It seems that I am going to have to address the abortion issue for a variety of reasons. But I can’t address it without telling you a little bit about me. There is a lot of paranoia going around about people with secret agendas.
No one pays me to blog, and I don’t make enough money doing this to support myself. Not even close. I would never accept money from anyone if that money came with any strings attached whatsoever. If I ever am offered and accept money I will prominently disclose that fact, whom is giving it to me, and how you can research whatever group or organization is involved.
:::flip:::
My first love is philosophy. Politics is a more of an illness. I try not to bore people with philosophical discussions, although we occasionally have very good ones.
As a philosopher first and and a political strategist second, I don’t engage in framing. I don’t always make sure to use anti-abortion instead of pro-life, I don’t take talking points from other bloggers about ‘message’.
I also have a partly naive and partly idealistic faith in the value of debate, and the power of logic to persuade people of good faith. Most political consultants have abandoned that faith and are more interested in sustaining outrage and passion than they are in making solid well thought out arguments.
When someone like Tom posts a diary stating that abortion is morally wrong, my interest is not to purge someone who may be pursuing some nefarious agenda. My interest is to debate him with respect, and see if I can back up my beliefs with reason.
My view on abortion is that it is a moral issue that defies resolution through logical argument. I’m not talking about the legality of abortion, I’m talking about the morality of having an abortion. If you have been reading my posts you may be confused about where I stand. I told Tom his argument was obtuse, I told Madman his argument was simplistic, I told Sirocco his argument wasn’t convincing, I told Parker her argument was making me angry.
In order to pass judgment on an act, that act must be made without coercion and with free will. A girl who risks being beaten or worse if she allows her parents to find out she is pregnant can not be judged for having an abortion to protect herself. A woman whose doctor tells her that it is medically risky to give birth cannot be judged for having an abortion to protect her health.
But a woman that chooses to have an abortion in the absence of such clear-cut examples, can be judged, just like any other act of free will can be judged.
Saying that a woman can be judged is different from saying that a woman should be judged. That is a critically important distinction. And to explain it, I need to talk about the concept of mitigation.
If a woman has no responsibility for becoming pregnant because she did not consent, or want to consent, to the act of procreation, then the mitigating factor is nearly complete. Some people, like Tom, don’t think this is fully mitigating because they don’t think the fetus should be punished for the sins of others. However, there is a near consensus that a woman should not be compelled to carry a baby she has no responsibility for bringing into existence.
There is also a near consensus that acts of incest should be fully mitigating, because most acts are coerced and because of the stigma and increased medical risks for incestuous pregnancies.
Once we leave the realm of coercion and medical necessity, we begin to lose any sense of consensus. I cannot resolve these issues philosophically, or rationally. I can only resolve them pragmatically, and with reference to the values of compassion, forgiveness, and humility.
Some people think abortion is wrong in all cases. I very strongly disagree because of the obvious mitigating factors I spelled out above. Some people think it is only wrong in the absence of such mitigating factors. But there are always mitigating factors to one degree or another. Such factors include emotional maturity, financial status, opportunity costs (like losing the ability to go to college or pursue a career), the stigma of single parenthood, possible substance abuse problems, the makeup of the father, the willingness of the father to be supportive or be a parent to the child, the discomfort of pregnancy and childbirth, etc.
Everything I have been writing about has been in the context of the morality of the act of abortion and not about the legality of having an abortion. The legality is a very different issue. Any attempt to make abortion illegal is going to, by definition, fail to take into account all these mitigating factors (rape, incest, and the health of the mother usually excepted).
Restricting ourselves to the morality of abortion, most people think there is some question about it. There are not that many people that think it would be morally acceptable for a healthy, wealthy, happily married couple that has children to use no protection and have abortions whenever they get pregnant. The reason is, there are so few potential mitigating factors. In the absence of any mitigating factors, i.e. in an ideal world, most people see abortion as morally problematic.
But the world is not ideal. And that is where the principles of compassion, forgiveness, and humility come into play. Accidents happen. People make mistakes, they act impulsively without thinking through the potential consequences of their actions. You do it, and I do it. A little humility goes a long way when it comes to judging other people’s failings or misfortunes. With a little humility, comes a lot of forgiveness and understanding. We don’t have to give up judging other people’s actions entirely, but we should be humble enough not to get sanctimonious, we should be willing to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes and say ‘there but for the grace of God, go I’. We should have compassion for people that find themselves in bad or impossible situations. We should be willing to forgive other people for (most of) their transgressions. So, for me personally, I might disapprove of someone who does not want to get pregnant having unprotected sex. But I also remember that I have done it myself. I disapprove of my own behavior but I have forgiven myself. I should be willing to do no less for others.
I think the reason these debates get so heated is that people cannot separate the legal issue from the moral issue. After all, the right-wing is waging a legal assault as well as a moral assault. If they conflate the two, we can hardly be blamed for responding in kind. But they are two separate issues.
Tom suggested that we can put an end to abortion without criminalizing it. We cant. We can decrease the frequency of abortions, but we can’t put an end to them.
Some people feel that anyone who makes a moral case against abortion is just carrying water for those that want to criminalize it. But that is not fair. People have a right to feel something is morally wrong without thinking it should be illegal. At the same time, people that express the opinion that abortion is morally wrong without taking full due consideration of the numerous mitigating factors that most often lead to an abortion, are at grave risk of hurting the feelings or even offending people that have had to make that choice. Or even of people that think they should be free to make that choice without being exposed to moral condemnation.
I know I cannot avoid angering some people by writing this because that is the nature of the debate. What I want to make clear is that the Democratic Party should stand for safe and legal abortions as spelled out in Roe. It should stand for making sure the procedure is readily available across the country by qualified doctors. But at the same time, the party should be willing to host those, like Tom, who feel abortion is morally wrong. That was John Kerry’s position, and it is everyone’s right to hold such a position.
One last thought: I wish people would focus more on promiscuous men, men that use their positions of power to coerce sex, dead-beat dads, men that commit child abuse, and so on. The issue of the morality of abortion is not an issue exclusively about the women. It takes two to tango.
And I wish we could work on sex eduction, make contraceptives available, improve adoption services and other family services, find ways to make single motherhood more affordable and provide support, counseling, day care, and job training.
If only living breathing children were really protected. If only we had more free pre-natal clinics, universal healthy daycare, baby care clinics and drop in centres for young mothers, after school programs, birth control education in first year of high school.
Why is that those who make abortion a political issue and interfere in the private lives of women they do not know care so little for programs to help living breathing children?
Boo,
Abortion is an issue that stirs up much emotion. I have my beliefs on abortion, I have a stronger belief that I should have NO right to tell, suggest, or even hint at what a woman should or should not do, or be able to do to her own body, and her potential baby. She has to live with her decision.
God has given us free will to make the decisions we choose to live our lives by. I have read much, and one comment has hit home, more than others. ‘God has given us free will, why do people have such a problem allowing free will to others?’ Judge not, and ye shall not be judged is a close second in my beliefs. Which get’s thrown out the window when I discuss politics, which I am trying to distance myself from.
I do hope that your thread is blessed with thoughtful debate.
Yes, she does. And that is precisely the reason that most women, after deep, self-searching reflection, make the choice to have an abortion.
Oh you philosophers…so level headed. <snark> Thanks Booman. You are an exception man, no an exceptional human being and I for one appreciate your insight tremendously. You set the tone and that is what makes this site the fabulous place that it is.
If only the world was built of things completely black and white the issue of abortion would be an easy one to resolve. I am not one of those blessed with the ability to view abortion as all right or all wrong. There are about a million shades of gray in my eyes and I have always been very conflicted about it.
I cannot be one of those women who views ending a pregnancy, even a very early one, with the same matter of factness of having a wart removed. But to me there are clear distinctions between a 4-week pregnancy and a 16-week pregnancy. If I understand correctly, the vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester and in more advanced pregnancies there is usually a health matter which has caused the delay.
I had a miscarriage at 11 weeks when I was 19 years old and alone. There was nothing to see. Nothing really to distinguish what I had expelled from that of a heavy period. After that I had four healthy children, and from the moment I found out I was pregnant, I viewed it as a child…or rather MY potential child. I could not envision ever terminating a pregnancy.
Then after 20 years of marriage I got divorced and started dating again. I also began working with mentally retarded adults and although I loved my clients dearly and their lives were sometimes a joyous thing to behold, other times I felt so sad for them that I would cry when I came home from work.
At 42 years old, and in a long distance relationship, I had a pregnancy scare. I looked at the statistics of having a child with Down’s or something similar and it scared me. For the first time in my life I thought that I could make the decision to terminate a pregnancy if I learned it had some profound abnormality. I did not consider that to be evil or selfish. I thought about my living children who needed my full attention, and our financially strapped lifestyle, with no medical insurance, and I couldn’t imagine becoming the mother of a handicapped child.
While I am uncomfortable with the idea of abortion, I am more uncomfortable with the prospect of a small group of cells, the fertilized egg, attaining equal legal status with a fully grown woman.
There will always be unintended or less-than-perfect pregnancies. And there will always be abortions. Criminalizing them and vilifying those who choose them serves no helpful purpose.
Conflation is right. I do feel that this debate should be expanded to the role of morality in law. Especially Death Penalty law.
My answers: 1. NO, 2. NO, 3. NO
Where does that logically lead me on these issues?
If you want abortions to be legal, you have to tolerate the Death Penalty (I hate the latter and trust the ladies on the former). If you don’t, you have to give up on the right for the Gov’t to kill folks without their consent (aka joining the military) to be consistent, if anyone cares to do that any more.
Morality should not even enter the debate in the realm of law.
I agree with most of your points, but find your conclusion that if you want abortions legal you must tolerate the Death Penalty to be horribly flawed and offensive.
Abortion is not about keeping killing legal — it’s about whether a woman can make her own, often life or death, medical decisions.
Keeping a medical procedure legal that may result in death is a far cry from the government itself putting people to death. Even if one is to accept the premise that the procedure of abortion itself is the ending of a separate life, there is still no comparison. The government currently does not decide that certain pregnancies will be terminated.
Now, if you want to argue that the Texas legislation which forces families of patients to “pull the plug” against their will is analogous to the death penalty, I would agree.
In medical decisions, the “right to take life” is always with the individuals involved — the patients, doctors, and the families.
It is about the role of women in society. It is about her complete total right to birth control pills which are available through science. It is about her right to not be made to feel guilty for making her own decisions.
I remember the days before abortion was legal. I never had one, I knew I would never have one. That is not the issue.
I remember the days before the birth control pills came on the scene. There really was not a reliable means of contraception. Who paid the price for that? Women usually.
Women were not allowed to make decisions that would affect them for the rest of their lives….men and society did that for them.
Abortion is only a part of it. I can not believe that religious groups are now trying to control whether women can have birth control pills based simply on their own religious (and yes, it is a religion based belief) views of when life begins.
I see things from a perspective that looks further back than most here do. It has come full circle…back to the dark ages for women.
There is a lot of paranoia going around about people with secret agendas.
I assume some of that ‘Paranoia’ you are referring to is directed toward me from Kertes’ Abortion threads and I do not appreciate it one bit.
There is money and power in Politics and in Blogging and there ARE agendas when both are in play, to assume anything else is quite naive of you. And some of those agendas are not discussed and so need to be DIScovered.
Thank you for stating who and what you are about this, if only others at other blogs would do the same. Still, I don’t like the way you phased the above at all.
Wilfred, this post reminds me of the man who pasted a bullseye on himself and said, “See, I’m a target.” The first two words of the above were “I assume”. The posting then goes on to build from those two words.
One of the odd things I’ve noticed about the abortion threads of the past on dKos was the willingness of the posters to wrap themselves in self-identification in relation to the issue.
My heart sank when I saw this lead essay for the very reason that there would soon be one of the abortion “fights” with at least some of the participants shrouded in their own self-defined moral position–which would be an absolute, not a balance.
I will defend Roe v. Wade as the best workable solution presently available in our society. I will not assume some personal position regarding abortion with “me” invested in it as an absolute. Plato and his absolutes aren’t any good in this.
did you bother to look at my comment in that thread before you posted this?
thought not.
making a direct reference to you or anyone else, but to a collective sense I got from numerous posts.
One post said I was paying Tom to disrupt my own site. I thought that was probably the most paranoid post I’d ever seen. Although, I’m still not sure it wasn’t a typo.
that is what is known as a ‘non-denial denial’.
I honestly can’t even remember the substance of any of your posts on this topic. I have a vague idea of what you wrote, but I wouldn’t even attempt to paraphrase it. All I really remember is you asking me to disclose if I get paid by anyone, which I don’t.
Booman
So when are you going to run for office??
when am I going to get to be your campaign manager you bastard?
So Ohio needs a new governor. You think we can tackle that?
He can’t. Not without bring me and the rest of his Princeton (your roots exposed!) flunkies along with him. We know too much. Then again, for all I know about the developing Booman, I’d still vote for him. Before I crush him.
but I aint telling.
you and Ned, Evan, and John could DESTROY me. What ambassadorships do you want? Monaco? Switzerland? Name your price.
Hey, psssst! Rational Debate! Get over here fast!
Wilfred, if you have some issues with how some other blogs are operating, or what’s being debate there, deal with those issues on those other blogs. Don’t bring those fights over here.
This blog is DIFFERENT. We don’t play games. We don’t mind-fuck people. We treat people right.
And I’m not inferring anything about any other blog. Wasn’t thinking of another blog as I wrote that.
I was trying to imagine where W. is coming from, and it sounds like he has had some issues on another blog that he’s reliving here, and this ain’t the place to do that. That should be done wherever else W. has had his issues. Not here. We don’t deserve it, need it, or want to mess our heads up with it.
ah, now i see where your comment comes from susan.
yes, i do have a problem with what you wrote. you assume because YOU know these things about yourself and BMT that the rest of us should…. that doesn’t fly. We’re not mind-readers.
As I said on another blog, when there is money, politics and power or any combo of 3 three, people should damned well ask questions, to do so otherwise would be beyond naive.
The only place you have to confront me is if I did not ask those same questions of myself.
And to show you that I mean that I will gladly forward you an e-mail from a Guest Poster on LSF that asked me all those questions before he would post on the site and I happily answered them and told him he had every right to ask them. This was only a week ago so it should let you know i practice what i preach here.
first, you’re wading into an abortion thread, thought you were staying out….(that was teasing actually)
second, i asked that question of Tom and Booman and both answered and i said ‘thank you’.
as for other blogs, i did indeed post that again this evening to the Kid Oakland Rec Diary that is as brutal a diary as you’re going to find. I asked who is on the payroll and why are lobbyists and Operatives not identified and begged for Transparency…. funny, no reply from the top. So to answer you: yes i do ask those questions elsewhere and everywhere, we all should!
First, even though you were teasing, I was trying to wander into a rational debate.
Of course, for that to be my experience, there must be rational and respectful discourse.
No. You don’t ask those questions here. That’s getting into peddling paranoia, and you really don’t want to be known, and remembered, for that.
You’re a lot smarter, and a lot kinder and better, person than that.
Again: You don’t ask that stuff here. The inference is that the questions need to be asked here. They don’t and if you think so, then you are paranoid, and that’s your problem, not ours.
Don’t muck up our otherwise not always successful but earnest and always sincere and good-hearted attempts at rational discourse with those arguments. Those arguments feel like SLIME on my back that I have to wash off.
I loathe that kind of atmosphere. We’re thankfully — for the most part — spared that kind of atmosphere. Don’t dish it here. Don’t bring it here.
Wil, you can always email me, as you have before, if you have concerns. It’s not like I’m unapproachable or unresponsive.
where’s the slime you’re talking about? i’m very surprised here.
first booman, if i had a problem with you personally i would definitely e-mail you. our previous e-mails were about non-BMT things. i felt your comment alluded to the Kertes thread where i asked both you and Tom about payments and then made a large post about Blogs, Operative and Lobbyists, the kind i have never seen addressed here before, so naturally i thought i was a large part of the ‘paranoia’ comment because that was the topic i addressed. If you had a problem with me inversely you could have e-mailed as well. If you remember correctly i said ‘thank you for answering’ and in no way disputed your reply to me. Where is this coming from?
And susan, i really don’t understand where your comments are coming from at all. we’ve had nothing but good comments here on BMT so I think those statements were quite unfair. Asking questions is something i do everywhere in my life and if we weren’t all asking questions here to learn more, blogs would be irrelevant. And the slime reference was really a low blow in my opinion. I’m usually called idealistic so that one is quite surprising.
is being defensive because she is pissed off that people have questioned my integrity. I’d get pissed and back her up too. I think your comment about a non-denial denial was accusatory, as if I had just lied to you. I just want you to know that you can email me with such concerns if you have them.
Anyway, my diary should speak for itself. That’s how I feel about all these issues, disclosure, respect, abortion…
you (or susan) think i was attacking your integrity? that is very bizarre because that was the farthest thing from my mind.
I was not pleased at that comment about ‘paranoia’, felt it was directed at me and i stood up and let you know.
the non-denial denial comment was because your response was just that, i said if that was me I was displeased and your answer didn’t answer the question. Your reply seemed diplomatic and didn’t answer the question.
did you think that non-denail was about whether you took money or something? this is getting bizarre. the only time i asked you about that was on the Kertes thread and then thanked you for your honesty. is this just alot of miscommunication or is there more here?
just miscommunication.
I told you my response was not to you specifically and it seemed you didn’t take me at my word, which was annoying. No big deal.
I’m afraid sometimes the things we say in writing on a blog don’t come out the way they were intended, or other people perceive them differently to the way they were intended. When you are face-to-face with someone body language and tone convey a lot of the message, or give cues about intended meaning.
It’s usually best to assume people are well-intentioned until you see for sure that they are a serial abuser.
[This comment isn’t intended to reflect on anyone in this thread ;-)]
I still find my argument impeccable… Apart from that, I couldn’t agree more.
After watching this whole debate go on for days now I see you are still having to deal with the fall out…
I for one do not understand what people are so afraid of hearing words others are saying, many are acting like these words can have some effect on them or what I am not quite sure, but the simple fact of the matter is that they cannot.
People can have their opinions, if you don’t agree, no need to read the diary and surely no need to continue commenting with vitriol for days.
I have seen booman over and over again give his patient explanation for what he doesn’t like that he sees going on, yet some continue on and then attack Booman.
He is the host of this site I might remind you and if he thinks things are getting out of hand, why are you not listening. Why can’t you have a dialogue without all the anger and rancor. I was against abortions for many years, who wants to attack me over that, my personal belief in the past.
The endless fighting over this subject solves nothing, and it is very disturbing to the fairly peaceful site we used to have here.
I am writing this in support of Booman and as a long time member of the site through thick and thin and sincerely hope others will realize that indeed Booman is the sitemeister and should be respected. If you cannot do that then perhaps this site does not fit you.
It’s his buck after all that keeps this thing going.
Booman, I love ya and send my good wishes and hugs (yes hugs) to you.
This is probably the most important paragraph of Boo’s story:
Oh rational debate, where is thy savior?
That piece of Booman’s diary reminded me of this quote susan,
“People don’t ask for facts in making up their minds. They would rather have one good, soul-satisfying emotion than a dozen facts. “
– Robert Keith Leavitt
Not that I necessarily agree with it, but it did come to mind.
When it comes to abortion I think for – many? some? – it’s hard to separate personal investment, emotions, and facts, which would tend to make rational debate on the issue very difficult.
And Booman also identifies another important aspect in the quote you provided … approaching the issue in good faith as a basis for the debate. Sometimes that’s in question too.
Facts are marbles on a slippery surface. Emotion provides the context for those facts. Without emotion, the brain loses its ability to reason. Think about something, a conversation, a debate on C-Span that seemed to be a random recitation of facts. They may very well have been logical, well reasoned arguments but they had no meaning without the emotional component engaged.
That said, there is an enormous difference between reason, the joining of emotion and fact, and the complete disregard for fact. On highly emotional topics like abortion, reason seems to slip gears.
I do think Boo’s diary shows how difficult an issue abortion is for even one person. In my opinion, that’s why it should always be a personal decision.
For what it’s worth.
This is somewhat a continuation of my thoughts on BooMan’s secular morality diary. I am an atheist and a biologist. I am a woman. I have given birth. I have had two miscarriages. I have never had an abortion.
My research for my Ph.D. was in embryology, so I know something about the stages of embryonic development. As an atheist/biologist, I tend to look at human behavior as adaptive or not. It’s adaptive for humans, with their fragile neonates, to have a hardwired response to babies – to want to protect them, to bond with them, to love them. Most – but not all – humans feel this way. For most of us, causing harm to a baby, or even allowing it to happen, causes us deep pain and unhappiness.
At a certain point in development, the fetus begins to look like a baby, and thus triggers these responses in us. From my point of view, that is what makes abortion a difficult issue.
But I also do not believe that an early embryo is really a baby or a human being. A fetus? That one is harder. My daughter was born at 30 weeks – barely into the third trimester. Though she looked more like a sickly monkey than a “baby” when she was born, I fully bonded with her and loved her with a passion that stunned me. Hormones? Hard-wired survival of the species instincts? Who cares? My hormones and my hard-wired human behaviors are part of me, and I embrace them as much as I do my thoughts.
At what point is a fetus a “baby,” a human being? I don’t know, and I don’t think any one can know.
So in the end, this is what I come to. Abortion is often emotionally difficult because it fights against these powerful hard-wired human instincts. But there are many circumstances in which continuing a pregnancy would cause more harm, and more pain, than an abortion. Abortion is never immoral, in my opinion, because, again, in my opinion, in the early stages an embryo is not a baby and the point at which it becomes one is unknowable. Only the woman in whose body these processes are occurring can know – often with difficulty – what is best in her particular situation.
I have sympathy for the man who finds that a woman he impregnated may not make the decision he wishes for in this circumstance, but in the end, it’s just one of those life isn’t always fair things. Her body, her decision. No pressure on her, no judgment of her is acceptable. If a woman you care about is in the position of having to make this decision – support her choice – and her, whatever it is. The end. Period.
I do believe that there is such a thing as an immoral abortion. That would be an abortion that a woman is coerced, manipulated, or pressured into having when it would have been her choice to continue the pregnancy – if she were free to make it without coercion, manipulation, etc.
Janet, this is the most cogently presented explanation of the reasons abortion discussions get crazy that I have ever seen. Thank you for posting it.
There are facts about abortion, there are feelings about abortion, and the fact about those feelings is that the two are not interchangeable in an honest discussion.
Oh, Rational Debate! Thy savior, Janet Strange, has been found.
Booman, I love you… but I don’t know why this thread is up. And the title… the invasion of Iraq is an issue; the continued occupation of Iraq is an issue; the death of our children in Iraq, and Iraqi children is an issue… abortion is not an issue.
Webster.com gives several definitions for the noun issue – one of which is: 6 a : a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties b : a vital or unsettled matter <economic issues> c : the point at which an unsettled matter is ready for a decision <brought the matter to an issue>
The legality of abortion was settled with Roe v. Wade.
The status of RvW is in question. Yet, that is not the discussion here… the issue of abortion is the topic.
Another definition for the noun issue is: offspring, progeny. Well, abortion produces no offspring, no issue. Abortion stops the pregnancy process… at whatever point it occurs. Sometimes it occurs naturally and we label it a ‘miscarriage’ – or medically it is sometimes called a spontaneous abortion.
You mention the moral issue in your piece. Morality is an abstract… [just as the war on terror is].
Again from Webster, morality is: a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE
The Greeks put Socrates to death because of his insistence on folks understanding the words they were using… abstract words like truth, beauty, virtue.
The decision to not allow a pregnancy to continue is a private one.
Morality has no place in a discussion about another’s decision. Neither does judgment.
Whose mores are we speaking of? Religious? Which one? Some believe it is immoral to have sex outside of marriage. Some believe it is immoral to have sex within the marriage unless it for procreation. Some believe same-sex partnerships are immoral.
I refuse to argue the matter of abortion with anyone. It is a private decision and I make no judgment about it. It is being used as a ‘wedge’ issue… and it is certainly dividing folks. I say the Democratic Party support the LAW… support Roe v. Wade… and stop talking about whether it is right or wrong to stop the process of a pregnancy.
It is time to get politics out of the bedroom.
this for a variety of reasons. I was accused of paying Tom to disrupt this site, I was accused of being part of some secret plan to take the blogoshere to the right and sell out women’s rights, I was accused of taking money for these purposes.
I thought I should clear up the facts and where I stand.
Well good for you! I do appreciate your candor… I learned some aspects about you I didn’t really know. I didn’t know about the accusations… but then, I live in the woods and it takes longer for news to travel there 🙂
During the past twelve months I have seen lots of sites get disrupted with folks wanting to argue about this topic… I suspect they were politically motivated. Namaste
thank God/Goddess/Whomever — maybe having a Real Life has its benefits after all.
Considering the experiences of many on this site, I’m not surprised that some are skittish and suspicious — I’m a fan of the “Animal Precinct” and “Animal Cops” shows on Animal Planet, and have seen what can happen to loving dogs and cats that are abused; humans are just a higher form of animal, after all. But in my brief online experiences with you, I feel that I can trust you to play honestly and fairly with all of us, male and female, and would not stoop so low as to employ professional hell-raisers or to take this site right-ward in pursuit of some mysterious DLC agenda.
But in response to Crone, abortion will always be an issue, as long as there are those who would seek to impose their moral views upon others. Roe v. Wade was just the first skirmish in their holy war; they lost that one, but they’re determined to win the future battles by getting the right generals in place…
Thanks, BooMan, for posting this. A blog-owner CAN be a leader without alienating large groups of blog-participators. This post is proof of that concept, in my humble opinion. Thanks for your sensible moderation of your site.
Thank you, Booman. The atmosphere you have here encourages me to wear my heart on my sleeve. My only inhibition is my own times issues.
I think it’s good for people to be vulnerable and speek from the heart, because that increases the probability for other people to reconsider. I mentioned before about my family and officemates not knowing when I got pregnant, though I did tell my supervisors. 30 years later, I’m not exactly sure why I felt I “had” to tell them (it was probably uncomfortable & TMI). But one woman’s reaction was approximately this: “I always thought abortion was wrong, but I see it’s the right decision for you.” So, in the abstract sense, it was good that I told her.
It’s good to have a comfortable place. Thanks again.
When I was in college in the 70’s both of my closest friends had abortions. I was torn, but tried my best to be supportive. A few years later one of them was quiet and sad one day… turned to me and said “My baby that I killed would have been 3 years old today.” It was that moment when I realized that abortion was indeed a moral issue. Not only that, it is one of the most intensly personal decisions a woman could ever make and for that reason no woman should ever be judged for having … or not having an abortion.
If we allow a self appointed moral elite to ban abortions, we then open the door to moral proclamations by people I wouldn’t let order my lunch, never mind this shit:
“U.S. Rep. John Hostettler told a gathering of clergy that divorce is as dangerous to society as gay marriage and that churches are essential to strengthening families.
“The picture of marriage is the picture of Christian salvation,” Hostettler, R-Ind., said Tuesday. “Any diminishing of that notion – whether homosexual marriage or any other degradation of marriage – is something we must fight in public policy.”
The moron went on to say:“Hostettler, who spoke to an Indiana Family Institute program at Crossroads Christian Church in Evansville, also said religious faith needs to have a greater presence in public policy decisions.”
article here
But (isn’t there always a BUT?)as a grandmother and a mother whose descendents are mostly women or women to be, I look upon the issue a little differently.
n/t
Well …
I guess I am. I’m a humanist. It took me some time to get here. I wanted a faith really badly when I was young. The other faiths, besides Christianity, especially ones rooted in a culture or place, felt like putting on drag. I flirted w/ Daoism, but with help from friends like Gong, and a lot of reading, I realized that I didn’t really understand it. The more I read the bible, the more I saw how evil Christianity, (and the other Abrahamic faiths), is. I’ll define “evil” in a moment.
Human beings are where I source value, because that’s the only thing left. After reading many of the religions, the whole new age movement, I knew that none of the Gods were real. Not in a metaphysical sense, but real in the sense that they could really matter to daily life, since we don’t all agree on them. Hell, Jesus is a different God to nearly every Christian who mouths his name.
So when I assert that something is “good” or “evil,” I have to base it on what I value in human beings. How can I do that without asserting the prominence of one human being over another?
By saying my rights, my judgements, my perogatives end in that small space between my fist and the tip of your nose. I would assert that beyond that all I offer is advice that everyone should take with a grain of salt. Each person has to consider their decisions on how they will look back on them. How will this affect me down the road? My children? My neighbors? Should I care about any of them but myself?
As I’ve made clear before, discovering Nietzsche’s writings on the impending modern era, his realization that all of the old illusions of shared God’s were dead, had a big influence on me. One such passage:
Here is where I define “evil.” Evil is when one human being decides they can make that decision posed by Nietzsche’s demon FOR YOU. At the moment that a society, a man, a church, takes away that essential choice from a woman about whether she will carry a baby to term they are committing evil on her by removing her humanity. Humanity is rooted in how we face that question, and morality is a system we devise for ourselves when we can look that demon in the eye and say:
“Thank you! Promise me that I will relive my greatest triumphs, and my darkets mistakes. Promise me that all that brought me to this point in my life where I know that what I’ve learned and done and experienced was all worth it, even the regrets. Promise me that I will be free when it happens all again to make my own choices, that someone else won’t step between you and myself and take this moment away from me. PROMISE ME.”
I reject and abhor ANYBODY who tells someone else what their inner moral choices MUST be.
And no, don’t respond that my position makes all public mores, all law, impossible, because it doesn’t. You see, when someone’s fist, or pollution, or whatever else, hits another person’s nose … THAT is where we are all justified to step in.
The woman has the sole choice in what to do w/ a zygote, w/ a fetus, because IT cannot face that demon. She has to face that demon for herself and the potential life growing within her. When she crosses the threshold from “I’m pregnant” to “this is my BABY” the entire equation changes FOR HER, but she’s still the only one that can make those choices.
Her.
Alone.
So simplistic, yes, I plead guilty.
I reacted as I did to Kertes’ thread b/c he was trying to assert that his moral values had some sort of primacy. That he could somehow define a “moral left,” and he was denying women the chance to offer rebuttal.
Yes, I know that he can’t really stop them, but he’s got a long history of peppering sites with posts like this right when some big issue is going to be addressed by some politician, in this case 95/10. He says that his posts have nothing to do w/ that. I, based on his websites and his history, don’t believe him. He’s trying to poison the well on behalf of some political actor, or actors, to marginalize a competing point-of-view. It’s a form of viral marketing. No, I can’t prove it, but I see a pattern, and I’m not alone.
So I reject his argument because he’s working from a point of view that would preclude women from having the opportunity to choose their own lives. I will confront anybody else who does that.
I don’t think you were paying him Booman, but there is plainly something in the works to bring pressure on the issues of women’s health on several blogs. My values require that I confront them, in my own simplistic way.
Kid Oakland’s diary at Kos tonight?
In any case, please don’t lump me in with Daily Kos. This is a splinter group. Voter fraud drove me to create this blog. And you can see that I am very reluctant to purge or ban anyone. Even to the point that I get accused of paying people to post centrist shit on my site.
I wasn’t. I was explaining why I assert the things I do, why I believe what I do. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear. I also didn’t accuse you of paying anybody, but rather that others might be getting paid by outside parties.
I wish the Uighur detainees had spoken out on abortion. They’d get some attention too.
I agree wholeheartedly: Abortion is a moral issue. A society which prohibits more than half of its members the right to bodily sovereignty and self-determination, which decrees that for that 53% only biology is destiny, cannot call itself moral.
I can’t speak for other women here, obviously, but I’d like to address Booman’s paragraph beginning with the phrase “Some people feel that anyone who makes a moral case against abortion…”
Booman, you say that those who feel this way are being unfair, and in some cases at least you’re probably right. But I think it’s important to understand that this unfairness, if such it is, is borne of a deep and abiding anger. Abortion rights have been under fire pretty much since the moment Roe was decided. Clinics have been bombed, doctors have been murdered. 87% of US counties currently have no abortion providers — which means that for plenty of women (especially poor or working class women, who are less likely to be able to take time off work and spend money to travel elsewhere), the “right” to a safe and legal abortion is largely a legal fiction.
On top of this we have pharmacists refusing women — competent, adult human beings — birth control prescriptions. We have goverment officials opining that women’s rights are not essential to democracy. We have continued rhetorical assaults on single motherhood, on Title IX, on feminism. We have a society in which some 1 in 6 of women will be raped at some point in their lives (according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, quoted by the CDC). Approximately 80% of those women are attacked by someone they know. The basic moral right of women to be treated as fully human and as fully equal citizens is under fire from just about every angle.
And while all this is going on, we see men we thought were our allies, including the leaders of a party to which women have contributed more than their share of time and energy and money, dismissing our concerns and treating issues that affect our quality of life as secondary. So if some of us seem a little angry, well, damn right we are.
n/t
with sweeping emtional and moral stances on abortion — either pro or con — is that they often include factually incorrect statements and uninformed assumptions that render their premises invalid.
As I commented in a diary thread on a similar topic at Kos the other night:
So I mostly leave such diaries alone, except perhaps to drop in a clarifying factoid or two. That “woulda, shoulda, oughta” world is not the one I live in anymore. Not since it has become a daily and seemingly losing struggle to provide not only abortion, but other types of reproductive health care, for women whose rights to that care are under relentless siege from the Rapture Right.
It is my job and my responsibility to understand how people feel about abortion, and thousands of them have told me. Until fairly recently, it was still common for women to spend a lot of time exploring their feelings with us in extended counseling sessions, but that formerly intense focus has shifted. Because the women know how things have changed, too.
Tell a woman that the state says she has to listen to antiabortion propaganda about breast cancerand then wait 24 hours, losing yet another day of work, before she can have an abortion.
Tell her that no, we’re sorry that can’t make an exception for her, even though she’s missed work several days already with nausea and vomiting, and fears losing the crappy low-wage, no-benefits job that’s the only thing keeping her and her kids out of a shelter — because the state will file criminal charges on the doctor if we do.
Tell a 17 year-old girl with a full scholarship that, because her parents are pillars of the church, and would prevent her from having an abortion and forbid her going away to college, she’ll have to get an attorney and share the most intimate details of her personal life with some middle-aged Republican judge (the only kind we have here) before we can possibly help her.
Tell a 16 year-old girl that — because the state says her 17-week abortion would have to be performed in an ambulatory surgical center, with a $3,000 price tag that her own single mom can’t afford — we cannot help her and she’ll now be compelled by law to bear a child she’s terrified of having. I had to do that again at about 9:30 this morning, for about the umpteenth time, and it’s not getting any easier. In fact, it just about ruined my day.
Tell women all those things, and they don’t talk so much anymore about their finer feelings. They’re too intent on survival to afford themselves the luxury. It’s just one more thing these right wing robber barons have stolen from them.
So I’m sorry to say that I just don’t have the interest or the energy to debate about how many fetuses can dance on the head of a pin anymore. It doesn’t matter what style the furniture is when the house is on fire.
to ask what it takes to actually ruin your day.
And there it is, all brought right smack down to hard earth reality with a solid BANG, by someone with her heart, head and life so;idly planted on the front lines of this war. Thank you Moiv, a million times over for having the courage to do the work you do. i literally couldn’t; I don’t have the kind of cuurage it would take to face desperate women like these, day in and day out, and have to do amd say these things.
I hope you are doing whatever you have to do to take care of yourself, too.
And thank you for giving me courage to keep doing what little I can.
Nail, meet hammer.
Yes, exactly.
What you see always depends on where you’re standing at the time. And this is where I am.
you hang in there moiv. you aren’t alone, you’re just in the thick of it. it’s gonna get even more nasty too, but as it gets nasty more of us will wake up. hang in there, k?
Personally, I have a lot of trouble with the word “moral”, as I see it used in these discussions, and just as much trouble with the word and concept of “judgment” of the behaviors of others.
To me, morality is a private matter. It is my own set of values and principles on which I base my decisions about how I live my life, treat others, and contibute to my world. I certainly don’t expect everyone else to share all of my personal values, principles or beliefs. I assume each person has the right to have their own. Fortunately, we all seem to share a great many values and beliefs, but we also differ of a great many of them
AS for judging the behavior or others, there is only one person’s behaviors I believe am entitled to “judge”, and they are my own, with that judgement based on my own moral values.
So when I hear others claiming they have the right to “judge” any of my behaviors, based on their “morals”, and values, I get prickly right off the bat. It comes in to me as arrogance: as one person assuming some “morally superior” postion.
I wonder. Is some of this conflict based on different perceptions of what these words mean? Do they mean something different to men than they do to women, perhaps? Is part of it thar women have been subjected to being judged (and controlled) by men for so long, we are conditioned to reject this kind of language? Just wondering out loud here…
boo,
it appears that you and tom kertes both start from that place. the difference between you is whether there are ever mitigating circumstances. you both claim that regardless of your positions on the morality of it, abortion should be legal.
in support of this position you argue that “most people” feel the same way. i wouldn’t debate statistics with you even if you had posted them. because morality isn’t about popularity.
i for one start from a very different moral position, a position that says abortion is not intrinsically immoral, that abortion is morally neutral. it’s simply a medical procedure undertaken by a woman, of her own free will, to flush tissue out of her uterus.
the fact that that growth might someday, if left alone to feed off the woman’s biology, become a sentient being does not, in my view, create a moral quandry. and so i don’t think women need to have mitigation to morally justify a medical procedure.
i agree with Janet that the sense of immorality comes from hardwired empathy for something that looks like a baby. but the fact that it looks cute or potentially cute, or even that it is potentially sentient at some future time, doesn’t make terminating a pregnancy intrinsically immoral.
for 30 years now the right has been putting up ads and pr about how a fetus is just a very tiny baby. and the left has done nothing to counter it. biologically, a fetus is not a very tiny baby any more than an egg mcmuffin is a chicken sandwich.
and frankly, i cringe, and then get angry, when i see pronouncements from men that “abortion is immoral.” even when they are followed with “but i still think it should be legal.” my reaction? “who died and made you the judge of what i do with my own uterus?”
hell, i can pontificate all i want too. Vasectomies are immoral. or vasectomies are a moral imperative. removing unwanted facial hair is immoral. using laxatives when constipated is immoral.
i mean, what’s the correllary to “abortion is immoral”? pregnancy is moral?
i’ll make a deal. if men stop making moral judgements about what i do with my uterus, i’ll stop making moral judgments about what men do with their dicks.
that you feel that way. I do feel differently.
I think that you can make a moral value as an ideal, as long as you don’t let that moral value become a tyrant (which is what I think Tom does, Lenin did, countless absolutists have done).
In this case, I would say that each person should aspire to avoid becoming pregnant if they don’t intend to become a parent. This applies equally to men and women. But that is all it is. An aspiration and an ideal. When people fail to live up to that ideal, or if they become pregnant by accident, they should be afforded understanding, compassion, leeway, privacy, etc.
So, I think we agree on policy, but I see ending a pregnancy as more morally significant than you do.
And differences of opinion are to be expected on such serious matters.
is a definitive definition (man, that sounds awkward…) of when life begins…and by the same token, when life ends.
My moral belief is that life begins when there is significant brain development. It doesn’t have to be perfect brain development, but brain development nonetheless. This would definitely allow for abortion in the first trimester, and probably during most of the second; I’ve yet to find out when in fetal development that brain development occurs. It would also allow for the use of embryonic stem cells, though I would prefer that already created embryos such as used in in-vitro fertilzation be used, rather than creating any specifically for research.
Conversely, my moral belief is that life ends when significant brain activity ends. This is formed from direct experience, as a young child who sat and read in the VA Hospital waiting room while Mom sat with Dad, in an irreversible coma with no hope of recovery.
Are my morals better or worse than Tom’s, or yours, or Madman’s, or anyone else’s? No…and I would not force my morals on anyone else. If your SO was in a coma, and you wanted the feeding tube and every other piece of equipment hooked up forever and ever, I would not protest that it was immoral.
I know that Tom said that he did not mean to judge women…but in that diary, and the diary that said that there should be one parent at home with the child, I felt that judgement. What works for Person A is not necessarily going to work for Persons B, C, or Q.
‘Nuff said…
I actually have no problem with you or anyone else forming personal opinions of abortion as “moral or immoral”, Boo. Or to express them, as you have here. That’s part of your right to discern and identify you own moral values and principles and to live your own life accordingly.
But the reality is, that when men DO publically take a stand on abortion from a “moral” pespective (even when they also support it’s legality fully),it WILL engender a negative reaction on the part of many women. (and some men).
Because what we hear in this, besides your reasoning, is that everlasting underlying assumption of the “right to judge” on a moral basis, intensely personal decisions on matters like abortion. This may be the last thing you intend to do. But that IS how it is perceived, by many many women, who have simply had a bellyfull of men assuming the right to pass any kind of moral judgement on us.
The end result for me, when a man says he will fully support my right legal right to full control over my own body, when he believes abortion is “morally wrong”. (in even just some cases)…I find it hard to see him as a full ally. Because I know that he is still reserving the right in his own head, to “judge” me, based on HIS personal moral values.
Until men “get this”, there will always be the need for this kind of dialogue, over and over and over with men who do fully support womens rights, legally, but who still insist on bringing “moral arguments” into the discussion.
I will never be able to fully trust any male supporter of my rights as a woman, when he personally reserves the right to make moral jugements about how I exercise them, even if he keeps them to himself out of compassion and unnerstanding.
I appreciate you willingness to make yourself understood, Boo. I learned more about you from it, and can see and feel your sincerity amd support for womens rights.
Now I offer you this chance to hear how it is for me.
but if you hold out for ‘full allies’ you’ll be in even more danger, because the amount of people that see things your way is far below the majority needed to win elections. To effectively protect women’s rights you cannot alienate your ‘partial allies’ or your ‘less than perfectly aligned’ allies.
I tried to sharply divide the moral issue from the legal issue because it helps to clarify this point.
There are things that people do that makes you think less of them. Shoplifting, for example, or drunk driving. Beating your kids is a no-no in my book. Voting for Bush will not impress me. We judge people all the time. That is why I talked so much about humility, forgiveness, and compassion.
I think it’s wrong to sleep with multiple partners, take no care to prevent STD’s, and to take no care to avoid pregnancy if you don’t want to be a parent. This is true whether you are a man or a woman. If you do those things I am going to think you are irresponsible. But I have done all those things myself. So, when I judge you, I am also judging myself. In other words, the judgment isn’t going to very harsh. If I care about you, I’ll tell you I think you should change your behavior. That’s part of being a friend. It’s also part of being a good citizen, to some degree.
To clarify: I don’t hold out for “full allies” in terms of my vote: it’s enough to know the candidate will vote to protect my full set human rights. And I don’t really wish to alienate anyone who is willing to fully support womens full civil rights, either, anymore that you wish to alienate the women you stand ready to support in terms of the protecting the legality of womens full reproductive rights. Also, I am right beside you in dispproving of a whole range of human behaviors I believe are harmful, and have intervened many times to stop someone from hurting themselves or others, in my work and in my personal life.
My only hope in this discussion was to help you understand, if I could, how the use of the concepts and words like “morality and judgement” are often preceived by me and my many other women I know. Especially when used in discussions of intensely personal life experences that only women have experienced, and that you couldn’t ever experience, Boo, even if you wanted to! I am not intending an attack on how you think, or trying to get you to think as I do, and I certainly am not judging you. Just exchanging information you are totally free to take in or not, as you so choose. In terms of our differences on this, they are immaterial to the kind of relationship we have, as blog owner and blogeee..and wouldn’t come into play unless we were also trying to beocme personal buddies, cuz I have considerable trouble feeling very close to people who I perceive to assume the right to judge me based on their own moral codes.
Boo, I marvel at your ability to remain calm and compassionate. I don’t always agree with your opinions, but I admire the way you say them.
At the risk of being a pain in the neck, I have to say that I can’t go to bed without standing up for that apocryphal white couple who don’t use protection and who do get abortions every time they get pregnant. You didn’t say a word of judgment against them, but you are probably right in predicting that most people would condemn them as immoral.
I wouldn’t condemn them, and I want to say that because I always think it’s important to challenge lines of morality in this debate. We’ll have come all the way toward compassionate rationality, in my opinion, when the worst that most people might say about that imaginary couple is that they sure make things hard for themselves. If they aren’t murderers, then it doesn’t matter, morally, how many abortions they have, or how much money they have, or what race they are. They’re just people who picked a birth control method that most of us wouldn’t pick, because it’s physically hard, expensive, and time-consuming. But if that’s how they want to do it, then it’s nobody else’s business.
That privileged white woman who gets all those abortions is a familiar boogey-woman, poor thing. She may well be a masochist, but that doesn’t make her immoral. (Not that I expect the world to agree with me on this!)
but did I say they were white?
I’ll admit that I have had totally irresponsible unprotected sex with women that I would be appalled to be the mother of my child. But I can’t absolve myself of guilt for doing so. I can’t say that any resulting abortion would be moral. In my opinion, it wouldn’t. It was my moral failing that allowed it to happen. Do you see my point?
I don’t judge others because I am in no position to do so, because I understand human fallibility. But that doesn’t mean that it’s right to willingly conceive and then snuff out that conception. I think it is a moral failing. It may not be something that should be codified in law, it may not be any of your business, but whatever acts I have made that resulted in such actions can be rightfully critiqued, they should be rightfully discouraged. Does that make sense?
Wow, you didn’t say, “white.” I read that part several times before I wrote my post and I STILL read “wealthy, healthy” as white! Blind to my own stereotypes, much?
As to whether your way of thinking about it makes sense, I can only say that I respect that it does for you. I just make a different sense of it. Me, I wouldn’t have told the Boo of then that he should feel guilty for having unprotected sex. For one thing, so have I, so no stones, eh? But I still wouldn’t, because I don’t think people should have to feel guilty for being immature or less than ideally wise. I don’t think you did “willingly conceive and then snuff out that conception.” If somebody had said, “Boo, she’s going to get pregnant tonight,” I don’t know what you might have done, but it might not have been to willingly conceive. (This is getting a little personal! But then, what question could possibly be more personal than sex/conception/abortion.)
And, again, one of the differences between us is that you and I have different ideas of the gravity of putting a stop to the potential life in the womb. To me, there’s nothing wrong about doing it whether the conception resulted from an accident, or stupidity, or selfishness, or rape, or whatever. Right now, at this very moment, millions of would-be lives are dying in the wombs of millions of creatures including humans. The only difference is that with abortion we make the decision to do what nature does without guilt. I like nature’s way.
Thanks for responding. I think we agree on a lot, but we also disagree at a fundamental level, too.
I’m very late to this debate because of the hurricane here in FL that knocked out my power, but I want to say a couple things.
I’m not keen on the “morality” tack as regards the issues of abortion and abortion rights. Morality is pretty much always tied up with arbitrary ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, and for the most part I find that when we evaluate the world we live in in those kinds of terms we generally miss more important realizations as to the dynamics of our own behavior.
Operating on these right or wrong morality planes also compels us to the sort of judgmentalism that leads to all kinds of divisive dynamics. We begin to see ourselves as better than, (more good than) others as a result of these judgmental habits we acquire, and subtly we also begin the process of selectively requiring one standard for the behavior of others and a different standard for ourselves. (Pat Robertson, as an extreme example, postures himself as a pious and influential Christian yet he’s set a standard for his own behavior that allows him to violate one of the fundamental tenents of his religion. Thus, he can call for the murder of another human being and use his own Christianity to legitimize the “moral rightness” of his cause.)
I’ve come to view things more in ethical terms than moral ones, in terms that deal with the dynamics of cause and effect, action and consequence, creative and destructive. I happen to believe that it is an ethical transgression for anyone to presume to pass judgement or otherwise seek to restrict the ability of a woman to retain the decisionmaking authority over her own body. I do not judge someone who might seek an abortion. I may perceive that for some, abortion has a destructive impact on their psyche, and for others it might bring a release, a liberation. There’s no judgment involved. I’m addressing the actions and the consequences themselves, not imposing an arbitrary moral evaluation. A woman who’s been emotionally damaged through a longterm exposure to a rigid and irrational moral dogma might suffer mightily as a result of having an abortion, and one such as myself might very well conclude that for such women it might be a positive act to develop some sort of counseling program to help free that peson from the restraints of the indoctrinastion that’s been imposed on them, but, as to the abortion itself, just because a woman might suffer emotionally doesn’t make abortion itself “morally wrong”.
I may be old-fashioned or perhaps even simplistic in my views, but I believe the rights of a human being to control her own body should not be contravened, and certainly not based on anyone else’s moral judgment. As to the arguments about the so-called rights of a fetus, for me, a fetus is part of a woman’s body until birth, and as such has no separate and individual “rights” of it’s own to trump the woman’s rights for self-determination regards abortion.
Can you stop adultery by criminalizing it?
Be clear, criminalization of abortion, criminalization of various sexual acts because they are associated with homosexuality, criminalization of birth control, then criminalization of adultery, ….
Then we all live in a happy sin-free theocracy, right?
The tag “pro-life” is what confuses the discourse. People can be pro-choice or pro-criminalization. Pro-choice or pro-law. No one is “pro-abortion” and the pro-death who are sincere must kill themselves off because I have not met any. People follow policies that make abortion more or less likely, for example our Abortion President George Bush.
-redwagon