Anti-Choicers Get a Life
A dispatch from the Blogs4Life conference.
By Dana Goldstein
Monday January 22, 2007
Reaching for a muffin, I quite literally bumped into GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback this morning at the Family Research Center. He was about to speak to the Blogs4Life conference on the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and was gamely circulating among attendees in front of the continental breakfast buffet. “Hey there,” he said to me, widely smiling. “Let me just get out of the way here.”
For a second, I was charmed. Brownback’s pastel yellow tie was a perfect fit for his sunny, earnest persona. But the senator’s smile morphed into a slit-eyed scowl just a few minutes later when I asked how he could advocate traditional conservative “limited government” while simultaneously making interference with a woman’s medical decisions a cornerstone of his platform. “Murder is not a small government, big government dichotomy,” he told me sternly, making eye contact. “People are people and they deserve protection.”
To be clear, by “people” Brownback meant “embryos.” By “murder,” he meant “abortion.” And the fact that I framed my question in terms of women’s rights gave me away as a liberal in a heartbeat—if no one had already caught a glimpse of the Campus Progress sticker on my notebook, the New Yorker folded under my arm, or my disappointed look when I learned the event’s free lunch had been catered by Chick-fil-A—a fast food joint not known for its vegetarian options.
I had hoped Blogs4Life would give a glimpse into how anti-choicers hope to use technology to increase support for their movement. But apart from speaker Jill Stanek, there was little discussion of online writing or organizing, and few members of the mostly-male, mostly-middle-aged audience seemed to be bloggers. Unlike other live-blogged conferences I’ve attended, this one had only one audience member tapping away on a laptop. I did meet six Louisiana State University students who stopped in at the conference on their way to the annual March for Life in downtown Washington. Feminist groups at LSU have “like two members,” said Jim Fontaine, a junior, and “are frowned upon by a majority of campus.” Freshman Alyssa Matthews told me that despite the large male presence at Blogs4Life, in her experience, the anti-choice movement was about equally composed of men and women. “Sometimes when women hear ‘pro-choice,’ they think that’s about them,” Matthews said. “But in my group, it’s women and men working together.”
That kind of feel-good talk shows that the anti-choice movement has, quite wisely, taken its critics to heart. The new anti-choice rhetoric isn’t about sin, sex, or salvation; the buzzwords are “community,” “love,” and “healing.” Women who’ve had abortions aren’t cruel, autonomous decision-makers, they are “wounded” victims deserving of “compassion.” Brownback was the most brilliant speaker of the morning when it came to responding to progressive critiques of the “life” movement without openly acknowledging he was doing so. “Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned. It’s going to be a great day for liberty and for freedom,” he predicted. “It will give us back our moral voice around the world … give back the nature and human dignity of everyone in the world, the person in poverty, the man in prison.”
Of course, after he described himself as a traditional “limited government” conservative and a tax-cutter, it was hard to imagine a President Brownback prioritizing programs to reduce poverty—beyond meaningless “pro-marriage” initiatives, that is. Indeed, Blogs4Life was filled with such contradictions. Every speaker intoned against “activist judges” while simultaneously holding up the Civil Rights Movement as the model for the struggle to outlaw abortion, even though judicial rulings were key to making progress on civil rights . A slide show by attorney Peter Samuelson, president of Americans United for Life, featured multiple vague, de-contextualized quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. accompanied by photographs of smiling African American little boys. Samuelson compared Roe v. Wade’s impact to the notorious three-fifths compromise in the United States constitution that counted African American slaves as less than fully human, and to Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 Supreme Court decision that institutionalized segregation. Brownback too likened the deaths of weeks-old embryos to the enslavement and subsequent segregation of generations of African Americans who were actually born. As Ann Friedman writes on Feministing about the event:
See, if you ask Sam Brownback, one of the problems with America is that we treat fetuses as second-class citizens, much like African Americans were treated in the pre-civil rights era. Does this seem more than a little insulting to anyone else? Saying that black people and fetuses (and really, embryos) should be considered "equally human"? Wow.
During a break, David Ferguson, a University of Alabama senior who’s taken time off from school to launch the American Conservative Student Union, was kind enough to get me a bottle of water, even though he knew I was a pro-choice Campus Progress editor. I asked Ferguson whether states-rights social conservatives saw any contradiction in using the federal government to impose anti-abortion laws on blue states like New York and California if a future Supreme Court overturns or guts Roe v. Wade. “Well, that’s what’s great about America,” he told me after thinking for a minute. “You can choose where you want to live.”
Of course, all choice is relative. No one knows that better than the 34 percent of American women who live in a county without an abortion provider, or the 50 million Americans without health care, or the more than a third of American high school students who receive no information about contraceptives in their sex-education classes. In perhaps the most disturbing moment of the conference, Samuelson suggested that the anti-choice movement was opposed to the Enlightenment values of individual autonomy and reason itself. “Is our dignity dependent on our cognitive capabilities?” he asked, arguing that even the most undeveloped fertilized egg is “part of our community.”
The message of Blogs4Life was that if you happen to be a woman, you better not even think about using your fully developed mind to make a dignified personal choice. The government will do that for you, thank you very much.
--------
Comments
Leave a comment about this article below. For more discussion, visit our community page and sign up for your own Campus Progress blog!
|
!
Something that is often overlooked in the abortion debate is the choice of men. What happens when a man doesn’t want a woman to abort his child? I’d like to see a ruling enable men to start suing over that.
Abortion is not about a women’s choice. It’s about the fact that we are allowing a barbaric practice to take place in which a baby is ripped from its mother’s body – completely rendering a father without choice.
— ColumbiaProgressive - Jan 22, 06:07 PM - #“Anti-choice” is a ridiculous label for those who want abortion to be illegal. Do you know of any respected anti-abortion writer who refers to your beliefs as “anti-life”?
If abortion isn’t wrong, why can’t you just call it what it is? Those who oppose the choice of dismembering or chemically poisoning a human being in the fetal stages of development, support the choices of adoption, motherhood, abstinence and contraception. Yes, I know that many pro-lifers “personally oppose” contraception and don’t want it subsidized with tax dollars, but no one wants to make contraception illegal. Thus these people would be “pro-choice” on contraception, whereas they are “anti-choice” on, say, crushing the skulls partially-born infants.
Furthermore, if you were intellectually honest, you would have the decency to acknowledge that Brownback thinks that all human beings regardless of race, religion, gender, physical or mental development all share the equal right not to be killed. In Sam Brownback’s view, he has no more of a right to life than a toddler or a child in the womb. He is not degrading blacks—but if you want to teach students how to smear their political opponents, then kudos to you Dana. If you’d like to teach them how to engage in a battle of ideas, then you are utterly failing them.
— Anon-DC - Jan 23, 12:09 PM - #“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” —Mother Theresa
— Luna - Jan 23, 12:25 PM - #I remember the first conference as being well live-blogged, with a laptops to almost every other attendee. I also talked to a wide demographic of bloggers at that first conference; young, older, male and female. I know they attended by the dozens because I signed the promotional cartoons I drew for their blogs. I know many of the same attended this year as well…they told me they were there!
I had hoped Blogs4Life would give a glimpse into how anti-choicers hope to use technology to increase support for their movement. But apart from speaker Jill Stanek, there was little discussion of online writing or organizing, and few members of the mostly-male, mostly-middle-aged audience seemed to be bloggers.
In addition to Jill’s presentation, Tim from Pro-Life blogs did a liveblog, the conference was webcast live on the FRC site, Bobby Schindler discussed how he first publicized his sister’s case with the help of a Florida blogger, Peter Samuelson from Americans United for Life discussed how Pro-Life bloggers can become involved in State based grass roots efforts, film maker Jonathan Flora and his wife appeared, who’s independently financed ‘Distant Thunder’ movie about late term abortion was promoted extensively by bloggers (including myself) and Ramesh Ponnuru discussed how Pro-Life bloggers can do a better job of competing with mainstream media. There was a panel discussion in the afternoon which included LaShawn Barber, a prominent Black female blogger who you don’t mention in your article, media strategist David All, and blogger Mary Katharine Ham of Townhall. Their focus was, of course, on blogging. If that isn’t discussing how ‘to use technology to increase support for their movement’ what is?
As for the audience members, I’m still trying to figure out what a blogger looks like. Most of the bloggers who feature my Faithmouse/Neverborn cartoons are female, middle aged and younger. If as you stated the audience was a little too middle aged and male for your liking, I imagine Pro-Abortion supporters are guilty of fraternizing with same.
Did you attend the afternoon session?
— Dan Lacey - Jan 24, 01:01 AM - #Did you and Ann work together to come up with this mostly middle-aged male audience line? Or is it just some kind of pro-choice lense that allows you to filter out seeing anyone who doesn’t match your assumptions about prolife people. I was there with my wife (we’re both under 30) and another friend who happens to be female and under 40. We were in the back row to the speaker’s left.
From my memory of the morning, there seemed to be more women than men in the audience and there certainly weren’t so many more men than women that anyone would notice that when describing the audience.
— Jivin J - Jan 24, 10:23 AM - #Why are you so intent on calling those who are against the infanticide of abortion “anti-choice” and those who side with you as “pro-choice”. Would it not make more sense to call thing as they are, “pro-life” and “pro-abortion”? You are not “pro-choice”, you are “pro killing of unborn children in the womb”.
— brorobin - Jan 24, 02:30 PM - #She’s (rightly) describing them as anti-choice because they are for TAKING AWAY a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body.
— Leah - Jan 24, 03:04 PM - #And by doing so TAKING AWAY the right of the baby to choose whether it wants to be born.
— Luna - Jan 24, 04:05 PM - #But the senator’s smile morphed into a slit-eyed scowl just a few minutes later when I asked how he could advocate traditional conservative “limited government” while simultaneously making interference with a woman’s medical decisions a cornerstone of his platform.
Oooooohhhhh! He got so SCARY when he actually answered your question! He should have behaved like a real politician and smiled and said something nonsensical, I guess.
Can you grasp that some people actually think it’s not nice to kill babies?
— Christina - Jan 24, 05:19 PM - #Leah, the whole point is what the woman has done with somebody else’s body. If all that was in her uterus was tissue, nobody would oppose “removing” it.
Why can’t prochoicers grasp the simple fact that dismembering babies is something some people just can’t get behind?
— Christina - Jan 24, 05:23 PM - #I was there, with four other women (OK three were my daughters, but they often contribute to my two blogs, so they are bloggers-in-training).Feministing and you obviously didn’t notice me in those small, crowded rooms, pushing my 4 year old with Down Syndrome in the stroller. I thought I was in everyone’s way, what a relief!! Senator Brownback was easy to converse with in that buffet room, even when I told him I didn’t think he had a chance at winning. I didn’t see his eyes turn into slits then, nor later during your question. Sen. Brownback tried with the help of Ted Kennedy, to pass a bill 2 years ago to offer updated adn scientific information to parents expecting a child like mine, to prevent the high abortion rate of 80% of DS children. Do you remember that he cited that statistic,mentioned my daughter and that these children are highly desirable to adoptive parents?
— Letcia V - Jan 24, 08:28 PM - #He is quite active in helping to alleviate poverty in Africa, by the way, as well as the suffering of the unborn. used my highly developed, college professor mind to learn all this information, come to my blog and be enlightened.
Anti-choice is such a biased way to label people. I guess that makes you pro-killing, pro-murder and pro-abortion?
— Hans - Jan 24, 10:29 PM - #Anti choice is the only accurate term. No one is “pro abortion” because that means telling other people to have abortions. That is ridiculous.
— MD - Jan 25, 08:02 AM - #Men’s choice about abortion is when they choose to impregnate women.
The disrespect for women is palpable in these posts. The same people who cut assistance to women with kids are the ones damning them for knowing they cannot possibly support a child if they are too poor. Thes epeople claim to love fetuses, but they don’t cae much for mothers or other women.
— MD - Jan 25, 08:06 AM - #“But the senator’s smile morphed into a slit-eyed scowl just a few minutes later when I asked how he could advocate traditional conservative “limited government” while simultaneously making interference with a woman’s medical decisions a cornerstone of his platform.”
A little paranoid, it seems to me.
— Ingrid Mitchell - Jan 25, 08:34 AM - #See, anti-choice is accurate, because it means the woman gets no choices.
Choices include keeping the baby, giving the baby up for adoption. Abortion is one choice, and even people who are pro-choice do not consider that the best or first choice, so really, it is just blowing hot air and generating hostility to talk about how barbarous and murderous the practice is. Both sides agree on that.
Pro-choice is not equal to pro-killing, pro-murder, but anti-abortion is anti-choice. Including the choices that are limited for women who do not have the financial resources to properly raise a child.
Let’s see free medical and prenatal and wellbaby care for all people. Let’s see education early on in school.
The goal of both groups is fewer abortions. If we focus on what we have in common, rather than picking at each other over semantics and the parts neither one of us wants to see continue, nothing will get accomplished.
— Indigo - Jan 25, 11:36 AM - #MD: “Men’s choice about abortion is when they choose to impregnate women.”
And it should be the same for women. When they open thier legs that is their choice. Not to mention women often get pregnant on purpose and lie about being ‘on the pill’ so they can trap him/get child support/coherce him into marriage in which case men get no choice at all.
Will your atrocities against men ever cease?
— Man Oppressed By Feminists - Jan 25, 12:22 PM - #Indigo, are you opposed to inducing birth, delivering a viable living human being and then drowning it in a bathtub? If so, does the label “anti-choice” apply to you?
Secondly, why do you want to reduce the number of abortions? Do you want to reduce the number of appendectomies?
— Anon-DC - Jan 25, 03:05 PM - #The reason people are pro-choice IS NOT because we support “ripping” babies from wombs. We do not believe that other people’s religion should have any say over what we as women do with our own bodies (i.e. Keep your rosary away from my ovaries). PRO CHOICE IS NOT ANTI-LIFE, you blinded numbskulls. Pro-Choice simply means that women should have the right to CHOOSE. There are enough unwanted, beaten, abused, neglected, poor, starving, sick, mutilated children in this country all ready. If you can’t support a child, you shouldn’t be having one. Do you know what women did for abortion before abortion was legal? They used COAT HANGERS to abort themselves. Now, if you take away the right to abortion, you’re technically killing TWO, not just one—because 9 out of 10 pregnant women who do abortions themselves because they can’t get medical help die, along with the babies. They made pot illegal, but people still smoke it. They made alcohol illegal for young people, but thousands still drink and drive and die in car accidents. Making abortion illegal isn’t going to stop abortion, it’s just going to cause more problems and TWICE as many deaths. Look at the statistics before you start preaching. There’s a host of other reasons that women should have the RIGHT TO CHOOSE, but I’ll stop here. I think I’ll put up my own pro-choice blog, so that all you Anti-Choicers can see how unconstitutional you’re being, not to mention, I happen to think of Anti-Choicers as Murderers more than Pro-Choicers, because of what I told you about the coat hangers above. Think about it, morons.
— Connie Pfahlert - Jan 25, 06:59 PM - #Connie,
You know, I thought I was right about abortion being wrong, but after seeing all of the capital letters and epithets in your post, I changed my mind. Silly me.
Question 1: Where is your source that 9/10 women died performing abortions on themselves?
Question 2: If 9/10 rapists died while committing the act of rape, should it be legalized?
Question 3: You write “There are enough unwanted, beaten, abused, neglected, poor, starving, sick, mutilated children in this country all ready.”
By this logic, do you plan on driving through the ghettos of America and killing neglected and unwanted children? If so, do you choose dilation and cuterage, saline poisoning, or an AK-47?
— Anon-DC - Jan 26, 01:13 AM - #Well, clearly the attendees at the event have been notified to comment on your coverage, Dana. I think it’s funny the things they choose to pick out: the “anti-choice” moniker which is really much more descriptive than “pro-life” considering there’s no contradiction in being ideologically ambivalent or even opposed to abortion and believing women should be able to make their own decisions; your literary description of Brownback’s facial expression while answering your question (what, they expect he wouldn’t react to someone clearly opposed to the stated position of the conference?); the presence of women (or lack thereof) as [dis]proven by the commenter’s own gender and the surprisingly same assumption that they didn’t see you.
See, what’s great about the internet is that people can say what they want. What sucks about the internet is that people say dumb shit sometimes. Like that men are oppressed by feminists, and that fetuses can choose whether or not they want to be born (sorry crazy lady, last time I checked, fetuses don’t have free will just yet). The thing is, resonable, logical arguments are never going to get through to people who say dumb shit like that because those statements come from a medically unsubstantiated, scientifically disproven, completely religiously motivated belief that an embryo is a person.
I get religion. I grew up in a religious household. The thing is, Dana, I bet you came from the same kind of religious household—a Jewish one—and if I’m right, your opinions are completely typical for American Jews, over 90% of whom support safe, legal abortions in any circumstances, regardless of reason or special circumstance. That’s because in Judaism, a person isn’t a person until not only are they out of the uterus but out for a good 7 days, just to make sure it sticks. I’m not a very religious person; I just mention this to demonstrate my following the one shitty piece of advice from Barak Obama’s lame-ass speech at last summer’s national convention about developing a sense of empathy. It’s cool, anti-infanticide community, or whatever it is you want to be termed these days, I get it. You’ve got some serious religious beliefs. That’s cool with me, I guess. You can believe what you want. But we don’t make laws—ok, let me rephrase—we are constitutionally obliged to NOT make laws based on anyone’s religious beliefs in this country. Instead, we like to trust people who study and work in the fields relevent, like medicine and biology. I challenge you to show me one anti-choice doctor or biological scientist who wasn’t also a very religious person.
So here’s my empathy towards you: have your religious beliefs. I have mine. Fetuses are not babies. Premarital sex can be a good choice. Women are not out to get men. You can whine all you want, but keep your God-loving hands out of my goddamn uterus.
— Shaz - Jan 26, 01:22 AM - #Hey, MoF – get a life. I haven’t entrapped anyone. I don’t believe I should be punished for the behaviors of the kinds of women I’d never choose as friends.
— Peaches - Jan 26, 11:23 AM - #“The thing is, resonable, logical arguments are never going to get through to people who say dumb shit like that because those statements come from a medically unsubstantiated, scientifically disproven, completely religiously motivated belief that an embryo is a person.”
Shaz, there is no disagreement in the medical community that the words embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult do not refer to a type of organism, but rather an organism at a particular stage of development. A fetus is a complete unique organism of the human species that is less developed than an infant or a child. But does our level of development give us worth? Do human beings not have the right to life simply because they are human?
Science can only tell us what a thing is. But we are informed about how we must treat other human beings through philosophy, metaphysics and religion.
Lastly, what is your definition of a “person”?
— Anon-DC - Jan 26, 01:08 PM - #Yes, our level of development gives us worth. If we can’t survive outside someone else’s body, we’re not really a person.
Does that answer your question?
— Shaz - Jan 26, 01:29 PM - #After reading that “if all that was in the ‘womb’ not body was a blob of tissue,” well, as a matter of fact, that is all it is. At four, or five months, you can stick a fetus with needles, and it dos not flinch.
— MzMeow - Jan 26, 02:10 PM - #I would say it’s extremely clear that most “anti-choicers” are acting on what they consider religion, which is only tangible in their minds, and may not be in another’s. They have obviously, not studied much sciences in biology. They are acting on beliefs and ideas that have absolutely no scientific background at all. I consider that “highly” offensive!
As far as men who do not want the fetus to be aborted. Someone should write a book about “Men who Whine, or Whiny-assed Men.” The only thing I have seen come out from the women’s movement of what was originally ERA’ers is whiny men. And, not much for women at all.
If a man wants a baby so bad, find a way for him to carry it, and bring it up. I can assure you it will be frightening to see what the child turns out like. I am also sure that a lot of women would love to have there male companion go through all the pleasantries of carrying a child to full term. Swollen legs, trying to get up after sitting down, trying to find a comfortable way to sleep, morning sickness, etc., etc. Do you think a man would last that long?
I do not consider “anti-choicers” uneducated, just uneducated in things that count. Like the growth of a fetus while in the womb, and the fact that all men have female attributes until they are about three months in the womb. And, to counter their chagrin, females do not have male attributes at all, or at any point while in the womb. Nature has a tendency to be female.
I understand many of these people are against gays. They also apparently, do not having any training at all about hormonal bathing while the fetus is in the womb. Which is the reason why people turn out the way they do. Bottom-line, anti-choicers have not got a true scientific leg to stand on. The government should not allow them to take us back to the dark ages by imposing their redundant rhetoric, on everyone, and anyone who is foolish enough to listen to it. The only reason any religion finds science offensive, is because they do not have the “facts” to counter it. Non-tangible beliefs are “not” facts, period.
Thanks, Shaz, for pointing out some great points. I also want to clarify that many of the young women at the event were reporters – some of them known to me as pro-choicers.
— Dana - Jan 26, 04:29 PM - #This issue is never going to be resolved by hateful condescending rhetoric back and forth by passionate people who even disagree on what the other should be called. I wish the passion and the focus would be on the real problem: unintended pregnancies. Abortion is not the problem, it is how some choose to do deal with the problem. I just wish more emphasis was put on prevention of unintended pregnancies- which is what I believe to be the most important issue.
— Nic - Jan 27, 06:12 PM - #The point about which this whole argument revolves is one of opinion. There is no concrete scientific evidence to support the notion that an embryo or fetus is a person, a baby, an infant, a child, or what have you. Using those terms to describe an embryo or fetus is a deliberate attempt to inflame what should be clear-headed thinking and sound reasoning.
The reason there is no scientific evidence is because there is no scientific methodology for determining the status of personhood in the womb. Thus it becomes a matter of opinion. It can be said further that one person’s opinion is no better than another’s. If you maintain that an embryo or fetus is a person, that is your opinion. If you maintain that it is a blob of cells, that is your opinion.
Because you find many other people share your opinion does not magically make your opinion a fact. Now here comes the kicker. The rule of law that governs this country is based entirely on fact. Legislators and lawyers supposed to array a compelling amount of facts before a law can be passed (or ostensibly even proposed) or guilt determined, that would favor one side of an argument or the other.
Our Constitution says that anything that isn’t given to the federal and state governments is in the hands of the individual citizen. Thus, the decision to abort or not to abort is a matter of individual conscience, and no law may abridge that decision.
— Luckypuck - Jan 27, 09:22 PM - #It is somewhat funny that liberals (generally speaking) argue primarily by epithets and by creating semantic bedlam. It is almost a source of amusement that pro-abortionists have never successfully argued the foremost values and criterion of the abortion issue: It is morally wrong to wilfully take human life. A human embryo from the very moment of conception meets the basic scientific criterion for life: It grows, responds to stimuli, metabolizes, etc. It is human life. There is strict objective criterion that is applied in defining life, contrary to what Luckypuck may opine. Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human embryo, fetus, etc.
Pro-choicers generally don’t even bother to try and argue with this simple syllogism. Instead, they cloak their inadequacy in code phrases like “choice”, “a person’s right to make decisions regaurding their own bodies” and so on. Yet and still, we have laws against using certain drugs, for instance. And again, we go back to the simple fact that abortion takes a life. This is not like arguing a person has a right to shave their scalps or cut their toe nails.
As to the argument that outlawing abortion goes against the concept of limited government, again, liberals use faulty logic. At no time would anyone dare argue that rape or murder laws constitute “big government”. When Republicans talk about big government, we are talking about issues such as welfare, the progressive tax, and other issues that create more bureaucracy and rob people or individual freedoms and rights actually guaranteed by the Constitution. Noone would try to argue that police and criminal court judges (people that would enforce abortion laws) fit that criterion.
And finally, the Constitution does not say that unenumerated rights simply belong to individuals. It says “they are reserved to the states or to the people respectively”. State legislatures are duly elected by the people and are therefore more than capable of making laws that forbid abortion, which is what had happened in 48 of 50 states before a group of nine unelected fools usurped the will of millions of U.S. citizens.
— ArmySgt - Jan 27, 10:21 PM - #Sarge,
First: You have some major misinformation here. You say “pro-abortionists have never successfully argued the foremost values and criterion of the abortion issue: It is morally wrong to willfully take human life.” On the contrary, we pro-choice-ists have argued those values every time a soldier is killed in Iraq. Or an enemy is tortured to death. Or every time someone is subjected to capital punishment. Or a child is shot with a pistol. If we lack any success in these arguments it’s because Republicans value war, torture, capital punishment and guns more than human life.
I’d be pleased to have you point out any epithets or what you see as semantic bedlam. In return, please let me point out in your post the several fallacies you seem to have fallen into so you can rethink it more clearly.
Here is the basis of your whole argument: “ the basic scientific criterion for life: It grows, responds to stimuli, metabolizes, etc. It is human life.” Now, let’s take a frog. A frog grows, responds to stimuli, metabolizes, etc. So a frog must be human life, yes?
Let me turn back another point you make: Anti-abortioners generally don’t even bother to try and argue with any reasonable syllogism. Instead, they cloak their inadequacy in code phrases like “life.” I do this to point out that anyone can make this kind of assertion because, once again, the elements of the assertion are based in opinion, not fact, but it is, unequivocally, an opinion.
Next you say: “When Republicans talk about big government, we are talking about issues such as welfare, the progressive tax, and other issues that create more bureaucracy and rob people of individual freedoms.” Yes, Republicans do talk about those things, but as for more bureaucracy, etc., a Republican administration and a Republican congress created the biggest bureaucracy in the history of the US: Homeland Security. This bureaucracy consistently has, um, robbed people of individual freedoms.
Additionally you state, “the Constitution does not say that unenumerated rights simply belong to individuals. It says ‘they are reserved to the states or to the people respectively.’ State legislatures are duly elected by the people and are therefore more than capable of making laws.” That is correct, but you read it differently than the Founders clearly intended (I know Republicans don’t want anyone to interpret the Constitution except themselves, but bear with me). Note the “OR” in the above quote. It doesn’t say that they are reserved to the states and their elected representatives only. You know why? Because individual citizens’ rights are clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Nor does it say in the Constitution that legislators ever may limit those individual rights, no matter who voted them into office. Keep in mind that in our history, elected legislators enacted laws allowing and promoting slavery, the repression of Mormons and Native Americans, women, gays and a long list of other laws we deplore today.
Finally, of the nine unelected fools who made Roe v. Wade the law of the land, six were appointed by Republican Presidents and were appointed specifically because they espoused Republican’s so-called values. I guess when they did their jobs, which is to use facts to make judgements and not opinions, the Justices decided that the choice should be left to the individual citizens. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways, Sarge.
— luckypuck - Jan 28, 01:35 AM - #It seems in my first contention I left out a key word: innocent. It is wrong to take innocent human life. This, obviously, leaves warfare out of the question. Wars are a necessary evil. Abortion almost never is.
I must tell you that the frog argument is faulty, because the basic fact of the matter is that there are five basic criterion for determining the existence of life. A zygote, fetus, and embryo meet that criterion. What is important is that it is human life. It is beyond refutation that these phases are the first stages of human life, and in fact, are fully human life. Pro-abortionist argument seems to hinge on it not being fully viable if it cannot survive outside of the womb. Neither can an infant without the same basic needs a mother provides in the womb, yet we don’t allow infanticide.
Thus, the syllogism, which you still do not sucessfuly argue, is this: It is wrong to wilfully take innocent human life. A zygote, embryo, and fetus are innocent human life. Therefore, it is wrong to kill a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus.
The framers of the Constitution, I am sure, did not intend person freedom to include what amounts to nothing less than murder. If your argument is taken at face value, any right not enumerated becomes the soul prerogative of individuals. Individuals in all 50 states elect legislatures to enact laws, and in 48 of 50 states, those duly elected representatives listened to their constituents and decided, as is the case now, that a vast majority of people know it to be morally represensible to tear a human being from its mother’s womb. I’m sure there are some people who think child molestation is okay too (not that I am comparing pro-abortionists to child molesters). It’s not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, in line with your argument, the right to molest children is the soul prerogative of individuals. Also note that strict constructionism is a lot closer to the framers’ intent that judicial activism. Note also that the rulings you mention on gays, women, slavery,and native Americans clearly fall within the boundaries of the fourteenth admendment— an amendment written by congress, ratified by the legislatures of the states.
Last of all, note that Roe was a lawless and divided ruling devoid of cogent reasoning or any moral underpinning to explain itself. The basic argument of abortion supporters has always been and will always be, basically, “we know it’s wrong, and we don’t care. A woman’s right to her own body usurps any moral responsibility humans have to protect innocent life”. As evidence I note the most ardent supporters of abortion are the ones that benefit the most, namely young single men in the 18-35 age bracket.
— ArmySgt - Jan 28, 08:33 AM - #Can I please reiterate here that no one is going to convince anyone else that fatuses are or aren’t people and abortion is or isn’t murder? It’s irrelevent anyway, but the futile back-and-forth is making my eyes hurt.
— Shaz - Jan 28, 11:01 PM - #Side note to Shaz: Sorry. Yeah, I know, but doing this stuff is keeping Alzheimers at bay. Besides it’s fun.
Okay, Sarge. Wow! Our posts keep getting longer and longer. This one is REALLY going to be long because you’ve graciously given me so much to work with.
I’m still hoping that you’ll point out any epithets you mentioned in your first reply. And how about that semantic bedlam? You’d be helping me to improve my writing. Speaking of epithets, “pro-abortionists” is one, but it also qualifies as indiscrimination as well. Most of those Republicans who throw that one around indiscriminately are painting us all with a broad brush. A favorite tactic of “anti-choicers” (sigh—just doesn’t quite have the inflammatory quality of “anti-abortionists,” does it?). Many of us personally oppose abortion, but know it’s only our opinion and we don’t think it’s right or fair to impose our opinion on others who disagree. That’s why the only accurate epithet for us is “pro-choice.”
Re. the “innocent” notion: “It is wrong to take innocent human life.” So, each and every day our troops are being killed in Iraq aren’t innocent lives being taken? Or are our troops “guilty” human life? Obviously then, we can’t leave warfare out of the question.
Re. the frog argument. Sorry, Sarge, The criterion as far as you state it is correct (there are soooo many more stages to embryogenesis—like blastula, gastrula and, my favorite, neurulation, among others), but there’ll be lots of biologists scratching their heads about your assertion that these stages of early development are limited to humans. If the frog example is too much for you, let’s look at other non-human mammals. Let’s take, for example, hyenas. Whoops! Golly, hyenas’ gestation is exactly the same. Sperm fertilize the egg, egg becomes blastula, then gastrula (the two stages of zygote), then embryo, then fetus, then it’s born and, if it’s father doesn’t eat it, it’s now a baby hyena. I suppose then that hyenas are humans. Guess what? These stages of uterine development are the same for all mammals, many birds, and, yes, frogs (although I don’t think they call frog stages by the same names, they are still the same developmental activity). According to Wikipedia, the “development of an embryo . . . occurs in both animal and plant development.” So, you might want to adjust your thinking here or else call a cabbage human.
To turn one of your assertions back, “It is beyond refutation that these phases are the first stages of ALL life,” not just human life. And, when you assert that an embryo is “fully human” you make my case for me. What can it possibly mean to you to be fully human? To me, being fully human means we are capable of singing and shopping and whistling louder than anyone. It means we can love and paint and vote and try to make origame and be creative. We can ride a horse, go to the theater, fly a plane, climb a tree. It means if we can’t do some of these things that each of us can make up for it somehow with other stuff we CAN do. To us pro-choicers, that’s being fully human. The fetus will have to wait for that, because the fetus is not FULLY human.
Re. your syllogism: Hold your hat, now. I AGREE with your syllogism. It is wrong to willfully take innocent human life. Are you still conscious? Unfortunately, it’s a fallacy to use this syllogism to argue against choice. Since we don’t have a consensus on what constitutes human life, your syllogism, when applied to abortion, is an attempt to support your point of view, that is, your OPINION. A syllogism, being true, can’t be used to prove an OPINION. There are no objective scientists who have found evidence to conclude when life or personhood begins. Not doctors of medicine, not biologists, not anatomists, in fact, no one. Clearly, if there were some concrete evidence to support anti-abortionists’ contentions about life, we wouldn’t be arguing here. That there is a strident argument going on regarding this issue is prima facie proof that these are ALL opinions.
Re. “code phrases:” We say “choice” because we mean, um, choice. But I know what you are saying: “Choice” really means . . . uh, what? Oh, I see. It means, “We just can’t wait to kill more and more babies ‘cause we just love it so much?” Ridiculous, yes? What we mean by the word “choice” is that, since there just isn’t any scientific evidence (no matter how much pro-lifers wish it would be otherwise) that would take the issue beyond pure opinion, and since we are loath to impose our opinions on others, we leave the choice to the individual citizen. Pretty simple, don’t you think?
Re. the constitutional issue: Who ever said the Constitution condones murder? Did I say the Constitution condones murder? I don’t remember saying anything like the Constitution condones murder. You’re grasping at straws. But you are also correct. The Constitution does say that any rights not covered by the Constitution, i.e., enumerated rights, ARE the “soul” prerogative as well as the sole prerogative of the individual citizen. Your illustration regarding child molestation borders on being sick, but no, you can’t use my argument to justify taking freedom of choice from individual citizens. Abused children are clearly, provably human persons. As I said previously, the laws that you so cavalierly mention have been rendered through the judicial and legislative processes that require provable, concrete FACTS, not OPINIONS to be enacted and enforced. So are the laws protecting children from abuse. Provable, concrete FACTS, not OPINIONS establish the personhood of an abused child. Provable, concrete FACTS, not OPINIONS demonstrate conclusively that abuse of the person of the child has taken place. Can’t say the same thing about a fetus, because, as I said earlier, this discussion would be moot. Legislators would be running to their law books, religious leaders would be running to their pulpits, journalists would be running to their word processors, editors would be shouting, “Stop the presses.”
Re. Roe v. Wade: This is your most egregious assertion and is clearly untrue in every way and shows your willingness to say anything, make any assertion to support your OPINION. One, it’s the height of arrogance to call a Supreme Court decision “lawless.” What other rulings have they made that were lawless? Or are you, as so many Republicans, also willing to paint even the Supreme Court with a wide brush based on only one ruling? The highest court of the US almost by definition cannot be lawless. The court that approved Roe v. Wade was made up of mostly Republican conservative appointees of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. Let me indulge in meaningless painting with a wide brush too: Republicans are all lawless, divisive, devoid of cogent reasoning and any moral underpinnings. Ah, that really feels good. Oh, wait a minute. That wasn’t really meaningless.
Next misinformation: Divided Court? Roe v Wade was passed by seven justices approving and only two dissenting. That can hardly be called a divided court. You’re just plain wrong here.
Next: Devoid of cogent reasoning: Only if you define cogent reasoning as exclusively your reasoning and not theirs or mine. Devoid of cogent reasoning, my foot. Go here and read the damn thing for once. http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/410us113.htm
Next: Devoid of moral underpinning: As a really bad president was wont to say, “There you go again.” Here’s a lesson in jurisprudence: The Supreme Court isn’t supposed to make moral judgements. MORAL judgements, as opposed to ethical judgements, are made in the churches, temples, synagogues, philosophy departments on college campuses, maybe even covens. Courts, however, are supposed to make LEGAL judgements and Roe v. Wade is a most fact-based judgement. Unfortunately, our current Supremes are not prone to making any such judgements, viz. stealing the election for Bush. Funny though . . . three of the justices were hyper-conservatives before they got to the Supreme Court and now they are expressing (albeit quietly) LIBERAL (gasp) points of view. That makes four and counting. Like the world, the Supreme Court inevitably and inexorably become more and more liberal. Like abolishing slavery and letting women vote and upholding civil rights and protecting sexual orientation. Oops, well, that last one will have to wait until next year I guess, but like the others, it’ll come along too. Count on it.
Finally, please send me your citations for claiming that “the most ardent supporters of abortion are the ones that benefit the most, namely young single men in the 18-35 age bracket.” Based on everything else you claim, I bet you just made that one up. If not, please send me some hyperlinks to the sites from which you cite (ah, poetry).
— luckypuck - Jan 29, 02:42 AM - #Luckypuck,
May I just say you are absolutely fantastic! I have not enjoyed reading something soo much in quite some time. Shaz as well :)
Just one thing I wanted to point out that years ago when I was actively pro-choice I would use in response to the “life” arguement. This arguement cannot be won because most anti-choice people believe life begins with the sperm and the egg while most dictionaries define life as memories among other things. Now correct me if I’m wrong but memories cannot take place until there are brain waves…and brain waves come about when? Well certainly not during the first 3 months of pregnancy.
But as I did say the arguement is moot as most people I’ve had this discussion with have always stated life begins with the sperm and the egg, which means every month I’m aborting potential life.. and men…well some of my friends abort potential life waaaaaaay too much!
Either way, I did want to say thank you both Luckypuck and Shaz as you have reinstated my belief in sanity in a world going insane.
— KarenH - Jan 29, 12:50 PM - #I didn’t bother to read all the diatribes here but I will say that the reason anti-abortionists call themselves pro
— matt steele - Feb 13, 03:51 PM - #life is semantics. no one likes to be anti.Also I think that until every anti-choicer renounces the death penalty and war, I shall do my damnedest to not call them pro-life.
and I don’t know why there is a strike through one of my sentences.
— matt steele - Feb 13, 03:52 PM - #And by doing so TAKING AWAY the right of the baby to choose whether it wants to be born.
— Luna – Jan 24, 05:05 PM – #
That is the most stupid comment I’ve ever read. Since when do babies have the ability to choose anything.
— monica - Feb 24, 03:55 PM - #I choose what I can do with my body. No one else. Period. I have that right having been born, with the ability to think and etc. It’s my right and no one will take that away.
Oh and ArmySgt, if I want to take drugs, I did and it didn’t matter what the govt says. I smoke pot. No one but myself will stop me from doing so. And as a single mom, I benefited from my abortion by making sure I could take care of myself and the child I already had instead of irresponsibly adding another to an already difficult life. I did the responsible thing. When I was ready to add another to my life, I had my second daughter 19 years later. It’s not just about “life” there is a quality to life that right to lifers seem to completely miss or not care about. Just have to kid and who cares what happens to them afterwards. That’s irresponsible in my view.
I don’t agree with the title anti-choice, I think they should be referred to as pro-forced pregnancy
— travis - Feb 27, 03:29 PM - #To Karen H.:
I’m so sorry I’ve taken so long to reply to your post, but I’ve been fighting with campusprogress webmaster because the site refuses to recognize me anymore. We’ve tried everything including posting from another computer. Nothing works. This one, if it posts, is one in a long line of attempts.
I’m happy that was able to help you restore your beliefs. My pleasure entirely. Don’t ever give up defending your beliefs. Just keep them as fact-based as possible.
— luckypuck - Mar 11, 12:27 AM - #My mother is a pro life counseler. She has several friends that she convinced not to have abortions and keeps in contact with them helping them whenever they need it. They all are thankful they did not choose to kill their child.
— mark - Mar 27, 10:40 PM - #“Why can’t prochoicers grasp the simple fact that dismembering babies is something some people just can’t get behind?”
Why can’t anti-choicers grasp the simple fact that forcing their religious beliefs on other people is unconstitutional?
I’m a lesbian, but I’m still pro-choice. It is important to me, as a woman, to be respected enough that anyone of my gender may make decisions about what happens to their own bodies.
If you are anti-choice, fine. Don’t have an abortion. Tell your friends and family not to have one.
Keep your nose out of politics, and your hands off the constitution. It is not for you to decide what other people should be allowed to do, provided they are not infringing on your rights, which they aren’t.
— iamjanesbrain - Mar 31, 10:56 PM - #