Cross posted at MoralMeaning.com.
I have struggled for some time about how to be both a radical liberal activist and someone who is opposed to abortion on moral grounds. Part of my struggle has to do with conflicting values. There is a conflict between the high value that I place on women’s rights and how highly I value all life. Part of the struggle has to do with the costs associated with taking an anti-abortion stance and also being part of the radical liberal movement. And part of the struggle has to do with knowing how science and morality do and don’t intersect on the questions related to abortion.
Unless you take either the stance that personhood starts at the moment of conception, making abortion murder, or you hold the stance that the fetus is part of her mother until birth, making abortion an internal medical procedure, abortion is murky moral territory. Anything other than the above two positions calls into question a range of issues and conflicting values. Just what is “personhood”? When does “life begin”? What does it mean for a person to be inside of another person?
For some, these questions are answered through one’s belief in the human soul, which is what marks the difference between personhood and otherwise. Since I do not believe in the soul, for me there is no spark of life that occurs when the soul enters the unborn child. There is no moment when God makes a person into a person. I am left simply with an understanding of how the division and redivision of cells moves the organism’s cells towards specialization that will become a network of what will become a person independent of her mother.
I am not satisfied with any answer as to when those cells are or are not “a person.” But a failure to label does not negate that life is present, and that the embryo and fetus both are part of the wondrous process of a human’s development. For me it is the wonderful process of human development – the miracle of life – that trumps any questions about how to define when a person becomes a person. It simply does not matter that an embryo is very far from being a five-year-old child. What matters is that both are part of something totally amazing. And that amazing thing should be considered sacred, wondrous and something worth protecting.
I’d like an end to abortion because of what widespread abortion says about how we value life. Indeed, it bothers me that the concept of “unwanted children” is part of the pro-abortion rhetoric. There should be no unwanted children, and the way to make this so is not by aborting children whose parents don’t want them. Since the conception, development and birth of a child is a little miracle that should be cherished society should celebrate the birth of every child, and help every parent and every child have the support they require to fully embrace and experience that miracle. I am bothered by any movement that makes children into liabilities, that seeks to institutionalize the birth process by including termination as a solution to a specific kind of child (an unwanted one) from being born.
I believe that abortion is morally wrong. There should be no abortions. But this does not mean that I believe that abortions should be criminalized. That’s because I am willing to accept the tremendous amount of gray when it comes to an issue that affects only women. The issue of abortion isn’t resolved enough to make it a crime to have one or to perform one. And I don’t think that abortion should be made criminal because in the past that has resulted in much harm to women, harm that I do not think a just society can tolerate.
For now, ending abortion does not require making it a crime. In fact, having safe and legal abortion available as abortion is brought to an end may be the best way to make abortion into a socially unacceptable behavior. By having safe and legal options available, prevention of shameful harm to women by an underground abortion industry cannot be a justification used in support of continued support of the abortion act. Opponents of abortion can focus on the cultural attitudes that make abortion seem acceptable or unavoidable in the minds of many, leaving the pragmatic issues until abortion has become a rare and unacceptable act.
Thanks to condoms, birth control pills and other forms of contraceptives, abortion is no longer a reproductive or sexual behavior issue. It is in almost all instances a choice. The choice is between using birth control and not. A society that believes that abortion is morally wrong, that believes that abortion represents the killing of an unborn person, will do what it takes to prevent women from becoming pregnant without wanting the child to be born. And our society can easily do this by making birth control freely available to all sexually active persons, by removing any stigma with the use of birth control and by making sure that all persons understand that the choice is between taking the pill, using a condom, or killing a kid.
There are times when there is no choice for a woman who is pregnant, such as when a woman is violently forced to have sex. There can be no question that violent sex acts take choice from the victim. I understand why some believe that in such cases it’s okay to abort the baby from such a violent act. But I don’t accept this premise, not even in the slightest. That’s because I see the birth of child, even from such a violent act, as something to be celebrated. That child remains precious, even if her father is a violent criminal. We don’t kill born children whose fathers raped their mothers, and we shouldn’t kill the unborn for such a reason either.
I believe that all life is sacred. The life of the criminal on death row is sacred. The life of the solider on patrol in an innocent neighborhood is sacred. The life of the old and without memory is sacred. The life of the child whose school has been bombed is sacred. The life of the poor is sacred. The life of the rich is sacred. All life is sacred. That’s why I am vegan, why I am opposed to war, why I am opposed to abortion and why I am wary of euthanasia.
Well, here we are again. I understand some of your points, but the fact of life is there are unwanted children and not just the ones that are conceived in a violent criminal act by a stranger. It is the little fourteen year old girl that has been sexually abused for years by her own father. Neither should this 14 year old be forced to be a mother nor should the father of both these children be allowed to have anything close to do anything thing with that baby.
There will always be circumstances. There were unwanted children and backstreet abortions before Roe and there will be if it is ever overturned and I do not believe it will be at this point in time.
I will say to you what I say to those that support the war…if you believe so deeply in the war go enlist. If you believe a woman’s right to choose should be taken away, start adopting those precious children. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE is pro abortion. I went through it and wouldn’t wish it on anyone. But the reality is that it’s not your body or your baby to make that decision for. Until you can give birth at 12 or 13 years old I think you should possibly rethink your position.
believe in the war is if you enlist, and if you fight in this immoral and illegal war, you are personally responsbile for the immomral outcomes of the war. The war is wrong – and those who support it by fighting it are what make the war a reality.
Boy Tom, you totally missed my point.Maybe if you go back and read my post you will see that if you believe in something then own it and support it not in words but in action. My point being if you believe abortion is wrong then please start adopting these unwanted babies, especially the ones with severe defects that no one else will take becaus eof the medical bills.
What about those whose tax dollars support this war? And, it will be many generations who pay for it. What about those members of the electorate who are represented by the White House and Congress who actually make the decisions about what wars to fight? In other words, all of us. People who join the military don’t get to pick and choose their wars. Once you sign on the dotted line, you actually have less say than those of us who are still free to protest it. Wake up and smell the coffee, dude. If you’re an American citizen, you’re responsible. We’re all responsible. Spouting platitudes and making moral pronouncements can’t insulate you from complexities of a shared society.
He’s Canadian trying to get in.
every sperm is sacred
the earth is flat
there is light at the end of the tunnel
mission accomplished
smoking doesnt cause cancer
major benteen, the indians are surrounded
there is no global warming
we’re fighting for democracy
who needs brains, men have muscles
You won’t get pregnant if he pulls out
Oh and by the way, I got pregnant on the pill. The dosage was to weak to protect me.
keep abortion safe and legal, even if it is believed to be morally wrong. The issue is complex with a lot of gray.
what’s gray about it. You are the one making it complex. It is as simple as it is the right of a woman to make that choice for herself.
Okay Tom …since birth control doesn’t work everytime you say it’s a reason to keep abortion safe and legal. Then you say the issue is complex with a lot of gray.
I understand why some believe that in such cases it’s okay to abort the baby from such a violent act. But I don’t accept this premise, not even in the slightest. That’s because I see the birth of child, even from such a violent act, as something to be celebrated. That child remains precious, even if her father is a violent criminal. We don’t kill born children whose fathers raped their mothers, and we shouldn’t kill the unborn for such a reason either.
You don’t accept the rights of a woman who has been raped to have an abortion. Tom, you hardly mention women in your diatribe, you speak only of the perceived rights of the zygote/embryo/fetus. You place the unborn above the rights of the woman every single time. You see women as vessels of childbirth and nothing else. You believe women who have been raped should be forced to give birth. You believe young girls who are the victims of incest should be forced to give birth.
You, Tom Kertes, should be forced to shut your fucking mouth. You are morally reprehensible. There are 700,000 women who are the victims of rape every year in this country. One out of four of them will become pregnant as a result of that violent act. Many, many women will need intensive therapy to be able to get on with their lives and you would force the added burden of being pregnant and giving birth to a child that was conceived only after a man had viciously, violently attacked her?
Your diary is one of the most vile, immoral writings I have read. Rape and incest are immoral Tom. You can hang your hat on your self-righteous crap, you can extol your perceived morality, you can say you are speaking the truth from God, you can go to fucking Hell.
women are capable of making their own moral decisions.
I think that the issue is far more complex than this. But the gist of your point is why I think abortion should remain safe and legal.
PLEASE tell me what the complexity is?
I don’t think it should happen. But becuase abortion is complex, it involves very personal issues and is not cut and dry (in that the fetus is INSIDE its mother) I think that abortion should remain safe and legal. I think it is morally wrong, but I don’t think it should be made criminal. The complexity has to do with the uncertainty of my moral position. I do not know how to reconcile my belief that all stages of human development deserve protection with the fact that the fetus is INSIDE of its mother. That’s why, despite my moral stance on abortion, I think it should remain safe and legal. That is the complexity of the issue to which I refer.
And gee, you never mention men taking responsibility for birth control other than condoms. Have you had your vasectomy yet?
Um, getting a woman pregnant isn’t likely to be an issue with Tom, IIRC.
I’m sorry…I do not know what IIRC is. Maybe you can enlighten me?
If I remember correctly (IIRC) from previous (long ago) diaries, Tom is a gay man.
Thanks Cabingirl. That’s what I thought.
Which is why this seems like a bizarre choice of topic…
Tom, then there are many that would consider your actions morally wrong…or are you a celibate gay man?
And the only person who can truly decide whether an abortion is morally wrong is the woman facing the decision. Some people believe that there is nothing wrong with terminating a pregnancy in the first trimester, or before significant brain activity, or before viability outside the womb. Would you put your morals, Tom, ahead of theirs? And what of people who learn they are pregnant and have very good reasons to not carry a pregnancy to term, reasons that impact the health of themselves and the fetus? I take medications that could cause severe birth defects in a fetus…yet if I stopped taking them, could suffer severe health repercussions. Whose health do I take into account in a case like that? (Yes, I do take oral contraceptives…but the ultra-right wing “pro-control” folks would love to take away that option as well.)
Tom, you’re never going to be faced with the heart-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy…so your “morals” really have no impact in this discussion. It’s just like “Priests for Life” — celibate men telling women they know what women should do with their lives and their bodies.
‘Nuff said…
why I think abortion should remain safe and legal. While I believe that abortion is morally wrong, and should be ended because all life should be protected, I don’t think it should be made criminal because of the issues you raise. Abortion is not black and white – it is personal and it affects women differently than it affects men.
But I disagree with your point that because I am a man I should have or express views on the moral aspects of abortion. Abortion does not only involve a woman. It also involves a fetus. Because I believe that all phases of human development should be cherished and protected, my reason for expressing a hope that abortion be ended is based on my value of the person being aborted.
As for being a celibate gay man – why would I do that? I don’t share the moral values of those who think I should not be homosexual. While I respect the right of those who think my life is immoral to share their beliefs as part of a civic dialouge, I don’t agree with them one bit.
I don’t share the moral values of those who think I should not be homosexual.
That’s the most truthful thing you’ve said. And women don’t share your moral values that women’s rights of choice should not be protected.
You have the right to be who you are, you have the right to do with your body what you choose, you have the right to your moral values, women have the same rights Tom.
I support your rights as a gay man, if you believe in equality surely you can’t believe women don’t have the right of choice. I don’t tell you what you can and can’t do with your body, it’s time for you to stop telling women what to do in ours.
I just don’t see the connection. Gay men have sex with other men, between consenting adults. The men engaged in the acts are themselves involved, no others.
Abortion involves the mother, the father and the fetus. I am saying that the life of the fetus matters, and that it is morally wrong to terminate the fetus by abortion.
But since I realize that there are many women who do not think that abortion is immoral, and because of the unique issues this raises given that the fetus lives inside its mother, I also say that abortion should remain safe and legal. I just don’t think its moral. I don’t think it should happen. But I won’t make abortion criminal as a means of ending abortion.
So really, if you believe in abortion bein legal, what are you hoping to gain here in this discusiion? I really don’t see your point. So YOU don’t believe in abortion but because others do it’s ok by you if she chooses yo get one or you just don’t think it is too immoral to go to jail over? What? WHy? I don’t get it?
The men engaged in the acts are themselves involved, no others.
Nonsense. There are often consequences for others too. What if one of the men is married? Are there not others involved?
And then there’s the rather revealing changing demographics of AIDS distribution and the well known propensity towards promiscuity which occurs within all male sexual sub-cultures.
I speak, mind you, as someone whose first blog post supported the right of gays and lesbians to marry but it’s nonsense for a gay man to claim that noone else is affected by two men having sex. I also have a couple of women friends who became HIV positive through the actions of their husbands, one with another man and one with prostitute.
You are remarkably biased on issues of sexual morality and the combination of no constraints on your gender and punishment of the worst sort for women is most unpleasant. You’re welcome to it, just don’t dress it up as ‘morality’ and call it pretty or compassionate.
Tom is a gay man.
A public musing on the morality of abortion and the necessity of reducing the number of abortions which does not take into account the established fact that that a male is at least as responsible for each and every unwanted pregnancy is ridiculous and offensive.
Yes – men are responsible as are women. Any person who consentually engages in unprotected sex without being fully prepared to raise a child is making a choice. The choice is to have child or to have an abortion. Both sexual partners are responsbile, both are deciding to potentially become parents together. The choice seems like a major one, not to be taken lightly.
It seems like the appropriate way to prevent having a child while also have sex is by using both pill control pills and condoms. But each couple makes this choice on their own – and must consider the costs and benefits and relative chances of different outcomes when deciding what to do or not do.
It seems like the appropriate way to prevent having a child while also have sex is by using both pill control pills and condoms. But each couple makes this choice on their own – and must consider the costs and benefits and relative chances of different outcomes when deciding what to do or not do.
Come down off your pulpit and recognise that the religious right likewise regards contraception (in it’s effective forms) as abortion, that lack of knowledge of contraception and sexuality is being touted (and implemented and paid for by us) as the solution to this whole mess by these same people, that most men refuse to use condoms and that having sex isn’t always negotiated. And that
even in the rare situations where both partners are willing to be responsible to themselves and to their partner conception sometimes occurs.
That said, when I asked you to take into account that a male is likewise at least equally responsible for each and every unwanted pregnancy I wasn’t asking you to acknowledge the obvious, that men should behave responsibly before and during the sex act despite the fact that they seldom do. I was asking you to acknowledge what we have lost which is the notion that men are and should be responsible for the children they produce. Because in the midst of all this ‘celebration of the birth of the child of a rapist’ business certain practical realities appear to have been lost to you or not considered or factored in at all.
Finally, where do you get off lecturing women on their sex lives? Nothing in your original post even suggested that men might also be held responsible and you give me condoms? Try talking to straight men in this manner. Try talking about AOC laws even. You’ll find those folks villifying you as a prude for saying that adult males having sex with 13 year olds should continue being illegal. You’re lecturing the wrong people and you’re doing so because it’s easy to focus on abortion and women rather than the crap that happens before conception and the realities during pregnancy and after birth.
Isn’t this the same Tom that made quite a stir over dkos a while back?
over the moral choice involved in war.
a LOT more often than abortion are morally wrong but I wouldn’t have one chance in hell of having them criminalized nor bringing about a society of people who would eshew them.
My point is that my morals are mine, and everyone else’s are theirs. I would no more seek to impose my morals on someone else than I accept that someone else has any business imposing theris on me.
I find this morality tact tiresome.
Hey girl…are we hooking up Friday?
Give me a call or drop me an email (you got them from Susan, right?) Are you meeting up with anyone else on your trip here? I don’t think I’ll be able to actually GO to Crawford with you this weekend (in the throes of this bankruptcy thing) but I would like to spend a bit of time with you in any case, if that works for you!
I will call you tonight. No one else has mentioned they will be there and my friend from tucson bailed. oh well. We will make time to meet for sure.
Get in touch!
because I think that moral values should be central to civic discourse. Abortion is something that I merely write essays on. By the moral issues of care of young children, war and poverty are issues that I devote a great deal of time and energy to. I believe that moral values are central to civic life – and that part of the political process should include people talking about their moral values and how we as a society wish to incorporate these values into national life.
but they are YOUR moral values or are you saying we should all adhere to what you consider moral? I really don’t understand you Tom and I am trying to.
Devote a great deal of time to? Does that mean you get paid to do that?
I am just beyond tired of hearing how “easily” we could do away with abortion if only everyone had good sex education and access to birth control. It’s nonsense. Some subset of women using birth control, even those who use it correctly, will still get pregnant. Some women who welcome a pregnancy will still learn they are carrying fetuses with severe disabilities. Some women will discover that they themselves are at severe risk in continuing a pregnancy they may have planned and hoped for. And there will still be women like me: not only do I not want children, but for personal reasons that are really none of your business, it would be a very bad idea for me to have them.
Say what you like about morality and the sacredness of life, but I find your desire to shame women — oh, sorry, to make it “unacceptable” to “kill a kid” — far more immoral than any woman’s desire to determine her own fate, regardless of her reasons. And don’t get me started on your “celebration” of a rape victim being forced to bear a child by her assailant.
A dear friend of mine recently had to make the heartbreaking decision to terminate a pregnancy because of defects that would have either killed the fetus during pregnancy or caused death shortly after birth. Anyone who suggests that the proper response would be to shame her for her socially unacceptable decision is beneath contempt.
The diarist says that he doesn’t want to criminalize abortion–at least not at first. He just wants to demonize it. I suppose, then, that he supports the cretins who shove pictures of bloody fetuses into the faces of frightened women who are just trying to get through the door of Planned Parenthood. After all, that’s a method of discouraging abortion without criminalizing it.
Sorry, son. It’s not your body, so it’s not your business.
abortion are ones that only the woman making the choice will consider when deciding what to do. Since I support safe and legal abortion, I respect that all of those factors are complex and personal.
But I don’t think that disabilities warrant abortion, just as they don’t warrant euthanasia. As for the other issues – such as death of the mother, well I think at that point the issues become too gray and complex to comment on.
I have no interest in shaming women who have abortions. What I am interested in is getting women who are considering to have an abortion to not have one. As for shaming, I ask where is the compassion in that? I value compassion, and think that any treatment of any issue requires a heavy dose of compassion.
It has been pretty clear that we are on our own for some time now. Think about it:
Sharia and burkas in Iraq?
You don’t have to have women involved in order to be a democracy.
Roberts on the supreme court?
But he’s such a nice man.
Pro- life “Democrats” in Pennsylvania?
Shut up and vote for whom we tell you to.
And our supposed leadership just scrapes and bows to the radical right.
No, this is our fight. While I strongly welcome those willing to join us, like the amazing BooMan, we are fighting for our own lives here- and on multiple fronts.
but frighteningly close.
I don’t know how to put it any more strongly, but I, and most of my guy friends, believe that a woman’s right to choose is fundamental to the notion of equality. You can’t have true equality without it. And that, how they say, is that.
is imposing your morality on others — or even discussin it without doing the work to fully understand how the female reproductive system works if you think abortion or pregnancy or birth control can be promised to be “safe” or foolproof.
As for your stance on pregnancy from rape, it is proof that you are a fool.
who results from a rape – the person who is totally seperate from the violent act of their father. If such a child is brough to term, they would be nothing more or less than another child. To me each child is a wonderful gift – regardless of who their father is, or want kind of person their father is.
As for impossing one’s morallity on others – I think there are times when it is clearly called for. Ending the war in Iraq stems from a moral desire that I wish to impose on the soldiers and government officials of the United States, preventing child abuse requires that my moral values be imposed on others. But these examples aside, becuase of the deeply personal nature of abortion, I only wish to discuss the moral issues of abortion – as I support safe and legal access to abortion while believing it to be immoral.
that does not have to be born into a world where it is unwanted, because the woman raped is allowed to abort it.
Keep in mind that the woman may be physically injured because of the crime committed, may be in a deep state of depression because of the crime committed, may have be in financial crisis because of losing a job or dropping out of school or other impacts because of the crime committed — all potentially harmful to a child brought into such a situation.
Keep in mind that the woman may already be a mother with other children to raise. Or she wants to become a mother, eventually, with a father who wants her children, too.
These are the realities, not some pie-in-the-sky Hallmark-card view of pregnancy and motherhood.
As for the other situations in which you claim to have the right to impose your moral values on others, those are dissimilar in significant ways.
This is a democracy, not a country run by a despot or military rule. Therefore, opposing the war is not imposing my values on a president or a military — and neither declares war; Congress does. Congress as well as the president and the military are to abide by the will of the citizenry, so it is a citizen’s responsibility as well as right to make its will clear.
And in any society, democratic or otherwise, child abuse is immoral — so it also is not a situation of imposing moral values, when the values on the other side are immoral. The difficulty is defining what constitutes child abuse in each and any society — i.e., spanking is acceptable in some, not in others. But that is not the dilemma that you allege to address.
Do you think you picked the wrong forum to express your MORAL STAND AGAINST MY BODY? Can’t even hang around and discuss it now can you?
I think that Booman Tribune is a good place to discuss the moral issues of abortion. Because it is your body I think abortion should remain safe and legal. Becuase it is a human fetus that will be aborted, I think that civic discussion is warranted.
A zygot is not a fetus.
I think the suggestion that if zygot life is so precious to you, YOU get out there and start adopting and raising the resultant children! When you have done that, then come back and preach to us.
is, and has been, a principled opponent of the death penalty and abortion. He doesn’t want to criminalize it, he wants to discuss it. His efforts in this diary should be taken in good faith as a forum for discussing the issue. IMO.
Ok, BooMan, I’ll defer to your knowledge of the man on that count….’cept, if he wants to discuss it, then why isn’t he?
state to another after had finished editing a video for a project related to me work.
And I am here now, responding to each and every comment.
I wish he were here to discuss it, because I am really wondering how he reconciles his moralizing towards women who have abortions here with similar situations of moralizing I assume he has come across in his own life. It is an interesting juxtaposition, no?
for everyone to have and to express. That I don’t agree with everyone is not that big of a deal for me.
But I believe that in secular democracy some issues are resolved through legal principle and not moral principle. Equality before the law trumps moral concerns. So that is why laws against gay men have no place in our legal system.
Likewise, the fact that there is not consensus on the moral issues around abortion lead me to support safe and legal abortion. This contradicts my view that it is morally wrong – but I am live with that contradiction because I understand why safe and legal abortion access is called for – on secular and medical grounds that trump my moral poistion in this instance.
sanctimonious load of crap that was. I’m sorry, but I’m not interested in listening to it any more.
Oh, our boy Tom. . .I see he got bored again and decided to put up his “sure to stir up” the members post, for one more round.
For a gay man, Tom, you really amaze me with your “morality thinking.” The thing about morals is they are individual to each of us. I think this administration is totally lacking in morals of any kind. . so if we are going to criminalize “immorality” let’s start there, okay?
Obviously Tom was feeling the need for attention, once again. He has no desire to discuss this issue, he never has. . .so that pretense is invalid. He wants to tell us his morals are the only ones that matter and we should be rushing to immortalize his flawed thinking. He never stays around to discuss this issue that is so near and dear to his heart. . .he only wants to tell us how it is and that we should gratefully believe as he does.
Sorry Tom, it really isn’t worth our time. There is nothing sincere in your post except your desire for us to “worship” your “amazing” thought process on morality. Get over yourself, Tom.
For posting exactly what I was thinking!
just like Cindy at Camp Casey, the only reason people dare to differ is to get attention.
What?????? What does Cindy have to do with this discussion? Let’s stay on topic please.
Tom is, and has been, a principled opponent of the death penalty and abortion. He doesn’t want to criminalize it, he wants to discuss it.
Seeing as he isn’t discussing what is an unprincipled and indefensibly biased attitude towards sexual ‘morality’ either here or on the other blogs where he has posted this I think it more likely he’s written a deliberately provocative and insulting diary in order to direct traffic to the site he links to above. It’s the blog equivalent of advertising a ‘Crisis Pregnancy Center’. In other words he wants no more discussion with the women he would presume to lecture on their morality than does the Catholic heirarchy (who likewise refuse to acknowledge that men are also responsible for unwanted pregnancies).
Tom (none / 0)
is, and has been, a principled opponent of the death penalty and abortion. He doesn’t want to criminalize it, he wants to discuss it. His efforts in this diary should be taken in good faith as a forum for discussing the issue. IMO.
Sorry to be rude but that is utter sludge. I read Kertes in his earlier incarnation as Liberation Learning, then morph, in bright plummage, to Tom Kertes.
And after this re emergence last night I took time to go thru his many sites.
My own opinion: flatulent propagandist.
Interesting that this flies with you, Boo.
You would find your self at odds with women, most particulary women who are able to remember therapuetic abortion in CA — a friend of my mother’s was the shrink component on the old panels, with him you were lucky, ask you got, and he did not think women should ahve to ask.. but that was San Francisco.
Kertes is so inept it amazes me anyone is taken in. Well people do what they want.
Sorry to be rude but this is blatant use, propaganda that hten is openly welcomed and lauded.
Pity. No more, shame on you Boo.
If you do’t get it the women in this party have had it and they DO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. Women, the shaming of women, the talking about women as tho they are not fully autonomous adult people, is being used itn his party to deflect and to go red and right.
IMO Kertes is part of the problem. Moral, hardly.
think I am doing?
For what ends?
and energy trying to figure out why men do the things they do.
I don’t waste my time and energy that way anymore unless a man is willing to do more than simply respond as you are doing. You are not really discussing, and you certainly are not open to rethinking.
So — why you’re doing this is not of interest . . . especially as the Socratic style of your so-called response above is, interestingly, in the Armando School of Cryptic Questions.
In my opinion you are a paid on line canvasser of responses, reactions.
I suggest people take walk thru your many sites.
If Boo is endorsing (oh for dsicussion purposes) thsi sort of sludge then he should have one of the truly principled … someone like moiv, to offer a full bore counterbalance. Front Page.
One that stands in opposition to this tripe.
At both sites you, imo, left purposefully to see how the discussion flowed from the incendiary start. Without you as an object, but among so called equals.
A device. YOu even advertised your diary at Kos in an open thread… then were absent? OGMAFB.
He is a jerk… seeking attention
Go thru his sites.
Go thru his diaries at Kos, both as Tom Kertes and as Liberation Learning –that is, where he did not remove the TEXT of his diaries, leaving only the comments. Yes the text is at a site one is referred to… oh let’s get real…
This si more than “attention seeking”. Or juvenalia… This is a programmed assault for pay. IMO.
And should be disowned. Not promoted as ”principled” or worthy of discussion. It is worthy of intense push back.
Are sites for political discussion or for unnannounced “seeding” by the political consultant class? And there is a difference between political consultants, and polemiscists.
my judgment is impaired because Tom was an early supporter of this site, where he ran multiple ads advocating for the end of the death penalty, and the impeachment of Bush.
So, if he is a shill for the right, he has an imaginative way of going about his agenda.
I wrote and posted the diary becuase I think it is an important discussion for the left to have generally. It reflects my carefully considered views – ones that I have held but not uttered for years. I have been giving a lot of thought to this issue lately, and I write about what I am thinking. I think that that is an appropriate use of forum such as this.
As for who I am, I think you deserve to know. I am a consultant for grassroots organizations that work with the working poor and homeless, with pro-peace organizations and with early childhood advocacy organizations. I provide media advice and strategy development – getting the messages of these groups into the news for specific campaign objectives. I also work on other projects that are related to getting progressive ideas heard, but that are not directly tied to an existing organization.
My work and my blogging life are not the same thing. I blog for fun and learning.
I am a dedicated far left liberal. I have an AIDS orgaizer, an animal rights activist, worked with the anti-poverty movement and been an early childhood educator.
Thanks for sticking up for me – I hope that I have added to and not detracted from your project.
from the FAQ:
Yes. You are. Everyone is welcome at the site regardless of political self-identification. I don’t care how you are registered to vote, who you have voted for in the past, or who you plan to vote for in the future.
The only restriction on non-Democrats is that they be respectful of the mission of this site, that they don’t post Bill O’Reilly-like talking points, and that they don’t engage in trollish behavior.
If you are pro-life or anti-gun control, no one should down-rate your posts or make you feel unwelcome at this site, or in the Democratic Party. This site is not for the enforcement of any orthodoxy on its members. Principled disagreement is always allowed. Just don’t act like Sean Hannity and be an idiot.
You can accuse Kertes of being a mole. But you can’t make him feel unwelcome just because he is anti-abortion.
I don’t want witchhunts. And I’m not enforcing orthodoxy. We get better threads by debating.
We get better threads by debating.
it isn’t a free debate if one side has a paid agenda.
it is. How is your freedom impeded?
So you’re advocating that Consulants and Operatives are fully ok to roam here unimpeded to fuck with our heads for their paid agendas? It’s called whoring by the way.
My quest is finding the truth and i don’t take money from anyone to do it and i damned well find suspect anyone who does and you, Booman should above all because your name is on this site unless you are one of those paid people yourself. If so, time to come clean.
specialist. The organizations that I work with appreciate my training and experience at crafting media messages that get heard. It takes time and money to be a specialist, and that is why I get paid to do it. But I could make a hell of a lot more money applying my skills for the Right or for corporations. I don’t do that becuase to do so goes aganist my values – so no complaining. But I am not going to apolgize for making a living helping good causes get heard.
Also, my blogging is not my work. None one that I work for organizes around abortion. I am here for fun and learning – this is an after hours pastime. So I am not whoring here, and do I do whore for the day laborers, public housing residents and young children whose messages I help get heard.
Booman. About what Booman believes about paid operatives and i asked him a question based on his response to my question.
Your answer belongs elsewhere and i will reply there.
should disclose their conflict of interest.
If they are posting comments, it should be in their sig line.
But I doubt Tom is doing this for pay, and he says he isn’t.
BTW- some bloggers will soon be getting stipends. There is going to be a whole debate over how to handle that. So, I recognize the potential problem.
Disclosure is everything.
I do or have done on Booman Tribune.
When I have advertised on Booman for work related activities, I have not mentioned the ad in my posts. And I have not mentioned the project in my posts as well.
I think that my website link to TomKertes.com in my sig line provides all the info needed for people to know from where I am coming.
If I am ever getting paid to post materials on Booman, I be sure to make that clear.
to take your word for it. I hope you understand the valid concerns and suspicions that have been raised, and I trust you to keep your word about disclosure in the future.
Your sig line is fine.
seriously and hope that my answers will calm any concerns. If there were right wing paid hacks using this forum, I’d be annoyed and want to have a way to challenge them. I think disclosure is a fair policy and should be expected by all.
I do wonder, however, why no one got this upset in my diary about the unelected Canadian Senate being the right way to go for Canada.
and I feel it’s been going on at Dkos for quite some time, and they NEVER discuss it…
It’s all about TRANSPARENCY and when we don’t practice what we say we want, well we know what that makes us.
It all fails at “principled”.
Kertes needs to out himself. If his day work, off line, is for non-profits (day laborers, public housing residents and children.. well, I might buy that with a little more info…right now highly suspect, people say a lot), who are the non profits… ?
A former FP at Kos who was such a ”grass roots inner city activist” was recently challenged by an actual grass roots worker from his very town, at his own blog…. He had nothing to say for himself, no groups he works with, no causes he canvassed for… a dry well. A few ”parties” at ”Demcoratic homes” to ”make calls” during election periods. That was all he had. That is a part time election season volunteer (doing indoor work too I will add)…needed but not a dedicated grassroots worker.
And why when Kertes’s work is message shaping and defining “left morality” should I accept a denial that this as well is not targetted message work. Sorry not born last Thursday..
My best assessment is still that he is a paid canvasser of responses and reactions to issue presentation. When he is active, it goes in spates, he floods sites.
LOL NO witch hunts? well, then there is viral marketing, and seeding of threads, and it will get called out. IF anyone thinks it is only on the right side of the poltical blogs, that would be naive.
I am sorry Boo, there is too strong a whiff here.. and a few had noticed it over the months at Kos, Liberation Learning and then the evolution to Tom Kertes… strong whiffs.
He brought a crafted message and massage and, apparently, you fostered it.
It was not open, it was not principled and it was not debate. It drains the energy of the broad left for the real battles. Esp when presented in a supposed known forum.
He needs to out himself. And if you foster paid operative work at the site (particulary anti-woman, he is miliseconds from Kos’s “horrible” crap… he seeks to claim “moral” to himself, I deny him the exclusive rights), you need to be open about that.
Clearly from your comment to Wilfred yo have no problem if operatives operate here. Then yu need some defined guidelines.
But don’t fret, I am gone. I leave you to the tender mercies of what will come if the site supports Democrats for Life, the 95/10 initiative or uses paid operatives to (attempt to) deliver a strangled consensus to the party on line (pro life) whips.
Your posts over weeks into months indicate to me you are well positioned to support the Dems as they move right and red against women.
my philosophy of allowing a wide berth for the discussion of ideas with respect that you will want to leave this site. But I don’t understand your position.
Tom says he does not represent any anti-abortion groups. His advertisements have been for other issues that I agree with.
IMO, people get to obsessed with the content of the diaries. People write about jazz, gardens, child-rearing, all kinds of things. If some people want to write well-considered defenses of policies that I disagree with, I don’t have a problem with it.
The only thing I won’t tolerate is BushCo. talking points that are nothing but rank distortions of fact.
This site is not going to get sidetracked because it has some DLC person posting diaries.
It won’t be undermined by Tom Kertes.
But, yes, this site is not for paid consultants to use for the purposes of mining information for their clients. At the very least, such behavior must be prominently disclosed, and depending on the client, it can be an outright bannable offense.
Also, was that last comment aimed at me? If so, I don’t appreciate it.
to be at work at Booman not disclose this fact. But I am not at work when here. I do this for a pastime, and would hate it if my work as a communications consultant prevented me from having views of my own to share in an online forum such as this.
Additionally, I agree, I could not derail this or any other site. People can simply ignore me, which they usually do since my diaries are often boring and obtuse.
because I think your point is a valid one.
To be clear, when I am here I am here for fun, not for pay. But your point about how the two intersect is valid and so I will provide the information you request.
Currently:
I help with media for http://unitedworkersassociation.org – day laborers in Baltmore, MD. I help develop media strategy, design visuals for protests and train activists. I am not paid by this organization. Individual donors pay me to provide time and services.
I help with leadership training for http://friendsandresidents.org. The group is not very active these days. I organized the visuals for the Right to Housing March and helped with media and agency communications. I am not paid by this organization. Individual donors pay me to provide time and services.
I volunteer with the University of Poor, School of Labor. http://universityofthepoor.html/labor/
I provide some non-paid consulting for Friends for a Non-Violent World (a pro-peace group) to help develop media strategy for a specific event. http://fnvw.org
I also work on the http://draftfreedom.org project.
I am working on project to encourage less meat consumption, which is in the beginning stages of development. This project is not associated with any other organization. Funding is from individual donors. The url will be http://Meat-is-Violent.com.
In addition, I provide trainings on early childhood reading and literacy instruction.
I wrote a diary. I posted it. I saw that open thread was open. I added a comment. I then left to go on a two hour drive home. I got home and went to bed. I woke up. I wrote responses to the comments. Truth is, I was surprised to see 200+ comments at Kos and 75+ here. Most of my recent diaries on the moral issues of the Left pass quickly by. So I can post, then come back a day later and respond to the 2 or 3 comments.
unequivocal judgmental diary sparked some controversy?
hmmmm…
You must be either young/naive or unaquainted with the ways of the world.
passesd over for being too long — I think the mone about the Moral Leftist should be the one getting ripped into, actually. It goes to the heart of mainstream liberalism. And how about the one about the Canadian Senate being unelected?
After reading your comments , I am taking away from your words, that women must have the burden of all the responsibility since we now have birth control etc. How very strange you have left out the history of male society and their thinking of women and pregnancy. In the late 1800’s women were to hide in their homes when pregnant. Women who have been with child out of wed lock have been scorned and killed all through history – even being the “spoils of war”. Where is man’s contribution to “life is sacred”? our children have been called “bastards” and illegitimate”
doesn’t sound like a child that a man wants to love and care for. maybe you should ask men , not where they stand on abortion , but where they stand on taking care of a baby that they create. Such as with a girl friend, and he has a wife, or he’s 17 and a H.S. jock, will he quit his dreams to work and care for his child? maybe you can do a column about why men leave their girlfriends after they get them pregnant. And this doesn’t even cover the males in families that prey on their little girl relatives. When you talk about abortion there is more than a woman terminating a pregnancy. GOD gave her free will, let her decide with the help of family , friends, doctor and God.
of oppression aganist women or of outdated attitudes of pregnacny is relevent to the central issue – which is, to me, of how we value human life in all stages of human development.
Men who have sex without regard to the life they are creating are morally responsible for what they are doing. My beliefs about abortion and the moral aspects of abortion all directed to men – as men who believe abortion is morally wrong should behave accordinly.
No it’s not.
The only discussion I see hear is amongst us women. If he only wants a discussion then he would be here to debate his opinions.
I usually engage in these discussions. I wait for the responses and then resond to each person.
All life is sacred. That’s why I am vegan…
Oh, I see. So all life is sacred except for vegetable life. Has not a carrot a complex molecular structure? Does not a tomato bear the seeds of new life? I don’t know what to make of such moral relativism.
There are those only eat fruit, and those who only fruit that falls from the plant. But I am not one of those – and so my moral values with regards to comsuption of life ends between plant and animal. But I do regard plant life as sacred, and that is why I am an enviromentalist and why I think that wildland should be protected.
Yes… and there are people who only eat the non-reproductive parts of plants that aren’t killed in harvesting. There are people who sift their flour and carefully remove any insect life. Their teeth tend to drop out of their heads. I suppose there is something noble about sacrificing one’s own nutritional needs at the altar of “life.” Interesting word, sacrifice. It actually means “to make sacred.” Some of us see the process of life turning itself over constantly for new life, nothing ever being created or destroyed, as the beautiful, terrible mystery of corporeal existence. But, enough about me.
You seem to recognize that there are few ambiguities to your own moral structure, so I find it very interesting that you are comfortable making moral pronouncements about other people’s choices, which don’t affect you one iota. Just remember this. A steer can run away. A head of lettuce can’t. It’s completely defenseless. Think about that next time you’re gorging on your salad.
I meant that to read “a few ambiguities,” not “few.” Kind of a crucial typo, that needs addressing. I meant it as an understatement, as there are certainly more than “a few.”
I’m going to start from the assumption that you have given this a lot of thought, and that you are sincere in your convictions.
Let’s start w/ this:
Birth control fails, not to mention that we live in a culture that steadfastly REFUSES to teach people how to use it most efficaciously. We celebrate sex, while refusing to discuss it seriously. I knew more about how to balance a checkbook than I did the first night I had sex, AND I took the trouble to try to educate myself.
Second:
You say you’re not driven to this stand by religion, but rather by your understanding of how:
So this precludes the woman’s autonomy? I’m not convinced. How do you define “independence?” Where does it start? Breathing on it’s own? Do you understand these questions are already dealt with in Roe v Wade, however imperfectly? That most abortions happen early in the first trimester? That later abortions happen generally b/c of health concerns?
I’ll accept that you’re sincere, but I think you need to do more research. Women, when they carry, then deliver, a child, are accepting a HUGE responsibilty. They may or may not have a man accepting and meeting his responsibilities. They may have other children, other responsiblities, other limitations thant are NONE of any of our business.
Please, take a step back, and recognize that EVERY woman who faces this choice is doing the best she can, that she is pondering these very same issues, and that it has NOTHING to do with you.
Thanks for listening.
you can dismiss the moral issue quite as easily as saying it is none of anyone’s business.
What Roe essentially says is that the state has an interest in protecting unborn babies (whether embryos, fetuses, or blastocysts). Balanced against that is a presumed right to privacy that each individual is granted by the constitution.
Roe basically makes a semi-arbitrary, semi-scientific sliding scale of when those two rights have priority.
Now, Roe doesn’t talk about it, but it comes down to this. In the first trimester many pregnancies are lost and no procedure is even needed. By the second trimester a lost baby is much rarer and will also require a procedure. By the third trimester, babies may be viable outside the womb.
From a purely enforcement point of view, there is no way to enforce a prohibition on abortion in the first trimester without creating a police state. Therefore Roe says the right to privacy is only supreme in the first trimester.
Thus, arguing from the case, you could say that it is none of anyone’s business in the first trimester, but it is someone’s business after.
If your mother had aborted you the day before you were born, I doubt too many people would judge that as none of anyone’s business.
So, the problem is moral and practical.
However, my biggest problem with Tom’s argument applies equally to his appeal to veganism. Birth control and the presumption of female choice makes no sense in Africa, or most of the Muslim world. Starving Somalians will be unimpressed to appeals to veganism. These moral judgments are the luxuries of an affluent society.
And our society is still not uniformly affluent enough to make those moral judgments fair even here.
that Tom Kertes posted the same diary at Kos and at nearly 300 posts never showed his face once.
I don’t want to bother to state what that makes this, ah, excercise, but anyone intelligent can figure it out.
Birth control and the presumption of female choice makes no sense in Africa, or most of the Muslim world.
Booman, that is patently untrue. Where do you get this stuff, from Rush Limbaugh?
A women’s reproductive system and how it works has been of importance to all women from all societies since the dawn of woman.
Women from every culture since time began have looked to control their own bodies. Women been trying to stop unwanted pregnancies but like many things to do with physicality until recently, it was not discussed openly. Women did this alone and as society evolved they began to network with each other for help. It was also difficult to discuss openly because when a woman chooses not to have a baby she takes control of the situation and men have always wanted control of everything, including women. Sadly, they still do and I for one will not sit by idly while others try to do this to them.
Unwanted pregnancies are as old as woman and man themselves, we have not invented this, it’s always been there and always will be. What arrogance to think it’s only recent and affluent societies who experience basic human nature.
inverted the meaning of my post.
So, I will spell it out.
On order to pass moral judgment on a women for getting pregnant, there has to be a presumption that the woman had some choice in the matter.
First she has to be free to accept or reject sexual intercourse. A woman does not have the right to accept or reject sexual intercourse in much of Africa and much of the Muslim world, because she is either dependent on a man for survival, or because the law says that her husband has the right to have sex whenever he pleases, or because the laws are weak and not enforced.
Second, there is a presumption that a woman can overcome pressures or her own desires by using contraception. But contraception is not readily available everywhere, it is not foolproof, and it there are strong taboos against using it in many places.
Tom’s post makes a modicum of sense in a society where women can support themselves, there are strong laws that are enforced that protect her from submitting to unwanted sex, and birth control is readily available. But it makes no sense in Africa, where none of those things are true.
Therefore, it is a moral position that is only possible in an affluent society with equal right.
And even then, if fails to note that contraception is not foolproof, that coerced sex often takes place in dependent relationships, etc.
India and China have vast amounts of abortions because the societal “mores” deem male babies more cherished.
So Boo but Tom is talking out of his ass…
He is cherry picking “morality” and painting “choice” with broad strokes…
He is bullshit would be like me saying:
if I wrote a diary that was titled HOMOSEXUALITY is Morally Wrong and were to base the premise of my argument that because it is a “choice” and immoral therefore society needed to rid itself of this immoral plague… What kind of strategy would you then implement to iradicate this immoral homosexuality?
Funnily enough Tom gave the correct answer:
I would say: I believe that you are wrong. And I would oppose your moral agenda.
Tom is full of shit… and attention seeking
his argument is weak, and I don’t know why he didn’t participate in the comments.
However, the fact that he sees abortion as morally questionable, and wrong in many instances, is his opinion to have.
Remember that he doesn’t want to criminalize it, but to help make it unnecessary.
If we wanted to we could give every 10 year old girl the implant birth control. And she could remove the implants at such a time that she wished to have children.
Everyone once in a while the implants would fail, and some provision would have to be made for that.
Yet, under such a system we could begin to say that a woman’s pregnancy is her responsibility alone.
I say this not to advocate for a policy of forced temporary sterilization, but to point out that you would have to go that route to even begin to hold women to Tom’s standard of morality.
and you should even give him that much credit…
That is as absurd as saying I think that homosexuality is questionable, and wrong in many instances…to help make it unnecessary.
You know where that leads…here Shall we make it obligatory for all fathers to take showers with their sons… a la Dobson.
I don’t think you can dismiss the moral issue quite as easily as saying it is none of anyone’s business.
Sure I can. ’tain’t nobody elses bidness WHAT I, or a woman, does, as long as it isn’t hurting another PERSON.
There is the rub. A fetus isn’t a person. It’s just not. We can talk about “viability” and “ensoulment” all we want, but they are states that are IMPOSSIBLE to pin down. Nobody is going to agree on where those lines are drawn. Hell, we don’t protect all the the rights of actual BORN children, and let parents get away with lots of decisions I would call dangerous or stupid, but as a society we’ve decided that people and their families have certain boundaries within which they can do what they want. None of our business.
As for Tom’s piece, the more I think about it, the more it pisses me off. This isn’t an honest discussion of his perspective. Boilerplate like this:
Doesn’t provide us any basis for why he feels that, or what we should really do with it. If it is “sacred,” then how can we allow ANY proceedure that could kill or damage a fetus? There is a risk (however small) involved in some prenatal tests — since the fetus is “sacred” shouldn’t we outlaw those tests as well? Shouldn’t we monitor what the woman does, eats, inhales? For him to assert this quasi-religious status to what is basically a bundle of cells, only to then contradict himself by saying he supports “choice,” is a philosophically and politically untenable position.
We can see from his site that he:
And that he helps groups do this by:
So who’s story is he telling here? How does he recommend they change the discussion?
This entire post feels like an attempt to drive home the idea that groups like Democrats for Life CAN be welcome in our party, and that it is possible to be anti-woman and still a good “liberal” or “progressive.” It has the ring of something calculated, for if we can accept someone who is a “vegan,” antiwar and homosexual, presumably “like us,” who opposes abortion on “moral” grounds then there is no reason why we shouldn’t accept someone who opposes it on RELIGIOUS grounds.
All of this is part of politics, but the way it’s being done here, in a forum for citizens to discuss policy and values, is patently dishonest. It is propaganda masquerading as chat. Viral marketing of the political variety.
You’re a good guy booman, and I understand that he offered a lot of support for this site when it was launched, but he’s playing games and taking advantage of the values of this community.
I didn’t put two and two together… of course he is being paid for this crap
but you’re still wrong.
My nephew was a fetus that was born at six and half months. He had brain-bleeding, was in an incubator for weeks, and now is a fully normal kid with no obvious learning disabilities.
You simply can’t say he isn’t/wasn’t a person the moment before he was born, or now.
As you know, I am a very strong supporter of Roe, but I don’t dismiss the issue of abortion as none of anyone’s business. That’s wishful thinking.
You can’t make the moral quandary go away with a sweep of the hand.
For me, I don’t try to resolve the issue morally. I don’t think it can be done. Instead, I have resolved the issue pragmatically. There is no way to enforce a prohibition on first trimester abortions that won’t require a police state level of intrusion into the woman/doctor relationship. Furthermore, these types of laws discourage doctors from getting the training they need to deal with the death of a fetus, or the need to abort a baby with severe/fatal abnormalities, or to perform abortions to save the life/fertility of the mother, or in cases of rape/incest.
It’s bad policy. It hurts women’s health and access to adequate medical care. It hurts their ability to pay for that medical care.
Just as Roe says, the right to privacy trumps the interest of the state in protecting unborn babies through the full first trimester. But by the third trimester, the state’s interest can trump the privacy interest.
To abort a baby that can live outside the womb is a totally different thing. Surely you can see that. I would not support that unless there was a medical reason for either the baby or the mother. But surely not as a just a choice.
So, once again, this issue is complicated, morally troubling, and impossible to reach a consensus on.
I think the current law is just about right in terms of what is legal. But we should be doing more to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies, increase the level of pre-natal care, improve our adoption procedures, improve access to qualified doctors who can perform abortions, improve education about birth control and STD’s, etc.
Your brother/sister defined your nephew as a person by doing what was needed to bring him into this world. Their choice. THEY MADE HIM A “PERSON.”
Other parents would have made other choices, and they have every right to do so.
So, once again, this issue is complicated, morally troubling, and impossible to reach a consensus on.
Which is why this ISN’T a question for the state. The general boundaries reached by RvW are as close as we’re ever going to get to a consensus. What diaries like this one does is give cover to the idea that there is more of a consensus than there is, which is the same reason I HATE the Clinton formulation of “safe, legal and rare.” Safe and legal is enough. It’s up to individual women and their doctors to decide how rare it is. I agree w/ your last paragraph, but dishonest faux screeds like this diary help empower people who will make those goals HARDER to reach, not easier. This site is being used to push the 95/10 Initiative, a campaign which will actually erode women’s health care access, not improve it, by enshrining terrible Jane Crow laws like:
let’s leave this diarist aside, and focus on the issue as we see it.
but what is being done with this diary IS an important issue.
There is a foul push coming from the national party to accept groups like Democrats for Life as legitimate partners in the party, and this diary is an attempt to help “sell” that idea. We’re being played by politicians pushing an agenda that is bad for our country, bad for our base and especially bad for women in general.
The motives behind screeds like this matter.
the motives matter. But there is a difference between opposing Tom’s views and seeing him as some nefarious mole. Prove it.
Secondly, I don’t believe it is a good idea to reject anyone who feels abortion is morally wrong but doesn’t support criminalization.
If they support criminalization, then yes, get lost. But that is not Tom’s position.
Do you reject people that think the death penalty is okay in certain circumstances, or, conversely, that it is never acceptable?
People have different views on important moral questions. I disagree with Tom’s argument, but I have no interest in pushing him out of the party, or off this website just because he holds his opinions.
If you can prove to me that he doesn’t really hold his opinions but is just being paid to make his arguments, then I’ll agree he is a troll. For now, I think we’ve had a good debate here, which is what I want. At DailyKos everyone would have been flamed and down-rated. Here we had a mostly civil debate.
is circumstantial indications (which I highlighted in the earlier comment) and his posting history.
I don’t think this is the same as the death penalty question. Asserting that the state has the right to impede the freedom of a citizen when they’ve done nothing wrong is indefensible. That is what the anti-woman activists are trying to do. If a person has a moral objection to abortion, but feels it should be legal, what is to be gained by pushing their opinion on immorality? I think most wars are indefensible, but I respect soldiers. I don’t look at them and say, “hey, I support you, but you’re a baby killer. Not that there is anything wrong with that.”
I think this has been a good discussion. I’m glad that you and Susan built and hold this place together. However, just please remember that, even though you’re not a party activist, this is an increasingly important site, and you will be getting more and more pressure to help move the party’s message. I can’t prove it, but I’m convinced this diary is one such attempt.
Thanks for listening to my lectures.
I don’t know where you get that.
I may not work FOR the party in the sense that they pay me, but I am a party activist and have been for at least 5 years.
This site is a Democratic site. I just don’t have a policy of exluding non-Democrats or enforcing orthodoxy. And I don’t want people disrespected for holding heretical views.
You LSF folks are indeed fighters. And you are great debaters. I love having you here. But, you have to respect my desire to show respect. If Tom were spouting off Hannity talking points I would savage him myself, but he’s not. His argument has some flaws, but it also has food for thought.
Debating him educates us just as much as his message peddling pushes an agenda we don’t agree with.
Madman, my rules are the reason this thread didn’t devolve into flamethrowing, despite several instigative posts. Where are the down ratings? See any?
There are benefits to my approach.
and I appreciate it the tone here. Very much. I’m just afraid that posts like this one will derail it.
But by the third trimester, the state’s interest can trump the privacy interest.
Oh please do not bring up the partial birth abortion strawman…
The only third term abortions are when the mother life is in danger or the child is non viable
Boo I am really disappointed… do you really believe that women CHOOSE to have abortions in the 7 , 8 and 9th month???
partial-birth abortion.
I said that the according to Roe, the state’s interest in protecting unborn babies, or whatever you want to call them, can be asserted over an presumption of privacy. That’s what Roe says.
So, even under the law, the right to choose is not absolute. And, I agree with that.
Parker, all I’m doing is pointing out that there is a moral issue involved that is more complicated than saying ‘it is none of your business’. Roe doesn’t say that. Roe says, effectively, that the state’s interest doesn’t trump the privacy interest until the third trimester, and it is squishy on the second trimester, effectively allowing for some regulation by the state.
So, if that is the law, the law says it IS the state’s interest, but that interest is not absolute. It says women have a right to privacy, but that right is not absolute.
I’m just critiquing Madman’s argument as overly simplistic. In the end, I think we agree on what the law and policy should be, or nearly so.
partial-birth abortion ARE late term abortions
It says women have a right to privacy, but that right is not absolute.
No one here said it was absolute
the point is that the law says the state has an interest. Sometimes that interest is not sufficient to allow the state to regulate, and other times it is. That’s the law.
Therefore, under the law, you can’t say ‘it’s none of anyone’s business’. You can only say, ‘your interest is not sufficient to overwhelm the woman’s interest’.
Again, this is how the law is currently constructed.
Now, in the arguments for Roe, Roe insisted her right was absolute until birth. That was rejected. Some people agree with her position, and Madman seems to be approaching that position.
But, I don’t agree with it. Does that mean I oppose partial-birth abortion? No. Under Roe the states have the right to outlaw abortion in the third trimester unless there are certain circumstances. Partial-birth abortions for mere choice don’t happen, and never have (except in illegal circumstances). There are always some attendent circumstances, like the health of the mother, or severe retardation or birth defects, or some disease.
So, there was never a need for a law prohibiting partial-birth abortion, and I view it as nothing but a faux-issue, and a wedge.
..but could you please stop saying “partial birth abortion”? “Late term abortion” isn’t correct either, and while it’s not as egregiously awful as “PBA,” it still carries deceptive connotations of abortion performed near full term — which is why the antis like it almost as much as “PBA.” Abortion performed beyond the second trimester simply is called “late abortion.”
And while we all know what we “think we mean” by those terms, they aren’t synonyms, either. The “PBA” Ban makes no reference at all to the length of pregnancy, indeed criminalizing many pre-viability procedures. And anti-choice factions frequently use “late term abortion” to refer to any abortion performed after the second trimester.
Getting down off the soapbox now. 😉
That’s how she loaded the dice. Nature likes gender roles and lots of babies.
I don’t want to cooperate with laws or culture that makes or pressures me* to be a second class citizen.
I freely admit that there is a moral issue involved that is more complicated than saying ‘it is none of your business’ but letting women & their families & doctors make private decisions privately is a way in which our culture can (attempt to) grant full citizenship.
I understand you think it is appropriate for the state to have an interest. I can’t think of another compromise other than “not your business” that isn’t “separate but equal” or “some people are more equal than others”.
—————
*Woman, one abortion, tubes tied, entering menopause (the abortion was plan B when my IUD failed).
Roe does use that language … that there is a sliding scale of state interest, which becomes more and more compelling as the pregnancy advances. That’s what made the “partial birth” spin so deadly: it uses the framework within Roe to push the idea that the state can insert itself into women’s decisions more aggressively than had been accepted up to that point when that horrible bill was signed into law.
I am not paid by anyone to promote anything remotely related to abortion issues by anyone. In fact, I suspect that all of the people that I work with would totally disagree with my views on this particular point.
I am writing this to tell a story. And that story is the story of what it means to be a Moral Leftist. I am trying to sort this out, to see what it means when we say that we’d like to focus on values and just interests as a movement.
I wrote the abortion piece because someone who read another essay that I wrote asked me to clarify my stance on abortion.
I do work as a communciation consultant. But when I am blogging, I am being me – Tom Kertes. I speak for myself as a person, a citizen, and that is all.
I believe that abortion should remain safe and legal.
Contrast this to my belief that child abuse should be criminalized, that war should be criminalized, etc. and I hope you see that I understand the complexity of the moral issues around abortion.
While I believe abortion to be morally wrong, and I see value in it being ended, I respect that there is not a consensus on this and that is why I am willing to support safe and legal abortion.
So what the fuck are you talking about…
While I believe abortion to be morally wrong, and I see value in it being ended, I respect that there is not a consensus on this and that is why I am willing to support safe and legal abortion.
What if I said:
While I believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, and I see value in it being ended, I respect that there is not a consensus on this and that is why I am willing to support homosexual civil rights.
What the fuck is your point…You are an ass who just likes to see your name in print…
I also think abortion may be morally wrong. But the answer to your dilemma is simple. The one who gets to make a choice about whether or not abortion is morally wrong is the woman who’s trying to decide if she wants to have one. Period. She’s the only person qualified to judge if the ‘thing’ inside her is a person or not. As you recognize, no empirical test can answer that question before the moment of birth. So the only sensible solution is to leave this decision in the hands of the woman – because, for good or ill, she’s the one that has to deal with the consequences of her choice for the rest of her life.
If you believe that abortion is morally wrong, the best thing you can do is work to eliminate the “demand” – prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring.
is to bring up the moral diminsions of termination of pregnacy.
No. Won’t work, any more than abstinence education works. The only method I’m aware of that really works is sex ed and readily available contraception.
I don’t believe abortion is morally wrong, and I don’t believe all life is sacred.
And I don’t believe in god — of any kind, nor profess any religion.
So, you go ahead and have your celebration of the birth of that child conceived in an incestuous relationship by that 40-year-old father on his 12 year-old daughter during a non-consensual act of rape.
Just leave me out of it. My moral values find that idea and the people who hold it repugnant.
morality. I believe all life is sacred. You don’t. We differ on a major point.
I don’t beleive that declaring a belief that “all life is sacred” has a damn thing to do with morality.
That does not mean that I think that you are an immoral person. Not at all.
It’s just that our basic understanding of what constitutes or belongs in the arena of morality is totally unlike on this point.
point – I agree with your wording and point on this.
I was raised in a religious family, raised in the church. However even I am becoming offended at the attempts of religion, particularly Southern Baptist and Catholics…to permeate every aspect of the life of those of us who do not believe as they do.
They are meddling where they do not belong. You are having opinions about women’s rights that are ok for YOU to hold…but NOT ok to impose on our culture.
This Seamless Garment/Democrats for Life/National Right to Life movement now is getting on my last nerve.
They have a right to their opinion….they do NOT have a right to take over the parties…either of them.
This culture of life from “conception to natural death” is very presumptuous. It takes decisions out of the hands of an individual and their family, and makes more Schiavo cases.
Southern Baptists and Catholics and Presbyterian are joining together here in Florida to do away with gay rights. How dare they? How dare religious groups decide they have so much authority?
They do have a right to take over the parties – just as you have a right to stop them. That you don’t want something does not mean that others don’t have the right to do what you don’t want.
I am not religous, and I am not interested in a religous takeover of the Democratic Party. I am a secularist and think that any move from secularism is dangerous. But secularism is not ammoral – society is still best bound to some sort of moral and ethical code, with or without religion as its source.
I left my church because of their rigid moral righteousness. I think secularism has a right to be in politics, but I hesitate to say that religious groups have that right.
For sheer discussion value alone.
Hi Maryscott! I was going to do the same thing but just could not as I went through this same discussion over at Kos when Tom wrote about it there. If someone writes something like this for “discussion” purposes as Booman said then where is the writer during this discussion?
Boy, I sure disagree with you on this one. We have had some wonderful and thought provoking discussions on abortion from many view points. Renee in Ohio’s diaries come to mind. . .
But Tom is not seeking discussion. As usual, Tom is seeking attention, and delights in seeing the number of responses add up. Look at all the attention Tom is getting. Tom has not hung around for a discussion on this topic of his posts for nearly a year now. Whenever he needs or wants hits on his web site, or some numbers in the response columns, he posts this same tired and fatally flawed diary, or some version of it.
We have given him far more attention than is deserved, in my opinion. Go back and read some of Renee’s diaries if you want discussion.
Tom appears to me to be in great need of growing up. The world does not exist for Tom’s benefit alone, and for his desire to impose his strange sense of morality on all of us.
But I see the discussion as unproductive. The writer is too full of certitude to be persuaded let alone convinced by any rebuttal.
Personally I am totally convinced that having an abortion is a decision that belongs to a woman and her doctor. Let the woman seeking an abortion get advice from her friends and family. She does not need politicians, clergy or amateur moralists to guide her.
Well, since you are pushing buttons, I think, lying,cheating,stealing,killing,fear mongering,using GOD for fear and control are morally wrong.
The key is choice and free will. Something we all wrestle with daily moment by moment.
Would I lie, cheat steal or kill to protect my family, feed them etc.? probably, depending on the circumstances. Would I go to war on a foreign land to do that? NO! In my backyard? probably.
I am glad I never had to choose an abortion but that CHOICE is more important because one never knows what circumstance-rape,incest,poverty,illness etc., may be a factor at that time of pregnancy. And if ALL MEN were responsible for their actions, most of these morally wrong issues/choices would go by the wayside.
Bad actions begat bad choices sometimes. It depends on one’s meaning of what bad/wrong is- and that is an INDIVIDUAL decision.
I am still in the US. Waiting for immigration, etc.
I think I agree with your general point – that’s why I think abortion should remain safe and legal.
Why don’t those opposed to abortion spend as much time caring for the thousands of abused, and/or unwanted children in this country. I mean, really, the level of abuse and sexual abuse of children is shameful in this country. Would the children living today command as much time and attention as first trimester fetuses, oh what a different world it would be.
it seems criminal that most of the anti-abortion forces are totally disinterested in the lives of living children. I think that most of the anti-abortion forces lack compassion and interest in economic justice.
That many of the pro-life people are also rabid supporters of war.
They argue in vicious detail about the precise moment when life begins while thousands die in their war against Iraq.
It is supposedly about choice. Any military leader in war must make choices which will inevitably lead to deaths both of his own troops and that of the enemy. It is usually a decision made on the basis of sacrifice: how many people must die in order to preserve the lives of far more. This was the justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It is also the Bush justification (and choice) for the war in Iraq – kill and be killed over there, so you won’t be killed or kill over here (USA)
Bush is pro-choice.
I find most of the anti-abortion forces to be totally immoral in almost all regards. I believe that they are using abortion as an issue to gain power for religous forces. The real issues is a side show for them.
abortion is no longer a reproductive or sexual behavior issue. It is in almost all instances a choice. The choice is between using birth control and not.
I see Tom went to the same medical school as Dr. Frist. And what television show did you learn this on?
Tom… how would you feel if I wrote a diary that was titled HOMOSEXUALITY is Morally Wrong and were to base the premise of my argument that because it is a “choice” and immoral therefore society needed to rid itself of this immoral plague… What kind of strategy would you then implement to iradicate this immoral homosexuality?
I bring this up because I am sick and tired of these bullshit “moralist” who always want to dig into someone elses panties. Listen you stay out of my panties and I’ll stay of yours…
I would say: I believe that you are wrong. And I would oppose your moral agenda.
Look in the mirror you hypocrit… I am not telling you to stop having sex with men… so you can go to hell with your selective “morality”
Where is Lorraine? I haven’t seen her post here in over a month, and she only posted once at culture kitchen in the last 6 weeks. She hasn’t posted at her own blog, but a week ago posted a picture of a young child with no words.
I would think she would have some compelling ideas concerning this diary.
Any news?
Lorraine is in the process of moving and is shuttling between temporary shelter and does not have internet connection available much of the time.
I miss her too. . .hope she comes back strong soon.
Are you now or have you ever been on the payroll of any political or any other kind of organization?
because he inserted it in the wrong place.
Tom, how can Booman be an after-hours fun thing for you when posted it mid-morning and you’ve been here all day?
Are all the companies you work with non-profit? You make it sound like charity work when it may be far from it.
Who is paying you Tom?
You know, I need operatives on my Politically Left websites like I need more Telemarketers in my life.
When some asshole rings my front doorbell, at least he identifies himself as a salesmen and shows me who pays his bills.
Bullshit on you moralizing to me about anything.
AND BOOMAN: How about a new rule here at Booman- If you are a political consultant or on the payroll of an organization or Political Party or adjunct, you must identify it at the bottom of ALL your threads. I for one want to know all the spotted leopards on the site.
“De-emphasizes tolerance
As much as we’d like to, we can’t have it all. While tolerance is a core value for many liberals, for the Moral Leftist it is not. That’s because we have little tolerance for what we believe is immoral. Moral activism is based not on tolerance, but instead on making and acting upon one’s moral judgments.
While tolerance is not emphasized, it is not outright rejected. There are many instances in which tolerance is generally called for. The point is not that tolerance is disregarded in whole, but rather that it is not accepted in whole.
20th Aug |”
From Tom’s site he has linked here in diary. Now, my question is to you Tom, just when is tolerance allowed? I mean an anti-gay moralist will say he/she has no tolerance for homosexuals. Is that okay with you?
say what you want, try to get the public to back you. I will disagree, and work to get others to back me. But I am fine with someone holding that moral opinion.
I am a secularist, and I think that there are civic values that trump almost all moral values. One is equality of the law.
Another is respect for the majority and respect for differences in moral outlook. That is one reason why I think abortion should remain safe and legal, regardless of what I or others think about abortion on moral terms.
Then what was your point in writing this diary?
issue as part of civic discourse. To be part of a national conversation of the moral issues related to abortion.
But why? What do you hope to get out of it? You really do not answer questions directly at all Tom. That is why so many here are frustrated with you.
to talk about it with others. To think about my views and to hear what others have to say about them. To learn from others. To help shape the national conversation. To be part of the national conversation. To have something interesting to do with my spar time, and to help develop my own views and values.
So what have you learned here today, if anything.
I learned to better clarify my disclosure statement – which I have done by adding a link to my sig.
It is with great trepidation I jump in here in this thread.
I was for a long time opposed to abortions, that was esp. true after having seen the video of an abortion. I was adamant that it only be done in the most dire of curcumstances.
Nothing to do with the law, or legalizing, which I supported full heartedly, just wanted it to be last resort.
Then I came to understand that women have abortions for all sorts of reasons and the large part of them valid, I could not walk in their shoes to decide for them and so I gave that up. (FYI I have known women that used it as birth control and do feel that may not be the best method>)
It helped me to come to this place after I came to believe that the soul or spirit of a being may not come in to the body until late in pregnancy and perhaps birth. That is my personal belief, others may not agree.
Bottom line for me is ‘women have the absolute right to choose’, period.! Man does not have the right to interfere…by laws or intentions.
PS I support also everything Booman has said in this thread with regards to posting on this site.
T.K.
That’s because I see the birth of child, even from such a violent act,[rape] as something to be celebrated.
It’s none of your business if a woman who is raped does not wish to carry forth a nine-month pregnancy and give birth to the rapist’s child. Many women do decide to continue with that violent impregnation, and that decision is also their business, not yours or mine or any politician’s.
We are on different planes on this one. I doubt that anyone would suggest that a born child should be killed becuase of their father’s rape of their mother. Since I believe that the human fetus should be protected, I don’t think that a fetus should be terminated for the same reason.
have to make the decision for yourself.
Carry on butting into the private lives of women you do not know.
I was just rereading your diary and came on your statement about your ,“Since I do not believe in the soul, for me there is no spark of life that occurs when the soul enters the unborn child. are you saying that you don’t think there is such a thing as a soul?
Another point I would wish to make is that by your criteria, life would then exist in frozen fetal cells, does that bother you that they are doomed to death, in many cases? Just curious!
Looks like a direct contradiction to me.
No, I do not believe in the soul.
I don’t understand the next question. Could you please explain.
Well it just seems to me that if you think it is morally wrong to abort fetuses, then it would also be morally wrong to keep fetuses frozen and then discarded, I just wondered if you extend your morality to that. I BTW I am not judging you, just curious as I often think people forget that aspect of ’embryo’s’ and wonder how they square it if they are morally opposed to abortion.
Also about the soul thing, If you don’t believe in a soul, then what is the spark of life that you are trying to preserve, and just how far are you willing to go to preserve sparks of life that you believe have no soul and to what end. So that they may live, no matter the existence.
I also have a hard time with where your morality comes from, if you don’t believe in souls or spirits.
If by extension you do not believe in an afterlife, then I would think you would have no problem with disposal of life.
Very curious to me, your position.
there is a world of difference between believing in a soul (an idea that has no currency in neuroscience, and almost no credibility in the philosophy of science) and being indifferent to the value of life.
In fact, not believing in a soul makes killing somone a much bigger transgression. After all, if you are truly snuffing out someone’s existence then you are more responsible than if you are only sending them to a better place.
Ok, Boo, point taken here, but this still doesn’t address Diane’s central questions…..
Whoa what, booman, I was just asking….
Now I am curious about your comment, are we talking science or morality…. I thought we were talking morality. Seems to me the lack of a belief of a soul would change the whole dynamics of this argument as presented.
How do you have ‘transgression’ if you have nothing to answer to, i.e. your soul or spirit or higher power.
I know how you are in these areas Booman and I can’t hope to argue on your level, I am just probing this aspect.
Putting myself, if I can, in the position of non belief of a soul or higher power, what would be my impetus to protecting and preserving life. Simply that it is wrong to kill life, or would that be selective life, such as human….or would it be then wrong to kill any life. All things seem to be even, absent a soul…why would any life be more valuable than another.
Also your use of the term (killing)”someone” is hard to understand. Are fetuses then “someone”, are frozen embreyos ‘someone’. When does life become a ‘someone ‘and how do they become a someone if there is no soul. I think perhaps they have a potential to become someone, but do not think at 3 days they are a someone.
I look forward to your answer dear boo…
Diane asks some very valid questions. And I think she deserves an answer if Mr Kertes has one.
I would be interested as well where his “sense of morality” comes from if he doesn’t (apparently) believe in a soul or a higher power.
It might be interesting to see all the old philosphers dragged out and looked at once again.
If “sperm meets Egg” is a viable person. . .then one would have to suppose that sperm is a pre-viable or potential person, and egg is a potential person. Every time a man ejaculates, he is killing potential persons, if there is no egg there to meet it.
So since millions of the little swimmers never meet an egg, it sure seems that men then are killers of millions of potential persons. And Dang it, women pass of an egg every month for a good share of their life, so are aborting all the time. Killers all? Is that the line you take Tom?
And Invetro surely is a horrible killer, and all those implants that do not take. . .more murder, you see. Then all the frozen embryonic petrie dish dwellers. . .get tossed out in the garbage one day. Killers everywhere.
Let’s stop the murder. . .we must make women become incubators of those eggs, and men must stop ejaculating unless they fertilize an egg. . .but the system is all wrong for that. He should only get one sperm, seems like eveolution or creation, whichever one chooses, really screwed up here.
There is no end to the ridiculous lengths this can be taken.
I can hardly wait for the definition and “proof” of what the life force is.
Enlighten me. . .
I just looked up this word:
trans•gres•sion
Pronunciation: (trans-gresh’un, tranz-), [key]
—n.
an act of transgressing; violation of a law, command, etc.; sin.
Now how do you have a sin, or violate a command if you have no higher power to answer to, still curious.
Seems like the only thing going on the ‘transgression’ front is, violation of a law….man made…
First, yes I think that disgarding frozen zygotes is wrong, and should not occur. Freezing a fetus seems even more troublesome that freezing a zygote.
As me about stem cells, and all I can tell you is “I don’t know.” Since fertility clinics do exist, and zygotes are disgarded, it seems that the benefit of stem cell research should be considered in the moral and ethical equation. Like I said, I don’t know.
The spark of life is life. It is the fact that we are alive. That is too precious a thing, in my mind, to disregard for almost anything.
As for from where do morals come from with a sacred text or other religous form? We invent them. Human societies develop their own moral codes based on what works and what is valued by the members of that society. There are principles that are very widely accepted (murder is wrong) and ones that are not settled (killing in a war of aggression – moral or immmoral). Through legal and cultural systems, we work out what will be our shared values, our code of conduct. We do this because it improves life for all (or so we believe) and it becuase as humans it is possible for us to lead moral lives.
i meant without a sacred text of other religious form, and I skipped a bunch of other words and letters – time to log out…
Maybe someone “boo” or Tom, perhaps should start a diary with this last segment, as the diary is way too long now.