My wife and I basically cancel out each other’s votes at the polls. I decided that she needed to drive herself years ago, so I didn’t have to see any Republican/Catholic/Whatever voting guide in her hand while we were standing there waiting to vote. I can remember standing in line some years back, and stage whispering to my infant son “Don’t look at what mommy is holding, it’s evil”. The rest of those in line found it pretty amusing, but it can be pretty tough to live with (and raise children with) someone who votes so much differently than you do.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’ve voted for the odd Republican candidate, and I will again–and she’s voted for the odd Democrat. The problem is I find it hard to understand why she votes so differently than I do. Similar background, same city, same age, but such different voting history. Our views on most things really aren’t that different, but the way we translate those views to votes…well, not much similarity there.
The bottom line, I think, for her is this: All politicians are lying, conniving, special interest hacks who are going to make a mess of things, so why not vote for the swine that best (claim to) represent my views on key issues?
I have to say that I can understand that to an extent. My wife’s not blind, she’s not stupid, and she understands that there are an awful lot of things this administration is guilty of. And to be honest, I think that given another chance she might change her vote, considering what a mess we’re in. But this is the thing: I think that there are an awful lot of “Republicans” just like her. They grew up being fed the “fact” that Democrats were pro-abortion, anti-guns, pro-gay rights, pro this, anti that–when in reality, there are no clean divisions on these issues along party lines. (For the record, it’s the pro-abortion issue that is it for her). I can’t argue that abortion is “good”, it isn’t. I think that at face value, everyone alive could agree that abortion is “bad”. The problem with that statement is that it is way too black and white–for all the usual reasons. I wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe v Wade, though I feel so badly about all that destruction of human life (potential human life, whatever). I tend to see myself as a realist, though, and reality is this: We know how to perform abortions. Therefore, abortions will be performed. Therefore, to avoid further harm to the species, we need it to be legal and regulated. No coat hangers, people, and hopefully less teen suicides.
You see, my wife will not/cannot look past the principle of the issues to the effects on society. Abortion is wrong, casual drug use is wrong, prostitution is wrong, etc. She believes the rhetoric that states that legalization leads to more abortions, and follows that logic to the easy conclusion that making the act illegal will result in less destruction of human life. I actually believe that part of this is true–we probably do have more abortions due to the fact that it is legal. That “fact” (if it is indeed such) makes me feel sick, but I still wouldn’t change the legality of the act. Prevention, education, dissemination of information–as with all “social problems/ills”, time and money is best spent on the front end. Legalize prostitution, regulate it, and spend the money generated to teach people positive ways to avoid becoming involved. Legalize recreational drug use, regulate it, teach the little kids (and I mean little) how messed up people strung out on drugs really are. Leave Roe v Wade alone, and spend the millions and millions used to try and overturn it on prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Stop trying to litigate morality, give people the information they need to make informed choices in their lives.
Take the current administration. I think that there is a core issue here for many Republican “voters” who are not “political”, not part of the blind Republican base: If they admit that the administration they voted for is evil, they feel they have some culpability. My wife does not want to hear about what the administration is up to or how evil they are or anything else–agreeing to any of my views is tantamount to being guilty of something. When I rant about the corrupt trash in the white house at this point, she feels like I’m personally attacking her. On the other hand, if I keep my mouth shut about it, she attacks the administration herself from time to time. Talk about stress in a relationship…
Ok, I’m officially off topic. Like it or not, a large part of the voting Republican base is made up of people who want a “person of faith” to represent them. Like it or not, these same people do not want America “subsidizing abortion”, “legitimatizing prostitution”, etc. etc. Like it or not, we have to win at least some of them over to win a presidential election in this country. Oh, I have no doubt that if every eligible voter were forced to vote that the Democratic candidate would win almost all the time, but it doesn’t work that way. They have to actually get off their collective asses and get to the polls to pull that off, and we’re not going to see 100% turn out in any of our lifetimes.
We don’t have to go “Republican-lite”, but we do have to be firm, solid. The Republicans can afford to be wishy-washy, they can afford to switch mid-stream, they can do lots of things Democrats can’t. I believe the reason is this: The Republican base of actual voters is too solid for many of them to be swayed, and these people vote. Many of them want to be led, want to be told how to vote, how to think, how to live. They find comfort in giving over their persons to their leaders–they do what they are told, and then they have no further responsibility. They don’t have to think for themselves. Even better, because it’s all in the name of the church/God, they get to go to heaven for doing it. Democratic leaders, on the other hand, can’t afford to mix their messages and get elected–their base, by and large, isn’t as blind and accepting. Many of them will vote for third party candidates, for Republicans, or not at all, if they are turned off by the Democratic candidate. We need to be strong, have a focused message, stand for something and stay with it. I’m not saying a leader can’t change his mind–I am saying that they can’t try to play both sides of an issue. Possible Democratic voters are looking for integrity, a voice that is different than that of the Republicans. Someone who is not afraid to take a stand, take a risk, accept the possibility of pissing off a segment of the population for the greater good. Ross Perot garnered a pretty big chunk of the vote by basically saying “This is me, this is my plan, I believe in it, and I’m not backing down.” He pulled votes from all types of people, who vote in all different types of ways. He was not qualified to lead this country, but I think there is a lesson there that was not learned by either party–people want change, people want honesty, people want someone to stand up and be counted. The American public wants a leader–and I know that if my wife saw a Democrat who fit that bill she’d vote for them, no matter what their stance on abortion was. Hell, for that matter, if McCain had run last time I might have voted for him over Kerry.
I cannot continue with this discussion at this time–my children need me during the day. Feel free to comment away amongst yourselves–I will post again tonight and attempt to answer all comments directed my way.
I am not sure how we got to the whole abortion issue here, or why any of you care what I think about the whole thing, but apparently you do. So I will make the effort tonight–if you are available and wish to be part of the discussion then, please do so.
I am also going to separately post in answer to comments made about voters, which was actually what I posted about in the first place–because I feel strongly about what I said. Again, of course, you may comment all you like now and join in later if you wish.
Thank you for participating–I appreciate all the input. Much food for thought.
Like it or not, a large part of the voting Republican base is made up of people who want a “person of faith” to represent them. Like it or not, these same people do not want America “subsidizing abortion”, “legitimatizing prostitution”, etc. etc. Like it or not, we have to win at least some of them over to win a presidential election in this country.
I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree with your conclusions. Pandering to these sorts of voters has a huge cost: dissaffection on the part a big part of the base of the Democratic party. I am speaking of Democratic women, who are ovewhelmingly in favor of privacy rights and freedoms.
Every Democratic president, in fact every Democratic candidate is a “person of faith.” Of a Christian faith, in fact. None of them support subsidizing abortion or legitimizing prostitution. Frankly, they are a straight-laced and clean cut group of people. So evidently, they would have to go much further to win over the type of people you are talking about. Support criminalizing abortion, for example. That would infuriate much of the base (including me) and there goes your canvassers, donaters, maybe even voters.
Nope, I think the kind of voters you are talking about just aren’t coming over to the Democratic party unless it changes its basic tenets, just as people who care deeply about civil rights or the environment won’t be won over by the Republican party unless it changes fundamentally.
all to win over the necessary votes. Perhaps that’s nieve, but I believe it to be true–the margin of victory is small enough, the scales are closely balanced. As I also stated in the post, “Possible Democratic voters are looking for integrity, a voice that is different than that of the Republicans. Someone who is not afraid to take a stand, take a risk, accept the possibility of pissing off a segment of the population for the greater good.” I’m not saying we have to back off from keeping abortion legal. I’m not saying we have to back off from any major tenant. I’m saying that the Democratic base isn’t as inclined toward blind faith, and that possible Democratic voters (those open minded enough to consider voting Democratic vs Republican) want a good reason too. Someone who exhibits traits sorely lacking in the current Republican and Democratic leadership, by and large. I know a large number of people who vote and don’t consider themselves a member of either party-and many of them voted for Bush, for various reasons, though all the reasons came back primarily to one: Kerry was wishy-washy, in their opinion, and they didn’t believe him. The country needs a strong leader, preferably Democratic, but strong, fair, visionary, and in tune with the average American.
I hate these bullshit arguments by “pro-life” proponents. First and foremost the government has absolutely no business intruding upon the privacy of a difficult medical decision. Further, the same people screaming to “protect the unborn” are those whose true agenda is “compulsory pregnancy”. No alternatives. Worldwide.
So why do most of those same people support the unconscionable destruction of life in warfare? Or the Death Penalty?
Ignorance and arrogance go hand-in-hand with black-and-white answers to rainbow-colored questions.
I would have to say that there is a moral component to your medical decision–but that the moral component is for each individual to sort out. My opinion. But I agree with most of what you are saying–there are no clear cut answers to complicated issues/problems, and outlawing what cannot be controlled is ignorance–and arrogance, by attempting to litigate morality.
Sorry to be so blunt but this has to be stated directly.
The pro-life, anti-abortion people happily allow hundreds of thousands or millions of fetuses to die every year because, like all the rest of us, they believe the fetuses are not human life equal in rights to the postborn.
The failure rates of fertilized eggs are very high. If anyone at any time in history truly believed that fertilized eggs are “humans” then they’d have to have supported profound restructuring of virtually all social and scientific prioritities. Humanity has known the signs and rough probabilities of pregnancy since before civilization. We’ve had 10,000 years or more to make this the #1 human health priority it should be if any culture or God had ever truly asserted that fertilized eggs == people.
But they haven’t done it because they don’t believe it.
Furthermore there isn’t even the massive maternal care movement that would at least save thousands of “deaths” and perhaps hundreds of thousands of maimings annually due to all sorts of maternal life stress, rigors of employment and nutritional & maternal medical care that the right to “life” movement has not been flooding the streets to demand we address.
So the fetus=person argument is a fraud.
Since we’ve all agreed all along that fetuses are not fully entitled human beings, and all sides have always been willing to let them die by the thousands from neglect, I don’t see any morality left in the abortion “issue” except for government support of organized religious authoritarianism.
well said.
This is the net objective of the “Small Government” rhetoric.
Your point?
Yes! This is a good point. The small government rhetoric cleverly advances the idea that since all the pols are creeps, let’s just be selfish and get what we can from those who promoise us what we want. Nevermind the effect on the neighbors. We have to get what we want for ourselves before others get it for themselves.
This tactic undermines the idea of working for the common good. By elevating selfishness in voting, we set ourselves against each other rather than uniting to solve problems together.
Malthus contaminated the moder man’s psyche with his proposition that there wasn’t enough to go around for everyone and therefore it was inevitable that we compete against each other for the neccessities in our lives. Big business loves this idea and have been using it against us for centuries.
I wasn’t saying that what was stated was incorrect–I was asking for a clarification of the point being made. The quote pulled and represented in the comment isn’t representive of my beliefs or what I was saying in the diary–I had thought that that would be readily apparent.
I wasn’t questioning your post at all. I was merely responding substantively to the post to which your remark was also responding to.
Good to hear your voice WW.
Have you mentioned to your wife that the “absolutist” Republican pro-life stance contradicts many of their other positions. For instanct, why are they not “pro-life” when it comes to the death penalty? Why are they not “pro-life” when it comes to funding medicaid and medicare? Why aren’t they pro-life when it comes to opposing a policy of sending young people to die, in a war that is killing children? Sometimes these points, if made gently, to a thinking person, will help them understand that absolutes don’t work.
And then, I like to think about abortion in these terms. The issue is really about equality for women. If women are not allowed to control their own reproductive rights, because of governmental intervention, then they lose equality. Like it or not, in this world, if you are a single woman, and you lose your right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, then single women as a class are doomed to second-rate citizenship. Worse jobs. Less money. Less health care. Limited educational opportunity. Etc.
Not that you are trying to win the abortion debate with your wife. Just that I would like to. Because she sounds like she has a little progressive trapped inside her, just trying to gain freedom. 🙂
I find it interesting that you make the distinction of “single woman”. Am I to assume that a married woman, in your estimation, would not have the same “rights”?
Further, imho, “allowed to control their own reproductive rights” should in most instances be a matter of practicing birth control if one does not wish to become pregnant–as opposed to having an abortion because one didn’t. Usual exceptions, rape and such, of course.
Good to hear your voice too.
My use of the term “single women” was an idiom. Not intended on my part as a limiting qualifier in that sentence. A mistake in writing clearly on my part.
I would agree that birth control issues fall under the rubric of reproductive rights. But I would say this about equality. Example. In sexual act between consenting non-married adults. Condom breaks. Woman impregnated. Man’s life is not on the line. He may incur a lifelong financial obligation, but he will not necessarily lose his career, be forced to deal with child care issues, etc. The woman, on the other hand, in most circumstances, unless she has an abotion — or at least the right to one. Her life is changed completely. She will be caring for a child. It will impact her career. Frequently in negative ways. So my point is, I think, that in order for their to be equality between the sexes, women must have the right to choose termination of unwanted pregnancies.
It is not inherent that the child be raised by the mother. Expected, yes, but not inherent. I am not taking your point lightly–you have a point–but not in an exclusive way. Human life, or the potential for it, should not be taken lightly at any time. Making an effort to avoid pregnancy is just that–an effort to be responsible. There are still risks with any birth control, and those engaged need to accept them. Informed, consensual adults know that there is a risk of failure of any type of contraceptive.
Again, I am not for changing things–we know how, so people will, and the alternative is unacceptable imho.
As for single vs married women, I would indeed draw a distinction, as much as you would apparently not. It is a crime that here in the state of MI a married woman can get an abortion without the consent of her spouse–when the same spouse can’t get “fixed” without the consent of his wife, no less. Insanity.
I don’t normally talk about this issue in any public form. This and Israel-Palestine are off limits for me, personally. Usually debates generate more heat than light, in my opinion.
Hard for some people to be civil about abortion. And since I don’t talk about it, I get little time to examine my own thoughts. But your diary has been helpful to me.
On who is a custodial parent. Certainly there are exceptions, but even today, the vast majority of these situations of unmarried pregnancies end in mother having custody (I was a Friend of Court Referee, so I have a large sample size to draw conclusion from personal data).
Further, it is universal, at least for now, that the woman has the pregnancy. The whole body change process and all.
And those things put women at a systemic disadvantage in the system. If you are going to have male-female equality, as it relates to reproductive rights (right to have sex as wanted, right to use contraception as wanted, right to get pregnant as wanted, right to terminate pregnancies as wanted), then you have to preserve a woman’s right to choose an abortion. Otherwise men are systemically in a position of having greater power than women.
As a legal matter, then there comes the State’s interest in the unborn life. I don’t really have any moral issues with contraception (I’m an atheist, so every sperm and egg are definitely not sacred to me). I’m comfortable that Roe has set an appropriate balance. I’m pretty certain that balance is in grave jeopardy. It is something that gives me great pause, thinking of raising my young daughters in a nation whose policies will, in effect, make them second class citizens.
As I have repeatedly said, I don’t want to see Roe overturned. I do not, however, buy the argument that failing to allow women the option of an abortion results in the fact that “men are systemically in a position of having greater power than women.” I’m not going to argue it, however, as the point in this case is moot–I don’t want it overturned either.
if you’re not buying we’ll just have to lower the price…
Women are in a lower stratus than men for the exact reason that they can and do get pregnant. Since women are so frequently in a dependent relationship for their housing or income, they also have less relative freedom when it comes to having sex. A lot of sexual relations are really transactional in nature. They may be some warm feelings, or not, but the underlying event is driven by obligation, need, or aspiration.
This is a major reason why so many pregnancies are really the outcome of, not an intention to start a family, but a mere incidental side effect of some mundane exchange of services.
The right to have an abortion, then, becomes remedial. It helps balance out this built in power imbalance. It allows a woman to avoid the consequences of an act that may have been coerced, or may have been made out of momentary need.
Very few professional woman have this problem. They are more likely to get pregnant because contraception failed. That isn’t a power thing. It’s just an accident.
But I agree with Joe, that many women are situationally apt to be in a dependent position.
As I read your comment, I considered that it might have been offered as parody of my remarks. I don’t think so as I got to the end. But – talking – about sexual – relations – as transactional – matters, does tend to make me sound a lot like a very stiff imitation of Al Gore or something.
I suggest you read your comment Booman, and give it the tone of parody, and I bet you will laugh as hard as I was. And I’m not even stoned. If I was stoned, I think I’d still be laughing. It was funny. Though I think it was unintentional on your part. Still, a good laugh should never go unanalyzed.
On a meta note — very good to see you and WW on the same thread, discussing issues. Now this is blogging like family or something.
Best to you both — I’m going back to invoking my personal ban on abortion and Israel-Palestine issues.
Not going to let me off that easily, hey Boo? All right.
“The right to have an abortion, then, becomes remedial. It helps balance out this built in power imbalance. It allows a woman to avoid the consequences of an act that may have been coerced, or may have been made out of momentary need”
Is, then, the responsibility for the pregnancy any less for the woman than it is for the man? Do not both have a responsibility to act in their own best interest? As oft stated here, there are exceptions (birth control doesn’t work, rape, etc)–but birth control is readily available at no cost to anyone in this country. Could be I’m wrong about that, but I don’t think I am. If that is the case, and the people getting pregnant weren’t making the effort to avoid pregnancy, they’ve made a conscious decision to risk it. The consequences of that decision must then be dealt with. I am simply putting forth that people should make an effort to avoid that which they do not want.
Honestly, who can tell me that on the face of it, abortion is a good thing? That if it were possible to avoid all unwanted pregnancies that we shouldn’t do that instead of having abortions? My point is only that we should be making our best effort, and that in a large number (dare I say almost all?) of cases it is easily avoidable. The fact that we do not take preemptive measures is…well, human, but why? Why can’t we do better with this?
I submit that having abortion readily available to clean up the “mere incidental side effect of some mundane exchange of services” is not a good or empowering solution for the challenges that women face. If women truly “are so frequently in a dependent relationship for their housing or income” that they submit to sex because the “underlying event is driven by obligation, need, or aspiration” then we need to look at addressing the roots of those needs/obligations/aspirations. I don’t correlate the ability to abort a pregnancy that you achieved while submitting to something you didn’t want as empowering.
Again, I’m not for overturning rvw. But I am also not down with abortion due to irresponsibility–is anyone? I’m not saying deny those who weren’t using contraception–I’m saying this is not the answer to the challenges women face, and why not avoid what it easily avoidable?
You are so wrong.
birth control is readily available at no cost to anyone in this country
Am I? I know for a fact that birth control is avialable at no cost here in MI for anyone old enough to ask. Is this not true in some parts of the country?
Well, it depends on so many factors.
First… do the women who need it the most know where they can go get it for free? Are the PSA’s that tell them that?
Second… in most states (incl. the majority of Southern ones) mandate those pills are only prescription vs. “free” and over the counter.
Third… not all women can use all methods of birth control. I can’t take the pill and before “modern” condoms I was allergic to the latex… which meant I needed to use a diaphram and jell… not something that is part of the “hand outs”.
Fourth… pharmacists across the country are now refusing to fulfill those prescriptions based on “religious reasons” and poor women don’t always have the luxury of driving from pharmacy to pharmacy to hunt down birth control.
I could go on, but you see where I’m going.
I’m glad MI has those programs, must be because of the Canadian Gov you guys have 🙂
Yeah, those north of the border are pretty progessive, aren’t they? Though this stuff was all in place well before she came along.
I’m not surprised to hear that roadblocks are erected for those who need contraceptives. Way too many people are concerned about forcing their morality on others, and they seem to have plenty of time and money to make things difficult. I just moved back up here to MI, and while this side of the state is pretty “conservative” (read that back-asswards) I can say that Birmingham AL is a little more so.
And again, I’m not saying that a test of some type should be instituted, like only those who made the effort to avoid it should be allowed to have abortions. I’m simply saying that as a society we’re too lazy about this, just like we are so many other things. I accept that people make mistakes, and I accept that for some people the sacrafice to obtain contraceptives is just too great. I just want to see us do better.
Is this not true in some parts of the country?
Could you provide us with some evidence that the state of MI offers free birth control to anyone old enough to ask? I’m curious about this program, how it’s implemented, what sorts of contraceptives are offered, who pays the prescribing physicians and so on. Is this also true of rural communities in MI?
As far as I know such a program is unique. Planned Parenthood (always a target of the religious right) offers sliding fee services but they’re usually confined to large cities.
To be honest, I am not prepared to offer facts to back it up, and I don’t have the time to dig–please forgive me, but again, I did not post a diary about abortion, and had no inkling that this is what I was getting into.
I can say from personal experience that the local social services offices are all about providing birth control–for free. I know of others here (in the greater Grand Rapids area, a larger city) who have experienced the same thing. Beyond that I cannot say with absolute certainty, but I truly believe it to be available at least state wide. As stated previously, if I am incorrect, it was not done in any way to mislead or muddle the issue.
As stated previously, if I am incorrect, it was not done in any way to mislead or muddle the issue.
Ya, but this is something you could research and discover what is actually true for yourself.
Much of your argument is predicated on the notion that such services are readily available to women everywhere in your state and the country and that poverty is no obstacle to personal responsibility. Whereas the reality most of us deal with is that any sort of medical care including access to contraceptives is difficult for low income women to access. It is, you see, a central premise of your arguments, not a peripheral issue.
this is from the University of Michigan, Olin Health Center
The following is from the Planned Parenthood, Northern Michigan online store:
Low cost birth control, to be sure. But then there’s the problem of locating a clinic. Even if there was free birth control in Michigan, (which I cannot verify at all) access is an important factor.
PP Houghton closes doors
At last count there were 29 Planned Parenthood mailing addresses in the state of Michigan, a state with a 2004 population estimate of 10,112,620.
By the way, no offense but at least two of your facts appear to be hearsay.
In all fairness, since you didn’t come prepared for a discussion on abortion, the following is from the Detroit Health Department site:
It might be “city-related” versus rural, but this shows that the services do, in fact, exist.
It might be “city-related” versus rural, but this shows that the services do, in fact, exist.
Thank for the reference. I would love to know who funds this. Detroit is a good place to have such a service, it is the large city which has, as I recall, the greatest number of low income per capita residents in the country. Clearly if we wish to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions these sliding scale services should be far more widespread.
My point in addressing his claim that such services are nationwide was in part to point out that this just isn’t true. At least the only the only places I know of where contraception is easily available to the poor is in a few large cities.
Yes, I certainly thought that original comment was painted with one big ol’ industrial sized brush. And I agree with you – if there’s anywhere for those service to exist, that’s a damn good place for them.
(pssst . . .as an aside, the broadly brushed comment is what prompted me to look into the services. I’ve never heard of such a thing, and I was admittedly surprised with my findings. I can’t imagine these same services duplicated throughout the country – especially in places like the rural south.)
I don’t think people should commit murder. Should we eliminate the Homicide Division of the Police Department?
That is the reasoning you are using.
First of all, you have an entirely idealized version of women’s empowerment. First you assume that women should be in a permanent state of contraception (and that the contraception is free and readily obtainable), or they should not engage in intercourse, which often means they should not eat, sleep in a dry place, or avoid a beating.
All you have to do is look at the situation of women in Africa, China, India, the old Soviet Bloc, of within Islamic society generally, to see how futile such a standard is for women.
And it is a serious error to impose that standard on American women either.
I make no assumption that women should be in a permanent state of contraception. On the contrary, you make the assumption that women need to exchange sex for food, shelter, and protection. I’m not saying that this is never the case, I’m saying that it is not the norm–and that it should not be the norm. That abortion is not the answer to addressing women’s issues. I view it as necessary, but I do not view it as a Band-Aid.
To the best of my knowledge contraception is free and readily obtainable, though it appears that it may not be as easy to get in some areas as others–which I allowed for in my initial response to you. It is still free and obtainable, however, across the country (again, to the best of my knowledge) and women have just as much responsibility for their actions as men. Pregnancy is largely avoidable, and imho we have a responsibility to avoid it if we don’t want it.
All the comments here are specific to the US, which is readily apparent from the discussion. Roe v Wade doesn’t make the rules for the rest of the world.
And I don’t follow your example of reasoning.
pffffffffft.
Thanks Father Coughlin.
“Very few professional woman have this problem.”
Funny you should mention that. There’s a whole different level of power and choices I rarely see discussed. Specifically, I know firsthand of two “professional women”, both married, and both of whom had husbands who didn’t want children. And yet, through miracles of biblical proportions, both of those “professional women” got pregnant and subsequently gave birth to the child. Later on, the cause of those “miracles” (or perhaps “accidents”, if you prefer) came to light, when both of the women confided in me that they purposely got pregnant without the knowledge of their husbands.
While maybe not the norm, there seems to be a bit of one-sided power in that equation. And a lack of choice for one of the parties in each of those marriages.
Good day!
I find it hard to believe that in your state a wife’s legal consent for a husband’s vasectomy is required. If you have a cite for that I’d love to see it. It would be news to me.
The reason that a married woman can get an abortion without the consent of her husband is easily explained. The supreme court has ruled husband consent laws are unconstitutional in our democracy.
Also, you mention “spousal consent”, it would always be “husband consent”. Use of “spousal consent” as a term would be proper only in cases where both male and female were equally able to become pregnant. I know this is a small point to raise, I hope you’ll forgive me.
I also don’t really “get” a sense of equivalence between the health/morbidity risks and the damage to a woman’s body involved in a 9 month pregnancy compared to the same risks/damage from a vasectomy procedure. Can you explain what you mean?
Bayprairie, I appreciate your asking for a cite on the vasectomy consent laws, because I was going to post the same request. I frequently see claims on the ‘net that men are required by law to seek the consent of their wives to have a vasectomy, but no one can ever link to a statute when asked about it. I’m starting to believe the rumors of these consent laws have been wildly exaggerated.
To join you in quibbling over a small point, surely you won’t mind if I mention that a very possible and real context in which “husband consent” would not be an applicable term would be in a marriage of two women. 😉
i had lesbian marriage in an early version of what a posted!!! and i took it out in an effort to clarify/simplify my thought due to the fact that in this specific instance my statement issues from concept of the wife=impregnated, husband=impregnator.
Yes, we queers do problematize conventions, especially language conventions. Sorry ’bout that…okay, I’m not really sorry. 😉
I’d still argue seriously, however, that “spousal consent” is probably the best legal terminology for the various procedural rules since it is gender neutral and could thus be applicable in various contexts, including those of marriages between same sex folks. There’s no reason to make the legal language sex or gender specific, especially since we are hopefully nearing the time when marriage equality will go nationwide.
Of course, I’d also argue strongly against any spousal consent law for any medical procedure (as I suspect you would as well), so substantively, it’s a bit of a moot point for me anyway. I wouldn’t have said anything at all except that I know however people say a thing has a lot to do with how they think about the thing, so it behooves my particular political issues to pay close attention to how folks use language. This sometimes makes me come off like more of a tightass than I actually am.
yes, we do agree on the substance of the issue (against spousal/husband consent) but in instances such as these i don’t favor gender-neutral words. IMHO using “spousal consent” for a husband/biological father having a legal say in his pregnant wife’s abortion masks the extremely paternalistic nature of the concept. also, an assumption i’m making is that “legally required husband consent” would have to meet a dual requirement of proven biological paternity in addition to a legally recognized marriage. that is why i originally reworded my initial feelings to omit lesbian marriage.
maybe im mad though, and a simple certificate of marriage is all the paternlists feel is required to invoke right of consent. if so, that’s an extremely low bar being set.
It is a crime that here in the state of MI a married woman can get an abortion without the consent of her spouse–when the same spouse can’t get “fixed” without the consent of his wife, no less.
I’m pretty sure that isn’t true, not in MI or in any other state in the union. Where do you get this stuff from?
I just have to throw in my $0.02.
“…should in most instances be a matter of practicing birth control if one does not wish to become pregnant–as opposed to having an abortion because one didn’t.”
Where does a woman whose pregnancy is the result of birth control pill failure due to concurrent antibiotic use fit into that? So many times, it’s easy to say “They should have been using birth control”, but what about when those methods fail through no fault of the people involved?
I guess my point is that there are so many gray areas, that I just don’t think anyone should presume to force pregnancy on another person based on their own personal beliefs.
PS…my best friend married a guy who (whispered) votes Republican…I think it definitely makes for a challenging home life sometimes. 🙂
There are many instances in which I would find it regrettable, but acceptable. The point is in making the effort, in a society where the knowledge is there and the effort required is minimal. A good, solid effort at avoidance.
And again, I’m not for changing what is currently in place. I would just like to see lots of education for prevention and lots of support for people in the position to make informed choices, from all possible options without pressure, and support in those choices.
And yes, it is challenging, and will be more so when the kids are older.
I know you’re not for changing what is currently in place (personally, I would like to see this TRAP law/”clinic Killer” law stop), and I agree with you about the need for honest, accurate education to help prevent unintended pregnancies, but there has to be an out for people who need it.
My friend and her husband have 4 girls between them, from 11 to 14 years old. I think they have their work cut out for them, blending families from, um, different ends of the political spectrum.
Again, criminalizing the act is not the answer. I believe it to be a personal choice–a moral choice, not a medical choice (with very few medical exceptions) and a personal choice. The genie won’t go back in the bottle, so to speak, so deal with it realistically. Considering that I have three at home six and down, and I keep asking my mother how in the world they survived four boys in a seven year span, I agree–your friends have their work cut out for them. But come on, they should never have to be in the position–unless careful use of preventives fails, it shouldn’t be an issue. If it becomes one in that type of situation, then its a choice they will have to make–hopefully, an informed, well thought out choice. The fact of the matter is that there are an awful lot of people (here in the states at least) that have been waiting a very long time to adopt. I wish more of those people would take older kids, the older kids need it, but the demand for babies is huge. Again, a personal choice, but I think we can do a lot better as a society in dealing with this choice.
Three under the age of six, my hat is off to you and our wife! My 2 boys were under the age of 4 as a single parent, and there were days that I thought there just weren’t enough rings for our circus! 🙂
I think with my friends, it helps that she feels comfortable talking to all of the girls about sex and boys, which he is very uncomfortable with. Why are people so weird about sex?
I know people hold out adoption as a viable alternative to abortion, but with the way people/society treat unmarried pregnant women , I can see why women find it unappealing.
I think if we made education and healthcare and paid parenting leave more available, people would feel that they had more options. But I agree with you, it’s a personal choice, and not one that people should be making for other people.
Yes, there are never enough rings for the circus, you are correct. To be honest, I wouldn’t have it any other way–though it is difficult.
Interesting–I talked with my eldest daughter about sex, but she had her mom at home to talk with about it, and once my wife and I got together (Nicki was twleve then) they discussed it some too. I only broached the subjects I felt that I had to be sure she knew about, and she never came to me with that stuff. But as I said, she had people to go to with it, and I believe that she would have come to me if she had felt she needed too.
Adoption is a viable alternative. A difficult one, certainly, but viable. I wouldn’t want people to be pressured into it, but I sure hope that anyone in the situation would at least give it a good look. I feel sure it can be a wonderful thing–and not everyone feels that an unmarried pregnant woman should be socially outcast.
I have a favorite story that points out how we should always be working together for the idea of “choice” for women.
I knew a 17 year old young woman who was already mother to a 1 year old boy. She was living with the boy’s father who hit her and forced sex on her. He didn’t want to work and when she became pregnant, thought an increase in his SSI might be the answer. When they lost their apartment, she was homeless and pregnant.
We found her a place to live and she wanted to give the baby up for adoption. But when she went to an agency to talk about that – she ran into a problem. The “father” of the child would not agree to the adoption. So after her meeting I asked her about what she had learned. Her response was rather chilling, “I have no choice, I have to have an abortion.”
And that father would then have used that child as a conduit to continue abusing the young woman for the next 18 years. And unfortunately, it’s a more common problem than people think.
I can’t stress the importance of having “the talk” as early as appropriately possible. My sister-in-law went to great measures in planning the ideal environment and content of “the talk” with her 15 year old daughter. As timing would have it . . . her daughter had a few things to talk about as well – like the fact that she was already two months pregnant.
Under the circumstances, everything worked out surprisingly well. She had the child and married the father. She’s currently 21, and pregnant with her third. Everyone involved is happy, healthy and economically intact. However, none of that could have taken place without a great deal of emotional and monetary support from most everyone in the extended family.
My biggest concern all along? I watched the starry-eyed expressions on the faces of the niece’s younger cousins, as they watched her opening mountains of beautiful gifts during her lavish, abundant baby showers. And sure enough, years later, I found that two of the nieces (who are currently in their early to mid-teens) have set their goals on having children by the time they’re 18. (yikes)
adoption also presents ALL KINDS of problems for children … it isn’t a panacea.
I think there are things about the legality of abortion that need to also be put on the table. I’ve said this before here at the pond, so excuse me if it feels repetitive to anyone.
We need to start asking those who would overturn Roe v Wade some questions like:
Roe v Wade has been settled law for a long time and a reversal would bring up a legal nightmare that most people haven’t even thought about.
Regarding number 3, my favorite question for people who are pro-criminalization is “What o you think is an appropriate jail sentence for a woman who seeks an abortion?” Then, they usually say something like, “Well, I’m not one to determine policy,” which is just bizarre…
I want to know if they would be hot to prosecute the men responsible for the pregnancy based on DNA testing…
Well, I certainly wouldn’t want to be the one determining fault or sentances, but I will say this: If society were willing to prosecute the male in the scenario, then society would also have to establish the rights of the male in the scenario. You can’t hold someone resposible for an abortion when they have no say over whether or not an abortion will take place.
If society were willing to prosecute the male in the scenario, then society would also have to establish the rights of the male in the scenario. You can’t hold someone resposible for an abortion when they have no say over whether or not an abortion will take place.
I’m sure that after Mr Alito is confirmed he’ll do his best to make quite certain that men own the bodies of their wives and daughters. That said, it’s not the abortion the male would be responsible for, it’s the pregnancy. Now there’s a concept.
That’s simply a variant of the “Im just following orders” defense used by the Nazis at Nuremburg.
The contemptuous nature of such spineless equivocation is sickening.
I’m sorry, but I seriously don’t understand where you are going with that. If you could explain, I would be glad to respond.
I’m responding to what CabinGirl says above.
The answer in bold is what I liken to the “just following orders” defense, an abandonment of personal responsibility and a failure for one to have the courage of one’s own convictions.
I don’t believe this has anything to do with the thrust of your diary at all except in the most oblique fashion, possibly as a commentary on how so many people support policies and forms of behavior they’d never consider engaging in themselves. (You talk a bit about voters and in this context these remarks might have relevance as to motive and to the tragedy that can result from too many active uninformed voters.)
I’m sorry, that’s twice I misunderstood what you were reffering to. The truth is that I probably don’t have the hang of the flow yet–the way comments flow and relate to parent/sibling/child responses. Got to find a better way to display things too–I’m going nuts trying to page through and keep track of what is new.
Thanks for the response, and the insight.
Whichever comment in the thread is the first one above that is margined to the left of the comment you are looking at is the comment that comment is responding to.
aaaa
bbbbb
ccccc
ddddd
In the example, bbbbb is replying to aaaa, ccccc is replying to bbbbb, but ddddd is replying to aaaa.
I hope this helps you to navigate more easily.
Hey, thanks alot! I can’t really claim to be a newbie, but I don’t have a lot of experience, and that helps. Thanks for taking the time.
Anytime! Just ask.
who insist that their position is based on their moral and/or religious beliefs:
There are some who oppose contraception based on moral or religious beliefs. In fact, that is the official position of the Catholic church. Marriage, according to their doctrine, is for the purpose of procreation, and any married couple who engages in intimacy must be open and willing for the act to result in the birth of a child.
Should the state then make the use of contraception, and intimacy without the intent of procreation a criminal offense?
Some faith traditions hold that life begins not at conception, but several weeks into the pregnancy.
Should the state then require women whose progeny is not seen as providing a benefit to the state be required, on pain of criminal prosecution, to have abortions before twelve weeks?
The US has a religiously diverse population, and the transition to theocracy will not be a smooth one.
Here’s hoping that the transition to theocracy never takes place.
All good questions, which would indeed have to be sorted out. I hope that it does not come to pass.
Reading your eloquent dilemma diary, I began to think what it must be like to live in a house built on what appears to be two different foundations (a poor metaphor for your marriage). And I conclude that I do not envy you.
One of you seems to vote on the foundation of right vs wrong, the other not; in other words, one makes political decisions from moralistic positions. This seems odd to me, who is one who sees the separation of church and state as extending to the area of political decision making.
That’s why I don’t consider religious profession or lack of it relevant when considering a candidate. How far we’ve come from the days of JFK whose campaign was colored by the need for him to defend himself as a man of faith. What is your wife’s position regarding his candidacy?
Perhaps your wife can be led to see the illogic in her foundational thinking and see the logic of founding one’s political decision making based on the paramaters of a larger political rather than a limited moral discourse.
Why not choose a foundation whose groundlayer is “freedom”? True freedom requires privacy of person from government. True freedom requires protection by government from other individuals and threatening foreign powers. Those three basic functions of freedom preclude choosing or attempting to establish moral guidelines for another person; to encroach on another person’s freedom; or to interfere with another power’s government beyond the limits of diplomacy. (War is an extraordinary circumstance that can be equated to a threat against one’s life by a would-be murderer from which it is understood that one can defend oneself at all times.)
Political questions then become ones of choosing the better or best social contract (in the Rousseauian sense) with one’s government, and the best contractor to execute the job.
Perhaps your wife can renegotiate her present contract that favors limiting freedom to an ammended one that encourages its flowering more. After all, if everyone made political decisions based on moral limitations, then eventually her valued freedoms would be eroded by another’s limited views. Perhaps the two of you can agree on a freer non-moralistic common foundation that will contribute to a strong and unified household?
don’t mind discussing whatever people want to bring up.
The comment on the separation of church and state is a telling one–many people do not truly believe that that is attainable, or a good goal. Personally I believe it to be necessary to achieve tolerance in a society.
I like the way you laid out your post, and your argument/thought progression is thorough and well supported. It is in fact more or less what I have been working toward with my spouse. Here, however, is the crux of her situation, and the reason that I think we can swing enough voters without making major changes to the platform: She is not inclined to put all that much thought into it. She makes an attempt to be informed, but she is not going to go to extreme lengths when making her decisions on who to vote for. I believe this is true for many, if not the majority, of voters. Some of these will “vote the party line” or however they are told to vote–their votes are lost, on either side of the aisle. Many of these, however, will vote based their impressions of a candidate–because they don’t really trust any of them anyway, and its difficult to try and see the differences in what they are proposing–especially when what they are proposing changes week to week. We need a candidate with integrity, clarity, humility, vision. No one is above scrutiny, we all have skeletons, but honesty and open mindedness can take you an awful long way. We need someone to pull us together as a people, as a country, not just as a political party. People will cross the line for a visionary–and we don’t need all that many more votes than what we’ve been getting.
And I’ll tell you what, if they come up with someone like that as the Republican candidate, and their fiscal/social plans are reasonable, they’ll get my vote.
You are the eternal optimist — prepared to wait until hell freezes over.
Well, I guess if that’s what it takes. Seems to me, though, that it wasn’t all that long ago that a charismatic Democrat spent eight years in the oval office. Some might even have referred to him as visionary, at one point.
And that’s why I think it would be a mistake for the Democratic Party to chase after those voters.
Because, in the end, they simply aren’t Democratic voters. They’re Republicans, looking for an alternative to the really really rotten crop of crooks their party is pushing.
And despite the ‘conclusions’ of the 2004 election, there really aren’t that many of them, and they really don’t have that much political power. They’re for the most part either the same 34% who’ll vote Republican no matter what, or they’re the ones who’ll compromise on this one abstract (to them) issue occassionally and vote across the aisle — if they agree with other issues, or like the other candidate. That’s why I say in all seriousness there really aren’t that many of them — at least there aren’t that many who aren’t solidly wedded to the Republican party.
Anyhow, I’m not interested in voting for Democratic candidates who make my moderate Republican friends feel comfortable. If they want moderate Republicans, they can get off their asses and reclaim their own damn party. Leave mine alone.
We’ll do plenty fine with our own base (esp if we actually start to deliver for them 1/2 as much as the Repubs deliver for theirs), and the Independents who finally caught on that the ‘Conservative’ Republican position is one of propaganda and lies.
If anything, doubling back on our pro-women’s-freedom standpoint will just make us look like the wishy-washy spineless gits the Republicans have been portraying us as for years.
——–
I’m sorry the idea of a woman exerting control over her own body makes you personally uncomfortable, and conflicts with some interesting notions your wife has about the ‘sanctity of human potential life’ or whatnot. If its religious, how about concentrating on what you can sacrifice in your own lives to prove your love to God, instead of taking the path Jesus absolutely rejected — proving your piety by punishing others for their ‘sins’.
Or did I miss the lesson where Jesus demanded the Romans enforce God’s Laws?
I like that Jesus. He was pretty darn smart. Wish more of those who claimed to be his followers paid attention to the lessons he taught.
Do you really believe that voters are simply Democrats, Republicans or Independants, that there is no significant number of voters who would be willing to go another way? Do you believe that all the people who voted for Perot voted for an independent candidate the next cycle? Do you truly think that simply “getting out the vote” is going to make the difference in the next presidential election? You may be right, I’m no fortune teller. But I will say this: neither you nor I own or personally define either party. Each individual reserves the right to align themselves as they wish, and vote as they wish. To the best of my understanding, I’ve made no suggestions here that we roll back any rights for women. I’m a cradle Catholic and a cradle Democrat raised in a UAW home, but I don’t blindly believe the rhetoric of any of those groups–and I don’t pretend to be the sole representative of any of them either. If you’re “not interested in voting for Democratic candidates who make my moderate Republican friends feel comfortable”, then don’t.
I’m not suggesting that the Democratic party chase after any voters. I don’t think that would work either–try to please some new groups, you lose some of the old groups, net gain zero or close to it–plus, as you said, spineless and untrue to the message put forth by the party for years. I’m suggesting that we don’t need to marginalize ourselves any further than we already have–that what we need most is a strong candidate. Not an easy order to fill, but that is what I believe.
As far as my wife’s notions, I guess I would have to say that I may have done her a disservice–I did not intend to speak for her here–she is capable of speaking for herself.
As far as “the idea of a woman exerting control over her own body makes you personally uncomfortable”, yes, if that definition equates to someone getting an abortion, it does make me uncomfortable, and very sad. I’m not ashamed of feeling that way at all. I would say, though, that if a woman who does not want to get pregnant wants to exert control over her own body, she could do so by avoiding pregnancy–taken in context, if it please you, with all the other statements I have made to this topic herein.
As far as what Jesus said, I am no religious scholar, but I understand that what he actually said is a matter of great debate. I and all of us can certainly concentrate on making bigger sacrifices in our lives for the greater good, whether for religious reasons or altruistic ones.
As far as punishing others, I don’t believe I’ve suggested that anyone be punished at any point–nor have I made any reference to choices people make as being “sinful”.
Ya know, I hate these debates, but I can’t let this comment stand unanswered…
I would say, though, that if a woman who does not want to get pregnant wants to exert control over her own body, she could do so by avoiding pregnancy
Why is it always the woman’s responsiblity to make sure she doesn’t get pregnant? Do men not have the capability to ensure they don’t ejaculate inside her if they are so “anti-abortion” and neither one is ready for a child? But of course it isn’t, it always falls to the woman to take that responsibility… and god forbid she doesn’t have access to birth control (and that is becoming more and more frequent even for women of “means” what with all the fundamentalist pharmacists out there these days) and needs to take responsiblity at that point… then it’s a big problem and men are free to tell her she is sinful for not carrying the baby to term, even if the man has no intention of providing for her, or the child’s well being.
Women can never win. Never. That makes me sad.
I don’t remember ever saying that it was soley the responsibitly of the woman to avoid unwanted pregnancy. In fact, I’m pretty sure that somewhere along the line I’ve made a case for the responsibility of the male. All that aside, though, is what I stated incorrect? “I would say, though, that if a woman who does not want to get pregnant wants to exert control over her own body, she could do so by avoiding pregnancy”.
Look at the context of the comment. It was in response to someone saying that a woman deserves the right to exert this control, which I did not deny–I simply pointed out what is painfully obvious to me.
Actually, I’m sad for you, if your view of men in general is truly that dim. How someone could hold the woman soley responsible, or consider them sinful or leave them to fend for themselves is beyond me. I know that it happens, though–and I know that this “excommunication” of sorts is not soley the province of men–I’ve met many women who are eager to shred others for much less.
my view of men is anything but that dim. I was just pointing out the inherent dilemma that most, if not all, women face at some point in their lives. And yes, most men do not take the same responsiblity for controlling pregnancy as women are expected to. That’s just a fact of life.
Sorry if I missed your other post where you put responsiblity on both sexes.
In fact, I’m pretty sure that somewhere along the line I’ve made a case for the responsibility of the male.
No you have not, I always read these threads with particular attention to the balance of that bias and, while you may have inserted a partial sentence addressing male responsibility you’ve mostly been addressing male rights. Indeed I daresay that any single young man averaging, say, 5 or 10 different partners a years and reading this thread would have worked his way up to a state of indignation about the horrendous irresponsibility of women in general. As usual in discussions about abortion the notion that male behavior is in any sense responsible has been given the lightest of rhetorical cover.
How someone could hold the woman soley responsible, or consider them sinful or leave them to fend for themselves is beyond me.
Look, the culture does this. What else was welfare ‘reform’ about? Why do you think we have the highest child poverty rates of any of the industrialized nation? Why are the bulk of the poor in this country women and their children? What do you think the child support compliance rate is? And were you under the impression that there’s any male involvement or support in the vast majority of OOW births in this country? Were you aware that the House republicans just cut 5 billion in funding for child support enforcement from the federal budget? How insane is it that we spend billions of dollars trying to get (mostly) men to support the children they’ve been responsible for bringing into the world? And where do you get off attacking with false piety some woman you don’t know for her ‘personal view of men’ when she’s trying to address what is a bias large enough to drive a Mac truck through?
and I’m going to keep saying it:
When a man sticks his penis in a woman HE IS CHOOSING TO POTENTIALLY BECOME A FATHER. He is surrendering HIS future to the vagaries of hormones, latex and the phases of the moon. Oh, and he’s surrendering TO HER.
That’s it. That’s his time to “choose” … he surrenders after that point. After that, the choices are the woman’s to make. His only choice after that point is: is he a man of honor who lives w/ the results of his choices, or is he a bully and a coward who refuses to do so?
Eh
I think there are a large block of voters who will vote Republican without thought, short of witnessing the Republican commit an unspeakable act right in front of them that isn’t immediately spun to be ‘okay’ by the press. I’m sure there are Dems who are the same. As for independents, that’s just a label I used to represent everyone else, who believe they pick the better candidate (all the while relying on the attack ads of each candidate’s opponent to have at least a kernel of truth).
Have you reflected on just what about abortion makes you (and others like yourself, frequently but not exclusively Catholic) so uncomfortable? I understand you’re taught its just wrong — end of story. And I get that the ‘sanctity of innocent human life’ holds great appeal.
But that’s a concept. Its as real as you make it. If the moment a sperm touches an egg is equivalent to the very concept of human life and accomplishment and potential and love, well, this’d be a short conversation. There is nothing concrete or inherent in this belief — millions of fertilized eggs are naturally expelled and die every year. Is anyone honestly expecting us to walk around in a perpetual state of mourning for these ‘lost souls’?
If you think of an unwanted pregnancy as a missed period, and an unwanted circumstance, and want to take a pill or have a trivial medical procedure to get rid of it, is that really so wrong? If you want a result that is a natural and very common occurance, is that wrong?
I get that abortion makes some folks feel uncomfortable. Why on earth would they believe its the role of the US Govt to ease their pretty little minds by screwing with someone else’s life?
And I have a lot of respect for religion, even if its not on display here tonight. I’ve had some pretty interesting conversations with anti-relgious folks, where I’ve supported religion.
But using theology to dictate US Govt actions is silly. I still remember the ‘religious controversy’ over transplants — how that defied God’s will, how it was a sin, how it would destroy the soul. Funny how you don’t hear those arguments anymore. Maybe the obvious benefits to those believers overcame their ideological opposition. And the same nonsense flared up again when they started experimenting with pig and monkey organs for human transplants. And they died down too.
So why does the abortion debate persist? Catholic Church is certainly a large part. Yet the Church’s anti-war stance really never gets much political play. Perhaps because a guaranteed 50% (and closer to 90% overall) of believers will never have to grapple with the topic as anything more than ideology, with no actual benefits to themselves for casting off these particular Church teachings?
Then there is also the ideological objectification of human life as the pinnacle of goodness, even independent from religion. Well, some ideologies are pretty darn good — equality of the sexes, ‘human rights’, abolition of slavery, etc. Except in all those cases, you can literally put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed, and ask “is this fair?”. Is it fair that not all fertilized ovum become walking talking human beings? Conceptual human life is just that — a concept. Any loss to mourn is idealized. There are plenty of actual living people who were born.
In the end, I guess I think everyone should be free to believe what they want on the issue, and live their lives appropriately. Being pricks and demanding others live their lives to suit ones self is just pathetic.
And since many abortion opponents proudly state their religion is the foundation of their position — I’ll point out again for the Christians that Jesus gave many many lessons in the New Testament — “cast the first stone”, “my brother’s keeper”, “give to Ceasar”, “plank in your own eye” — all saying basically ‘you are responsible for your own actions in the eyes of God’. Name me one single account of Jesus saying that you are held accountable for the sins of another.
There is no ‘great debate’ on that. Anyone who has cracked the spine of the Good Book they rely upon knows this stuff.
(oh, and considering how many times Jesus had to scold/admonish/correct his disciples, I think I’ll trust the words of the Son of God himself over anything Paul or the others may have implied. After all, it was Jesus who spoke “Get away from me, Satan” to Peter in one famous episode — Apostle Peter, the foundation of the Catholic Church. with thanks to my longtime friend who is also a Catholic Priest for pointing out that particular irony to me)
“Get away from me, Satan”
Do you know which book this was in? (sorry, would help in a lot of debates I have about the founder of the church of Rome) 😉
A quick google search found this:
http://bible.cc/matthew/16-23.htm
That page shows the exact text for a number of different Bible versions. Funny how the full quote fits the context of this discussion. Of course, its best to read the preceeding verses to get the full context of the story.
One entry:
One of the other things Jesus said seems equally profound on the idea of the “laws of the church.”
Matthew tells the story of the time Jesus and his disciples were hungry on the sabbath. Jesus tells the disciples to collect grain from the fields. They object because it is against the rules to gather grain on the sabbath. Jesus’ response is “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.”
I think about this often. What I think Jesus is saying is that there is a value that goes beyond the rules. When they come in conflict with the furtherance of our humanity – the rules go.
Now, that leads to many situations that would be a tough call. But I think that’s what Jesus was asking us to do. Life is complicated and often messy. But we have to search for answers to difficult situations by looking for what would promote our own humanity as well as others.
Well said.
Everyone has heard of the “Golden Rule”. Its wonderfully simple. But as you point out so well, even tho the rule may be simple, the application often defies simple black and white answers.
I’ve got nothing against faith. I respect people of faith.
Its the reducing faith to following the dictates of man that doesn’t sit right with me. It didn’t sit right with Jesus, either.
I think a very large segment of the population votes exclusively based on sentiment and/or fear. Most people have been conditioned to believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts, and the ease with which such people can be guided into falling for schemes that are directly counter to their own best interests is frightening.
This sort of institutionalized denial allows the swindlers, (whether they be political, money based, sex based, or whatever else), get away with their deceptions and scams for a much longer tiome than they wouldif we were more willing to question things and use our own mids to evaluate what the world is telling us.
Bunco squad investigators say their biggest obstacle to solving cases is that the victims are so embarrasses/afraid to admit they’ve been duped. They joke that; “The bigger the swindle, the bigger the denial by the victims that it happened at all”.
Imagine how difficult it ust have been for all those parents to finally admit that what their chgildren were telling them abut having been molested by the parish priest was true.
This same kind of denial is at the heart of the careless way in which we decide who to vote for. In a way I think it’s almost true that the real battle for effective voting is not even so much party-centric as it is centered on those who want to learn and evaluate the issues and those who just vote based on the rhetoric.
I thought the Democratic Party supported abortion rights for citizens as part of their reverence for the principles of independent libertieswith regard to ones own person and the right to privacy as enshrined in our constitution.
Somehow, this is very much different from being in favor of abortion, and I really wish more people would exercise more diligence in differentiating between these two very different positions.
A very good point, and one I wish I were more readily aware of. I too tend to lose the focus of that–though I agree with the principle, and I never really set out to write a diary about abortion in the first place.
And you probably didn’t set out to write a diary about “abortion rights” either.
How easy it is to conflate the two out of habit.
I’ll put it bluntly: regardless of your personal views on abortion, it is a procedure that a woman MUST have access to if she is going to truly be equal. Whether you find it morally reprehensible (as you seem to) or whether you celebrate it (as I do), it is absolutely immoral to force a woman to carry and give birth to a child (risking her health, her future, and possibly her life) just because you use your magical 20/20 hindsight powers and determine that she should have done this, or could have done that differently along the way.
As a woman who does not want children, and would stop at nothing to abort the pregnancy were I to conceive one, I can also tell you that I find your hypothetical conjecturing over circumstances leading up to the pregnancy not only insulting, but angering. No one can know what led to such circumstances except for the woman, the man, and possibly the doctor…and beyond that it isn’t anyone else’s business. You may think an unborn fetus is already a baby, but I personally disagree…and with my body what I say (not what YOU say) can and SHOULD go…if not, then I am not a truly equal being. The rights of an adult woman should never be trumped by the fetus (it angers me that they already are in the later trimester).
Also, where is the talk of men’s role in procreational responsibility? You don’t seem as distressed about the lack of readily-available vasectomies (an easily reversible, outpatient procedure) as you are about women not taking their birth control pill (which has side effects that to this day aren’t fully understood if taken long-term, though to be fair may also bring a few benefits along with its use).
You’ve spent a heck of a lot of time talking about your own personal “moral dilemma” with abortion compared to anything else regarding your home life…which is why I do not trust you nor your intentions in posting this. If you are truly a “house divided”, let’s hear about some other issues.
Do you truly celebrate abortion? Do you truly feel it is the best alternative, or that it should be a last resort? After all, it isn’t only the fetus that is affected. I find it interesting that you find it “absolutely immoral to force a woman to carry and give birth to a child”, thereby bringing morality into the equation, yet you give not a nod of respect toward what someone else may or may not consider moral.
I have indeed talked of the “men’s role in procreational responsibility”. Men cannot share the burden equally, but they absolutely share the responsibility, in every way that they can–that is, short of the actual physical side of pregnancy.
If you read what I posted, I never intended to get into a discussion about abortion, though I do not shirk from discussing the issue. Since I was called out on it, I believe I have every right to state what I think and feel about it–which, I might add, I have never discussed in this forum or any other at any length. Whether you trust me or not is your issue, not mine–but I think it is readily apparent when reading the post that I had no intent of gravitating to this topic. I don’t think you can truly call into doubt “your intentions in posting this” – I had no hidden agenda. Further, if you want to discuss other issues from my divided house, let me know what you would like to talk about.
Two things for the record, though–I can only peck away at responding today, as I have many responsibilities–but I will respond.
Second, as a father who went out of his way to demand that he be put on a birth certificate, at the age of 18 in the year 1985, I think I have a little ground to stand on here.
Yes, I truly do celebrate the right for a woman to an abortion. If a woman had an easier alternative at the time I believe she would take it (given not only the cost of abortion but also the in-my-opinion immoral roadblocks put in her path in trying to obtain it), so it’s always the “last resort” but often also the “best alternative”.
What is a man’s role in your eyes? How would you feel about making vasectomies readily-available and covered by insurance (in my own relationship, it was not covered and we had to pay out-of-pocket to have it done)? Do you see such a program as a moral imperative in the interest of preventing pregnancy until the man is ready and able to father children, or does the moral burden for preventing pregnancy fall onto the woman?
I give “not a nod of respect” (your words, but not necessarily how I would phrase it) to how anyone else feels about it morally because another person’s moral point of view does not supercede mine when it comes to my body and my rights, nor should it trump any woman’s. I am completely and utterly unapologetic about my unwillingness to put another’s views before my own in this regard…and in regards to me and my rights, you have NO ground to stand on. None at all.
How about talking about the war, or the economy, or the state of modern education? How about government corruption (i.e. is it there and what should be done about it, as well as who is culpable and who is not). I have no interest in anti-choice voters, or even choice-ambiguous voters (since there is nothing that I would be willing to compromise on to try and sway them), but if we discuss other areas maybe we can find common ground for dialogue.
WW – from my viewpoint, you don’t need to defend yourself or your intentions in this diary. I think it has led to a good discussion and I’d like more of these, not less.
On the more general issues of the political choices that people make, I agree with you alot. What I hear you saying is that Democrats need to stake out their positions and stand up for them. That alot of people who don’t pay alot of attention, are tending to vote Republican these days because Democrats are so busy “positioning” themselves that these less informed voters pick up on that and don’t trust them. I’m totally with you on this!!
I would like to suggest that other people here consider writing diaries about people they know who might be persuaded to vote for Democrats and what keeps them from doing so. I would find that kind of discussion helpful and intersting.
So here’s the copy.
I cannot continue with this discussion at this time–my children need me during the day. Feel free to comment away amongst yourselves–I will post again tonight and attempt to answer all comments directed my way. I am not sure how we got to the whole abortion issue here, or why any of you care what I think about the whole thing, but apparently you do. So I will make the effort tonight–if you are available and wish to be part of the discussion then, please do so. I am also going to separately post in answer to comments made about voters, which was actually what I posted about in the first place–because I feel strongly about what I said. Again, of course, you may comment all you like now and join in later if you wish. Thank you for participating–I appreciate all the input. Much food for thought.
I think this has been a very interesting discussion; I think it took off in the abortion direction because it seemed like that issue was the primary basis of the political/voter divide in your house.
Have a nice day with the family. 🙂
WW, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and willingness to engage, but the basic point in my subject header seems to be one you consistently fail to grasp (at least in this context). To those who claim not to share your disquiet about abortion, your response is, “Do you really think, then, that it’s a good thing — something to be ‘celebrated’?”
Answer: neither. Denying that it is intrinsically “bad” (albeit at times, regrettably, necessary) does not commit one to holding that it is intrinsically “good” (to be celebrated).
The way you’ve set things up, the only alternative to your position that abortions are to be deplored (on moral grounds) is that they are to be cheered (on moral grounds). Wrong, wrong, wrong, WW.
To cast your interlocutor as committed to the view that abortion is “good” is to impose upon her/him the strange view that abortions are things to be promoted — there should be as many abortions as possible (other things being equal). I know that’s not what you intend, but that’s a consequence of the overly restrictive range of possible stances you allow for.
Please consider this.
I lived in a house divided,too. You’d think that 14 years of it would leave me with some wisdom to impart, but alas, it hasn’t. The only advice I have to give I would give to my younger self: don’t do it. 🙂 May you have better luck with this than we did.
WW, you say that “everyone alive could agree that abortion is ‘bad.'” I see statements like that a lot and I always feel the need to jump in and say, Ahem, I’m sorry, but that’s an incorrect assumption. I think you can see just from this diary alone the evidence for an opposite conclusion. Lots of people do not think it’s bad.
I, for instance, do not think it’s bad, and that is probably because I don’t share the religious and/or philosophical beliefs of those who do. I’m not here to argue those beliefs, I just want to let you know that it isn’t true that “everyone alive could agree that abortion is bad.”
that “all abortions are bad”
abortions happen, and the universe, Gaia, YVWH, pick your superstition/prime mover/natural process causes at least as many abortions as women choose for themselves. In fact, chosen abortions seem to be declining, while the power-that-is continues to rip out bundles of cells at pretty much the same rate.
Want to save fetuses? Early and free pre-natal care for women, easy-to-get treatment for STDs and easily availble birth control will help women avoid some spontaneous abortions (I REFUSE to call them “miscarriages” … the woman didn’t fumble a fucking football).