Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
I think the expression is... "too clever-by-half?"
I must admire the entertainment industry for their devotion to hiring the handicapped. They are doing a great service. This poor, retarded woman may never have obtained gainful employment had it not been for the altruistic vision of people in the entertainment world. She probably would have been forced into a life of servitude and slavery as a community organizer or something.
usually have an open mind on these things, even when I disagree, but that was so obnoxious I couldn't watch the whole thing ...
This is disgusting. I'm pro-choice myself, but for Comedy Central to imply that abortion is the only answer is pretty biased.
Alex... that's not what the clip is implying. They are pointing out that pregnancy is a private matter for a family and a woman to deal with. The campaign stressed that Bristol was not pressured into having the baby or marrying her young boyfriend, that it was here CHOICE--a choice that prolife politicians like Sarah Palin and John McCain would deny Bristol should they have the power to change the laws.
Hilarious. I'll bet Sarah Palin would get the humor.
When in doubt, seek out the weirdies and fill your program with them. Thank god Stewart is the number one source for political information on the under 30's demographic...
I wonder if it causes the Anointed One any cognitive dissonance to realize that had reproductive choice been available in 1961, Ann Durham would probably have decided not to punish herself with a baby.
Actually -- they said they were "proud of her decision" to keep the baby. Of course, her original independent choice was made a few months prior to that. Legally she could've killed the baby without their permission. That right will most likely remain regardless of Roe staying or going. Anyone who thinks the world is better with less Downs folks around is both sick and unknowing of many with Downs.
"a choice that prolife politicians like Sarah Palin and John McCain would deny Bristol should they have the power to change the laws."Strange. Are pro-"choice" politicians ever concerned about the rights of the person who is sometimes killed when a woman exercises her "choice"?Bristol Palin made the choice not to kill her child. We all have to make the choice not to kill people. Fortunately most of us choose wisely. Some don't, and they're punished for their "choice". Unless, of course, they've chosen to kill their pre-natal child. Then they're just exercising their "rights", while simultaneously and unilaterally removing forever the rights of the person they created. I'm not particularly religious, so don't assume my ethical analysis stems from some sort of church dogma. I just see it as a rights issue. A woman owns her own womb, but does she own the person inside it?
I'm missing the gene that finds Jon Stewart funny. If I want sneering condescension, there's always MSNBC.Some programs or personalities elevate the debate, while others degrade the public square......could probably say the same about certain choices.
Palladian, Being prochoice, I recognize that abortion presents a moral dilemma about the rights of a fetus. But prolife people need to recognize that forcing a woman to go through nine months of pregnancy and bear a child against her will presents a moral dilemma as well. And that's why I'm proCHOICE. Its a combination of moral dilemmas that has no easy answer, so its best to minimize the government's role in regulating the issue. In a world where no rule can resolve the dilemma, I think (and most Americans think), that its best to let the pregnant woman resolve the issue on her own.So, I think its a bit ironic for a politician to say that for her own family choice and privacy matter, but that the government policies she would support would restrict that choice and make a woman's pregnancy a nonprivate matter for the government to judge her on.
Ruth Anne and John Z. seem to misunderstand the word "choice" and abortion.
Oops. I meant "misunderstand the word "choice" AS abortion.
It is Sarah Palin's choice to propagate for an abortion free nation. She has a long way to go to convince the nation. But she is a fine spokeswoman for this cause....As you go through life, you change your mind on many issues. Thirty or forty years ago--to choose an issue dear to the left-- only the truly strange and weird believed in gay marriage. Now it is becoming not such an unusual belief....One of the ways to propagate a cause it to lead by example. Mrs. Palin and her daughter have made difficult decisions that are consistent with their principles. I would not have made these decisions, but I recognize that there are better people on earth than me. Sarah and her family are themselves effective propaganda for the values they propagate. A cheap shot like the one featured here makes the Daily Show look manipulative and cheap. It is not effective propaganda for their side.
I didn't find the piece disgusting/offensive, but I didn't find it particularly funny either, despite enjoying some of Samantha Bee's other work on the Daily Show. I'm pro-choice, but I recognize that the idea of choice as an end in itself is somewhat incoherent. I smile ruefully when I see my friends' cars with both "Keep your laws off my body" and DARE bumper stickers.
"...misunderstand the word "choice" AS abortion"ProChoicers tend to misunderstand the word "adoption" as "not an option."
John Z. said... I wonder if it causes the Anointed One any cognitive dissonance to realize that had reproductive choice been available in 1961, Ann Durham would probably have decided not to punish herself with a baby.She would have saved the modern world and we would have one less commuity organizer.
If there were restrictions on abortion, it wouldn't amount to a bunch of spies keeping tabs on all nubile women. The restrictions would be on the availability of services and drugs.I know all about emanations and penumbras but there is a big difference between actual privacy and abstract extensions of the concept.
People who use the word "choice" use it as codespeak for abortion and nothing else.People who use the word "life" use it as codespeak for all the other options besides abortion.In that rubric it's childish to deny which is in favor of the most choices. And we see right there why to them Sarah Palin must be destroyed.
That is the wall of complete non-understanding.To pro-choicers, it's about CHOICE, whether to have a baby or to remove a fetus, both being simply choices.To pro-lifers, it's about LIFE, whether to allow a human to live or die.I realize both sides are offended by the other side's black-and-white view, but it boils down to that.I was pro-choice by default for most of my early adult years (in fact, up to around age 35). Then someone asked me what it exactly it was that was being aborted, a human being or not. If it's a human being, then it must be recognized that abortion is about destroying that human being.I spent quite a lot of time agonizing over this, because I wanted the pro-choice position to be my position. But logic made me choose the pro-life position.I try to understand the emotions on the pro-choice side, and I sometimes think I understand them. But I had to make an unemotional decision on what "side" to support. Cruelly neutral, indeed. Whether I'm right or wrong, at least I don't weasel out of a decision because "it's above my pay grade."
the left adopted the word choice to avoid the word abortion. Now I agree that any the parents of an unborn child should have the right to make that choice--I remain deeply convicted about abortion--especially as SCIENCE learns more about fetal development. But choice should not be reserved exclusively for the woman involved. Unless, of couse, you believe that the father is just a sperm deliverer; and that really denigrates the role of men in this personal decision. Bottom line: I guess I am for pro-choice, and that decision is best left to ALL the parties involved. It should not be the role of government to dictate. In this respect, I disagree strongly with the position taken by the GOP--that said, I am even more afraid of the Democrats cavalier attitude for human life. Palladian--well said in your post above.
What is annoying about this segment is that the Daily Show thinks it has such a brilliant point and is exposing tremendous hypocrisy. But if you think about it for a moment, it doesn't really make any sense, and this can be illustrated with a simple thought experiment.Suppose the action that we're talking about is one that is obviously wrong but for some reason not prohibited. Suppose it's tax evasion. Would it be hypocritical to simultaneously praise someone for choosing to pay their taxes even though they weren't forced to while simultaneously working to make tax evasion a crime? I can't see how that would be hypocritical at all!It seems to me that the Daily Show writers don't seem to understand that they aren't praising Bristol for the act of choosing, but for the choice she made. Or, more likely, they do understand this but have become annoyingly sanctimonious lately.
And thanks to the commenters who have treated this issue with complexity and delicacy it deserves without vituperation and snark.
Unless, of couse, you believe that the father is just a sperm deliverer; Very few believe that. Most believe fathers are sperm deliverers and walking ATMs.
Of course Stewart could have built exactly the same infantile routine around the concept of school "choice" at the NEA dominated Democratic Convention, but that would be poking fun at the left and we can't have that.
And it is very sad commentary on the current state of discourse when such an important private, and moral decision is reduced to comedy.
To find humor in a Sophie's Choice is only possible if one has never really thought about it.Non-thinking about covers it.I believe women's choice must be the rule of the land. I also believe life begins at conception. If ending that life is murder, so be it. Where is the humor in this?
"And it is very sad commentary on the current state of discourse when such an important private, and moral decision is reduced to comedy."Using the word "comedy" loosely, of course. Yes. Welcome to America in 2008 where all seriousness is treated as pedantry and everything is subject to sneering derision. Sneering derision has its place, but in moderation. What's amusing to me is how the "hip" left think that everything they consider "conservative" is a joke, and fair game for derision. Yet their own beliefs, which are as inherently ridiculous, embarrassing and naive as anything "conservatives" believe, are off-limits. I've lately started to perceive that there's quite a difference between liberals and the type of person Jon Stewart caters to. At the heart of "old-fashioned" liberalism is a sincere optimism about human nature, however misguided we may think it. At the heart of "hipster" liberalism is a caustic nihilism, a puerile sneer. To me there is an odd disconnect between what hip liberals profess to support and how they actually behave in the world. It's odd to support what is an essentially supposed to be an idealistic and optimistic philosophy with the most cynical and unpleasant attitudes. Sometimes I think that it's actually a negative philosophy: I'm not defined by who I am, I'm defined by what my parents are not.Maybe this is the difference between liberals and leftists.
It just wasn't funny.
"Where is the humor in this?"In your moniker.
That voice is grating.Stewart has had the same joke for 8 years: Aren't conservatives stupid? It gets boring after a while, a short while.
You know, they're right: saying the national press shouldn't be gossiping about Bristol Palin is pretty much the same thing as saying abortion should be legal.
What is missing from all these abortion discussions is that because of our cultural and religious differences, i.e. Jews believe life does not begin at conception, but rather when the fetus is viable outside the womb, a full national ruling one way or the other would not work and is probably not possible. However, the problem with Roe v. Wade is that communities and states are forbidden to make their own rulings. Why couldn't abortion be illegal in Wasilla but legal in Anchorage? People who feel so strongly that abortion is murder could know it didn't occur in their community. People on the other side could choose not to live where it is prohibited, or be prepared to travel if they sek an abortion. Our large cities and college towns, like Madison, will always be liberal, they would never choose to outlaw abortion. While not perfect, it is a much fairer result. Of course, unless Roe is overturned, this compromise is impossible.
I'm still torn on which side I stand on when it comes to pro-choice and pro-life. I believe a woman should have the right to govern her own body, but at the same time I believe an unborn child has a right to life. I don't want to see abortion used frivolously because some women were too lazy (or incompetent) to take the proper steps to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. Rape and incest are entirely different issues, and even on that I'm having a hard time of making up my mind. Being forced to carry the child to term would put more undue strain on a woman who is already traumatized, but at the same it isn't the child's fault. Giving the baby up for adoption is always a "choice" I wish I could see more feminists discussing. I rarely even see that mentioned. I generally just see the mantra "abort, abort, abort" being chanted.This video is in poor taste, and sorely reminds me of a blog I just recently read that made me feel ill to my stomach. The person in question stated that "every single person who deliberately conceives children of their own instead of taking in a child in need is being self-serving and short-sighted". She went on to say that she would abort her child without hesitation or guilt, and instead focus on adopting foreign children. The four things that bothered me most were that: one, by her logic most of us shouldn't exist; two, she was using already born children whom their mothers failed to abort to justify her pro-choice position; three, anyone who has a child has reprehensible morals; and, four, she seemed to place more value on the lives of foreign children than those who are in need here in America.I'm sure Althouse would be amused to learn that the author of this blog was once previously mentioned in her blog as the girl with "such a vanilla, white-girl American name".
Ironic that the side of "choice" so often omits the choice of adoption from their calculus. Even if abortion were taken off the table choice is present.
Palin wasn't supposed to have 5 kids AND have a career. Its not a choice that feminists permit. They hate her for jumping the fence.
You know, they're right: saying the national press shouldn't be gossiping about Bristol Palin is pretty much the same thing as saying abortion should be legal.Wait. What?Could you explain that chain of logic please? I think I'm missing something.1. The Press should refrain from gossiping about Bristol Palin.2. ???3. Therefore, abortion should be legal.
This makes a mokery of both sides. I am definitely pro-life. Virtually everyone makes the "choice" to have sex. People need to start taking responsibility for their actions. Being pregnant isn't like having an unwanted disease. These women and men are making choices that have consequences. And it's no secret what the possible consequences are! One other thing that I just don't understand is how a "fetus" travelling 8 inches through a birth canal suddenly has rights that it didn't have 5 minutes before when it was located inside a woman's body. If it has rights when it comes out, it should have rights when it is in...human rights....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, the logical question is this: Is this a human or not? If it is not human, it has no rights...by all means, do what you wish with it. I won't argue. If it is human, it has the same rights as the rest of us.
Jon Stewart can be funny about the left; he eviscerated Edwards when the Enquirer story finally got play in the MSM. But he's letting his own antipathy for Bush bleed into his work and his staff is following him down that unfunny path. I hope he'll decide to assert some self-control before the election but I doubt it. Too bad, because he can be a real antidote to all the venom.... Jon, an old news director of mine once said (in response to my pontificating from the anchor chair), Hey, meathead: shut up and read! Jon, shut up and be funny!
seuss, jackie - good thoughts. The whole point about the magic trip down the birth canal always struck me as odd. And with D&X, even that doesn't guarantee anything. I know. I know. Horrible things all around. Wishing it to go away doesn't make that happen, though.Looks like we'll be needing to discuss this until the SCOTUS gives us the rights back to make the decisions ourselves instead of by judicial fiat.
One other thing that I just don't understand is how a "fetus" travelling 8 inches through a birth canal suddenly has rights that it didn't have 5 minutes before when it was located inside a woman's body. If it has rights when it comes out, it should have rights when it is in...human rights....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.Ah, according to Obama even if it survives its 8 inch journey, it still doesn't necessarily earn its human rights. The mother retains some postpartum abortion rights.
Martin Gale.....and that makes me want to vomit. So wrong.
PatCA said... That voice is grating. Stewart has had the same joke for 8 years: Aren't conservatives stupid? It gets boring after a while, a short while.I saw the video and the first thing that I thought to myself was if they did this very thing at the DNC convention?
It's wrong to point out the hypocrisy of saying Sarah Palin made the Courageous Choice to have a Downs baby, or that Bristol Palin Made Her Choice All On Her Own, when in fact, both McCain and Palin want to completely take away that choice. Sarah Palin says even if her daughter is raped there is no choice - leaving a serial rapist his "choice" to pick any mother he wants to have his baby.
Jackie,Don't vomit yet, wait until Stewart explores the rich comic possibilities of the "Born Alive" act.
Rick Lockridge, are you the same Rick Lockridge that's on CNN?
garage, is it a baby with human rights or not?If it has human rights, then let's just slow down a bit and think it through.Is that question above your pay grade, too?
Palladian, did you watch the Giuliani/Palin/Romney/Huckabee convention speeches? I heard a lot more derisive sneering in those than in the major Dem convention speeches.
Derisive sneering has its place, as I said earlier Joseph. Work on your reading skills.See? Derision is sometimes necessary.
Okay, I spent a lot of time pondering this thing.And now I get it: It’s ha-ha funny that Sarah Palin doesn’t have the legal right to stop her daughter from getting an abortion but she wishes she did.No wait . . . still not getting it.I’ll keep working on it.
Blogger garage mahal said... It's wrong to point out the hypocrisy of saying Sarah Palin made the Courageous Choice to have a Downs baby, or that Bristol Palin Made Her Choice All On Her Own, when in fact, both McCain and Palin want to completely take away that choice. Sarah Palin says even if her daughter is raped there is no choice - leaving a serial rapist his "choice" to pick any mother he wants to have his baby. 11:16 AMYou don't know that's her true opinion.
You don't know that's her true opinion.Sure I do, she said so herself.
Ha! So derisive sneering is appropriate in political rhetoric but not TV comedies.
Blogger garage mahal said... You don't know that's her true opinion. Sure I do, she said so herself. 11:27 AMProve it.
Please cite the reference, garage.
That was sarcasm, Sofa King. The point is that the two propositions, as you note, have nothing at all to do with each other.I want to comment on the paralytic argument offered by Joseph Hovsep:Its a combination of moral dilemmas that has no easy answer, so its best to minimize the government's role in regulating the issue.Aside from skipping over the fact that one of the moral dilemmas is whether or not the government ought to be involved (to which the argument presents itself as an easy answer!), it's special pleading when offered up by anyone but an anarchist. Has this unanimity requirement ever been imposed by anyone on any issue other than abortion? I'd be mighty surprised to see Bee Whatshername suggest, for example, that the government should refrain from setting a minimum wage since we'll never all agree on whether it ought to!
Palin On Abortion: I'd Oppose Even If My Own Daughter Was RapedAnd McCain:Once, aboard the Straight Talk Express, McCain was asked if he supported the use of contraception or President Bush's abstinence-only education program to stem the spreading of AIDS. "After a long pause, he said, 'I think I support the president's policy.' Does he believe that contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV? After another long pause, he replied, "You've stumped me."That's leadership my friends.
"It's wrong to point out the hypocrisy of saying Sarah Palin made the Courageous Choice to have a Downs baby, or that Bristol Palin Made Her Choice All On Her Own, when in fact, both McCain and Palin want to completely take away that choice."I like that "choice" is now a code word for "life and death". There are other choices, Palin and McCain just don't like the "death" choice. Apparently murder without consequences is needed for choice to be considered choice."Sarah Palin says even if her daughter is raped there is no choice - leaving a serial rapist his "choice" to pick any mother he wants to have his baby."Does anyone know if Sarah Palin opposes abortion in the case of rape or incest? I can't really tell from McCain's website, but I know that McCain supported allowing abortion in these circumstances in the past.
Well if Palin truly is against abortion even in the case of rape/incest then that will be a loser.
"After a long pause, he said, 'I think I support the president's policy.' Does he believe that contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV? After another long pause, he replied, "You've stumped me."That's leadership my friends."No, that's called not rushing to answer a scientific question one isn't prepared to answer. I know that both parties are heavily anti-science, but I respect when politicians have some humility when faced with scientific questions that are "above their pay grade".
Joe Giles said: I'm missing the gene that finds Jon Stewart funny. If I want sneering condescension, there's always MSNBC.I am missing the same gene.
Many great posts here on abortion especially from miller, seuss and jackie.I agree. To me, it is axiomatic that an innocent human life is protected by human rights. Therefore, if a human fetus is a human life it would be immoral to destroy it to say the least.When does a human life begin? A baby is undoubtedly a human life as it is born, and therefore it must have become a human life at some time inside of the womb.When can we consider the fetus as becoming a human life? The only point I can see that isn't completely arbitrary is conception. Other than that, every other stage seems an arbitrary place along a continuum of development, chosen more for the convenience of justifying abortion than for any real and logical reason.I was pro-choice when I hadn't thought about abortion because, hey, who opposes choice? But more and more, I cannot deny that I find it compelling to define conception as the beginning of a human life, and therefore I cannot continue to justify abortion to myself.
Outlawing abortion in case of rape/incest is just barbaric and Palin better explain herself.
No, that's called not rushing to answer a scientific question one isn't prepared to answer.No, this is a disinterested, or clueless response from someone that doesn't know if contraception helps prevent AIDS. I mean, for fuck's sake. "Stumped"?
Garage:Really? HuffPo? That's your "source?" It doesn't even support the proposition you claim, since it is not clear from the article whether she would be opposed as a matter of morality or a matter of policy.
Heee, hee. That's a funny one. A great way to highlight Republicans celebrating Bristol's choice while a) depriving others of the right to make same choice and b) telling us we can't talk about Bristol. I've been conflicted with this not-talking-about families things. When they're kids it's not problem. But when they're 17, 18 say, and part of the campaign and their actions can show the shortcomings of their parents' policies (such as opposition to sex ed and contraceptives by Palin). Observations on the glaring example of failure of the candidates' policies seem fair game, as long as the child is not attacked.It's a beautiful day in Madison and I'm going paddling!
Even 50% of evangelicals support allowing abortion in case of rape/incest.
sofa king - even if it's just morality that will turn off a lot of people.
I'm sorry, garage, but can you post a link to where Palin said what you say she said? I see "I'd choose life." How does that = "no abortion for rape/incest"?
And garage?If anyone believes that a human life begins at conception then it is an uncomfortable and painful realisation that even a fetus that was born of a rape is a new human life that has done no wrong.That's painful to acknowledge, and I feel for any woman who has had such a painful series of ordeals. But it is the logically and ethically consistant position to take if you believe human life begins at conception. Many pro-life people shy away from making that conclusion because it is so uncomfortable to make. Sticking to your principles even when it is uncomfortable to do so is a sign of integrity.
I searched the wikipedia page for references to her abortion position, and I couldn't find a single one that confirmed the rape/incest part.
Alex, you will need to look long and hard.It's much easier to just quote KOS and HuffPo.They do all the thinking for you! And for free, too.
Freedom of choiceIs what you gotFreedom from choiceIs what you want-DevoInstead of taking men's freedom from them, Thou didst make it greater than ever! Didst Thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil?-Fyodor Dostoevsky (translated) You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor-Bob Dylan 2008 Can choice become crime?
Regardless Palin will have to give a new answer on abortion. That's all that matters.
And garage, no offense, but I was reacting not just to you, but to people in general who repeat stuff because it's delicious w/o being true.I had a good friend recently send me an e-mail that flatly stated that Palin cut funding for homes for unwed mothers in Alaska. She didn't bother researching this; she just retold this story because it felt true.Palin cut the requested increase in the budget; but to her mind, this was cutting the budget. To my friend, it is more important that Palin LOSE than she maintain her objectivity.
MC @ 11:48 AM...well said.
miller - if Palin comes out and says she's against abortion for rape/incest that will be trouble.
Alex, I think you hit the nail on the head. Palin "not ready" is code for "she might not be in favor of complete abortion freedom."I have the feeling that if Palin were to have all her current qualities but were running as a Democrat AND who believed in complete abortion freedom, the talking points on the Democrat side would be completely reversed.
Alex, you are probably right in the political sense. Sad, that. But that's the facts of politics.
Honestly I don't get the anti-choice position. Pro-choice is the most moral way to believe.
Some of you commenters need to think through your opinion that abortion is okay in the case of rape or incest.Late at night, when Mom’s sleeping one off on the sofa, more than a few luscious, full-breasted daughters have snuck into the master bedroom so they could climb on top of Pop and squat with that twat!!!Up, down, up, down, up, down, up, down . . .YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!So let’s not be sexist about this.Fathers have rights, too!
P.S. Mrs. Bissage said that was “vile.”I posted it anyway.Ha!
bissage - that was disgusting.
"a) depriving others of the right to make same choice"You mean the choice not to murder her baby? How will overturning Roe v. Wade stop mothers from choosing not to kill their babies?Apparently the only choices are A) Allow your baby to live B) Kill your baby.
Bissage.. um, ick?
Ick? No, no, definitely ick.
The abortion debate is so much BS.A president is not king. The president cannot change Rove v. Wade. The Supreme Court would have to do that-- Which would be a major thing. Roe v Wade is bad law. However, If Roe v Wade were over-turned it would become a state by state issue and most states would probably keep abortion legal.George Bush is pro-life and we still have abortion. Sarah Palin has a right to her convictions - despite the angry, demagogued, fear-filled left.
Let's make a deal. Those 1/1000000 of 1% of pregnancies out there which resulted from rape or incest, abort away, but all other abortions are proscribed. Mmmm-kay? Deal? No? You won't make that deal? I didn't think so. I already knew that. So pfff-ttt, and stop citing rape and incest exceptions. Those are not what this is about.
But if you forbid ONLY abortion in rape or incest, then you have to invade privacy, which is absolute in the case of abortion, but completely shredded in the case of a 17-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin, who needs to be shamed like a strumpet.
Honestly I don't get the anti-choice position. Pro-choice is the most moral way to believe.It is, only if you accept certain premises.Almost all of the debate is about policies but the fundamental disagreement is further down than that: the real disagreement is about when a person becomes a person.
No there is no real debate to be had. Privacy is king. "My body my choice" is sacrosanct.
Alex, now you're just funnin' us.
AlphaLiberal said... Heee, hee. That's a funny one. A great way to highlight Republicans celebrating Bristol's choice while a) depriving others of the right to make same choice and b) telling us we can't talk about Bristol.Name one Republican, since Roe v Wade who has deprived others to make the choice. Not advcated, but actually deprived- your word.I've been conflicted with this not-talking-about families things. When they're kids it's not problem.Good, we agree. So we can finally talk about how the Clintons pimped that prostitute Chelsea with out remorse, guilt, or having to apologize. I am so glad you feel this way.
AlphaLiberal said... It's a beautiful day in Madison and I'm going paddling!Please keep your S&M sexual proclivities to yourself. We really do not want to know.
Chickenlittle: Thanks for posting that excerpt from the "grand inquistor." One of the best synopses of the nature of free will.The really distressing thing for me reading this thread was that many posters talk about the moral conflict they see in the dabate over abortion, and they freely admit they are conflicted. Yet (mostly) our lefties dismiss these comments in one phrase. I thought the left were the side of nuance.
Methadras,I'll bet that the joke was the same at the DNC: aren't conservatives stupid?
Some conservatives are stupid. So are some leftists. I don't see that as news.I do see that most leftists are unable to discuss the subject of abortion as if it were a secular topic. It's sacred in the sense that we cannot discuss it without hushed, reverent tones and the subject itself is fixed and yet unknown.
There should be no conflict on abortion. "My body, my choice".
Bissage,Mrs. B is right.Still, for the not so squeamish among us, "top, pop, squat, twat" was very funny.
Joseph Hovsep: The campaign stressed that Bristol was not pressured into having the baby or marrying her young boyfriend, that it was here CHOICE--a choice that prolife politicians like Sarah Palin and John McCain would deny Bristol should they have the power to change the laws.In 1963, prior to Roe, my 15 year old birth mother made the CHOICE to give me up for adoption.Are you implying that Sarah Palin and John McCain would deny Bristol that CHOICE should they have the power to change the laws?
Well, I don't mind saying I'm against the rape/incest exceptions. I see them as nothing but political triangulation on the pro-life side and wedge on the pro-choice side.People have a visceral reaction to rape and incest---as well they should. Rape is a vicious crime---and its consequences even severe if one of the consequences is pregnancy. So again, the thought of it should provoke visceral reactions in well-meaning people. But it makes it incredibly difficult to appreciate that the child conceived under such horrible conditions is as human as a child conceived through consensual sex.Allowing those exceptions lets people focus on the humanity of the 99.9999% of the other cases, but it obviously diminishes the argument slightly in the process. I suspect it is a trade worth making. I honestly don't think we'll ever evolve as a society to respect unborn life to the point where we curtail abortion to just these standard exceptions (as well as imminent danger to the mother of course). But if we did, I suspect those two exceptions would not remain for long.
Eh, I don't like the "make fun of ordinary people for being stupid" schtick. It's funnier on The Tonight Show.Michael Moore does this, and that's what I find most repelant about his movies. It invites the viewer to feel superior to whoever is being tormented, when the viewer wouldn't perform any better with a camera and microphone shoved in their face.Talking for a camera is a skill, most people don't have it, and so what?
mcg - excellent post.
mcg, you are not making a strong case for conservatives being idiots. You'll need to stop the carefully thought-out arguments. The left needs caricatures. How are you helping them?Like you say, it's a terrible conflict. I don't know of many leftists/liberals who argue these points honestly. I wish the issue were easier to deal with. Rape and incest are crimes. But the hard thing is, do we punish the baby? That's where the middle gets squeamish, and the left comes in with "you need to make it available to all, because to investigate the criminality of the event means you must break the privacy of the woman."I don't know how to get around the difficulty of the argument. I do know that, to my ears, the left dismisses the 'baby' part of the argument all too easily. I'm struggling with the 'rape and incest' exception.
miller - I think society has a greater interest in not rewarding rapists(strangers or a father) then protecting ALL life.
Alex - please explain. I don't understand.
It's almost like Alex doesn't know that rapists go to prison.
Unless what you mean by "reward" is "let the DNA of the rapist live to perpetuate the genetic line of the rapist"?Does a rapist somehow "get" that bit of genetics in a way that's subliminal to his desire to commit an act of violence?Sounds pretty cold to me.
miller - if we force a girl to bear a rapist's child, then the rapist wins. That's a loss for the girl and society as a whole. A just society has to send a message to all rapists that they will not win that kind of victory!
Yes, any rapist knows that he's trying to force his genetics onto a girl/woman. Society should not allow him that victory. Prison alone isn't enough if he can gloat about his genetic victory because society said the girl couldn't get an abortion.
mcg & alex, and painful people like you,should be gang raped and forced to give birth to quintuplets and forced to suckle them on your left and right tit. What pathetic losers you morally muddled moxie males are. Your prescription for morality is as obnoxious as you guys are in real life. You dastardly dudes give the meaning of life a bad rap and you shouldn't exist on any planet in the solar system except perhaps Jupiter, where there is so much space as to make you invisible.
Bissage, Dude you got to stop watching "Hogan Knows Best" before you go to bed.Switch to the "Girls Next Door." It's much better for your fantasy life.
alex...Rapists don't rape to get girls pregant. That in NO WAY makes them "win". They "win" by raping girls. And it's definitely not a win.
once again, trumpit demonstrates he has the morals of an amoeba--you are a pathetic human being trumpit--I do hope you havent reproduced.
For all of you who are ready to define life as beginning at conception. Are you really willing to follow your logic to its conclusion and ban all IUDs, many if not all birth control pills (especially the morning after pill)? Not only that, are you ready to shut down all the fertility clinics in the country and end all fetal stem cell research?Because that is what defining life as beginning at conception and calling interfering with development after that point "murder" means.
No, I don't think that's what we're talking about.What are you talking about? Because we need fetal research we should allow babies to be killed up until the moment they can do higher math? That slippery slope is really a hyperbola.At what point does the baby get human rights? That's the question we're asking.
Life doesn't begin at conception. Twins. They start after conception. So, we don't begin as individuals until sometime later.It isn't that simple.
rojer j. (the big fat joker),I hope you are anally and orally gang raped from now until eternity. You are a slimy, infected, viral loser. You should be forced to pump out babies until you croak from having their placentas burst. God invented AIDS for pustulant people like you. Take the sausages internally like a man, you mouse.
miller said... You'll need to stop the carefully thought-out arguments. The left needs caricatures. How are you helping them?The left are caricatures.
Yowza. That's kinda harsh for just talking about viewpoints. We're trying to figure out if babies have human rights, and you want people to get beat up for talking about it.Nice.
Why is it that they never find anyone in their random selections who manage to make their point coherently? Oh, because that's the joke. OMG!!!! These people are SO STUPID (because they probably don't agree with us smart folks)!!! Wow, that's so funny. No, please stop, you're killing me. Seriously, this is comedy genius. How do they come up with this? Incredible, really, incredible. Whew, I hope they don't do a pie in the face, because I really can't take anymore of this. It's just too funny. If someone's pants drop, I'll pass out from laughter now. That's some sophisticated humor, whoo boy!On a more serious note, I really don't feel that insecure about my own thinking that I need to go find some ill-prepared person to humiliate to demonstrate that I am right. Seems to be a meme and I hope it dies off soon.
if we force a girl to bear a rapist's child, then the rapist wins. That's a loss for the girl and society as a whole. A just society has to send a message to all rapists that they will not win that kind of victory!Hmm. I'm not seeing it. For one, I don't think a rapist typically intends to produce a child when he is committing the act. And two, there are a variety of avenues a just society can take to convince a rapist he hasn't won. That's part of what punishment is, isn't it?
Hey, Trumpit,Does your mom still keep you locked in the basement for the unspeakable crimes you committed as a child? Does she wish she never popped out a retard like you? You are living proof that Roe v. Wade should be expanded to include post natal abortion.The Romans used to do that. They had the right to kill their own terrible children to save the state the trouble.
Bella, You should know by now that I don't respond to blooming idiot losers like you. Get a job and pay taxes to make up for your utter worthlessness as a human fetus. I hope you shoot yourself in your eye the next time you, a stinking hunter, take aim at defenseless animal in the wild. You deserve the death penalty. You are pure vomit.
Life doesn't begin at conception. Twins. They start after conception. So, we don't begin as individuals until sometime later. It isn't that simple.Agreed. It's not that simple. However, it is safe to say that physiological ambiguities such as these are no longer present by the time someone learns they are pregnant.Let me be clear, however. What I am saying here is that the rape and incest exceptions are poorly motivated on both sides. I could conceive of a scenario in which abortion is banned after a certain stage of pregnancy, but is permitted before that stage---and which rape and incest exceptions are not made. No matter what the final outcome of the abortion debate is, I just don't see rape and incest as being appropriate motivating factors.
You should know by now that I don't respond to blooming idiot losers like you.Uh, but you just did.
They are pointing out that pregnancy is a private matter for a family and a woman to deal with.Thank you joseph for being a voice of reason, but I'm afraid your not going to make any inroads with this crowd. They don't understand what individual choice is about. Being an individual who is free to make choices, is only true for certain issues with them. This is not one of them. They can't hear, comprehend or accept that choice can mean any number of options, the last of which is always termination. Always. Even when being forced to say it themselves (choice), they will not see the hypocrisy of their own words. There is plenty of common ground on this issue because I think when cooler heads prevail, we can all agree that the actual goal is less unwanted pregnancies.
Alex: There should be no conflict on abortion. "My body, my choice".I will stipulate to that if you will stipulate to: Your baby's body, your baby's choice.
katherine, I appreciate your summary, but no, it's not about choice.It's about a fundamental right to exist. Is the baby a human, and if so, at what point is she human?
"Individual choice" is an interesting term. We punish people all of the time for making "individual choices". The majority of Americans think that child molestation is horrific. People who molest children are making an "individual choice" to do what they want. We don't applaud their "individual choice". We say, "That is wrong, and you should be punished." And they are. But in saying that, we are saying, "There are certain 'individual choices' that will be punished because they are wrong."
Palin vs. RFK -- double standard?Has there ever been any criticism of Robert F. Kennedy's campaign for the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination, when he had 10 children (between the ages of 6 months and 17 years) and a pregnant wife at home?
What Bissage wrote may have been an 'ick,' but he was describing the behavior of Lot's daughters. Reread Genesis.
I'm glad you didn't use Hop on Pop, too.
Unfortunately, I may have to burn our Hop on Pop book.
Alex: Yes, any rapist knows that he's trying to force his genetics onto a girl/woman. Society should not allow him that victory. Prison alone isn't enough if he can gloat about his genetic victory because society said the girl couldn't get an abortion.Interesting.Should the fetuses of rapists be forcibly aborted, for the good of the gene pool specifically (is there a genetic predisposition to rape?), and society in general?Should rapists be forcibly sterilized?Should the fetuses of other types of criminals also be forcibly aborted, and should those criminals be forcibly sterilized?Just curious how far you are willing to take eugenics.
(1) Alex: Disgusting? You bet! But much less so than people who think of abortion as the moral equivalent of liposuction. Choice? I call bullshit on that. Joseph Hovsep is a lawyer. He shouldn’t be thinking in terms no more sophisticated than a bumper sticker.(2) Palladian: Ick? I couldn’t agree more. Heterosexual sex is just gross!Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh.We’re still friends, right?(3) Meade: Althouse said a while back that she appreciates it when we take the time to compose our comments and I took that as something of an endorsement. (I know, I know, that’s presumptuous of me.)Anyway, I fretted for what seemed like hours trying to decide how to compose that comment. For example, should I go with “hop on top of Pop” or should I go with “climb on top of Pop?” The former had more rhyme-ee goodness but it also too much suggested a playful younger child, relatively speaking, so I went with the latter.Exercising my right to choose was sort of like terminating an unwanted mental picture. Ah, the morality of humor. Go figure.(4) Trooper: I took matters firmly in hand (see (2), above) and now I can't think of a quip good enough for you. Guess I'm all tapped out.Sorry.Maybe later.*consult teh Googles for photos of Ann Hathaway*
Note: my previous post, and Jackie's, refer to Bissage's last post, which he deleted and re-posted.
(1) Simon Kenton: I did not know that! Good for them!!!(2) mcg: EXACTLY!!! That the leading reason why I had to pull out!(Sorry about deleting my 1:30 and rendering your 1:37 maybe a little obscure to those not here in real time.)(3) jackie: No, don’t do it! Save that book. Use this fine product, instead!
Right you are, mcg!Sorry, once again.
Thanks, Bissage...I'll try that :)
All right now . . . I’ve been at this too long and my typing (and brain) is getting even worse than usual.Gotta go.But I’ll be taking THIS with me.And thinking of Trooper the whole time.Ha!
It's a gotcha without the getting.
At what age should the baby have the choice to abort her mother? I suggest upon the baby reaching her 25th birthday.
So do you support judicial bypass for maternal abortions, spread eagle? :-)
Bissage: why not just rent the unrated version of Havoc? Or is that above your pay grade?
Palladian said: At the heart of "hipster" liberalism is a caustic nihilism, a puerile sneer.I'm for stigmatizing the HIP-positive.
I am a gay, pro-life Republican who is quite smitten with Sarah Palin. I've always wondered what will become of gay and lesbians when the gay gene is discovered? (And I say when because I know I was born gay). Will we go the way of the Down syndrome child? Will we go the way of many unborn female childre as is happening in nations like South Korea? And how will those on the left respond to the destruction of unborn gay and lesbians? Will they still defend the "right to choose?" Despite these questions, I do know one thing, however. And that is that it will not be the Sarah Palin's of the world who will be aborting unborn gay and lesbian children. Women like her will be our only hope.
Yeah, this routine is more than a little forced. Seems like if SP's daughter had had an abortion, they'd have a point. But as it is? Doesn't really work, even though that ladies tries really hard.
Where do I go to get my 3 1/2 minutes back? Mind-numbingly stupid video (and yes, I got its meaning).
The word the snarky bitch was looking for is: infanticide.In the nineteenth century the democrats were the party of slavery.In the twenty first century the party of infanticide and socialism.So its a scandal the Sarah Palin's daughter is having a baby but John Edwards, a former vice presidential candidate and presidential candidate knocks his lover up and the dims don't have a problem with that. But with a 17 year old girl who is not collecting welfare and is going to marry the father, that they do. I suppose if the kid had five kids with five different fathers all who are in and out jail and will be on welfare for life, well that would be a core democrat constituent.Funny how the bloviating hair plug has dropped off the radar. An APB should put out on him. Obama is like the wizard in the Wizard of Oz. Looks impressive until the curtain is pulled. There is no there, there.
It is Sarah Palin's choice to propagate for an abortion free nation. She has a long way to go to convince the nation. But she is a fine spokeswoman for this cause.Everyone keeps saying this. That she wants to "ban" abortions. If that is so, I would really like to see a link to a speech or someplace where she has stated this in those words. I have never heard her say anything about this.It may be that it IS her position, but since her position on allowing a discussion of Intelligent Design or Creationism in a classroom setting was severely distorted to the position that she wanted those be actually taught as part of the official curriculum, I tend not to believe until I see it in writing or hear her say that she wants to ban abortion nationwide I remain a skeptic that this is her official position.
Jackie - So, the logical question is this: Is this a human or not? If it is not human, it has no rights...by all means, do what you wish with it. I won't argue. If it is human, it has the same rights as the rest of us.You confuse a lawyer YES/NO decision with nature's (or God's) obvious reality that (1)reproduction is sloppy, (2)full of defects and wastage, and (3)gametes and zygotes can be quite different than the finished product.Just to add to the fact it is a gray area of logic and morals impervious to "correct" calls and mainly a judgment call is (4) most life is created asexually, (5) we can create zygotes without both gametes.1. We only value fetal life because we are a low birth number, high investment type of animal. If we made "precious babies" by laying mass fertilized eggs with offspring autonomous from birth - like crocs do, we would protect the clutch but not care less about the number that die after birth - because reproduction is sloppy. Even in mammals, inc humans, most fertilized eggs just pass through without implantation. Unknown and unmourned. 2. Reproduction involves defects and wastage. Even in high investment, low birth number mammals - we are finding out that females address their limited number of years of healthy fertility by a mechanism given by Sweet Jaysus or evolution to weed out and abort the genetically unfit in the womb, to free the female up to become pregnant with healthy offspring.And in social mammals, including man, birthed defectives were generally left to die. And human social norms, even in early Christian societies, did not allow a female to selfishly keep a defective child if it threatened the resources or reproductive survival of the group.3. Zygotes can be quite different than the mature lifeform. Only the Right to Life zealots in the deepest dogma insist that acorns are just precious baby oak trees. Or that each fertilized egg is a chicken, with the same rights under animal cruelty laws against being housed too closely together in poultry cages or egg cartons, and certainly against fertilized eggs (ie sweet baby chickens) being boiled or fried alive.Humans too until some Pope tried to explain off the Immaculate conception, did not believe in the RTL "life begins at conception". Most societies went by "the quickening" as the signal of autonomous life. Nor did namings, rituals of mourning, inclusion as a tribal member and fellow human happen until the baby survived high mortality infancy. And getting rid of defectives to free the female to try for a viable, strong offspring was SOP. 4/5. Religious dogma that life begins at conception doesn't match biological reality that most new life comes from asexual reproduction. That even sexual reproduction does not always the way sexual species create zygotes. Plus we know know about cloning, "conceiving" by chemicals or electroshock of eggs. And that humans are "created" after conception as blastocysts divide to create identical twins, even further to create identical triplets.(each presumably "ensouled" at birth)===============Historically, mankind has seen Life as a continuum. Miscarriages filed under "shit happens" without any funerals, news that all mammal females have an abortion clinic within themselves given by God or evolution shrugged off. Until recently, expensive medical resources were not poured into saving preemies with significant handicaps...and even there..America is an outlier.And on the other end, most societies lack the resources and the societal drive to keep old and dying alive with intense taxpayer investment in their medical care...or save vegetatives by extraordinary medical intervention. (The Terri Schiavos - which Europe and Asia - UK excepted - see as a sign America is religiously bizarre).Even in America, we are again acknowledging life is a continuum with declining "rights" in old age as we again confront the idea we don't have limitless resources. Transplants (another limited resource) dropped elderly in priority to favor young, healthy transplant cases with many years left.Now insurers and medicare administrators via deliberately low payments to doctors for heroic procedures on the very infirm elderly - are rebelling against extravagent care on the old that only extends life minimally with little quality of life.
Being against abortion is not the same thing as suggesting that there should be a nationwide ban. Just as being for the ability to chose abortion doesn't mean that there are no other choices available to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy.There are lots of choices and they aren't just black and white. Forced to be a mother, kill the baby. People can have nuanced positions on this.I personally think abortion is a terrible terrible thing for all parties involved, baby, mother, father, parents etc. so you can say I am anti abortion and consider it a horribly bad decision to make. However, I recognize that people have the right to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy and wouldn't dream of infringing on their right to make a bad decision by government interference People need to face the consequences of their choices. Have a baby, have an abortion without the government being involved. In fact, I think people have the right to make all kinds of bad decisions and the government shouldn't interfere. Knowingly borrowing more money than you can afford on your home and then expecting the taxpayer to bail out your ass when the deal goes bad, is an example of a decision that the government should stay out of. Eating fattening food, smoking, drinking or many other choices we make should be allowed to make on our own without Big Nanny interfering. Of course the liberals WANT to have government involved to take away people's choices by force of law and/or remove any personal responsibility for poor choices. Yet they want to have unrestricted choices for themselves.... basic definition of hypocrite doncha think :-)
Thanks for removing the embed. However the link is still slowing down my browser: IE7 on XP Pro.I think it's clogging the smarm filter.
This skit makes no sense: They're acting as though conservatives are hypocritical because they praise this girl for choosing to keep her baby. Where's the hypocrisy? In the fact that the word "choice" has been co-opted by the left as a euphemism for abortion, and she made a "choice"? Wha-huh?Here's real hypocrisy: Obama opposes my right to choice, in choosing where my children go to school (public versus private). In order to send my children to private school, I have to pay for both public and private school. Obama opposes vouchers, he says, because he thinks that it will weaken public education. (His actual reason is that it will weaken teachers' unions). And yet Obama, along with virtually all of the liberal ruling class, sends his own children to private school.That's what hypocrisy looks like, "Comedy" Central ass-hats.
"...I'm afraid your not going to make any inroads with this crowd. They don't understand what individual choice is about. Being an individual who is free to make choices, is only true for certain issues with them."Interesting. So what of the individual choice of the child that's being killed? Does he or she not count? Why don't you care about that individual's rights?I already know that you don't have an answer.Cedarford, ever the repugnant Nazi. Let's put it this way, you don't want either the Trumpits or the Cedarfords of the world with their hands on your life support machines. Or your wombs, for that matter. Come to think of it, I wouldn't only keep their hands away from your wombs if you know what I mean.
e-ho - The abortion debate is so much BS.A president is not king. The president cannot change Rove v. Wade. The Supreme Court would have to do that-- Which would be a major thing. A President is not king, but the Constitution was not envisioned as some Talmudic exercise that gives lawyer-priests the role of King over all the People and their institutions. Blackmun usurping the Will of The People by fiat via legislating from the bench on a matter the Constitution is silent on doesn't cut it. Nor in Casey with King Anthony Kennedy and his vapid, intellectually bankrupt Queen O'Connor.This is not Israel, where Supreme Judges rank superior to all other branches of power. Roe v Wade is bad law. However, If Roe v Wade were over-turned it would become a state by state issue and most states would probably keep abortion legal.Correct. Then we would be like most advanced nations where democracy wasn't usurped by lawyers in robes. And where abortion is settled legislative law without the controversy and frozen partisan politics that has crippled the US democracy's ability to address other major problems.Even now, the matter of when abortion is allowed is being resolved democratically in outlier Euro Catholic countries and Latin America to align them with what the rest of Europe and Asia largely resolved in the 70s, 80s.The general framework is:1. Abortion legal on demand in the 1st trimester, or a range of 2-4 months..2. At anytime for the physical health or reproductive health of the mother. With no to very strict exceptions after 1st trimester for mental conditions of the female.3. After the 1st Trimester for significant fetal defect. Which are listed and not at the whim of the female and her doctor what constitutes "severe defect".4. The standard, rote "exceptions" America lists - rape and incest - have been altered a bit in nations where democracy was utilized. Realizing most women raped will opt for early abortion unless they are RTL sorts, they can't just show up 8 months pregnant and claim they were raped and never reported it or elected for an earlier termination - They need proof, and some countries still won't let a late term abortion of a healthy fetus happen..The incest exception was always based on the presumption that it was good for society to abort to avoid inbreeding that they thought almost always led to defectives. Now they know most incest babies are normal and healthy, and higher risk of genetic ailments can be tested for and abortions still happen if severe unfitness of the fetus is found. Everything indicates that if the "Kings" of SCOTUS are overthrown, and abortion law is decided by elected representatives of the States - the issue will cease to be a cancer on the viability of our democratic processes. And help end its 30-year gridlock against dealing with America's great problems outside abortion. Yes, some Fundie states may try to ban 1st Trimesters because many believe fertilized eggs are in fact little babies that should have the same rights as 14-year old healthy boys and girls.Yes, some states like Vermont where a fetus is thought to still be waste tissue at 9 months if "The Woman Sez So", may try to have the radical Roe formula, including elective partial birth abortions preserved. Same with states that are already so undemocratic by powerful ACLU, activist Lawyer Fronts, and trial lawyers having the power - that they may try to sabotage democracy in deciding abortion law within the states and preserve lawyer and court sovereignity over the non-elite masses. But in general, we could expect states to give finality to the issue by letting the elections resolve what policy is enacted - ending the corrosive cancer of Roe on our political system. With women who feel that Fundie states are primitive and overly restrictive moving to other states or just crossing state lines to have legal abortion elsewhere. With states that go overboard with too liberal laws or dominated by lawyers determined to usurp the legislative process energizing pro-choice political candidates seeking to alter the law - but not subject the whole country to partisan paralysis in the process.
The Palins are a pro-life family. Why assume that the "choice" Bristol Palin made was between aborting or not-aborting. I assumed the choice was between keeping the baby or putting it up for adoption? Why assume that Bristol Palin ever considered abortion a viable option for her?
Wow, like the Lucille rumours, I saw this via Diggbat already.I wonder if that's where Ann goes to check out the "chatter" stories.
Cedarford, ever the repugnant Nazi.Palladian, ever the smug little salami-smoker.
mcg said... You should know by now that I don't respond to blooming idiot losers like you.Uh, but you just did.It works everytime! Psst, tell him you are a smoker. It drives him up the wall. He gets all Norman Bates.
Jon Stewart is the reductio ad absurdum of modern liberal humor: immature, unfunny, and strangely unwatchable.It nearly reaches that pinnacle of leftist comedy, the anti-tobacco company commercials on MTV. Whatta hoot!
Well, looks like you've all solved this one.Next issue?
mcg said... Palin vs. RFK -- double standard?Oh man, you really crossed the line. Leave the country now before it is too late. Look, under no circumstances is any one person allowed to criticize, demean, defame, question, or abase any member of the Kennedy clan under penalty of death. The Kennedy’s are Americas Saints. They are heros. They can do what they want, when they want, how they want, who they want, where they want, and never ever be criticized for it. The criminal patriarch of the family, known as Old Joe, had his pal FDR pass special secret legislation to guarantee that the Kennedy’s have transactional immunity for every one of their nefarious acts, up to and including murder.
The thing about Choice is that in situations where a woman really doesn't have a *choice*... rape or incest generally... abortion does not *restore* that choice to her after the fact. If she didn't have a choice and personal sovereignty, it doesn't suddenly re-appear when she makes a decision to end the unwanted pregnancy.If she *did* have a choice... then abortion becomes a matter of avoiding the consequences of choices freely made. Or as Obama might put it... of not being punished with a baby for making a poor choice.Palin or McCain or *me* or any normal pro-life person out there is not against Choice in any way. Palin is not against a woman's right to govern her own body. Are they kidding? Presenting the question of pro-life as one side wanting to *force* women to have children is dishonest at best. We're told Palin and McCain what to take women's ability to chose away from them? In what fantasy?Sure, there are and always will be unexpected pregnancies, but when it comes right down to it, making a *choice* accepting a certain level of risk is still a choice made freely.
"I assumed the choice was between keeping the baby or putting it up for adoption?"I assume that adoption wasn't a viable option because I'm projecting my own feelings on the matter if it were *my* grandchild.A baby is born to more than a mother (which a friend of mine found out when she believed the lie that women could have babies without a father and ended up with an extended network of Peruvian aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents for "her" child.)A baby has biological and social connections to a great many people. If someone really really doesn't want to keep a child and has a family that doesn't want it either (or they judge is too hopeless to let raise their child), including the *father* and his family... then adoption is a very good thing. I'm all for it. Many of my cousins have adopted children and it's a great thing. I suppose I'm more for adoption on the acquisitive side of the exchange. More children is always better.I can't even contemplate the idea of having grandchildren, of having *family*, that aren't known to me.
Post a Comment