (yes, that's a bit of a double negative) to something beyond, say, six weeks after last missed period. That should also come concurrent with a requirement that any investigation of abortive activities include probable cause that the woman had been pregnant for that long. (This would eliminate the ability to harass a 25-year-old woman who has a drink because she could be pregnant.)

As for jailing a woman for the remainder of her pregnancy - no. The very worst I could see is that, if a court determination had been made that there was, say, clear and convincing evidence that a woman is seeking an abortion, that she check in with a doctor on a, say, weekly basis. (This would also serve to protect her - if she was considering an abortion but then had an issue where her placenta separated from the uterine wall, a MD might catch it and be able to prevent charges against her.) If abortion is a crime, then seeking one out is an attempt crime. We prosecute attempt crimes all the time.

I don't see much point in jailing pregnant women (understatement of the week). If things are really heinous, maybe house arrest? Or if there is a mental health issue, confinement to a mental hospital or frequent checks with a psychiatrist might not be a bad idea.

I split with most pro-lifers and with most feminists in that I think men should be financially responsible for the costs of pregnancy. It takes two to get there, so why not have the man (and his insurance company) be jointly and severally liable for prenatal care and labour and delivery costs? I also wouldn't mind extending health care parity to the point where a woman's Pill could be covered under her boyfriend's insurance. Again, it takes two.

I don't see how you could investigate miscarriage without cause to believe that a crime exists. Not that a crime could have happened, but that it did happen. We don't routinely investigate the parents of children who wind up with a concussion or a broken arm - because stuff like that happens - only if we have cause to believe that those children were deliberately harmed. Why not do the same with pregnancy?

A query: abortion is illegal in many states beyond the second trimester. How do we prosecute that?

We currently have a chicken-egg thing going on with abortion. We've noted that a lot of women who get pregnant don't use birth control or use it reliably. We've noted that men who date-rape women probably aren't all that concerned about having her sue him for child support. Many college campuses provide abortion referrals but do not have resources for pregnant and parenting students. People's behaviours have come to reflect the reality of legal abortion. To me, pro-life legislation must be accompanied by social changes. Some of that might be in the form of a law that would allow pregnant students to sue private universities for failure to provide resources for them. It may come with a law that makes it a crime to kick your pregnant child out of the house into the streets. It would certainly come with a law that would prohibit the continuation of a pregnancy from even being mentioned at a rape trial (which should be a law anyway). It would certainly come along with a medical ethics law regarding sterlisation.

Again, I split with pro-lifers on a fair number of issues - the main one is that I don't think a law which says, "life begins at conception and tomorrow, anything done to end that life is a crime" will do anyone any good. You'll end up with overzealous DAs who harass all women of childbearing age and a lot of women with no means to support themselves.

I'm sorry if that's not what you're looking for, but I do think there are ways to balance pro-life and feminist legislation. I realise that my choice on that balance upsets many people here, but I also place a much higher value on developing life, which accords it stronger rights.

When he was asked about other things that prevent birth, like virginity, he said virginity is OK because if you let a fertile virgin stay a virgin that's an act of omission instead of commission. Never mind that for a lot of girls out there, getting raped in forced marriage is the default and avoiding sex takes a lot of commission...

That has to be the dumbest argument I've heard in a while. (The guys', not Mina's.)

How 'bout this one: there is a fundamental difference between not being conceived and dying young. Hypothetical humans don't have rights. What, now gametes have a right to be human? It's not even possible. Every ejaculation is what, 600,000 sperm? Did I miss a decimal? If a woman gets pregnant now, she won't get pregnant during the next nine months and some of the other eggs will never mature.

Student loan debt is not an excuse for arrogance.

Well, maybe my chemical engineering degree is a reason for it.

I'm not an idiot. After working my butt off at a great school to get two degrees during undergrad, I do think I have the right to shove it in someone's face when she says, repeatedly, that I'm an idiot. How about you start getting on Cara and Moxie's cases for once? Where do they get off?

How about you start getting on Cara and Moxie's cases for once? Where do they get off?
I never called you an idiot. I think you're ignorant but that's not the same.
And, as I said in my post above, when people disagree with me, I don't post hysterical, screechy responses calling everyone stupid like you did on the Sam Brownback thread. If you stopped doing things like that, maybe people would be nice to you once in awhile.
And, no your degrees don't give you the right to be arrogant. I mean, I worked my butt off at a great school, too, full time undergrad & working full time, but no one knows about my degree b/c I don't mention it every two threads. Yet, I bet everyone here knows about your degrees & supposed IQ.

Oenophile, I have yet to see a convincing argument regarding allowing rape victims to “murder the unborn�.

Please don’t quote Emerson again, he wasn’t writing about abortion, and you being an engineer should know that consistency is what keeps tall buildings standing and airplanes flying. And being a law clerk you should know that when inconsistent sentences and verdicts are handed down, the system is not working properly.

If you’re talking about life and death of a fetus/baby, the most immutable, profound, and critical personal decision that absolutely demands consistency is the determination of what is and what isn’t a human being. And hand-in-hand with that is a decision about when and why the taking of human life might be morally justified, especially if you’re a pro-lifer who may end up deciding that aborting a fetus is acceptable under certain circumstances.

I really hope that everyone who is pro-choice or pro-life has thought about it and is confident with what they believe. And once they decide what they believe, they should be consistent about it.

Most pro-lifers I have debated state that a person with full rights to life is created at conception. If someone believes this, I assume that this is non-negotiable absolute.

If someone who believes life begins at conception states that they still will allow abortion under certain circumstances, then each circumstance needs to be examined with a moral microscope and affirmed.

If a woman is likely to die if she doesn’t receive an abortion, I would not claim inconsistency on the part of a pro-lifer who favored the abortion to save the woman’s life. This, to me, is consistent, chiefly because a dead woman can’t carry a baby.

If a woman has become pregnant through rape, I claim inconsistency (and thus hypocrisy and fraud) when pro-lifers promote exceptions, because the non-negotiable absolute that every pro-lifer has arrived at, that a fertilized egg is a person, is being cast aside based on circumstances of conception – circumstances which have absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with the fetus and certainly don’t lessen the inalienable human right to life that every pro-lifer claims for the unborn.

How has this unborn “person� surrendered their “right to life�? How?

You’re essentially saying that it’s okay to kill a person (fetus) based on circumstances which have nothing to do with the actions of that person. That must certainly be reprehensible to people like Brownback, no? You’re allowing “murder� because a woman “innocently� became pregnant?

How long would that permission to “murder her child� be good for? 12 weeks of pregnancy? 20? 39? How about when the kid is 5 years old? Because under the pro-life position of what constitutes a person, a 10 week-old fetus has the same rights as a 5 year-old kid.

I realize this is an awful topic for pro-lifers, because there’s no good answer. But if you’re willing to try, I’m willing to listen.

"I never called you an idiot. I think you're ignorant but that's not the same."

Besides, it's totally possible to be very well-educated about some subjects and very ignorant about some other subjects at the same time.

Besides, it's totally possible to be very well-educated about some subjects and very ignorant about some other subjects at the same time.
Exactly. From the moment of been here, I've heard oenephile making dubious claims about feminism that really makes me wonder what she's read about it.
I'm not the feminism expert, but I've been reading about it since I was 12, been reading Ms. since I was 13, & read The Second Sex when I was 14. Plus, I minored in it. I have some experience "in the field." I would have more respect for her if she showed more than the most basic knowledge of feminism.
But she says horrible things & wonders why people get pissed. It's like if I went to a MRA blog & said, "Hey guys, women are equal!"

"You're a cashier; I have an engineering degree. Don't play that game unless you're prepared to lose".

Well wasn't that just witty. Though I think the only point you made was that in this case, the combined benefits of logic, demonstrated humanity, and a functioning intellect, fall down on the side of the cashier.

Resorting to a comment like that shows you are a very hurtful and, in my eyes, intellectually insecure individual.

I think the decision to not engage you is a very wise one.

Thanks Al.

Yeah, seriously, I have to stop.

For real Moxie. Close the book.

"You're a cashier; I have an engineering degree. Don't play that game unless you're prepared to lose".

Oh, hell- we're playing the credentials game, now? You know, if we're going to play that game, let's talk about how is losing. An engineering degree means shit to this conversation. One of my degrees was in philosophy with a focus on moral theory and Logic.

Combined with a minor in gender studies and my persuit of a PhD in philosophy, can I count that towards a win? Or can we recognize that bandying about college degrees in an online debate is useless and the ability to get a piece of paper certifying your ability to complete classes says very little about your objective intelligence. Some of the stupidest people I know have college degrees.

Big. Fucking. Deal.

Full Disclosure- I was still two classes away from completing the minor, but I decided I didn't really need it, and I was ready to be done. So, most of a gender studies minor.

Or can we recognize that bandying about college degrees in an online debate is useless and the ability to get a piece of paper certifying your ability to complete classes says very little about your objective intelligence. Some of the stupidest people I know have college degrees.
Big. Fucking. Deal.
Pwn.
I've always been fond of Abbie Hoffman's idea of just going to classes thatinterest you, getting the syllabi, & reading the books yourself.

"How fucking arrogant do you have to be to assume that YOUR beliefs are somehow more "right" or "valid" than anyone else's?"

Excuse me?? You are kidding? What is this thread about, but your beliefs being better than mine? Get that beam out of your eye will you? Jesus, my stomach hurts after that one. It is precisely because you think you are on higher moral ground than I that you feel free to dismiss my opinions.

"Oh, so innocent. You lot have been doing just that for years."

'Innocent'? Interesting choice of words.....I was discussing what is being said on this thread and you try and deflect it into the outrages pro-choice people have suffered at the hands of pro-lifers. What do you know of what I've been doing all my life? (rhetorical question, don't bother)

You want to research the history of the pro-choice and pro-life movements and see who threw the first insult? I know it wasn't me... I tried for years to understand your point of view, but cannot.

I'm just saying....you assume that because I am against abortion that I would gladly attend the event that set off this thread, and you are dead wrong. You people foam at the mouth at women being stereotyped, objectified, etc but if it's women who don't agree with you, fair game. You don't want all Muslims (for example)painted with the same brush,racial profiling is wrong, but all pro-lifers are knuckle dragging fundamentalists, women haters. Kind of hypocritical isn't it?

"An engineering degree means shit to this conversation. One of my degrees was in philosophy with a focus on moral theory and Logic. Combined with a minor in gender studies and my persuit of a PhD in philosophy, can I count that towards a win?"

While I'd certainly agree that philosophy and gender studies are fields of study relevant to the topic at hand, what I'm really hoping for is for someone with a medical degree to weigh in.

Failing that, someone who took a page from Daniel Maguire, who decided that he could not make an informed decision about abortion until he had witnessed one.

Moxie,

Well, that's a lie.
http://feministing.com/archives/006859.html#comment-73462

Dealing with you is like being back in high school. You do your best to piss me off, then get all delicate when you (or anyone else) gets it back at them.

If you and others (in as many words, you pedant) call me an idiot, what do you expect? That I'll say, "Yes, really, I'm stupid?" Or that I would provide some objective basis for my intelligence? Sorry that I chose the latter instead of bowing down to the popular crowd.

I'm just saying....you assume that because I am against abortion that I would gladly attend the event that set off this thread, and you are dead wrong. You people foam at the mouth at women being stereotyped, objectified, etc but if it's women who don't agree with you, fair game. You don't want all Muslims (for example)painted with the same brush,racial profiling is wrong, but all pro-lifers are knuckle dragging fundamentalists, women haters. Kind of hypocritical isn't it?

What Crella said. If you're pro-life, it's ALL fair game. Idiot, illogical, "shut the fuck up," RACIST, yeah, all of it. Then you need the smelling salts when you get a response that says, "Newsflash! Objectively, I'm not a drooling idiot."

Of course, if I point out a basic biological FACT, all hell breaks loose. That's when I'm an idiot. You know, when I whip out a citation, you can be sure that an insult to my intellect will follow. Because only stupid, irrational people actually cite authority instead of making it up to suit their own ends.

Typical pattern: pro-choice/pro-life disagreement; I cite facts; someone calls me stupid with no justification; I defend myself; a hoard of angry wolves yells at me for defending myself. Such crap!

Well wasn't that just witty. Though I think the only point you made was that in this case, the combined benefits of logic, demonstrated humanity, and a functioning intellect, fall down on the side of the cashier.

Resorting to a comment like that shows you are a very hurtful and, in my eyes, intellectually insecure individual.

Aw, I'm hurtful! Of course, intellectual insecurity would NOT come from the Moxie/Cara side, would it? No - if you call someone an idiot or tell her to buy a brain, she has no right to defend herself, and, of course, the name-callers are not hurtful nor insecure.

Al, did you read Moxie's b.s.? When Cara said that I can't process logic? That I'm more of an idiot than she thought?

Seriously. If anyone is "hurtful" here, it's Cara and Mox.

The double standards are truly sickening.

While I'd certainly agree that philosophy and gender studies are fields of study relevant to the topic at hand, what I'm really hoping for is for someone with a medical degree to weigh in.

Settle for someone with part of a medical degree and ten years of legal study?

You don't want all Muslims (for example)painted with the same brush,racial profiling is wrong, but all pro-lifers are knuckle dragging fundamentalists, women haters.

Not all members of the same religion share views, and not all members of the same racial-ethnic group engage in the same conduct. It can at the very least be said that people who hold the same view (in this case, pro-forced pregnancy) hold the same basic view and the same overall objective (with some minor and ultimately irrelevant variations).

I've always been fond of Abbie Hoffman's idea of just going to classes thatinterest you, getting the syllabi, & reading the books yourself.

It's always worked for me.

Ccall,

I'll try (although I probably will not succeed).

As a general matter, I would take a rape exception law over the status quo, for the simple reason that (as Nancy Pelosi said?) "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." If it takes that to pass, and it saves more lives by having a rape exception than by abortion on demand, I'm all for it.

The same thing would apply if it took, say, gov't-funded delivery. I'm a libertarian and against that, but I recognise that a world in which one person's absolute views always trump is a dictatorship. Our republic requires a bit of compromimse. 25,000 abortions a year are better than 1.3 million/year.

To those who would call this inconsistent or wrong: consider that there are many things you've supported for the simple reason that it gets most of the job done. Consider it an extension of the idea that we might shave our legs or dye our hair or wear heels with a skirt suit because we can't fight every battle. I don't see the rape exception battle as one worth losing the war over. Pyrrhic victory, anyone?

As a legal matter (I'll get to philosophy in a few), I don't like laws that criminalise acts performed by people who are not anti-social. Not a fan of, say, laws against drug use, because that's not really an anti-social behaviour. As some 45% of women will abort in their lifetimes, I find it hard to (currently) classify that as anti-social - I sincerely believe that most people are good and that 45% of women are not acting in a deliberately evil manner.

What does that have to do with rape? Frankly, I don't think that a raped woman who wants to abort is antisocial or acting without any regard for those around her. She (and an MD who performed the operation) don't have the "bad minds" that we criminalise. (I do think we can get to the point as a society where most of the women who seek to abort are doing so for reasons that are considered antisocial - i.e. no regard for fetal life, ever.)

First of all, you can take any justification you want for the pro-life side (pick one, any one), but you can't ask me to defend it as it applies to a rape exception. The people who think that conception = human life = absolute right to the womb are not those who want rape exceptions. The people like me who think in terms of benefits, burdens, practical ends, balancing rights, and the ability to prevent harm will often support rape exceptions.

To analogise: if I were to ask you to defend a law that prohibits 8th month elective abortions under the theory that a woman's choice is absolute, you would be well within your rights to tell me to screw off - that you don't ascribe to that belief and you think that the right to seek an abortion diminishes as the fetus ages.

So I'll explain my rational for a rape exception, but it is closely tied in with my reasoning for being pro-life.

Here's what I agree on: Human life beginning shortly after conception (negligbly close for the purposes of abortion). Human life ought not be destroyed. YET, I do not think that it automatically triggers a situation in which the woman may never abort. I support lfe and some health exceptions.

(By some health exceptions, I mean for serious, permanent damage that would not result in death; a higher-than-normal probability of death - you don't want to prohibit a woman from aborting because there's only a 49.8% chance that she could die; if a woman needs medication that cannot be taken with pregnancy; or at a high risk of suicide from the pregnancy.)

I'm a very practical person. I hate abortion, but I don't think that we ought to forbid women from aborting if there is a strong likelihood that they would kill themselves, die, or have permanent disabilities. To me, it would be fine as a legal matter to say that rape is a per se mental health exception: we are so worried about a woman carrying her rapist's child to term that we would allow her to abort.

Philosophically, that is all unsatisfying, because they are policy and legal arguments.

I've explained this before and been roundly dismissed, but here it goes again: I think that a woman's right to bodily integrity is absolute, and I think that a fetus's right to life is absolute.

They are competing rights when a woman does not want to be pregnant. The fact that two rights are in tension does not mean that one of them must evaporate in that situation, or for all time. The question is not which right is absolute, but which right trumps.

Philosophically, I do think that a woman's right to not be pregnant is diminished when she has voluntary sex - especially in 2007, with the wide array of prophylactics. Tip scales for fetus. (FYI: I'm a total equal-opportunity offender. In my wine-soaked world, if you're a guy and you have voluntary sex, don't complain about your obligations. You will support her throughout pregnancy; you will accede to her choices regarding adoption; and you will pay child support. You will also pay for any lost opportunity costs that she may have. I don't care if she said she was on the Pill, or if she "got herself that way" - take responsibilty for yourself.)

Between the fetus and the woman, the latter is the only one able to prevent the situation. From a market perspective, if the burden then rests on her (and she is aware of this before the problem) she may act in such a manner as to deem the risk worthwhile, mitigate the risk, or not take the risk. She had that choice upfront. Tip scales for fetus.

Betweeen the harms of pregnancy (not small) and the harms of death, I find the latter to be larger. (Abortion is the ultimate aggression against rights of bodily integrity.) Tip scales for fetus.

For various reasons, I don't find sentience to be an issue when doling out human rights. No change in scales.

As I said above, I don't think that there is the right to aggress against another person - and the fetus can hardly be considered an intruder, since it was kind of created in the present location. Abortion is a huge act of aggression. Tip scales for fetus.

Right to be in the womb: IMO, nearly absolute. No change on scales.

Rape, to me, is a huge freakin ROCK on the woman's side. It's not that the fetus loses any rights; its side of the scales doesn't change. The woman, however, was RAPED. I see rape and murder as roughly equivalent harms, and, while she doesn't have the right to murder an innocent person, she does have a very compelling reason to not want to carry her rapist's child. Tip scales in her favour.

It is not that the fetus loses its right to life; it's just that its right to life is trumped by the woman's right to not carry her rapist's child. To a small extent, I'm not sure how I feel or think about the embryo/fetus's right to be in the womb of a raped woman. (FYI: I don't think there's really any right to unhindered implantation - there is a difference between blocking entrance and forcibly removing.)

===

Ideally, I would like for women who have been raped to be given free EC, immediately, and have a wide range of options for adoption (how cruel is it that, in many states, your rapist can have visitation rights?). I realise, though, that many rational, sane, strong women would rather kill themselves, or would take such bad care of themselves during pregnancy as to endanger their health (and the health of their fetuses/embryos/chldren).

Abortion beats her throwing herself in front of the nearest city bus - striaght-up mental health exception.

Maybe the best way to explain it is that she gets the huge scale tip of not just bodily integrity but mental health and potential damage to physical health.

And if a psychiatrist determines that a woman who is pregnant by her loving, awesome boyfriend (or hot, sensual one-night stand) would kill herself if she remained pregnant, then, sorry to cuss, but I don't give a flying fuck if she aborts.

I don't want dead women. Dead, raped women is, IMO, even worse.

(I can't say what I would do if raped and impregnanted. Some of me thinks that I might NOT kill myself because of the child - such would indirectly kill it, but I would hate it - would hate that there is a being in the world who is a mixture of myself and the person who visited the most horrible of crimes upon me. I'm a weird romantic - I think that the fact that kids are a genetic mixture of their parents and created out of their parent's love for each other is pretty cool. Maybe you were created out of a hot one night stand, but there was at least some attraction there. I cannot imagine anything more unnatural than the creation of rape (nothing against the actual kid, just the circumstances around its conception). I know it's a weird way to look at life, so laugh away.)

===

I know that this is not perfectly explained, but it's impossible to explain pro-life libertarian philosophy in under a few thousand words, let alone its applicability to any particular situation.

The simplest explanation is to say that I don't find Judith Thompson Jarvis to be remotely on-point for consentual sex, but do find it a colourable argument for rape.

oenophile

Your post is long, very long, but it still doesn't jive too well with reality.

The real issue is control. Ideally a woman would be able to control her ability to conceive at the flip of a switch ("on" to not conceive, and "off" to conceive), or better yet by force of her will ("do I want the sperm in my body to fertilize one of my eggs? no I don't think so"). Unfortunately technology hasn't gotten to that level yet, but eventually I think it will (and you can bet the Christian right will fight the development of that technology every step of the way, just like they fight evolution theory and stem cell research). However in the mean while no birth control method (other than abstinence) is 100% effective, so women use 100% safe legal abortion as a means of exercising control, when conception prevention technology fails. Until women have a better fail safe than abortion, we are just going to have accept abortion, and no amount of arguing is going to change that fact of reality. I am pro-life because I hate abortion, but I am pro-choice because I don't want to take control away from women.

But lets get back to the original topic. Paul Hill is the reason why I don't belong to a Christian institution. People who hold the word of the Bible over the man made laws and the laws of reality are capable of justifying everything from genocide, to rape, to murder, to slavery, to public stonings without a trial. People who do not respect the laws of nations and governments, and the environment are anarchists to the extreme. The good book (the Bible) is responsible for inspiring more serial killing, more rape, more hatred, more wars, more environmentally damaging corporate practices, and more genocide than any other text in history. It is psychotic and psychopathic to believe that the laws of man and reality don't apply to you, and if the laws of god as interpreted by the Bible supersede the laws of man, then we might as well accept global chaos, because the Bible can literally be interpreted anyway the reader so chooses. You can believe that god created the Earth in 6 day less than 7000 years ago, and that the sun revolves around the Earth, but reality will trump belief every time that belief and reality are in conflict. You can wish abortion away, but it won't do you any good (and my favorite line of the pro-coat hanger crew is "I don't believe in abortion"), because it's here to stay, so you might as well work with it.

I am three classes away from my degree, but I want to comment as a mother and a woman. These are somewhat rambling:

Having children has helped to solidify my pro choice stance. First, pregnancy isn't just a minor bodily inconvenience (someone mentioned something to that effect)that and childbirth drastically change your body, try pushing out a ten pound baby with his arm up over his head without it changing your body!

I have said it before and I will say it again, parenthood is such an awesome responsibility. Babies are not these cute little cherubs who love you unconditionally. They are hard work and will continually break your heart on a regular basis, like when your four year old tells you hates you because you won't let him have a second bowl of ice cream, or that you are stupid because you won't let him create a mud bath minutes before leaving to visit family. The point? I don't know, it just seems that so many people in our society romanticize motherhood and pregnancy. We are inundated with images of women being fulfilled by becoming mothers and that as soon as we see that second blue line, we are supposed to be ecstatic and become all maternal at the thought of the developing cells in our uterus and if we aren't, well, then there must be something wrong with you as a woman. I think that is what scares the anti choice crowd the most, I don't think that it is because of the cells that could potentially form into a baby, I think that it is because of the rejection of all that they see as "feminine". When we reject motherhood, we are essentially saying that it isn't the pinnacle of our existence and that there is more. We are violating gender roles and threatening the status quo, that can be scary to some.

Oenophile, you are pretty young, aren't you? It is obvious that you are extremely intelligent, no one is doubting that, it is obvious that you are passionate about your beliefs, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but you do seem to be too rigid in them. Everything is not always so black and white and not everyone has the same life experiences as you. Not every woman has the chance to be abstinent, whether it was physically forced rape, coercive rape, or she was not taught that she had control. Not every woman has access to birth control, or reliable birth control. Not every woman knows how to properly use birth control.

Abortion and sexuality are not topics than can be discussed in a rigidly logical manner. There are emotions and circumstances that come into play. Life isn't always rational and logical and sometimes we need to accept that people need to do what they feel is best with their bodies. Are we going to start policing what pregnant women eat and drink because it could potentially hurt the fetus?

Abortion is definitely a moral issue, but should not be a legal one. The government has no right to poke it's nose in my uterus.

Oh, who was it who wanted to help provide women with safe herbal abortions, I can't remember...Anyway, I would be right there with you. Or we could start an "underground railroad" to Canada, where they don't have legal restrictions on abortion.

Oh, who was it who wanted to help provide women with safe herbal abortions, I can't remember...Anyway, I would be right there with you. Or we could start an "underground railroad" to Canada, where they don't have legal restrictions on abortion.
That was me.

. . .abortion on demand. . .

I just wanted to point out that abortion is not, and never has been, available to women "on demand." Roe v. Wade, the court case that codified legalized abortion nation-wide, only gave women wide latitude in the first trimester, and always under the auspices of the medical profession. Abortion after twelve weeks and/or viability has consistently been heavily regulated both by the medical profession and the political establishment. Since Roe, even those legal rights to safe, legal abortion have been eroded piecemeal so that, for many groups of women (young, poor, imprisoned, rural) abortion today is--for all intents and purposes--unavailable.

So I find the argument that any legal restrictions on abortion are better than "abortion on demand," as if that's what we currently have, a misrepresentation of reality!

Moxie,
Well, that's a lie.
http://feministing.com/archives/006859.html#comment-73462
Dealing with you is like being back in high school. You do your best to piss me off, then get all delicate when you (or anyone else) gets it back at them.
I reread that thread twice, I never called you an idiot. I did say that I would call people out on their idiocy.
However, if that hurt your "delicate" sensibilities, I'm truly sorry. Now remember that the next time you call people twits, kplzthx?

“An engineering degree means shit to this conversation.�
I know Roymac, I am an engineer and I’d be the first one to tell you that most engineers are pretty dull when it comes to social issues or philosophical questions (no, they are not that good at math either). They are also mostly conservative. That’s why I have to come here to get my fix of intelligent discussion (well, most of the time it is intelligent).

"Settle for someone with part of a medical degree and ten years of legal study?"

Cool. I'll bear that in mind when I read your comments, Elise. :)

I just don't think that having a degree necessarily makes a person smart. It could mean that they just have money or the connections to go to a really good school, it could be any number of things.
I met so many people in college that didn't have basic analytical reading skills. And I met a lot of brilliant people that had no idea how to interact with people.
My guidance counselors had me so scared about getting into college that I was absolutely shocked about how easy it was to get in.

Hey Roy, want to join the Ignore Oenophile pact? It'd be a great help. Come on, it'll be fun!

First off, thanks for responding, oenophile.

Siamese twins are "forced to sustain the life of another." Do we allow them to kill the other? Would we allow a "dominant twin" to end the life of the other? If one were to become concussed, would we say that he is no longer sentient and the other twin may have him removed?

Merely concussed, no, but brain dead? God, I hope so! Imagine the horror... *shudder* Ok, I'm back. Interesting notion, the Siamese twin argument. What if one twin gets cancer? Can he force the other to undergo chemotherapy? I'll have to ponder the various ethical permutations of that one and get back to you re: it as an abortion analogy.

a woman's abortion to save the life of her fetus
Er...what? Does not compute. I'll just assume it's a typo.

Re: Omission vs. Commission, relating to miscarriage -- You make a good argument here, but I think there are flaws in it. What if the woman does something inadvisable that results in her miscarriage? Trips and falls while wearing high heels, or drives a car and gets in an accident? You could argue that she was negligent and thus responsible/liable, just like a person who owns a pool is liable if some kid drowns in it, even if the kid trespassed and entered the pool without the knowlege or permission of the owner. But then you're saying the woman is merely a vehicle for a fetus, and opening a HUGE can of worms. Furthermore, I still think if a woman gets a pass when she miscarries because her body is incapable of supporting a pregnancy, why isn't financial or emotional inability to do so an equally valid excuse?

Re: the "She chose to have sex, she took the risk" argument:
I can't agree with this attitude, partly because shit happens, and partly because no one is perfect. If every woman got pregnant every time she had sex, I would see this as a perfectly reasonable condition. But a woman is only fertile for what, 12 weeks out of every 52? If she further raises the odds against pregnancy by employing condoms or BC, and *still* gets pregnant, I'd say she was sufficiently cautious. It's rather tyrannical to fault her because she gambled (with winning odds) and lost. How responsible is it fair and reasonable to expect people to be?
Over 100 people die in car accidents every day, but we haven't made cars illegal. We place limits, test and license drivers and make laws against driving under certain circumstances (i.e. drunk), but we ultimately allow people to drive, with the expectation that they will drive responsibly. We accept that some people won’t, and that some may die, either because they didn’t or because they were just unlucky. I think abortion is similar. I don't like that some people might behave irresponsibly (i.e. have unprotected sex and then abort) but as much as I dislike it, I don't think that my disapproval of people who act irresponsibly is reason enough to deny the privilege to everyone who does behave responsibly.
I'm sympathetic to the pro-life position because philosophically I lean more in that direction. I'm a big supporter of adoption and I think a even a *potential* life has value. However, I also feel that what works for me shouldn't be applied to the world, because the world is not me. If I find myself unexpectedly pregnant, my location, financial and family status may afford me better options than someone else, and I can't just assume my options will be available to every woman who finds herself in that situation. I regard abortion as regrettable but sometimes necessary, just as killing in war or in self-defense is sometimes necessary. I think if we want fewer abortions, we need to treat the "symptoms" that make abortion necessary rather than making the "cure" illegal. That never works. (See: Prohibition.) Which is why I come down on the pro-choice side when it comes to the law of the land.

Finally, can we all quit with the ad homs, everyone? Attack the argument, not the person. Or if you must, at least own your statement as your opinion, i.e. say "I think so-and-so is an idiot" rather than just "so-and-so is an idiot." You'll never win someone to your side by insulting them, so it accomplishes little in terms of proving your argument.

oenophile and I definitely disagree on this issue. Some of her arguments have provoked strong reactions in me (I found the the rape comparison extremely offensive) but she's never attacked me personally, presumably because I haven't done so to her. The fact that we stand on opposite sides of the abortion debate doesn't mean we can't agree on anything (and we have) and it's no reason to be impolite or hurtful. We may never agree, but can’t we at least be civil to one another?