33 Years of Legal Abortion Celebrated by Fighting Fascism

Ummm, are you on the same planet the rest of us are on? Reality land? San Francisco is not Nazi Germany. If you think the SF City Council -- perhaps the most liberal city council of major US cities -- is like the Nazi regime you need a SERIOUS reality check.

The massive police army of several hundred police, marked and unmarked police cars, vans and motorcycles, and the use of SamTrans buses which clearly were totally unnecessary for protecting the 10,000 fascists from the 1,000 (sorry about the extra zero above) pro-abortion demonstrators and thus were nothing more than the police joining with the fascist hate march mandates your phone call demanding an end to these fascist hate marches under the guise of anti-abortion, Email or US mail to all 11 members of the Board of Supervisors listed in yhour phone book in the blue striped white pages under San Francisco and at:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp?id=7271
The full list will be at the end of this article.

The Sunday Chronicle, 1/22/06, 5 star edition, told us the importance of making these phone calls by not showing the massive police presence as that would certainly anger the taxpayers and voters who would be screaming bloody murder, as they should, about this profound waste of our tax dollars on the police, not to mention the fact that we have a budget crisis.

This same Sunday Chronicle also demonstrated what was obvious to those attending that this was a Bush campaign march with its huge front page photo of the flag salute at this anti-abortion, religious hate rally. The abortion issue is clearly just a smokescreen for fascist politics.

As to the politics of my hometown of San Francisco, which I have witnessed for over 50 years, there is absolutely nothing liberal about San Francisco. The police racism, homophobia, male chauvinism, brutality and murder are routine in San Francisco. The police brutality cases alone are almost daily, as any local lawyer having anything to do with this can tell you, and they are defended by the good Democrats sitting in the City Attorney's and District Attorney's office. The good Democrats election fraud "mayor" Gavin Newsom, Supervisors Bevan Dufty, Sean Elsbrend and Michela Alioto-Pier always vote the most reactionary position on the Board of Supervisors, which is to say they are viciously anti-tenant, anti-rent control, which is by definition in San Francisco racist and anti-workingclass. The Democratic Party was nowhere to be seen at our pro-abortion demonstration, and it is this election-frauding gang that sits entrenched at City Hall for over 40 years, and acts no different from the Republicans who are 15% of the voters in every election.

The Board of Supervisors are:

Michela Alioto-Pier
District 2
(415) 554-7752
Michela.Alioto-Pier [at] sfgov.org

Tom Ammiano
District 9
(415) 554-5144
Tom.Ammiano [at] sfgov.org

Chris Daly
District 6
(415) 554-7970
Chris.Daly [at] sfgov.org

Bevan Dufty
District 8
(415) 554-6968
Bevan.Dufty [at] sfgov.org

Sean Elsbernd
District 7
(415) 554-6516
Sean.Elsbernd [at] sfgov.org

Fiona Ma
District 4
(415) 554-7460
Fiona.Ma [at] sfgov.org

Sophie Maxwell
District 10
(415) 554-7670
Sophie.Maxwell [at] sfgov.org

Jake McGoldrick
District 1
(415) 554-7410
Jake.McGoldrick [at] sfgov.org

Ross Mirkarimi
District 5
(415) 554-7630
Ross.Mirkarimi [at] sfgov.org

Aaron Peskin - Board President
District 3
(415) 554-7450
Aaron.Peskin [at] sfgov.org

Gerardo Sandoval
District 11
(415) 554-6975
Gerardo.Sandoval [at] sfgov.org

"It is no accident that various fascist sections of churches are organizing anti-abortion, anti-women hate marches in the heart of pro-abortion San Francisco. "

Not all churches and anti-abortion groups are "fascist" as this post proclaims. While some of us do not want to see unwanted pregnancies in the world, at the same time abortion isn't always the answer. KILLING is not the answer! PREVENTION is.

http://WWW.KUCINICH.COM

Let me get my biasing opinions out of the way first: I'm pro-choice, believe that a fetus is not a child, and am pro-peace.

I was at the march, photographing, and would like to share some of my observations. They are all fairly straight-forwardly factual observations that correct misrepresentations that appear either in the text of the main report or in the captions of photos.

1) I saw police not only yell at pro-abortionists who stepped into the street, but also at anti-abortionists who wandered out of the white traffic-lane line. The police kept the two groups separated pretty well during the main part of the march.

2) I saw anti-abortionists take physical abuse from pro-abortionists with calm and grace. This was, of course, exceptional, but did come from only one side of the fence.

3) As an observer, I was dressed neutrally and carried no propaganda for either side. However, when I crossed from the sidewalk to the street to attempt to walk with the anti-abortionist march, a police officer shouted to me to get back on the sidewalk. When I asked to join the anti-abortion march, he told me "Don't fuck with me." I'm not sure of the technical details regarding the police's instructions, but it seems that my first amendment rights were violated.

4) Pro-abortion activists were hurling insults at the anti-abortionists that had nothing to do with the abortion issue and assumed several derogatory stereotypes. I heard far fewer insults hurled by the anti-abortionists, who tended to stick to the subject of abortion. I heard one anti-abortionist asking "is it Nazi Christians or Christian Nazis?" which is, hopefully obviously, totally ignorant. I saw nothing comparable coming from anti-abortionists.

Finally, I would make some suggestions as to how to strengthen future pro-abortion actions:

. Order, peace, stoicism, and sheer numbers are perhaps the strongest messages of solidarity and resolve that a group can convey.
. The rhetoric on the Walk For Life signs which read "Women Deserve Better than Abortion" could be easily turned back around if it were followed by something like "They Deserve Free Effective Contraception, A Living Wage, Health care, and Effective Schools."
. I'm not sure what sort of hoops the Walk for Lifer's jumped through to have their march so effectively regulated, but it would lend legitimacy to future actions to be similarly sanctioned.
. Rowdy elements do not strengthen the positive perception of the pro-abortion movement. The police should not feel that it is necessary to keep the two activist groups separated. Nobody takes violence seriously.

John Flournoy says, "Let me get my biasing opinions out of the way first: I'm pro-choice, believe that a fetus is not a child, and am pro-peace."

Then, some questions:
Is a child human? Is a fetus human? If a fetus is not human, then what is it? What is the difference in nature? Between the time of fetushood and childhood, when does humanity begin? Explain the medical, scientific or philosophical difference.

In the few inches between fetus in the womb and child outside the womb, what changes? Location? Well then, does location change you, when you move from the dining room to the kitchen, for example? Does location change our nature? Does location change the nature of the fetus?

You are for choice. Choice, linguistically and logically, must have an object. What are you pro-choice for? Are you pro-choice in all instances? Does choice have any limitations? Can you choose to do anything you want, irrespective of how it may affect someone else? Can I be pro-choice to drive on the left side of the road, to drink while driving, to steal a car because I want it, to have slaves? I am pro-choice. Choice for what?

You are pro-peace. Does peace mean getting along, side by side, respecting each other's dignity and worth? Does peace mean not killing? Is killing peaceful? Is abortion peaceful? Does abortion respect each other's human dignity and worth?

===
Why does my post from 24 hours ago not appear here any more? How can I and others find it?

You hit the nail on the head with that one, Jimbo.

It's location, location, location. That is the one crucial detail.

You see, when the baby/fetus/whatever is INSIDE the woman, there is a very unique situation. If you want to assign rights to the fetus, then you have a conflict of rights with the rights of the woman/adult/mother.

Your side in this loves fetuses more than woman and think a thing that cannot yet live on its own is worth more and has supreme rights over a living, breathing women.

We, on the pro-choice side, believe the rights of the woman supercede any rights that might be assigned to the fetus.

Once the baby is born, you no longer have that conflict of rights. That is exactly what changes. One person cannot murder another once both have been born, but when you have two entities sharing one body, the adult/mother MUST have more rights than the unborn fetus. The "choice" you question is not a choice to run wild in the streets and hurt people, it's a choice over what happens with one's own body.

It creates a hell-like world to assign more rights to fetuses than women. Many of your kind would have woman bear children that were created through rape and incest. Many would even force the woman to bear the child if it meant the death of the woman. That's sick, Jimbo. And, as a man, you will never know how horrible it would be to have such a thing growing inside of you, that was created by rape or incest or literally means the death of you. Would you force a woman to bear such children? In less dire circumstances, would you force a 13 year old girl who made a mistake to do so? No matter that it could ruin her life. Does she deserve to learn that hard life lesson by having her own life ruined, being kicked out of school, abandoned by overly judgemental parents, probably like yourself? How do you propose enforcing these births? Perhaps a department of local police that monitors all pregnancies? Force women into jail until the babies are born? Doctors in jail too? Maybe the death penalty for doctors since you love to call it "murder" as if it were a totally separate being? Lastly, do you believe in ready access to birth control information for everyone, even teenagers? I fear that you don't believe in birth control for everyone, that you don't want to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and you would not allow a woman to choose what happens to her own body after such a pregancy begins. You want it all your way, to hell with what the woman wants, and you think the suffering would serve her well. How about if your mom, wife, or daughter were raped? How about if the pregnancy would kill any one of them? How about if your wife cheated on you and became pregnant? Would your "pro-life" attitude be so solid then?

Want to know what a society with pregnancy police and zero birth control looks like? Well the communists in Romania had a go at it. Doesn't sound like a big celebration of "life" to me. Read on...


Romania

Because of panic over low birth rates, the 1957 statute permitting elective abortions was reversed in 1966 under Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Legislation set a prison term of one to five years for illegal abortions, and abortions were permitted only if a woman had already borne five children. In 1986, the law was tightened further to ban abortions for any female under age 45, unless her life was in danger.

Among the new measures were monthly monitoring of pregnant women and investigation of all spontaneous abortions. All forms of artificial birth control were prohibited.

Romania demonstrates Dr. Wendell Watters’ contention that nation-states, whatever their ideology, are prepared to take away women's right to abortion when they wish to increase their population.81

The horror wrought by this repressive policy was revealed upon the overthrow of Ceausescu in late 1989. It was discovered that the rate of abortion was actually higher than in any Western European country in which abortion was legal.56 Over 10,000 women died from illegal abortions and about 200,000 children were placed in orphanages.82 The Ceausescu regime had also forcibly returned thousands of unwanted babies to their parents. The wilful neglect of children by the state led to a predictable rise in infant mortality during the Ceausescu era.

On December 26, 1989, one day after defeating Ceausescu, the National Salvation Front repealed the draconian 1966 and 1986 decrees restricting abortion and contraception.83

Maternal mortality in Romania has decreased 317% since the abortion law was liberalized.38 The abortion rate is still high, however, since fears about the “dangers” of contraception still abound in this country. “Abortion has been the only alternative in the last 23 years. It's very difficult to get women to understand that it is healthier and safer to use contraception," said Dr. Borica Koo, head of the Romanian Family Planning Association.84

The last person I expected to get a response from was a pro-life advocate. I was really just trying to put my criticism in a safe frame for the people who usually frequent this site.

To explain about the fetus/human/infant thing. This is a philosophical distinction right there with moment of death. It's a tangled tangled issue. Is every miscarriage a tragic death? I'm really not sure when to consider that life begins. I know that a fetus, esp. in the first trimester, has very few of the characteristics that make us human. Biologically it resembles a fish, or a chicken, or a tadpole. Basically, I don't know of any good measure to use. When does the soul enter the body? When does it leave? What is the soul's function? How can one tell when the soul has left the body or entered it?

I don't, by the way, quite believe in a soul, but I can't really say I believe that there is no soul either.

Pro-choice is not a very apt designation of the belief that a woman should be able to decide whether or not to have a child, even after becoming pregnant. The child is first and foremost the woman's when it is in her body. It's not yours, nor mine, nor the state's. I don't know. I don't really want to discuss this issue.

The purpose of my comment was to call into question the methods pro-choice/pro-abortion activists chose to employ in this particular case.

This'll be my last comment. I'm wondering if you all who read this consider the 'report', at least on this event specifically, to be journalism. And then, if yes, how one reconciles the obvious editorializing, opinion, and emotional reasoning?

The religious fascists were allowed by our secular public school system to park their buses at Marina Middle School and the City of San Francisco paid police to guard the fascists' buses. Both of these actions are illegal and should be added to your list of grievances when you call or write the Board of Supervisors, all 11 of them. PLEASE REMIND THEM OF THIS YEAR'S BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' ELECTIONS AND NEXT YEAR'S MAYOR'S RACE. This will certainly be an issue in both. Also, there is a 4th landlord vote, Fiona Ma, a hand-picked darling of the Democratic Party clearly being groomed for a mayor's race in 2011. This is a city that is 66% tenant, so the Democratic Party is clearly anti-workingclass and racist when it attacks tenants with its landord mayor and its 4 landlord supervisors and there is nothing liberal about that. The Board of Supervisors has 10 Democrats and 1 Green.

John, the fetus/human/infant thing is not a philosophical distinction, but a scientific one, not tangled but quite simple. The human egg and the human sperm unite to result in a distinct new human being, with unique genetics and DNA, distinct from that of the mother or the father. There is no biological resemblance with a non-human. Even if it didn't resemble a human (it does, compare an 8-week human fetus to that of a fish, chicken or tadpole), the physical appearance is not its basic nature, just as the appearance of a severely deformed human doesn't change its nature. That which is formed by humans cannot be non-human; nature doesn't allow that.

Discussion of a soul, whatever that is, however you defiine it, isn't necessary to understanding the immutable science of human life.

Yes, I agree that "pro-choice" is not very apt. It is a positive-sounding phrase that avoids the object of whatever the choice is, and masks the need to discuss the object of that choice. The object may limit the choice. We cannot be pro-choice in all that we do unless we don't care how our choices may affect some other being or thing.

You say "a woman should be able to decide whether or not to have a child, even after becoming pregnant." (Note here you refer to the entity as a child, not a fetus.) The mother already has a child when she is pregnant; the only choices possible are whether to keep, adopt out or end the life of the child.

The child is the mother's (and father's) to protect and respect, whether inside or outside her body, not to own as a slave or a piece of property. That issue was resolved by the courts and humanity long ago.

I'm sorry you don't want to discuss this further. I hope it's not because you have a closed mind, but rather because you may find it hard to deal with the scientific and medical facts of human life. May this discussion lead you to further consideration sometime in the future.

Yep, deal first with the basic question: Does the location change the NATURE of the being? Does it make it un-human? Does location, size, environment or dependency change the nature?

Although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature. Humans have value simply because of the kind of thing they are, not because of some acquired property they may gain or lose sometime between conception and natural death.

See http://www.prolifetraining.com/Five-Minute-Prolife.htm

You may state your opinions, but please do not ascribe views to pro-lifers based on your opinions. We do no love fetuses more than older women. Our love is not based on their age, which doesn't change their humanity, but on their humanity itself. Both are humans, and we love them both. The mother and the child have equal rights to life.

Some women are estatic when they become pregnant; some are devastated. Yet, their emotions and desires do not change the humanity of their child. If they did, than a mother would have the supposed right to end the life of her child in pregnancy or when the child is a toddler ... or an adult.

The nature of a child doesn't depend on the circumstances of the pregnancy. Even if a woman is raped, the child is still a human child. Should a child be made to die because of the crime of the father? Sure, it's a horrible situation (that pertains in only less than 1% of pregnancies), as are many situations we face in life. But do we have the right to end the life of another human to ease our way in life? What trumps, our desires and our lifestyles, or our humanity?

Don't forget the adoption alternative. Of course, it's not easy. But it does respect humanity. And many parents are out there crying to adopt babies, which instead are being aborted.

By the way, my daughter was date-raped twice, 17-19 years ago. After much agonizing, she adopted out one and kept the other. Life hasn't been easy, but all three are still healthy and living. And my pro-life views (and hers) became even more solid as a result of these experiences.

With empathy, love and support, lives need not be ruined. They may be changed, but not ruined. Yes, much more needs to be done by society to help women (and men) ... aid, support, legislation, etc., with public and (preferably) private social ventures. We don't resolve the inhumanity in society by killing human beings; that merely hides the problems.

You believe what you believe because of religious leaders imploring you to believe such things?

Is Intelligent Design a scientific fact too?

And why did you completely ignore the comment about conflicts of rights and Romania above?

It's about ethics and laws, not science.

"You believe what you believe because of religious leaders imploring you to believe such things?"

I believe because science, medicine and logic have led me to these conclusions. None of my comments are based on any religious belief.

"Is Intelligent Design a scientific fact too?"

It is not proveable by science, but it does not conflict with current scientific understanding.

However, let us not fall into changing the subject in an attempt to avoid the issues at hand.

"And why did you completely ignore the comment about conflicts of rights and Romania above?"

Read again. I did respond to the issue of rights and the details of the Romania situation by positing general principles based on science and ethics, which can be applied to any country. Social issues are great, but they are not resolved by ending the lives of those involved.

"It's about ethics and laws, not science."

Ethics and laws -- to be honest, truthful and workable -- must recognize facts and science.

Okay, so you clarified that you think raped women should be forced to carry to term the product of said rapes. Percentages are irrelevent -- if you would force one woman thru such a fate, that's enough.

You didn't answer the question about the life of the mother. Mother or fetus, what would you chose? What should the law say about this in your opinion?

Of course, you completely ignored the issue of two things in one body, still pretending the fetus is equal to the mother (actually superior when your laws would be applied to the situation as you presume the fetus' wishes and ignore the mothers).

Also, you still skip over Romania's example (our last comments did cross paths in timing). They didn't allow contraception either. Is the Romanian example one you would hold up as a "culture of life"? If not, how do you propose to enforce your beliefs on women in a different way? What is this "more (that) needs to be done by society"? Don't misleadingly paint it as a dreamy heaven on earth, either. Obviously, you think people should go to jail or get the death penalty for "murder". Let us know how you would have those who defy your warped sense of morality be dealt with by laws and the police.

While I can't claim to have met every pro-lifer out there, I have personally known quite a few (dozens and dozens, mostly evangelicals), and not one of them seriously considered adopting children themselves - it was all for OTHER people to supposedly do, just as they would force their morality on others regarding pregnancy or abortion.

Jim, I appreciate the tone and measured pace of your arguments, and their relevance to what's been said previously.

Pa-lease's comments were just inane and assumptive. Jim hasn't argued on the basis of faith, nor do I see how a rational person could conclude that because he's against abortion that he is for the idea of intelligent design AS CONTRARY to evolution. (The biggest problem with ID aside from that it isn't more than a hypothesis, and fairly untestable at that, is that it in no way conflicts with the theory of evolution (testable, by the way). But no digression here.)

Pa-lease: insults, assumption, and emotional knee-jerk don't get us anywhere.

ROMANIA: It is true that there is a correlation between higher crime rates and legalized abortion (with a time delay of drop in crime following approx. 18 years the legalization of abortion) which seems to indicate that abortion allows accidental mothers to wait and raise a child in a more favorable setting, one that does not as often lead to criminality. This is true in this country too (it's what possibly stopped the crime wave in the last years of last century. The reference for this is "Freakanomics, by Steven Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner). But that argument for abortion, in the context of this particular conversation, is irrelevant. Just because abortion saves lives doesn't necessarily mean that a fetus isn't human.

Jim: I realize that I was rather clumsy in my use of terms and distinctions when talking about tangledness. I really didn't intend to get involved in a discussion on abortion, but hoped instead to spark one regarding the ridiculousness of the SF pro-choicer's behavior on Saturday, as well as to try to hammer out exactly what role ought to be played by the police at such an event (if they weren't there I'm sure some fists would have flown, and I'm sorry to say it would not have been one of the yellow-shirts').

But now that we're on the subject, let me tackle this question. We assume that abortion would be wrong if it constituted homicide, e.g. the killing of a human. The issue is whether a human fetus is human.

There seem to be two scientific facts on which jim bases his beliefs about the humanity of a fetus. The first is that a fetus is 'living' in at least the same way that an appendix is 'living' -- Question #1 is whether a fetus should be considered alive to a more significant extent than an organ. The second scientific fact is that the fetus is genetically human and without altering the genetics will never be something that does not have human genetics; It will always resemble other things that have human genetics that are at the same stage of development. Question #2 is, then, are human genetics sufficient for humanity. I may be missing something else that could possibly be sufficient for considering a human fetus human, and I'm sure you'll bring it up if there is. Another fact that I'm leaving out is, of course, that most fetus, if not entirely human, have the potential to become entirely human, and that may be enough for some people. Arguably, sperm and ovum have that same potential (though no one would argue that they are human already). So I'm going to leave that behind for now.

Question #1: Is a fetus more 'alive' than, say, a human organ? A fetus is made up of living cells, and so is living. This is true of any particular chunk of a person, minus hair, fingernails, &c. It is true of the organs of a freshly dead person. It is inarguable that a fetus is at least as alive as the cells that constitute it. But it is not alive as a distinct organism -- the separation of its cells from those of the mother will cause the cells in the fetus to die, much like a kidney will not sustain itself for very long out of a body. This is what I'll call systemic independence -- that is, the fetus is not distinct from the mother's biological systems. Because non-human animals have systemic independence, it is not sufficient for humanity. Is it necessary, though? It may not be necessary, but at least I've shown that a fetus does not share this trait with born humans. So, Jim, my argument here is that a fetus is not yet "distinct" as you say. It is possible that your meaning of "distinct", though, arises from the idea that a fetus has the _potential_ to be independent of the mother's biological systems. Again, I don't think potential distinctness is enough. [Some caveats, here: I know children must be cared for by the mother after birth, but that care is no longer a function only of a mother autonomic systems. Also, a fetus at a stage where premature birth is a possibility is a case I'm not going to talk about here.]

Question #2: The cells in a fetus have genetic material that is the recombination of human genetic material. Is this sufficient for humanness? It is of course, necessary. But the question almost answers itself. Human cells in a petri dish, in a severed finger, or in any other constituent part of a person are not people just because they have human genetic material.

So, a fetus is living, and it is genetically human, but we have not yet shown that these distinctly human characteristics make it "A Distinct New Human Being."

However, a fetus's genetic material _is_ unique. Is this sufficient to call something "a distinct new human being"? Is it enough to give it all the rights and powers under the law that a born child under the age of 18 has? Is this the "basic nature" you're talking about? If so, then of course it is illegal for a mother to drink during pregnancy, and then of course any loss in the laboratory of in vitro fertilized ovum is negligent homicide, and so too then every miscarriage is a tragic death. If this is the case then it follows that the death of all of a set of cells with a unique human DNA (a fetus, a fertilized ovum, &c) is equivalent to the death of any person at any stage of development.

I'm going to have to leave it here. I'd like to put forth tentatively that my actual belief is that humanity begins with the realization of a nervous system capable of self-awareness. That is, though not sufficient, it is necessary for a thing to be considered human that it have a nervous system capable of self-awareness. A fetus certainly does not have this.

I would also like to point out that even if one can prove that destroying a fetus is homicide that there is still a case for abortion. It goes, loosely, like this: Parents have the responsibility and the privilege of making certain choices (and enforcing them) regarding a child's life that they cannot legally make after the child is an adult. The state, similarly, is given the power to make certain choices about the proper conduct of its citizens, and it is allowed to enforce those behaviors. The state is, in fact, given the power to choose whether a citizen should live or die, and it is given the power to decide whether a foreigner should live or die. It is therefore not absurd to consider that we might as a society give parents a similar power over the fates of their unborn -- it would be merely an extension of their current responsibilities and privileges as parents.

I'm curious why the police escort is illegal. Seems to me that they were protecting citizens from transgressions of the law. I personally witnessed assault take place. Is religious speech not protected speech?

The police presence was definitely way overboard. Me and some officers had a good private chuckle about the absurdity of it. He was eating corn-nuts, just doing his job.

The overboard police presence is likely due to progressives' increasing tendency toward violence and vandalism. It's a travesty that those on the left would attempt to escalate the situation and then decry the response to escalation as wasteful.

Civil disobedience is not about breaking arbitrary laws, it's about breaking the laws that shouldn't be laws.

I recounted above my interaction with a police officer that I believe has a pretty solid basis for illegality.

You can argue ad infinitum about the human-ness of fetuses, but that avoids the real practicality of what a total ban on abortion would look like.

It also avoids a major point I made about it not mattering if the fetus is human/god/whatever. There are conflicting interests when the two share one body. Pro-lifers, as they love to call themselves, think that the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the woman (while they pretend it is equal). I and millions of others strongly disagree and value the woman in much higher regard, including her decisions about what to do with her body.

As for Romania, where in the heck did you get that I was trying to say ANYTHING about a "correlation between higher crime rates and legalized abortion" vis-a-vi Freakanomics? Romania was offered as an example of what a country with both abortion and contraception being illegal looks like. It doesn't look like this glorious "culture of life" to me when both are banned. It looks very anti-human to my eyes, anti-woman and anti-child to the extreme. The Romanian example gets at what Jimbo is calling for, but has yet to admit, that he supports the idea of a pregnancy police. He supports jail-time and the death penalty for violators of his and his religious cohorts sense of morality. (And don't be fooled, no one is so strongly anti-abortion without major Catholic or evangelical roots, unless you just happen to be a communist dictator looking to pump up your population.)

Somehow I suspect that Jimbo will prefer not to address what the fulfillment of his morality, established in law, will look like. He wants us to think it's all this do-gooder sense of right and wrong. He'll show himself in sheep's clothing until abortion is outlawed (kind of like someone who runs for office as a "compassionate" conservative and then drops the compassionate ruse once in office). The wolf will not come knocking on the door until AFTER it is illegal. Then we can look forward to pregnancy police, jail for women, and the death penalty for doctors. Again, read about Romania's example. It wasn't pretty, and it didn't even cut down on abortions.

Do we really want an anti-abortion police state? That is the real question, not about the nervous systems and consciousness of blastocysts and developing fetuses. Jimbo thinks rape victims should be compelled by the laws of our land to produce child. That's not "emotional knee-jerk" to point out such things -- them is simply facts, facts that Jimbo seeks to avoid owning up to here.

"And don't be fooled, no one is so strongly anti-abortion without major Catholic or evangelical roots, unless you just happen to be a communist dictator looking to pump up your population."
Did you see the guy with the "I'm an agnostic and I'm pro-life" sign? Do you suppose he's a communist dictator? I know plenty of pro-life agnostics and atheists. In fact, some of the strongest pro-lifers I know are agnostics and atheists.

As for Romania, there are plenty of human rights abuses in dictatorships...but is every country where abortion is illegal a police state? Malta isn't a police state, Ireland isn't a police state, Poland isn't a police state, but each of these countries has either an outright ban or heavy restrictions on abortion. It is possible to have restrictions on abortion without becoming a communist dictatorship.

What are the enforcement mechanisms you propose? What are the penalties? What branch of law enforcement should enforce these new laws on women and doctors? Do we hire new cops to enforce this or do we transfer those from another department? Do abortion doctors, murderers as you would call them, get the death penalty? Do women who were raped and have an abortion go to jail? Perhaps we could just stone them to death and save the expense of jailtime.

BTW, 99% of the anti-choice movement are fundamentalist Christians in this country, even if you can point to one odd-ball with an agnostic sign. Who paid for the BART ads? Who organized the march in SF? Who is W's base that he speaks of having a "noble" cause? Agnostics? Hardly. It's the good ol' boys who run religion in this country and across the planet. Fundamentalist, women-hating, Bible-thumping patriarchs.

Sure, but this only documented the ones related to the outlawing of abortion and contraception. Was it worth it to outlaw abortion there? Are you so nutso anti-abortion that 10,000 women dieing is acceptable, in a relatively small country even? 200,000 children in crappy orphanages.

Women in Ireland who want an abortion merely have to travel to Britain to get an abortion -- that's like going from North to South Carolina, not great but not impossible. And Ireland is slowly relaxing restrictions, not tightening them (and it is moving closer to legal gay marriage, which not a sign of growing Catholic clout). Your folks would outlaw it for thousands of miles in all directions across North America. When people are not free to travel outside of the country, or costs are prohibitive except for the wealthy, then you would make things here much more repressive, more like Romania than the slowly liberalizing Ireland. Malta? You had me on that one. I had to look it up. They have a population less than half a million, about the size of a medium US city. Is that the golden example of a "pro-life" country your people are passing around these days?

Curious on your enforcement methods of illegal abortion in the US. Curious if you would outlaw contraception as well. Curious how many children you have adopted or would be willing to adopt. No flowery platitudes about loving life, explain the nitty gritty of how your morality works on an enforcable level. People WILL defy you, so how does your theological dream-society deal with that?

First of all, it matters whether the fetus is considered human. If the fetus is human, abortions performed for reasons other than medical necessity are clearly immoral (whether this immorality should be regulated by the states is another issue). However, if the fetus is not quite human, then there is no such moral issue. That seems fairly obvious.

In talking about the humanness of the fetus, I was talking about the potential for the fetus to have rights or not. I don't personally believe that there is any good reason to give even a third trimester fetus any status that would prohibit its destruction.

You're talking about the forest for the trees -- I was not talking about abortion in any broad sense, but specifically about a comment made about the status of a fetus being a tangled problem. So in that respect, Romania is irrelevant.

I'm not sure you're correct about abortion rates in Romania increasing during prohibition. The statement on Childbirth By Choice is that during prohibition Romania had a higher rate of abortions than countries where it was legal. Since Romania has had one of the highest rates of abortion continuously, it is possible that the rate of abortion diminished during prohibition but was still high. I'd love to see data to the contrary because I have seen the reduction of the number of abortions during prohibition cited as a possible precipitant cause for the downfall of the dictatorship in at least two well respected sources.

Now let's get to the forest:
It seems that the pro-choicers here frame their argument as something like "Anyone pro-life is a religious nut, and there are only faith based arguments against abortion. They want to ban abortion in all cases. This places the rights of a fetus above that of a woman. Therefore..." and well, there isn't any therefore. Presumably it is "Therefore all abortion should be legal." The arguments made only give the most extreme cases as examples, where it's a question of the mother's life or the fetus's. This is a rather weak argument if you want to talk about abortion as a whole.

I've made the trees argument for abortion (which is basically that there is no good reason to consider a fetus human), which works for all cases, from the most extreme to the most banal. What is the forest argument for abortions performed purely for convenience?

And why is it that this discussion has focused on abortion when what I've been trying to ask you all about is:
a) What the hell was Saturday's march about? it was useless at best, destructive to your credibility at worst.
b) Do any of you consider this report journalism, and why?
c) Why does = think that school, cop, bus thing is illegal. Did the city of SF pay for buses to transport walk-for-lifers? I really wish this 'reporter' would be clear and cite sources.
d) Why do you all refuse to make methodical arguments based on facts and logic? you guys are throwing things off left and right without elucidating their implications or how they cover all cases.

your feigned pro-choice attitude is straining thin. we're now onto your little ruse of reasonableness and middlegroundedness

you're no more pro-choice than Jimbo (who is for rape babies and God knows what else), Pro-Life, or any of the other nuts who were bussed in here Saturday and now feel the need to comment on this website.


ps. it does NOT matter if the fetus is human/god/whatever -- the rights of the host creature (i.e. the mother) have to be superior or you have a bizarre upside-down world, yes, like Romania with abortion police and doctors getting killed. (apparently you don't think 10,000 women dieing or 200,000 kids in crappy orphanages is immoral. what would the numbers be in a country of 300,000,000 like America? I shutter to think of it). your feigned middleground is the tact the anti-abortion theocrats are taking these days trying to trick reasonable people into increasing restrictions, starting with parental and spousal notification laws, until one day the wolf is at the door and pregnant victims of rape are in jail until their babies are born. the greatest evil is to take away choice from adult women, to criminalize them -- you want to enforce your morality. at any rate, we are now on to you, and I'm done with you. you are all liars trying to trick your way into an anti-abortion theocracy. if pro-choice (PRO-WOMAN) folks have anything to say about it, that day will never come and you can stuff your theocracy

the figure for 80,000 for a cop is outrageous. they make at the most 50,000 to start, and i've never met a police officer that made 150,000 that isn't chief of police

"Do abortion doctors, murderers as you would call them, get the death penalty? Do women who were raped and have an abortion go to jail? Perhaps we could just stone them to death and save the expense of jailtime."
Firstly, I didn't call abortion doctors murderers. I do believe abortion is murder, but I am not sure about calling people who do something that is legal and may be unaware of the evil of what they do "murders." Regardless, no I would not want them to get the death penalty as I am against the death penalty in general. As for women who seek abortions, I would not impose particularly harsh penalties on them because a great deal of stress and mental anguish often accompany a decision to abort. Furthermore, I doubt many women would be caught seeking abortions, though abortionists performing abortions would be easier to find.

"BTW, 99% of the anti-choice movement are fundamentalist Christians in this country, even if you can point to one odd-ball with an agnostic sign. Who paid for the BART ads? Who organized the march in SF? Who is W's base that he speaks of having a "noble" cause? Agnostics? Hardly. It's the good ol' boys who run religion in this country and across the planet. Fundamentalist, women-hating, Bible-thumping patriarchs."
Well, a person who doesn't match your stereotype of a pro-lifer cannot simply be dismissed as an oddball. I doubt 99% of pro-lifers are "fundementalists" given that Catholics make up a great deal of the pro-life movement and they largely reject fundementalist theology. Furthermore, I know some strongly pro-life agnostics and atheists. I'm not saying they make up a particularly large portion of society, but then agnostics and atheists make up a small portion of society in general. To call opponents of abortion "women-hating" is also inaccurate. Certainly I will concede that there might be some anti-abortion people who are misogynistic. There may be some anti-death penalty activists who cheat on their taxes, and there may be some volunteers at homeless shelters with secret cocaine habits. However, the majority of pro-lifers really do believe in what they say, and wish to defend mothers and children. I will also admit that there is a perception by pro-lifers that pro-choicers are baby-killers or are uniformly malicious and despise families. While some may be like that, most I'm sure truly believe they are defending choice and autonomy. I think they're wrong, but I don't think all pro-choicers are malicious.

"Sure, but this only documented the ones related to the outlawing of abortion and contraception. Was it worth it to outlaw abortion there? Are you so nutso anti-abortion that 10,000 women dieing is acceptable, in a relatively small country even? 200,000 children in crappy orphanages."
There was more to Romanian society than the illegalization of abortion. Communist dictatorships do tend to be horrible places. Family structures and society tend to be torn apart when a country suffers war and revolution and dictatorship. The "crappy orphanages" the children end up in are not the only thing crappy about the state of things: most likely poor health care and lack of social support contributed to the horrible situation in Romania at least as much as illegal abortion.

"Women in Ireland who want an abortion merely have to travel to Britain to get an abortion -- that's like going from North to South Carolina, not great but not impossible. And Ireland is slowly relaxing restrictions, not tightening them (and it is moving closer to legal gay marriage, which not a sign of growing Catholic clout)."
Well, it is legal to travel outside of Ireland for abortion, but it is still illegal in Ireland (including Northern Ireland, oddly enough). I wouldn't say they are slowly relaxing restrictions...they have relaxed some restrictions (the "morning after pill", while widely availiable, was in fact not explicitly ever legalized). I've been involved with some pro-life activism in Ireland, and there is certainly a wide base of support. I'd hardly say they're about to legalize abortion...I would not be surprised if abortion were made legal there, but if it were there would be a wide pro-life movement opposing that decision.

"Your folks would outlaw it for thousands of miles in all directions across North America. When people are not free to travel outside of the country, or costs are prohibitive except for the wealthy, then you would make things here much more repressive, more like Romania than the slowly liberalizing Ireland."
Yes, I would outlaw it all over North America. My friends in Ireland, if given the chance, would surely outlaw it all over Europe. However, I strongly doubt that either America or Western Europe would end up looking like Romania due to abortion being illegal...now, if we installed a totalitarian government and destroyed most social institutions, then maybe we'd start having those kinds of problems.

"Malta? You had me on that one. I had to look it up. They have a population less than half a million, about the size of a medium US city. Is that the golden example of a "pro-life" country your people are passing around these days?"
Okay, so Malta is small...it has a population about the size of Fresno I suppose...for comparison Ireland has a population about the size of Los Angeles. But, I don't see how it's smallness is an argument for legal abortion...Malta seems to manage without legal abortion and without becoming a police state...why then shouldn't a city or state in America be able to deal with a similar law? I will admit that Malta is not a great model for America, and that we shouldn't attempt to be like Malta or to be like Ireland, but I merely wished to point out that there are countries which are generally free and decent places to live where abortion is illegal.

"Curious on your enforcement methods of illegal abortion in the US. Curious if you would outlaw contraception as well. Curious how many children you have adopted or would be willing to adopt. No flowery platitudes about loving life, explain the nitty gritty of how your morality works on an enforcable level. People WILL defy you, so how does your theological dream-society deal with that?"
I already went over enforcement methods. As for contraception, I think it would be unwise to ban it. I am against it's use and would not use it personally, but it does not cause the death of a human being the way abortion does. I would put it in the same category as much sexual immorality: it may be wrong, but is ultimately a matter that should not be controlled by government. As for adoption, I don't currently have a job or the money to support a family, and I am not married and would not be able to give children the amount of attention they deserve. However, when I get out of school and get married, I would be willing to adopt children. I'm not sure how many...that would depend on how many my family could support. I do have family who have adopted three children, and frankly the charge that's frequently hurled at pro-lifers that they don't adopt is unfounded. As for a "theological dream-society", in my above post I didn't mention God once...it happens that I'm a pro-life Catholic, but I was for many years a pro-life atheist, and my position on abortion has not changed in intensity or in nature.

"Nice try" says this to "JF"
"you are all liars trying to trick your way into an anti-abortion theocracy. if pro-choice (PRO-WOMAN) folks have anything to say about it, that day will never come and you can stuff your theocracy"
This is unfounded...JF claims to be pro-choice, and I see no reason to disbelieve him. He made an argument in favour of abortion, and I can't imagine a pro-lifer doing that. Certainly he never made any attempt at advocating for a theocracy (neither did I, and I am arguing against abortion), and so accusing him of this seems...odd.

from women who are more directly impacted by whether or not they are forced to bear a child against their will. frankly I already heard enough of the male antichoice side on Saturday.

We are pretty lucky here. In foreign countries dependent on US aid, they have less choice over reproductive rights than US citizens. And even some US citizens have less entitlement than others, as you may note from the example of New Orleans. How may people in SF were shot at trying to get off the freeway overpass after the 89 quake? And yet in New Orleans just this last year, racist cops did just that, and the citizens of white townships applauded them as heroes and still do.

Anonymity, Foolishness, and the Case for Coherent Argument

I don't think anonymity is helping anyone in this discussion -- it makes certain threads of thought difficult to follow. I'm not sure if I've already commented to Nice Try. It's be nice to know whether I have so I could save some breath.

Nice Try: It is blatantly absurd to think that I'm Pro-Life. I gave you several pages above a really complete bottom-up defense of abortion, which, depending on who you are, you may or may not have attacked for it being bottom up rather than top down.

By way of defending my bottom up approach I claimed that the humanity of the fetus matters because if a fetus is in fact a human with all the rights of a child then that does influence several abortion situations.

I'm going to work it out REAL SLOWLY for you, Nice Try: Consider that a woman is pregnant. Her pregnancy could have been involuntary, voluntary, or accidental.

Now, we're going to do as you wish and say that the woman's rights supersede those of the fetus (which FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT we assume to be human and so have the rights of a child).

Okay, so woman #1 is pregnant because she's been raped. She should not be prohibited from aborting the fetus because her right to life, liberty, and so on, which has already been transgressed, would be further transgressed by her being forced to carry the pregnancy to the end. This is pretty clear, pretty obvious, basically follows roughly from everything I've said previously.

Woman #2 and #3 are in slightly different situations (ASSUMING THAT THE FETUS IS CONSIDERED HUMAN ... just a reminder, Nice Try, so you can follow along). Woman number two chose to become pregnant (e.g. chose to form a human within her). And woman number three became pregnant because either she was careless or because she was misled. If she was misled, she becomes woman #1, and has been in effect raped. Now, we're also going to assume that going all the way with these pregnancies won't jeopardize the life of the mother (because, you see, her rights supersede those of the fetus that we're assuming has child-rights).

So we have woman #2 who changes her mind, and woman #3 who was negligent. Now, it is much more difficult to make an argument in favor of these women's rights to an abortion IF one considers that a fetus is already a child. After all, one has no right to kill a child one changes his or her mind on, or which one forgot to abort. Is this absurd? Is my reasoning flawed? If so, please explain how.

***This is important, Nice Try --> Now, I've only given these examples because they show why it is necessary to have a coherent idea of whether or not a fetus is human, i.e. whether it should be considered a child.

I'm not going to talk about Romania anymore. Police states and dictatorships are bad for health, and bad for productivity. I think the government should stay out our bodies and out of our minds. It's there to tell us to keep our hands off each-other, not off of ourselves. Besides I still haven't seen a post commenting more fully on the topic of why abortion should remain legal because it's good for society (or more exactly, because it being illegal is bad for society).

----

Okay, so I've covered anonymity, and foolishness. Now how about coherent argument. I thought this website was supposed to combat the biases of the mainstream media? I didn't expect that it was to battle bias with bias and irrational thought with irrational thought.

The failing of most of San Francisco's progressive protests, lobbying, and propaganda (no, it's not a bad word, it's simply material that attempts to influence thought) is that it is emotional, self-righteous, and unclever (I mean, half the hoots I heard from the pro-choice march were just insults that had little or no relevance to the subject of abortion). I thought it was the conservatives that were supposed to be all of those things? I'm not saying that the conservative base isn't largely ignorant, easily swayed by emotion, and holier-than-though, but there's nothing on this site that shows progressives to be any better. And that is beginning to sadden me terribly, and is the reason I started commenting here.

I think that people who think that abortion should be a right without any constraints support an ideology of that is not consistent with nature. I don't know of any animals that kill thier babies simply because they "are not ready". Abortion leads to many problems for women AND the society as a whole. Check out the link I've provided about Germany.

This is only a fact check:
There are many cases of infanticide in animal populations. Norway Rats and Baboons both kill their young in various circumstances. Here are some references: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~palombit/ and http://www.ratbehavior.org/infanticide.htm

Here is a pubmed search on the subject:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

..and works forty hours a week, and still has to navigate the political minefield that anti-choice forces have laid for her, and still continue a process of personal/emotional/psychic growth that the abortions made possible.
We, in other words, who are bearing the brunt of societal displeasuure and religeous intolerance, are working overtime to produce the arguments needed to maintain findings like Roe v Wade, and also battling feelings of intense fear. It's scary to have someone say "abortion is murder" only to insist in the next breath that you aren't actually calling the woman a murderer- no, no..she didn't understand what she was doing. As soon as you recover from the indignity of being told you don't have the cognition of an adult, you realise that showing that you do may mean that you will be called a murderer. (with all the legal ramifications attendant on that accusation)Bit of a double bind. Do you agree to believe you are fatally infantilized because of your sex, in return for a full pardon of your "transgression"?
Or do you show- explicitly-that you have what it takes to comprehend and evaluate your decison to abort as an adult, and that you trust the findings that your reason and spirit present you with and that you find your abortion an acceptable and defensible act and that you are willing to go public with that, and step out from the political shelter that excrutiatingly condescending attitude provides?
I have chosen the latter.

That declaration of independance aside, it is maddening to insist that a thesis/anti thesis argument, which you both seem to call for, is the only form capable of conveying a cogent rebuttal to both your arguments. To build a moral case for abortion based on alluding to or rebutting your points is to still give those points, which do derive heavily from Christianity, more weight and heft than I wish to give them. I don't refer back to Christian thought at all when I speak of the morality of my decision. I am not Christian, nor have I departed from it, so in no way must I refer to it.

Scientific evidence for the biological humanity of the fetus is useful, mostly because it gives quantifiable voice to the progressive and socially constructed terms such as "baby".
But the equation between a "fetus" and a "human" isn't straightforward. Human (to me) implies continued and deliberate and progressive investment- social, economic, emotional, material- in other words a socially created as well as biologically based being. You can call a fetus human, which it is, but looking to the fetus to find the highest expression of the idea of "human" subtracts layer after layer of accumulated meaning of that term until all that is left as a primary definition is a being which is pre-conscious and pre-cultural.
Fetuses exist, first and foremost, biologically, and are subsumed within a larger system(the mother). Science can adequately express and map out the amazingly integrated system that a pregnant woman is, but social and political constructs, I think, lag behind science and have a hard time describing and ascribing authorship to the creative reach and psychic extension of the pregnant women, and the personhood she creates (not God) by proxy for the dynamic life form within her.
Or not, if she decides that personhood is not a process she'll take part in.
The findings of women, like myself, who have had abortions, and who have found abortion to be an act of deeper morality than giving birth, are nowhere described, textually, or artifactually...That there are no common law practices which survived which valorize the decision to abort (if it is not coerced) as well as empathize with the critical role the woman plays in reproduction on this planet (we create, incidentally, in concert with a whole host of other living systems which do not hesitate to edit themselves), do not reflect the truth that abortion can never be endorsed...the lack of law simply reflects the passing over of these findings that emanate from women and their experiences with birth and abortion. This is the patriarchy plaint, condensed here. My fingers are getting tired.
John, I understand that you are pro-choice, btw. And that the person who calls themselves "pro-lifer" is now Catholic, although he/she was once an atheist and held the same views. I know that humanism is capable of the same mistakes that faith based systems make.
Lastly, the following is chilling....
"As for women who seek abortions, I would not impose particularly harsh penalties on them because a great deal of stress and mental anguish often accompany a decision to abort. Furthermore, I doubt many women would be caught seeking abortions"
"Particularly harsh", huh? How many years in prison, exactly?
And actually, in the end, I did abort because I didn't want a child, not because I was raped. I aborted (abortion is abortion- its own act, not murder...) because I determined that I would not have a child. It was that simple. Sustainability is a much bigger mandate for me than 'life', or birth, which is what the "pro-life" movment could be more properly called.

Thank you thank you thank you for your comments. Not only have you really encapsulated all of the things I was long-winded-ly trying to get at, but you did so in an editorial sort of way that, while not the sort of plodding along argument I was using, was coherent and complete.

I was worried there for a moment.

I hope you see that my distinction between reasons women have abortions was just to illustrate a point. I think the mere choosing to have an abortion is a good enough reason to justify having an abortion. I think an especially important reason for having an abortion is the very reason you had yours -- because a child deserves a healthy upbringing, and because the world and humanity deserve responsible procreation from people who are capable of it, that is, all of us (I'm actually not 100% sure that all of those things are what you meant.)

One of your finest points was the reminder that a fetus, during most if not all of a pregnancy, is pre-conscious and pre-cultural. I was trying to illustrate at least the former in part of my science-based argument. The latter was a fleeting thought I had, but I'm in no way sure how to make the pre-cultural argument, or even state exactly why that's important. Can anyone help here?

Finally, I want to commend and thank you for making me aware of one of my hidden assumptions. I haven't been to church since I was 16, but I was raised in a family that encouraged church going, even if most of us didn't go. But so, you mentioned -- and I think you're right -- that it is specifically a man and a woman that together create a new living thing (and I guess sometimes a woman and a woman, with all this new-fangled tech these days). It might be as inherent and involuntary an ability as seeing, but still, humans make new humans. The assumption I was hiding from myself all this time was that something extra-human was responsible for "breathing life" into a fertilized ovum.

That really nails it. It seems that without belief in a certain type of god, the anti-abortion position is totally defenseless. I wouldn't force an abortion on a single one of the anti-abortion advocates, but they should get a grip and start trying to live respectfully in a secular nation that allows them to make their own choices about procreation.

Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you, whoever you are, Woman Who Has Had an Abortion. GOD that feels good. ahem, Pardon.

oh, right. About arguments, rebuttal and such. Though my language was very strict, all I was really asking for was that someone either respond to what I was claiming or tell me why that claim was irrelevant. And while in casual conversation like this the only thing that matters is that the arguments be understood, thereby creating a dialogue, the strongest arguments are those that are demonstrably true (indeed, a legal argument with a flaw in the logic is no legal argument at all).

I don't know much about the Hegelian dialectic and so wasn't aware that I was arguing along those lines. Maybe you could fill me in (feel free to email me).

I did not intend to "infantilize" women who have had abortions, nor doctors who perform abortions (who were in fact the people I accused of lacking understanding of their actions). I admit, however, that pro-lifers are in an awkward situation with the belief that abortion is murder. Basically, and act that pro-lifers believe is evil and repugnant has been legalized, and a great many people are convinced there is nothing wrong with it. Are the people who are thus convinced stupid? No, and neither are they infantilized due to their sex (I believe that men who believe in abortion, boyfriends and husbands who want their female partners to get abortions, etc. are just as misguided). I know women who have had abortions, there are some in my family in fact. They certainly didn't do it out of a malicious or murderous intent, nor did they do it out of helplessness, though in fact confusion and fear did play a part in their decisions. Essentially, women who get abortions do it because they think it is a legitimate option. If you will look at it from the point of view of a pro-lifer (for a moment), you can see why we would work so hard to make abortion unavailiable.

If I were making the laws, I would not give penalties to women who seek or obtain abortions, especially given that abortion has been legalized for so long that many people believe it is entirely okay...pro-lifers will almost always admit that simply illegalizing abortion will not be sufficient, and that more social change is necesary. I know many pro-lifers who have adopted children, many who help the poor in shelters, even some who would pay for a woman's medical care related to a pregnancy if she would carry the baby rather than aborting it. Of course I don't expect the benevolence of some pro-lifers to convince anyone that abortion is wrong: if I saw a pro-choicer feeding the homeless it wouldn't convince me that they were right. However, there is a good deal more complexity to the pro-life argument than "make abortion illegal, then forget about it".

As for "sustainability" vs. "life" as the mandate, I'd say our laws are generally based on a preference for life over death. Perhaps you'd say this is the aspect of the pro-life argument that relies on Christianity, though I think such a preference is more widespread than that. I would not want to live in a society where individual lives were placed below a conceptual idea like sustainability.

Maybe you are worth giving the benefit of the doubt on this, maybe not.

It is pretty illogical to say such a thing, and perhaps more illogical for anyone else to believe you.

Especially considering that you loudly self-identify as "pro-life" and talk about working "so hard to make abortion unavailable."

There's an enormous contradiction there.

You're not going to make it "unavailable" unless it is illegal. If it is illegal, there have to be penalties or else what would being illegal mean?

You could argue that you personally wouldn't penalize women (didn't hear your morality enforcement position on doctors), but that's disengenuous when you know damn well that 99% of so-called pro-lifers want their ban on abortion to come under penalty of law.

I could suspend disbelief even another notch and imagine your fantasy world where woman are not penalized, there's no pregnancy police, and somehow magically (through doctor penalties perhaps?) abortion would still be "unavailable". This is still an anti-woman world. Women, through the unavailability of choice in their lives, would be defacto forced to bear children they do not want or are not capable of raising. Hand-in-hand with the ban of abortion is a ban on contraception from most pro-lifers. More babies. More unwanted babies. You're looking at more than the million or so abortions a year as less pregnacies would/could be prevented as well. So, you're looking at perhaps 2 million, or far more even, extra babies every year. Who's going to take care of them? Largely it will be woman, who will be forced to quit school (or kicked out at conservative schools), quit college, quit promising careers, quit the things that might lead to a life whereby breeding becomes a reasonable consideration. Instead, it's unprepared mothers, unwanted babies, more women at home (as many pro-lifers would like), less women in positions of power (see previous aside), more patriarchy (etc), and more suffering for women in general. Not to mention the serious health risks for women who defy the law and chose to abort in illicit conditions. Many abortions will happen irregardless of the law.

I could suspend disbelief. I could give you the benefit of the doubt on a personal level. But I'd be a fool to pretend a strongly anti-woman wolf was not knocking at the door right now.

I did state above there would be penalties for doctors who perform abortions. In fact I would think if abortion were made illegal many doctors would stop performing them, though of course some would continue to perform them. As for women who would obtain illegal abortions...I don't see any need to punish them. They need whatever help they need (physical, mental, etc.) but I find it hard to believe that they would be a danger to anyone else, the way an illegal abortionist would be. Yes, I would certainly make abortion illegal.

As for a ban on contraception, I already said above I would not make such a ban...people who use contraception are not endangering someone's life (depending of course on the method of contraception...I have heard that birth control pills often act as abortifacients, in which case they do endanger a life). I doubt that most pro-lifers would ban contraception...in fact I find it somewhat odd that pro-choicers think they would. I always hear from pro-choicers that the majority (99%, even) of pro-lifers are "fundementalists". But few Protestants have problems with contraception at all. Catholics do, but there are many elements of Catholic morality that I would not force on others, even if I think they are correct (for instance, I go to mass every Sunday, but I would not force anyone else to).

Finally, I know this is not your intention, but given that I have been accused of "infantilizing" women, it seems that the view that women will invariably be forced to have more babies and quit their jobs and school in the event that abortion is made illegal does just that. My opposition to abortion stems from the fact that it ends a human life, not from some mistrust of women. I would trust women to make the right decisions (not all women, just as I wouldn't trust all men, but most). If abortion were unavailiable, it would not be a consideration and perhaps there would be greater responsibility taken by both men and women to ensure that unwanted pregnancies do not begin, rather than terminitating a child once it exists.

first, ban abortion

then, "perhaps there would be..."

perhaps? perhaps?!? that's a mighty big assumption based on next to no evidence provided here. dreamy and meaningless

you kid yourself to think the world would suddenly become so much more kind. the right-wing wouldn't take outlawing abortion as a monstrous victory and push for more, God knows what. less government assistance for children, women, etc. more authoritarian control. more school prayer. less rights for women. a regressive society based on religious doctrine. we'd be the christian taliban.

it's disengenous to go along with such thinking that so blatantly ignores reality and presumes enforcing your morality on women would all come up roses

again, the devil will not tell you he's the devil when he comes to take your soul. he'll knock on the door and pretend it's a long lost friend coming to visit, only with the best intentions. get fooled and open the door, the wolf will devour you

Except when youre talking biology. "Life' the word and associated meanings, is no less conceptual than "sustainability".

I would like to respond to both postings at greater length, but i'm tired. I want to point out that a little known side effect of illegalizing abortion is the almost simulteneous creation of a black market, where Doctors can now charge huge fees for abortions, that (often)aren't pain-managed or sterile.
Read "Voices from the Back Room" for first hand accounts if women who had illegal abortions. Many of the stories include a reference to doctors who charged thousands of dollars for abortions and pocketed all of it.
Wasnt alcohol really expensive during prohibition?

The pro-abortion position is really quite simple: If you own the house, you have a right to kill the occupants.

If you own the ouse you have the right to control access and deny entrance. And yes, you have the right to kill a part of your body. I have chosen abortion. I am aware of the way in which youre using kill and i'm aware of the meaning that word has, but if it helps you to understand the terms of the debate by focusing on abortion that narrowly, youre welcome to do so.

There are no "occupants". The fetus is me, I am the fetus. Like transubstantiation, you know? That concept the Catholic church hikacked several hundred years ago and has yet to return?

"The pro-abortion position is really quite simple: If you own the house, you have a right to kill the occupants."

It's simpler than that Scott. If you own the woman, you have a right to the contents of her womb.

Who travels around the country teaching rhetoric to would be invaders of my body. I read his entire tract. Gets whipped up into the predictable froth over "moral relativism" and says that it matters not that the fetus is located inside my body. I got this, and other assertions from his "how to argue against abortion" fact sheet.

once again, evidence of anti-choice opposition to rape victims getting abortions. It's very simple Scott, if it's your body and you want to rent it out to rapists, go to town. No? I thought not.

Go to the link below and read the rest of his nonsense:

"This seems like a powerful objection. Rape is profoundly evil. Victims deserve our best care. But there’s a moral consideration as well. Does rape involve two victims or just one? And if the unborn entity involved is human, why should she be forced to give up her life so that her mother can feel better?

Put differently, can you think of any other case where, having been victimized yourself, you can justly turn around and victimize another completely innocent person? Say, for example, a drunk driver plows into your parked car, destroying it. To ease the pain of your loss, you take a sledgehammer to your neighbor’s sedan. Is this morally permissible? If a friend protests your actions, is he insensitive? Hardly. So again, the issue is not, Are pro-lifers cruel?, but, What is the unborn? If the unborn is human, it should not be killed to benefit its mother. There is no moral complexity here."

That abortion is a violent act- that the pregnant women is "victimizing" a separate entity. It isnt, unless it's coerced

You can all me names all you want, but let me remind you that name-calling does not an argument make. So why don't we start with this question: How should a civil society treat innocent human beings that remind us of a painful event?

Dealing with that question might lead to some helpful discussion.

Oh really, did someone call you a name? Missed it.

But you know, there's no really point in discussing anything with someone who regularly engages in ad feminem attacks.

Ad-feminem attacks? What logic course taught you that term?

By the way, pro-life women use the same arguments that I do to defend the unborn. Are you suggesting that these women are guilty of--to use your term--ad-feminem attacks?

Scientifically, these pro-life women (and men) contend that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. True, the unborn have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole human beings nonetheless. Leading embryology textbooks affirm this. Philosophically, pro-lifers argue that there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Differences of size, development, and location are not relevant in the way that abortion advocates need them to be. For example, everyone agrees that embryos are small—perhaps smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence. But since when do rights depend on how large we are? Men are generally larger than women, but that hardly means they deserve more rights. Size does not equal value. Pro-lifers don’t need Scripture to tell them these things. They are truths even atheists and secular libertarians can, and sometimes do, recognize. Yet nowhere in the posts I've read so far has anyone presented a principled argument explaining why pro-life advocates are mistaken on these points.

Truth is, me and virtually every other pro-life advocate are vigourously pro-choice on a whole lot of issues. We're pro-choice on women choosing their own careers, choosing their own religion (if any), choosing their own husbands (if any), choosing their own homes, choosing their own lifestyle, etc. These are choices we wholeheartedly support for the women of our great nation. However, some choices are wrong, like killing defenseless human beings simply because they are in the way of something we want. That's a choice a civil society dedicated to tolerance, diversity, and inclusiveness should not allow.

However, if you can patiently explain to me why the unborn are not members of the human family--and can do so with evidence that's credible--I will surrender my pro-life view immediately. On a personal level, I would prefer not to pass laws restricting elective abortion, but I can't force that view on unborn humans that would be harmed by my personal preferences.

So, instead of getting angry, take a moment to show me the error in my reasoning. All I need is credible evidence that the unborn are not human and I'm fully on board the "choice" wagon.

Who's angry? You're disingenous, I'm just calling you on your intellectual dishonesty.

I couldn't for the life of me wade through your entire post. Editing Scott, editing.

Now tell us why women who are raped should consider carrying the fetus to term? Should they, or should they not have a legal right to decide that?

Hey Uh Huh,

Now there's an intellectually honest response. You say that you can't take the time to read through my post, but you're nonetheless ready to assert that I'm intellectually dishonest.

Oh? In what way?

As to the rape question, I agree that we should provide compassionate care for the victim and it should be the best care possible. That’s not at issue here. It’s your proposed solution I’m struggling to understand. Let me ask again: How should a civil society treat innocent human beings that remind us of a painful event? Is it okay to kill them so we can feel better?

Suppose, for example, that the mother of a toddler approached you with the following request: “My two-year old son was conceived through rape. His father brutally violated me. To be honest, I’ve tried my best to love my son, but every time I look at him, I’m painfully reminded of that horrible rape. I’d like you to eliminate him to help ease my painful memories. I’m sorry, I just can’t bear to look at him any longer.” Should we oblige her so that she can feel better?

You would (rightly) say no. But again, isn’t that because you and I both agree that it’s wrong to kill innocent human beings, even if they do remind us of a painful event?

At this point, you might reply one of two ways. First, you could say that I don’t understand how much this woman has suffered. You’re right. I don’t understand her feelings. How could I? How could anyone? As stated earlier, I’m just asking if hardship justifies homicide? Can we, for instance, kill toddlers who remind us of painful events?

Second, you could reply that I'm comparing apples with oranges--that killing a toddler that is human and killing a fetus that's not are two different things. Ah, but that’s the issue, isn’t it? Are the unborn human beings, like toddlers? That is the one issue that matters.

Again, my claim here is really quite modest. If the unborn are members of the human family, like toddlers, we should not kill them to make someone else feel better. It’s better to suffer evil rather than inflict it. Personally, I wish I could give a different answer, but I can’t without trashing the principle that my right to life shouldn’t depend on how others feel about me. In the end, sometimes the right thing to do is not the easy thing to do. And in this case, what’s right depends on the question, What is the unborn? We can’t get around it.

But just for the sake of argument, let's grant that abortion should be legal in cases of rape. Would you then join me in working to enact laws protecting the unborn against abortions done for socioeconomic reasons (which account for roughly 3/4 of all abortions)?

I suspect that you won't, and here's why.

The "pro-choice" position is not that abortion should be legal only when a woman is raped, but that abortion is a fundamental right she can exercise for any reason she wants during all nine months of pregnancy. Instead of defending this position with facts and arguments, you disguise it with an emotional appeal to rape. But this will not make your case. The argument from rape, if successful at all, would only justify abortion in cases of sexual assault, not for any reason the woman deems fit. In fact, arguing for abortion-on-demand from the hard case of rape is like trying to argue for the elimination of all traffic laws because you might have to break one rushing a child to the hospital.

Know you won't agree, regardless what argument, whether I read your unedited spiel and respond adinfinitum, it will have no effect on your point view. You want the challenge of the joust. If you enjoy your pride in your debating skills- well bravo. Maybe your ego needs it. Who cares.

But I've already had the debate, sorry you missed it, gee wish you could of been there. And I know you and your kind will never ever ever change your mind regardless of debate. You have decided. You know what's best. Some of you are more emotional, some more religious, all seem to feel morally superior. Maybe you feel the same about us, eh?

I just want to reassure you, I'm not angry Scott, I just think you're full of shit. Nothing personal. You don't respect us, we don't respect you.

There are plenty of women with no education and no resources, too young, too inexperienced, not good with words. I don't need to hear them debate. But I respect them. I respect that they know what's best for them. For you- I got nothing.

You don't know anything about them or their circumstances, you want them to answer a litany of your questions. You're not changing any minds, but you're certainly making me determine to fight harder against your point of view. I won't waste my time getting angry and debating you.

Instead, I'll do what I did today. I'll get together a group of my coworkers, and my friends, and talk to them about the need to fight people like you on this issue. Ah, you did a good day's work Scott! Congrats! Abortion will continue. We will continue the fight to make it safe.

Hi Been There,

I'm puzzled by your reply. You won't take the time to engage my arguments, but you nonetheless claim to know that I'm full of shit (Oh? How so?) and that I won't be persuaded by any evidence contrary to my own view.

Actually, you are wrong about my willingness to adjust my views. I'm more comitted to truth than I am to the pro-life position. That is to say, I'm open-minded: I'll gladly surrender my convictions if I'm confronted with a persuasive alternative. That's called the Socratic Quest for Truth and I am committed to that principle in my own learning. Sadly, you are not committed to that principle, meaning it's you, not me, that's closed minded. You've basically decided to believe what you want to believe regardless of where the evidence points. In fact, you won't even take the time to consider an alternative view. This act of blind faith on your part is no different than a religious fundamentalist arguing that the earth is only 7,000 years old despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. In short, I feel sorry for you.

Setting aside the abortion issue for just a moment, let me ask a very basic question: Do you believe people should do their best to live thier lives based on true beliefs or should they be content living with false ones?

If you answer yes to the first part of that question, then it follows you should remain open to modifying your beliefs when confronted with a good argument. That's called intellectual honesty.

Two concluding thoughts before I sign-off this forum and get back to other projects. (Yes, I'll let you and/or the other participants have the last word. Thanks for letting me jump in for a spel.)

First, note that I have not said that only pro-lifers are intellectually honest. There are plenty of thoughtful people who support abortion-choice who make substantial arguments for their views. I disagree with their conclusions, for reasons I've dealt with elsewhere, but they are nonetheless open-minded colleagues engaged in a quest for truth. I'm saddened that instead of taking the high road they have, you've chosen to simply dismiss your opponents with snide remarks. I only wish you were more tolerant and respectful of other views.

Second, I'm open to hearing that my case for life is weak. And perhaps you can think of specific points in my previous arguments that are in need of adjustment. But until I'm actually confronted with a stronger argument than the one I've presented, I am under no obligation to surrender my view.

Indeed, to do so would be intellectually dishonest.

Best Regards,
Scott

You're under no obligation, nor am I. I read your website, yes indeed, you are full of shit on this issue. But hey, just my opionion. Free country, or is it?

Gerri's younger daughter:
I would feel better to think it was sudden and that she didn't have to lay there and be alone. But I don't believe that's what happened. I believe she had some time to think. Because the way the rags were in her hands, you know what I mean, this was a woman who wasn't just sitting about and suddenly collapsed. This was a woman who was in the throws of dying and was doing what she could to stop bleeding and stop, you know. From that picture, that's what it looks like.


Gerri's older daughter:
It's come up in conversation a couple of times. More or less, have you seen that picture... What have you thought. And I hadn't and had never really felt compelled to go look for it. In seeing it, just like with the news clippings, it may sound cold and callous but it doesn't move me a lot. And so the wounds that I may have have healed to a certain degree and I'm sure a lot of anger has gone away and was hasn't has been suppressed and I've dealt with it to the point where it's almost like it being another person. I don't think abortion is right. Mainly because I believe that life begins at conception. Regardless if it's a viable fetus or not, it's a life form. I didn't always feel that way. I must say that at 15 or 16, whatever age I was when I did have an abortion, I didn't think any way. And certainly, we have a right to a choice. A god given right, for a lack of anything better to call it. That's why we're given a brain and certainly I would never want someone to tell me what I could or couldn't do. I honestly believe that I will be judged for the abortion when I was a teenager. As a Christian, I believe I've been forgiven for it. Whether I've been punished for it, I don't know. Whether I will be punished for it, I don't know. But that's something that I believe that someone should think about when they make that decision.

According to the link below, pro-choicers are losing the argument. (The article is a review of a piece in the social science journal "Society.")

Maybe the anti-choice side is more sophisticated in its reasoning than some left-of-center people think? Didn't Naomi Wolf say something like this a few years back?

http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-02-20

There comes a time when reason simply fails. Especially with fascist-fundamentalist nutcases. They need meds, not debate.

A Native American debating General Custer
A Black American debating the Ku Klux Clan.

It's very simple. Women have a right to self-determination. You don't respect that right.

And like a child with a neglected puppy, you simply haven't shown a sense of responsibility for the children already brought to life who are treated like so much garbage by people who should know better. Priests who molest them, abusive parents and foster parents, neglectful governments who abandon them to natural disasters, and then keep them living in toxic land with polluted water.

Your comments prove the point made by the writer of the "Society" article, the one I mentioned earlier. The anti-choice side is way more sophisticated in its argumentation than you give it credit for. Your simplistic rants won't carry the day against some of their top people. Maybe it's time we faced this.

What's needed are philosophically trained and engaging pro-choicers (David Boonin, Naomi Wolf, and Judith Jarvis-Thomson come to mind), not angry women with axes to grind. Surely we can do better than that.

Can you say "President elect Jeb Bush?" You will be if we don't change our methods of discourse.

If you wish to characterize someone else's opinion as a "simplistic rant", and you are truly pro-choice, then show us how it's done. The other side likes to characterise women as angry and argumentative, why do you?

"won't carry the day against some of their top people. Maybe it's time we faced this."

Got an inferiority complex Ally? Snap out of it!

"What's needed are philosophically trained and engaging pro-choicers (David Boonin, Naomi Wolf, and Judith Jarvis-Thomson come to mind), not angry women with axes to grind."

Is the debate open for everyone, or just the people on *your* short list?

You know what? Women need to get angry. They're not angry enough. Then they need to steel themselves with determination to fight the right wing denial of their rights. Do you know why they have axes to grind? Have you ever been denied access to an abortion? Do you know what's going on in South Dakota right now?

"Can you say "President elect Jeb Bush?" You will be if we don't change our methods of discourse."

How we frame our arguments in these quaint little discussions will have little impact on the outcome of the next national farce.

I have to say, as a women who has had abortions, and who is "out" about it (cause I think women who have had abortions ought to speak the the experience and why it's legit) I understand where Ally is coming from. I'm not proposing a list, and I don't particulalry like Naomi W, but if we can't call people like Mr. Klusendorf on his sophistry when he unveils it, we're gonna have a much harder time. Thing is, we're going into a time when we have to be, in no particular order, angry as hell, articulate as hell, visionary, compelling and determined as hell, and what comes out of our mouths needs to be memorable and authentic, cause like it or not we're going to be going toe to toe with "their" thinkers. Actually, we should be looking for those opportunities. Anti Choicers will take any opportunity to get their word out-we need to do the same.
Sisters, beautiful women, lets stay together, and not take our tension out on someone when that someone says something that agitates you or that you're not sure is appropriate. A lot is changing. Which is always trying. But we can handle it.

I wrote the comment above yours.

I don't think we need to leave discussion of the issues just to the list of people mentioned by Ally (or people like them). They have valid arguments and important things to say, yes.

But to deny a voice to the people most currently affected by the lack of choice (including women in poverty and women of color) is wrong. There are people who do not have a college degree or a philosophical viewpoint that they wish to argue with put-down artists like Klusendorf. There are people that aren't english-speaking that don't feel comfortable expressing themselves about such a personal issue.

However, they do have self-determination and knowledge of what is best for them. They shouldn't be told to shut down their anger and be told by a bunch of intellectuals what's best for them. Anger is a good energizing emotion.

If the other side want to characterize us as angry women, let them. We have every right to be angry at this denial of our human rights. Just watch how the sexist right wing will try to characterize any strong female politician as "angry" and "emotional". Call them on it, they're not doing the same to the angry men in South Dakota who are trying to pass the ban on women's rights.

I'm angry too...and feel strongly that it is more than just a legitimate expression- I think reverting to anger is healthy and has staved off depression and given me the energy I needed to sort of sprint through the nasty misogyny I have encountered, working as a reproductive rights activist and as a woman is is open about having had abortions.
And I think it's possible to have arguments taken seriously that dont come from an established intellectual, East Coast Ivy League tradition.
But we gotta move those arguments out...and look for opportunties to make them. Klusendorf would attend the opening of a phone booth if he thought he could get his lil' screed in there. I havent seen that same kind of eagerness to get into it publicly from women engaged in the struggle at the grassroots. And I'm just talking about abortion, which is but one path into a larger conversation. Could be anything.