Tim Tebow Ad, Take 2

[Túrin Turambar]

Nor do many of them try to pass laws that would control other women's decisions.

That's patently unfair. There are many, many women that believe that life begins at conception and that therefore abortion should be illegal. I don't have any statistics at hand, but I doubt that there are any that show that an overwhelming majority of those who believe that abortion should be illegal are male.

I've actually seen figures that suggest that there's more women than men in the pro-life movement.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In fact that is what the polling that I am finding says. At Wikipedia they cite a 2003 CBS/New York Times poll that shows a higher percentage of women in favor of restricting abortions than men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_i ... ted_States

If I find more recent data, I'll post it.

[JewelSong]

I was catching up with this thread and happened to see myself quoted by Mith...where I say that pregnancy/abortion is one of those things that you truly do not know for sure what you will do until and unless it happens to you.

I appreciate, Mith, that you have given the matter a great deal of thought and that you are pretty certin that you do know what you would do, should you find yourself in that dark place of an unplanned, unexpected, unwanted or even forced pregnancy. But the bottom line is - you do not know what you would actually do. Being pregnant is not like having a simple physical condition...it involves hormones and biology and drives that you never could have imagined before you became pregnant.

This is why, Hal, it is impossible for a man to know what it feels like. It isn't something you can experience. Ever. You can empathize, and sympathize and imagine...but you cannot know what it is like to have your body taken over for 9 months. And even women who desperately WANT the baby and planned and hoped and dreamed for the pregnancy are sometimes taken by surprise with how it affects them.

I was very, very lucky. My three full-term pregnancies were relavtively easy. I was in good health and had support...even for the one that was a total surprise. And my one miscarriage was early in the pregnancy, so although there was grief, there were few complications.

But I have known women on both sides of the "fence" who ended up deciding - for various reasons - the exact opposite of what they had always thought they would decide. And I have known women who fervrently wanted the pregnancy to continue who had to have it terminated due to health reasons...some quite late in the pregnancy. This is a terrible decision and not one anyone makes lightly.

And not a decision that should be second-guessed or judged by anyone else.

Hal, it is very easy for you to pass judgement on what decisions women make from where you sit. It is very easy for you to point a finger of blame and blithely say that if people don´t want children, they should just not have sex. You have no children. You are not in a sexual relationship, nor, by your own admission, have you ever been in one. You mourn for unborn children while at the same time, have little apparent sympathy or understanding for women who find themselves in a situation where they must make a life-changing decision. You have gone so far as to call them "cold-blooded killers."

This shows me that, contrary to what you have been stating, that you really do NOT have an understanding of what it feels like to be in any of the situations being described.

If you ever find yourself in the position where you have fathered a child, I have no doubt that you will be a responsible and devoted father and will love your children. But that is not what this is about.

[Primula Baggins]

I should have said "many do not try" to pass such laws.

I am not trying to be "patently unfair." But clearly my time would be better spent elsewhere today.

[MithLuin]

The demographic at the March for Life in DC (in the past few years a crowd of between 100-300,000) is predominantly female. There are a lot of men there, too, of course, but there are more women than men in the group. My mother and my sister, both of whom are mothers, vote for prolife candidates when given the opportunity; as does my sister who will quite likely never have children.

It depends on which state you live in how likely men are to be pro-life/pro-choice. I have a 2005 survey that splits up basic opinions on abortion by various demographic factors. Ie, people who attend church regularly are more likely to identify themselves as pro-life, and people who identify themselves as liberal are more likely to be pro-choice. In a heavily pro-life state like Utah, gender doesn't make any difference; 61% of all people, male and female, call themselves pro-life. In Oregon, 63% of men are pro-choice, while 58% of women are. So, again, pretty close, but it does look like you are slightly more likely to come across a pro-life male than female there. In South Dakota, the population is pretty evenly split between pro-life and pro-choice, and so are the men and women. (There was a 'not sure' option in these surveys as well, so a pretty wide margin of error, I guess.)

The factor that accounts for the different between Oregon and Utah is not gender, but is quite likely to be (as Voronwë pointed out) the belief that the baby is a human person before birth.

[nerdanel]

In view of the "you can't know what you would do until you're there" comments: I want to clarify one thing about my own position. I'm vividly, almost fearfully aware of that fact. From my non-pregnant/pre-pregnant standpoint, I am so deeply emotionally opposed to the idea of my ever being pregnant, ever having a kid, ever being a mother ... that I react ever more strongly to the thought that being pregnant could somehow hormonally change what have been lifelong truths, to this point, for me. In other words, I know I can't know, and that scares me all the more. Heterosexual intercourse is an emotionally scary thing for me for this reason, and taking every contraceptive precaution seriously every time is very important to me; should it work out that I end up with a woman, it will be nice not to have to worry about this.

EDIT For instance, I'll say candidly that one thing that messes with my head is the thought of being pregnant where the father was someone whom I love. For whatever reason, that throws me - that a part of that person, in a sense, would be inside of me. And I feel like that would really ... just throw me in a way that I can't quite put my finger on. After one relationship ended really badly, some things were a few days late, and I remember freaking out, knowing how badly I didn't want to be pregnant, and thinking that it would be even worse if the other person were off with his new SO and I was alone needing to make this decision. In particular, I wasn't sure what I would do if I realized that ... something from this person towards whom I had very mixed and very strong feelings was inside of me (I didn't love him, incidentally, and it would still have been really confusing.) If I had been pregnant, and that would have affected things between him and me (i.e., he would have chosen to be back together with me if I chose to keep the child), that could also have played into the mix. I just know that it was at a time when I already felt ridiculously emotionally vulnerable because of the breakup, and injecting this element into it - I would have not been in the most rational place, and I'd have had to make a critically important decision, on my own, as a single 22 year old. With my ex whom I did/do love, if I had been pregnant either during or after the relationship ... that REALLY would have thrown me, and I would have struggled with the idea that this was also the child of someone I loved, not only mine. Based on his religious beliefs and his different view of sex, I would also likely have had to confront the question that exercising my choice in the way I think I would do, hypothetically, would likely forever have shattered things between us, whether platonically or romantically. As he remains one of the most important people in my life, I couldn't weigh that lightly, completely apart from the matter of the morality of abortion.

It's funny, because in the abstract what I would do is so clear to me: I don't want a child and I would not keep one. And the moments in my life where reality has threatened to creep into that hypothetical have been far less clear, even for someone who is as viscerally opposed to the idea as me. (And realizing that has made me, talking in the abstract, even more strident, ironically.) This makes me feel skeptical of people who think they know with complete certainty what they would do - particularly those who have never been in a sexual relationship, to be honest. It is different than any other experience I have had, I don't think there are any good analogs, and the real life situations seem to be too complex to hypothesize about ex ante.

[Cerin]

That was all I was pointing out...that hardship in and of itself is not the issue - the issue is whether or not you are talking about a human person.

Yes, I would agree with that. I didn't understand that that was the point you were trying to make.

I am not unaware of your take on this question, or vison's. I know you view this situation very differently than I do. To you, abortion makes you not pregnant any more. To me, abortion means your baby is now dead.

In fact, you are not aware of my take on the question of abortion. In fact, I do not personally view pregnancy differently than you do. No, abortion to me would also mean that my baby was dead.

The difference between us is that I recognize that my perspective on abortion is informed by my religious beliefs. And I understand that our Constitution forbids the government establishment of religion. That means that any stand I take with regard to our country's laws has to be based on constitutional principles, not on religious ones. I cherish our government's prohibition on establishment of religion. It is the thing that guarantees that I will always have the right to worship according to my conscience and understanding. I understand that someone who was not animated by my religious faith would not necessarily come to the same understanding of abortion that I have. And so I zealously champion the equal validity under law of their understanding of abortion; it is an exercise of the freedom I cherish -- freedom from having someone else's religious beliefs imposed upon me.

[vison]

In fact, you are not aware of my take on the question of abortion. In fact, I do not personally view pregnancy differently than you do. No, abortion to me would also mean that my baby was dead.

I think the same way. Having been pregnant three times and having borne two healthy children, and having also suffered the misfortune of an ectopic pregnancy, I know EXACTLY how I would feel.

But that is the way I think and feel. I probably would not ever had an abortion. Almost certainly never.

Almost certainly never.

But, then, I was fortunate to be young, healthy, in a stable marriage, able to afford children, wanted to have children. My children were blessings. I never thought otherwise.

I was lucky and I know I was lucky. I don't use the experiences of my lucky life to insist that other women must make the same choices I did.

[Griffon64]

I cherish our government's prohibition on establishment of religion. It is the thing that guarantees that I will always have the right to worship according to my conscience and understanding. I understand that someone who was not animated by my religious faith would not necessarily come to the same understanding of abortion that I have. And so I zealously champion the equal validity under law of their understanding of abortion; it is an exercise of the freedom I cherish -- freedom from having someone else's religious beliefs imposed upon me.

I don't use the experiences of my lucky life to insist that other women must make the same choices I did.

Well said, you guys. ( At least from where I'm standing. )

This is the thing that, I think, some members of the pro-life crowd ( and please note I do not have any person reading here under any of the labels I use, I'm thinking about my general encounters on this topic ) loses sight of when they call anybody who are pro-choice ( if these labels upset anyone, I apologize, I can't keep straight whether people have asked that they be used or not in this thread ) "murderer" and similar. The assumption is made that someone who is pro-choice will necessarily also be, in a personal capacity, someone who will have an abortion - and I hesitate to use the following phrases, but for lack of better ones: - "just because it is easier / out of selfish motivation / etc". That is not true. People whose personal choice would be to have the baby, can still understand that it isn't theirs to expect that their personal choice be enforced on everybody. That's why it is pro-choice and not pro-murder.

Once this is understood, all the rhetoric about "What would you do in this situation?" become practically moot. It is the freedom of the other that is supported, not ( necessarily ) the choices they make.

This is only a facet of the debate, of course - it only separates out the motivation for the viewpoint for some people. But it is probably worthwhile to remember when personal attacks, or personalizing in general, become tempting.

[yovargas]

nel, I'm so glad I can be around a place where you can share things like that. Great post.

[Lidless]

nel, you are the only person I know whose edits are longer than their posts. I love it.

[MithLuin]

vison and Cerin, we have had this discussion before, which is why I say that I am familiar with your views of pregnancy. I wasn't suggesting that you don't consider the fetus a baby (just as I would hardly deny that a woman is no longer pregnant after an abortion), I was saying...

You are looking at abortion from the point of view of the mother, and the results for her.

I am looking at it from the point of view of the baby, and the outcome for him or her.

These points of view don't have to be diametrically opposed, and you don't have to ignore one for the other. I can pray as much as I want about this topic without telling anyone what to do with her life.

Anyway, I'm outa here for the weekend.

[Cerin]

You are looking at abortion from the point of view of the mother, and the results for her.

Actually, I'm looking at abortion from the point of view of a free society that guarantees certain rights to people. You can't accord both a woman and the fetus inside of her the same rights of personhood. You have to abridge the rights of one if you're going to guarantee the rights of the other. I'm not willing to abridge the rights of a woman in order to grant them to a fertilized egg, or to an early term fetus. I am willing to abridge the rights of a fertilized egg or an early term fetus in order to guarantee them to a woman.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Nicely said, Cerin.

[Frelga]

re Cerin's post.

nel, what you shared emphasizes Cerin's point even more - that we can't judge the choices of other by what we ourselves have chosen. As a comparison, I have never experienced baby lust myself, but one of the main imperatives for my decision to have a baby with my husband was just that - bearing a child of the man I love, that would be a part of us both. Of course that was after a number of years of stable marriage, which is an entirely different place to be, but it was one of those things... the word "visceral" had been used several times, and I think it's the best one. There's nothing logical about it all.

[halplm]

I guess it depends on what rights you think are most important.

Nowhere in any law that I know of is there a "right to life" explicitly laid out.

But then again, nor is there a "right to privacy" or a "right to abortion" either.

So I guess it's a matter of priorities.

[JewelSong]

But then again, nor is there a "right to privacy"
.

I thought there was...

So I guess it's a matter of priorities

Indeed. And as Cerin said, she would rather the woman or girl be given the right to decide what to do than have that right superceded by a fertilized egg or embryo.

To have things be the other way around means (to me) that the pregnant woman is nothing more than an incubator for the developing fetus. That once conception has occured, the woman gives up all rights and privileges normally accorded a human being and gives them over to the embryo-fetus.

It seems to make more sense (again, to me) to give the greater rights to the already-born and already-existing human being, rather than to something that is in an early stage of being formed.

Those are the priorities that make the most sense. To me.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But then again, nor is there a "right to privacy"
.

I thought there was...

There is no explicitly stated right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution (though there is in the California Constitution, and probably in most other states as well, though I don't know that for sure). The federal right to privacy was established in a case called Griswold v. Connecticut, which invalidated a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples. The majority opinion, written by Justice Douglas, held that it the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause. Most following cases that have followed the rationale of Griswold (including Roe v. Wade) have mostly followed Justice Harlan's due process argument.

While Griswold remains controversial in some quarters, both conservative appointees to the Supreme Court by President Bush explicitly stated that they approved of it. Here is what Chief Justice Roberts said:

asked, "Do you agree that there is a right of privacy to be found in the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?" Roberts responded:
"I do, Senator. I think that the court's expressions, and I think if my reading of the precedent is correct, I think every justice on the court believes that, to some extent or another. Liberty is not limited to freedom from physical restraint. It does cover areas, as you said, such as privacy. And it's not protected only in procedural terms but it is protected substantively as well."
"I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that. The court, since Griswold, has grounded the privacy right discussed in that case in the liberty interest protected under the due process clause."
"I feel comfortable commenting on Griswold and the result in Griswold because that does not appear to me to be an area that is going to come before the court again."

[Túrin Turambar]

Indeed. And as Cerin said, she would rather the woman or girl be given the right to decide what to do than have that right superceded by a fertilized egg or embryo.

To have things be the other way around means (to me) that the pregnant woman is nothing more than an incubator for the developing fetus. That once conception has occured, the woman gives up all rights and privileges normally accorded a human being and gives them over to the embryo-fetus.

But it doesn’t – a pregnant woman still enjoys all the rights of any other adult regardless of whether she can abort her fetus or not. She has the protections of the law, can own property, contract, vote, freely associate, etc.

My issue with the pro-choice position (and I am pro-choice myself) is that it can often view discussions on abortion as discussions on the rights of the mother. But we know what rights an adult woman has in our society – they’re not at issue here. The issue is the legal status of the fetus and what rights it may or may not have. That is what determines whether abortion is simply a medical procedure, the killing of another human being or something in between.

And even if it is the killing of another human being it doesn’t necessarily follow that it should be illegal. Many human societies have viewed infanticide as being a lesser crime than murder (as in ancient China) or no crime at all (as in parts of Polynesia). After all, if abortion cannot be performed safely and a society faces population pressures then it makes more sense to simply kill the baby after it has been born. It’s an interesting thought experiment to try and decide on what basis a baby should have a right to life, actually – after all, it doesn’t understand the concept of being alive, can’t make any sort of defence of its rights, has consciousness and intelligence more alike to an animal than to an adult human, and is almost totally dependant on its parents, particular its mother.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that I’ve never been happy with the idea that there should be a definite cut-off, where destroying something is simply a medical procedure on one day and murder the next. Nor am I happy with the idea that being in a uterus should make the difference – it seems that ties the rights someone has to their location, which seems inconsistent to me. But we need to draw these distinctions somewhere.

[Primula Baggins]

But it doesn’t – a pregnant woman still enjoys all the rights of any other adult regardless of whether she can abort her fetus or not. She has the protections of the law, can own property, contract, vote, freely associate, etc.

But she runs physical risks, including permanent physical harm and even death, that a person should not be forced to accept against her will.

We don't impose these kinds of risks on people even when an independent human life is involved. A person can't be forced to donate bone marrow or a kidney even when the match is perfect and the recipient's life is at stake. And both those risks are significantly less than a pregnancy.

We might disapprove of a person who made that choice, but no one imagines they don't have the right to make it.