I really like to assume the best of everyone, even people I disagree with.
And I try hard to take what opponents say, at their word.
But sometimes it’s hard..
A lot of people who favor forced childbirth for pregnant women say that they believe that an abortion, even early in pregnancy, is identical to child murder. Have an abortion, shoot a four-year-old in the head; morally, it’s the same. Or, anyhow, that’s what they claim to believe.
In contrast, pro-choicers tend to think that the abortion criminalization movement is motivated by a desire – perhaps an unconscious desire – to punish women for having sex.
I used to reject that latter view as a pointless ad hominem attack. Nowadays, I’m not so sure. Although I’ve met some rank-and-file “pro-lifers” whose policy preferences were consistent with a belief that a fetus is morally indistinguishable from a child, those folks usually have policy preferences which are totally out of step with the abortion criminalization movement as a whole.
In contrast, the leaders of the abortion criminalization movement have consistently put their political weight behind policies which make little or no sense if they genuinely think that abortion is identical to child murder. And those same leaders routinely endorse policies that make a lot of sense if their goal is to penalize women who have sex – to, as I’ve heard many of them put it, make sure women “face the consequences” of having sex. And they’ve done so with the apparent backing and blessing of the vast majority of the rank and file. Let’s review:
Almost none of their policies make sense if they really see no difference between the death of a fetus and the death of a four-year-old. However, nearly all their policies make sense if they’re seeking to make sure that women who have sex “face the consequences.” are punished. After years of seeing this pattern repeated again and again, it’s difficult to take them at their word.
Killing a perfectly healthy fetus because you just had to have an orgasm is a bad choice. It’s selfish, irresponsible, and lazy; not to mention has a host of other negative effects on women and society.
thanks for kind of making the point – you think women should be punished for having sex (unless they have sex within your approved parameters and no one has an accident or a mistake.) That is the affect, regardless of what your intent is. That nasty little slut* shouldn’t have been careless or irresponsible, and even if she took precautions because she didn’t want to have a baby, she’s stuck now, because that clump of cells is a higher priority to you than the woman is.
*I realize you didn’t say this, but man, is it ever implied.
The key word that I asked you about was “all”. You have yet to tell me that anyone has said “all” women have abortions capriciously.
Once again, it’s implied – you don’t think women should have the right to terminate a life that cannot survive outside the womb, you have stated a few times that it’s a bad choice, regardless of circumstances. You have decided that abortion is an unacceptable choice for all women, and that they should have to give birth if the sperm meets the egg**, regardless of what precautions they may have taken. You have very neatly demonstrated Amp’s point, and yet I’m not sure you see that.
There probably are plenty of women who decide to abort like they might decide to go to the Outback Steakhouse for dinner; but I think there are also many, many women who find themselves in dire circumstances, facing a difficult choice that may cause them no small measure of grief. You would have all these women give birth, no matter their circumstances, because you think the fertilized egg is more important than the life of the woman who is carrying it. I disagree. Why should you get to make that choice for everyone? At least with my belief, women are free to make the decision for themselves, because I trust women to manage that decision for themselves. No one is forced to have an abortion (even in Susan’s friends case, with the unethical pushing for abortion from the medical community, she ultimately was able to fulfill her choice. Another woman might choose differently, and she should have the right to do so.
**Bearing in mind that sperm+egg does not yet equal baby – the fertilized ovum has to implant in the uterus, and survive through the 1 in 4 chance that it will spontaneously abort without developing further, and make it through the various health risks that face the mother during pregnancy, like HELLP, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, incompetent cervix, exposure to German Measles or Fifths Disease, not develop any chromosonal abnormalities that are incompatible with life, and ultimately survive delivery.
Re: pro-life groups and the HPV vaccine.
It is disingenous of Niels and Robert to suggest that the religous pro-life groups SUPPORT the HPV vaccine. They do not want it to be mandatory, presumably so they will not have to give their children the vaccine, because they are concerned about the message the vaccine sends, and they believe that some children might take the vaccine as a license to engage in sexual activities thinking they are protected from disease. That is not the same as supporting the vaccine, and not as severe as fighting against the vaccine.
I will take a wait and see on the subject. I don’t trust the pro-life movement, as they spread a lot of dishonest information about sex.
Niels, there is a difference between a clump of cells that doesn’t have a functioning brain, and a nearly full-term baby. I acknowledge that. It’s not really an inconsistency, though. A lot of changes happen before a fertilized egg becomes a baby. It’s not the same thing. A fertilized egg – even an implanted egg, even if it is much wanted, does not equal a baby.
The reason why Amp’s analysis is so compelling is that it exposes the fallacy that anti-choice proponents have any right to claim that they are standing on an existential or theological concept of personhood. First, by defining where “life begins” by resort to the lowest common scientific denominator of separate human material (i.e., single cells with separate DNA imprint), they have virtually ceded that traditional religion has nothing to tells us about the nature of personhood. Presumably, if science tracks back further, they’ll happily follow suit.
In addition, having ascribed to the reductivist notion that a separate DNA sequence is tantamount to separate personhood, they are unwilling to follow that claim where it leads. Instead, they hit us with hopelessly confused pastiche of moral reasoning that, in the end, does nothing more than draw the line more tightly around women’s autonomy without actually embodying the sacred concept of personhood upon which they base their right to infringe personal liberty in the first place.
There is no moral basis upon which to conclude that personhood begins at fertilization. There is no moral basis upon which to conclude that drawing the line at rape or incest rather than, say, health of the mother, more consistently advances the claimed ethic of personhood. If it’s “just politics” as Robert and others say, then it’s just politics — and there is no good basis for allowing politics to trump fundamental personal liberty.
Pingback: Blog of the Moderate Left
Having children is a not a punishment for having sex. Children are a natural occurence where sex is involved. When you take drugs, you get high. When get into a car, you are taking the risk that you will get into an accident.
If you don’t want to get high, don’t take drugs. If you don’t want to be responsible in case of an accident then don’t drive.
If you do not want to be responsible for the creation of another life then either don’t have sex or have sex as safely as possible.
Its like a person gets into a car, has an accident and kills someone and then they say, “I didn’t think it would happen to me“. If you didn’t think it would happen to you then you should have, furthermore the fact that you thought you would be the exception to the rule doesn’t absolve you from responsibility for your actions.
I’m not in favor of forced parenthood, I’m in having of not treating a fetus like its garbage. I’m in favor of valuing all life, including those that are not yet born and certainly cannot speak for themselves.
Personhood is irrelevant, its just a way of creating a sliding scale to determine whose life is valuable and whose life isn’t. If pro-choicers wanted to be consistent they would say that all human life is valuable, not just whether or not someone wants you. Or would you say that once someone stops being wanted they are no longer worthy of life?
Not this argument again! Life doesn’t begin at conception. It doesn’t begin at birth. Life began in the precambrian and all life has come from other life since that time. The sperm is alive. The unfertilized oocyte is alive. The zygote created by the merger of the two is alive. It is not yet, however, anything that could be properly addressed as “you.” Brain activity is the basis for the distinction between alive and dead in our society. No brain activity, no live person. A brain dead person may still contain live cells and functioning organs–that’s where some donor organs come from, after all–but they are nonetheless not considered alive once the brain is no longer functioning. Clearly, a one celled organism does not have a functioning brain. Therefore, it is not a living person yet. But a living cell it is ajust as it was before fertilization.
So suppose the possessor of a current driver’s license gets into a car while not drunk, not on any mind altering substances, and proceeds to drive. Despite driving at the legal speed, using proper turn signals, and otherwise following the rules of the road, he or she gets into an accident and is badly injured. Should the EMTs treat such a person or should they ignore him or her because, after all, if he or she didn’t want an accident, he or she should never have gotten into a car?
Robert wrote:
No, he’s accurately stating what the FRC’s public statements were in October/November 2005 – which was, crudely stated, that vaccinating 11-12 year olds was bad because it would encourage sexual activity. The statement you link to is from February, and reflects severe backtracking on the FRC’s part, no doubt due to the fact that their earlier statements were a public relations debacle for them.
Anyhow, on the key issue, the FRC is still lobbying the ACIP to make sure the vaccine is not effectively distributed to children. From the letter to the ACIP you linked to:
Since most public schools nationwide follow the ACIP’s recommendations, and federal funding and insurance (without which no vaccine becomes widespread) is contingent on ACIP’s recommendation, asking the ACIP not to recommend it for public school requirements is the same thing as saying, in practice, that no provision for widespread immunization of 11-year-olds should be made at all. So I stand by my argument; pro-life groups like FRC are pushing for a HPV vaccine policy that will cause more deaths among sexually active women.
There’d be very little question of the ACIP’s decision if that decision were going to be made purely on scientific grounds. Unfortunately, Bush has appointed a former Focus on the Family leader, Reginald Finger, to the ACIP’s decision-making committee. According to Finger, “Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teen-agers that, ‘We expect you to be sexually active.’ There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe.”
Finger went on to emphasize that he himself was still open-minded on the question; he was just repeating what “some people” think.
If all human life is valuable, regardless of personhood, then a severed toe kept alive with machinery would have a right to life, and shooting the toe with a shotgun would be murder. After all, the toe is made of living human tissue, and so is human life. Do you really endorse that position?
Alternatively, if you don’t think shooting the toe with a shotgun would be murder, on what basis – apart from personhood – do you make that distinction?
Sure there is: the development of herd immunity. Basically, the idea is that enough people are vaccinated, the disease will die out or be severely limited, so even if a few people are missed, an outbreak can’t occur. If only a minority or a small majority of people are vaccinated, the unvaccinated serve as a resevoir (sp?) of infection and keep the disease active in the population. And, of course, an active virus can mutate, leading to decreased vaccine efficacy. So attempting to vaccinate 99% of the population makes sense, even for a disease which is not spread by casual contact.
First, let me state that I am not a Christian (though I have great respect for Christ’s work and those who actually follow Christ’s path). That said, I feel that the debate around abortion is largely centered on the question, “is life sacred?” As well as the questions of “when is life actually life?” and “who’s life is more sacred, the mother’s or the fetus?”
Now let me say that I am not pro-abortion. I hope that abortion will become extremely rare, however it is far healthier that abortion become rare because a woman is empowered to utilize contraception and equually important that a woman have the economic ability to raise a child that is conceived.
The biggest challenge I see regarding the anti-abortion movement, is that they rarely back up their belief that life is sacred with programs that support those lives after birth. Where are the programs that will help a pregnant woman get pre-natal care, money to support and educate her children or care for them in any way once they are born? Where are the programs that ensure that we create peace, prosperity and FOOD for all the children of the earth? Why is it that many of the people who are anti-abortion, are also those who are pro-war and pro-death penalty?
If our religious obligation is to see that children are brought to term, does our obligation end there? And what about QUALITY of life? Does bringing a child into a life that is hell, and then abandoning them fulfil our moral obligations?
I’ll give you a personal example here. About 17 years ago, my sister got pregnant. She did what some folks here might think was the “right thing” and had the baby. The father of the child was a wife-beater and additionally had been accused of child-molestation of his daughter by a previous wife. Eventually my sister wised up and got out of the marriage. Despite his record as a beater/molestor, the courts continued to give him rights to the child. My sister’s second daughter was born (the “right thing?”) as a result of him raping her after she’d left him. Both daughters were subjected to molestation as well as mental mindgames by their father. The younger child was forced to watch slasher-horror movies at the age of 5. Both were subjected to watching their father beat their mother. Both were subjected to poverty because their mother couldn’t afford them and their father, though ordered to pay child support, rarely did, claiming unemployment (in reality he dealt coke). Today the older daughter is not yet 17 and is pregnant with her 2nd child. The first child is the son of a “slow” man who her father encouraged and allowed her to have sex with. Several weeks ago the baby was found with a babysitter who was allowing him to play on the floor with a bottle of antifreeze and with a high fever. The 2nd baby’s father is unknown, but it is potentially a policeman who has been accused of having sex with more than one minor.
Now before anyone denegrates this with “oh it’s just the usual crack-whore mentality” or “oh those rednecks” let me say that my sister is a highly intelligent woman from a middle income family, who happened to fall in with the wrong guy (while she herself was far too young – 18 when the 1st was born) and didn’t leave fast enough. She is well educated. She didn’t want to have an abortion because she couldn’t “take it’s life”. My sister didn’t choose to become a single parent, but she did choose to take her child away from a wife-beater rather than 1) end up a statistic and 2) have her daughter grow up thinking “wife beating is normal”. (In fact her mother-in-law actually stated that “a man who doesn’t beat his wife doesn’t love her.” My sister’s divorce was in large part due to the fact that she couldn’t bear to see her child grow up with this idea.)
Could she have given the children up for adoption? Well when she had the first baby, she THOUGHT she was in a relationship. Not condusive for giving up a baby. Nor is it easy to give up a child after you’ve carried it for 9 months.
But my question is: Did she (and the state) “give them life?” What chance did they have from the beginning? What constitutes a “life” and more importantly, a life worth living?
So for those of you who are anti-abortion, I ask this:
What have you specifically done to see that those children who are born have food, education and a decent life? Do you donate to food shelters? Do you monitor your local child welfare system to ensure that children are being treated ethically? What do you do to ensure that your elected officials go after deadbeat dads? Are you in favor of government subsidies to not merely primary and secondary education, but for college as well? Are you in favor of welfare – not as a permanent fix, but as a way of helping women get free of abusive spouses and have a chance to rebuild their lives? (BTW my sister is NOT on public assistance, having weaned herself from that as fast as she could, as most women who CAN will do.)
So, if you are anti-abortion, then does your care for children stop after that, or if not, what specifically have you done to ensure that children are cared for once born?
If life is sacred, then is it right to send people to die in war? (Especially one which our congress did not vote for?)
Some interesting points were brought up above:
D) Partial birth – Your argument doesn’t hold up, because the people wanting to ban these procedures don’t think that doctors will find alternatives. You might be correct about the actual impact of the law, but your opinion of the impact isn’t the opinion of the pro-lifers involved.
Whether or not pro-lifers believe that doctors will find alternatives, they will do so. The alternative to D&X is cesarian. The fetuses who are suggested for D&X are generally hydrocephalic and if they manage to be born at all, are born unconscious and generally die shortly after birth. This proceedure is done to protect the life of the mother and shorten her suffering.
What if someone can’t afford to get pre-natal care? Woof. Now that’s an interesting one. Let’s see. If you can’t afford post-natal care and your child dies from what would have been a diagnosed condition, have you been negligent? I don’t know about that one.
A very good point! Why is it that many women can’t afford pre-natal care? Have you (not the person I am quoting, but all of you who read this) contacted your elected officials to ensure that women can get inexpensive or free prenatal care?
Generally, kids are going to have sex whether you like it or not. There’s no debate about this one (how can you?). The difference between the two examples you wrote about is conservatives want to impose their own very evangelical moral framework on kids. Liberals tend to base their decisions on empirical evidence, like the abortion statistics from the more liberal countries out there. I see two groups: people basing decisions on the reality of this world, and people basing decisions on a fantasy world they wish they had been born in (1950s america, 1499 England, 35 bc, you name it). One group learns from the past, past mistakes (and of course, science), and one group sticks by a set of morals that seem very faith-based to me.
For thousands of years, children were marriagable at around age 13, and sometimes as young as 9. This is because until recently, someone who was 45 would be considered “old” and many didn’t live to the age of 20. (Actually most age statistics are skewed just slightly because the largest death rates were due to death in childbirth and death in the first couple years of life. Which brings us back to prenatal care. Even so, a 45 yr old would be “old.”) Because of this our biology makes us fertile and sexually interested beginning at puberty.
Do I WANT my children to have sex at that age? Gods no! In fact I have lectured my 13 yr old neice on abstinence. However, despite I that I would PREFER that they remain abstinent till they are older, I am also aware that the sex urge is a biological imperative, and a challengning one to overcome. It makes sense to me to encourage children to wait until they are older, but to prepare them to be SAFE in case they cannot.
For those of you who don’t want to educate your children about birth control, let me ask you: Which would you rather – that your child had premarital sex and was safe thereafter, or that your child came down with HIV or got pregnant. If your answer is “if they mess around they get what they deserve,” then I truly worry about you as a parent.
As a parallel consideration, drunk driving is one of the major dangers for teenagers and young adults. Now many of you may object to your child drinking, but statistically, the numbers of minors who do so are HUGE. (And if you never drank before you were age 18, believe me, you’re in the minority!) And the numbers of young kids who get hurt in drunk driving accidents (or who have sex because they are drunk) is correspondingly enormous. So, would you rather teach your children about the dangers of driving while drunk, or forbid them to drink? (When they will drink anyway.) And is that really any different than the choice between forbidding them to have sex and making sure that IF they choose to have sex (even if you’ve warned them against it) they will be safe.
Actually, kids are not bound to have sex. They are not barn yard cats after all. Kids choose to have sex. That choice for most kids (I would say all) is both unhealthy and unwise. A very evangelical framework can influence that choice. It can and does convince many kids that waiting to have sex is the more responsible, healthy, and wise choice.
Remember that childhood is all about learning to make decisions. How many bad decisions did you make when you were a child (not just about sex)? I feel that when we give our children information and allow them to draw their own conclusions, we empower them to make healthier decisions. An evangelical framework may certainly influence that choice. But which way it goes . . . ? When I was a child I had a girlfriend who was brought up in a strict evangelical family. She was not even allowed to leave her yard unless under adult supervision. Well by the age of 15 she’d run away and was pregnant. I find that the more you inform children and then allow them to make their own decisions regarding what is right for them, the more likely they are to make intelligent decisions for themselves. This doesn’t just go for sex, but for any life decisions.
Hence, young people should be taught how to handle said sexual energies properly, and to understand and deal with the emotions relating to it, and to develop basic self-confidence and self-worth. And as well, to own their own decisions, to feel like whatever choice they made is theirs and chosen freely, not a response to pressure one way or the other and not a rebellion against pressure one way or the other.
One of the most intelligent and thoughtful statements I’ve seen here. (Not that certain others weren’t intelligent and thoughtful.)
As a last thought, before I close, let me ask, who is it, who benefits from this debate? It’s obvious that we all care about our children. We all want what is in our own beliefs, best for them. However the politics of abortion benefit those who would like to see us mass at polls and vote for them.
Are issues like abortion, healthcare, education important? Absolutely! Should we allow abortion to be a knee-jerk issue which is more important than any other? When there are issues such as poverty, the defecit, the war, the corporate stranglehold on America, freedom of speech, worship, and so much more? However if we let this debate become more important than any other . . . does that benefit us as a society?
Ultimately I would like to see abortion be legal and rare. Unless we really do (as this very informative post suggests) see women as a 2nd class citizen who are to be controlled by their “betters” and who are “evil” for having sex, then the best way to reduce abortion is to make contraception and sex-education more available. If we truly care for children then we must support them PAST birth.
And btw, if women are being punished for sex, then who are men supposed to have sex with? Since the same people who are against abortion are generally those who oppose homosexuality, then we either need to make our sons more responsible for protected sex or . . . ?
So is the body of a brain dead person, so organ donation would be out: even though some parts would live longer in their new bodies, it would kill the connective tissue, fat, toes, and all the other unused pieces, so donation is out.
So is an infected appendix, so appendectomy is murder.
So is cancer, so chemotherapy is murder. (Actually, at least some cancer cells can be used to create new organisms: take the cancer cell nucleus, insert it into an enucleated egg, and gestate. After an appropriate amount of time, new critter appears. New critter is very cancer prone, but it is alive, making, if I follow the logic, the cancer cell equal to the fertilized egg in the anti-choice view. No, this has NOT been tried in humans. It’s been done in mice.)
Are there women that use abortion as a primary form of birth control? Yes, these women do in fact exist whether you acknowledge their existence or not.
Abortion are expensive and are a medical procedure. Women in the United States have a low rate of using abortions as a primary form of birth control. For example, compare the abortion rate of American women with the rate of women in some of the ex-Soviet states, such as Romania and Russia. Women in those states have less access to good contraception and are more likely to use abortion as the primary form of birth control.
And, let’s break down the “pro-life” position. The “pro-life” position is not about one’s personal use of abortion or one’s personal beliefs.
The “pro-life” or forced birth position is one that advocates the criminalization of abortion. These groups have the goal of criminalizating all abortion. That is an obvious attempt to control the sexual practices and the reproductive choices of all fertile women in the state.
What’s particularly stupid about the advocates of criminalization is that it doesn’t work. It will not lower the abortion rate. It may lower the legal abortion rate, although that depends on the actual application and practice of the law.
If you don’t believe me – look at Romania as an example. Even a totalitarian state couldn’t lower the abortion rate after the first year or so of their forced birth policies.
For more evidence: compare the abortion rates of countries from around the world. Ask yourself who has the lowest rate of abortion? What are their legal policies and, more importantly, the legal practice and availability of abortion on demand?
For the record, I don’t understand how a being without a brain can be considered the equivalent of a human or a person with rights.
Embryo’s don’t have brains.
When someone’s head is filled with fluid, instead of brain tissue, how can that being be considered the equivalent of a person?
Brain death is the measure for when organs can be harvested.
I just don’t understand these people.
I personally think that Barbara hit the nail on the head in post 188.
“pro-forced birth position”. Now that is an interesting twist. Is that the same as calling a pro-choicer “pro-abortion” or “pro-death”. I love labels.
Thanks for comments #193(Amp), and 192 & 195(Dianne). These are some of the salient points that the anti-choicers are either blatantly ignoring or entirely misrepresenting. You’ve both said it better than I could.
No requirement for immunization in this country, indeed.
“Are there women that use abortion as a primary form of birth control? Yes, these women do in fact exist whether you acknowledge their existence or not.”
To say nothing of the men who rely on women having abortions as a form of birth control… Just sayin’.
“pro-forced birth position”. Now that is an interesting twist. Is that the same as calling a pro-choicer “pro-abortion” or “pro-death”. I love labels.
It’s not meant as a personal swipe. But an individual can advocate legalized abortion and be personally against abortion as a choice for themselves.
If a pregnancy isn’t voluntary, then what is it? (Especially when there is no exception for rape – how is that pregnancy not a forced birth if the mother has no personal choice?)
19th Century suffragists advocated for something called voluntary motherhood. I do like that phrase: voluntary motherhood.
No requirement for immunization in this country, indeed.
Actually, Jake, I meant to address your comment about that, and it slipped off the queue in the comment flood. Thanks for the reminder.
Sure, as long as your children won’t be attending public school or any public school sponsored activities. So, there is, in fact, strong pressure brought to immunize your children. Most people don’t wish to or are unable to homeschool so these vaccinations wind up not being optional for the vast majority of the population. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
It may vary by state, but in every state where I have lived, immunizations are not required to attend the public schools. Those who are opposed to immunizations, for whatever reason, can fill in a waiver form which is kept by the school administration, and the student then attends class normally.
In the event of an epidemic or outbreak of one of the immunized diseases, unvaccinated students are barred from campus.
So yes, it’s voluntary, and it doesn’t require people to behave in a certain way to take advantage of their rights as citizens. Only in the event of an actual medical emergency do unvaccinated people have to clear the zone. These vaccines are both theoretically and practically optional, which is as it should be.
It may vary by state, but in every state where I have lived, immunizations are not required to attend the public schools.
Huh. Color me ignorant on that, then. Everywhere that I’ve lived where I’ve been aware of the rules of the public school district it has been as I’ve described. No vaccinations? No entry to public school.
But then I went and looked and although you are technically correct, most people will not know it. Go look at the “School Immunization Requirements” that you will find on most public school district sites. It states that you cannot attend school w/o meeting those requirements. It is only much later on the page where it mentions the policy that you correctly point out. No wonder I (and my parents & most parents in the US) believe it to be a requirement.
gengwall, I really appreciate your forthright arguments and reasoning, and your willingness to discuss the issue with those who disagree. I have enjoyed reading all of your posts.
I have a question:
Given what you’ve said about miscarriage:
Would you really support legal investigation into every incidence of miscarriage?
I have had a miscarriage — let me tell you, it would have been horrifying to go through a legal investigation as well.
Also — there are thousands, if not millions, of miscarriages every year. Who would pay for all those investigations? What about overloading the courts, etc.
I would hope that you do not support this. However, you seem to support criminalization of abortion — and if abortion is illegal, it seems to me that routine legal investigations into miscarriages would be necessary to enforce the law.
I look forward to your response.
In response to Niels Jackson (post 184), I have always wondered why so few pro-choice advocates are willing to endorse the right to infanticide. If one endorses the right to practice post-viability abortions, there is no compelling logical or ethical reason to oppose the right to kill an infant. There is much anthropological evidence that this practice is common to some other cultures. There is a strong ethical brief supporting this practice that has been made by philosophers such as Peter Singer. By embracing infanticide, pro-choice advocates would signal their intention not to yield an inch in this fight. Consistency in argument and thought mean much.
Yep, the state will not go out of its way to make sure we’re aware there are options. Fascists. (Uh oh, thread collision imminent.)
Our oldest daughter had a severe reaction to her first MMR shot. We had no problem getting an exemption for her for the second dose.
But in general in MN, you need to have your immunizations up to date to attend school. We had a foreign exchange student from Romania live with us last school year. Imagine her surprise when they told her she would have to get all these shots before she could go to school. We were not able to get a waiver for her – they basically forced her to get them. (It’s strange how the foreign exchange service didn’t pick up on that. I never did ask them why they didn’t tell her prior to coming here.)
Pingback: The Lady Speaks » Pro-Life or Anti-Women?
Robert,
I live in Louisiana, and in my parish it is mandatory that all students attending public school be vaccinated against the regular childhood illnesses. There is no “option” that I am aware of that allows a child to attend without proof of immunization. And I’m sure that this (like most policies varies from location to location).
I am one of those people that is personally not for abortion. However, I firmly believe that I do not have the moral right to force that choice onto anyone else. I wouldn’t even force it onto my own children.
Two of my children are the result of “failed” birth control, and my third child was an intentionally planned pregnancy. For me, they were alive and “persons” while they were still in utero.
The only sticky issue for me is very late term abortion, when the fetus would be viable if delivered. Other than that, I am for full access and availability of abortion. I also advocate for full sex education without religious dogma attatched. Because, I feel the place for religious and moral education is in the home, and rests on the parents.
So, I would be fine with a sex education class that taught everything from the major forms of birth control for both males and females, as well as the biological aspects of sex from the physical to the emotional. And I would include in that class that abstinence is one way to avoid pregnancy and the only sure way to avoid a STI.
So, I’m one of those weird people whose personal views do not match thier political views. Part of autonomy is the idea of free will and free choice. To place a woman in a position where she is forced to give birth or conversely forced to abort for economic or social reasons are both wrong. The choice rests with the woman alone, and those options should be both legal and readily available.
At many Universities and Colleges, student are required to give evidence of the Mumps, M & R shot before they can enroll in classes.
I know people who had to get booster shots because they were unable to get their childhood records transfered to the University.
No it isn’t. There’s no reason we can’t have a situation where the vaccine gets funding and insurance, without public schools mandating the vaccine. We have a situation where the mandatory vaccination camp is trying to force an inenviable choice upon people in order to get their way. They’re then blaming the people who are having the choice forced upon them for the possible consequences of a choice they should never have had to make and didn’t want to make.
It would be very simple for funding and insurance to take place in the absence of mandatory vaccination (which is the vaccination policy of most other counties). But the mandatory vaccination side of the argument is so intent on forcing people to comply with their will they’re not willing to shift ground.
The conservative Christian policy is to teach “abstinence until marriage” in the home. What we desire from public policy is to simply teach abstinence as a healthy and wise choice. We don’t expect public policy to relay religious dogma.
Yes, you do. Maybe not you personally, but the pro-life movement actively opposes teaching anything about contraception, lobbying for an abstinence-only curriculum in public schools. The movement is not just about conservative Christians teaching their own kids not to have sex until marriage–it’s about using the public school system to teach all kids that abstinence until marriage is the only way.
Most states let parents get vaccine waivers, some have more formal policies than others, and, generally, the waiver must be based on objective evidence of health risk or philosophical opposition. There’s no need to advertise. It’s just an internet search away:
http://www.unhinderedliving.com/statevaccexemp.html
Here’s another, better site:
http://www.909shot.com/Issues/state%20exemptions.htm
I had occasion to revisit the whole issue of infant immunization in particular so I went through a lot of this stuff several months ago.
Of course, if your children are in a private school, especially pre-school, don’t look for much sympathy from teachers and administrators, or other parents for your decision not to vaccinate. They don’t have to accommodate non-compliant parents in most states, and they will most likely view such parents as a free rider on their decision to do take the minuscule risk of vaccinating their children in order to protect the herd. Herd protection is more important for highly contagious diseases, especially those that are likely to be very serious: polio, measles, diptheria and whooping cough, for instance.
I know that some kids have a tough time with MMR, and I certainly wouldn’t get the booster if my kid had problems with the first shot, but of all the vaccines that I would want for my kid, measles and rubella would be two of my highest priorities. It is possible to get doses of vaccine for the individual diseases to cut down on side effects, but you often have to resort to a lot of legwork. The problem with measles, in particular, is that there are alot of immigrant adults who never had the vaccination, and the herd protection against measles is now at an all time low over the last 20 years. Outbreaks of measles are no longer uncommon.
Other diseases, like Hepatitis B, are infectious but not likely to be spread from child to child. The CDC’s “mandatory” vaccine policy for Hep-B is based on two annoying ideas: that it’s good to get parents in the habit of vaccine compliance, and vaccination is better than testing at-risk mothers for the disease (maternal transmission is really the only way to transmit the disease to infants). I declined this vaccine when my child was born until I could talk further to my pediatrician.
I would vaccinate my children against HPV. I think as was said above that most kids aren’t all that interested in what they are being vaccinated against — they get so many shots I can barely keep up. My six month old has had 16 separate shots already.
Pingback: Zen Zoo » Blog Archive » Hello, Molly, it’s so nice to see you…
One other point regarding vaccination, particularly for hepatitis B and HPV: Both of these viruses live only in human hosts. So these diseases can be eradicated with vaccination, at least potentially. Vaccinate enough people in this generation and you may never need to vaccinate anyone for these diseases again. It happened with small pox. It could happen with polio and other viruses if we only have the will to do it.
There are several potential reasons:
First and foremost, an infant is not dependent on any other person for its food, oxygen, etc. And its life does not jeopardize any other person’s life. A fetus, even a nine month old fetus, is, biologically, a parasite and its existence can and relatively frequently does endanger its host.
Second, there are numerous differences between a fetus, even at nine months development, and a newborn baby. The ciruculatory system, hemoglobin, digestive system, and nervous system all change profoundly at or very soon after birth. Do any of these changes matter in terms of the “personhood” of the fetus versus the baby? Possibly. The uterine environment may not provide enough oxygen to allow for cortical function, so the fetus may always be unconcious whereas the newborn is certainly concious. The newborn also receives a huge amount of sensory input that may be helpful or even necessary for conciousness.
That having been said, I’m a conservative type, personally. I favor restricting abortion in the third trimester (ie around the 25th week of gestation) to cases in which the fetus has a fatal defect incompatible with life outside the uterus or endangers the mother’s life. I feel that while it is more likely that these fetuses are not concious, the evidence is not conclusive and therefore one should err on the side of caution. However, if a fetus has a defect that is not compatible with life or is endangering the mother, then the more cautious thing to do is to perform the abortion. In fact, this is treating the fetus much like an infant would be treated: a newborn that had a defect that was incompatible with life would probably be treated with comfort care only to ease its suffering as it died rather than torturing it with futile care.
Got this via Balloon Juice. Read Wilhelm Reich’s THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM. Fascist regimes and religions want to impose sexual restrictions on the proles. Frustrated, guilty populations, fearful of punishment for thinking about what comes naturally (sex) are easy to steer into other venues, like warmaking and attacking the “other.”
I just had to jump in on this:
an infant is not dependent on any other person for its food
Excuse me? Have you ever been anywhere near a baby?
Gengwall said “The liberal countries you alude to are truly effective at getting the contraception message out there. We don’t deny that success. But since we think that it is irresponsible and ill advised for teens to be engaging in sexual activity in the first place, we aren’t impressed with any results that don’t include a corresponding drop in teen sex to begin with. And certainly, we would not promote any strategy that was “contraception only” any more than you would promote one that was “abstinence only”. I think we both should be able to agree that the balanced approach is the best.”
Well I have some news about this one. The “liberal” countries that have better teen sexual health outcomes, including negligible abortion rates, and have open access to information and services ALSO have teens who delay first sexual experience longer than American teens (USA 15.4, Netherlands 17.7) and they also have fewer partners by half. This has been researched and I recently studied this exact thing last summer. Contrary to American conventional wisdom, being more “liberal” in the approach to sex ed does NOT equal more sex. It has the opposite effect. It is a fact. If you truly believe young people are valuable assets you would believe they have a RIGHT to accurate sexuality information and access to reproductive health services, we would RESPECT young people to make informed, healthy decisions regarding their own lives, and therefore they would have the RESPONSIBILITY to be good citizens by protecting their health and the health of others. They have approached issues of sexuality with an attitude that is a normal, healthy part of being a human. The result of this culture is one that sees less STI’s, unintended pregnancies, and abortions in teens, all while delaying sex longer than American teens and having fewer partners. Perhaps we should pay attention.
I think Dianne’s point is that it’s not dependent on one specific person (i.e., the person who’s uterus it occupies).
Lu,
Infants, like small children, the bedridden, the paralyzed, the comotose, the severely disabled, the elderly, older children, teenagers, and most adults other than self-reliant farmers are dependent on Society for their food.
But we do not have people who are entirely dependent on another specific person (with some to a greater extent than others) for food.
The hospitalized require doctors and nurses, but not any particular doctor or nurse. The severely disabled require assistance, but not any particular assistant. Other than the lone hunter-gatherer, we all require assistance from Society, but none of us get to name the specific person.
For an infant no one person is required- not even the biological mother- otherwise the entire concept of adoption- and of course wetnurses- wouldn’t be possible.
The arguments for one extreme or the other are so out of balance they become obtuse.
I find it difficult to understand how a person can clearly see the rights of a woman and potential mother and the rightful authority she holds over her body and not see the sovereign life of a child and their body and how respect for that life is important as well. Hair splitting over killing at home being legitimized by killing on a battle field shows little real thought and no compassion. Just because GW says its OK doesn’t make it so. Even with Augustine’s Just War arguments, (very few conflicts ever truly make the marks,) killing a person in war is barbaric and murderous. What can we possibly justify in 100,000 people dead in Iraq and nearly 3000 of the Allied troops? For what? That is the basis of an argument to kill more human life?
As far as the criminalization of the abortionists or those using them, have our brethren in Christ forgotten the first great gift of the Creator is that of free will? The first and still most prevalent sin was not sex or the flesh (as Platonic beliefs would have it) but choosing our own self over the better choice of others. Why single out one sin? Take the beam from your own eye, and then help your neighbor with the splinter in theirs.
My goodness, a toe? A parasite? Weighing the relative worth of a miscarriage? Saving people from disease is weighed on the vector that could get them sick? Mosquito OK, sexual contact not? That argument leads to the stupid thinking that HIV and HEP C folks got what they deserve. Barbaric! If we are waiting to solve the argument before we come to realize the truth before us, we will only see it was too late.
What would happen if the energy in this dialog were directed to loving each other and helping with each others burdens? Maybe more folks would have their baby’s if they knew the body was their to help them instead of condemning? Maybe we would stop trying to fill the void in each of us with sex and stuff if we experianced the true love of sacrificing for someone else? You can’t legislate it and you can’t claim to know what is a mystery, the oragin of a soul is not for us to weigh, it simply is. Blessings.
BTW. The frequent references that Catholic is synonymous with Pro-Life and no birth control are out of touch with many in the faith. Most Jesuit scholars I read are Pro-Choice as is a lot of the laity. Most of my devoutly Catholic friends have small families, it isn’t just rhythm.
Also while we are pointing out stereo types, I am Evangelical, Holiness, Christian, Socialist, anti war, anti death penalty, pacifist, Anti criminalization, and all for making abortion a thing of the past accept for ending pregnancies that would result in a terminal child or endanger the mother. There are lots of us, we just don’t get on the news.
I feel kinda in the middle about this debate…I do not believe in suffering of any kind…..I also believe it is wrong to judge another human being..period. I had two unplanned children….it was the hardest thing I’ve had to do….I don’t know if I could do it again, at my age….thank heavens for adoption…. But if I did have an abortion if I ever, felt I had no other choice,(the irony of it that legalized abortion is called “Choice” when infact most women who have them feel that they have no other choice) I would want my tubes tied or removed as to prevent another pregnancy,and I would feel like I had done murder and most likely drink myself to death. I am an animal lover, but I know animals are more protected from suffering than humans….with the exception of cows, pigs chicken,deer,ducks,lab mice and monkeys…..ALL SUFFERING MUST STOP….STOP IT NOW….think about it!
Pingback: jeremyjarratt.com » mud up the plates, Jim! » links to see and do
Lu: dorkatastic and Helen of Troy have already said it, but…a baby isn’t dependent on any particular person. Any competent adult can feed and care for the baby, not just its mother. This is, of course, different from a fetus which is dependent on one particular person for its nutrition and other needs. Sorry about the confusion caused by sloppy writing in the original post.
I’m afraid this thread has run too long for me to be prepared to spend the rest of my day reading it. I read slow, and I’ve got other things I want to do.
But, a few points:
Whatever the views of “the pro-life movement” as perceived by anti-abortion people in this thread, the fact is that the ones who oppose sex education have commandeered our educational apparatus in the US and forced “abstinance-only” miseducation on American students. I have not heard an outcry against this from the anti-choice movement.
This is disturbing because – as I would assume any person truly concerned with ways to prevent abortion would have studied and learned – early sex education in schools reduces the likelihood of early intercourse as well as reducing the rate of teenage pregnancy and of unwanted pregnancy (and abortion) in general, as well as STDs.
Laws against abortion do not prevent abortion or reduce the rate of abortion, they simply increase the rate of illegal abortion and thus the rate of maternal death.
Comprehensive sex education is the only thing we know of that really reduces the likelihood of pre-marital and pre-adult intercourse and thus the need for abortions – yet there is no discernable voice from within the anti-abortion movement to demand such sex education. Abstinance-only sex ed, especially as it is currently being practiced in the US, is actually counterproductive to this end, yet it is the one the anti-choicers support.
Europe makes early sex education in schools mandatory and yet European young people engage in reproductive sex later than Americans who receive abstinance-only sex “education”. We have known this for a very long time, yet it is hardly acknowledged in America. Instead, Europe is portrayed as being unusually debauched.
This is consistent with other lies that familiarly emanate from the American right-wing, such as that Europeans receive inferior medical care because they have “socialized” insurance or medicine.
It’s not an accident – the very things that would be most likely to reduce the “unwanted” nature of a pregnancy are at the top of the list of things conservatives – includling most anti-choicers – wish to eliminate. This is absolutely manifest in their support for increasing the level of economic hardship for most Americans.
I’ve had many, many arguments with people who believed “abortion is murder” and/or supported laws against abortion over the last 35 years, and I have yet to find one whose position did not require them to misunderstand women who have abortions.
Some of the people I’ve had that argument with were female friends of mine, but it did not change the fact that at rock bottom they did not believe the needs of women who seek abortions.
The anti-abortion people in this thread have been unusually polite and thoughtful, but I have not seen a single thing in this thread (having read about two-thirds of it) that disabuses me of Ampersand’s original point and the perception I have held of the anti-choice position for more than three decades.
Ultimately, I believe that anti-choice people fall into two categories – those who have been very lucky, and those who haven’t, but neither of whom understand that they are really no better than anyone else.
Rboert, in Maryland your child must have all of the vaccinations to go to daycare and to preschool as well as to primary, secondary, and tertiary educational institutions. Waivers must be signed by a physician, and there is a very short list of allowable criteria. My daughter actually got rubella from her first MMR (true for 1 in 3,000 vaccinations), and followed that up with a series of ear infections, so we had to get a waiver to delay her chicken pox vaccine in order to let her continue in daycare.
gengwall, you wrote:
I have been thinking for the past day or so about whether or not I wanted to take this bait–and while I know you meant it as lighthearted non-malicious joking, and I accept it as such, it is bait nonetheless–and I have decided I want to, if only briefly. The post to which you are referring (which, for anybody else who may be interested, is on my blog and is called Know Thine Enemy: Fetal Personhood as Metaphorical Thinking) was not about you specifically, though I used your words as examples of what I was talking about. The piece was about applying to the anti-choice argument for fetal personhood the idea that metaphorical thinking is something we all engage in, that metaphorical thinking is how we create the fundamental ideological, ontological and other infrastructures of our psyches and of our cultures. This is not something we are conscious of doing, though it is something we can become conscious of in terms of how it shapes our lives.
I would submit that at the most fundamental levels the differences between the pro- and anti-choice movements boil down to different metaphorical ways of constructing not only the existence of the fetus–is it a person? is it something that is alive but “less than” a person? is it an object that has no status whatsoever?–but also a pregnant woman’s body–is she a life-support-system for a fetus? is she a vessel carrying a person waiting to be born? is she a free and autonomous individual, whose decisions are entirely her own and no one else’s business? All of these ways of understanding are metaphorical on some level, and while you and I can agree to disagree personally on, say, whether or not the fetus is a person and whether or not it is therefore just to view a pregnant woman’s body as, basically, the vessel in which that person exists before it is born, when we start talking about making social policy based on those views, it is, I think, extremely important that we be as honest as possible in investigating and interrogating not simply each other’s underlying assumptions, but also the metaphorical infrastructures of those assumptions.
I recognize that this may seem ridiculously abstract, but metaphors matter quite a lot on this level, and they can mean the difference between life and death. It is metaphorical thinking that allows racists to define non-whites as non-people; it is metaphorical thinking that allows the military to talk about civilian deaths as collateral damage; it is metaphorical thinking, ultimately, that allows torturers to do their jobs (i.e., this is not a human being like me that I am hurting; it is something else); George W. Bush’s famous “axis of evil” is an example of metaphorical thinking; and, finally, deciding whether or not abortion is homicide, justifiable or otherwise, is also a case of metaphorical thinking: is it like the homicides that are reported on the nightly news or not?
Rock, I used to think that it was nice to stay above the fray, to show disdain and exasperation for all sides — with charity, of course — to those who seek and have abortions, and to those who seek criminalization; to pretend that we can both celebrate autonomy of the mother and the “sovereignty” of the fetus (an oxymoron if there ever was one). Then I decided that the cause of liberty was simply more important.
This is for anyone posting who keeps saying: but I personally don’t feel this way or that –” I don’t personally hate women, I personally think contraception should be available,” or my personal favorite, “most Catholics don’t really feel that way” etc. It’s not about what you or I feel. It’s about how society is ordered. Either you think, in the end, that it’s okay to force women to bear children they don’t want under certain circumstances or you don’t. I think it’s okay to significantly limit the availability of abortion after 24 weeks with very liberal exceptions for the mother’s health. I think this because of any number of discussions I’ve had on this board and others about fetal development, legal concepts such as laches, and so on. These discussions, however messy or gruesome you seem to think they are, are how people make fair, rational and practical policies.
*clap**clap**clap* Barbara, you go, girl! You’re absolutely right – public policy does arise out of the “sense of the meeting” that our elected representatives get from us (however slanted, distorted, edited, or censored by staff, lobbyists, and media outlets it may be). I think the U.S. is facing a sea change in how people perceive the intersection between personal beliefs and public laws and policies. The abortion debate is where we have front-row seats to witness the sea change in progress.
Lee – A new thread just started in the Ethics and Morality forum at christianforums.com addresses your point on a universal scale. The title – “Legislating morality”. I, for one, hope you are correct. I welcome an environment where personal belief and public policy are separate but equal in how we live our lives and interact with each other.
Incidentally, I think the Sex Ed debate is even more illustrative of the effort to interject presonal beliefs into public policy. I think that is what Lanoire was getting at in responding to my statements about Christians’ position on abstinence. I will readily admit that “abstinence only” policies are a direct attempt to force personal beliefs and morality into public policy. But not all Christians are abstinence only devotees and many, none moreso than me, would prefer that the school not say anything about the moral aspects of abstinence.
It is true for many in the abortion debate as well, of course. But we don’t need biblical morality or what God thinks to make a case against abortion (even though many of us foolishly use that reasoning anyway).
I don’t want to stray too far off topic. But I think your’s and Barbara’s observations have relevance.
velouria wrote – “Well I have some news about this one. The “liberal” countries that have better teen sexual health outcomes, including negligible abortion rates, and have open access to information and services ALSO have teens who delay first sexual experience longer than American teens (USA 15.4, Netherlands 17.7) and they also have fewer partners by half.”
Well, if this is true, great. It has definately not been my experience either personally or anecdotally from anyone I have ever heard talk about the subject. The general consensus that I have heard straight from Europeans’ mouths is that Americans are a bunch of puritanical prudes. Every European I have ever heard talk about sex practically brags about how they do it younger, more often, more extramaritally, and more guilt freely than we Americans. I would love to get a link to the research you alude to. I would be everjoyed if it were true. But so far, I have only your word against the hundreds of Europeans I have engaged directly in conversation on the subject.
Richard – every time you write something I get smarter. Glad to have inspired you.
Richard – I just realized my above comment could be interpreted as sarcastic and egocentric. I didn’t mean it that way. I actually mean that your writing helps me undertand things better.
I’ve also read about teenagers in the Netherlands engaging in sex later then American teens. I don’t have a link, but I found it when I was googling comparative abortion rates.
The Netherlands also has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world. The rate is, I believe, 6.7 per 1000 women. In contrast Canada and New Zealand and the US is around 20 per 1000 women. This info. is all over the web if you google “abortion rates”.
It takes pretty creative reasoning to start with the natural relationship between sex and pregnancy and then arrive at the conclusion that pregnancy is “punishment for having sex.”
In fact pregnancy is the normal, natural, fully predictable consequence of sexual behavior. Which means that abortion, for the most part, is simply a device for helping people escape the consequences of their actions.
One doesn’t need a moral compass to foresee the problems of a society where people are “protected” from the consequences of their actions.
I’ve also read about teenagers in the Netherlands engaging in sex later then American teens. I don’t have a link, but I found it when I was googling comparative abortion rates.
The Netherlands also has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world. The rate is, I believe, 6.7 per 1000 women. In contrast Canada and New Zealand and the US is around 20 per 1000 women. The information on pregnancy, abortion, and sexuality can be found on the web if you google “abortion rates”.
Thanks, gengwall, I appreciate it!
As a result of conversations here and elsewhere, I wrote a LTE that was published in the Trenton Times yesterday about Contraception for Life (cross-posted at dailykos, land of comment threading) Spread that meme!
I find the opinions of some of the pro-abortion crowd in this thread very strange. On the one hand they are (rightly) opposed to pregnant women being coerced into a situation where their bodies are used for the benefit of someone else without regard to their wishes. On the other hand they’re really enthusiastic about coercion being used to get people vaccinated, on the basis that others will benefit from something being done to the vaccinees body. You just can’t logically hold both of those positions at the same time – this is a case of someone wanting a policy enacted and selectively choosing principles in order to justify this.
Pingback: 10,000 Monkeys and a Camera
Barbara,
It is not trying to be above the fray. (I live and work in the middle of the “fray”) I thought I made it clear that dictating a person’s choice is wrong. Free will and free agency are IMO God given. The logical extension of that thought is that all effected stakeholders rights need to be taken into account when one decides to exercise free will as it can impinge on others. You have every right to swing your arms, until one of them hits someone’s face. Our choices have consequences that can affect others. My hope is that folks acknowledge that there are inherent rights and freedoms people are endowed with, however there is a way to live that does the least harm to others while going about seeking the things we feel are important. Attempting to relegate the time or point a life is or a person isn’t does nothing to increase the value we see in each other and our worth. When we compartmentalize the killing of people it gives tacit approval that others use to devaluate and support their excuse for killing or harming others. Why is it so hard to see that as we raise the consciousness of the value of all life it will help in how others are treated in other areas? Love is the one power that raises us all. Blessings.
So you see forced pregnancy/childbirth as equivalent to mandatory vaccination? Okey-dokey. It seems to me that vaccination against deadly infectious diseases also benefits the person being vaccinated. But maybe I’m mistaken. How does being forced to give birth benefit the person being forced to give birth? What potentially fatal illness are they now protected from suffering themselves & spreading to the rest of their community? How does 9 months of significant impact on one’s body compare to the effects on one’s body of vaccination? Perhaps a better analogy would be forced pregnancy vs forced sterilization? But I don’t think you’ll find any pro-choicers here in favor of forced sterilization as public policy and law.
I will readily admit that “abstinence only” policies are a direct attempt to force personal beliefs and morality into public policy. But not all Christians are abstinence only devotees and many, none moreso than me, would prefer that the school not say anything about the moral aspects of abstinence.
I’m pulling this quote but also referencing the “but Christians support contraception!” statements made above.
On the one hand, good for you. On the other, I do not think you are the majority that you’re claiming to be. The people who elected Shrub and his handlers were demographically Christian, and part of his campaign platform both times was the ill-conceived *ahem* abstinence-only sex ed. People who voted him in knew he would take real sex ed out of the schools, and they knew his administration would deny funding to international family planning services who so much as mentioned abortion, and they knew the same administration would take down CDC information on preventing STDs. This wasn’t something hidden in a bill or shoved under the desk to sign, this was a major part of Bush’s campaign.
They voted for him anyway.
Not saying you did, saying that Bush’s supporters knew what he was pushing when they punched the card.
In Missouri earlier this week, the House passed a measure to eliminate funding for contraception for poor women, despite massive evidence that this will lead to an increase in MO’s abortion rate. Pro-choice people were not behind this measure; they fought it tooth and nail and still lost to the pro-life and the “let’s just not spend money on poor people, period” factions, all of whom were voted in. And again, your so-called reasonable pro-life people who favor contraception voted for these people.
If you say you are not a racist, and in your personal life you do everything you can to promote equality (though not too much equality, as the White man should provide spiritual leadership — not what you said, but I assure you, that’s exactly what women hear when you say it) and then cast your votes for politicians who have campaigned to bring back separate drinking fountains, you are as guilty as they are. Again, I am not claiming you personally vote one way or another, I’m saying that rhetoric about how the pro-life camp embraces contraception rings false.
Along those same lines, there are some (very few) people who are pro-choice and don’t support programs to teach and provide contraception, or social programs to assist young mothers providing for their children. These people are called libertarians, and they believe in a special reality where everyone would be much better off if no one had to pay taxes. Almost to a person, everyone else in the pro-choice movement understands that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to first reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and second, provide women with what they need for medical care and feeding and housing their children (including the children they already have).
A final thought on vaccinations: your unvaccinated kid can give my infant (who is too young for that vaccination) whooping cough, which can easily kill her. Your unvaccinated kid can spread it to any and all of his classmates who haven’t been vaccinated (or are among those for whom vaccinations are ineffective) and disrupt the classroom as half the kids are sick or taken out by their parents in fear of their getting sick, and if everyone is very lucky, none of them (or the people they contact) will die. That’s why.
It is the nature of vaccines that if you don’t innoculate 80% of the population you don’t get the benefit of something called “herd immunity.” Herd immunity is important because there are always people who cannot get vaccinated. Case in point: infants under 18 months are not vaccinated with MMR. But if 80% of the overall population is immune, the unvaccinated are, for all intents and purposes, well-protected. If the rate of immunity drops below that, then outbreaks of communicable diseases are correspondingly more likely. In European countries where a sizable number of parents have exercised the right not to vaccinate, diseases such as measles and whooping cough have returned.
Other populations that cannot be vaccinated include some children with asthma and other conditions who take steroids; HIV+ individuals (for some kinds of vaccines); and other people who are immuno-compromised.
Technically speaking you don’t HAVE to vaccinate your kids until they are going to be around other people’s kids in a formal, recurring way — e.g., in daycare, pre-school and school. That’s where the “coercion” kicks in, and even then, at least in the U.S. there are ways to get exempted. There is also a vaccine compensation board that is at least supposed to compensate children who have been adversely affected by vaccines.
So — vaccines represent a minimal bodily intrusion with a very small potential for adverse consequences that are compensated for in the event they do occur; there is a clear public health imperative for the majority of any given discrete population to have immunity against what used to be called comon childood diseases; everyone, vaccinated or not, benefits when herd immunity is established; and you can exempt yourself if you really want to.
So, where is the parallel to abortion?
In addition, many people who object to vaccines actually object to vaccines that are administered to preverbal children. In other words, they object more to the vaccine schedule than to the vaccines themselves. It used to be that many vaccines weren’t given until a kid was getting ready for kindergarten or first grade, but now, by the time a child is two years old, he’s probably been vaccinated against 10 or 12 separate conditions, some of which have combined vaccines, but some of which require multiple shots (or boosters):
Mumps, measles, rubella
Chicken Pox
HIB
Hep-B
Polio
Diptheria, pertussis, tetanus
Rotovirus
Pneumococcal virus (can’t remember whether that’s different from HIB)
And now, I am told, Hep-A is on the way (and has been in California for some time).
Jake;
No I don’t see pregnancy/childbirth as equivalent to mandatory vaccination, that would be a stupid thing to say and is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. I’m saying people are invoking one principle against abortion and its opposite in support of mandatory vaccination. And I’m saying they can’t logically and sincerely hold both principles at the same time.
Sure, vaccination protects the person vaccinated against infectious disease. But if you read what is being written people aren’t justifying mandatory vaccination on that grounds. They’re justifying it on the basis that school kids need to be vaccinated to protect other people from catching the disease from them (‘herd immunity’).
Now, I am sure lots of you really support mandatory vaccination because the vaccinee benefits from the vaccine. But if you believe this then why are you just picking on kids who attend public schools? Surely you should support mandatory vaccination for everyone and not tie the program to school attendance? But you’re not willing to do this. So we get some rather dishonest and dubious logic about mandatory vaccination being okay for school kids because the intervention benefits other people. Even though you wouldn’t support that reasoning in other situations.
Nik, I think part of the reason for tying it to school attendance is the “herd immunity” — when you go to school you are exposing a large population (herd) to whatever diseases you may have, and conversely exposing yourself to whatever diseases that large population may have. (Every parent can tell you that with each kid who goes to school, the entire household goes through a round of colds and other illnesses before becoming immune to that batch of bugs.)
The other part, probably, is that it’s simply easier to enforce the requirement for kids who are going to school.
You are correct that both forced vaccination and forced childbirth are infringements on bodily autonomy. The first is a small infringement to benefit a large number of people, including the vaccinee; the second is a large infringement to benefit an embryo or fetus that, until sometime in the second trimester at the earliest, can’t be considered a person in any meaningful sense.
FWIW — I have never thought it appropriate to force people to be vaccinated, but I do think it’s appropriate that if they aren’t they shouldn’t be in certain settings — such as working in a hospital or in daycare.
I’m not picking on kids who are in school. This is how vaccine administration has been structured since I was a small child. Hospitals, colleges, public schools and so on make their employees get vaccinated as well — it has to do with a lot of people, many of whom are vulnerable, being in very close contact in less than completely hygienic conditions.
It’s annoying to be told that one “really thinks” things that one hasn’t actually said.
Boy this post has legs. I can’t wait to see what is here when I jump on Alas tomorrow. Thanks all for the civility.
Barbara;
Firstly, I personally don’t buy mandatory vaccination for reasons of herd immunity what-so-ever. If you can’t justify a medical intervention based upon the benefit to the person receiving the intervention, I don’t feel you can justify it at all. I think that’s basic medical ethics, and I’m not sure that someone who disagrees with me on that could take the hippocratic oath.
Secondly, the ‘really thinks’ comment wasn’t aimed at you in particular. I am sure that plenty of people do support mandatory vaccination because it benefits the kid mandatorily vaccinated and wouldn’t happen otherwise. I think that’s the current reason for the push with HPV. But with HPV even standard reasons for mandatory vaccination (against conditions like measles) don’t work. The disease doesn’t spread like wildfire in the way that measles does. If you have HPV you’re not threatening someone just by breathing the same air as them.
And – most of all – with the HPV vaccine waiting until someone is a adult and letting them make their mind up themselves about vaccination is an option. That’s makes ethically justifying HPV vaccination very different to justifying most of the vaccinations we’re currently used to. I think it’s possible to question the wisdom of vaccinating children for HPV at all. So I’ve very, very sceptical about trying to push parents into vaccinating them.
And – most of all – with the HPV vaccine waiting until someone is a adult and letting them make their mind up themselves about vaccination is an option.
Except that by the time you’re an adult, unless you’re in the minority that has had no unprotected sex whatsoever (no intercourse, no heavy petting) by age 18, there’s a good chance you’ve already contracted HPV and the vaccine is useless. That’s why it makes the most sense to be immunized against HPV before the thought of sex has even crossed your mind. (My 9-year-old is getting carted to the doctor the instant a vaccine is available.)
If everyone (both male and female) got immunized early against HPV, it might be possible to create herd immunity at least to some strains (I understand the vaccine will not protect against all of them). If not, though, this is one case where there’s an obvious and huge benefit to the vaccinee.
Rock wrote:
I disagree. Once you have decided that a fetus is a person–and as I read you, that seems to be what you imply–you have already and by definition called into question how one understands the value and worth of the free will and free agency of the pregnant woman who carries that fetus, because once you have decided the fetus is a person you have decided that woman is not simply herself, but is also a container for someone who is not herself, and once you make her a container you have by definition devalued who she is as herself.
“If you can’t justify a medical intervention based upon the benefit to the person receiving the intervention, I don’t feel you can justify it at all.”
A person who is vaccinated benefits from the vaccine. I was trying to explain why it is that, from a public health perspective, it’s important to get as many people vaccinated as possible in order that others can ALSO benefit from vaccination even if they themselves don’t get vaccinated. Right now, those who opt not to get their children vaccinated are benefiting greatly from those who do. They won’t know it, of course, until they form a critical mass and childhood diseases make a comeback, as measles has already started to.
Re HPV: Wiping out a disease is a worthy goal no matter how the disease is contracted. A hundred years ago many people justified the poor treatment of TB victims, in particular, with the statement that “the wages of sin is death.” If you want to put your children at higher risk of cervical cancer to prove a point, I guess that’s your business.
Richard J. N.
I personally hold that I can no more make that distinction (when one has a soul) with certainty than I can tell how exactly all this life came to be. It is a mystery. I therefore lean on the reasoning that I know when all that is needed is there to be a person, accept nourishment, and that is conception.
I would not consider a mother as a “container.” Any more than does a nursing woman become merely a source of food. (Good Grief!) Once one recognizes that a fetus is a person we have acknowledged that consideration must be made for how ones actions can affect them too, not exclusivly. If the fetus is a person greater care might develop in how we treat the responsibility in our relationships that include sex. I see greater esteem, a woman with a baby never ceases to be herself, she is providing care and sacrificing for another in a most profound and intimate way.
Quite frankly much of what I see argued and debated here has more to do with power and with control than with caring for the people involved. True power is not something demanded or deserved it is something you express. The ultimate expression of power is love; it is the ability not to express power, but to restrain it… to love others as ourselves. (Cloud)
One of the most profound loves that we can share is the love we show towards those that are dependant on us for their daily needs. In taking care of a friend who was paralyzed from smoke inhalation (the fire she set passing out drunk while smoking) I was moved deeper into the margins of what is life, and what is personhood than I thought possible. Little did I know it was just the beginning. Since that time I have cared for MS, Down, stroke, victims of violence, brain damaged addicts, each time I thought I finally got it, than I held my children… I have come to doubt I ever will get it, until I have let go of the entire ego left in me. I see all life as a gift and what we do with it determines the value that we hold for others and ourselves. Blessings.
Barbara post 257,
Well spoken.
As a generally left-leaning person, I still can’t find myself supporting abortion. I don’t believe that we have the right to commit violence against anyone, except a restraining type of violence, i.e., jail.
A foetus is of course going to become a full-fledged human being someday. How do we decide at which point in the life cycle someone becomes a full-fledged human being, you know, one who counts? Is it birth? Is it at 1 year? Maybe 21? Perhaps 6 months gestation? It all seems rather arbitrary unless we simply acknowledge that the life of a human begins at conception.
A woman certainly has a right over her own body. And we must work so that she may exercise that right from the very beginning. No woman should become pregnant, if she doesn’t so desire. With the contraceptions available today, this is a reality.
For me, realizing that there is vast disagreement over this issue, I’d prefer that both sides would discuss things more rationally. And I do mean both sides. I’ve seen lots of ‘pro-lifers’ who simply insult, and certainly not listen. But I’ve also been insulted, castigated, etc., by ‘pro-choicers’ for simply voicing my opinion. And I wish that we could work together to make abortions exceedingly rare, if not completely non-existent. It is a woman’s issue, as well as an unborn child issue. And women must be empowered to make their own decisions concerning sex, and to use proper contraception.
DUH….
Ever notice at the congressional signing ceremonies for abortion bills that the attendees are all fat old bald white men?! and how about this from a state senator bill napoli in south dakota when asked if he can think of reasonable exception to the south daakota’s ban on abortion:
“A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”
only religious virgins can be raped? so as a younger woman my secular mother would have had to bear the child of her rapist?!
Rock said:
“Assuming one is mature enough to make choices regarding having sexual relationships, should imply one is willing to deal with the consequences of our actions. Pregnancy is a distinct possibility (one of many) of consensual sex and the value of that potential individual life demands (to some of us) a higher sense of responsibility for our actions than forcing that very creation to suffer consequences as a result of our choices.”
If a woman gets pregnant after having sex, having an abortion is one way to deal with it. It is not about maturity or immaturity, it is about believing that the fetus is worth more than the woman it is growing in. If the fetus has the same rights as a person, then the woman will accordingly loose the right to freedom and autonomy. People will always sex for pleasure, sex that is non-procreative. I surely wouldn’t want to live in a world where women could only have sex if they wanted to get pregnant and have children. Would you?
Pingback: Patterico’s Pontifications » Kevin Drum Praises False Dichotomies Regarding Abortion
On Richard’s post, this part bothered me a bit:
Specifically, the examples regarding a pregnant woman’s body seemed slanted: You provided a reasonable sounding pro-choice example (“Is she a free and autonomous individual?”) contrasted with two views that both relegate the woman’s status to an object (a life support system, a vessel) with the necessary implication that the pro-life view will be one of those.
I’m sure this wasn’t intentional, but I’d like to point out that rather then referring to her as a vessel, the pro-life “reasonable” view (balancing the pro-choice one) would be more along the lines of: “Is she a person who’s autonomy may be considered against those of the fetus”. Or something like that. As it stands, there was a clear bias that gave it a disingenuous feel.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Are Vaccination Requirements the Same as Forced Pregnancy?
Daniel–
Your point deserves a response. Unfortunately, I will be out of town today and might not be around tomorrow either. I will respond when I can get back to a computer.
Ampersand:
Hmmm. Let’s apply this analysis to the pro choice-for-women anti choice-for-men position (+C4W-C4M). It’s a little more complex, because +C4W-C4M advocates argue that they have two goals: That women should have the sole decision about what happens to their bodies, and that born children should have the support of both parents. (By support I mean either or both financial support and care.)
In contrast, C4M advocates tend to think that the +C4W-C4M movement is motivated by a desire – perhaps a subconscious desire – to deny men any post-copulative reproductive choice – essentially to punish them for getting women pregnant.
I can’t make a nice chart, but let’s look at some of the policies supported by +C4W-C4M advocates to see how well suited they are to meeting these goals:
1. Policy: Pregnant women should be allowed to have abortions, even if the father is opposed.
Women’s Bodily Autonomy? Yes.
Support Children? Yes. Mother may want the abortion because she is unwilling to support the child. If denied an abortion, the woman might evade her legal obligation to do so, so allowing abortions in this case ensures that any children which are born are more likely to be supported by their mothers.
Punish Men? Yes. Some men may have deep moral or emotional objections to the destruction of their unborn children. Others may wish to become fathers.
2. Policy: Pregnant women should not be required to have an abortion, even if the father wants her to have one.
Women’s Bodily Autonomy? Yes.
Support Children? No. Father may want the abortion because he is unwilling to support the child. Such a father might evade any legal obligation to do so, so not requiring abortions in this case ensures that any children which are born are less likely to be supported by their fathers.
Punish Men? Yes. Men are made fathers against their will. Some are forced to support their unwanted children.
3. Policy: Pregnant women should not be required to have an abortions, even if she is unwilling or unable to support the child.
Autonomy? Yes.
Support? No. See 1 above.
Punish? Yes. In addition to 2 above, mother’s unwillingness to have an abortion means that it is more likely that the full burden of supporting the child will fall on him.
4 Policy: Children not given up for adoption must be supported by both parents.
Autonomy? Weak No. Any obligation which attaches to a choice reduces the mother’s freedom to make that choice, i.e., not to make another choice. Nevertheless, she still has choice.
Support? Yes.
Punish? Yes. Since the father has no other choice, this is a strong ‘No’.
5. Policy: Children may be given up for adoption if both parents agree.
Autonomy? Weak Yes. If the father agrees, then a woman who does not wish to support the child has another option than abortion.
Support? No. In this case the child will be supported by neither parent.
Punish? Weak No. This is the only post-coital choice the man has, but it is ‘weak’ because it is contingent upon the agreement of the mother.
6. Policy: Children may not be given up for adoption unless both parents agree.
Autonomy? Weak No. See 4 above.
Support? Yes. If children are not be given up for adoption, they must be supported by their parents.
Punish? Yes. If the mother does not agree, then the father has no post coital choice at all.
7. Policy: Children may be abandoned in a safe place by a parent, with no penalty.
Autonomy: Weak yes. Since this will in practice lead to the adoption of the child, possibly without the father’s knowledge, it represents yet another post-coital choice for the woman.
Support. No. By support we mean parental support. This policy allows the parent to withdraw support from the child.
Punish: Yes and No. Yes, because this makes it easier to deny fathers their parental rights, or even knowledge of their child’s existence. No because fathers could abandon the child themselves, though in practice they are less likely to have physical custody of the child, nor is it likely to lead to adoption without the knowledge or consent of the mother.
Totals:
Autonomy? 5 Yesses (2 of them weak), 2 weak nos.
Support? 3 Yesses, 4 Nos.
Punish? 6 Yesses, 2 nos (1 of them weak).
Daran, you’re conflating pregnancy with a child, a common misperception among Men’s Rights proponents.
Women have the right to keep or terminate a pregnancy as they choose because women are the ones who are pregnant.
Reread that last sentence. Out loud if necessary.
Pregnancy kills over half a million women per year. Pregnancy can lead to diabetes, hypertension, constipation, hemherroids, permanent loss of bladder control, and also homicide (number one killer of pregnant women, usually by intimate partner).
The side-effects men suffer from pregnancy are … *crickets chirp* I can buy “homicide” if the wrong man finds out, but really, no.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Yes, this includes the elimination of a potential child at the same time, but the term itself means “to stop,” and what is stopping is the health-endangering, life-threatening condition known as pregnancy. Abortion is a form of taking responsibility for a pregnancy, even if people disagree with it as an option.
Men who claim that they are being persecuted because they aren’t allowed to give the legal yes or no nod to an abortion come across as though they think they should have the say over what will happen to someone else’s body. They don’t. Couching it as “OMG, you’re oppressing my rights” is inaccurate and stupid. Imagine if you will having to get a signed and notarized permission slip from your girlfriend before you get a vasectomy (after all, you’re impacting her reproductive future).
As for the adoption question, I assure you that while I have known plenty of women who have given up children for adoption, not one of the biological fathers in question wanted the least thing to do with the children. Claiming there’s a huge number of men being disenfranchised in this manner is a straw man argument not backed up by anything close to reality.
Children have rights. They have the right to be taken care of by a loving, supportive family. Whether this is provided by an adoptive family, a biological family, or by a single mother whose income is supplemented by an unwilling biological father is immaterial. Children need resources to grow and continue, and yes, unless the male in question had a vasectomy to ensure he wouldn’t cause a pregnancy, he knew what he was getting into, and that he wouldn’t have a say over his partner’s options regarding an abortion. DNA testing has made it easier for women to prove paternity; that just means fewer men can sneak away to avoid responsibility. Arguing that it’s unfair ignores that the brunt of reproduction doesn’t fall on men anyway, and is disingenuous.
Well here’s a European challenging your assertions! (save for the puritanical prude bit).
Here in the UK, the age at which young people lose their virginity is actually getting later – and this directly correlates to the expansion of more comprehensive sex education. All people in the UK have access to free contraception and all women and girls have access to free abortion should they need it. There are no parental notification laws.
From: [UK] National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (printed in The Lancet 2005) :
“The average male age for loss of virginity is 15 for black Caribbeans, 17 for whites and black Africans and 20 for Indians and Pakistanis.
Among women it is 17 for whites and black Caribbeans, 18 for black Africans, 21 for Indians and 22 for Pakistanis.”
On average, the British lose their virginity the earliest in Europe and we also have the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe although it is only a quarter (pro rata) of that of the US.
I also found this:
“¢ In most of the developed world, the majority of young women become sexually active during their teenage years…the proportion who have had intercourse reaches at least three-quarters by age 20.
“¢ Levels of sexual activity and the age at which teenagers become sexually active do not vary considerably across comparable developed countries, such as Canada, Great Britain, France, Sweden and the United States.
“¢ Teenagers in the United States are more likely to have sexual intercourse before age 15 and have shorter and more sporadic sexual relationships than teenagers in Canada, France, Great Britain and Sweden. As a result, they are more likely to have more than one partner in a given year.
A foetus is of course going to become a full-fledged human being someday. How do we decide at which point in the life cycle someone becomes a full-fledged human being, you know, one who counts? Is it birth? Is it at 1 year? Maybe 21? Perhaps 6 months gestation? It all seems rather arbitrary unless we simply acknowledge that the life of a human begins at conception.
Are you willing to face all the consequences of deciding that? If the life of a human begins at conception, then the single largest cause of death in human beings is the natural failure of the fertilized zygote to implant, which kills over 50% of what we then define as people. We should spending so much money on piddling things like cancer and AIDS, and funnel massive medical effort into intervening to make sure every egg that gets fertilized ends up implanting and developing into a baby.
Of course, this is problematic, since there’s no way to tell if a particular egg is fertilized prior to implantation short of taking it out and putting it under a microscope. So in order to avoid violence against zygotes, we’d have to ban any form of contraception that might conceivably prevent a fertilized egg from implanting (some IUDs, for instance; many anti-contraceptive activists would also include the birth control pill, though they don’t have much in the way of evidence).
But wait–most of those same methods also prevent normal ovulation, and therefore actually reduce the rate of natural death of zygotes by an enormous margin, by preventing the eggs from getting fertilized in the first place. But if zygotes are people, are we willing to allow the faint possibility that contraceptives will kill one in order to prevent many more others from dying naturally? This now becomes a calculus of human lives, albeit single-celled ones. And so on.
In my opinion, defining human life with full legal rights as beginning at conception is just as arbitrary as defining it as beginning anywhere else, and would in addition have particularly horrendous practical consequences since the moment of conception is something that can’t even be directly observed. The people who insist on this most strictly are usually intent on banning some kinds of contraceptive, just in case.
I’m more with the people who say that the question of when a human life begins isn’t really the right question. We don’t force people to donate kidneys, even when it’s the only way to save a life, and we shouldn’t force women to go through with pregnancy and childbirth, which is at least as dangerous and physically disruptive as donating a kidney.
Spicey – OK, I’ll accept that. But then there is some real contradiction out there. Explain how Americans having sex earlier and having more sexual partners than Europeans makes Americans prudes? I mean, promiscuous prudes seems quite the oxymoron. If your evidence is correct, (and I have no reason to believe it isn’t) then how are we the puritanical prudes. Maybe I’m missing something obvious.
I am also very curious what this more comprehensive sex education contains that encourages kids to wait longer to have sex and to have more serious and enduring sexual relationships. I mean, I’m being serious here. Are there any links you know of off the top of your head that outline the ciriculum that is being used? It certainly is something that even fundimentalist Christians would be very interested in seeing. (I will do my own research as well. But if you know of something, I would apreciate the time saver)
And finally, where does that leave all of the people I have talked to from Europe. Are they all just a bunch of lying America bashers?
(BTW, I had a Swedish girlfriend in college. Her mother put her on the pill when she was 15 because it was assumed she would be sexually active. According to her, this was the norm. My sister married a Swede. He confirmed this attitude toward sexuallity, i.e. it starts early in life, in numerous conversations we had. All this was in the 80’s. So maybe the comprehensive sex education you speak of is a more recent development. All I know is I have no reason to doubt these two people regarding Swede’s attitudes toward sex.)
Aren’t these two statements contradictory?
gengwall, no they are not necessarily contradictory. The average age may be the same, but the number of younger people who engage in sex may be higher — just not high enough to materially change the average. Alternatively, the European data may be more clustered around the average, while the American data may be spread out across a wider age range. You would have to look at the raw data, or a description of the raw data.
Prudishness does not mean “does not engage in sex” so much as it means, “does not want to talk or act as if anyone engages in sex.” It also means in this context, I am speculating, that one becomes horrified when one cannot deny that someone else is or was having sex — the French reaction to Francois Mitterand’s love child, for instance, was pretty low key in comparison with what the presumed American reaction might have been to a similar revelation.
Mike,
Let’s go with the idea that a fetus is a full fledged person, starting at conception. If I, as a woman, am being chased by a man with a knife, who intends to cut out my uterus, I have no ability to put that person in jail. I can run away, but there’s a good chance he’ll be faster than me. Do I have to submit to having my uterus cut out rather than doing whatever I have to do, up to and including killing him if need be, to stop him? And if not, then why am I not permitted to have an abortion to protect my health? Why does a fetus get a greater level of protection than a person? (This, by the way, is exactly the scenario describes in Jewish Talmudic law to explain why abortion is permitted. A fetus that endangers the life or health of a woman is termed a rodef, a pursuer, and you take whatever steps are necessary to protect that woman’s life and health.)
And now, let’s take this a step further. Say I’m a mother. My child needs a kidney, and I am a potential donor. Should the law force me to donate an organ to my child? What about the father of the child? Should he be forced to donate part of his liver, if necessary? Pregnancy is not passive. A fetus is not a self-sustaining person. A fetus draws its support from its host, also knows as its potential mother, not unlike a tapeworm, or a tumor. (No, I am not saying children are tapeworms or tumors.) Nowhere else in law do we force a person to provide support to another person, because no situation is like a pregnancy. Therefore, you cannot equate the two. They are not the same.
P.S. – The Bible says a fetus is not a life, something that religious anti-choicers love to ignore. I think someone else may have mentioned this up thread.
Barbara – OK, I’ll accept both of those explanations.
Did some research oof my own. I found this study at http://www.durex.com. Durex, as you probably know, is a condom manufacturer. They did a global sex survey in 2004. 350,000 people were surveyed in 41 countries. The results reflect what Barbara suspected, that is that the European numbers quoted above are probably trans continental numbers. In other words, some countries have earlier and some later ages than the US. I found it interesting which countries fell on either side of that line.
The Global age of first sex number is 17.7
Here is how European countries, Canada, and the US compared in order of youngest to oldest first sex. (sorry I can’t get this in table form. I also left some Eastern European countries out because, quite frankly, I didn’t want to type that much) I have highlighted those countries mentioned above that supposedly have sex later in life than Americans.
Age of first sex
Germany…16.2
Austria…16.3
Netherlands…16.4
Sweden…16.4
Denmark…16.5
Finland…16.5
Norway…16.5
United Kingdom…16.7
United States…16.9
Canada…17.0
Bulgaria…17.1
France…17.1
Belgium…17.2
Hungary…17.3
Switzerland…17.3
Czech Republic…17.5
Ireland…17.5
Italy…17.6
Spain…17.7
Greece…17.8
Poland…17.9
Bottom line is that the US looks much better in this study. SPecificall, my contention that the low abortion countries are not necessarily more abstinent countries holds up.
Incidentally, in terms of number of sexual partners in the study, the US is way up there (10.3). Only the Scandinavian countries (11.1 – 12.3), Ireland (10.6), and Greece (10.4) were higher amoungst European countries and Canada.
Where the European countries really outshine the US is earliest age of sex education. Most are lower than the US (at 12.2). Interestingly, France, Poland, and Greece were much higher, all being over age 13.
Another stunning result was in unprotected sex. Of course, as we might presume from results reported by others, the Netherlands is one of the top countries in using protection (only 37% do not use protection). What is amazing are the countries that a poor performers in this regard. Sweden and Denmark are attrocious (both have 64% not using protection). I suspect their abortion rates are equally high. Norway isn’t much better (58%). The rest of the European countries fall at or below 50% unprotected sex.
Another interesting result was “who should teach sex ed”. The numbers are all over the map from Sewden’s 25% parents, 60% schools to Germany’s 72% parents, 18% schools. The US is more in favor of parents (61%) than schools (30%).
This is a fascinating study because it is done by a company that certainly has no problem with people having sex. Go take a look.
Global Sex Survey 2004
ADS – The bible is, at best, contradictory on fetal personhood. Some passages clearly indicate the unborn were not accroded the same value as the born, but others clearly show that the unborn matter a great deal to God. You are correct, though, that the Jews did not consider you a legally protected person until you were born. You are also correct that pro-lifers conveniently ignore the totality of what the bible has to say on it.
I didn’t see the link to the 2005 survey before. I won’t bother posting results unless I see something that really jumps out as different than 2004. Here is the link
Global Sex Survey 2005
I meant with reference to social norms about sex rather than people having sex. For example, the responses to topless sunbathing, breastfeeding in public, inter-racial relationships, Janet Jackson’s ‘wardrobe malfunction’ and the like.
The government issued new sex and relationship guidance in July 2000. The guidance states that secondary schools should:
“¢ teach about relationships, love and care and the responsibilities of parenthood as well as sex
“¢ focus on boys as much as girls
“¢ build self-esteem
“¢ teach the taking on of responsibility and the consequences of one’s actions in relation to sexual activity and parenthood
“¢ provide young people with information about different types of contraception, safe sex, and how they can access local sources of further advice and treatment
“¢ use young people as peer educators, e.g. teenage mothers and fathers
“¢ give young people a clear understanding of the arguments for delaying sexual activity and resisting pressure
“¢ link sex and relationship education with issues of peer pressure and other risk-taking behaviour, such as drugs, smoking and alcohol
“¢ ensure young people understand how the law applies to sexual relationships
It goes on to say:
“Effective Sex and Relationship Education is essential if young people are to make responsible and well-informed decisions about their life. It should teach young people to understand human sexuality and to respect themselves and others. It enables young people to mature, to build up their confidence and self-esteem and understand the reasons for delaying sexual activity.”
More here.
Spicy – very cool. Thank you.
I’ve always thought that the “except in cases of rape and incest” is also something that ends up hurting most those it puportedly helps. If you outlaw all abortions exceptin cases of rape/incest, you end up with a situation where, because women who are not raped might be motivated to lie about it to get an abortion, all rape victims are treated suspiciously and assumed to be liars. Just how does a woman prove she was raped? It seems to me that you have to ask yourself, what matters more, a) stopping women from having abortions “for convenience” or b) protecting rape victims from being put in a situation where others “judge” whether they are a “deserving” victim, entitled to an abortion. I don’t think that preventing some women from having abortions that I don’t approve of is sufficient grounds for putting this burden of “prove you were raped” on rape victims who want an abortion. That’s why I’m for “abortion on demand” — you can’t say, abortion, but only in circumstances of which I approve. Who gets to approve? Let’s leave it up to women, their doctors, and their families. None of us are perfect, and any person of any age can be a rape victim. When you are a victim of crime, the last thing you want is to have people come in after the fact and criticize your behavior, and tell you that you didn’t “earn” or “deserve” an abortion.
RE: the life begins at conception debate. A thought that occured to me sometime back is this: If the fetus/zygote/blastula is truly a full fledged human, shouldn’t women who drink, smoke, take illicit drugs while pregnant be considered guilty of breaking child endangerment laws? It is universally accepted that all these substances cross the placental barrier. What about women who gain too much weight during their pregancy? Just a thought.
I’m curious.
When “forced childbirth” is mentioned negatively in the context of this thread, does that imply that one is always against any restraints on a woman’s right to abort the fetus?
At 5 months?
6 months? Later?
Roe v. Wade “forces” childbirth based on the trimester. Isn’t that allowing the right of the fetus to “trump” the autonomy of the woman?
And does that mean at some point that’s ok?
I f abortion is equal to murder, it follows that a miscarriage is equal to involuntary manslaughter. That’s one in four pregnancies…
Daniel:
Roe is the compromise. It stands between “abortion on demand and without apology at any point during pregnancy” and “life and full human rights begin at conception.” It’s a middle ground for people who are uncomfortable at the thought of the straw-(wo)man argument of the 38-week abortion of a healthy fetus but still think that women should in general have the right to decide what does and doesn’t grow in their bodies.
Could it amount to “forced birth?” Possibly, but in practice, it’s simply a way of trying to ensure equal protection for an adult female and what could be a healthy infant. Like most compromises, it won’t make everyone entirely happy, but you’ll notice that the pro-choice side has been largely concerned with maintaining that middle ground, as well as fighting for measures that reduce the overall need for abortions in the first place (bringing it back to Amp’s handy chart). You can try to make a point that it’s hypocritical, but really, it’s common sense.