Althouse: "I wish my mother had aborted me."

August 15, 2012

"I wish my mother had aborted me."

"This is no 'I wish I'd never been born' howl of angst. I love my mother, and having an abortion would have given her a better life."

113 comments:

Farmer said...: The world would not be a darker or poorer place without me. Actually, in terms of contributions to the world, I am a net loss. Everything that I have done – including parenting, teaching, researching, and being a loving partner – could have been done as well, if not better by other people. Any positive contributions that I have made are completely offset by what it has cost society to help me overcome the disadvantages and injuries of my childhood to become a functional and contributing member of society.

Oh please. If she believed any of this she'd kill herself instead of writing idiotic oped pieces.; 8/15/12, 11:11 AM
rehajm said...: Second...; 8/15/12, 11:15 AM
Curious George said...: I would tell her "abortion is murder, unless your mom thinks it's not, then it's all good". I learned that at Althouse.; 8/15/12, 11:15 AM
Christopher in MA said...: Three bits stand out in that essay:

1. If we want to keep our reproductive rights, we must be willing to tell our stories, to be willing and able to say 'I love my life, but I wish my mother had aborted me.'

2. An abortion would have made it more likely that [my mother] would finish high school and get a college education. At college in the late 1960s, it seems likely she would have found feminism or psychology or something that would have helped her overcome her childhood trauma and pick better partners.

3. The world would not be a darker or poorer place without me. Actually, in terms of contributions to the world, I am a net loss. . .any positive contributions that I have made are completely offset by what it has cost society to help me overcome the disadvantages and injuries of my childhood to become a functional and contributing member of society.

Behold the nihilistic dead end of unfettered abortion being the be-all and end-all of "feminism;" actually arguing for your own nonexistence because your cost to 'society' outweighs the sheer miracle of your birth.

I can't say that Lynn Beisner is a horrible woman. She is a broken, empty woman. My heart aches for her.; 8/15/12, 11:15 AM
Fen said...: An abortion would have made it more likely that she would finish high school and get a college education. At college in the late 1960s, it seems likely she would have found feminism or psychology or something that would have helped her overcome her childhood trauma and pick better partners

Oh bullshit. Its just as likely she would have gotten strung out on drugs and spent the last 5 years of her life as a street corner whore.; 8/15/12, 11:16 AM
Shanna said...: This person is not serious.; 8/15/12, 11:19 AM
Fen said...: arguing for your own nonexistence because your cost to 'society' outweighs the sheer miracle of your birth.

But she's not arguing that. She thinks she's being clever, but all her verbs are past-tense: would have, should have.

Its just a rhetorical tactic to justify her support for killing *other* people.

If she could have expressed an opinion as a 3 month old embyro, it would have all been "PLEASE DO NOT KILL ME!!" and "I don't care if we grow up poor, I want to LIVE!"

What a douchebag.; 8/15/12, 11:20 AM
Lyssa said...: Why is adoption barely even considered? She "never" could have put the writer up for adoption, she says, but she could have aborted? Absolutely bullshit.

She could have, and should have, put the baby up for adoption. Everything listed in this story would have been avoided, Ms. Beisner would probably be a much happier person who values her life more, a family who wanted a child would have had one, and no one would have to die in the process.

We absolutely need to change something, social services, healthcare cultures, something, to make adoption a common and favored option in these situations.; 8/15/12, 11:21 AM
TosaGuy said...: The really sick part is the comment section where they congatulate her on writing such a "brave piece".; 8/15/12, 11:22 AM
chickelit said...: I think it's a self-loathing reflection but I'm sure that someone will come along and say she just channeling John 15:13.

Or, as others have suggested--it's parody.; 8/15/12, 11:23 AM
Kevin said...: I'm afraid that the comments are going to turn into hell. I don't even want to look. I'm torn in my own mind, even, between disgust and sympathy and pity.

But I am pretty sure most of us can agree on one thing: The world be a better place if the Manchester Observer had aborted the Manchester Guardian in 1821.; 8/15/12, 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...: My mother quit high school to have her first baby... must have been in the mid-1940s.

While she worked in a non-union factory, she earned her GED.

When she lost her non-union factory job at the age of 59, she went to LPN school, while my mom and dad were still raising 4 kids.

At the age of 63, she graduated from LPN school and passed her boards.

She retired two years ago at the age of 83. Well, she didn't retire. The nursing home told her she couldn't continue.; 8/15/12, 11:25 AM
Brian Brown said...: Shanna said...
This person is not serious.

or sane; 8/15/12, 11:25 AM
Lyssa said...: Also, it's easy to say that you'd do things differently when that's not a possibility.

Weirdly related analogy: Last night on MasterChef, two groups of 3 competed, and the losing team had to compete against each other for elimination. Gordon Ramsey asked the team leader what he would do if he were given the chance to send one of the team members, including himself, to safety instead. He said that he'd pick Josh, who had worked hard. Ramsey said "Really, you wouldn't pick yourself?" The leader said "No, I don't deserve it; Josh deserves it more."

Ramsey then told him that he did have that opportunity, to choose one, including himself, to take out. The leader said "Sorry, guys, I'm going," and promptly excused himself from the elimination risk, leaving Josh to fight.

If she really did have the chance, Ms. Beisner would do the same.; 8/15/12, 11:27 AM
Brian Brown said...: Its just a rhetorical tactic to justify her support for killing *other* people.

Yep.

Which of course reveals these people are anti-human nihilists.

They really do hate humanity.; 8/15/12, 11:28 AM
MadisonMan said...: You can't change the present by altering the past. You simply cannot.

People choose the path they follow, and it has absolutely nothing to do with you, the outsider.

At heart, the author is assigning far too much importance to her own self. Narcissus would agree if he could tear himself away from his reflection to read this article.; 8/15/12, 11:31 AM
YoungHegelian said...: I have to agree with Fen.

If the only stumbling block a woman encounters is one out of wedlock birth, and the rest of her intellectual faculties are functional, chances are very good, she'll recover the social position she would have had without the OOW birth.

But, when the birth is just one more example of a life spinning out of control, which it often is, since young woman use reckless sex to "act out" like young men use violence, then the baby becomes just one more agent of chaos in an already chaotic situation.

Not only does the authoress seem to have a healthy dose of self-loathing, she also seems to have built up a revionist history of her mother's life to support her self-loathing.; 8/15/12, 11:32 AM
Alex said...: Mental illness.; 8/15/12, 11:33 AM
purplepenquin said...: abortion is murder,

People who say this are either misinformed or intentionally being deceitful, because "murder" means an unlawful killing.

Even if abortion kills a human being, it still ain't murder here&now.

If abortion is someday outlawed then ya'll can label the woman who has an abortion a "murderer" (and punish her accordingly), but until that day comes than using that word is nothing more than emotional rhetoric.

(Which, given the subject matter, I can understand people getting emotional about it. If I beleived that abortion actually kills a baby then I'd probably be very emotional about it as well.); 8/15/12, 11:33 AM
gerry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/15/12, 11:34 AM
Christopher in MA said...: Fen @ 11.20 - quite right.

But I still say this is a very broken woman.; 8/15/12, 11:35 AM
Christopher in MA said...: if I believed that abortion actually kills a baby then 'd probably be very emotional about it as well.

Such a pity then, that we can't all be rational, logical beings like yourself, PP.; 8/15/12, 11:37 AM
gerry said...: How postmodern and tres chic! The beautiful irony of having suicide-resistance as a raison d'etre is so Woody Allen, too!; 8/15/12, 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm glad her mother didn't abort her, as she was one that rose above her upbringing of abuse and disfunction. It's a good ending, what are the chances that she is an anomaly? How many in her situation rose above it, how many became brain damaged or worse from abuse they suffered at the hands of those who didnt love them enough to even consider abortion, but were dissuaded or changed their minds because of flawed decision making skills?

I agree wholeheartedly with Lyssa, adoption in such cases would be ideal and we should work harder to make it more of an option for these young women. It would be worth tax payer money to facilitate this, IMO. OR churches and charities could make this an even bigger focus, if one doesn't want more government involvement.

Real life social repercussions of bad decisions don't just hurt the decision maker, it affects their children. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all such stories ended well?

Her last sentence is paramount.; 8/15/12, 11:39 AM
Lyssa said...: purplepen said: People who say this are either misinformed or intentionally being deceitful, because "murder" means an unlawful killing.

That's an exceptionally silly comment. You're well aware, as are all of us, that many terms such as "murder" have both legalistic and colloquial meanings. People using that phrase, and those hearing it, know that it refers to murder in the moral sense, not in the purely legalistic one.

By acting as if you can't figure that out, you, my friend, are the one being either deceitful or absurdly misinformed.; 8/15/12, 11:44 AM
Brian Brown said...: I beleived that abortion actually kills a baby then I'd probably be very emotional about it as well.)

Yes!
Because it isn't a baby, its a unicorn!; 8/15/12, 11:45 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: Could this be the Guardianest Guardian article ever? I think it just might be.; 8/15/12, 11:47 AM
Brian Brown said...: because "murder" means an unlawful killing.

Considerning you have a demonstrated inability to read, we can go ahead and give this silly bullshit 4 Pinocchio's now.

Note: To kill brutally or inhumanly
is in the dictionary for "murdered"

Idiot.; 8/15/12, 11:48 AM
Kevin said...: If she really did have the chance, Ms. Beisner would do the same.

This analogy is spot on. With the constant din of communication today, people seem to feel the need to say "shocking" things to get heard. Put that shocking thing on the line for real, though, and you'll see some rapid backpedalling.; 8/15/12, 11:50 AM
Alex said...: not only that but look at how pleased Allie is! She is so happy to have the right to abort her children.; 8/15/12, 11:51 AM
but I am a robot said...: Fen said...

"If she could have expressed an opinion as a 3 month old embyro, it would have all been "PLEASE DO NOT KILL ME!!""

Exactly. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that she can conclude that she's worthless to society and unworthy of her mother's mercy.

And it's only with the benefit of knowing that she wrote such an insanely stupid article that I'm inclined to believe her claims about how worthless she is.

But a forward-looking perspective carries endless possibilities. For all her mother knew at the time, the author could have really made something of herself.

Instead, of course, she's perpetuating flawed rationale to justify the killing of fetuses.

What's ironic is that if you believe her erroneous line of reasoning, and you find her words enlightening, you might be compelled to think, "wow, if she had been aborted, my eyes would never been opened to the societal benefits of abortion."

The whole story is self-defeating.; 8/15/12, 11:51 AM
purplepenquin said...: Such a pity then, that we can't all be rational, logical beings like yourself, PP

*sigh*

I put that last comment in an attempt to show some empathy with those I disagree with, and you choose to shit all over me for doing so.

Way to keep it as classy as you always do...; 8/15/12, 11:52 AM
Geoff Matthews said...: The ultimate in self-hatred.

Really, what she's making an argument for is that her mother should have put her up for adoption, but that doesn't fit the pro-choice narrative.

And, seeing that plenty of feminists have picked horrible partners, I don't think college would have been the saving grace for her mother. Her mother may have just been the sort of person to make bad choices.; 8/15/12, 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Alex, doesn't it ever get old to be a provocateur? When you have something serious and sincere to say, no one will believe you aren't "in character".

It's pathetic to stand for nothing, just to get a rise out of people, it's pathological actually.; 8/15/12, 11:55 AM
Geoff Matthews said...: madison man, you make a very good point about the author. Thank you.; 8/15/12, 11:59 AM
purplepenquin said...: You're well aware, as are all of us, that many terms such as "murder" have both legalistic and colloquial meanings.

Yes, I know a lot of people misue the word...from the anti-abortion crowd to PETA to folks protesting the war.....but it doesn't make it right.; 8/15/12, 11:59 AM
Rusty said...: After having read that, I too wish her mother had an abortion.
Perhaps it's not too late.; 8/15/12, 12:01 PM
Lyssa said...: It would be worth tax payer money to facilitate this, IMO. OR churches and charities could make this an even bigger focus, if one doesn't want more government involvement.

I tend towards libertarianism, but I absolutely would support legitimate government action for the purpose of encouraging adoption (and I know that there is some already). One of the legitimate functions of government is to protect the innocent, and preventing both abortion and children being raised by people like the mother described here are some of the best examples of protecting the innocent that I can think of.; 8/15/12, 12:05 PM
purplepenquin said...: Because it isn't a baby, its a unicorn!

*sigh*

Does anybody else agree with Jay that if something isn't a "baby" then it must be a "unicorn"?

Follow up question: If Jay isn't a baby (which is a BIG if), then does that mean he is a unicorn?

the dictionary

Which dictionary?

Opps! Sorry, let me phrase it in your own language:

Which dictionary, bimbo?; 8/15/12, 12:06 PM
traditionalguy said...: This sincere little fool needs to buy his Mom a gun and ammunition and ask her to shoot him, or if she is still dumb, then shoot himself. Makes good sense to me.

Death Panelists need training too.

He could always ask Homeland Security, the Weather service and ICE for a few of the 3 million rounds of 40 Cal hollow points they recently ordered for civilian unrest duty.

The hollow points should be easy to buy since they are illegal in War, and can only be used on domestic protesters.; 8/15/12, 12:07 PM
Farmer said...: Alex said...
not only that but look at how pleased Allie is! She is so happy to have the right to abort her children.

Serious question, and not just for you but for everyone who does stuff like this around here: Do you speak to people this way in face to face conversations?; 8/15/12, 12:08 PM
Lyssa said...: Yes, I know a lot of people misue the word...from the anti-abortion crowd to PETA to folks protesting the war.....but it doesn't make it right.

It's not a misuse to use a word that has more than one meaning for the purpose of only one of those meanings.

PETA sounds stupid when they use it because their cause is stupid and their conception of morality is stupid, not because they are "misusing" a word.

Or should we start complaining that you call yourself "purplepenguin" when I know for a fact that you are neither purple nor a penguin?; 8/15/12, 12:10 PM
Methadras said...: Who writes this kind of pedantic nonsense? A leftard, that's who.; 8/15/12, 12:10 PM
DADvocate said...: What a pathetic piece of drivel. She could kill herself and will everything to her mother. Maybe that would help.

I had my oldest daughter 5 days before I turned 20 and my bride was 18. My in-laws provided up a place to live for 3 months. After that it was all us.

Through determination and hard work, plus I had lots of fun along the way, I managed to get a M.S. and earn a decent living. Too many people give up. Too many people are told they're lives are ruined and believe it. (This is the liberal way.)

Sometimes I wonder what my life would have been like if my oldest daughter had never been born. Who knows? But, I doubt it would have been better than the one I have because she wouldn't be in it. Not that she's the apple my eye, but she's a good, caring person whom I'm proud to be her father. All my kids have done more for me than I could ever do for them.

If one of them gave me some drivel like this, I'd slap them silly.; 8/15/12, 12:11 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: I read that mostly. And it's NOT my sort of thing. It started out opposite. Two things that irritate me too. Those are crummy things to do.

And the voice says stop reading this shit, the voice usually doesn't speak like that but I kept reading anyway and the voice insisted I stop and I insisted I continue and a patch of colors changed, an outline appeared and there was lizard. A chameleon. It's Karma. Karma appeared.

Every day is like a survival
Youre my lover not my rival

and disappeared again. And these interruptions prevented a thorough reading and I was still near the top so the rest was mostly just miserable crap, I gathered, those warnings made everything choppy forced me to skipity-skipped by bits and bits through the miserable part down to the comments where there real evil seethed boiling and it got much worse, and that voice again said I fucking told you not to read this. You see, Chip, the voice continued less harsly, you have no reason to intersect with these people, all these people down here, you have no reason to see them. Other people are taking care of this, people made for it, the people she mentioned at first. The people that irritate you too, Your job is different. Now go think of something sweet and kind to do.

So, I actually have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion. Sorry.; 8/15/12, 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm glad we agree on this Lyssa, and congratulations on your baby boy, safe journey for both you and he.; 8/15/12, 12:14 PM
purplepenquin said...: It's not a misuse to use a word that has more than one meaning for the purpose of only one of those meanings

Would you say the same thing when I object to the people who say "Our soldiers are murderers!!"?; 8/15/12, 12:18 PM
cubanbob said...: The author could wish whatever she wants but the choice was never hers to make. She is one disturbed person and more disturbing was the amen comments in the Guardian. She does have one choice available to her now, self destruction if she chooses to do so. But she loves her life, what a cognitive dissonance, loving ones life and wishing you were never born. Since life isn't like the Twilight Zone with alternative outcomes, there is no way to know if her mother's life would have been any better had she had never been born. Most likely not as other commenters pointed out.; 8/15/12, 12:20 PM
Christopher in MA said...: Way to keep it classy, as you always do. . .

Then perhaps you shouldn't have implied that those of us who do think abortion is murder are swayed by base emotion.

In other words, don't get angry at me because you give off the impression of being an arrogant prick.; 8/15/12, 12:25 PM
Lyssa said...: Would you say the same thing when I object to the people who say "Our soldiers are murderers!!"?

Yes. That would be a stupid thing to say, but not because of the technical misuse of the legalistic meaning of the word murder. (It would be equally stupid for someone to say "Our soliders are immoral killers."); 8/15/12, 12:34 PM
purplepenquin said...: Then perhaps you shouldn't have implied that those of us who do think abortion is murder are swayed by base emotion.

Sorry if it hurts your feelings to hear it, but yes...when someone says a lawful act is "murder" then it is obvious that person is speaking from emotions rather than rational thought.

Tho, like I said, (and I am totally sincere), I can understand why someone would get emotional over this issue.

Ain't trying to sound arrogant, but rather I am just trying to point out (just like I point out to my anti-war pals and PETA friend) how out-of-touch ya'll sound.

The way some folks are planting their flag on this issue makes me wonder: Is it really impossible for ya to discuss this issue without calling it "murder"?; 8/15/12, 12:41 PM
Brian Brown said...: purplepenquin said...

Which dictionary?

Huh?

Are you fucking retarded or what?; 8/15/12, 12:41 PM
Brian Brown said...: purplepenquin said...

Sorry if it hurts your feelings to hear it, but yes...when someone says a lawful act is "murder" then it is obvious that person is speaking from emotions rather than rational thought.

Alternatively, they are speaking from a dictionary definition of which you're wholly ignorant.

See stupid, your ignorance isn't an argument.; 8/15/12, 12:43 PM
Brian Brown said...: purplepenquin said...

Does anybody else agree with Jay that if something isn't a "baby" then it must be a "unicorn"?

Your inability to detect sarcasm is a pretty damning indictment of your dim intellect.; 8/15/12, 12:44 PM
purplepenquin said...: That would be a stupid thing to say, but not because of the technical misuse of the legalistic meaning of the word murder.

Why?

According to Jay's (and yours?) dictionary the definition fits.; 8/15/12, 12:45 PM
Brian Brown said...: purplepenquin said...

Ain't trying to sound arrogant, but rather I am just trying to point out (just like I point out to my anti-war pals and PETA friend) how out-of-touch ya'll sound.

Hey retard:

Soldiers killing someone who is tying to kill them isn't the same thing as killing a partially born baby or fetus.

People with coherence can see this.

You continue to make an idiot of yourself.; 8/15/12, 12:46 PM
Brian Brown said...: purplepenquin said...
According to Jay's (and yours?) dictionary the definition fits.

No it doesn't you abject imbecile.

How many times are you going to prove to everyone you can't read?; 8/15/12, 12:47 PM
B said...: I'm glad her mother didn't abort her, as she was one that rose above her upbringing of abuse and disfunction. It's a good ending, what are the chances that she is an anomaly? How many in her situation rose above it, how many became brain damaged or worse from abuse they suffered at the hands of those who didnt love them enough to even consider abortion, but were dissuaded or changed their minds because of flawed decision making skills?

Good God.; 8/15/12, 12:48 PM
Brian Brown said...: purplepenquin said...

Sorry if it hurts your feelings to hear it, but yes...when someone says a lawful act is "murder" then it is obvious that person is speaking from emotions rather than rational thought.

Well, except for the fact that "murder" isn't defined by law and the act pre-existed any laws you're referring to.

But of course thinking is way, way too complicated for someone like you.; 8/15/12, 12:49 PM
purplepenquin said...: Wow.

Jay really is one angry unicorn, ain't he?

I wonder if he'd be willing to answer Farmer's question...; 8/15/12, 12:51 PM
purplepenquin said...: Soldiers killing someone who is tying to kill them

Earlier you defined "murder" as "To kill brutally or inhumanly"

Does the dictionary then go on to say "except when someone else is trying to kill you"?; 8/15/12, 12:54 PM
Brian Brown said...: purplepenquin said...

Does the dictionary then go on to say "except when someone else is trying to kill you"?

Alternatively,

You could like look up the definition of "inhumanely" and get back to us.; 8/15/12, 12:59 PM
edutcher said...: So now people get offended if someone isn't aborted?

Since the perpetually offended always get their way, does that make it murder, euthanasia, or just assisted suicide?; 8/15/12, 1:03 PM
purplepenquin said...: You could like look up the definition of "inhumanely" and get back to us

Some would say there is nothing "humane" about napalm, drones, and atomic bombs.

But I'm gonna guess that you find nothing-at-all inhumane in the act of waging war, eh?

(Well, at least not when WE do it..but those other guys are all murderers, eh?); 8/15/12, 1:07 PM
bagoh20 said...: This causes me to imagine an Auschwitz guard at the door to the gas chamber telling a Jew: "Hey, if I was a Jew I would be fine with this, and accept that my life is just a burden. Now please, keep it moving."; 8/15/12, 1:07 PM
Brian Brown said...: purplepenquin said...

Some would say there is nothing "humane" about napalm, drones, and atomic bombs.

Quite possibly.

I would say that argument should focus on the targets of those things. Is it "inhumane" to use a drone on a group of terrorists who wish harm on Americans?

I think dropping an A-bomb on Hiroshima (and the fire bombing of Dresden) was inhumane but faced with other choices, a correct action.

Note: such actions are rare.
Abortion is not rare.; 8/15/12, 1:12 PM
purplepenquin said...: I think dropping an A-bomb on Hiroshima (and the fire bombing of Dresden) was inhumane

So you wouldn't object if someone called Paul Tibbets a murderer?; 8/15/12, 1:14 PM
Lyssa said...: That would be a stupid thing to say, but not because of the technical misuse of the legalistic meaning of the word murder.

Why?

According to Jay's (and yours?) dictionary the definition fits.

Are you really asking, or just trying to be willfully obtuse?

It would be a stupid thing to say because it shows that the speaker is an extremely simplistic thinker about the realities of war, national defense, and military combat. It has nothing to do with definitions being technically right or wrong, and there certainly are some situations where a non-stupid person could refer to some soldiers as murderers. It has to do with nuances and difficult questions of combat, war zones, and just war theory.; 8/15/12, 1:15 PM
nichole said...: Lyssa & AlleyOop, adoption is pretty complicated. But for what it's worth, "put up for adoption" is a dated term. In my experience, current social work practice favors "made an adoption plan for" because it has less connotation of the child as commodity.; 8/15/12, 1:19 PM
Lyssa said...: bago20 said: I think dropping an A-bomb on Hiroshima (and the fire bombing of Dresden) was inhumane but faced with other choices, a correct action.

Right - The use of the word murder implies (again, I'm not talking about a strict legal definition, but the way it is used in the English language) that the action was morally incorrect, morally unjustified. Therefore, dropping the bomb doesn't fit (this is an opinon, of course) because it was the morally justified and appropriate action in that circumstance.

Similar, abortion if, say, the mother's life was in serious danger, would not fit because, while the killing still takes place, it is morally justified in the circumstances. Same with self-defense, or the type of military combat I like to think our troops engage in.; 8/15/12, 1:20 PM
Bender said...: I know a lot of people misue the word...
___________

A LOT of people misuse the word "law" and merely prove their ignorance when they attempt to use it without having the slightest clue as to what law is.; 8/15/12, 1:22 PM
Known Unknown said...: who didnt love them enough to even consider abortion

WTF?; 8/15/12, 1:23 PM
wyo sis said...: The worst thing about the article, and it's the purpose of it, I'm sure, is that it gives yet another excuse to women contemplating abortion.

"Oh, my baby would want me to do this, because it's going to make my life better and she/he loves me enough to sacrifice her/himself for me."

The politics of selfishness.; 8/15/12, 1:26 PM
Bender said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/15/12, 1:35 PM
Christopher in MA said...: Is it really impossible for ya to discuss this issue without calling it 'murder?'

No.; 8/15/12, 1:36 PM
Bender said...: The judges and doctors who were tried at Nuremburg insisted that they could not possibly be guilty because everything they did was legal under the "laws" existing in Germany before and during the war. And, indeed, everything was legal under German "law" of that period.

And they were rightly convicted, and their defense rightly rejected because that German "law" was not law in any genuine sense of the word. An unjust "law" is no law at all. There was and is a higher law than any that are promulgated by governments.

Roe and Casey might have the force of law, but they are not "law" in any legitimate sense of the word. They are repugnant to law.

As a matter of right reason and fundamental justice, the intentional killing of an innocent human being in utero is, by its very nature, unlawful.; 8/15/12, 1:39 PM
paul a'barge said...: Here is Lynn Beisner, the author.

No comment.; 8/15/12, 2:13 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Author assumes the purpose of life is material wealth and prestige. Asleep in a worldly dream.; 8/15/12, 2:17 PM
Tibore said...: I'm sorry, but I don't care how many of her commenters are saying how "brave" she is, or what circumstances she's citing for her argument. Ignoring the fact that she's an exception, her entire argument rests on the fact that denying the world the potential of another life is preferable to allowing it and watching it fail.

That's a horrific stance to have.

Even if there was a way to predict the utility of a specific person's life as well as have foreknowlege of their accomplishments and "worth" to society, it's still absolutely dangerous, dodgy, ugly ground to presume that such factors matter. Saying that violates the most basic tenant behind human sanctity, that even a small, insignificant life matters and has intrinsic worth.

And that's if such things were predictable. The fact of the matter is, no one can make such judgements prior to a life being lived. So the injury to humanity is even increased. Forget not knowing if you deprive the world of the next Einstein, Galileo, or Mother Teresa, you don't know if you're erasing the great guy or gal next door who's a terrific friend, spouse, and parent. That's enough of a crime.

That column is basically a monument to anti-humanism. "Misanthropy" is not even the right term to use here because it doesn't describe the utter depravity of such an appalling worldview.; 8/15/12, 2:25 PM
Rusty said...: The Farmer said...
Alex said...
not only that but look at how pleased Allie is! She is so happy to have the right to abort her children.

Serious question, and not just for you but for everyone who does stuff like this around here: Do you speak to people this way in face to face conversations?

Yep.
If you don't like my opinion of of your less than intelligent utterances, then keep your pie hole shut.; 8/15/12, 2:26 PM
Synova said...: "My mother would have had a better life" assumes that the daughter's existence is a *continuing* horror for her mother.

It's hard when kids are small, and right now I honestly could do without a teenager or two, but forever? How horrible a person would a son or daughter have to be to make a mother's life hell FOREVER?

You're an adult now. You don't have to be horrible to your mother. It's not better that she face eventual old age and death without family around her. Would you really want your mother to be ALONE with the British health service senior care in her last years? Die alone?

What a horrible person who even as an adult hates her mother that much.; 8/15/12, 2:40 PM
DADvocate said...: the daughter's existence is a *continuing* horror for her mother.

Considering how the daughter thinks and writes, it just might be.

Although, she writes about her mother's pain and agony, this is really another "poor, pitiful me" story. Breisner's grandiose way of feeling sorry for herself.; 8/15/12, 2:47 PM
Revenant said...: What a weird thing to write.; 8/15/12, 2:50 PM
Quaestor said...: It's the Guardian, a sick newspaper for a sick readership living in a sick society.; 8/15/12, 2:55 PM
purplepenquin said...: It would be a stupid thing to say because it shows that the speaker is an extremely simplistic thinker

Exactly. That's what I've been trying to say this whole time.

(In all fairness, my anti-war pals and my PETA friend also all object to my objections...using mostly the same reasoning ya'll are using.); 8/15/12, 3:17 PM
Ken said...: Jay and PP,

Here.

"1. (noun) the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law....

5. (verb) to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."

Did it ever occur to either one of you to link to any dictionary at all? Both definition that both of you use are correct. As a noun, PP is correct. As a verb, Jay is correct.; 8/15/12, 3:31 PM
rcommal said...: Boy, namecalling really seems to be on the uptick around here lately.; 8/15/12, 3:48 PM
Seeing Red said...: Vodkapundit has a post about progressivism using Lynn's article & this:

Thanks to an Obamacare regulation that took effect on Aug. 1, health care plans in Oregon will now be required to provide free sterilizations to 15- year-old girls even if the parents of those girls do not consent to the procedure.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized the regulation earlier this year.

It says that all health care plans in the United States–except those provided by actual houses of worship organized under the section of the Internal Revenue Code reserved for churches per se–must provide coverage, without cost-sharing, for sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives to “all women with reproductive capacity.”

In practical terms, “all women with reproductive capacity” means girls as young as about 12. That, according to the National Institutes of Health, is when girls usually start menstruating.; 8/15/12, 3:49 PM
Shanna said...: 'Murder' is actually a flock of crows, if we are going all dictionary on this.; 8/15/12, 4:06 PM
Shanna said...: who didnt love them enough to even consider abortion

Let me just say, I think this is a very strange attitude and a cop out. Having a baby may make things more difficult for you, but if you choose to both have a baby anyway and keep it, you owe it to your child and yourself to pull your shit together and take care of business. If you are incapable of doing that, you should go for adoption from the start.

This article is complete nonsense.; 8/15/12, 4:09 PM
hombre said...: purplepenguin wrote: If I beleived that abortion actually kills a baby then I'd probably be very emotional about it as well.

I don't know pp's political preferences, but this is a classic example of the propensity of lefties to ignore reality - in this case the nature and consequences of fertilization in human embryology - in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Anathema to serious debate on serious issues, ain't it?; 8/15/12, 4:21 PM
Synova said...: "In practical terms, “all women with reproductive capacity” means girls as young as about 12. That, according to the National Institutes of Health, is when girls usually start menstruating."

Talk to Native Americans about the sterilization of young girls against their wishes and secretly, so that it's not even known until they're all grown up and go for fertility treatment to find out why they can't have kids.

I'm not making it up.

All hospitals or doctors would have to do is hand a teenager some paperwork to sign when they go in for some other procedure and sterilize them while they fixed their apendix.

Reservation doctors did this (and probably without the signed papers). Go in for a tonsillectomy when you're 13 and 10 years later find out you can never have children.

It was for their own good, you know. Alcoholism and teen pregnancy is such a severe problem on reservations and all right thinking people agree that it's horrible to bring babies into an alcoholic family environment. So many girls were sterilized that Native American groups put it in terms of genocide.

This law would be so useful, you know? Get a teenaged girl in with evidence of a crappy home life, make a decision that her crappy home life, drug abuse, and everything else means she'd only bring babies into an abusive situation or give them birth with fetal conditions associated with drug or alcohol use and only a MONSTER wouldn't find it morally necessary to slip that extra sheet of paper in there and have a thirteen year old sign off on her own sterilization.

Or just offer to pay girls if they have it done. What 13 year old would pass up a bunch of money? Or guilt them into it, by telling them it makes them a good person, and never mind that they might change their mind once they are an adult and have an adult understanding of what it means to make stupid decisions.

We have a legal age of majority for a *reason* and if a 13 year old can't sign a contract that is binding, how do we justify giving them the power to permanently sterilize themselves?; 8/15/12, 4:36 PM
Carnifex said...: I had a long treatise about why abortion is murder, but PP just isn't worth my time. He'll continue being obtuse.

As for the writer of the article, all I've got for her is, I second her emotion(and I'm as anti-abortion as it gets). If she really feels this way, give her a gun and let it be retro-active. At least that makes the decision hers and hers alone. Not at all like what she proposes for babies.; 8/15/12, 4:43 PM
jr565 said...: Iwish her mom had aborted her too. Then we wuldn't have had to read her treacle.; 8/15/12, 5:26 PM
furious_a said...: @Allie: Her last sentence is paramount.

In all seriousness, the writer's last sentence renders all those preceding a waste of the reader's time. Put another way, her initial (the first emotion is the most honest) feelings render that last sentence meaningless.

Any positive contributions that I have made are completely offset by what it has cost society to help me overcome the disadvantages and injuries of my childhood to become a functional and contributing member of society.

What a chillingly utilitarian metric of human worth. What a waste of her mother's gift and subsequent sacrifices.; 8/15/12, 7:34 PM
Anonymous said...: This is her last sentence. Of course I disagree that it's meaningless.

"But my attitude is that as long as I am already here, I might as well do all that I can to make the world a better place, to ease the suffering of others, and to experience love and life to its fullest."; 8/15/12, 8:08 PM
Laura said...: Isn't the author relying on two assumptions: that her impoverished mother would have survived a 1960s back-alley coat hanger abortion, or that she would have been able to arrange and afford more expensive care?

RIP Tonya Reaves.; 8/15/12, 8:21 PM
Jen Bradford said...: I liked Norman Geras on this.; 8/15/12, 8:57 PM
Revenant said...: What a chillingly utilitarian metric of human worth.

We don't even have to get into whether or not the argument is "chilling". It fails on its own merits.

The obvious problem that the author misses is that her mother -- the person on whose behalf she is acting -- offered even less to society and cost it even more. Given that her mother's upbringing and experiences were far worse than anything the author claims to have suffered it seems clear that the mother would have been a huge drain on society even if she had had an abortion.

From a utilitarian perspective the correct solution wasn't "letting the pregnant teenager have an abortion". It was "euthanizing the pregnant teenager".

This assumes a utilitarian morality in which there is no moral value to life itself, of course, but that's the moral system the author appears to be using.; 8/15/12, 9:00 PM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: Poor thing. I wish she'd been raised Christian, even nominally so, so that she'd at least been exposed to the idea that every human life has inherent value.; 8/15/12, 9:26 PM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: For example, this:

Any positive contributions that I have made are completely offset by what it has cost society to help me overcome the disadvantages and injuries of my childhood to become a functional and contributing member of society.

If she had been raised in a Christian home or Christian country, it might occur to her that being able to serve her to overcome the injuries of her childhood was of benefit to others. She's like, it was so terrible that other people had to deal with me without it occurring to her that having the opportunity to be of service to those who are in pain is one of the best and truest experiences in human life.; 8/15/12, 9:32 PM
Rusty said...: purplepenguin wrote: If I beleived that abortion actually kills a baby then I'd probably be very emotional about it as well.

Then what is being killed?; 8/15/12, 9:56 PM
Known Unknown said...: Then what is being killed?

A parasitic clump of cells, of course!; 8/15/12, 10:11 PM
Saint Croix said...: I liked Norman Geras on this.

At least he's readable.

"If my mother hadn't married my father I wouldn't exist. Does this mean it would have been wrong on my mother's or father's part to have married someone else?"

Not very logical, but readable.

What's mind-blowing about the argument is not "I might not exist" but rather "my mom might have killed me."

In other words, if your mom marries another man, you wouldn't exist. So? That thought might freak you out if you're 12.

"I was thinking of aborting you" is mind-blowing at any age. People don't even like to hear that they are accidents. But to hear that you were unwanted? Unloved? And almost killed?

It's positively weird how liberals keep spinning abortion into theory while they try to ignore the reality of it.; 8/15/12, 10:56 PM
JAL said...: Exhibit A: She [writer's mother] likely would have stayed in the same socioeconomic strata as her parents and grandparents who were professors. I wish she had aborted me because I love her and want what is best for her.

Exhibit B: An abortion would have been best for me [the writer] because there is no way that my love-starved, trauma-addled mother could have ever put me up for adoption. It was either abortion or raising me herself, and she was in no position to raise a child. She had suffered a traumatic brain injury, witnessed and experienced severe domestic violence, and while she was in grade school she was raped by a stranger and her mother committed suicide.

Color me confused.

The second mother (Exhibit B) is the same as the one above in Exhibit A who allegedly (along with suicided grandmother)came from the allegedly upper socioconomic strata of professors?

Anyone else see a dicsconnect here?

Brain injury? Domestic violence? Childhood rape and a mother who killed herself.

And she thinks not being aborted created her mother's life (and hers).

Time for a moment of sadness.; 8/15/12, 11:12 PM
William said...: I didn't read the article. I'm pretty sure it's a huge downer. The premise certainly indicates that the author is not the kind of person who gets drunk on daffodils.....I'm not really against first trimester abortion. However, I would prefer to live in a society that considers carrying a baby to term a braver decision than having an abortion. I think Sarah Palin deserves more commendation for her children than Gloria Steinem does for her abortions.; 8/15/12, 11:12 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Ahaha, nothing like a good laugh.

How amazingly dishonest.

This sort of thinking shows how abortion is a right reserved for a minority at the expense of everyone else. Now that the author is old enough to have the right it's OK. Also, since she's obviously alive, it's easy to claim to wish not to have been born. I was shocked to see that the author was a woman... well, not really. Was anyone surprised?

I don't care if my parents wanted me or not or if I was a burden or not (or if my great-great-great grandparents didn't want to have my great-great grandparents.) I'm here. I have a son, and he's here, too. Any children he has, well, they will also be here. Abortion isn't about some cells, it's about the future lives of every generation to come.

Abortion rights proponents are right that it's about individual choice. The problem is that we're not just individuals.; 8/15/12, 11:23 PM
Saint Croix said...: I had a weird day at work today. Instead of focusing on our work I got sucked into a debate about prostitution. All the attorneys thought prostitution should be legalized. Men and women, everybody in the room. Except me. And they said, why, it doesn't hurt anybody. And I said, dead babies. Which made them mad. And then we argued some more and I said, well, I think you should have love in your heart when you have sex. And they all laughed at that.

Anyway, now I'm the weirdo at work, I guess.; 8/15/12, 11:50 PM
Revenant said...: And I said, dead babies

That's an odd non-sequitur...; 8/16/12, 2:25 AM
Nora said...: You better don't have children if you are poor. How progressive of Miz Whatshername.

This ninkinpoop put forward a strong case in favor of abortion. I almost wish her mother had aborted her.; 8/16/12, 3:01 AM
DEEBEE said...: The ultimate preen. Criticizing my clan, tribe, gender what have you, to get a second look at my compassion and courage, is old school.g; 8/16/12, 5:02 AM
Rusty said...: PP?; 8/16/12, 6:12 AM
prairie wind said...: ninkinpoop

Since this discussion hinges on dictionaries, it is nincompoop.

It is such a great word that if you use it, you should know the correct spelling and pronunciation. And you did use it correctly.; 8/16/12, 9:33 AM