McFetus – I’m Loving It! By Mike Gold Brainiac On Banjo #260
January 30, 2012 Mike Gold 2 Comments
Let’s see… who’s the biggest idiot politician of the week?
We’ll exclude Mitt and Newt due to overexposure. Besides, I’m naming the award “the Newt.” And, so, the very first winner of the Brainiac On Banjo Newt is…
Oklahoma Republican State Senator Ralph Shortey! Last week, this guy introduced a billoutlawing the sale or manufacture of food or products that contain aborted human fetuses. “There is a potential that there are companies that are using aborted human babies in their research and development of basically enhancing flavor for artificial flavors.”
Shortey declined to release any supporting data, such as which companies are using or are planning on using feti in their food products, or how feti might enhance flavor. As a man who enjoys cooking almost as much as I enjoy eating, I am keen to learn.
Absent of anything to back up his claim, leftist socialist humanist baby killers such as myself are forced to conclude Shortey pulled this one out of his ass. Or maybe that’s where he thinks babies come from; the senator doesn’t seem to be particularly well-informed.
“I’m not entirely sure if there are any (companies doing this)”, Shortey told a local radio station. “But the fact is that there is a potential that there are companies that are using aborted human babies in their research and development of basically enhancing flavor for artificial flavors. And if that is happening – because it is a possibility – and if it’s happening then I just don’t think it should even be an option for a company.”
Shortey went on to conflate the use of feti as food additives with forced organ donation.“That’s kind of what we’re doing with these children. Before they’re born, we’re going to kill them and then we can do anything we want to with your body.” Please note he said “that’s kind of what we’re doing with these children.” Brushing aside the fact that this fool doesn’t know the difference between a fetus and a child – making for some prettyicky family reunions – that’s a pretty definitive statement. He can’t prove it, but in some form, we’re doing it.
“You may think it’s ethical to kill a child in the womb. But the question now before us is: is it ethical to then use that aborted child for research and development to enhance flavors in food?” Shortey pontificated.
Well, damn. That fetus ain’t doing anybody any good in the garbage pail. Nor are the morons who voted this clown into office.
Always on the lookout for new and exciting types of barbecue, Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking bizarro music and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, replayed three times during the week (check the website above for times). It’s also available On Demand at the same venue.
George Haberberger
January 30, 2012 - 10:16 am
Bill Maher mentioned this story on his show Friday and guest Kennedy said, “Well, there goes my lasagna.”
I have to admit this piece or legislation is a solution in search of a problem. Shotey admits, “I’m not entirely sure if there are any (companies doing this)”. Well if he is going to legislate on speculation, why not make it illegal to place a giant blue filter in front of the sun to turn it green?
Brushing aside the fact that this fool doesn’t know the difference between a fetus and a child…
The difference is time and nutrition. The same thing that differentiates all of us from what we are now, from what we were when we were 1 day old, 1 year old, 10 years old…
Martha Thomases
January 30, 2012 - 10:49 am
George said: “Brushing aside the fact that this fool doesn’t know the difference between a fetus and a child…
The difference is time and nutrition. The same thing that differentiates all of us from what we are now, from what we were when we were 1 day old, 1 year old, 10 years old…”
And the usurpation (sometimes welcome, sometimes not) of another person’s body. Maybe I’m giving myself too much credit, but I thought that I did a whole lot more the fall/winter/spring of 1983-1984 than simply be a nutritional storage unit.
Doug Abramson
January 30, 2012 - 11:42 am
I guess that the Soylent Corporation won’t be selling its new product, Soylent Baby Blue, in Oklahoma. Too bad, its supposed to taste much fresher than Soylent Green.
Mike Gold
January 30, 2012 - 11:47 am
Doug — Feti are high in transfats. Go figure. But the protein is absolutely great for your hair!
George Haberberger
January 30, 2012 - 3:06 pm
Martha,
“Nutritional storage unit” is your term not mine. I would have used “Mother”
But the terms used by each side can illustrate the schizophrenic nature of our society. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uyb-9_1dD50&feature=player_embedded
Whitney
January 31, 2012 - 11:03 am
WHAT?!?
Martha Thomases
January 31, 2012 - 11:34 am
@George: I quoted you saying the difference between a fetus and a child is time and nutrition. I simply pointed out that there is another, major difference, in that a fetus requires a host body. I would argue that we, as a society, are better off if that host (or “woman”) is eager and willing to take that role. Hence, I am pro-choice.
Pro-choice people are not anti-baby. We are, in fact,so pro-baby that we want every child to be a wanted child. That doesn’t mean adoptive parents (although I’m very much in favor of adoptive parents). That means wanted by the person who has to live with that child within her body for nine months.
Mike Gold
January 31, 2012 - 1:54 pm
“Anti-baby.” Interesting term.
I’m certainly anti-unwanted babies. I’m also a big believer in reducing our population back down to under a billion people, and aborting unwanted pregnancies seems a lot better than other, more acceptable options such as disease and war. But despite our best efforts disease simply is not doing its job, and we’ve significantly lessened the death potential in war with strategic drone bombing.
But if one believes that feti are somehow actual babies — which is just ridiculous — show me you mean it. Any woman carrying a fetus, known or unknown, and caught drinking alcohol, taking any drugs not prescribed by her doctor, or doing any other willful controllable act that is not in the best interest of her fetus should be charged with attempted murder and incarcerated without bail until the fetus comes to term. Should the now-baby be unhealthy or stillborn, mommy also gets charged with child abuse or murder and is to be held without bail in a male-free prison until she is convicted of same. And, of course, clearly mommy is unfit to be a mother so the child, assuming it’s alive, must be removed from the mother’s presence permanently and expeditiously.
Or we can just keep abortion legal and safe. If your moral code is opposed to it, then don’t do it. If your moral code is opposed to it but the birthing unit is not, then get the fuck over it.
George Haberberger
January 31, 2012 - 3:24 pm
Martha:
I simply pointed out that there is another, major difference, in that a fetus requires a host body.
The fetus is no less dependent after she/he is born and is dependent on a host/parent/caretaker for quite a few years for food and shelter.
We are, in fact, so pro-baby that we want every child to be a wanted child.
Yes that is the ideal, but failing the ideal… what? Oh I know; the nuclear option.
Mike:
If your moral code is opposed to it, then don’t do it. If your moral code is opposed to it but the birthing unit is not, then get the fuck over it.
Easier said than done. How does that position translate to other actions?
If you don’t like slavery, then don’t enslave anyone.
If you don’t like rape, then don’t rape anyone.
If you don’t like murder, then don’t murder anyone.
If you don’t like theft, then don’t steal from anyone.
If you don’t like lies, then don’t lie to anyone.
If you don’t like sexually transmitted diseases, then don’t transmit one.
If you don’t like terrorism, then don’t bomb anyone.
If you don’t like animal cruelty, then don’t be cruel to one.
If you don’t like oppression, then don’t oppress anyone.
If you don’t like arson, then don’t burn the property of anyone.
Obviously, society has an obligation to do more than count on people to do the right thing.
Yes I believe a fetus is a human life and should be afforded the same rights as a one-day-old baby or a 70-year-old adult. This is a difficult position but the advances of embryology makes denying the humanity of the unborn self-serving and hypocritical.
Your hypotheticals are difficult scenarios but the law already prosecutes someone who kills an unborn baby if the mother was injured in an assault. And there are already fetal homicide laws. http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Rene
January 31, 2012 - 3:59 pm
Okay, a little basic logic needs to be applied here.
It’s not a matter of the fetus being dependent. It’s a matter of the fetus being dependent of a SPECIFIC PERSON. I am sorry, but attempts by Conservatives to correlate the fetus to a baby or an elderly person or an mentally disable individual don’t work, because in all of those other categories the being can be given to the care of other people, and thus they have individual existence and a measure of independence.
As for your reply comparing abortion to murder, slavery or other crimes, again those victimize other individuals. The question is, is the fetus an individual? IMO, a being that can only exist if it’s cared for by one specific person can’t be an individual. It’s an acessory entity of that specific person.
It’s quite different when another person attacks a pregnant woman who wants to keep her baby. That is equivalent to attacking an treasured part of her, and must be prosecuted by law. But if the mother herself doesn’t want that part? Not our business to prosecute anyone.
Matters would change if fetus transplant became easy and inexpensive. All those Catholic nuns would have the chance of receiving the unwanted childs and the Immaculate Conception would happen again and again. Until that day, it’s between a mother and her own conscience (and also the father).
Rene
January 31, 2012 - 4:22 pm
I also admit that this is one instance where my brain and my logical processes say one thing, and my heart says another. And there is enough uncertainty about the status of the fetus as a person that making abortion a crime is more acceptable to me than other Conservative positions that are just plain wrong (i.e. opposition to gay rights and decriminalization of drugs and prostitution). Abortion is the one case where there might be a real victim there, instead of simply being a crime against “God”, “morality”, “the social fabric”, or “oneself”, all the usual bunk.
But I don’t think I would create a law just because my heart says something. So abortion remains something I would comdemn as an private citizen, but I wouldn’t want it to become a crime.
George Haberberger
January 31, 2012 - 4:35 pm
IMO, a being that can only exist if it’s cared for by one specific person can’t be an individual.
That is an entirely new definition of humanity. But as you said it is your opinion.
It’s quite different when another person attacks a pregnant woman who wants to keep her baby.
So the definition of a human life is predicated on whether someone else wants it. Here is a new defense strategy for attorneys representing a murderer: “Your honor, we shall prove to the court that the individual my client killed has no family, friends and will be missed by no one.”
Matters would change if fetus transplant became easy and inexpensive.
So economics and simplicity are mitigating factors in defining human life.
And finally, not that it matters a great deal, but people always get this wrong. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception has NOTHING to do with Jesus’ conception or the virgin birth. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conception in her mother’s womb without the stain of original sin. And Mary was conceived by normal sexual intercourse between her parents, Anne and Joachim. I guess people must think sex is dirty and so Immaculate Conception must refer to conception without sex, but that is not the Catholic Church’s position and never has been. It is the rest of society that has made that incorrect assumption.
I never bring religion into discussions about abortion because, even though the Church has a strong position on the issue, I don’t believe it is a religious issue. It is a legal and medical issue.
Martha Thomses
January 31, 2012 - 5:27 pm
George, I’ve been pregnant; you have not. You do not seem interested in the fact that having another being in one’s body is an invasion like no other. Instead, you seem to be happy to tell us what we, as women, should be feeling.
My child was wanted. I was lucky that way.
Rene
January 31, 2012 - 6:36 pm
George,
You seem quite fond of twisting my words. I can’t understand how you can get what I said and use it as a defense for murder of unwanted adults. But okay, I’ll try it one more time.
It’s not enough for a being to be unwanted. It’s also that the being can ONLY SURVIVE BY THE WILL OF ONE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL, EVER. There is really no other situation possible that is similar to the fetus.
A similar, very contrived, situation would be something like, they discover that you’re the only one that has some very rare blood type, and you’re the only one that can save some other person by giving blood transfusions for nine months. The transfusions are a bit painful and inconvenient and would take time.
Would you do it? Would it be a murder if you just say “screw it, I’m outta here” and refuse to let your blood be used?
There is an argument there that abortion is different from the situation I just outlined, because a woman bears responsibility for being pregnant (except in cases of rape). I recognize it. And I find abortion to be very morally repugnant. But not enough of a case for changing the law and making it like murder, IMO.
George Haberberger
January 31, 2012 - 6:59 pm
I’ve been pregnant; you have not. You do not seem interested in the fact that having another being in one’s body is an invasion like no other. Instead, you seem to be happy to tell us what we, as women, should be feeling.
Martha, I have great respect for you as a mother and for all mothers. But just because I am not a mother you cannot change my mind about being Pro-Life. After all, many women and mothers are Pro-Life. What argument would you use to change their opinion?
My child was wanted. I was lucky that way.
Yes you were, and so was Art.
Rick Oliver
January 31, 2012 - 8:26 pm
It’s possible that mega-corporations are using recycled plastic and illegal aliens to create a breed of hybrid indestructible zombies. It’s also possible that these zombies might eat the flavor-enhancing fetuses. Should I be pro or anti zombie?
Mike Gold
February 1, 2012 - 7:30 am
Rick, I can refer you to an excellent patent lawyer just up Wacker Drive from your office. You might know him — he did work for First Comics. George Bullwinkel. No shit. George patented new life forms created in the lab. I once asked him if I cloned myself and patented the resultant DNA track and then (eventually) he cloned himself, could I sue him for patent violation. George took the question seriously (that’s why I really loved him) and said he thought I could.
Perfect guy for the zombie question.
George Haberberger
February 1, 2012 - 8:46 am
Rene,
Your scenario is, as you say, very contrived, The gist of it is, should someone be conscripted to save another’s life if they are the only person capable of doing so, as long their own life is not forfeit.
It is not an easy answer but I have to come down on: yes.
But to refuse would not be murder. Murder requires deliberate premeditation and your situation is one that could not be planned.
R. Maheras
February 1, 2012 - 10:15 am
George Bernard Shaw once famously said, “Old age isn’t so bad when you consider the alternative.”
I’d have to say the same thing about abortion: “Being an unwanted baby isn’t so bad when you consider the alternative.”
Interestingly enough, Shaw was a big fan of Eugenics — i.e., selective breeding (like we do with animals) — and he readily conceded that if Eugenics had been implemented by generations before him, he probably would not have been born.
Shaw was also a big fan of Stalin, who raised the purging of unwanted members of society to an art form.
Thus, being a guy who always tries to keep one eye on the horizon, I guess it’s no wonder I worry that if abortion on demand remains the law of the land, with the advances in genetics, it won’t be long before Shaw’s dream of Eugenics becomes a troubling reality.
Rene
February 1, 2012 - 12:08 pm
Russ, the problem with slippery slopes or thinking long term is that everybody can come up with nightmarish scenarios to discredit what they disagree with.
The Right can come up with a scenario of defective babies being put to death because “abortion on demand” cheapened a baby’s life.
The Left can come up with a scenario of women being forcefully interned once they get pregnant and kept under 24/7 observation so they won’t do anything to endanger the sacredly precious babies, like smoking and eating wrong.
Both the cheapening of a baby’s life and the cheapening of a woman’s right to control her own body and actions can be taken to extremes, as long as we’re dreaming nightmarish dystopias.
R. Maheras
February 1, 2012 - 12:41 pm
The problem is, Rene, is that we really ARE at a point genetic research-wise where a parent can genetically test a fetus and abort it if the gender or physical makeup is “wrong” or “flawed.”
In Asia and a few other places where the there is a great cultural emphasis on the male gender, it is ALREADY a problem that is reaching epidemic proportions. In India, for example, there is now a shortage of girls under the age of seven — due, most likely, to the recent widespread availability of gender testing. In China, where parents are only allowed to have one child, when given such a choice, more often or not opt for a male.
Testing for the genetic properties of embryos, and even manipulating the genes of embryos, is no longer science fiction.
It’s not just a fictitious “What if?” argument. It’s actually happening as we speak.
Mike Gold
February 1, 2012 - 1:32 pm
“Shaw was also a big fan of Stalin, who raised the purging of unwanted members of society to an art form.”
Yeah, I’m not a big fan of either of these folks. However, you’re comparing apples to oranges: feti are not members of society. They aren’t people. They aren’t babies. Escape from the womb alive and we’ll talk.
I definitely would not have made the eugenics cut. I was born dead. I died again a day or two later. I am of Jewish heritage (a low priority during the eugenics fad), and while I was born with blue eyes and blonde hair nobody knew that until I popped out, all silent and blue. But I was indeed born. I escaped the womb. We honor that achievement by celebrating something we call my “birthday” and we count my years on this planet starting from the day I escaped said womb.
Yes, we are manipulating the genes of embryos. We are curing diseases while in the womb. This will get better, extending to all sorts of diseases and problems. I’m fine with that. It’s not eugenics — we’re promoting the health of a would-be individual. Stop hydrops fettles in utero and whip out a viable baby. That’s a good thing.
Although I am not opposed to would-be parents (as opposed to the government) making the decision for abortion in such cases as Anencephaly (missing brain parts), Inencephaly (abnormality of the spine and vertebrae), Hydraanencephaly (complete or near complete absence of the hemispheres of the brain), Infantile Polycystic Kidney Disease with anhydramnios (a lack of amnioticfluid during development), Triploidy (three full sets of chromosomes), Limb-Body Wall Complex (cranio-facial abnormalities, scoliosis, ventral body wall defects), Bilateral Renal Ageneisi (the absence of both kidneys), Achondrogenesis and Thanatophoric Dysplasia (severe skeletal abnormalities), and the ever-popular Meckel-Gruber Syndrome (skull abnormality, enlarged cystic kidneys, liver damage, and extra fingers and toes), and similar diseases if they cannot be cured in utero and there’s no reasonable expectation that we can cure these conditions after birth.
In these cases, I think only a monster would want these feti and their parents to suffer so dramatically.
Are most right-to-lifers generally opposed to the practice commonly known as “pulling the plug?” Why do we often extend this privilege to the post-born but refuse to do so the pre-born?
Martha Thomases
February 1, 2012 - 1:38 pm
Look, I volunteer with kids with cancer, at a hospital devoted to people with cancer. A tumor is the closest analogy I’ve seen to an unwanted pregnancy. I’m not saying a baby is a tumor. I’m saying having an unwanted baby take root in one’s body, sap one’s strength, and overwhelm one’s life is just as horrific.
You men can disdain abortion all you like. Until I believe you have any empathy, I will disregard your opinions.
Rene
February 1, 2012 - 1:43 pm
Russ, China’s one-child policy is exactly the kind of government’s interference into people’s private sexual lives that makes me disagree so strongly with American Republicans.
People who want to dictate who can marry who, who can have sex with who, how many kids people can have, how they should deal with their pregnancies, etc. I disagree with them all, Chinese Communists or American Evangelicals.
Also, the Asian bias against women, that leads to their “missing women” populational problem is also an eye-opener for those who are distrustful of Western religionists who think women should get back to a more traditional role. Women in Asia and the Middle East do have a more traditional role, and just see what is happening.
Mike Gold
February 1, 2012 - 2:11 pm
Martha sez: “You men can disdain abortion all you like. Until I believe you have any empathy, I will disregard your opinions.”
Gee. Sexually discriminate much?
Rick Oliver
February 1, 2012 - 2:59 pm
I have a certain amount of empathy for the “You aren’t a woman so your opinion doesn’t count” school of thought, but empathy is not agreement. I also have a certain amount of empathy for the “I didn’t want her to have the baby so why should I have to pay for it?” school of thought…with the same caveat.
Mike Gold
February 1, 2012 - 3:12 pm
My problem, Rick, is that if Martha disregards any man’s opinions until she believes that man is empathetic… how do you know when and if that man is empathetic? And how do you define empathy — is it just agreement? Can I not be empathetic if I disagree with you?
Martha restricted her argument to men (“You men can distain abortion…”), as if all women, or even the vast majority of women, are pro-abortion. Perhaps she didn’t intend to in the heat of the argument, but seeing as how I already invoked the presence of Phyllis Schlafly, the inference is strong and the statement is patently ridiculous. Indeed, as you pointed out Rick, there are strong (if not necessarily valid) reasons for men to be pro-abortion.
When it comes to the decision of a specific abortion, only the fetus-incubator gets a vote. She’s the one carrying the fetus and she’s the one considering subjecting herself to the potential hazards of childbirth, which are dramatically greater than the potential hazards of legal abortion. But when it comes to the philosophical, religious and political consideration of abortion, everybody gets a vote.
Mike Gold
February 1, 2012 - 3:16 pm
By the way, I just checked: Five Guys doesn’t have a fetusburger on their menu. Anybody on the Left Coast care to check out the appropriately-named In-And-Out Burger?
George Haberberger
February 1, 2012 - 3:34 pm
Martha said: You men can disdain abortion all you like. Until I believe you have any empathy, I will disregard your opinions.
George previously said: After all, many women and mothers are Pro-Life. What argument would you use to change their opinion?
Mike Gold
February 1, 2012 - 4:02 pm
Mike subsequently replied to George: “Look, first of all, forget about the unisex bathrooms and don’t flatter yourself about being bulldyke bait — you’re not. Second, if you’re opposed to abortion don’t have one. Third, if that woman over there wants to have an abortion, stop trying to bend her to your will by shoving your so-called religious morality down her throat. You have no right to impose your totalitarian views upon others. Oh, and they’re not fucking BABIES — get over it!”
Martha Thomases
February 1, 2012 - 4:26 pm
Mike, I didn’t say men couldn’t have opinions. I said (or I meant to say) that the men arguing against abortion on this board do not take into consideration the physical demands of a pregnancy on a woman, and how especially debilitating these demands are (physically and psychologically) when the fetus is unwanted.
George Haberberger
February 1, 2012 - 4:40 pm
“Look, first of all, forget about the unisex bathrooms and don’t flatter yourself about being bulldyke bait — you’re not.
Huh? I have no idea what unisex bathrooms or bulldyke bait has to do with anything.
Second, if you’re opposed to abortion don’t have one.
Oh, and they’re not fucking BABIES — get over it!”
I addressed this at 3:24 PM Jan. 31. with a list of similar societal offenses. Can’t just get over it.
Third, if that woman over there wants to have an abortion, stop trying to bend her to your will by shoving your so-called religious morality down her throat.
I never mentioned religion as a factor. My position has nothing to do with religion. It is a legal and medical issue. There is an organization called The Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League. This from their website: “… because life is all there is and all that matters, and
abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being.”
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
Mike Gold
February 1, 2012 - 5:05 pm
Martha: Explain how my arguments and those of other men here who voiced pro-abortion statements would be mitigated by a discussion of the physical demands of pregnancy — beyond those arguments that have been stated. Like my statement “She’s the one carrying the fetus and she’s the one considering subjecting herself to the potential hazards of childbirth, which are dramatically greater than the potential hazards of legal abortion.”
Mind you, I’m not fighting for a woman’s right to abortion. I’m fighting for the right to abortion. It’s up to women to fight for women’s right to abortion. I can not, and should not have to voice concerns that I can not and do not experience. I can understand them intellectually, but you seem to demand some sort of proof. I want abortion legal for the reasons I’ve stated. You stated yours and then stated — and now reiterated — that “You men can disdain abortion all you like. Until I believe you have any empathy, I will disregard your opinions.”
That contrasts your statement that you didn’t say men — and you did not qualify whether men were pro or anti-abortion — couldn’t have opinions. So what you’re saying now is that, yeah, it’s okay for men to have opinions but because we’ve got a dick and a Y chromosome you are going to ignore them.
Mike Gold
February 1, 2012 - 5:10 pm
George, you asked “… many women and mothers are Pro-Life. What argument would you use to change their opinion?” I stated my argument. You did not ask what argument I would use IN RESPONSE TO YOUR ARGUMENTS, I responded to the many women and mothers who are “pro-life” (which is bullshit; nobody is actually pro-life per se). I answered the very question you posed.
In my typically tasteless and obnoxious manner, of course. This ain’t cut-and-paste here.
And feti STILL aren’t babies. They’re feti.
Rene
February 1, 2012 - 6:03 pm
George, I’ve seen this line of thought several times also in discussions about homosexuality, and how the opposition to it isn’t necessarily religious.
While I acknowledge that there are pro-lifers (and a LOT of anti-gay people) who are not religious, it’s almost always the religious folks who have the organization and the drive to make life more difficult for women who want to have abortions, for gays, etc.
For instance, the policitians and power-brokers who have hurt feminist and gay causes again and again are almost always associated with the Abrahamic religions. I think it’s only fair that the fight be fought honestly then, and people admit their religion-based motivations.
George Haberberger
February 1, 2012 - 8:40 pm
Mike,
Oh… okay. But I know quite a few Pro-Life women and unisex bathrooms and bulldykes are not concerns of theirs so that argument wouldn’t be effective at all.
Rene,
I can’t speak to anyone else’s motivation. I just said religion was not a factor in my opinion and it most certainly not. You first brought up religion in one of your posts yesterday and then Mike used the term, “so-called religious morality”. In fact, I would prefer that the Church not be so outspoken on the abortion issue because their public stance coupled with the separation of church and state, people write off the entire debate as just a religious issue, It is not. It is medical and legal.
And if you believe I am just another religious ideologue, I have no problem with gay marriage.
Neil C.
February 1, 2012 - 9:38 pm
My basic philosophy about abortion has always been, unless it’s my wife or my (non-existant) daughter, it’s none of my damn business what somebody wants to do with their body as long as it’s not hurting anyone else (and I don’t count feti as ‘anyone else’). Nobody who goes for an abortion is happy to do it, so there is no such thing as being “pro-abortion,’ I am pro letting the person involved have the choice because it’s not something that won’t affect you the rest of your life. I don’t understand why people, especially men, are so obsessed with forcing women to have babies they obviously don’t want.
George Haberberger
February 2, 2012 - 5:48 am
I don’t understand why people, especially men, are so obsessed with forcing women to have babies they obviously don’t want.
Neil, my point throughout this entire thread, and in the Sweet Charity thread, has been: it is not “especially men”. In fact I would suggest it is especially women.
Martha Thomases
February 2, 2012 - 5:57 am
@George: You have not proven that it is “especially women.” That may be true in your circle of friends, but not throughout humanity.
George Haberberger
February 2, 2012 - 6:39 am
I don’t know how such a statistic could be “proven”, but there is this:
“The balance between pro-choice women and women who say abortion should be outlawed or severely restricted is shifting toward the pro-life side, bumping that group into the majority in the debate over reproductive rights, according to a new national poll. …
The New York-based center that sponsored the survey is a nonpartisan advocacy group for pro-choice women’s rights. The center’s president, Faye Wattleton, headed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for 14 years.
“While we do have a certain point of view on women’s issues, we don’t believe we should suppress information,” Mrs. Wattleton said in an interview yesterday with The Washington Times.’You don’t want to create false or artificial data.’ ”
The whole story is here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/01/20030701-115636-9509r/?page=all
Martha Thomases
February 2, 2012 - 7:15 am
Again, the people in charge of the most powerful anti-choice groups are men. I refer to the Catholic Church, the Taliban, and the Republican party.
George Haberberger
February 2, 2012 - 8:34 am
When I consider the Taliban, their position on abortion is not the first thing I think of… or at all, what with the whole fomenting terrorism thing. I suspect that is true of the vast majority of people. That of course is my opinion in case you want ask for proof.
There are and have been many high-profile women in the Republican Party. Elizabeth Cole, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Niki Haley, Linda McMahon, Carly Farina. It would be tedious to list more but if you want…
I delineated my thoughts on the Church’s position in my post to Rene above, but yeah, the Catholic Church is male-dominated. How does that mitigate that the majority of women are Pro-Life? Plenty of women disregard the prohibition on birth control. The fact the they are Pro-Life indicates an ability to recognize when something is a life and when a ruling is less critical. In other words, women are not mindlessly enthralled by the male leadership of the Catholic Church.
Again, the abortion issue is not a men vs women issue as I have indicated with anecdotal and media reports. Claiming to disregard the opinions of men does nothing to indicate how you would sway the women who disagree with you.
Rick Oliver
February 2, 2012 - 8:41 am
I had a vasectomy 24 years ago. My wife at the time did not approve and was very upset. Although we discussed it at great length beforehand, the final decision was mine. I’m glad I made the decision I made, and I’m glad no one had the legal power to prevent me from making it. My primary motivation was that I did not want to be responsible for any more children, but I didn’t want to stop having sex either. Not quite the same as getting an abortion, but that’s the best I can do.
I’m personally ambivalent about abortion, partly because it’s a decision I’ll never have to make (although it’s a discussion I’ve been involved in several times, with the outcome having financial and moral implications for me).
I’m also ambivalent about my ambivalence. I think it’s a mistake to ignore the moral implications. I think the courts originally ruled that abortion up to six months should be allowed, to which a cynical friend responded, “What about six months and one day?” Then we can go down the road of the point at which the fetus is viable outside the womb, and the only way to determine that is to see what happens once it’s outside the womb.
While I may not be convinced by the “life begin at conception” argument, I can’t deny that it has a certain amount of merit.
Martha Thomases
February 2, 2012 - 9:11 am
George, you haven’t refuted my point, you have changed the argument. I’m finished.
George Haberberger
February 2, 2012 - 10:45 am
Obviously I don’t believe I have changed the argument at all. I was always maintaining here, and in the Sweet Charity thread, that the abortion issue is not one of men vs women, which you stated when you said, “With technology being what it is, any human cell can be cloned into another human. Therefore, a haircut murders more potential lives tha a year of abortions. But that might inconvenience men, so we will never see those laws.”
You claimed men have no justification to oppose abortion because they cannot be mothers. But I said many women are Pro-Life. (Indeed most, according to the survey by a nonpartisan advocacy group for pro-choice women’s rights that I sited above when you said that that wasn’t true,)
So if your point was that abortion is a women’s issue you haven’t explained why you are in disagreement with most of them or how you would convince them otherwise.
Neil C.
February 2, 2012 - 11:02 am
George,
Will you support these babies? And why are you obsessed with this issue?
George Haberberger
February 2, 2012 - 12:04 pm
Why am I obsessed with this issue?!!
I didn’t write either of the original columns. or refer to people with different views disparagingly. If the writers on this site just want cheerleaders and sycophants to rally behind whatever they write, just say that, and I won’t waste my time reading any of it. But if a controversial issue is addressed, they shouldn’t expect everyone to fall in line like automatons.
The charge of making people opposed to abortion financially responsible of all the babies is a flawed argument intended to silence protest.
Rick Oliver
February 2, 2012 - 12:21 pm
Financial implications are relevant to the debate. If you pass a law mandating handicapped-accessible sidewalks, the money to make the sidewalks accessible has to come from somewhere. If the biological parents don’t want the child, someone else is going to have to pay the bills.
George Haberberger
February 2, 2012 - 5:59 pm
If the biological parents don’t want the child, someone else is going to have to pay the bills.
That’s true but I cannot support a society that advocates the idea that it is cheaper to kill a child than to support one.
Rick Oliver
February 2, 2012 - 9:21 pm
“I cannot support a society that advocates the idea that it is cheaper to kill a child than to support one.”
But you live in a society that makes life and death decisions based on financial considerations every day. The entire health insurance industry is based on financial models. Eligibility for coverage and what treatments are covered are all based on what will most likely result in a profit for the insurance carriers. Health insurance companies have no problem denying coverage to children with even a hint of a propensity for a serious illness, and it’s all perfectly legal and even defended as as example of free market capitalism at work. Which reminds me: Who is going to pay for the prenatal care and the delivery?