All that pink can't hide my niece's muscular physique.
Friday, March 31, 2006
The Blindness of the Pro-Choice Movement
Via Feministe, I've forcibly digested this article by a volunteer of New York City's Haven Coalition. Haven Coalition members house pregnant women who come to New York City seeking late-term abortions. The author, Lynn Harris (a professional writer who is married to a rabbi), convinces me over and over again that certain pro-choice people have a huge blindspot when looking at certain aspects of reality.
Lynn begins by noting,
How ridiculous is this? Lynn is shocked that a pregnant woman is smoking, presumably because she's aware that smoking can cause damage to the unborn child. Yet Lynn isn't shocked that this same woman will do something which will intentionally kill the same unborn child tomorrow. Smoking while pregnant is bad because it could hurt the unborn child. Aborting children is good even though it kills the unborn child. The pro-choice position looks better every day, huh?
I also wonder if Lynn looks down on pregnant women who are planning on giving birth yet choose to smoke during pregnancy.
Lynn goes on to note how her and her husband basically ignore what their scripture has to about when abortion should be allowed and instead base their position on a very broad definition of "health." She then explains why her and her husband are members of the Haven Coalition.
How about the unborn child? Are they not in danger? Doesn't the fact that they are about to be killed mean the unborn are in danger? Are you kidding me, Lynn? How sad is it that Lynn is so blind that she can't see how her actions are violations of the exact commandments she's purporting to follow.
How about providing some justice to the unborn? How about giving them "their due" by letting them live (all of 3 months) til their due date?
Abortion has become more than just a right to many pro-choice people. It is no longer enough for women to just have the option of having an abortion if they have the money to pay for it. Women now should be able to have their abortion paid for and have a doctor in every hometown who will be willing to perform one because being able to have an abortion when and how you like has somehow become a matter of social and economic justice. Imagine if the NRA said that gun ownership was no longer a matter of rights but of social and economic justice where even poor people should be allowed to have guns they can't afford and that it's a travesty that only such-and-such a percentage of counties have a place where guns are sold.
Also notice how there is absolutely no thought that maybe, just maybe, the unborn child in our present times could be considered something akin to the widow or the orphan in Jewish scripture.
Quietly murmuring, "we can help you" is harassing someone? Please. Should Lynn's husband really be in a rage because someone offers to help a poor woman who is pregnant with a 20+ week old unborn child bring that child to term? Is that really "rage-worthy?" I'm starting to wonder if Rabbi Harris has some anger issues.
It's so viscerally clear to me that Haven and its members are so blind to reality that they can't see where society's most vulnerable really are. Even when those who are most vulnerable cause the visible physical protrudement of their mothers' bellies in homes of Haven's members.
Make sure you look at the last paragraph where Lynn seems to compare abortion to redemption.
Lynn begins by noting,
"When she told me she was stepping out for a smoke, I was briefly, mildly shocked: I mean, this girl is 21 weeks pregnant. But just as quickly, I remembered: After tomorrow, she won't be."
How ridiculous is this? Lynn is shocked that a pregnant woman is smoking, presumably because she's aware that smoking can cause damage to the unborn child. Yet Lynn isn't shocked that this same woman will do something which will intentionally kill the same unborn child tomorrow. Smoking while pregnant is bad because it could hurt the unborn child. Aborting children is good even though it kills the unborn child. The pro-choice position looks better every day, huh?
I also wonder if Lynn looks down on pregnant women who are planning on giving birth yet choose to smoke during pregnancy.
Lynn goes on to note how her and her husband basically ignore what their scripture has to about when abortion should be allowed and instead base their position on a very broad definition of "health." She then explains why her and her husband are members of the Haven Coalition.
What moves us, what made us both instantly say yes when a friend emailed us about becoming Haven hosts, are the Jewish commandments to help and protect our neighbor, to shelter someone who is in—again, liberally interpreted—danger.
How about the unborn child? Are they not in danger? Doesn't the fact that they are about to be killed mean the unborn are in danger? Are you kidding me, Lynn? How sad is it that Lynn is so blind that she can't see how her actions are violations of the exact commandments she's purporting to follow.
And the notion of tzedakah, which is not an act of magnanimous charity—"Here, pitiable one, make yourself comfortable in my fabulous Brooklyn home!"—but one of justice: giving the poor their due.
How about providing some justice to the unborn? How about giving them "their due" by letting them live (all of 3 months) til their due date?
Access to abortion—access, not just the in-principle right—is a fundamental matter of social and economic justice. The word "choice" doesn't even begin to cover it. We, the Jews, are the people commanded to take care of the widow and the orphan.
Abortion has become more than just a right to many pro-choice people. It is no longer enough for women to just have the option of having an abortion if they have the money to pay for it. Women now should be able to have their abortion paid for and have a doctor in every hometown who will be willing to perform one because being able to have an abortion when and how you like has somehow become a matter of social and economic justice. Imagine if the NRA said that gun ownership was no longer a matter of rights but of social and economic justice where even poor people should be allowed to have guns they can't afford and that it's a travesty that only such-and-such a percentage of counties have a place where guns are sold.
Also notice how there is absolutely no thought that maybe, just maybe, the unborn child in our present times could be considered something akin to the widow or the orphan in Jewish scripture.
When David delivers a Haven guest to the clinic in the morning, there's almost always a protester or two, often male, usually the quiet, murmuring, "If you're pregnant we can help you" type. David always warns the patients ahead of time that they'll probably be there, tries to get between them and the patient, and then calls me in a rage from his cell when he leaves. The strong patients sass back, the resolute ones stare straight ahead, the frightened ones burst into tears—and yet not one wavers in her determination to do what's right for her. So thanks, harassing guy, that was useful for everyone.
Quietly murmuring, "we can help you" is harassing someone? Please. Should Lynn's husband really be in a rage because someone offers to help a poor woman who is pregnant with a 20+ week old unborn child bring that child to term? Is that really "rage-worthy?" I'm starting to wonder if Rabbi Harris has some anger issues.
It's so viscerally clear to both of us that Haven, and working to protect reproductive freedom, is about taking care of society's most vulnerable.
It's so viscerally clear to me that Haven and its members are so blind to reality that they can't see where society's most vulnerable really are. Even when those who are most vulnerable cause the visible physical protrudement of their mothers' bellies in homes of Haven's members.
Make sure you look at the last paragraph where Lynn seems to compare abortion to redemption.
Food and Water
Rev. Robert Johansen has a long article about the causes behind Terri Schiavo's death. Some excerpts:
"Those fighting to save Terri's life did not recognize what they were up against and were unprepared for its demands until it was too late. The shift in our culture that made her death possible began long before March 31, 2005, and the elements of that shift need to be identified if we are to learn from what happened.....
Over and over on the various cable news programs and in the print media, I saw the issue framed as: Under what circumstances should life be "prolonged"? This word is telling: Generally speaking, the word "prolong" does not have a positive connotation. We do not speak of "prolonging" good things, we speak rather of unpleasant things as being "prolonged." The implication, reinforced every time the word was used, was that Terri's life was something bad or unpleasant that ought to be over.....
The idea that continued human life now requires justification is also evident in the currents of legal thought dominant among those involved in end-of-life issues. They have borrowed a page from the pro-abortion movement's handbook and have begun to redefine legal personhood so as to leave the profoundly disabled outside its boundaries. Dr. Ronald Cranford, a leading bioethicist and the chief medical witness appearing on behalf of Michael Schiavo, has testified that patients in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS), as well as the profoundly disabled, lack "personhood" and consequently have no constitutional rights.....
In the past, medicine operated under a presumption that food and water simply constituted the basic minimum of care offered to a patient, as a necessity of sustaining life. Now an alternative presumption applies, one based on a redefinition of the boundaries of what constitutes medical "treatment." Under the new definition, food and water, because they contribute to the patient's overall well-being and recovery, now can be considered treatment.....
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Life Links 3/30/06
Jay Nordlinger discusses and links to a variety of information from two individuals who discuss how the Chinese government is harvesting the organs of living members of the Falun Gong sect.
Radio host Pat Campbell interviews Michael Schiavo and Father Frank Pavone. HT: Prolife Blogs
First, it's a pro-choice Superhero killing prolifers, now the Planned Parenthood Golden Gate is offering a chance to win a free iPod for every appointment and the ability to get free movie tickets if you recommend them to a friend and they go in.
Radio host Pat Campbell interviews Michael Schiavo and Father Frank Pavone. HT: Prolife Blogs
First, it's a pro-choice Superhero killing prolifers, now the Planned Parenthood Golden Gate is offering a chance to win a free iPod for every appointment and the ability to get free movie tickets if you recommend them to a friend and they go in.
Going after Ramesh
Plenty of bloggers are pre-emptively going after Ramesh Ponnuru and his upcoming book, The Party of Death.
What's interesting is the complete and utter weakness of their lame attacks. They claim that Ramesh's book was edited by Red State's Ben Domenech, who recently resigned from his Washington Post blog after it was discovered that he plagiarized the work of others for a variety of articles.
The question is: What does Domenech's past plagiarism have do with Ramesh's book (which they haven't read) and Ramesh (who was unaware of Domenech's past plagiarism)? Should Ramesh and his book take the fall because Domenech plagiarized? Is Ramesh's book going to be poor and filled with thoughtless arguments simply because Domenech may have edited it?
They also don't like Ramesh's publisher and think that "Party of Death" refers to Democrats.
Ramesh has responded to one of the pro-choice bloggers.
What's interesting is the complete and utter weakness of their lame attacks. They claim that Ramesh's book was edited by Red State's Ben Domenech, who recently resigned from his Washington Post blog after it was discovered that he plagiarized the work of others for a variety of articles.
The question is: What does Domenech's past plagiarism have do with Ramesh's book (which they haven't read) and Ramesh (who was unaware of Domenech's past plagiarism)? Should Ramesh and his book take the fall because Domenech plagiarized? Is Ramesh's book going to be poor and filled with thoughtless arguments simply because Domenech may have edited it?
They also don't like Ramesh's publisher and think that "Party of Death" refers to Democrats.
Ramesh has responded to one of the pro-choice bloggers.
"I explain in the book what I mean and don't mean by the title phrase. It doesn't mean "the Democrats," although the book is tough on the Democrats. (I didn't write the flap copy.) It certainly doesn't mean that Democrats like to kill people...."
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Devils Indeed
Growing up as a University of Michigan basketball fan in the days of the Fab Five, I had a strong distaste for the Duke basketball team. I just couldn't stand Bobby Hurley and Grant Hill. However, those former Blue Devils are angels compared to the current lineup of Duke's lacrosse team.
Duke University has suspended the lacrosse team's games after the team's captains hosted a party which included underage drinking and "private party dancers."
What's more disturbing is that one of the dancers has accused three of the lacrosse team members of rape. It has also been reported that neighbors heard racial slurs being targeted at the dancers (who are Black). The lacrosse team is standing together, refusing to implicate who the alleged rapists may have been and 46 of the players recently submitted DNA samples to the police.
The house where the incident occurred was recently purchased by the university in the hopes of selling it to individuals who wouldn't rent it out.
According to the Durham County District Attorney, "My reading of the report of the emergency room nurse would indicate that some type of sexual assault did in fact take place."
HT: SmartBlkWoman
Duke University has suspended the lacrosse team's games after the team's captains hosted a party which included underage drinking and "private party dancers."
What's more disturbing is that one of the dancers has accused three of the lacrosse team members of rape. It has also been reported that neighbors heard racial slurs being targeted at the dancers (who are Black). The lacrosse team is standing together, refusing to implicate who the alleged rapists may have been and 46 of the players recently submitted DNA samples to the police.
The house where the incident occurred was recently purchased by the university in the hopes of selling it to individuals who wouldn't rent it out.
According to the Durham County District Attorney, "My reading of the report of the emergency room nurse would indicate that some type of sexual assault did in fact take place."
HT: SmartBlkWoman
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Saving your pet or a stranger's baby?
I wonder how Ron Bailey would respond to the individuals at the ChildFree Hardcore Livejournal Community who agree (language warning) that they'd save their pet before saving a stranger's baby. One individual even notes that he/she would save his/her pet hermit crabs before saving "some stranger's dumb kid."
I like my cats but these people are certifiable.
For some reason, babycenter.com allows the original poster of the CFH post to host a bulletin board for women who've had abortions or are thinking of having an abortion.
I like my cats but these people are certifiable.
For some reason, babycenter.com allows the original poster of the CFH post to host a bulletin board for women who've had abortions or are thinking of having an abortion.
Ultrasounds are bad and giving women considering abortion the option of seeing them is even worse
Ema at The Well-Timed Period is rather miffed that Michigan's pro-choice governor, Jennifer Granholm, signed legislation which will give women considering an abortion the option of viewing on ultrasound if their abortion provider performs an ultrasound.
I think part of Ema's problem with the bill is that she thinks that HB 4446 does more than it actually does. This is partially the fault of the Michigan web site she links to which doesn't differentiate between Michigan's original informed consent bill and HB 4446 (which adds unto the informed consent bill) .
Another part of her problem seems to be with the act of performing an ultrasound. She's calls performing an ultrasound a "politically-indicated test" even though the National Abortion Federation notes that for first trimester surgical abortions:
"Ultrasonography, using a consistent and published table of fetalmeasurements can be of clinical value in verifying intra-uterine pregnancy and gestational age"
and says that for second trimester abortions,
"Gestational age must be verified by ultrasonography, using a consistent and published table of fetal measurements, prior to the termination of a pregnancy clinically estimated to be more than 14 weeks LMP."
For some reason, Ema thinks that giving women the option of viewing their ultrasound (if their abortion provider happens to performs one) has the "potential to negatively impact the medical care of female patients of reproductive age."
Ema also goes on to attack Gilda Jacobs, one of the most pro-choice legislators in Michigan.
What is it that some pro-choicers fear about women having the option of viewing their ultrasound? I can't fathom how a rational pro-choice person thinks that giving women the choice of whether or not to view their ultrasound is so bad.
I think part of Ema's problem with the bill is that she thinks that HB 4446 does more than it actually does. This is partially the fault of the Michigan web site she links to which doesn't differentiate between Michigan's original informed consent bill and HB 4446 (which adds unto the informed consent bill) .
Another part of her problem seems to be with the act of performing an ultrasound. She's calls performing an ultrasound a "politically-indicated test" even though the National Abortion Federation notes that for first trimester surgical abortions:
"Ultrasonography, using a consistent and published table of fetalmeasurements can be of clinical value in verifying intra-uterine pregnancy and gestational age"
and says that for second trimester abortions,
"Gestational age must be verified by ultrasonography, using a consistent and published table of fetal measurements, prior to the termination of a pregnancy clinically estimated to be more than 14 weeks LMP."
For some reason, Ema thinks that giving women the option of viewing their ultrasound (if their abortion provider happens to performs one) has the "potential to negatively impact the medical care of female patients of reproductive age."
Ema also goes on to attack Gilda Jacobs, one of the most pro-choice legislators in Michigan.
What is it that some pro-choicers fear about women having the option of viewing their ultrasound? I can't fathom how a rational pro-choice person thinks that giving women the choice of whether or not to view their ultrasound is so bad.
Life Links 3/28/06
Wesley Smith notes that the U.S. isn't falling behind in stem cell research. In fact, U.S. scientists published 42% of the total articles on stem cell research between 2000 and 2004.
Hwang Woo -Suk definitely knew how to work the media. "Here's my credit card. Go have some drinks."
Jim Sollisch, who is pro-choice and formerly worked at an abortion clinic counseling men, writes in the Christian Science Monitor that, "What I heard from many of them was that they were grieving. Some called it a death. Some called it a loss. Only a tiny percentage treated it like a medical procedure.
Hwang Woo -Suk definitely knew how to work the media. "Here's my credit card. Go have some drinks."
Jim Sollisch, who is pro-choice and formerly worked at an abortion clinic counseling men, writes in the Christian Science Monitor that, "What I heard from many of them was that they were grieving. Some called it a death. Some called it a loss. Only a tiny percentage treated it like a medical procedure.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Marriage and Race
Here's a couple of interesting articles about marriage and race.
Marriage is for White People
Marriage: A social justice issue
Marriage is for White People
Marriage: A social justice issue
Controlling Terri
On Sunday, my wife and I watched the majority of Matt Lauer's interview with Michael Schiavo's interview on Dateline regarding the life and death of Terri Schiavo.
Unfortunately, Matt only had a couple of semi-tough questions for Michael and didn't follow up with tough questions when Michael said a number of things that didn't make sense to me. I am grateful though that Lauer shot Schiavo down when Michael tried to play that lame "they'd cut Terri's arms and legs off" card. It showed that Matt did at least a little homework. One moment that especially stuck out to me was right before Michael said, "we (he and Bobby Schindler) hate each other," he was about to say "I hate him (Bobby)" but caught himself and only mouthed the words.
Towards the end of the interview, after Michael talked about why he wouldn't let Terri's family into the room when she died and they showed Terri's tombstone ("I kept my promise"), my wife made what I think was a dead-on comment. She said something like, "It was all about control."
After a long court struggle with her parents filled with numerous accusations from all parties and numerous liters of bad blood being spilled, where the control of Terri's life and treatment were constantly up in the air, Michael Schiavo finally had control of a number of things at the end of Terri's life and after her death. And he took full control of them. He had control over who would be with Terri when she died. He had control over when and where Terri's remains would be buried and if he'd let the Schindlers attend the funeral. He had control over what would be written on her tombstone. Michael could finally take control and the Schindler's didn't have any say and after the long and painful legal struggle where he wasn't always in full control, I think he cherished that control.
He cherished being able to decide that he would be alone with Terri when she died. He cherished the idea that he could decide that the Schindlers wouldn't know about Terri's funeral. He cherished being able to stick it to the Schindlers on Terri's tombstone.
Terri's death was never about Terri's supposed wish. Terri's death and the long struggle over it was about Michael having control, being allowed to "win" and getting what he thought was best.
Unfortunately, Matt only had a couple of semi-tough questions for Michael and didn't follow up with tough questions when Michael said a number of things that didn't make sense to me. I am grateful though that Lauer shot Schiavo down when Michael tried to play that lame "they'd cut Terri's arms and legs off" card. It showed that Matt did at least a little homework. One moment that especially stuck out to me was right before Michael said, "we (he and Bobby Schindler) hate each other," he was about to say "I hate him (Bobby)" but caught himself and only mouthed the words.
Towards the end of the interview, after Michael talked about why he wouldn't let Terri's family into the room when she died and they showed Terri's tombstone ("I kept my promise"), my wife made what I think was a dead-on comment. She said something like, "It was all about control."
After a long court struggle with her parents filled with numerous accusations from all parties and numerous liters of bad blood being spilled, where the control of Terri's life and treatment were constantly up in the air, Michael Schiavo finally had control of a number of things at the end of Terri's life and after her death. And he took full control of them. He had control over who would be with Terri when she died. He had control over when and where Terri's remains would be buried and if he'd let the Schindlers attend the funeral. He had control over what would be written on her tombstone. Michael could finally take control and the Schindler's didn't have any say and after the long and painful legal struggle where he wasn't always in full control, I think he cherished that control.
He cherished being able to decide that he would be alone with Terri when she died. He cherished the idea that he could decide that the Schindlers wouldn't know about Terri's funeral. He cherished being able to stick it to the Schindlers on Terri's tombstone.
Terri's death was never about Terri's supposed wish. Terri's death and the long struggle over it was about Michael having control, being allowed to "win" and getting what he thought was best.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Michael Schiavo Interview
Via Prolife Blogs, I've read a partial transcript of Matt Lauer interview with Michael Schiavo and his wife Jodi. An excerpt:
Why do I have to divorce Terri? How about the fact that you're living with another woman and fathering her children? If your wife gets sick, do you dehydrate her to death? "Giving her back" to her family is probably preferable to dehydrating her, no?
He stuck by her? How's that? By living with you, fathering children with you and trying to dehydrate Terri to death? Wouldn't all wives like a husband that sticks by them like that?
On his marriage to Jodi
Lauer: People have often asked. Michael why didn't you divorce Terri, you were living with Jodi.
Michael Schiavo: Why do I have to divorce Terri? Terri wasn't like a football— an inanimate object you pass back and forth. She was my wife. You mean because your wife gets sick, do you give her back?
Jodi Schiavo: I would think so much less of Michael had he walked away from her. That is one of the qualities in him that I so admire. That up against everything...he stuck by her...
Why do I have to divorce Terri? How about the fact that you're living with another woman and fathering her children? If your wife gets sick, do you dehydrate her to death? "Giving her back" to her family is probably preferable to dehydrating her, no?
He stuck by her? How's that? By living with you, fathering children with you and trying to dehydrate Terri to death? Wouldn't all wives like a husband that sticks by them like that?
Those Rascally Michigan Republicans
Are having a little too much fun with Senator Debbie Stabenow's "Dangerously Incompetent" sign. The song has a good bass line, though.
Questions for Pro-choice People
I ran into this paper by Michael Pakaluk while perusing the internet. I'd never seen it before but found it interesting and thought I'd pass it along.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Zogby Poll on Abortion
The results of a recent Zogby poll on abortion are available online here. It was a large poll with 30,117 respondents and has a low margin of error of +/- 0.6 percentage points.
Things that I find interesting include:
Individuals who said they would support a Democrat congressional candidate were much more likely to answer "not sure" when asked about a specific policy/law than individuals who'd favor a Republican congressional candidate.
17% of individuals who'd support of Democrat for Congress in 2006 said "not sure" when asked "Do you agree or disagree that abortion ends a human life?"
20% of Democrat supporters and 17% of independent said "not sure" when asked, "Which of the following best describes when you think life begins?"
35% of individuals who'd support a Democrat for Congress in 2006 said they think life begins at birth.
Things that I find interesting include:
Individuals who said they would support a Democrat congressional candidate were much more likely to answer "not sure" when asked about a specific policy/law than individuals who'd favor a Republican congressional candidate.
17% of individuals who'd support of Democrat for Congress in 2006 said "not sure" when asked "Do you agree or disagree that abortion ends a human life?"
20% of Democrat supporters and 17% of independent said "not sure" when asked, "Which of the following best describes when you think life begins?"
35% of individuals who'd support a Democrat for Congress in 2006 said they think life begins at birth.
If you can't defend legal abortion, then attack the motives of prolifers
I've noticed a rather disturbing trend in the posts of various pro-choice bloggers and writers in recent months. The trend is to attack the motives of prolifers and the strategy seems to be working itself into becoming the most used arrow in the pro-choice quiver. Instead of trying to defend legal abortion and provide good reasons why abortion should remain legal, why tax dollars should pay for abortions and a number of other pro-choice positions, pro-choicers are using simplistic logic and huge over-generalizations to attack the motives of prolifers.
Why is this? Though I'm not certain if certain pro-choicers believe these are the real motives of prolifers, it's much easier to insinuate evil motives and then write off individuals with these evil motives than it is to take the argument of someone you disagree with seriously and then show why that argument is wrong and why your position is right. This is especially true for pro-choice movement which is struggling to find a foothold in a storm as they are currently stuck between a rock (the scientific evidence of the unborn's humanity, the feelings of post-abortive women, and society's belief that abortion isn't morally right) and a hard place (admitting abortion is "bad" inevitably leads to the question of why is abortion "bad").
Prescribing evil motives to prolifers seems like a much easier task (or at least a good short term strategy) than dealing with the problems the pro-choice movement is currently facing.
The two motives (that I've seen at least) prescribed to prolifers are either that 1.) prolifers want to punish women for having sex and/or that 2.) the real goal isn't saving unborn children but making birth control illegal and preventing procreative sex.
At Alas, a Blog, Ampersand provides a chart which attempts to show that the policies which prolifers advocate are more consistent with the belief that women should suffer consequences for having sex than the belief that abortion is "exactly the same as child murder."
Amp cherry picks policies (why no mention of opposing the killing of human embryos for their stem cells, opposition to assisted suicide or bans on tax-funded abortions?), creates some major strawmen (which prolife organization is opposed to an HPV vaccine and which prolife organization wants to keep abortions for rape and incest legal?) and incorrectly insinuates that partial-birth abortion has a lower risk of injuring the mother even though there is absolutely no evidence for this. However, what's most tragic is his complete inability to take the possible varied motives behind a variety of policies seriously even though he says, "I really like to assume the best of everyone, even people I disagree with. And I try hard to take what opponents say, at their word." The chart that follows his statement is strong evidence that he really hasn't tried that hard to take the varied positions of prolifers on a variety of policies seriously.
Molly at Molly Saves the Day makes a similar argument when she states,
This same kind of obvious ad hominem attack is also clearly seen in a Salon article featuring statements from NARAL New York's Cristina Page who says, "The anti-choice movement has become a religious movement, and because of that, their interest isn't in reducing abortion. In fact, reducing abortion has become problematic for them, because they want to strip Americans of using birth control, in effect to change the entire family structure."
Cristina's main schtick isn't trying to prove that the unborn aren't human beings or that unborn human beings don't deserve to be protected by law but to attack the motives of prolifers by claiming that the real goal of the prolife movement is "the creation of a society in which the only acceptable reason for sex is procreation". In the Salon article, she also asserts that the prolife movement, besides wanting to ban abortion and contraception, wants to "make child care impossible" based on nothing but the web sites of a few organizations that are against abortion mentioning a study from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development which seems to have found some correlation between child care and aggressiveness in children.
I think these attempts to unmask the supposedly evil motives of prolifers will ultimately fail to persuade the large majority of the American public. The hardcore pro-choicers will eat this up for breakfast, lunch and dinner but most people who know and interact with regular-average-joe-contraceptive-using-kids-in-daycare prolifers will have a hard time believing that the main motive of behind their friend or co-workers opposition to abortion (especially women who are prolife) is to punish women for having sex.
Do some pro-choice people really think the prolife position of wanting to save unborn children is so nonsensical that they have to come up with other motives for us? Or do they really see us as vile sexist minions trying to control women? I don't know. But it's hard for me to understand why anyone would think this kind of strategy would work.
Why is this? Though I'm not certain if certain pro-choicers believe these are the real motives of prolifers, it's much easier to insinuate evil motives and then write off individuals with these evil motives than it is to take the argument of someone you disagree with seriously and then show why that argument is wrong and why your position is right. This is especially true for pro-choice movement which is struggling to find a foothold in a storm as they are currently stuck between a rock (the scientific evidence of the unborn's humanity, the feelings of post-abortive women, and society's belief that abortion isn't morally right) and a hard place (admitting abortion is "bad" inevitably leads to the question of why is abortion "bad").
Prescribing evil motives to prolifers seems like a much easier task (or at least a good short term strategy) than dealing with the problems the pro-choice movement is currently facing.
The two motives (that I've seen at least) prescribed to prolifers are either that 1.) prolifers want to punish women for having sex and/or that 2.) the real goal isn't saving unborn children but making birth control illegal and preventing procreative sex.
At Alas, a Blog, Ampersand provides a chart which attempts to show that the policies which prolifers advocate are more consistent with the belief that women should suffer consequences for having sex than the belief that abortion is "exactly the same as child murder."
Amp cherry picks policies (why no mention of opposing the killing of human embryos for their stem cells, opposition to assisted suicide or bans on tax-funded abortions?), creates some major strawmen (which prolife organization is opposed to an HPV vaccine and which prolife organization wants to keep abortions for rape and incest legal?) and incorrectly insinuates that partial-birth abortion has a lower risk of injuring the mother even though there is absolutely no evidence for this. However, what's most tragic is his complete inability to take the possible varied motives behind a variety of policies seriously even though he says, "I really like to assume the best of everyone, even people I disagree with. And I try hard to take what opponents say, at their word." The chart that follows his statement is strong evidence that he really hasn't tried that hard to take the varied positions of prolifers on a variety of policies seriously.
Molly at Molly Saves the Day makes a similar argument when she states,
"Guess what that means? It means it's NOT ABOUT LIFE. If abortions should be illegal but there should not be forced marrow donations from living donors, the distinction isn't one of life, it's one of responsibility."
This same kind of obvious ad hominem attack is also clearly seen in a Salon article featuring statements from NARAL New York's Cristina Page who says, "The anti-choice movement has become a religious movement, and because of that, their interest isn't in reducing abortion. In fact, reducing abortion has become problematic for them, because they want to strip Americans of using birth control, in effect to change the entire family structure."
Cristina's main schtick isn't trying to prove that the unborn aren't human beings or that unborn human beings don't deserve to be protected by law but to attack the motives of prolifers by claiming that the real goal of the prolife movement is "the creation of a society in which the only acceptable reason for sex is procreation". In the Salon article, she also asserts that the prolife movement, besides wanting to ban abortion and contraception, wants to "make child care impossible" based on nothing but the web sites of a few organizations that are against abortion mentioning a study from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development which seems to have found some correlation between child care and aggressiveness in children.
I think these attempts to unmask the supposedly evil motives of prolifers will ultimately fail to persuade the large majority of the American public. The hardcore pro-choicers will eat this up for breakfast, lunch and dinner but most people who know and interact with regular-average-joe-contraceptive-using-kids-in-daycare prolifers will have a hard time believing that the main motive of behind their friend or co-workers opposition to abortion (especially women who are prolife) is to punish women for having sex.
Do some pro-choice people really think the prolife position of wanting to save unborn children is so nonsensical that they have to come up with other motives for us? Or do they really see us as vile sexist minions trying to control women? I don't know. But it's hard for me to understand why anyone would think this kind of strategy would work.
Erring on the side of death
According to the leader of an investigative panel that Governor Mitt Romney appointed, "''Haleigh (Poutre)'s case represents a frightening confluence of a healthcare system ignorant of abuse and a child-protection system ignorant of medicine."
They also note that Haleigh almost died because "flawed or insufficient information was given to the state agencies, medical centers, and court systems that were supposed to protect her."
Prolifeblogs notes,
Situations like Haleigh's will continue to happen if some individuals in medical community continue to err on the side of death and accept that death is somehow the answer to patients who are seriously incapacitated.
They also note that Haleigh almost died because "flawed or insufficient information was given to the state agencies, medical centers, and court systems that were supposed to protect her."
Prolifeblogs notes,
"Although the panel ripped the system and recommended more government, procedures and processes, I've seen no admission of guilt or acknowledgement of a fundamental problem related to the diagnosis of PVS and its subsequent use to terminate a patient. What in the world is a state agency doing attempting to euthanasize a young girl shortly after her incapacitation?...
It is now widely known that Haleigh was the victim of a fatally broken bureaucracy. Even worse, she was almost a fatality of a defective and crumbling death oriented medical system and a twisted judicial process."
Situations like Haleigh's will continue to happen if some individuals in medical community continue to err on the side of death and accept that death is somehow the answer to patients who are seriously incapacitated.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Heartbreaking
Jasmine had an abortion last Friday. In February, I asked, "Whose choice is this?" and posted some quotes from Jasmine. Jasmine seemed excited about the prospect of "keep(ing) the baby" but was been pushed towards abortion by her boyfriend.
After her abortion, she writes,
Jasmine also relays that the abortionist didn't let her see her ultrasound.
After her abortion, she writes,
"Since then, I've cried for hours upon hours...every day. I don't cry when my bf's around but he doesn't make me feel any better about the relationship. We made a commitment and I followed through with mine. His answers now are slightly changing. He was sooo adamant about "yes I'll keep my words...my promises" prior to the abortion and then 3 days later..his words are changing about what his commitment was.
I hate myself for killing my own. I try to hide it, to keep my spirits up but really it doesn't help. I realize I don't like to keep my spirits up just because I feel like then I'd be avoiding the truth and feeling like a heartless cold person."
Jasmine also relays that the abortionist didn't let her see her ultrasound.
Dumb, Da-Da, Da, Dumb
Alexander Sanger is Margaret Sanger's grandson and is the Chair of the International Planned Parenthood Council. He has a blog to promote his book, Beyond Choice.
An entry from yesterday makes me wonder if some pro-choice leaders have the ability to take the prolife position seriously and makes it harder and harder for me to respect the intellects of pro-choice leaders.
Sanger post asks what South Dakota was trying to do by banning abortion and then answers by saying,(emphasis mine)
I don't if Mr. Sanger is unbelievably ignorant about abortion in South Dakota and the rest of America but to assert that banning abortion is about increasing the white childbearing rate is probably one of the most laughable things I've heard from a pro-choice advocate in a while.
First, one has to point out that only 814 abortions occurred in South Dakota in 2004 and only 670 were performed on residents of South Dakota. Further more, In 2004, there were 11,339 births to women who reside in South Dakota. If all resident abortions were stopped in South Dakota, the childbearing rate would go up a mere 5.9%.
Later Sanger uses old statistics to try to prove his point when he says, "BUT, there were fewer births in South Dakota in 2002 than 1990, 10,698 versus 10,999. The white births dropped from 9,076 to 8,376." I'm guessing he didn't use the 2004 number (11,339) because it didn't help him.
Sanger also fails to mention what percentage of abortions are performed on white women compared to Native Americans. Whites makes up 88.7% of South Dakota's population, 78.7% of South Dakota's births and receive 81% of South Dakota's abortions where patient's race is known (there were 44 abortions where the race wasn't reported). Native Americans are 8.3% of South Dakota's population, have 18.5% of South Dakota's births and receive 9.4% of South Dakota's abortions where the patient's race is known. Other races make up 3% South Dakota's population and 2.8% of South Dakota's births yet receive 9.6% of South Dakota's abortions where the patient's race is known.
Whites in South Dakota have a lower percentage of the state's abortions compared to their population while Native Americans and the other races both have a higher percent of the state's abortions compared to their population. Stopping all abortions in South Dakota would have a greater impact on the childbearing rates of minorities than it would on the childbearing rates of whites.
What dingleberry would look at these statistics and think that banning abortion would be about raising the white childbearing rate? I wonder if Sanger thinks prolifers in the numerous states where more than 30% of the state's abortions are performed on Black women are also just trying to increase the white childbirth rate.
Later Sanger reasons that the motive behind not imprisoning women who have abortions is:
I find it sad when pro-choicers can't take claims about the humanity of unborn and prolife respect for the lives of unborn human beings seriously. Trying to reduce the prolife position to racist motivations and the desire to keep women barefoot and pregnant is childish, futile and embarassing.
Naaman (back strong after a rest on the blogging bench) adds his thoughts.
An entry from yesterday makes me wonder if some pro-choice leaders have the ability to take the prolife position seriously and makes it harder and harder for me to respect the intellects of pro-choice leaders.
Sanger post asks what South Dakota was trying to do by banning abortion and then answers by saying,(emphasis mine)
"Were they trying to enforce their version of a religious/moral code? Make Christianity state law? Demean women? Keep women barefoot and pregnant? Bring back patriarchy?
My answer is, all of the above. But the motivation behind all this becomes clear only when we look at the demographic/societal context.
You probably haven't read much about what the law will mean for the childbearing rate in South Dakota, because no one has focused on it. That, in my view, is what this law is all about: increasing the childbearing rate, especially the white childbearing rate.
I don't if Mr. Sanger is unbelievably ignorant about abortion in South Dakota and the rest of America but to assert that banning abortion is about increasing the white childbearing rate is probably one of the most laughable things I've heard from a pro-choice advocate in a while.
First, one has to point out that only 814 abortions occurred in South Dakota in 2004 and only 670 were performed on residents of South Dakota. Further more, In 2004, there were 11,339 births to women who reside in South Dakota. If all resident abortions were stopped in South Dakota, the childbearing rate would go up a mere 5.9%.
Later Sanger uses old statistics to try to prove his point when he says, "BUT, there were fewer births in South Dakota in 2002 than 1990, 10,698 versus 10,999. The white births dropped from 9,076 to 8,376." I'm guessing he didn't use the 2004 number (11,339) because it didn't help him.
Sanger also fails to mention what percentage of abortions are performed on white women compared to Native Americans. Whites makes up 88.7% of South Dakota's population, 78.7% of South Dakota's births and receive 81% of South Dakota's abortions where patient's race is known (there were 44 abortions where the race wasn't reported). Native Americans are 8.3% of South Dakota's population, have 18.5% of South Dakota's births and receive 9.4% of South Dakota's abortions where the patient's race is known. Other races make up 3% South Dakota's population and 2.8% of South Dakota's births yet receive 9.6% of South Dakota's abortions where the patient's race is known.
Whites in South Dakota have a lower percentage of the state's abortions compared to their population while Native Americans and the other races both have a higher percent of the state's abortions compared to their population. Stopping all abortions in South Dakota would have a greater impact on the childbearing rates of minorities than it would on the childbearing rates of whites.
What dingleberry would look at these statistics and think that banning abortion would be about raising the white childbearing rate? I wonder if Sanger thinks prolifers in the numerous states where more than 30% of the state's abortions are performed on Black women are also just trying to increase the white childbirth rate.
Later Sanger reasons that the motive behind not imprisoning women who have abortions is:
"And what is the penalty, you might ask, for women who get the abortion, who are equally guilty with the doc? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. No time in the pen. Nope, the folks running the South Dakota patriarchal reproductive system can't put women of reproductive age in the chair or in prison. Then they can't reproduce! We need them in the game, as George H. W. Bush said of his granddaughter, in the game making babies."
I find it sad when pro-choicers can't take claims about the humanity of unborn and prolife respect for the lives of unborn human beings seriously. Trying to reduce the prolife position to racist motivations and the desire to keep women barefoot and pregnant is childish, futile and embarassing.
Naaman (back strong after a rest on the blogging bench) adds his thoughts.
Forgiveness
Matthew 6:9-15 contains the Lord's Prayer and a brief comment by Jesus regarding the prayer.
After sharing the Lord's Prayer with his disciples, Jesus says, "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."
A variety of Bible commentaries have sought to provide insight into Matthew 6:14-15.
The fact that Jesus comments just on the forgiveness portion in the Lord's Prayer tells us forgiving others is an important part of the Christian life and that not being able to forgive others is something that, at minimum, pulls us away from Christ.
We are called to forgive without an asterix. We aren't called to forgive just those who've asked for forgiveness. We aren't called to forgive just those who want our forgiveness. We aren't called to forgive just those who've repented. We are called to forgive everyone.
Even though we may despise the actions of abortion providers, we are still called to forgive them.
After sharing the Lord's Prayer with his disciples, Jesus says, "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."
A variety of Bible commentaries have sought to provide insight into Matthew 6:14-15.
The fact that Jesus comments just on the forgiveness portion in the Lord's Prayer tells us forgiving others is an important part of the Christian life and that not being able to forgive others is something that, at minimum, pulls us away from Christ.
We are called to forgive without an asterix. We aren't called to forgive just those who've asked for forgiveness. We aren't called to forgive just those who want our forgiveness. We aren't called to forgive just those who've repented. We are called to forgive everyone.
Even though we may despise the actions of abortion providers, we are still called to forgive them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
