I share your negative feelings upon reading Kathy's article on the 10-yr old, and also her longer article exploring background & opinions of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. If this particular story was fake, it hardly matters, because it represents what we know is happening out there - people desperate to end a pregnancy will not be able to; o…
I share your negative feelings upon reading Kathy's article on the 10-yr old, and also her longer article exploring background & opinions of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. If this particular story was fake, it hardly matters, because it represents what we know is happening out there - people desperate to end a pregnancy will not be able to; or will only end it after a ridiculously arduous journey.
HOWEVER, her point is valid. Allowing ourselves to become inflamed at a picture or a quote that flies through social media, is exactly what has already stirred people up. None of us likes to be manipulated in our personal lives, but we forget our vigilance when it comes to issues that resonate with our core beliefs & values.
I am much more disappointed in her longer discussion regarding the ways that Pro-choice views interact & conflict with Pro-life views. It reminds me that we get really upset about this topic, and spend a lot of time talking about when life begins and what reasons are acceptable to end a pregnancy. I am about to say something a little crazy....
1) The rights of an unborn person cannot be GREATER than the rights of the person carrying it. 2) A woman cannot be equal to a man if she does not have the same opportunity to direct her life; i.e. uninterrupted by pregnancy, childbirth, & recovery.
SO if a woman is to be equal, she must have the option to end pregnancy for any or no reason at all. And how can pregnancy be less private than sex, marriage, & religion?
A population will never be at peace if abortion is illegal, or illegal with 1 or 2 exceptions. Instead, both sides should work toward an abortion option that makes sense & counseling designed to persuade, not browbeat, to choose life.
Carolyn, what you are saying is not crazy, but in response to your #1, isn't this the question? In other words, isn't the fundamental disagreement about whether or not the "unborn person", as you express it, is or is not a person with the same rights as any other person? In this case, the person within whose body they are temporarily developing?
I happen to believe the unborn person is a person, just one we can't see yet because they are inside their mother's body. If that is the case, then logically, neither person's rights are greater than the other's.
But I respect and do not judge a person if they believe what is inside the mother's body is not a separate person, but rather a "fetus" or "embryo" without the rights of a person already born.
This is the tragic problem. As several people have said, no one is "pro-abortion". I can't imagine any woman not struggling emotionally and feeling grief before choosing to have an abortion, even if she is grieving something that she believes is not yet a person but now will never have the change to become one.
A.) I hear you, but I disagree that the 2 person's rights are equal. For one, it is the federal gov that is charged with protecting rights, and the gov does not require information about the person inside you until it is out. The baby in fact does not exist prior to a date of birth. Second reason is that the baby is literally dependent on the mother's body for all major organ function, which makes it impossible for them to be equal. Even if we can ignore/change #1, we cannot assume equal rights of the unborn, until some agreed-upon reference coordinated with viability. Giving the baby rights before viability necessarily means that protecting those rights requires quashing the woman's.
B.) One of the reasons that pro-lifers feel strongly is because if abortion is legal, some will wrecklessly use it as birth control, or choose it for convenience, or otherwise choose it without truly considering what they are doing morally. And this does occur. And then there's the next group of women that like having abortion as a back-up to their birth control. It is true that increased acceptance of abortion means more abortion.
C.) As a society, we need to handle this issue in a way where rights don't conflict. Something like national right to abortion up to 12 weeks, with required minimum interventions before it can be done (and streamline those interventions). And have the most robust (but discreet) interaction with the mother as possible. Finding out what she would need 1) to not abort & give thru adoption or 2) keep the child herself. And then connect her to those things. And allow abortions later than 12 weeks for the exceptional cases, requiring affadavits from doctors and/or law enforcement. The goal of both sides should be to minimize abortion, not criminalize it. And screw Clarence Thomas for saying abortion right is not ingrained in our history - women from the beginning of time have experienced desperate situations.
Maybe you haven’t had terrible complications in pregnancy. I had an abortion in the second trimester because my pregnancy was not viable, baby had defects, was not growing and that meant it wouldn’t survive to delivery. The abortion wasn’t the tragedy. The tragedy is how difficult it is to have a successful pregnancy with our very high maternal mortality among western nations and how expensive it is. I cannot imagine anyone suggesting we compound that trauma with government officials adjudicating a medical procedure that should be safe and legal. Who are you to think you have the right to make me or anyone else property of the state?
I apologize for coming across that way. With the Dobbs decision, Ohio has started with the 6 week ban on abortion which is a ridiculous amount of time for a woman to both know she is pregnant and make a decision about abortion and then schedule it. I was brainstorming compromise, wondering what the left would have to give up in order to possibly get a national right to abortion up to x weeks. I don't truly want women to have to jump through hoops, explain themselves, etc. Decisions like you made are hard enough without my opinion or red tape, I apologize.
No need to apologize. I appreciate your thoughtful and caring response. So many are so callous in this debate. It goes to show that no one knows enough about each person’s experience nor do we have an agreement on what is right or wrong in each circumstance. All the more reason to leave it to a woman and her doctor.
It’s so terrible. I haven’t wanted to talk about it as it happened a few years ago and I found a way to tuck it away. But everything happening now and how we talk about it is so callous and painful. I hope at the end of the day we can get to a place in this country where we recognize every person has dignity, basic human rights and self-determination.
Thanks for this extremely thoughtful reply, Carolyn. Your point A is similar to what my Law Professor brother says when I discuss this with him. And your points in A make a lot of sense.
Your point C resonates with me too.
My issue is that I just can't get over my belief in the personhood of that unborn baby, even though it is true that baby is dependent on his/her mother's body until the point of viability. I guess one of my problems is that the point of viability is a moving target as medical interventions improve. Another problem is that I just can't help feeling all kinds of protectiveness for that little baby sucking his thumb in the sonogram.
But again, I will say that I totally understand that some people truly don't see it the way I do, and have very good arguments for their viewpoint.
Thank you as well for taking the time to converse.
I wonder, if we updated viabilty frequently from the medical field, and we picked a number, say 80% of babies will survive if born at x weeks. Could a woman have an option of giving up the baby for adoption at birth induced at viability? Most women would be able to hide the pregnancy from the public.
That would be a possibility, Carolyn. What comes to mind for me:
I think it's too bad that a woman giving up her baby for adoption is sometimes seen by society as a shameful thing(not saying you think that). I am the mother of two wonderful adult children, in their forties, whom we adopted as infants. My son, his family, and I have been in contact with his birth mother for several years (the beauty of DNA testing). She, my son, and I are all thrilled. There was no way she could have kept him, and she is so grateful that he had a loving upbringing.
To my knowledge, adoption most often turns out as fine as families consisting of bio members.
So to continue on with that theme, if the woman decides she would like her baby to live and be adopted, maybe she could carry the baby to term rather than feel she needed to hide her pregnancy?
What you suggest, though, would be a compromise for a woman who wants to give her baby a chance at life but cannot or chooses not , for whatever reason, to carry to term.
I confess that I have a bias in favor of babies being born instead of aborted because I have seen that families can be made in different ways and, of course, I look at my kids and grandkids and realize their birth moms could have chosen not to have them be in the world.
With all that, I continue to be sympathetic and understanding of women whose beliefs about their pregnancies are different from mine and whose situations are their own.
It does indeed matter if a story was true or false. People who complain about "disinformation" or its right wing equivalent, "fake news," ought to recognize that a culture that loses its ability or willingness to distinguish confirmation bias from reality is inviting political dysfunction.
I remember attending a literary reading in which the speaker claimed that the story she'd concocted about an atrocity was "true" regardless whether it actually happened. That may be sufficient for poets or Hollywood, but it is highly inadequate for informed public policy discourse.
Needless to say, journalistic credibility depends upon the faithful reporting of facts. The nihilistic alternative ("nothing matters") comes right out of the autocrat's playbook.
At the same time, a minor, who cannot make any choices about their life without their parents' consent, should not be forced to carry a child to term who was the result of an abusive rape.
I hear Bukwark pundits repeatedly define their perspectives as pro life, but they clearly aren’t categorically against abortion in all cases. They’re pro choice along a spectrum of circumstances. I’ve worked in a clinic that provided abortions. Nobody is pro abortion.
A few weeks ago I heard a caller on a radio program (POTUS channel, satellite radio) identify himself as pro-life, but then went on to say he supported every woman's right to make up her own mind about it. This confused me. I said to myself, "this guy is actually pro-choice but he doesn't know it." I now think perhaps a lot of people fall into this category - maybe because the pro-life side has contorted the debate for so long, and the term "pro-life" sounds like a better thing to be?
YES! I had this EXACT discussion with my niece, who grew up in an Evangelical church. She called herself pro-life, but didn't think it was up to her or anyone else to make that decision for someone else. I wrote back to her (this discussion was via text) that she basically just described the quintessential pro-choice position. She just couldn't bring herself to ID as pro-choice, because the Rs have so successfully propagandized that term to be pro-abortion. There is NOTHING that is "prolife" about making abortion illegal; it only leads to death and suffering for living, breathing women.
Whoa, some people around here bust a gasket when you try to change wording to be more clear or inclusive.
That said, pro-birth seems to be catching on since people are starting to wake up to the fact that pro-life people aren't actually pro-life at all but are just pro-birth.
On the other hand, it might have been more journalistically responsible for the Indianapolis star to have broken the story today instead of last week. It would have prevented all the gloating over on the right about Biden deliberately lying about a 10-yea-old to stoke more par5tisan outrage.
Yes I hear you. Charlie and & Mona seem to put effort into being moderate, whereas Cathy is the person who ends up Republican cuz they just can't see why people 'make a fuss.'
I share your negative feelings upon reading Kathy's article on the 10-yr old, and also her longer article exploring background & opinions of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. If this particular story was fake, it hardly matters, because it represents what we know is happening out there - people desperate to end a pregnancy will not be able to; or will only end it after a ridiculously arduous journey.
HOWEVER, her point is valid. Allowing ourselves to become inflamed at a picture or a quote that flies through social media, is exactly what has already stirred people up. None of us likes to be manipulated in our personal lives, but we forget our vigilance when it comes to issues that resonate with our core beliefs & values.
I am much more disappointed in her longer discussion regarding the ways that Pro-choice views interact & conflict with Pro-life views. It reminds me that we get really upset about this topic, and spend a lot of time talking about when life begins and what reasons are acceptable to end a pregnancy. I am about to say something a little crazy....
1) The rights of an unborn person cannot be GREATER than the rights of the person carrying it. 2) A woman cannot be equal to a man if she does not have the same opportunity to direct her life; i.e. uninterrupted by pregnancy, childbirth, & recovery.
SO if a woman is to be equal, she must have the option to end pregnancy for any or no reason at all. And how can pregnancy be less private than sex, marriage, & religion?
A population will never be at peace if abortion is illegal, or illegal with 1 or 2 exceptions. Instead, both sides should work toward an abortion option that makes sense & counseling designed to persuade, not browbeat, to choose life.
Carolyn, what you are saying is not crazy, but in response to your #1, isn't this the question? In other words, isn't the fundamental disagreement about whether or not the "unborn person", as you express it, is or is not a person with the same rights as any other person? In this case, the person within whose body they are temporarily developing?
I happen to believe the unborn person is a person, just one we can't see yet because they are inside their mother's body. If that is the case, then logically, neither person's rights are greater than the other's.
But I respect and do not judge a person if they believe what is inside the mother's body is not a separate person, but rather a "fetus" or "embryo" without the rights of a person already born.
This is the tragic problem. As several people have said, no one is "pro-abortion". I can't imagine any woman not struggling emotionally and feeling grief before choosing to have an abortion, even if she is grieving something that she believes is not yet a person but now will never have the change to become one.
A.) I hear you, but I disagree that the 2 person's rights are equal. For one, it is the federal gov that is charged with protecting rights, and the gov does not require information about the person inside you until it is out. The baby in fact does not exist prior to a date of birth. Second reason is that the baby is literally dependent on the mother's body for all major organ function, which makes it impossible for them to be equal. Even if we can ignore/change #1, we cannot assume equal rights of the unborn, until some agreed-upon reference coordinated with viability. Giving the baby rights before viability necessarily means that protecting those rights requires quashing the woman's.
B.) One of the reasons that pro-lifers feel strongly is because if abortion is legal, some will wrecklessly use it as birth control, or choose it for convenience, or otherwise choose it without truly considering what they are doing morally. And this does occur. And then there's the next group of women that like having abortion as a back-up to their birth control. It is true that increased acceptance of abortion means more abortion.
C.) As a society, we need to handle this issue in a way where rights don't conflict. Something like national right to abortion up to 12 weeks, with required minimum interventions before it can be done (and streamline those interventions). And have the most robust (but discreet) interaction with the mother as possible. Finding out what she would need 1) to not abort & give thru adoption or 2) keep the child herself. And then connect her to those things. And allow abortions later than 12 weeks for the exceptional cases, requiring affadavits from doctors and/or law enforcement. The goal of both sides should be to minimize abortion, not criminalize it. And screw Clarence Thomas for saying abortion right is not ingrained in our history - women from the beginning of time have experienced desperate situations.
Maybe you haven’t had terrible complications in pregnancy. I had an abortion in the second trimester because my pregnancy was not viable, baby had defects, was not growing and that meant it wouldn’t survive to delivery. The abortion wasn’t the tragedy. The tragedy is how difficult it is to have a successful pregnancy with our very high maternal mortality among western nations and how expensive it is. I cannot imagine anyone suggesting we compound that trauma with government officials adjudicating a medical procedure that should be safe and legal. Who are you to think you have the right to make me or anyone else property of the state?
I apologize for coming across that way. With the Dobbs decision, Ohio has started with the 6 week ban on abortion which is a ridiculous amount of time for a woman to both know she is pregnant and make a decision about abortion and then schedule it. I was brainstorming compromise, wondering what the left would have to give up in order to possibly get a national right to abortion up to x weeks. I don't truly want women to have to jump through hoops, explain themselves, etc. Decisions like you made are hard enough without my opinion or red tape, I apologize.
No need to apologize. I appreciate your thoughtful and caring response. So many are so callous in this debate. It goes to show that no one knows enough about each person’s experience nor do we have an agreement on what is right or wrong in each circumstance. All the more reason to leave it to a woman and her doctor.
It’s so terrible. I haven’t wanted to talk about it as it happened a few years ago and I found a way to tuck it away. But everything happening now and how we talk about it is so callous and painful. I hope at the end of the day we can get to a place in this country where we recognize every person has dignity, basic human rights and self-determination.
Thanks for this extremely thoughtful reply, Carolyn. Your point A is similar to what my Law Professor brother says when I discuss this with him. And your points in A make a lot of sense.
Your point C resonates with me too.
My issue is that I just can't get over my belief in the personhood of that unborn baby, even though it is true that baby is dependent on his/her mother's body until the point of viability. I guess one of my problems is that the point of viability is a moving target as medical interventions improve. Another problem is that I just can't help feeling all kinds of protectiveness for that little baby sucking his thumb in the sonogram.
But again, I will say that I totally understand that some people truly don't see it the way I do, and have very good arguments for their viewpoint.
Thank you as well for taking the time to converse.
I wonder, if we updated viabilty frequently from the medical field, and we picked a number, say 80% of babies will survive if born at x weeks. Could a woman have an option of giving up the baby for adoption at birth induced at viability? Most women would be able to hide the pregnancy from the public.
That would be a possibility, Carolyn. What comes to mind for me:
I think it's too bad that a woman giving up her baby for adoption is sometimes seen by society as a shameful thing(not saying you think that). I am the mother of two wonderful adult children, in their forties, whom we adopted as infants. My son, his family, and I have been in contact with his birth mother for several years (the beauty of DNA testing). She, my son, and I are all thrilled. There was no way she could have kept him, and she is so grateful that he had a loving upbringing.
To my knowledge, adoption most often turns out as fine as families consisting of bio members.
So to continue on with that theme, if the woman decides she would like her baby to live and be adopted, maybe she could carry the baby to term rather than feel she needed to hide her pregnancy?
What you suggest, though, would be a compromise for a woman who wants to give her baby a chance at life but cannot or chooses not , for whatever reason, to carry to term.
I confess that I have a bias in favor of babies being born instead of aborted because I have seen that families can be made in different ways and, of course, I look at my kids and grandkids and realize their birth moms could have chosen not to have them be in the world.
With all that, I continue to be sympathetic and understanding of women whose beliefs about their pregnancies are different from mine and whose situations are their own.
You're ok. I was just thinking of ways that might guarantee access to abortion but still try to prevent some of them.
"1) The rights of an unborn person cannot be GREATER than the rights of the person carrying it."
1,000,000% agree. If I were a face tattoo sort, I would consider having this on my face so everyone who saw me would have to read it.
It does indeed matter if a story was true or false. People who complain about "disinformation" or its right wing equivalent, "fake news," ought to recognize that a culture that loses its ability or willingness to distinguish confirmation bias from reality is inviting political dysfunction.
I remember attending a literary reading in which the speaker claimed that the story she'd concocted about an atrocity was "true" regardless whether it actually happened. That may be sufficient for poets or Hollywood, but it is highly inadequate for informed public policy discourse.
Needless to say, journalistic credibility depends upon the faithful reporting of facts. The nihilistic alternative ("nothing matters") comes right out of the autocrat's playbook.
However, she declared that the story was probably false without having all the facts, and made judgments based on her presumptions.
At the same time, a minor, who cannot make any choices about their life without their parents' consent, should not be forced to carry a child to term who was the result of an abusive rape.
Exactly this.
I hear Bukwark pundits repeatedly define their perspectives as pro life, but they clearly aren’t categorically against abortion in all cases. They’re pro choice along a spectrum of circumstances. I’ve worked in a clinic that provided abortions. Nobody is pro abortion.
A few weeks ago I heard a caller on a radio program (POTUS channel, satellite radio) identify himself as pro-life, but then went on to say he supported every woman's right to make up her own mind about it. This confused me. I said to myself, "this guy is actually pro-choice but he doesn't know it." I now think perhaps a lot of people fall into this category - maybe because the pro-life side has contorted the debate for so long, and the term "pro-life" sounds like a better thing to be?
YES! I had this EXACT discussion with my niece, who grew up in an Evangelical church. She called herself pro-life, but didn't think it was up to her or anyone else to make that decision for someone else. I wrote back to her (this discussion was via text) that she basically just described the quintessential pro-choice position. She just couldn't bring herself to ID as pro-choice, because the Rs have so successfully propagandized that term to be pro-abortion. There is NOTHING that is "prolife" about making abortion illegal; it only leads to death and suffering for living, breathing women.
A couple participants on The Focus Group podcast said that too. Said "I'm pro-life but I think women should be able to decide for themselves." UM WHAT
We need new terminology.
Whoa, some people around here bust a gasket when you try to change wording to be more clear or inclusive.
That said, pro-birth seems to be catching on since people are starting to wake up to the fact that pro-life people aren't actually pro-life at all but are just pro-birth.
I did not get one today or yesterday.
You're not alone.
Pro-Rights and Anti-Rights.
On the other hand, it might have been more journalistically responsible for the Indianapolis star to have broken the story today instead of last week. It would have prevented all the gloating over on the right about Biden deliberately lying about a 10-yea-old to stoke more par5tisan outrage.
Yes I hear you. Charlie and & Mona seem to put effort into being moderate, whereas Cathy is the person who ends up Republican cuz they just can't see why people 'make a fuss.'