The Bloody Crossroads of Comedy, Abortion, and Tin-Eared Pro-Lifers

The anti-abortion Web site March Together for Life is appalled by a newspaper column by one Caroline Weber, who wrote a piece (back in 1999!) defending her abortion. Selected snippets, courtesy of March Together for Life:

"I am totally psyched for this abortion!"

"Those pro-life activists made it pretty clear that, unlike me, they actually think abortion is bad and to be avoided. Are they nuts? Abortion is the best!"

"It wasn't until now that I was lucky enough to be pregnant with a child I had no means to support."

"I just know it's going to be the best non-anesthetized invasive uterine surgery ever!"

Tsk-tsks March for Life:

Miss Weber, you have killed your child, which you admit is a baby/human being, intentionally. That does make you an admitted murderer. I'm not going to "condemn you to hell", I'm going to pray for your forgiveness and for the suffering which you will endure when you realize what you have done. Every baby you see from that moment on is going to wake you up to the realization that you killed your child.

March for Life also mentions the source of Weber's testimonial: The Onion, America's Finest News Source.

Duh.

Whole March for Life bit here. Whole Onion story here.

Hat tip to funnyman Ben Schwartz.

Comments

AC | July 11, 2006, 6:37pm | #

So The Onion isn't a serious news source? I was looking forward to my new life jacket.

Clean Hands | July 11, 2006, 6:41pm | #

Some people are really too dumb to be permitted to vote. What's truly apalling, though, is that they're likely to reproduce. :-(

crimethink | July 11, 2006, 6:43pm | #

Let me be the first to note that many pro-lifers are vain, stupid, dishonest ingrates who care more about soothing their own consciences than preventing abortions. I've seen groups that believe praying the Rosary will end abortion, condemn groups that offer counsel and support to help desperate pregnant women choose life, because they don't pray the Rosary. I could go on and on and on...

...but that doesn't mean they're wrong about abortion.

ChicagoTom | July 11, 2006, 6:49pm | #

but that doesn't mean they're wrong about abortion

Or right about it either.

It just means that they have a different set of values than others...which is why the pro-choice movement is so appealing to many. It allows people to make the choice for themselves as they see fit -- as opposed to those who want to make that choice for others and thrust their morals upon strangers.

Eric the .5b | July 11, 2006, 6:50pm | #

Aeire said it best here.

VM | July 11, 2006, 6:51pm | #

Clean Hands:

Sadly, we find zealots on all sides of all issues who would jump at Onion-style articles. Being blinded by zeal is surprisingly close (in terms of Mahalanobis Distance) to "fat, drunk, and stupid".

And they're still wrong about abortion when it comes to deciding for others.

Remember the "Dihydrogen Monoxide" article? Or the "postmodern generator"? Those hilarious examples fit in with this.

crimethink | July 11, 2006, 6:56pm | #

ChicagoTom,

That's the problem with abortion -- a "live and let live" attitude won't cut it if the unborn being destroyed is a person possessing the right to life.

mediageek | July 11, 2006, 7:00pm | #

The blogger posted a followup here:

Ok, it's satire, but the author is still EEEEEEVVVVIIILLLLL

joshua corning | July 11, 2006, 7:01pm | #

Yeah eric becouse not being stupid has been proven to be a good survival stratagy.


NOT

AC | July 11, 2006, 7:05pm | #

mediageek,

The response is about what I would expect from a blogger like that. "Oh, I was in on the joke. I was just jerking your chain!" Uh huh.

Greg | July 11, 2006, 7:05pm | #

as opposed to those who want to make that choice for others and thrust their morals upon strangers.

I am pro-choice, but this is a terrible argument. So if my values include the belief that a certain ethnicity are sub-human, I guess pro-choicers should be OK with my decision to murder them at will.

Angainor | July 11, 2006, 7:06pm | #

OK, so how does this "right to privacy" thing work? If you waive that right by publically announcing you are going to have an abortion (like Ms. Weber), can you be procecuted?

mediageek | July 11, 2006, 7:10pm | #

Are you fucking kidding me?

crimethink | July 11, 2006, 7:14pm | #

Angainor,

Ha! That's certainly a novel idea. But since logic has never been the strong suit of abortion jurisprudence since Roe, I'm sure you'd be laughed out of court.

crimethink | July 11, 2006, 7:17pm | #

Yeah eric becouse not being stupid has been proven to be a good survival stratagy.

Natural selection favors those who reproduce, not necessarily those who survive.

Clean Hands | July 11, 2006, 7:24pm | #

And this is why a welfare state runs counter to the best interests of the species... as it tends to promote the reproductive success of the least able, at the expense of the most able.

B | July 11, 2006, 7:25pm | #

"I want to have an abortion, but my boyfriend and I are having trouble conceiveing".

--Sarah Silverman

Warren | July 11, 2006, 7:51pm | #

Needless to say, a few people wanted to let me know that I was a dolt for thinking that her article was real. As a matter of fact, call me a dolt, because in the beginning I really did think it was real.

... For everthing else, there's MasterCard

highnumber | July 11, 2006, 8:01pm | #

I've got a good abortion anecdote:

The weekend before the 4th of July I stepped out my front door to get the paper off the stoop. Up and down the street in front of every house was a small US flag on a wooden stick. (A realtor had placed them along with a card wishing us a happy 4th.) I walked inside and said to my wife, "Well, it looks like no abortions for us." Without missing a beat, she said excitedly, "We get miniature American flags!"

I think I'll keep her.

Ken Shultz | July 11, 2006, 8:05pm | #

As some of you may know, I lean a little pro-Life, but there are good arguments for women--women that really exist, that is--to go public with having had the procedure. Amy Alkon wrote of this recently.

...I often disagree with Amy Alkon, but I always enjoy reading what she writes.

cicero | July 11, 2006, 8:15pm | #

I love this comment from the comment section of the pro-life web site:

And in your banner, is the sentence "We will end abortion through our unity and the Monthly Call for Life" a reference to a period? Serisouly, I didn't not know that the shedding of my unterine lining was actually a pro-life rally. I'll let my right-wing fallopian tubes have it later.
Kala | 07.07.06 - 6:54 pm | #

crimethink | July 11, 2006, 8:36pm | #

Clean Hands,

Thank heavens for state lotteries. A more efficient tax on stupidity could hardly be devised. I have a coworker who insists that she makes money whenever she buys instant lottery tickets. She also happens to be a compulsive liar, as you might have guessed.

Herrick and His Silly Balls | July 11, 2006, 8:47pm | #

Me pro-choice no doubt up to viability or first trimester maybe beyond always when health risk to mother but not comfortable with Roe v Wade decision it would seem to me that states would have the right to outlaw abortions in cases other than when a woman was raped or her health is in danger, as these are clearly constitutionally protected. Even if it went to states, then pro-choice groups could just fund abortion busses to take women from pro-Life states to get abortion pro-choice states I doubt if people really had to choose pro-life pro-choice that that many states would outlaw early abortions, no more than 10 I'd guess.

MUTT | July 11, 2006, 8:47pm | #

I'd be happy to see mobile abortion trucks, like , say, icecream trucks, rolling thru nieghborhoods on regular routes......they can be followed by trucks offering pre natal health shakes, for all i care. What I need is a jingle for the trucks to play. This is a hell of a lot less offensive than childbirth at gunpoint. mutt

gaijin | July 11, 2006, 9:08pm | #

This is a hell of a lot less offensive than childbirth at gunpoint.

Or conception at gunpoint?

Madog | July 11, 2006, 9:22pm | #

It's a good thing they didn't see that Christ converted to Islam, that would have really upset them!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29540?issue=4227&special=1999

dagny | July 11, 2006, 9:30pm | #

And this is why a welfare state runs counter to the best interests of the species...

Well, it also doesn't help that educated folks seem to be following a trend of going "Ha ha, parenting is for losers!"

Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | July 11, 2006, 9:59pm | #

Greg,

A lot of what is involved in freedom is the creation of an independent moral space that the government, majority coercion, etc. can't touch. It seems to me that questions like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, the "right to die," etc. fall into such an independent moral space in a way that murdering a child or an adult don't.

Akira MacKenzie | July 11, 2006, 10:34pm | #

Christian: "I'll pray for you."

Translation: "Fuck you. I'm too much of a prude to say it out to your face."

dead_elvis | July 12, 2006, 12:42am | #

She's extra stupid for not understanding what makes the article funny- it's the whole idea of someone saying that they are looking forward to something that they go on to describe as completely awful. At the end of her "Satire?" entry she expresses confusion about the "target" of the satire, when, if there were really a target*, it would be people who take abortion casually. That she doesn't recognize when someone is unintentionally helping her with her cause earns her extra stupid points.

*Somehow, I imagine the idea was just to be funny, and not "target" any side in the abortion debate.

joshua corning | July 12, 2006, 12:52am | #

Natural selection favors those who reproduce, not necessarily those who survive.

a biologists definition of survival includes reproduction.

joshua corning | July 12, 2006, 12:54am | #

and what the hell crimethink...i wrote "NOT" so what is it; kill joke day with you today...sheesh

joshua corning | July 12, 2006, 1:09am | #

anyway so everyone can get it...i was pointing out the irony that those who do not belive in darwin are more likely to reproduce then those who do...thus one day becouse of natural selection there will only be those poeple who don't belive in evolution (stupid poeple)

by the way everone has to drink now.

tarran | July 12, 2006, 1:12am | #

Man, tonight it seems to be my lot to spread the word according to Rothbard. :) (I actually am not some Rothbardbot who lives only to quote the guy. In fact I disagree with him on important things like certain aspects of homesteading. I have a personality and people genuinely enjoy my company. Really!)

The proper paradigm is to view the act of abortion not as murder but as the eviction of a trespasser. Strictly speaking, no person has the right to parasitically live off of another. Thus, if a woman decides that she does not want to have some interloper living within her, she is perfectly within her rights to evict him from her womb. In other words, the baby does not own the uterus, to mother does, and she can kick him out whenever she wants.

The fact that the baby cannot survive without the uterus is immaterial.

Now there is a school of thought which states that the mother has the right to expel the fetus, but must not do so in an unnecessarily violent way. In other words, if the baby is viable outside the uterus, carving it into little bits and extracting it one bit at a time counts as murder.

I tend to agree with this school of thought, but recognize that there are holes in that argument.

Now, the actual mechanics of abortions can in fact be immoral. Let us say I invited someone to my house for dinner. However, for some reason I change my mind and want him to leave. Pulling out a gun and shooting him, then dragging the carcass off my property and throwing it in the garbage would not be a moral way to evict my unwanted, and hence trespassing, guest. On the other hand, if I am aware that a giant man-eating lion is waiting just off my property, and I make my guest leave knowing that certain death awaits him, from a strictly libertarian perspective that is not immoral. So the abortion where the baby is cut up, and then extracted is probably not morally OK, but wherein a medicine is used to cause the blastocyst to detach from the uterine wall is.

Of course, from the baby's perspective it is splitting hairs. No matter what, it dies. It will be intersting to see how artifial wombs will alter the equation.

Personally, I think the whole idea is pretty rotten, and just as I would not evict an unwanted guest to certain death, if I were to become pregnant I would refuse to have an abortion on principle. Of course, since I have the wrong sort of plumbing, that's easy enough for me to say.

John in Nashville | July 12, 2006, 2:10am | #

re: March Together for Life

Has Stephen Colbert taken up blogging?

Dave | July 12, 2006, 2:29am | #

Tarran-

That argument is absurd. "The eviction of a tresspasser"? A tresspasser is someone who comes onto your property without your permission, not someone whom you bring to your property in the first place, and certainly not someone whom you bring into being on your property in the first place! You can't carry a sleeping person on to your property and then shoot them for tresspass when they awaken. I generally agree that a person doesn't have a right to live off another, but minor children certainly do have a legal (and in my opinion, moral), right to live off their parents in every legal system of which I'm aware. This isn't parasitism, this is the nature of reproduction. Again, parasites/tresspassers are uninvited guests. In reproduction, these guests are more than invited by the host, they are created by them (yes, you can argue that rape is different). If Rothbard's argument (I'm relying on your statement as I'm not well versed in his writings) were valid, dependents of any age should be able to be killed by their guardians.

That being said, I'm pro-choice to a point. I have zero problem with the abortion of a zygote, I have a huge problem with partial-birth abortion. Exactly where in between the line is drawn, I'm not entirely sure. I believe that abortion law is currently more or less where it should be. It's safe to say this is a mainstream view.
I say this first because Greg is making an important point that seems to be ignored by a lot of the pro-choice side. The "imposing your values" argument seems to require a willfull ignorance of where the other side is coming from. For example: I doubt anybody on this board was opposed to Jeffrey Dahmer's conviction on the grounds that it imposed our "don't kill innocent people" values on him. Who here frets that stopping a murder is an "imposition of values"? Well to the pro-life side, abortion no different than those murders. You can disagree with this point (as I do), but I think you'd agree that to that perspective, it's pretty
silly to counter-argue "you're imposing your values".
I believe this is fundamentally different than things like assisted suicide or gay marriage, which are about what you do with your own life, not the muder of others. Even from a religious fundamentalist perspective, the "sinner"'s actions are ultimately his to explain to God in cases of suicide or homosexuality. If you kill someone, you alter that equation. In this way, I don't believe that all religiously motivated actions fall into this same special category.
The imposition of one's own personal values and preferences through law or violence is something I lament virtually every time I watch the news, and definitely every time I read this blog, but the pro-life argument is not on the same level as oppressive zoning regulations or banning Marilyn Manson.

Herrick and His Balls | July 12, 2006, 3:13am | #

I am also troubled (whatever that means) by using abortion simply as a means of birth control, but I would be very hesitant to make abortion illegal (with the normal exceptions) because I'm pretty scared of government solutions to complex problems.

It's kind of like CEO pay. Are a lot of big company CEO's way overpayed to the detriment of their company's shareholders because of good old boys on the Board? Of course. Would a government attempt to fix the problem create more harm than good? Of course.

Come to think of it, that logic can be applied to a lot of government regulations.

Mendelism | July 12, 2006, 4:14am | #

Dave,

Thanks for adding some clarity. Seems like every "reasoned debate" over abortion comes down to people talking past that point. Now, let's see if I can muddy the waters again.

I think the "imposing your values" argument contains a subtlety that is usually only hinted at. That is, the belief that "life begins at conception", or more specifically that a zygote or embryo is a person (the type of thing that can be murdered) is a religious view. I call it a "religious" belief whether or not that belief comes from the teachings of any particular religion, or is just a solitary article of faith. It's arbitrary, and doesn't seem to have any solid reasoning behind it. I don't think I've heard a compelling answer to the question, "why does personhood begin at conception, rather than at some other time?".

Without getting into the difficult problem of how to rationally determine when personhood does begin (or, even more fun, where human rights come from), I'll just offer that "you're imposing your values" could just translate to "you're telling me that I'm committing murder, without giving me anything but your faith to convince me that this fetus is the type of thing that is capable of being murdered". So it's really just a lazy way of contradicting the core pro-life argument.

Mendelism | July 12, 2006, 5:23am | #

Since I'm still awake, I'll say that the "fun" problem of determining why people have rights, such as the right not to be murdered, is where the abortion debate really needs to start. If you say that we're endowed with rights by our "Creator", then you have to convince me that we have a "Creator", and well, good luck. Utilitarian ethics doesn't really require "rights", but murder of a self-aware human being for no reason (or for its convenience) would be considered unethical in any circumstances by mainstream utilitarians, and these kinds of general rules of thumb could be refered to as weak utilitarian "rights". Of course, there are non-utilitarian arguments for natural rights that don't rely on a belief in a divine creator, but nobody pays attention to these except atheists and libertarians;).

So, I think the two sides of the abortion debate are fundamentally different in terms of ethical framework. There seems to be little or no justification for restricting abortion on utilitarian grounds in most cases, since an embryo or early-term fetus, while no doubt a living being of the species homo sapiens, has no capacity for consciousness or pain. On the other hand, a fetus may have natural rights. Being the lazy non-philosophy major that I am, I'm not sure how that would work in, say, Lockean ethics, but an easy way to justify it would be, "God said so".

I'd bet dollars to donuts that there is a strong correlation between one's ethical framework and one's position on abortion. Problem is, most people can't really articulate what their ethical framework is. I think you've got some (socially liberal, non-religious) folks that take a utilitarian philosophy for granted, and some (traditional, church-going) folks that take a natural rights philosophy for granted. And since they can't recognize these very deep differences between them in terms of how they determine right from wrong, they will always talk past each other.

Dave | July 12, 2006, 6:03am | #

Mendelism-

I am curious as to whether or not there are people in opposition to abortion at all stages who are not coming from a religious perspective. Do you have to be religious to oppose abortion 1 day after conception? I don't know. I can't think of any public movement to that effect which is not religious-based, and I certainly would challenge anyone to explain the difference between that and the far worse cell-killing act of having my tonsils out. Is the fact that the blastocyst has it's own DNA code separate from the mother a good enough reason? Do we then ban the removal of cancerous moles which have mutated DNA, and consist of far more cells, and are far more developed than the blastocyst? Or does the blastocyst's mere potential to grow into something that can eventually develop into a human make the difference? Is male masturbation therefore murder on a scale millions of times worse? Or does the bible draw a distinction between haploid and diploid chromosomes? I wasn't aware that it got so specific, but I suppose if you're going to argue with the bible as your basis, you either have to find it in there or make it up.

I'm just being argumentative for fun at this point, obviously. A non-religious, though rather narrow, argument could be made that killing humans is wrong, and a blastocyst is a human in its early stages of development, therefore wrong. This of course leads us to the ultimate question with abortion. If the blastocyst/zygote/fetus is not a human, but we all know it becomes a human, when does that happen? And there we all get stuck.

biologist | July 12, 2006, 7:02am | #

"Natural selection favors those who reproduce, not necessarily those who survive." [joshua quoting someone else]

"a biologists definition of survival includes reproduction."

Comment by: joshua corning at July 12, 2006 12:52 AM

no, it doesn't.

Sandy | July 12, 2006, 7:15am | #

I especially love how this guy "Pete" is convinced that there are many "pro-aborts" that think like the Ms. Weber he still seems convinced is a real person. But pro-abusers (after all, an abused baby is better than one that was never born, if we're going to play silly name games) are soooo motivated by selfless morality that it would be mean of me to point out that Pete is the poster boy for feminist arguments about men making decisions for women on abortion.

Except that Pete pretty much has done more for abortion rights than NOW this year. Way to go, Pete! You da man.

the other Mark | July 12, 2006, 8:43am | #

Someone give me the definitive answer on when a fetus becomes a person, and thus when it becomes impolite to stab it and vacuum it out. My opinion waffles between conception and when it starts to move. Anyone else?

stuart | July 12, 2006, 9:15am | #

Dave, I oppose abortion for non-religious reasons.

From a strictly Darwinian viewpoint, it seems that a parent should be able to kill their offspring whenever they choose, but killing a 16 year old child seems a little late (although as the parent of teenagers it is frequently a tempting idea :-).

If you move past Darwin, we are stuck with defining personhood. One of the best rules seems to be when the creature has a nervous system and can feel pain. Unfortunately, I not want to become a vegetarian. How about the point of self awareness? All mammals have some minimal level of self awareness, and again I don't want to become a vegetarian. (If you argue that mammals do not have self awareness, then you must argue that babies under 3 months do not either). other Mark, moving would seem to require vegetarianism as well.

A baby being able to laugh or talk is a defensible point to define personhood, but we are hard-wired to like babies, or at least not want to kill them. Anybody that could kill a baby after birth is defective and should be removed from society. Yes, the hardwiring does not include the children of a different tribe or a mates children from another parent, but that is a side issue.

Cell differentiation seems silly, what is the moral value of differentiation?

So what is left? Fertilization or implantation are the most defensible points I've found. Prior to those, as well as the tonsillectomy argument, are fun rhetorical points, but not useful for real discussion.

Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | July 12, 2006, 9:23am | #

stuart,

Fertilization or implantation are the most defensible points I've found.

Why?

the other Mark | July 12, 2006, 9:33am | #

moving would seem to require vegetarianism as well.

No, because animals are not people. It's a-OK to kill them. The question is, "When is a fetus a person?" Not "Can I kill things that share any common traits with humans?"

stuart | July 12, 2006, 9:34am | #

To steal from Dave "... a blastocyst is a human in its early stages of development..."

Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | July 12, 2006, 9:38am | #

stuart,

That's not an explanation, it is a claim.

stuart | July 12, 2006, 9:40am | #

other Mark,

So it would be okay to kill a Neanderthal or an alien from outer space?

Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | July 12, 2006, 9:44am | #

stuart,

Let's be blunt about this; you can't present us with any objective reason to accept your assertion. Your position is either based on a philosophical or a religious perspective in other words. And that is a pretty good reason by itself to leave the issue up to individual conscience.

Garth | July 12, 2006, 9:49am | #

I take an ethical approach. It is not ethical to kill a human being. It is unknown at what stage a fetus is a human being but as it is unethical once it is born it is just slightly less unethical the day before birth and even less unethical the week, then month, then three months, etc.

The most ethical choice on this front is to abstain from sex, a little less ethical is sex with birth control, then the rythm method, then pulling out at the last second, then the morning after pill, then etc etc etc

It's up to the mother (and father to a smaller extent) how unethical she wants to be. That is all. Up until the time the critter can vote, leave the state out of it.

stuart | July 12, 2006, 9:56am | #

PL, of course I was giving a philosophical argument. In discussions of this type, what other kind of argument is there? Dave's question was about religious arguments, as a non-believer I addressed his question.

other Mark requested a stab at defining the point of personhood, I gave one from a non-religious viewpoint.

You guys are going to get me fired, I will check in at lunch.

the other Mark | July 12, 2006, 9:57am | #

Neanderthal: not an animal, so you shouldn't kill one unless you have to. Keep that in mind next time you encounter one.

Alien from outer space: depends on if he's leveling cities in his war-walker.

Your position is either based on a philosophical or a religious perspective in other words. And that is a pretty good reason by itself to leave the issue up to individual conscience.

I may sound stupider than usual here, but don't the reasons for prohibitions on murder and everything else boil down to religious or philosophical grounds?

Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | July 12, 2006, 9:58am | #

Garth,

It is not ethical to kill a human being.

Ever? :)

Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | July 12, 2006, 10:05am | #

the other mark,

I may sound stupider than usual here, but don't the reasons for prohibitions on murder and everything else boil down to religious or philosophical grounds?

No because the will of the sentient individual makes for an objective standard. This even works for the comatose, etc. since they tend to leave some notion of their will.

hale | July 12, 2006, 10:26am | #

Anybody that could kill a baby after birth is defective and should be removed from society.

Personally, nothing makes me homicidal faster than a wailing baby. For this and other reasons, I'm pretty sure I'm actually a high-functioning sociopath. The value of law as a deterrent is that could doesn't have to mean will.

P Brooks | July 12, 2006, 10:49am | #

It pleases me to see rationality and restraint in this thread. The issue is painfully complex, and the grey area, in my mind, is large.

that is all

mediageek | July 12, 2006, 11:10am | #

"From a strictly Darwinian viewpoint, it seems that a parent should be able to kill their offspring whenever they choose, but killing a 16 year old child seems a little late (although as the parent of teenagers it is frequently a tempting idea :-)."

Hey, it worked for the Puritans.

Garth | July 12, 2006, 11:13am | #

Phil... Lip....

O.K. Self defense or in the defense of others. Otherwise, no. (and yes, I oppose the death penalty

Chris | July 12, 2006, 12:05pm | #

Like spontaneous human combustion, mistaking the Onion for a real newspaper happens all the time; it just isn't widely reported.

I recall that a few years ago, a newspaper based in Beijing ran a story in which they used the Onion as a source; it had something to do with Congress threatening to leave DC unless taxpayers built them a new Capitol, a spoof of pro sports owners demanding corporate welfare for new ballparks.

stuart | July 12, 2006, 12:32pm | #

No because the will of the sentient individual makes for an objective standard.

PL, the last time I looked the meanings of both "will" and "sentient" were under intense philosophical debate. From a scientific viewpoint, Damasio sheds some light on them in the The Feeling of What Happens.

Scr0d | July 12, 2006, 12:49pm | #

No, because animals are not people. It's a-OK to kill them.

The other Mark: No it isn't. Despite the fact that you don't realize it or understand why.

Stuart: I liked your post. I would posit that any basic combination of sense of pain and basic self-awareness means you shouldn't kill something, animal or baby. I'm also not sure if you were serious with your reason for disregarding your later cutoff points, but go have a salad. :)

stuart | July 12, 2006, 12:59pm | #

Scr0d, thanks.

Being a meat eater is in my genes. :-) I'll become a vegetarian when they start growing steaks in vats. I'm sure Ron Bailey can tell us if this is happening soon.

nml | July 12, 2006, 1:00pm | #

It's really immaterial if abortion is moral or not.
Women will have abortions safe or otherwise as long as they are "punished" by society for having children that they cannot support.
I'm not saying that women are intentionally punished but our society doesn't fully support the "value" of children.
There isn't great childcare available in workplaces and colleges (some but not prevelant). There's distinct negative feelings toward society paying for paid time off in pregnancy and after birth. (welfare isn't a fun system).
There's negatives in dating/marriage market-did anyone seek out to marry a women with children/a child on the basis she would be a good mother? Seriously, are men selfish on this issue?

It's also extremely frightening to contemplate pregnancy/labor/child raising alone.
Adoption options are not terribly attractive either. Bonds that are common in pregnancy may be worse than abortion guilt. (Most women don't feel guilty in fact they feel relieved)

Basically I'm not defending abortion -I'm explaining that it doesn't matter if you think women that abort are selfish or not. The fine line between self-preservation and selfishness applies also to children with birth defects.
I would not care if you or the law called it murder-I'm still going to find a way to get that abortion (while being extremely lucky that it never happened to me) for a fetus with birth defects.

Call it murder, restrict birth control,chemical abortions,surgical abortion-that's not going to change the number of abortions.
Draconian laws may prevent abortion among the poor-perhaps-more likely underground abortions will still be widely available. It's actually not a terribly difficult medical procedure.

The Wine Commonsewer | July 12, 2006, 1:14pm | #

Maybe I'm a little sappy, I feel kind of bad when I kill rattlesnakes and drown the rats that turn up in my humane traps. Just yesterday I told a rat that I was sorry his last day on the planet was such a shitty one, spent in a trap. Then I drowned him and it was over in 30 seconds. Yes, I spoke out loud.

When you feed your son in the high chair it becomes ever so clear in your mind that this living breathing human being with sparkling blue eyes and a ready grin is exactly what you are snuffing when you drive on over to Abortions Are Us at the local strip mall.

I realize that's just my own incorrect opinion (no, man, it's just a potential not a person) and there ain't hardly anyone here who agrees with that.

the other Mark | July 12, 2006, 1:26pm | #

I would posit that any basic combination of sense of pain and basic self-awareness means you shouldn't kill something,

Append "without a good reason" to the end of that. A "good reason" depends on what the animal is - "it's delicious" is a good enough reason to shoot a deer, but to kill a person needs something along the lines of "he's about to kill me and my family". I predict that you'll disagree.

I do agree that you shouldn't go around killing pointlessly or cruelly. I can't even bring myself to shoot the adorable Bambis most of the time.

scr0d | July 12, 2006, 1:34pm | #

most of the time.

:p

Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | July 12, 2006, 1:51pm | #

stuart,

It is a better standard than yours.

nml | July 12, 2006, 2:52pm | #

I realize that's just my own incorrect opinion (no, man, it's just a potential not a person) and there ain't hardly anyone here who agrees with that.

Comment by: The Wine Commonsewer at July 12, 2006 01:14 PM

but to kill a person needs something along the lines of "he's about to kill me and my family". I predict that you'll disagree.Comment by: the other Mark at July 12, 2006 01:26 PM

I don't exactly disagree. I disagree on the way Pro-Lifers want to turn a social problem into a moral problem. Or want to enforce their standards by laws.
Most abortions could prevented by social programs.
Extensive sex-ed, free contraceptives with free doctor's appointments and no parental notifications. Programs for women with children. Industrialized countries with that type of service show much lower abortions.

My problem with these abortion threads is that no one wants to discuss this. I don't want that much of a socialized country and most libertarians do not either but you'd need to choose.
Pretty much put your money into this stuff or quit complaining about choices that other people make.

The Wine Commonsewer | July 12, 2006, 3:54pm | #

NML, Planned Parenthood. It's free. It's confidential. It's tax supported. Right up your alley.

El Christador | July 12, 2006, 6:20pm | #

There seems to be this perception that at some point in its from embryo to fetus to baby the thing acquires a "right to life".

What is the logic behind that?

And isn't it a simple matter to settle exactly when it occurs anyway? You just take a look and when you see this "right" hanging around -- it looks sort of like a pink cloud of fog, kind of shimmery -- that's when it's no longer moral to kill the thing.

MUTT | July 12, 2006, 8:35pm | #

So, no idea from you rocket scientists for a jingle my abortion trucks can play?
Nope: birth at gunpoint is no better than conception at gunpoint. Dont like abortion? How about DeSoto hubcaps full of crack in exchange for vasectomies & ligations? Or scholarships to trade schools? (you know, those places where people learn how to actually do useful things, things they can support themselves on?
unlike, say degrees in English? )
Mutt, seen em born, seen em aborted. The world continues on its hell spiral nae'th'less......

Stevo Darkly | July 12, 2006, 9:22pm | #

So, no idea from you rocket scientists for a jingle my abortion trucks can play?

"Don't Fear the Reaper" by Blue Oyster Cult.

ORourke | July 12, 2006, 11:37pm | #

All of the abortion debate, pro and con, seems centered on unwanted but perfectly healthy pregnancies. What about those fetuses who aren't healthy but don't miscarry? There are the chromosomal defects, of which Downs Syndrome seems to be the mildest, the spinal bifida cases that range from mild (probably won't walk) to horrendous (encephaly), the cases where limbs don't develop, cojoined twins, hermaphroditic condition...there are a lot of things that can go wrong between conception and birth. Whenever I see this debate, it appears to be about the innocent rape victim or the irresponsible sexual act, but never about the happily married couple with the planned, much wanted pregnancy that went wrong. I wouldn't advocate abortion for a child missing a big toe, but I find it cruel and heartless to force a woman to carry to term a child that will never develop a brain, or to give birth to a trisomy 18 or 13 child who will endure a year or two of nothing but suffering before dying. At what point is a family allowed to decide what they can endure emotionally, mentally, physically, and financially?