April 15, 2012

"I’ve got other things to do, and I don’t have it in me to be a good enough mother to a fifth child."

"I delight in newborn babies with their delicate weightlessness, the curl of their small fingers around my thumb, but the best thing about them now is that they belong to other people. I don’t want to bear them, feed them, bring them up, be responsible for them."

A woman, Susan Heath, writing in the present tense, describes her feelings about getting an abortion she had 34 years ago.  Now, she says, "I don’t have and never have had a single qualm about not bringing that child into the world. I know many women who have grieved greatly over the children they decided not to have, and I am thankful to have been spared that agonizing sadness of guilt and regret. I also know many women who, like me, have felt only gratitude and relief at having been able to take control over their lives safely and legally."

For a less sententious application of literary talent to the topic of abortion, check out comedienne Sarah Silverman: "Got a quickie aborsh in case R v W gets overturned" — tweeted, with pics of the actually-not-pregnant Silverman pushing out her abdomen and then sucking it way in, before-and-after style.

I take it Silverman's view of abortion is just about exactly the same as Heath's: That abortion should be legal and that women really do think carefully before getting an abortion. That's how I read the comedy and the precious, serious — curled-tiny-fingers — writing.

2 writing styles. Do you have a preference?

246 comments:

1 – 200 of 246   Newer›   Newest»
ed said...

"2 writing styles. Do you have a preference?" - Althosue

Yes. The one that actually acknowledges that the discussion concerns the life of a human being and not an inconvenience.

acm said...

I've always found Sarah Silverman annoying and not-funny, just the cute girl who realized that saying dirty words and shocking things would get a reaction. That gets old quick. So my preference is the one that doesn't involve Sarah Silverman!

Jay said...

I take it Silverman's view of abortion is just about exactly the same as Heath's: That abortion should be legal and that women really do think carefully before getting an abortion

Given that her "joke" seems to be Oh look I have a smaller belly, I"m thin, um, not really, no.

m stone said...

Both are forms of "defensive writing," used in the event some reality, more important than a burrito should crash into their world.

The use of present tense suggests to me that Ms Heath never really got over the abortion.

David said...

Not a single qualm? Not even a tiny little pink fingered one? Well good for her.

How about an article from a woman who had an abortion in similar circumstances but whose husband wanted to have and raise the child? Perfectly legal of course. Of the thirty million aborted children since 1973, the surely have been many thousands of those. How did those turn out?

As to the writing style, I prefer Silverman's. She expresses her indifference to the moral complication of abortion far more succinctly.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Sarah Silverman is a pig. She too will get her opportunity to explain her stance on a much bigger stage than exists here. I wish her well.

leslyn said...

Silverman.

Speaking of her terminated pregnancy, Dorothy Parker said,

"That"s what I get for putting all my eggs in one bastard."

Old Dad said...

Gotta go with Silverman for honesty. Flushing a burrito is less problematic than flushing cute curling little fingers.eed

Lem said...

A "war on women" where an armistice is a continuation of the slaughtering of babies..

If that's not Orwellian.. not much else is.

Andy R. said...

While abortion may be legal, women should feel like dirty shameful sluts full of regret if they get one.

EDH said...

Hasn't every salvo from the left in prosecuting their "wag the dog" style "War on Women" against "Republicans" eventually backfired?

I can't see either of these writings persuading independents.

Even those who might otherwise support access to abortion are likely to be revolted by these two self-involved nitwits.

GASDOC said...

Neither is appealing since both do not discuss other real & wonderful options such as bringing the child to term & allowing another couple to relish in the wonders of parenthood. My wife & I adopted 2 children after 4 biological & it is the most incredible journey that I have ever experienced-love my bio children like any parent loves their child, but my adopted children are incredible gifts that I cannot express enough gratitude to the biological parents for giving us the most wonderful gift that anyone could possibly give. Cannot imagine families unable to conceive & not having adoptive children available. Sad on so many levels.

Free@Last said...

Ann, did you ever get an abortion? I bet you did.

AllieOop said...

I wonder what the purpose of this thread is, throw some red meat to the anti abortion conservatives here?

Why doesn't Althouse state what her opinion is regarding overturning Roe v Wade? I'd love to know, I wonder how many of Althouses readers and commenters think she is anti choice?

Maybe she is, but that's not what I've been told, was I misinformed? I wish I knew for sure.

OK, let's all condem any woman who has ever had an abortion, I agree it's immoral. I would never , have never had one, but how many of you want Roe v Wade overturned, how about you Ann?

Or do you just want to make women who have had an abortion appear really really bad?

Freeman Hunt said...

I don’t have and never have had a single qualm about not bringing that child into the world.

She's writing about abortion, not birth control.

She'd already brought the child into the world; she took him out of it.

David said...

Heath has been a professional editor and writer in New York for most of her adult life. Book review editor for a literary journal in the 1970's. On the boards of various literary organizations. Was the facilitator for a reading group in the 1990's and that got a writeup in NYT when Sue Miller came to their group to talk about her book. Was still working on her Phd. at age 53. Google and Amazon do not reveal any publications of note but she seems to float with her face above water in some quiet tributary of the New York literary river. By now she is thoroughly indoctrinated, completely of that world, at one with its thoughts. Ah, conformity.

edutcher said...

Props to #1 for honesty.

She sounds awfully selfish, too.

And, on cue, the Womyn's Auxiliary, Hatman included, begins the Lefty circle jerk.

EDH said...

Andy R. said...
While abortion may be legal, women should feel like dirty shameful sluts full of regret if they get one.

Almost as dirty and shameful as the man whose "reproductive freedom" hangs in the balance?

Cathy Young, Reproductive rights for men?

In fact, under current law in every state in this country, the man had no say in the woman's decision to end the pregnancy - or to have his baby and make him liable for child support. Is this justice for women, or an injustice to men? ''Men's rights are trampled on all the time when it comes to reproductive rights,'' Dianna Thompson, executive director of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children, told the media.

To some extent, inequality is rooted in the sexes' very different roles in reproduction. Once, biology colluded with male privilege so that women bore the brunt of the consequences of sex. Today, many men, and some women, see a situation in which women have rights and choices, while men have responsibilities and are expected to support any choice a woman makes.

''If she wants an abortion, he's supposed to shut down all of his emotional bonding to the child,'' says Fred Hayward, founder of the Sacramento, Calif., group Men's Rights Inc. ''Then, if she changes her mind and decides to have the baby, he's supposed to turn it all back on and be a father''...

The flip side of this dilemma is that once conception has occurred, the man cannot escape the burden of unwanted parenthood. There is little sympathy for a man who has a one-night stand and then has to pay for a child he never wanted, even if this has a major impact on his life plans. The typical response is ''you play, you pay,'' an attitude considered callous when advocated by right-to-lifers toward women.

Some activists and legal scholars argue that men should be allowed to legally terminate their paternity within a certain period after conception. But ''choice for men'' is unlikely to catch on. For now, the courts hold biological fathers liable even when the woman lied about birth control, asked the man to impregnate her and agreed in writing not to seek support, or when the father was a teenage victim of statutory rape.

Given biological realities, it may be nearly impossible to come up with a solution that wouldn't be unfair either to men or to women. Legally, it seems to me, there is a compelling argument for at least notifying the prospective father of an abortion (with a waiver for cases of rape or domestic violence) and for allowing men to terminate child support obligations in cases of paternity fraud.

But perhaps what's needed most is not new laws but a new dialogue about reproductive rights and responsibilities. Men have been getting a mixed message about fatherhood: Sometimes they are expected to be full partners in child-rearing; sometimes they are treated as little more than sperm donors, walking cash machines, or bystanders. Some feminists who call for equal parenting also insist on women's absolute reproductive autonomy.

Even men who resent being given so little say in decision-making about a pregnancy generally agree that the woman should have the final word, because it is her body. But if men's parental role is to be taken seriously, women need to assume a moral, if not legal, obligation to involve their partners in such decisions.

dbp said...

Without looking at other comments first: I think Sarah Silverman is being more honest.

Freeman Hunt said...

I prefer Heath because she expresses more of the mindset that leads to such an act.

The Silverman approach is more of the usual absurdist hiding.

Jana said...

Then have the baby and give it to someone who wants a child. Give the gift of life to a baby, even if it's inconvenient.

Selfishness, celebrated.

My 16-year-old birth mom gave me up to a set of parents unable to conceive. God bless her.

Pete said...

Allie Oop, though Althouse opposes abortion as a choice for her, she is staunchly pro-choice. I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Althouse says women really do think carefully before getting an abortion but if you're pro-abortion, what's to think about? Either the fetus has the same rights of the living or he doesn't. If he doesn't, why any qualms about terminating that life?

Lem said...

I wonder what the purpose of this thread is, throw some red meat to the anti abortion conservatives here?

I'm for saving commie babies too.

I guess that last sentence puts me in the Sarah Silverman column.. I love her sense of humor.. Maybe I'm the one that doesn't have it, cant find it.. don't know if I'll ever get it.. here.. with this topic.

Freeman Hunt said...

The first thinks, I assume, that she has written something persuasive. It seems somewhat honest and reads as appallingly selfish.

David said...

Hey Allie Ms. Heath wrote the article not Althouse. Any red meat was tossed by the author. It's Ms. Heath who adopts the detached writing style that mirrors her apparent emotional calm about her exercise of her constitutional right to destroy a fetus.

This is an act that has been repeated over 30,000,000 times since R v W (as Silverman calls it.) Think of how many hearts have had to harden to achieve this. Do you ever wonder at what the penumbral effect of all these hardened hearts might be? Perhaps the effect is unfathomable. But that does not make it less chilling.

traditionalguy said...

She brings to mind the definition of Manslaughter. When she saw her opportunity she killed a man, but she was not planning to getting pregnant so she could kill a man, which would be Murder2 .

But when she saw her chance, she took it, and now she explains herself well about the nuisance value that a needy man/woman would have been to her.

Note to self: We the happy few survivors should all remember our Mom's with big gifts on her birthday and Mother's day. Protection of the laws is only for voter groups.

David said...

Jana said...
Then have the baby and give it to someone who wants a child. Give the gift of life to a baby, even if it's inconvenient.


Jana, you subversive.

AllieOop said...

David, you are ignoring the fact that Althouse chose to make a blog post out of these two articles. To what purpose, surely not to compare writing styles.

Disingenuous.

AllieOop said...

Jana ignores the fact hat she was lucky to be born white, how many minority children are not being adopted?

Lem said...

Sarah's humor is tricky.

She makes it sound like "having her abortion" was like a close out sale.. better get it before the doors are close for ever.. this is you last chance.

It could interpreted as insulting to women.. while pretending to be PC. Shes an efing genius.

David said...

Freeman Hunt said...
The first thinks, I assume, that she has written something persuasive.


It seems likely that her persuading days have gone the way of her childbearing. She wrote a sermon for the choir. It does get her the 15 minutes, an important thing in New York, it seems.

traditionalguy said...

Allie...Women who had an abortion rather than a gestation and surrender for adoption should quit feeling so bad.

What's wrong with oppressing and unjustly killing the weakest among us...it's legal, right?

chickenlittle said...

Has the extent of a man's right to his child which is then aborted without his consent or against his wishes ever been litigated?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

I'm definitely pro-life, even in the case of liberals, but I also believe that being so-called 'pro-choice' carries with it certain consequences. I suppose it matters not to all the thoughtful liberals here that Roe has regrets about her decision. What matters most to liberals is a woman's control over her own body. Fine.

My question now is if they will have the same outrage/insistence over the ACA and its dominion over everyone's health care choices. We shall see. Something tells me the unfettered access to free birth control and so forth will blunt their concerns about everyone else.

David said...

Allie, the authors put it out there. They are inviting (indeed they crave) the attention.

Erika said...

I suppose I prefer Silverman, because I don't care at all about her silliness and can entirely ignore it.

Heath's lack of interest in acknowledging the evil of the act she committed--destroying her living child--as compared to her earnest attention to exploring which feelings she does or doesn't have about that act, makes me want to vomit.

Michael said...

AllieOpp. "jana ignores the fact...". Allie, you are one sick person. Very very sick.

David said...

chickenlittle said...
Has the extent of a man's right to his child which is then aborted without his consent or against his wishes ever been litigated?


This came up rather early, and the man--whether married to the mother or not--has no say. When that occurred it seemed strange to me, but I had not yet grasped the underlying logic of Roe v. Wade adequately.

Pete said...

Allie Oop, because there may be difficulty in placing a child for adoption, it's preferable to kill that baby before it's born?

Christopher said...

Just remember everybody if you are not going to be born into a middle class family (or better) you are better off dead.

AllieOop said...

Pete said,
"Allie Oop, though Althouse opposes abortion as a choice for her, she is staunchly pro-choice. I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong about this."

Thanks Pete, then Althouse and I are in complete agreement.

I still don't understand the intent of this blog post though.

David said...

Allie, the comparison or writing styles is kind of a trick question, to see if you are thinking. The style reveals quite a bit about the feelings and beliefs of the writer. It's a deeper question than you credit.

AllieOop said...

No Pete, but let's not make it sound as if they all will get adopted, they won't. Perhaps this is not what Jana meant.

Christopher said...

Actually if you think about it a great many of the justifications for abortion are based upon the idea that the poor are better off dead.

AllieOop said...

Perhaps David, perhaps not.

David said...

I don't know it the post has a specific intent, other than to open up discussion. To me it emphasizes the heart hardening aspect of abortion.

And not just by Heath. Freeman Hunt's characterization of Silverman as engaged in "absurdist hiding" seems apt to me.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Allie

Your point about adoptions is less of a point than this: nearly 100% of those aborted will be dead.

Happy?

Freeman Hunt said...

Jana ignores the fact hat she was lucky to be born white, how many minority children are not being adopted?

If we're talking infants, around here it's actually harder to find minority children to adopt than white children. The abortion rate for blacks is three times higher than that of whites.

Robert Cook said...

"Sarah Silverman is a pig. She too will get her opportunity to explain her stance on a much bigger stage than exists here."

There is no "bigger stage than exists here," at least, not one we will ever experience.

"I wish her well."

No, you don't. Why even bother with the snark? Your first words reveal your actual sentiments.

David said...

So we kill the black fetuses and adopt the white babies?

Lovely. And uncomfortably close to the truth.

Christopher said...

David,

That pretty much was Margaret Sanger's goal.

Freeman Hunt said...

Families wanting to adopt have to wait for children of any race. I've watched friends wait for years.

granmary said...

Neither of the two examples. I actually prefer to read only what is written by people with some degree of human feeling.

Quaestor said...

I take it Silverman's view of abortion is just about exactly the same as Heath's: That abortion should be legal and that women really do think carefully before getting an abortion.

Think carefully about what?

ricpic said...

No regrets? In other words she's not a killer with remorse, she's a cold blooded killer.

AllieOop said...

The Colors of Adoption: Black vs. White

Unknown said...

Dearest Ann,
She didn't have it in her to be a good mother to that fifth child, but there are thousands, tens of thousands of good people who have it in them and who are waiting longingly for the opportunity to adopt that child and bring that child into a world of love and nurture...

Erika said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don't Tread 2012 said...

Cookie

Thanks for your analysis and suggestions. Remind me to send you congrats when you get your Mensa card.

Robert Cook said...

I wonder how many commenters pontificating here about the awful murder of little babies who could have been given up for adoption have lost a night's sleep worrying about the babies and children and adolescents (and adults and aged) whom we have slaughtered without remorse or reason in Iraq and Afghanistan (and ancillary countries) in our fictional "war on terror," or have written their congresspersons demanding an end to our criminal wars, and to our assuredly non-pinpoint drone bombings?

chickenlittle said...

AllieOop said...
Jana ignores the fact hat she was lucky to be born white, how many minority children are not being adopted?

Old canard. I know a white couple unable to conceive who would take any color. They fostered a pair of black half brothers, hoping to adopt, but the birth mom cleaned up her act and reunited.

Lem said...

I always try to address Althouse as the professor.. under that umbrella there is no "red meat", ulterior motives, disingenuousness or what have you.. there is just the challenge of investigating the question.. "What is man?* in relation to his highest aspirations as opposed to his low and common needs."

* The Closing of the American Mind.

Rabel said...

Susan Heath:

"But I’m not grieving over the absence; I don’t have and never have had a single qualm about not bringing that child into the world"

Not one single qualm. Not one. Nope. In fact it was such an inconsequential, meaningless act that 34 years later I remember every tiny detail of the day it happened.

I vote Silverman.

chickenlittle said...

@Robert Cook: I spend as much time thinking about them as I do thinking about the Hiroshima victims.

Next question?

traditionalguy said...

Cookie...I have cared a lot about the young men serving as human targets in a needless tactical snafu called Afghanistan for the last insane 5 years.

Now back to protecting the weakest and the most helpless among us. Where do you stand on that?

Bender said...

So we kill the black fetuses and adopt the white babies?

No, "we" don't, David, even if the death nurse is all for such things.

There are many who would not kill either, and neither do they condemn women who have (notwithstanding the slanders of pro-aborts who like to claim that). Prolifers are not interested in condemnation, they are interested in healing.

campy said...

Has the extent of a man's right to his child which is then aborted without his consent or against his wishes ever been litigated?

A man's right? No such concept.

Men don't have rights, they have responsibilities. Only women have rights.

chickenlittle said...

From Allie's link: 'It's a bad idea to put a black child in a white home.... I think it's impossible for someone of one culture to teach another culture,' he says. 'You have to live it in order to absorb it.'

That's one of the most inflammatory things I've read in some time.

MnMark said...

Why couldn't the woman have had the baby and given it up for adoption?

What's with this "if the baby isn't going to be raised by me, it's going to be killed" mentality?

We're talking about a person's whole entire life - all the joys and beauties that person would have felt and created - all the potential, the love they would have felt and brought into the world, their own marriage and children and grandchildren - a whole human life!

And women like this feel it's just too damned big an imposition to walk around pregnant for nine months and then give birth so that that person can live a whole human life.

Selfish as hell.

AllieOop said...

Dont Tread said,
"Allie

Your point about adoptions is less of a point than this: nearly 100% of those aborted will be dead.

Happy?"

No not at all. Now how many here will step up to adopt these minority babies? All the lip service given by the anti choice folks, yet they outcry they will make when their tax bills are increased to support the millions of babies who will live if Roe v Wade gets overturned.

If abortion would be outlawed, and that might not be a bad thing, I am willing to pay more in taxes to support these single minority children, how many of you will say the same?

AllieOop said...

Chickie, doesn't mean I agree with the statement, but it does show one of the reasons why minority children are NOT getting adopted. It's a messed up system that makes kids live in foster homes for years.

MnMark said...

I wonder how many commenters pontificating here about the awful murder of little babies who could have been given up for adoption have lost a night's sleep worrying about the babies and children and adolescents (and adults and aged) whom we have slaughtered without remorse or reason in Iraq and Afghanistan blah blah blah

And I wonder how many of the commenters pontificating about the awful murder of Iraqi and Afghanistani children caused because jihadi cowards insisted on hiding among civilians in order to ensure civilian casualities so that the most civilian-considerate military power in the history of the world could be made to look bad by the Lefties who hated it and were looking for any excuse to blame their own government for wrongs brought on by its mortal enemies....

...oh, the hell with it. People like Robert Cook who sneer about "the awful murder of little babies" while engaging in logical fallacy are never going to get it anyway.

traditionalguy said...

Allie...But Steve Martin in The Jerk proved you wrong.

Seriously, a child adopted as an enfant will love its parents no matter their tribe and have a few adjustments as a teenager. But that beats being dead.

chickenlittle said...

Allie, what you seem to be condoning is the prevention of black babies from being adopted by whites because somebody somewhere is worried about the protection of precious black "culture." That's offensive. It's obscene.

David said...

Robert Cook, I too think of the Hiroshima victims. But who were they victims of?

It has always seemed to me that part of the reason that Hirohito caved was that he finally saw just what he and the Japanese political leaders had brought forth on their country.

Lem said...

Silverman put on an act.

While Susan Heath put on a flop.

(I guess I found my humor qualm)

AllieOop said...

Traditionalguy, I don't agree with the premise that only black families should adopt black children, the article stated that is one of the reasons black children are not getting adopted.

That attitude is wrong and one of the reasons black children
Iive in foster care for years.

EDH said...

Whatever happened to the "dead baby" and "baby on a meat hook jokes" I remember when I was a kid?

Are they still around?

I suspect what made those jokes "funny" to us kids was the unthinkable horror of the image as the sequitur to the jocular set up.

So what's changed?

No horror, no joke?

AllieOop said...

NO Chickie, I am NOT condoning this, how can you keep getting what I said so wrong?!

For the third time now, I am stating this attitude is one of the reasons that minority children are not getting adopted, it's wrong to let these kids live in foster care, when a white family wants them, BUT the system is messed up, white families are not getting these minority children.

n.n said...

The first writing style is better capable of appealing to emotion and extract a sympathetic response. Both, however, avoid discussing the issue of merit, which is the conception and elective abortion of a developing human life. Both men and women need to accept responsibility for the outcome of their voluntary actions. The human rights movement decided to assign dignity to all human beings and now it is time to decide when that dignity should be assigned.

damikesc said...

OK, let's all condem any woman who has ever had an abortion, I agree it's immoral. I would never , have never had one, but how many of you want Roe v Wade overturned, how about you Ann?

Are you aware that overturning Roe v Wade won't make abortion illegal?

It will just make it a state decision.

You know --- like it should be.

Jana ignores the fact hat she was lucky to be born white, how many minority children are not being adopted?

How much of that is due to social workers who believe black kids should be with black families exclusively?

Do you think parents go to places like China to adopt for giggles? No, because it is significantly easier than doing it in the US.

Saint Croix said...

Sarah's humor is tricky.

Very tricky. It's not even humor, really. Andy Kaufman would do surreal stuff too, but it was funny. Silverman never makes me laugh. But she definitely provokes.

"Got a quickie aborsh." She's making it as shallow and superficial as possible. It's "a quickie," meaning she put no thought into it at all. And she even gives it a cute nickname, "aborsh."

There's just a huge amount of mockery and scorn in her work. She's mocking pregnancy. She's mocking the idea of the sacred act of creation. She's mocking the unborn child, and mocking the people who care about that baby's life.

At the same time, she's mocking the people who have abortions. She's mocking them as glib and shallow. They are empty and they feel nothing and know nothing.

She makes it sound like "having her abortion" was like a close out sale.. better get it before the doors are close for ever.. this is you last chance.

Yes, I think that's right. She's mocking the liberal concern about roe v. wade being overturned. Better hurry and get your abortions now! She's mocking the people who have abortions and mocking the fear of people that women will not be allowed to have abortions anymore.

She's mocking everybody.

Shes an efing genius.

Too nihilist for my taste. And she's not funny.

EDH said...

Obama was born in 1961, a black baby boy born twelve years before R-v-W to a white single mother who was less than interested in raising him than pursuing her own academic career.

Obama missed the "penumbra" by that much.

Fred Drinkwater said...

From Allie's link: 'It's a bad idea to put a black child in a white home.... I think it's impossible for someone of one culture to teach another culture,' he says. 'You have to live it in order to absorb it.'

(Previously noted by cl)

What is this supposed to mean, really? The culture of the biological parents is the necessary, and only proper, culture for the child to be raised in?

So I take it the author is also opposed to most emmigration by prospective parents, since there will be inevitable cultural "contamination" from the new location. Pardon me if I doubt the author is that consistent.

Regardless, the quote's so deeply racist that I can't believe any thought went into it (except perhaps politically motivated thought, if you want to be generous.)

AllieOop said...

Dami, try to keep up with what I said, I agreed with you on your second point about adoption, three times if not more. In this thread.

Maybe you should read more carefully.

Sure give it back to the states, and let's not hear a peep out of you anti choice folks about supporting the babies that now will languish in foster care, with your hard earned money, by an increase in taxes. I will willingly pay more in taxes, will you?

Not a word.

FedkaTheConvict said...

Didn't Hilary Rosen adopt two black boys?

Doesn't Jim Doyle have two black sons?

How about Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Sandra Bullock, etc.

EDH said...

Sarah Silverman on Getting Old and Having Kids

With her new memoir, The Bedwetter, America’s favorite potty-mouthed comedienne is primed for a comeback—if she doesn’t age too quickly.

The Bedwetter: Stories of Courage, Redemption, and Pee. By Sarah Silverman. 256 pages. Harper. $25.99.

Silverman wants her own kids some day, but says she doesn't feel ready yet. "I want to have kids when there's nothing else I want more, and I can make them my world. I figure, I'll be a super-young-grandma age when I have kids," she said. "Grandparents are way more laid-back anyway. I'll just go straight to grandmotherhood, like Diane Keaton."

But what happens when the enfant terrible has enfants of her own? Does the whole Sarah Silverman thing still work if she ages out of "winking sexpot" phase and into "concerned mom"?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"Sure give it back to the states, and let's not hear a peep out of you anti choice folks about supporting the babies that now will languish in foster care, with your hard earned money, by an increase in taxes. I will willingly pay more in taxes, will you?

Not a word."

"Now how many here will step up to adopt these minority babies? All the lip service given by the anti choice folks, yet they outcry they will make when their tax bills are increased to support the millions of babies who will live if Roe v Wade gets overturned."

That's a lot of assuming, and 'ifs' from a 'pro-death' point of view.

1. How many minority babies do you personally care for?
2. Would tax bills increase as a result of a theoretical repeal of Roe v. Wade? Really?
3. Would there be millions of inconvenient babies born to bearers that now need care? Really?
4. What other horrors can you identify?

The narrative that says abortion is necessary and preferable because of these and other assumptions is insulting.

You do not speak for everyone. Thank God.

edutcher said...

Anybody care to bet Cook doesn't spend much time worrying about the babies slaughtered by the Taliban?

Or the PLO?

Or Al Qaeda?

Or the VC?

Or Chairman Mao?

Or any of the other National Liberation Fronts since the War To Save Communism (the only one of which he approves (surprise!!!!!)) ended?

AllieOop said...

I still don't understand the intent of this blog post though.

Healthy, moral societies do not eat their young.

Or old, for that matter.

AllieOop said...

Don't Tread, I guess since Althouse and I are pro choice, we would both be categorized by you as "pro death".

Yes thank God Althouse and I don't speak for everyone!

chickenlittle said...

Allie wrote: Now how many here will step up to adopt these minority babies?

That's both provocative and inaccurate. I have two biological kids. I'm not looking to adopt any. But I have friends willing to adopt any race. Others here have said the same. So perhaps there actually are enough families willing to adopt minority children. But you told us (in a link) that there are stupid rules which prevent this. This is something which can be changed by fiat.

Perhaps people want to have a discussion of whether minority cultures should be preserved in those ways such as adoption "rules." It sure seems topical given demographic trends.

Saint Croix said...

Silverman wants her own kids some day, but says she doesn't feel ready yet.

She better hurry. She's over 40. 99% of her eggs are dead.

Saint Croix said...

This Sarah tweet made me laugh, by the way:

I'm a real "neat freak" when it comes to my anus.

AllieOop said...

Yes, you have a point here Chickie, perhaps we can change these rules that disallow white families from adopting black children, I'm all for that.

But I do think that in case we can't change that, we should be prepared to pay more in taxes to support the millions of babies that will now be born to single mothers and mothers who give up their unwanted babies to the foster care system.

Just preparing you all. Just in case .

Carl Vero said...

Heath: Poignant posture. Silverman: Vacuous wittiness. Both display a fluffy moral akin to a faded dandelion. I prefer Silverman, who takes less of my time.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Allie

Touche', that was a response to your 'anti-choice' moniker. Wear it proudly.

You can call me pro-life or anti-death, any day.

"AllieOop said...

I still don't understand the intent of this blog post though."

She sure has a lot to 'contribute' despite this alleged misunderstanding.

Freeman Hunt said...

I'm sure all the kids in foster care (Not infants as we're discussing by the way.) appreciate the insinuation that they're better off dead.

Freeman Hunt said...

"Poor baby in foster care. If only somebody had killed you before you were born."

AllieOop said...

I'm sure all the kids in foster care appreciate the taxpayers of America, and the millions MORE kids in foster care will be as appreciative I'm sure.

I willingly will pay more in taxes to save the lives of millions of babies, are you willing?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"I willingly will pay more in taxes to save the lives of millions of babies, are you willing?"

THIS!!!

Thank you, Allie, for your kind and generous gesture, and especially, for your dire warning that if Roe v Wade is overturned, we will all have our taxes raised. So very big of you!

I hope you sleep well at night, knowing that infanticide keeps your taxes tolerable. Very noble of you.

AllieOop said...

Don't Tread, I am pointing out the hypocrisy, it's disgusting.

I hate abortion and I am honestly getting ready to agree with you all and say it should be outlawed.

BUT I am being honest in stating the fact that taxes will go up, these kids won't be supporting themselves by begging on the streets, not yet in this country anyway.

I will pay higer taxes to support these children, put up or shut up.

Rusty said...

I know there was some long hard going on before the abortion.
Maybe do some long hard thinkin' before getting pregnant?
Just sayin'.

Deirdre Mundy said...

The reason the kids in foster care are so hard to adopt out is that they entered the system after they were babies.

Lots of people want to adopt minority babies-- babies are cute, haven't been screwed up yet, etc.

Most of the KIDS in foster care were in abusive homes first. They're more challenging to raise. If you have other kids, bringing a kid with PTSD into the house can mess THEM up.

Most married couples are up to raising a baby-- but raising a 6 year old who's been abused, was taken away from parents he knew and loved, and who has tons of baggage? That's a different story, and those are the kids who are languishing.

Infants get snapped up right away...

Erika said...

Allie: "But I do think that in case we can't change that, we should be prepared to pay more in taxes to support the millions of babies that will now be born to single mothers and mothers who give up their unwanted babies to the foster care system."

Would you PLEASE stop repeating this as though you know what you're talking about?! I am a biological mother, and a foster mother, and an adoptive mother. No one "gives up their unwanted babies to the foster care system." Unwilling mothers give up their babies to adoptive parents (which thousands and thousands of people would like to be). Willing mothers either keep and raise their children, or have their children forcibly removed and placed into foster care as a result of abuse or neglect. Women who want their babies keep them. Women who don't want their babies abort the or adopt them out. If there were no abortion, then women would either keep their babies or give them up for adoption. Some of them would wind up in foster care, sure, but plenty of wanted babies wind up in foster care too. You keep claiming that there's some kind of direct correlation between more abortion-less foster care, and that's utter crap.

Freeman Hunt said...

Allie, what are you arguing? You've yet to produce any evidence that agencies have trouble placing infants for adoption. Your higher taxes for no abortions scenario is a total fiction.

And this may shock you, but yes, most all anti-abortion folks would be willing to pay more taxes if that would magically end abortion. But it won't. It's not even at issue.

AllieOop said...

Erika, excuse me, but I also am a biological mother and I have had a foster child, the mothers don't want to relinquish their rights, yet they don't want placement or have the kids taken away because they are unfit.

So the children are unadoptable.

Rusty said...

AllieOop said...
No Pete, but let's not make it sound as if they all will get adopted, they won't. Perhaps this is not what Jana meant.

No they don't. But there are some fine charities that do a very good job. Oh. But wait. Catholic charities can no longer adopt out or raise minority children in some states. Oh. Thats' bad. There were some very fine catholic orphanages in the Chicago area. Oh well. There's always the Moose.

AllieOop said...

Baloney, I can hear the Tea Party rallies now, Taxed Enough Already! Such hypocrisy.

You may be willing, but many won't be.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"BUT I am being honest in stating the fact that taxes will go up, these kids won't be supporting themselves by begging on the streets, not yet in this country anyway."

Assertions rejected. You may be 'being honest', But I'm not buying. Couching abortion as a cost cutter is breathtaking. Don't know how else to respond.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Parenthood as a "consumer experience" -- if you don't like it, or it's inconvenient ... get rid of it.

Disgusting. Selfish. The more I read from people like Heath the more I'm inclined to believe that killing a baby in utero should be criminalized, beginning with Manslaughter 3 and moving towards Murder 1 for obviously viable babies. Doctor and woman charge 'em both.

Don't like it, femmies? Tough shit. For your own convenience or emotional comfort you are committing the ultimate violence against another individual.

Your right to "choose" should be no more exempt from consequences than my choice to assault you.

Freeman Hunt said...

Would you be willing to cut off your left arm to end abortion? How about give up your car for the rest of your life?

Such decisions are about as relevant.

There is no difficulty in adopting out infants. The foster care system is a separate issue.

Erika said...

Allie, if you do have first-hand experience with foster care, then you know that ultimately it doesn't matter what the mothers want. If they are unfit, and don't get their act together, their rights are terminated, freeing the child for adoption. Look up the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Are you being deliberately disingenuous?

AllieOop said...

After how many years Erika? How many times does Mom get to go into rehab and have her child for trail home placements?

Ah Pooh said...

Inquiring minds want to know - is AllieOop on a mission - against ANN?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"Are you being deliberately disingenuous?"

She seems to say that because some people are against more government intrusion in the form of more taxation, then they MUST accept abortion, because to do otherwise means millions of helpless children running wild on our streets.

Preposterous doesn't begin to describe this meme.

As others have pointed out, taxes have absolutely nothing to do with it! Of course, its just about a woman's 'choice'.

AllieOop said...

Ah Pooh, why would I be, Ann and I probably agree on much more than you think.

Erika said...

Allie, here is the information you asked for:

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/federal/index.cfm?event=federalLegislation.viewLegis&id=4

although you're getting really far afield, you know.

Foster care sucks. Killing children in utero doesn't, and won't, solve that.

GASDOC said...

Erika,
Having read all posts by AllieOop, answer your question:
Are you being deliberately disingenuous?
YES

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

Erika,
I dont agree that killing babies in utero is acceptable, as I said, I hate abortion and wouldn't be upset if it was outlawed, but I KNOW some conservative Tea Party types won't like the repercussions.

I won't mind, as I said I would willingly pay more in taxes to see to it that these children will be cared for.

I guess I'm done cant keep repeating myself here.

Peano said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bender said...

She seems to say that because some people are against more government intrusion in the form of more taxation, then they MUST accept abortion, because to do otherwise means millions of helpless children running wild on our streets

I thought the argument now was that because Child Protective Services is not even more tyrannical in trying to break up minority families, having the choice to kill babies in the womb should be legal.

Bender said...

Wait a minute -- now you are proclaiming yourself to be anti-choice?

Chip Ahoy said...

Silverman. She kills me. I laughed because it's so stupid and the war on women meme is even more stupid. She's late.

A friend of mine pushes out his stomach to make it look like a beer belly. I'm all, that's the opposite of what you should be doing, what if the whole thing should suddenly relax and your ass prolapses?

John Lynch said...

My wife was abandoned on a street in Korea in 1978 at age 3. I've no doubt that if abortion had been safe and legal she would have died in 1975.

We cannot predict how a person's life will turn out, any more than my wife's life could have been predicted thirty seven years ago.

Erika said...

Allie, you said you were done, but I suspect you're still hanging out and reading comments.

You didn't need to keep repeating yourself in response to those who questioned your oddball assertions, which was aggravating for everyone I think. Perhaps your time would have been better spent trying to make an actual case, with logic and/or facts and not imagination, that 1. less abortion would necessarily lead to higher taxes and more social spending, and 2. that teapartiers in general would rather have babies aborted than pay for government-provided formula.

wyo sis said...

Silverman is slight and forgettable. Heath is slight and forgettable and evil.

Jenner said...

"Jana ignores the fact hat she was lucky to be born white, how many minority children are not being adopted?"

Ha! Margaret Sanger lives!

Muns said...

Poor little dead kid.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Are you still having yet another insanely ignorant discussion predicated upon the assumption that even zygotes and pre-neurulation embryos are "babies"?

Time for Monty Python to weigh in on the matter.

Jenner said...

"BUT the system is messed up, white families are not getting these minority children."

Anecdotal, but I just served as a guardian ad litem to a white child adopted by a white family, who had previously adopted three black children. Some of the nicest people I've ever known. I'm sure they're not the only ones who've done this or would do it.

Jenner said...

"It's a messed up system that makes kids live in foster homes for years."

Also anecdotal, white kids live in foster homes for years too.

Jenner said...

"you anti choice folks"

We're not anti-choice, it's just that we think the choice comes a little bit earlier in the process.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

That's right, Jenner. Like, EVERY SPERM IS SACRED! Amiright?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Jenner, there's a case in Texas last week where someone made the unfortunate mistake of letting a little bit of sperm drip out of his lady's coochie after they were doing tha wild thing. Would you be a dear and please take care of the darling things? They don't take much, maybe a nice growing medium and let them swim about a bit, on your body if you don't mind. Plus, LOOK at how human they look!!!

So cute!!!

(Historical ignorance repeating itself. Yawn).

John Lynch said...

There is no good argument for abortion on the basis of saving money or lowering crime. We could get the same benefits from killing children and adults, couldn't we? Simple utility is poor morality.

Jenner said...

"the millions MORE kids in foster care will be as appreciative I'm sure."

Sorry, another anecdote: the kids I've encountered in foster care are NOT from single mothers giving up their babies en masse. The children in care are removed from messed up situations.

Jenner said...

"the mothers don't want to relinquish their rights, yet they don't want placement or have the kids taken away because they are unfit."

Golly Allie, there's just so much to say to you today.

Parents with children in foster care have treatment plans they must follow. If they do not meet the goals, their rights are terminated. Yes, it moves slow, but when you're about to terminate parental rights, that's probably a fair tradeoff.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Surely it is a genocidal cruelty to abort a blastula or a 7-week embryo that still has gills. Unless it is put into a fish tank. The poor thing doesn't even have lungs with which to breathe air. PLEASE CONSIDER THE GENOCIDE OF ALL THE LITTLE FISH-PEOPLE, YOU CRUEL, HEARTLESS LIBERAL BASTARDS!!!!

John Lynch said...

No matter how bad a childhood is it's still a childhood. I wasn't terribly thrilled with mine, nor was my wife's all that great until she was adopted, but I'm glad we're both alive.

It's a choice, isn't it? Aren't we accountable for our choices?

O Ritmo Segundo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
O Ritmo Segundo said...

The salvation of little, embryonic fish-people, with gills and tails and everything, will come in very handy once extreme climate scenarios, like that depicted in Kevin Costner's Waterworld, come to pass.

marylynn said...

What evil, selfish, pathetic women they are.
Heath's first four kids- my, they must be so proud of their Mother for killing their sibling. Mommie Dearest to the max.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

That's right Marylynn! And don't forget all the sperm she washed out of her coochie after sex, toO! Potential little people and everything.

My God where does it end!

Jenner said...

"EVERY SPERM IS SACRED!"

Uh, no.

But the consequences caused by that little tadpole are.

John Lynch said...

Ritmo-

You aren't special. You, too, were a gilled fish-person. So was everyone, ever. There's no way to get an adult without a fish-person.

Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Uh, no.

Uh, yes.

But the consequences caused by that little tadpole are.

You are simply taking a historically ignoranus viewpoint and defining morally permissible behavior around an arbitrary sequence of events just because they are natural and at one time, incapable of being manipulated by humans.

MadisonMan said...

My wife was abandoned on a street in Korea in 1978 at age 3. I've no doubt that if abortion had been safe and legal she would have died in 1975.

Unless you know the circumstances of her birth, and her parents, how do you know anything about her first 3 years -- and before -- without doubt?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

You aren't special.

Certainly not in the way your teachers told you you were.

You, too, were a gilled fish-person. So was everyone, ever. There's no way to get an adult without a fish-person.

They were also sperm at one point, too. And eggs. We do not bestow these biological artifacts with personhood status, either.

Perhaps because, like a 7-week old fish person, they lack the capacity for any moral or biological process that is uniquely human.

Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

Yeah, me neither. You tell me.

My guess is, that as with the homunculus, you ascribe moral status to the way something looks, or the way you perceive it to look.

That's a pretty shitty basis for moral consideration.

But maybe androids will be given a human morality status next. Your ilk sure seem to think like one.

Jenner said...

"You are simply taking a historically ignoranus viewpoint and defining morally permissible behavior around an arbitrary sequence of events just because they are natural and at one time, incapable of being manipulated by humans."

I know, I'm a simpleton. I'll have to think about this in a much more complex way to reach the conclusion that not accepting responsibility for the consequences of my actions is morally permissible behavior.

Ignoranus - ha! that's a good one. I'm an idiot and an asshole. Takes one to know one.

John Lynch said...

Ritmo-

Hey, at least androids like me won't be killing anyone, or anything. That's bad?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I know, I'm a simpleton. I'll have to think about this in a much more complex way to reach the conclusion that not accepting responsibility for the consequences of my actions is morally permissible behavior.

Designing a basis for responsibility around pre-modern, medieval technology is pretty whack. Yes, knights and dames lacked knowledge of antiseptic medical abortion. As they did anything not involving leeches.

But we're not so stupid to say that disease is God's way of punishing them.

You're just an apologist for pre-modernism. Admit it.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Few conservatives would object to taxes facilitating adoption instead of abortion, even at the scale of close to a million per year. We object to things like ethanol subsidies, ag subsidies, big corporate bail-outs, guarantees of idiotic loans with no hope of repayment, and overweening regulation of small business.

Knowing first hand what adoption costs, I'll attest there is more than enough to cover it and still cut federal spending rather drastically.

One little considered cost is that of the Medicaid used by most birth-mothers to cover their own medical costs. It's worth it because, to be blunt, it's enabling the existence of a future productive member of society.

We can't afford to shit-can a million babies a year. Even if their aggregate future taxation is reduced to Net Present Value with an aggressive discount rate the cost is utterly mind boggling.

The real problems in adoption are at the social worker level. In many states they have a direct conflict of interest in convincing those women wishing to bear the child that they should keep the baby themselves. Many "disrupted adoptions" are the result of social workers wishing to keep a young female client on their case logs.

Kansas is the most adoption-friendly state in the nation, and others would do well to copy our laws.

In circumstances only slightly different, our beloved daughter would have been aborted. She shows signs of musical prodigy, but even it not she brings immense joy to all who meet her.

Half a million little girls never got that chance. Not last year. Not this year. Not for the last forty years.

For convenience, comfort, and emotional "well being." And one political party views that as their great accomplishment.

Jenner said...

"You're just an apologist for pre-modernism. Admit it"

I will admit I have no idea what you're talking about.

David said...

Death to the fish people, eh Ritmo.

Unless the Feds declare them an endangered species.

Then the little fish person becomes a snail darter.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I will admit...

Ok.

You are opposed to technology because you think that any moral consideration or authority deemed legitimate at an arbitrary, fixed time-point in the past, should be forever binding.

Primitive.

Jenner said...

Ritmo 2 - are you an atheist? That would explain why you don't buy into the miracle of life. But if you are an atheist, then you must have a lot of faith in science. Can you explain how that non-human entity becomes human? In scientific terms of course.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Death to the fish people, eh Ritmo.

Unless the Feds declare them an endangered species.

Then the little fish person becomes a snail darter.


I see The War on Ecology is as important to you as The War on Embryology.

And then there's:

The War on Evolution;

The War on Geophysics;

The War on Keynesian Economics.

What's the wait for? Just declare a war on all empiric knowledge and call it a day. Or a millenium. Whatever.

Jenner said...

"you think that any moral consideration or authority deemed legitimate at an arbitrary, fixed time-point in the past, should be forever binding."

I think this is what's called moving the goal posts.

Laura said...

Why are taxes the only available choice?

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/children-and-youth/dave-thomas-foundation-for-adoption-in-dublin-oh-1356

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Ritmo 2 - are you an atheist? That would explain why you don't buy into the miracle of life. But if you are an atheist, then you must have a lot of faith in science. Can you explain how that non-human entity becomes human? In scientific terms of course.

I'm not an atheist. But I certainly don't ascribe supernatural/theological principles to phenomena that can be adequately described in rational and empirical terms.

I have not once described human embryos, human sperm or human ova as non-human. I have also, not coincidentally, not described human cadavers or terminally comatose humans as non-human. (Or I wouldn't have had those topics come up). So if you want a philosophical discussion, you'll have to clean up your terminology at the least.

wyo sis said...

"you ascribe moral status to the way something looks, or the way you perceive it to look."

You ascribe the very idea of morality to superstition and pre modernism. But you holler loud enough when someone offends YOUR particular brand of perceptions ie. morality. There must be some advanced medical cure for that kind of thinking.

John Lynch said...

There's no need to bring God into this at all.

Because there's a religious objection doesn't mean other objections cannot exist. We can, without any reference to religion, decide that human life is different even if it's an embryo. Embryos may not be children, but children are not adults. But one becomes the next.

And talking money when the subject is human lives misses the point.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

But then, why not a human sperm and ovum, John? Why not an artificially resuscitated, brain-dead human body?

Serious question: Do you even know what a zygote is?

Phil 3:14 said...

Jana ignores the fact that she was lucky to be born white, how many minority children are not being adopted?

And in India, many newborns are lucky to be male

Jenner said...

"I have not once described human embryos, human sperm or human ova as non-human."

Ok, then maybe you can clean up this terminology for me:

"Perhaps because, like a 7-week old fish person, they lack the capacity for any moral or biological process that is uniquely human."

So they're only partially human? Or they turn human at some point? That seems a little supernatural.

And then there's this statement that I cannot reconcile with your other words:
"you ascribe moral status to the way something looks, or the way you perceive it to look."

Embryonic cells look anything but human, and yet pro-lifers do want to protect them.

P.S. If, in fact, it turns out to be too tedious to explain your intellectually superior thought process to me, then don't bother. I'm not going to change my mind.

John Lynch said...

Why do people call me dumb when I say something simple they don't like?

Sperm and eggs aren't human individuals. Almost none of them ever will be, even with all the care in the world.

Zygotes aren't, either, because twins can form from a single fertilized egg.

When you get to a 7 week old fish-person, the odds of survival are a lot better.

None of this is terribly hard to understand, unless you intentionally ignore it. Pro-choice arguments are more "complex" because they have more to hide.

MadisonMan said...

Few conservatives would object to taxes facilitating adoption instead of abortion

For some odd definition of Few, I suppose, but I think an easier sell would be to take money for something less worthy -- there's a list a mile long -- and re-apportioning it. However, I don't think that would be a very efficient way of doing things.

Phil 3:14 said...

Ritmo,

More on the "fish babies"

O Ritmo Segundo said...

"Perhaps because, like a 7-week old fish person, they lack the capacity for any moral or biological process that is uniquely human."

So they're only partially human? Or they turn human at some point? That seems a little supernatural.


They're exactly what I said they are. They are human, if somewhat ephemeral, biological artifacts that lack the capacity for any uniquely human biological or moral process. Why is that so hard to understand?

Does the steel used by Lamborghini in the manufacture of their automobiles have some sort of magic, Lamborghini-esque quality to it, unique to no other inchoate car part?

Embryonic cells look anything but human, and yet pro-lifers do want to protect them.

Right. I'm sure that's why the posters they make it a point to show during rallies DON'T prominently feature pictures of embryonic stem cells above everything else.

P.S. If, in fact, it turns out to be too tedious to explain your intellectually superior thought process to me, then don't bother. I'm not going to change my mind.

Of course, as you can see it is not. But I do enjoy making a point to see just how closed your mind will be to actual knowledge and argumentation anyway.

Jane said...

So the killing of a human embryo is simply an action with no more moral significance than a tooth extraction? What about a late-term fetus? What about a "post-birth abortion" (to use the term of those so-called bioethicists)? What about pulling a gun on a black kid with a hoodie? Just a physical action -- bullet, chest, death. So what? Just a physical process. Just using technology to its fullest, right?

Anyway, about the cost of more kids in foster care -- the reality is that, with the legalization of abortion came laxer attitudes towards sex and contraception. Pregnancy rates and abortion rates increased; the birth rate did not drop. Criminalize abortion and people will be a lot more careful about pregnancy.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Why do people call me dumb when I say something simple they don't like?

I don't know who called you "dumb", (are you too proud to admit to being "uninformed"?) but what I care about is the fact that you're WRONG. You can say things I don't like all day long. Say something wrong and you can expect me to take issue with it, though.

Sperm and eggs aren't human individuals. Almost none of them ever will be, even with all the care in the world.

Zygotes aren't, either, because twins can form from a single fertilized egg.


Exactly.

When you get to a 7 week old fish-person, the odds of survival are a lot better.

That's an arbitrary consideration. You are defending something simply based on eventuality. That's like saying a car accident should be made to proceed if the rate of speed and direction of two automobiles are aligned the right way. Ridiculous.

None of this is terribly hard to understand, unless you intentionally ignore it.

It's not. It's just incredibly wrong, and wrong-headed.

Pro-choice arguments are more "complex" because they have more to hide.

That's the most hilarious and resentful attack at the complexity of life on earth that I've ever heard. God should have apparently made the universe more simple and easy to understand for you. Curse reality for being beyond the comprehension of an eight-grade reading level!

You are essentially insulting the fact that a universe of information exists and telling yourself that this justifies ignoring what can be plainly, if patiently, observed.

And that makes you not only wrong, but someone who justifies stupidity as a way to make decisions. Even moral decisions.

Maybe that doesn't make you stupid, per se. But it sure says something about you that ain't all that good.

Jenner said...

"They are human, if somewhat ephemeral, biological artifacts that lack the capacity for any uniquely human biological or moral process."

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I see that all we disagree on is when this human biological artifact warrants the equal protection of the law. So you would pinpoint that to be when something uniquely human happens? And when is that? Are you certain the science is settled? Are you sure that generations from now we won't discover anything new that would put the date of the uniquely human happening at an earlier date?

"But I do enjoy making a point to see just how closed your mind will be to actual knowledge and argumentation anyway."

No, I just find your position to be intellectually inconsistent. Once you agree that abortion is homicide, then we can discuss the proper balance of mother-child rights. I find Camille Paglia's position on abortion to be the most honest position a pro-choicer can have. I can respect that, but arguing that something can be human and yet not warrant the equal protection of the law is something I do not understand.

Dante said...

I wonder if Silverman had a chance to have a child and bond with it if she would feel the same. So, to that, I suppose I think she's simply stupid. Taking a political point to push her political position. I can merely think she is stupid for thinking the constitution has anything to do with a right to an abortion, duplicitous for not caring about the bigger issues, or plain stupid if she wants attention.

The woman seems the more honest. Her views are very unsettling, I have to admit. I suppose part of me thinks of women as the givers of life (certainly they shape life to an enormous extent, both emotionally and genetically), but somehow it's upsetting to think that life too is a trade-off. I don't fault the woman, but it reminds me too much of my own mortality.

wyo sis said...

O
You should quit writing and speaking about this. It's really possible that you don't know everything, and what you don't know can hurt you.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I'm sure there's much of what "Patterico" says with which I could take issue, not least of which his terminology. But at least he starts with the right premise.

Where he fucks up is in skipping from conception to week 6. There's a point at 24 days called "neurulation", when the designation of neural tissue is made. Later, a base arrangement of this tissue is made. Still later, the assignment of pain, pleasure and the embers of consciousness of formed.

These are all the salient points, but the guy languishes again with his obsession on appearance and organs that have no role in any of these morally crucial physiological distinctions which I mention.

It's like you guys think anything having to do with the brain is suspect.

But it's not. It's everything.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I see that all we disagree on is when this human biological artifact warrants the equal protection of the law. So you would pinpoint that to be when something uniquely human happens? And when is that? Are you certain the science is settled?

How about when a "BRAIN", with functions analogous to how conscious beings use their brain, is formed?


Yes. I think the science is pretty clearly settled on this.

Are you sure that generations from now we won't discover anything new that would put the date of the uniquely human happening at an earlier date?

Pretty sure.

In the past we called what I'm talking about a "soul". But that was messy, sketchy stuff.

Brain function's a little more precise. Not perfect, but much better. And it keeps us from drilling holes in people's heads to allow evil demons to escape. Among other medical marvels.

I just find your position to be intellectually inconsistent.

Well, I find yours to be intellectually incomplete.

I think a basic reading of the topics I mention above could cure your position of that.

Is there really virtue in staking out a consistent, incomplete position?

I don't think so. I'd rather be comprehensive.

Maybe that's just me.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Of course, I could be like Patterico and obsess on the human-making properties of fingernails! Look, FINGERNAILS! They are the essence of humanity.

Yes, sure they're cute and small and remind us of baby fingernails. But really, is this what makes a being the moral equivalent of a human person? Seriously?

Even zombies have fingernails.

Seeing Red said...

--OK, let's all condem any woman who has ever had an abortion, I agree it's immoral. I would never , have never had one, but how many of you want Roe v Wade overturned, how about you Ann? ---


9 old unelected males stuck their noses in when they shouldn't have, needlessly dividing this country for almost 40 years.

They should have just let the states figure it out. People move all the time for things they perceive to be important.


At this point, it's more about power, access and money to the organizations fighting about it. Technology changes things and the younger generation isn't as open to abortion as the older generations are. There are polls.

This topic wouldn't be as contentious as it is if the current occupant of the Oval Office didn't State-sanction this.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Anyway, here's a histogram on the distribution of U.S. abortions performed by time in utero.

As you can see, close to a majority are performed prior to week 8, maybe many of those even before neurulation. In any event, the vast majority are done way before quickening.

I think a much better argument would be too scrap the whole "conception/fertilization" nonsense that someone handed down to you and start with the cruelty and morally suspect problem of acting against a being that can actually sense pleasure, pain and the rest of it.

It's as close as you'll get to a moral universal. It will also give your arguments the sense of humanity that you so desperately want people to agree to see from your perspective.

Hoosier Daddy said...

".. Baloney, I can hear the Tea Party rallies now, Taxed Enough Already! Such hypocrisy..."

Hypocrisy? Please. How about being responsible for having unprotected sex? How about owning up to the job of bringing a life into the world? You don't mind paying more taxes to support someones lack of responsibility? Yeah that will send the right message to the careless of society.

Do liberals even understand the concept of personal responsibility?

Seeing Red said...

--Jana ignores the fact that she was lucky to be born white, how many minority children are not being adopted?--


With the racial shit that has to be put up with?

I wonder how much of it is a cultural thing with minorities not to adopt?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Do liberals even understand the concept of personal responsibility?

That's a good point.

Hoosier reminds us that conservatives are so interested in personal responsibility that they would have let Hitler and Hirohito take over the world in 1939.

I mean, it wasn't our fault! Can't be responsible for others. And if a fascist/Nazi/imperialist world is the result, well tough!

Seeing Red said...

After 4 kids, maybe she should have gotten her tubes tied?

Pogo said...

Both Heath and Silverman chose nihilism, one supported by argument, the other by mockery.

Both quite easily support abortion at any stage of prefgnancy, as well as post-natal abortion.

Why should we have any qualms about those?
What difference would it make, at 10 weeks, or 20, or after birth at 2 months old?

None. If one is possible, all are.

Hoosier Daddy said...

That was an awesome leap over the shark tank Ritmo.

Well done.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

You can always count on Pogo to throw out the obligatory reference to this "ism" or that "ism" is his incessant effort to erase any meaningful distinctions likely to be acknowledged by anyone disagreeing with him.

Pogo said...

I fully acknowledge being unable to fathom the worldview that endorses abortion. I don't see a middle ground. Every discussion on the issue revolves on this fact.

That half the country can lord their belief over the other half is cause for much acrimony.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Was it not the conservative foreign-policy position during the 1930s, Hoosier?

Why so reluctant to take pride in your ideology's obvious and illustrious history of isolationism, its willingness to let problems fester?

Jenner said...

Well, drawing the line at "uniquely human" seems just as arbitrary to me as "at conception" apparently seems to you.

As to the topic of this post, I think both women have consistent points of view, but that a consideration of adoption in Heath's decision would be appropriate if one is carefully thinking about the situation.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

So even Pogo, a medical doctor, admits to being confused by any moral distinctions that could be drawn by such basic embryological concepts as "fertilization", "neurulation", and brain development?

This is the problem. Ignorance, ideological purity and political tribalism can even obscure a science-trained professional's understanding of the way that obvious moral universals can clarify and bring agreement to an obvious human problem.

Maybe chanting and drum banging around pictures of fetuses is easier.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Well, drawing the line at "uniquely human" seems just as arbitrary to me as "at conception" apparently seems to you.

Seriously? When it comes to morality?

I guess I never noticed all the prisons that were designed, constructed and operated by dogs. Ditto the doggie court system.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'm trying to find the correlation of my personal responsibility comment to 1930s conservative positions on foreign policy.

Then again you rarely make sense do I'm not going to try very hard.

I do find it amusing that you appear to think that 1930s liberal foreign policy must have favored pre-emptive war against Germany and Japan.

My how the times they do change.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

And don't even get me started on the raging debate in the doggie community of the rightness or wrongness of doggie abortion.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I do find it amusing that you appear to think that 1930s liberal foreign policy must have favored pre-emptive war against Germany and Japan.

My how the times they do change.


They actually don't all that much. Corey Robin details the long history of how conservatives appropriate liberal innovations and methods long after find that they will fail if they only stick to the traditional measures.

And I have a strong suspicion that decisive measures far short of pre-emptive war would have been available, even at that time.

But that's not dramatic enough. It's like the way they complain about Iran while refusing to believe that somewhat effective economic sanctions are taking place, let alone good foreign policy.

They do like their drama.

Michael McNeil said...

Prior to the fourth week of gestation there isn't the shadowiest trace of a brain in the developing embryo. Prior to the beginning of the second month, there are no neurons (the cells that make up the wiring of the brain). The brain is the seat of every characteristic that makes us uniquely human rather than animal. Even after the first neurons form, the developing brain for some time is capable only of the most rudimentary functions, such as keeping the infant heart beating.

In my view the onset of “human life” as opposed to mere “life” depends on the brain taking on a more or less complete form, which as Encyclopaedia Britannica (Nervous system, human) points out, “the main outlines of the brain are recognizable by the end of the third fetal month.”

Bender said...

The brain is the seat of every characteristic that makes us uniquely human rather than animal

It is by such a brainless, irrational, and arbitrary self-serving definition as this that you have proved yourself to be non-human.

wyo sis said...

At any time is the human embryo going to develop into something other than a human being?

Saint Croix said...

The brain is the seat of every characteristic that makes us uniquely human rather than animal. Even after the first neurons form, the developing brain for some time is capable only of the most rudimentary functions, such as keeping the infant heart beating. In my view the onset of “human life” as opposed to mere “life” depends on the brain taking on a more or less complete form, which as Encyclopaedia Britannica (Nervous system, human) points out, “the main outlines of the brain are recognizable by the end of the third fetal month.”

It would be nice if the caselaw had any sort of discussion of the baby's life. For instance, if the Supreme Court talked about brain activity, or heartbeat, or lung capacity. If they talked about voluntary movement, or consciousness. Anything!

They talk about none of this. The Supreme Court has defined the baby as a commodity. Legally, she's the property of her mom and nothing more. This is her status throughout the pregnancy, up until birth.

Indeed, it's entirely possible some members of the Court are willing to define newborn infants as commodities, too. Not a single Justice, for instance, argued that a partially born infant is a person entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

So this idea that we're debating, in good faith, when life begins is simply wrong.

As the Supreme Court wrote in Roe, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins."

A baby in the womb is defined as a commodity, and so the infanticide question is irrelevant. They simply do not care.

I advise reading Carhart if you want to see how vicious unelected people can be.

Saint Croix said...

In any event, the vast majority are done way before quickening.

Approximately 1.5% of abortions are done in the third trimester. We've had 50 million abortions since 1973. So if you're willing to concede that a viable, kicking third trimester infant is a baby, the Supreme Court has murdered 750,000 of them, more or less.

Not quite as homicidal as Pol Pot, I grant you, but still pretty damn vicious.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 246   Newer› Newest»