Turning Back The Clock On Abortion

The New Republic: Supreme Court's Decision Based On Old-Fashioned, Discredited Views On Women

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Christine Stansell.

---

Thank God for President Bush, and thank God for Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito," intoned Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention last week, after the Supreme Court announced its decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, the so-called partial-birth abortion case. But Land also should have thanked Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose majority opinion dangerously reframes the abortion debate.

Kennedy doesn't proceed from the question of harm to the unborn — the premise on which the congressional act in question is based. Instead, he reasons that the ban on D&X procedures — the medical name for what the anti-choice movement calls partial-birth abortions — should be permitted because it is meant to protect women from making a choice that goes against their nature. "Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child," Kennedy declares. Concerned that women may learn the details of how the procedure is performed only after the fact, he writes, "The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed."

Kennedy's opinion undermines constitutional protections for a woman's right to make decisions established in Roe v. Wade. And, just as disturbingly, it summons up assumptions about women that go back to discredited paternalistic decisions of the Supreme Court. "It's only a couple of paragraphs in the decision," notes Yale Law School Professor Reva Siegel. "But it's alarming." In Kennedy's words, one hears the echo of the anti-choice movement's new emphasis on abortion as a de facto violation of something at the very core of women's being. Medical technicalities take up the bulk of the Court's majority opinion, but the reasoning concerns the nature of women and the integrity of their moral choices — an implicit rejection of the most mainstream tenets of modern feminism.

Legal abortion owes an enormous debt to the women's movement; without question, feminists were critical in the last stages of the push. But the idea of abortion as a necessity for women's well-being first came from liberals and moderates in the 1960s and even predated feminist arguments for a woman's right to choose. For nearly 50 years, Americans have been able to separate the more abstract arguments about morality and women's rights from the very concrete issues of women's integrity and their health. Kennedy repudiates this understanding by reviving antique views of women as well as endorsing the new pseudoscience of the anti-choice movement.

Often lost in the debate over D&X abortion is the fact that the procedure is exceedingly rare; in 2000, there were just 2,200 cases — or 0.17 percent of all abortions. The procedure is rare because it is used to end a pregnancy late in the second trimester or later, before viability, in a tiny number of cases when the woman's life is in danger. Abortions late in the second trimester are medically involved, potentially risky, painful, and emotionally difficult. So who waits that long?

The answer is simple: women and girls in states of duress. This includes teenagers who didn't realize they were pregnant, or kept hoping they weren't pregnant, or were too frightened to tell anyone and get help (a common plight of incest victims). It also includes women whose pregnancies have gone wrong, such as women found to be carrying fetuses with serious central nervous system anomalies like hydrocephaly.

Ironically, it was precisely women like these, caught in painful circumstances, who first prompted public awareness of the need to overhaul abortion law. Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was as widely practiced as it is today, an open secret despite being illegal everywhere. But, in the late '50s, medical professionals faced a public health crisis as the abortion rate soared and the woman hemorrhaging from botched procedures became a familiar presence in hospital emergency rooms. Reformers began by attacking laws that prevented women whose lives were threatened or who were pregnant as a result of rape or incest from getting abortions. They called for laws allowing "therapeutic" abortion in "hardship" cases to be authorized by a hospital physicians' committee. In the '60s, the idea of therapeutic abortions gained force, garnering support from liberal Protestants and Jews, lawyers, psychiatrists, and social workers. Small bands formed across the country to press the issue in state legislatures. Two panics about birth defects — the thalidomide scandal and a 1965 rubella epidemic — stirred up discussion about what it meant to a woman to give birth to a severely damaged child. The idea of urgent need expanded from a pregnancy that endangered a mother's life to one that endangered her mental health. By the late '60s, reformers had won laws for therapeutic abortion in a number of states.

Over the short run in the '60s, therapeutic abortion really only showed the urgent need for a much bigger change. The therapeutic "exception" never worked: Applications were few, because women were put off by the time-consuming and judgmental screening process before all-male physicians' panels, and most women didn't qualify, anyway. Committees strained to minimize the number of applications they approved, and there were horror stories of women denied — such as the woman confined to her bed by polio. And committees weren't the only problem.

[cozzicon]

Rule of Thumb...

Any sufficiently controversial issue should not be legislated. Unless there is a clear consensus it just leads to wedge issues like these which divide the American public- and through this division bad politicians can get into office based on a promise to one group or another.

Do I vote largely based on wedge issues? Yes. But by and large the public is left with no alternative.

Some of these wedge issues, like Gay marriage/unions/abortion are so polarizing that any idiot running for office can get in because he espouses the "correct view" for a core set of voters. There is no debate on anything substantive.

I'm looking for a politician "Guns and ***" platform... give them marriage or unions, and let me have my gun. Balance the budget, stay out of stupid wars, and I could care less who they sleep with or what they believe about God.

I want my nation defended, and my garbage picked up. Beyond that I want my liberty.

Period.

[eggy1620]

Where in the USA does the government still manage gargabe collection? I have been forced to pay a private waste company for garbage pick up for years.

[blazercoach1]

I love this writer's (Christine Stansell's) use of the phrase "anti-choice". I guess this means pro-choice people are either "anti-life" or "pro-death"? Which is it?

What a STUPID decision to write that into the article.....

[blazercoach1]

I love this writer's (Christine Stansell's) use of the phrase "anti-choice". I guess this means pro-choice people are either "anti-life" or "pro-death"? Which is it?

What a STUPID decision to write that into the article.....

[guysdigdirt]

I could care less who they sleep with.
Posted by cozzicon
-------------------------

It might not matter who they sleep with, but if they cannot keep a comittment to a spouse they can you trust them at all? If they do sleep with or have se*ual relations with someone other than their wife, then stand infront of a judge and the American people and lie to our faces about it, that is not acceptable. Then once it is proven they are wrong and lied to us they should at least admit to their lies and mistakes- not try and justify it by saying they have their own definition of words that excuses their lies.

I will take an honest man- or woman- any day. It does not matter if they believe in God at all, just let them be honest, ethical and moral.

[guysdigdirt]

I love this writer's (Christine Stansell's) use of the phrase "anti-choice". I guess this means pro-choice people are either "anti-life" or "pro-death"? Which is it?

What a STUPID decision to write that into the article.....

Posted by blazercoach1
-----------------

It all comes down to the bias of the author and the media it is presented in.

[processor2]

Question concerning abortion:

What if the baby that is being killed is also female,
what about her rights to her body??

...

[sy2502]

Are we really surprised that the religious nuts would favor the rights of a non-juridic entity (the fetus) over those of the juridic entity (the woman)? Religion has been slamming women for thousands of years! They have been accused to be the root of all evil, of bringing original sin to the human race, of being in league with the devil. Women have been burned at the stake as witches, locked up in the house and stripped of their rights in the name of religious "moral and family values". Are we really surprised that when it comes to choosing between their rights and those of a lump of dividing cells, she has to take the back seat?

[susanhelit]

Yeah, anti-choice is the more accurate term. Pro-life includes those who would never have an abortion themselves, would help someone else to not need to have an abortion, but believe it should still be legal.

And at least currently, the extremes of the supposed pro-life position include the idea that even if I am going to risk a serious chance of death, and my baby is defective and will die within days of delivery, I'm still not allowed an abortion - no exceptions for life of the mother. So, that's not exactly a pro-life position to me - or FOR me, should I end up in this position!

Both sides have their extremes that are unpleasant, but so far as names go, I'd say it's pro-choice and anti-abortion. No one is pro-abortion, they don't want them to be performed on everyone. I'm pro-choice, extremely strongly so, but I don't think I could ever have an abortion, not in normal circumstances. But circumstances aren't always normal.

[susanhelit]

The writer is right - the court's opinion is paternalistic ***! It's not for him to decide what I'd really want when I'm right here to say so!

[mariaevitale]

While I appreciate CBS News running commentary on abortion, I find this particular one emotionally-laden and falty when it comes to the facts. The mainstream pro-life movement condemns violence; the founder of NARAL has admitted to exaggerating the number of women who died from pre-Roe abortions; concern for women is not a new tenet of the pro-life movement, but is at its basic core. I also object strongly to the anti-Catholic sentiment expressed in this commentary--I seriously wonder whether CBS would be willing to publish on its website a commentary attacking another religious group. Free speech is wonderful--but hate speech should be rightly condemned.

[processor2]

Question concerning abortion:

What if the baby that is being killed is also female,
what about her rights to her body??

...

[susanhelit]

Pro-life concern for women? Then why don't you think we can make our own choices! And why are you so very strongly opposed to any exceptions for health or life of the mother!

[processor2]

Question concerning abortion:

What if the baby that is being killed is also female,
what about her rights to her body??

...

[blazercoach1]

SusanHelit, I think the more accurate term is anti-abortion if one chooses to not use the group's self-appointed (perhaps?) term of "pro-life".

To apply anti-choice generally is not accurate at all.....and you know better. Try applying the principal behind "anti-choice" to any issue other than abortion and it obviously wouldn't work. Pro-life MEANS pro-LIFE. If a person was against abortion and for the death penalty I would say they were anti-abortion....not pro-life. But neither circumstance implies a general disposition towards choice.

I'll repeat my original question in context for you: Are you pro-death of anti-life?

That question is about as unfair as calling my side of the argument "anti-choice".

[katg21]

Abortion...just another non-issue that you libs get all worked-up over. Once you start defending abortion you have to start bashing religion; goes hand in hand. You dems are so predictable and it's getting old. Did you ever stop to think that if you had religion in your life you'd respect your body enough to protect against getting pregnant in the first place? After all that's what most religion teaches, respect thy neighbor and thyself. Explain to me what's so wrong with that? Abortion is just birth control for you; it simply eliminates personal resposibility. Bashing someone for having religeous beliefs, well that's just descrimination. So this is how I see it... to be a democrat you have to be unpatriotic, against religion, you have to support our enemy, hate your president (if he's republican) and bash anyone whose beliefs differ from yours. Freedom of speech should only apply to you and abortions should be performed on anyone who wants'em...yep, sounds about right.

[blazercoach1]

gideon.....you're not applying your own logic in both directions. You defend "anti-choice" by framing it in this specific context, but then dismiss "pro-death" and "anti-life" by showing that it doesn't apply in a greater general context.

You either have to apply both specifically or in general. Be consistent. If you wish to say that I am "anti-choice" concerning abortion, then I can say that you are "pro-death" concerning abortion. Both of us would be stooping to inflammatory name-calling.

Much like this author....

[blazercoach1]

Furthermore.....I wonder if this author has talked with Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) and asked her about how the pro-choice movement duped her and encouraged her to be untruthful about her situation.

Norma McCorvey is now a very strong pro-life proponent working out of Dallas, TX. I encourage each of you to look up her story.

[susanhelit]

Pro-choice, anti-choice, in the field of abortion - that accurately describes the two camps here.

Pro-life, pro-death, anti-life in the field of abortion - nope, doesn't work. I'm not pro-death nor anti-life about abortion - I don't think the mother should be killed -whereas the pro-life crew does believe that rather than have an abortion, no matter what condition the baby might be in.

And, of course, a lot of this debate comes down to a simple difference of opinion - is this cluster of cells a life, and at what point is that boundary crossed?

Although even once past that, the question is how much each life must be respected. When a life will be lost if someone else is unwilling to deal with some inconvenience, do we require that person to undergo the inconvenience? Depends, if the person is a man or a woman. Pro-life says absolutely yes, a woman must do it for even the smallest cluster of nonthinking, no heartbeat cells, no matter the risk to her. But if the person is just a person, might be a man, then there is no such requirement - for example, bone marrow donation. If you are a match to someone, you can save their life with the donation, you are not required to undergo the momentary discomfort and extremely minor risk to donate! And this is to save the life of a thinking, breathing human being!

[sy2502]

Did you ever stop to think that if you had religion in your life you'd respect your body enough to protect against getting pregnant in the first place?
Posted by katg21 at 02:30 PM : May 15, 2007

As I said earlier... just blame the woman, bash her, punish her for having *** (god forbid you would say a word about the guy she was having *** with) and force her to stay in a situation she doesn't want to be in. As somebody said in another thread, if it was men who got pregnant, abortion would be available at the supermarket, next to beer and chips.

[judeluke2000]

The pro-life position is grounded on respect for human life. It is really that simple.

Science confirms that life has a beginning -- this is called conception. During the time from conception through birth, human beings develop faster than at any other stage in life.

At the moment of conception the persons' physical attributes are determined; such as eye color, skin color, hair color, and so on. This one cell has all the human chromosomes that an adult human has.

Killing unborn human beings is inhumane. Anyone who supports this has truly killed their conscience and has lost part of what it means to be human. There is no excuse to kill an innocent unborn human being.

[katg21]

I don't think the mother should be killed -
whereas the pro-life crew does believe that rather than have an abortion, no matter what condition the baby might be in.
Posted by SusanHelit at 02:43 PM : May 15, 2007

No, you're very wrong. What you're saying is a complete contradiction...we are pro-life that means we are for the mother's life and the babies life, we are FOR LIFE! What we are against is the ABUSE of the procedure. It is one thing to NEED an abortion because the mother's life is in jeopardy and another to need one because you weren't responsible enough to use protection. Do you see the destinction?

[katg21]

As I said earlier... just blame the woman, bash her, punish her for having *** (god forbid you would say a word about the guy she was having *** with) and force her to stay in a situation she doesn't want to be in. As somebody said in another thread, if it was men who got pregnant, abortion would be available at the supermarket, next to beer and chips.
Posted by sy2502 at 02:49 PM : May 15, 2007

The guy's not laying on the table giving the thumbs up for an abortion. Of course a guy is just as responsible for getting the girl pregnant but they both have a brain why didn't they use it? I'll tell you, they didn't use their brain because they knew that they could just get an abortion if they got pregnant, no big deal. See, there's absolutely no responsibility and no respect for their bodies and life itself. That's where religion is needed.

[notblue]

Why is it always about the womans rights? Does the unborn child have any rights? When does life begin?? Is it after the child is born??? Why do criminals get charged with 2 murders if they kill a woman who is pregnant but it's ok for the women to kill the child during her pregnancy? If it's a womens right to kill the child before birth why isn't it a mothers right to kill the child after it's born? Or is that what partial birth abortion is?

[blazercoach1]

SusanHelit,

You have presented a mis-characterization of pro-life. Even staunch die-hard Catholics invoke "just war" theory to defend an abortion if the life of the mother is in danger. Specifically if the situation is: certain, grave, and permanent.

I still argue that pro-lifers (or anti-abortionists, if you prefer) are not anti-choice. Keep in mind that we believe there are TWO people present here. One of them (the child) is not given a choice. Truthfully I wish your side would use the term "pro-abortion" because you give very little choice to the child involved.

"Please don't force your beliefs on me" --An Unborn Child

[soldat44]

SusanHelit,

You have presented a mis-characterization of pro-life. Even staunch die-hard Catholics invoke "just war" theory to defend an abortion if the life of the mother is in danger. Specifically if the situation is: certain, grave, and permanent.

I still argue that pro-lifers (or anti-abortionists, if you prefer) are not anti-choice. Keep in mind that we believe there are TWO people present here. One of them (the child) is not given a choice. Truthfully I wish your side would use the term "pro-abortion" because you give very little choice to the child involved.

"Please don't force your beliefs on me" --An Unborn Child
Posted by blazercoach1 at 03:15 PM : May 15, 2007

+1

Beautifully worded Coach. God bless.

[soldat44]

SusanHelit,

You have presented a mis-characterization of pro-life. Even staunch die-hard Catholics invoke "just war" theory to defend an abortion if the life of the mother is in danger. Specifically if the situation is: certain, grave, and permanent.

I still argue that pro-lifers (or anti-abortionists, if you prefer) are not anti-choice. Keep in mind that we believe there are TWO people present here. One of them (the child) is not given a choice. Truthfully I wish your side would use the term "pro-abortion" because you give very little choice to the child involved.

"Please don't force your beliefs on me" --An Unborn Child
Posted by blazercoach1 at 03:15 PM : May 15, 2007

+1

Beautifully worded Coach. God bless.

[susanhelit]

katg, blazer - that is a flat out lie! Happens every time a new bill is drafted to outlaw abortion, the hotest part of the debate is between the pro-life contingent trying to make sure there is absolutely no exceptions, and the moderates trying to put one in for a compromise to get the bill passed. The Supreme Court has had to strike down several bills because they have no provision about the life nor health of the mother! The Republican party platform - take a look at it.

It may not represent your personal position, but the pro-life groups tend to write laws, when writing what they really want, that explicitly exclude concern for the life of the mother. Or they write in so many specific cases that it's pretty well impossible to use.

I think the line for when life begins is the same as for when it ends - brain activity. We get the first little, barely there traces after 3 months. Up until then, it is not a life.

But even after that - I notice no one has anything to say about the case of the unwilling bone marrow donor - far less effort, impact, and pain than pregnancy, and a living, breathing, suffering human on the other side, and we're not willing to force them. Think about why that is - what you would think if it was someone you knew who was refusing - because they were afraid of complications, worried about the cost of being out of work for a day, or whatever reason they might have.

[susanhelit]

I think the line for when life begins is the same as for when it ends - brain activity. We get the first little, barely there traces after 3 months. Up until then, it is not a life. And, yes, I have a daughter, 11 months, because of a little case of gestational diabetes complicated with AFLP (a potentially fatal pregnancy liver problem), I got to see her develop through ultrasounds the whole way through. And if she is pregnant, by accident, and for some reason cannot go through with it, I'd support her rights to an abortion too. Unlimited within 3 months, with cause next trimester, and only for extreme and serious health concerns in the last trimester.






But even after that - I notice no one has anything to say about the case of the unwilling bone marrow donor - far less effort, impact, and pain than pregnancy, and a living, breathing, suffering human on the other side, and we're not willing to force them. Think about why that is - what you would think if it was someone you knew who was refusing - because they were afraid of complications, worried about the cost of being out of work for a day, or whatever reason they might have.

Do you support their right to choice? Or should they be strapped down to the table by force?

[rushman71]

I may be against abortion by my faith in God, but it is not something to raise hell about. The woman that I was married to (now separated) had an abortion (long before we met) out of choice. Did it disturb me. No. Would it have disturbed me if it were my child. Probably. But the fact remains, no matter how right or wrong, no matter how just or unjust this may all sound--I do understand and accept that it is the womans choice. Back in the '90s I did think differently.

[susanhelit]

I've been through this, my sisters have been through this - none of us had an abortion. But having gone through it makes me all the more absolutely positive that no one should be forced to. Whether it happened because of a mistake, rape, contraception failure, or a change in circumstances - if you act in reasonably quick time, you should not be forced to go through all of the dangers and inconveniences, costs and burdens of pregnancy. It's a huge thing, and to say that because a cluster of cells with no brain, no heartbeat, no thought, no humanity might someday grow to be a baby, I should have to give up my body for a year (it takes awhile to recover), and take all of these risks - no way.


It is that simple, whether bone marrow or a 2 month old cluster of cells - my body, my choice!

[blazercoach1]

Susan,

There is a huge difference in your situation about a bone marrow transplant. We have a chance to INTERVENE and STOP a death in the case of the bone marrow transplant. Nature is happening...and we can intervene to GIVE LIFE.

Abortion is exactly the opposite. If left alone in 99.9% of all abortions, the child will live. It is intervention that CAUSES death.

Pro-lifers believe in the life-cycle. From conception to NATURAL death.

Bravo to volunteers who sacrifice a part of themselves to PREVENT death.

[soldat44]

Do you support their right to choice? Or should they be strapped down to the table by force?
Posted by SusanHelit at 04:03 PM : May 15, 2007

For the Pro-Abortion people out there: Why doesn't the abortion-right extend after birth? If you can accept a mother's right to terminate a pre-birth baby's life/right to exist do you also extend that right to the mother after birth? If not, why? Keep in mind that according to the AMA the baby's heart starts beating on its own 8 days after conception and according to the American Bioethics Advisory Commission states the brain activity strats after 6 weeks.

Peace be with you.

[soldat44]

Do you support their right to choice? Or should they be strapped down to the table by force?
Posted by SusanHelit at 04:03 PM : May 15, 2007

For the Pro-Abortion people out there: Why doesn't the abortion-right extend after birth? If you can accept a mother's right to terminate a pre-birth baby's life/right to exist do you also extend that right to the mother after birth? If not, why? Keep in mind that according to the AMA the baby's heart starts beating on its own 8 days after conception and according to the American Bioethics Advisory Commission states the brain activity strats after 6 weeks.

Peace be with you.

[blazercoach1]

Susan,

There is a huge difference in your situation about a bone marrow transplant. We have a chance to INTERVENE and STOP a death in the case of the bone marrow transplant. Nature is happening...and we can intervene to GIVE LIFE.

Abortion is exactly the opposite. If left alone in 99.9% of all abortions, the CHILD WILL LIVE. It is the intervention that that YOU SUPPORT which CAUSES death.

Pro-lifers believe in the life-cycle. From conception to NATURAL death. If you'd like to criticize us for being inconsistent by NOT letting your bone marrow patient die...so be it. I'll live with that.

We're both playing God, you realize. But I'm on the side of erring by letting someone live.

Bravo to volunteers who sacrifice a part of themselves to PREVENT death.

[blazercoach1]

Susan,

There is a huge difference in your situation about a bone marrow transplant. We have a chance to INTERVENE and STOP a death in the case of the bone marrow transplant. Nature is happening...and we can intervene to GIVE LIFE.

Abortion is exactly the opposite. If left alone in 99.9% of all abortions, the CHILD WILL LIVE. It is the intervention that that YOU SUPPORT which CAUSES death.

Pro-lifers believe in the life-cycle. From conception to NATURAL death. If you'd like to criticize us for being inconsistent by NOT letting your bone marrow patient die...so be it. I'll live with that.

We're both playing God, you realize. But I'm on the side of erring by letting someone live.

Susan, would you say that a negligent father should have a choice to pay child support or not? His wallet...his choice, right?

[taddles-2009]

"Posted by blazercoach1 at 04:35 PM : May 15, 2007"

You're not being consistant at all. You claim the whole "from conception to birth" thing but you don't acknowledege that nearly 50% of all conceptions never make it past the first few days. they fail either from the fertilized egg not implanting or the egg spontaneoulsy breaking away from the placenta. Then you also don't acknowledge the vast majority of all fertilized eggs at fertility clinics that get thrown away. Your rhetoric is simplistic and foolish and does nothing to rememdy an otherwise dificult situation.

[sy2502]

For the Pro-Abortion people out there: Why doesn't the abortion-right extend after birth?
Posted by soldat44 at 04:30 PM : May 15, 2007

Very good question. Here is my answer. First of all let me give you these premises:
1) Whatever you believe to be right or wrong, it's something between you and your conscience.
2) The law is not about telling you what's right or wrong. The law is about ensuring the smooth functioning of society. This involves protect the rights of those legally recognized as members of society.
3) I believe a fetus is alive, but I do not believe it is a person. This is my belief and before you tell me how wrong I am, go back to point 1.
4) The law does not recognize the fetus as a juridic entity. Ex: no tax breaks until birth. If you wanted to accord the fetus the same rights of a juridically recognized person you would have to make criminal investigations every time a woman had a miscarriage, to verify she wasn't responsible in any way for the death of another person.

Conclusion: the law recognizes juridic entities after birth ONLY, therefore, that's where their rights, according to the law, should start. If in your conscience you believe they start earlier you have every right to act accordingly by not having an abortion. But is it the place of the law to force people to act in either way? NO!! The place of the law is to protect the rights of the one and only juridic entity in the situation, that is THE WOMAN.

[blazercoach1]

taddles: I'm not sure how I'm not recognizing fertilized eggs that don't implant. This falls into the "miscarriage" category. They are tragic but natural. They are not abortions.

sy: If law is the basis of morality, then you are on the side of Germans against Jews in 1940. You are on the side of plantation owners in the USA in 1860. You are on the side of "women as property" in portions of the world. Are you sure you want to use THAT as your basis for morality??

[susanhelit]

What a fatalistic view! The person who needs bone marrow is dying anyway, so no biggie about letting them die, but the fetus is not, so any amount of trouble is OK, even though it has no heart nor brain.

Sorry, but that is just wrong - yuck! On one side you have a cute 15 year old boy, just starting out in life, has friends, family, people who love him, dying for lack of bone marrow from a donor. On the other side you have a miniscule clump of cells, requiring someone to be a continual donor to survive, no heartbeat, no brainwaves. And you fall on the side of the clump of cells?

Must be a religious thing - I think if we can save only one of the two, the 15 year old boy is the one to be saved, especially since his donor has to put in a ton less work to do so. But I don't think either should be forced to be a donor - not the bone marrow match, nor the woman who is carrying the fetus, who has to be a donor every day for 9 months.


I don't believe in the life cycle at all. I do believe in life! If we can save someone with a heart bypass machine, or some new medical treatment - go for it! But when two lives clash, I believe you have to have the right to your own body, as the most fundamental right possible.

[blazercoach1]

sorry sy, i can't let it go.......

So if you lived under the Taliban and your wife cheated on you, you would find it perfectly ok to have her stoned to death because she isn't "juridic"???

Are there any pro-CHOICE people out there who have a problem with Sy's logic? :)

[blazercoach1]

Susan,

Under your world and mine, the 15 year old child still possibly dies....nobody is forced to donate.

In my world, the child is given a chance to live.

As for being fatalistic.......what reasons would you say are ok for an abortion? Because the child might grow up in poverty? Might not have good parents? Might be less well off than another kid?

Tell me, why don't the homeless kill themselves? Why do the poor still work and search for food and shelter? BECAUSE THEY'D RATHER LIVE THAN DIE!

[blazercoach1]

I wasn't clear....in my world the UNBORN child is given a chance to live. But not in yours.

My fatalism is optimistic about the unborn. Are you not being just as fatalistic about them...but pessimistic?

[soldat44]

What a fatalistic view! The person who needs bone marrow is dying anyway, so no biggie about letting them die, but the fetus is not, so any amount of trouble is OK, even though it has no heart nor brain.
Posted by SusanHelit at 04:58 PM : May 15, 2007

A fetus has no heart or brain??? What planet are you from? Did you pass your sophomore biology final? Good gravy!

BTW - Bone-marrow is donated from a LIVING human-being. It's done all the time! Talk about bring narrow-minded,uneducated and ill-informed.Wow!

[blazercoach1]

Sorry I wasn't clear: In my world the UNBORN child has a chance to live.

[susanhelit]

Under your world, you'd say it's OK for a mother to risk her life carrying any baby, but the 15 year old is out of luck if their donor just doesn't feel like it.

Under your world, a rape victim, a druggie, or a 15 year old who got pressured by her boyfriend into *** must spend 9 months of pregnancy, take risks with their health, life, and financial freedom, but a guy who is a bone marrow match can just say no because he doesn't want to take a day or two off work. It's not right, the 15 year old is alive, the 2 month cluster of cells doesn't have the slightest awareness!

[susanhelit]

'Fatalism' as in 'fate'. I don't believe in fate, I don't accept that the 15 year old dying is OK because he's fated to, and the 2 month old fetus must be carried at all costs because that's their fate. I do believe that what happens with my body is my choice, so for both the young fetus, and the 15 year old boy, I make the choice if I want to donate or not.

I just find it highly inconsistient that the same people who demand a woman take 9 months and health risks rather than allow them the choice to abort it at 2 months when it is just a cluster of cells, is so callous as to say that a bone marrow match doesn't have to take a week and a little inconvenience to be a bone marrow donor. It seems to me to show the relative value of women here - near zero.

[blazercoach1]

Susan,

Is it the unborn child's fault about the circumstances of his/her conception? Are children who are born under such circumstances less worthy in your estimation?

You talk about the risks and uncertainty that the woman must undergo. Have you considered the ABSOLUTE certainty that the child will undergo in an abortion? Why can't that child have a good and fruitful life? What can't the mother have a GREAT life with her new child?

Which one of us is being fatalistic?

I've never heard a mother say, "You know, in hindsight, I wish I had aborted my child".

[staycalm]

Governments commonly enact policies to encourage citizens to act in moral ways, i.e., tax write-offs for charitable contributions. The legalization of abortion-on-demand has had the opposite and predictable effect. I'm referring to two current phenomena: girls-gone-wild and the vile, mysogenistic lyrics of rap music. Both reflect a profound loss of respect for only one ***...WOMEN! From Paris Hilton to the high school girls I know, young women (and consequently men) are behaving wildly and irresponsibly because there are no longer any physical or social consequences for their actions. My mother told me it's the woman who always pays, feminists tried to make it not so but the feminists have failed because, fair or unfair, you simply cannot beat biology. To raise young women to believe that they are the same as men is to do them a great disservice and to rob them of their sacred uniqueness. It's not about choice, it's about integrity and being true to who and what you are.

[blazercoach1]

If I devalued women, I would try to pass legislation that would give them the choice to kill their unborn children or not. That way a man could always say "well she COULD have had an abortion" when he is sued for child support.

If I devalued women, I would encourage them to have abortions all the time so that I could use them for as much *** as I wanted without experiencing any consequences other than my ***.

If I devalued women, I would try to make them in every way like men. I would not recognize that which makes them intrinsically women.