I disagree. An abortion is not an “attack” on a woman because she chooses to go through that situation, whereas an act of violence is not a situation that a woman (or any victim of violence) chooses to be in.
Besides, don’t you think that whoever killed Laci Peterson should be held responsible for two deaths? She was 1 month from delivering her son — a lot of surviving preemies were born much earlier than that.
Just an opposing viewpoint. I’m not real heavy into the whole abortion debate. I’m not sure I should even have much of an opinion since I’ve never been pregnant myself.
Isn’t it funny that the biggest proponents of abortion legislation are the people who could never be in that situation — men. Maybe abortion or anti-abortion legislation should only be decided upon by women who have been pregnant at some point in their lives?
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
P.S. Not all Republicans are slimeballs. 😉
I disagree. An abortion is not an “attack” on a woman because she chooses to go through that situation, whereas an act of violence is not a situation that a woman (or any victim of violence) chooses to be in.
Besides, don’t you think that whoever killed Laci Peterson should be held responsible for two deaths? She was 1 month from delivering her son — a lot of surviving preemies were born much earlier than that.
Just an opposing viewpoint. I’m not real heavy into the whole abortion debate. I’m not sure I should even have much of an opinion since I’ve never been pregnant myself.
Isn’t it funny that the biggest proponents of abortion legislation are the people who could never be in that situation — men. Maybe abortion or anti-abortion legislation should only be decided upon by women who have been pregnant at some point in their lives?
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
P.S. Not all Republicans are slimeballs. 😉
“I’m not sure I should even have much of an opinion since I’ve never been pregnant myself.”
Without wanting to wade into this too far, I find this type of reasoning very weirdly and oddly politically correct. Writers have gone through this for years: You’re not (black/female/oppressed/gay/bald/short/whatever), so you have no right to speak for those that are.
If the only people who could make laws were those directly affected by them, I think the poor and oppressed would be in a lot of trouble. Democracy started out by protecting those who couldn’t protect themselves. And then suddenly good liberals (like myself, I should add) became very concerned that this was patronizing. That’s fine as long as the poor and oppressed (or anyone who remains powerless politically) have suddenly gained the ability to speak up for themselves. But alas, this hasn’t happened and may never happen…
“I’m not sure I should even have much of an opinion since I’ve never been pregnant myself.”
Without wanting to wade into this too far, I find this type of reasoning very weirdly and oddly politically correct. Writers have gone through this for years: You’re not (black/female/oppressed/gay/bald/short/whatever), so you have no right to speak for those that are.
If the only people who could make laws were those directly affected by them, I think the poor and oppressed would be in a lot of trouble. Democracy started out by protecting those who couldn’t protect themselves. And then suddenly good liberals (like myself, I should add) became very concerned that this was patronizing. That’s fine as long as the poor and oppressed (or anyone who remains powerless politically) have suddenly gained the ability to speak up for themselves. But alas, this hasn’t happened and may never happen…
Jen and James have a point. Violence against pregnant women is not logically in the same camp as the choice to abort a fetus. But keep in mind, the current White House has won support by oversimplifying and making illogical connections- i.e. Sadaam and Osama are both evil therefore they must be conspiring; Sadaam has a trailer so he must be making weapons of mass destruction, etc.
Much as I enjoy poking holes in Kevin’s arguments, I believe he’s right about this one. Lots of GOP faithful are happy or at least indifferent when abortion rights are restricted. Talking vaguely about the sanctity of life, prohibiting “partial birth abortion” (an invented term), and now bringing “fetus protection” into the vernacular are part of a deliberate strategy.
Here’s one of the best defenses for the imperfect but necessary Roe v Wade decision: http://www.philosophynow.org/archive/articles/36goldblatt.htm
It’s a long but satisfying article, very well researched. And it lays out the reasons why I believe I should have an opinion on this issue even though I’ll never be pregnant.
Jen and James have a point. Violence against pregnant women is not logically in the same camp as the choice to abort a fetus. But keep in mind, the current White House has won support by oversimplifying and making illogical connections- i.e. Sadaam and Osama are both evil therefore they must be conspiring; Sadaam has a trailer so he must be making weapons of mass destruction, etc.
Much as I enjoy poking holes in Kevin’s arguments, I believe he’s right about this one. Lots of GOP faithful are happy or at least indifferent when abortion rights are restricted. Talking vaguely about the sanctity of life, prohibiting “partial birth abortion” (an invented term), and now bringing “fetus protection” into the vernacular are part of a deliberate strategy.
Here’s one of the best defenses for the imperfect but necessary Roe v Wade decision: http://www.philosophynow.org/archive/articles/36goldblatt.htm
It’s a long but satisfying article, very well researched. And it lays out the reasons why I believe I should have an opinion on this issue even though I’ll never be pregnant.
Justin,
Excellent article! Thanks for passing along the link.
P.S. (this goes to you too, James) Don’t take me too seriously on the comment that those who can’t be pregnant shouldn’t have an opinion on the abortion issue. 🙂
Justin,
Excellent article! Thanks for passing along the link.
P.S. (this goes to you too, James) Don’t take me too seriously on the comment that those who can’t be pregnant shouldn’t have an opinion on the abortion issue. 🙂
I think abortion is something that should be illegal. I’ve never been in a situation where i wouldn’t want a baby, but even if I did, this is a human being. Dr. Suess’ Horton Hears a Who says it best: a person’s a person no matter how small.
If we have free choice, what about that baby, if he was given a free choice, what do you think it would choose?
I think abortion is something that should be illegal. I’ve never been in a situation where i wouldn’t want a baby, but even if I did, this is a human being. Dr. Suess’ Horton Hears a Who says it best: a person’s a person no matter how small.
If we have free choice, what about that baby, if he was given a free choice, what do you think it would choose?
I’ve always wondered about Steinhem’s answers to the four questions that logically followed from her own:
1. Is a baby a child, or merely the potential for one?
2. Is a child a teenager, or merely the potential for one?
3. Is a teenager an adult, or merely the potential for one?
4. At any time, do we become humans vested with those inalienable natural rights of which we’re all so fond — or is that just potential, depending upon the choice of others?
My own opinion is that DNA does not sit in the womb considering whether to become other or a member of a disposable species, opting for the former only at the moment of birth. The clash of a human being’s right to life with the rights of others to self defense from severe physical or mental distress is a serious matter that neither side of the debate seems to want to explore (perhaps because it is, after all, complicated). The right to life and the right to choose are treated as mutually exclusive in the debates over abortion, yet not in any other area of the law or human activity (e.g., a woman confronting a killer or rapist is excused both in law and morality when she resorts to self-defense, even if that means the other person dies). Until we confront the real issue at stake — this tension between life and choice — we can not move forward.
I’ve always wondered about Steinhem’s answers to the four questions that logically followed from her own:
1. Is a baby a child, or merely the potential for one?
2. Is a child a teenager, or merely the potential for one?
3. Is a teenager an adult, or merely the potential for one?
4. At any time, do we become humans vested with those inalienable natural rights of which we’re all so fond — or is that just potential, depending upon the choice of others?
My own opinion is that DNA does not sit in the womb considering whether to become other or a member of a disposable species, opting for the former only at the moment of birth. The clash of a human being’s right to life with the rights of others to self defense from severe physical or mental distress is a serious matter that neither side of the debate seems to want to explore (perhaps because it is, after all, complicated). The right to life and the right to choose are treated as mutually exclusive in the debates over abortion, yet not in any other area of the law or human activity (e.g., a woman confronting a killer or rapist is excused both in law and morality when she resorts to self-defense, even if that means the other person dies). Until we confront the real issue at stake — this tension between life and choice — we can not move forward.
Kurt,
I find it puzzling that your argument holds distain for the sancity of “life” over “the choices of others” and yet it conveniently ignores the choices all women should have over their own bodies. Are we to say then that oncve a women is pregnant, by means accidental, violent or otherwise, that the choice to carrying that fetus to term is no longer hers but “a life?” That see is merely the icubator for this life? I’m not comfortable living in a world like that.
As for this particular law, in a country with a limping economy, disasterous public schools, a distructive, increasingly expensive and futile war oversees, with more people in prison thatn any other country on earth, this law wasn’t an issue simmering on someone’s conscience that needed to be done because “it was the right thing to do.” It is a cynical political ploy to exploit a media-intense murder for alterior ideological purposes. The fact that it cloaked in protecting the lives of mothers and “unborn children” is disgusting.
Kurt,
I find it puzzling that your argument holds distain for the sancity of “life” over “the choices of others” and yet it conveniently ignores the choices all women should have over their own bodies. Are we to say then that oncve a women is pregnant, by means accidental, violent or otherwise, that the choice to carrying that fetus to term is no longer hers but “a life?” That see is merely the icubator for this life? I’m not comfortable living in a world like that.
As for this particular law, in a country with a limping economy, disasterous public schools, a distructive, increasingly expensive and futile war oversees, with more people in prison thatn any other country on earth, this law wasn’t an issue simmering on someone’s conscience that needed to be done because “it was the right thing to do.” It is a cynical political ploy to exploit a media-intense murder for alterior ideological purposes. The fact that it cloaked in protecting the lives of mothers and “unborn children” is disgusting.
Kevin,
Did you read the *second* paragraph of my commentary?
I don’t deny the long standing right that has been variously called that of personal autonomy, self defense, privacy, or in one Justice’s felicitous phrase “the right to be let alone.” Women (and men) unquestionably have that right. The tension between that right and the right of others to life is a substantial line of tension in the law. I certainly don’t want to go back to criminalizing women for their choices. My point is that I can not accept either pro-life or pro-choice zealotry in which the right upon which that side focuses completely occludes the other.
And I certainly — in fact, enthusiastically — agree that it is morally inconsistent to argue for consideration of the unborn and to ignore the deliberate or reckless infliction of pain and death on the living that constitutes so much of public policy today.
Kevin,
Did you read the *second* paragraph of my commentary?
I don’t deny the long standing right that has been variously called that of personal autonomy, self defense, privacy, or in one Justice’s felicitous phrase “the right to be let alone.” Women (and men) unquestionably have that right. The tension between that right and the right of others to life is a substantial line of tension in the law. I certainly don’t want to go back to criminalizing women for their choices. My point is that I can not accept either pro-life or pro-choice zealotry in which the right upon which that side focuses completely occludes the other.
And I certainly — in fact, enthusiastically — agree that it is morally inconsistent to argue for consideration of the unborn and to ignore the deliberate or reckless infliction of pain and death on the living that constitutes so much of public policy today.
I disagree. An abortion is not an “attack” on a woman because she chooses to go through that situation, whereas an act of violence is not a situation that a woman (or any victim of violence) chooses to be in.
Besides, don’t you think that whoever killed Laci Peterson should be held responsible for two deaths? She was 1 month from delivering her son — a lot of surviving preemies were born much earlier than that.
Just an opposing viewpoint. I’m not real heavy into the whole abortion debate. I’m not sure I should even have much of an opinion since I’ve never been pregnant myself.
Isn’t it funny that the biggest proponents of abortion legislation are the people who could never be in that situation — men. Maybe abortion or anti-abortion legislation should only be decided upon by women who have been pregnant at some point in their lives?
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
P.S. Not all Republicans are slimeballs. 😉
I disagree. An abortion is not an “attack” on a woman because she chooses to go through that situation, whereas an act of violence is not a situation that a woman (or any victim of violence) chooses to be in.
Besides, don’t you think that whoever killed Laci Peterson should be held responsible for two deaths? She was 1 month from delivering her son — a lot of surviving preemies were born much earlier than that.
Just an opposing viewpoint. I’m not real heavy into the whole abortion debate. I’m not sure I should even have much of an opinion since I’ve never been pregnant myself.
Isn’t it funny that the biggest proponents of abortion legislation are the people who could never be in that situation — men. Maybe abortion or anti-abortion legislation should only be decided upon by women who have been pregnant at some point in their lives?
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
P.S. Not all Republicans are slimeballs. 😉
“I’m not sure I should even have much of an opinion since I’ve never been pregnant myself.”
Without wanting to wade into this too far, I find this type of reasoning very weirdly and oddly politically correct. Writers have gone through this for years: You’re not (black/female/oppressed/gay/bald/short/whatever), so you have no right to speak for those that are.
If the only people who could make laws were those directly affected by them, I think the poor and oppressed would be in a lot of trouble. Democracy started out by protecting those who couldn’t protect themselves. And then suddenly good liberals (like myself, I should add) became very concerned that this was patronizing. That’s fine as long as the poor and oppressed (or anyone who remains powerless politically) have suddenly gained the ability to speak up for themselves. But alas, this hasn’t happened and may never happen…
“I’m not sure I should even have much of an opinion since I’ve never been pregnant myself.”
Without wanting to wade into this too far, I find this type of reasoning very weirdly and oddly politically correct. Writers have gone through this for years: You’re not (black/female/oppressed/gay/bald/short/whatever), so you have no right to speak for those that are.
If the only people who could make laws were those directly affected by them, I think the poor and oppressed would be in a lot of trouble. Democracy started out by protecting those who couldn’t protect themselves. And then suddenly good liberals (like myself, I should add) became very concerned that this was patronizing. That’s fine as long as the poor and oppressed (or anyone who remains powerless politically) have suddenly gained the ability to speak up for themselves. But alas, this hasn’t happened and may never happen…
Jen and James have a point. Violence against pregnant women is not logically in the same camp as the choice to abort a fetus. But keep in mind, the current White House has won support by oversimplifying and making illogical connections- i.e. Sadaam and Osama are both evil therefore they must be conspiring; Sadaam has a trailer so he must be making weapons of mass destruction, etc.
Much as I enjoy poking holes in Kevin’s arguments, I believe he’s right about this one. Lots of GOP faithful are happy or at least indifferent when abortion rights are restricted. Talking vaguely about the sanctity of life, prohibiting “partial birth abortion” (an invented term), and now bringing “fetus protection” into the vernacular are part of a deliberate strategy.
Here’s one of the best defenses for the imperfect but necessary Roe v Wade decision:
http://www.philosophynow.org/archive/articles/36goldblatt.htm
It’s a long but satisfying article, very well researched. And it lays out the reasons why I believe I should have an opinion on this issue even though I’ll never be pregnant.
Jen and James have a point. Violence against pregnant women is not logically in the same camp as the choice to abort a fetus. But keep in mind, the current White House has won support by oversimplifying and making illogical connections- i.e. Sadaam and Osama are both evil therefore they must be conspiring; Sadaam has a trailer so he must be making weapons of mass destruction, etc.
Much as I enjoy poking holes in Kevin’s arguments, I believe he’s right about this one. Lots of GOP faithful are happy or at least indifferent when abortion rights are restricted. Talking vaguely about the sanctity of life, prohibiting “partial birth abortion” (an invented term), and now bringing “fetus protection” into the vernacular are part of a deliberate strategy.
Here’s one of the best defenses for the imperfect but necessary Roe v Wade decision:
http://www.philosophynow.org/archive/articles/36goldblatt.htm
It’s a long but satisfying article, very well researched. And it lays out the reasons why I believe I should have an opinion on this issue even though I’ll never be pregnant.
Justin,
Excellent article! Thanks for passing along the link.
P.S. (this goes to you too, James) Don’t take me too seriously on the comment that those who can’t be pregnant shouldn’t have an opinion on the abortion issue. 🙂
Justin,
Excellent article! Thanks for passing along the link.
P.S. (this goes to you too, James) Don’t take me too seriously on the comment that those who can’t be pregnant shouldn’t have an opinion on the abortion issue. 🙂
I think abortion is something that should be illegal. I’ve never been in a situation where i wouldn’t want a baby, but even if I did, this is a human being. Dr. Suess’ Horton Hears a Who says it best: a person’s a person no matter how small.
If we have free choice, what about that baby, if he was given a free choice, what do you think it would choose?
I think abortion is something that should be illegal. I’ve never been in a situation where i wouldn’t want a baby, but even if I did, this is a human being. Dr. Suess’ Horton Hears a Who says it best: a person’s a person no matter how small.
If we have free choice, what about that baby, if he was given a free choice, what do you think it would choose?
Jessica,
Depends. I think it was Gloria Steinam who said “Is a fetus a baby, or merely the potential for one?”
Jessica,
Depends. I think it was Gloria Steinam who said “Is a fetus a baby, or merely the potential for one?”
I’ve always wondered about Steinhem’s answers to the four questions that logically followed from her own:
1. Is a baby a child, or merely the potential for one?
2. Is a child a teenager, or merely the potential for one?
3. Is a teenager an adult, or merely the potential for one?
4. At any time, do we become humans vested with those inalienable natural rights of which we’re all so fond — or is that just potential, depending upon the choice of others?
My own opinion is that DNA does not sit in the womb considering whether to become other or a member of a disposable species, opting for the former only at the moment of birth. The clash of a human being’s right to life with the rights of others to self defense from severe physical or mental distress is a serious matter that neither side of the debate seems to want to explore (perhaps because it is, after all, complicated). The right to life and the right to choose are treated as mutually exclusive in the debates over abortion, yet not in any other area of the law or human activity (e.g., a woman confronting a killer or rapist is excused both in law and morality when she resorts to self-defense, even if that means the other person dies). Until we confront the real issue at stake — this tension between life and choice — we can not move forward.
I’ve always wondered about Steinhem’s answers to the four questions that logically followed from her own:
1. Is a baby a child, or merely the potential for one?
2. Is a child a teenager, or merely the potential for one?
3. Is a teenager an adult, or merely the potential for one?
4. At any time, do we become humans vested with those inalienable natural rights of which we’re all so fond — or is that just potential, depending upon the choice of others?
My own opinion is that DNA does not sit in the womb considering whether to become other or a member of a disposable species, opting for the former only at the moment of birth. The clash of a human being’s right to life with the rights of others to self defense from severe physical or mental distress is a serious matter that neither side of the debate seems to want to explore (perhaps because it is, after all, complicated). The right to life and the right to choose are treated as mutually exclusive in the debates over abortion, yet not in any other area of the law or human activity (e.g., a woman confronting a killer or rapist is excused both in law and morality when she resorts to self-defense, even if that means the other person dies). Until we confront the real issue at stake — this tension between life and choice — we can not move forward.
Kurt,
I find it puzzling that your argument holds distain for the sancity of “life” over “the choices of others” and yet it conveniently ignores the choices all women should have over their own bodies. Are we to say then that oncve a women is pregnant, by means accidental, violent or otherwise, that the choice to carrying that fetus to term is no longer hers but “a life?” That see is merely the icubator for this life? I’m not comfortable living in a world like that.
As for this particular law, in a country with a limping economy, disasterous public schools, a distructive, increasingly expensive and futile war oversees, with more people in prison thatn any other country on earth, this law wasn’t an issue simmering on someone’s conscience that needed to be done because “it was the right thing to do.” It is a cynical political ploy to exploit a media-intense murder for alterior ideological purposes. The fact that it cloaked in protecting the lives of mothers and “unborn children” is disgusting.
Kurt,
I find it puzzling that your argument holds distain for the sancity of “life” over “the choices of others” and yet it conveniently ignores the choices all women should have over their own bodies. Are we to say then that oncve a women is pregnant, by means accidental, violent or otherwise, that the choice to carrying that fetus to term is no longer hers but “a life?” That see is merely the icubator for this life? I’m not comfortable living in a world like that.
As for this particular law, in a country with a limping economy, disasterous public schools, a distructive, increasingly expensive and futile war oversees, with more people in prison thatn any other country on earth, this law wasn’t an issue simmering on someone’s conscience that needed to be done because “it was the right thing to do.” It is a cynical political ploy to exploit a media-intense murder for alterior ideological purposes. The fact that it cloaked in protecting the lives of mothers and “unborn children” is disgusting.
Kevin,
Did you read the *second* paragraph of my commentary?
I don’t deny the long standing right that has been variously called that of personal autonomy, self defense, privacy, or in one Justice’s felicitous phrase “the right to be let alone.” Women (and men) unquestionably have that right. The tension between that right and the right of others to life is a substantial line of tension in the law. I certainly don’t want to go back to criminalizing women for their choices. My point is that I can not accept either pro-life or pro-choice zealotry in which the right upon which that side focuses completely occludes the other.
And I certainly — in fact, enthusiastically — agree that it is morally inconsistent to argue for consideration of the unborn and to ignore the deliberate or reckless infliction of pain and death on the living that constitutes so much of public policy today.
Kevin,
Did you read the *second* paragraph of my commentary?
I don’t deny the long standing right that has been variously called that of personal autonomy, self defense, privacy, or in one Justice’s felicitous phrase “the right to be let alone.” Women (and men) unquestionably have that right. The tension between that right and the right of others to life is a substantial line of tension in the law. I certainly don’t want to go back to criminalizing women for their choices. My point is that I can not accept either pro-life or pro-choice zealotry in which the right upon which that side focuses completely occludes the other.
And I certainly — in fact, enthusiastically — agree that it is morally inconsistent to argue for consideration of the unborn and to ignore the deliberate or reckless infliction of pain and death on the living that constitutes so much of public policy today.