The press is really despicable. This poll that everybody is citing saying that 69% of the American people think that an attack is imminent is true. What they don’t mention is that a year ago the same 69% thought that an attack was imminent. This is a very rational belief. The real story here is that this rational belief has been unaffected quantitatively by recent events.
This ersatz interpretation of the poll is either lazy or despicable. One thing is clear. It is irresponsible: it creates an entirely false impression of panic that plays into the hands of the Cruzes and the Trumps. The real story is not being told. The real story is that the American people are not being cowed by the terrorists. Nor are the French people. Nor are the Lebanese people. I’ve seen no indication the people of Mali or Nigeria or Israel or Tunisia or Great Britain or Spain are being cowed despite the violence in those countries – even horrific levels of violence in the case of Nigeria. Terrorism does not work – with one exception: it greatly excites the press.
enables Fascist demagogues and sells newspapers and advertising for media whores.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
It’s been quite a while since I’ve even considered that an attack on the US might be imminent.
We had a terrorist attack yesterday, in a Planned Parenthood clinic. Our right-wing GOP, together with the media that DO enable them, have more blood on their hands.
When the terrorists are white American males spouting right-wing Christian dogma, we essentially ignore them. They are “unbalanced extremists” who “act alone”. They act in direct response to the GOP mob-baiting that has been going on for months, but our media doesn’t dare connect the two. Nobody wants to talk about “Christian Terrorists” — from either side of the aisle.
I suggest a slight edit to the thread-starter. It is “Islamic terrorism” that greatly excites the press. That same press is deafeningly silent about domestic Christian terrorism (or “anti-abortion terrorism”, if you prefer).
…and while in the intervening time I personally have come closer to your view of what constitutes terrorism I still think that the for most others the word association with “terrorism” conjures up images of whole buildings being blown up creating massive amounts of casualties. The OKC bombing for example, was perpetrated by a couple of rightwing white guys and WAS labeled terrorism, so I would suggest that it is scale rather than the victim, perpetrator, or motive that is the key variable in labeling an act terrorist. Christian terrorism is no more appropriate label than Muslim terrorism unless you qualify those terms in ways that make it abundantly clear that it is a handful of people using their so-called faith as an excuse.
It is an attack meant to inspire fear and make an ideological point. Whether it’s the communist inspired Black September group, modern Islamists like ISIL, largely left leaning Catholics in Ireland, or the Red Faction in the 60s and 70s Germany. This fits the bill. It’s an attempt to win via the bullet what this movement has failed to win at the courts or ballot box and intimidate the health care providers and potential patients.
I still have a strong personal aversion to abortion, but as I’ve grown more educated being engaged to a future women’s health care worker and meeting her friends already in the field, I’ve began to realize that these services are largely preventative and the last resort for many poor women. I hope they can continue in their work, and we are even thinking of donating to them this year as part of our Christmas giving, which is something I would’ve thought unthinkable for myself just a few years ago. I suspect you agree and am not implying you differ on the merits of these issues-but this was a politically motivated attack and meets the basic definition of terrorism in my book.
jconway is exactly right that it is the intention (both by the legal definition and by common usage) that matters.
This was absolutely terrorism. As were the shootings by white supremacists against BLM activists recently.
Not calling it terrorism minimizes the actions and motives of these criminals.
…but I think what I said above is true for a lot of people. If the press mantra is “if it bleeds, it leads” then it follows (not saying I like it) that the more it bleeds the more coverage it gets.
Look at Munich 1972. “Only” 11 victims; no buildings were blown up. Unquestionably terrorism. There are many more examples.
…and I think Munich is a very good counterexample. I think the randomness vs. target also contributes to how much terror is induced in people. Munich was terror because it was athletes going about their business. PP is a very specific target directly related to the perpetrator’s agenda. One might think, I’m not… so I have no reason to be terrified whereas the things more likely to be labeled terrorism are those that kill/injure anyone and everyone on site regardless of whether or not they personally have offended the terrorist. Maybe it shouldn’t be this way, but then, maybe we should actually get serious about firearms too:(
Somervilletom hit the nail right on the head again !
There has been a conspiracy of denial between the anti-abortion Fascist right and their con puke political sycophants enabled by their propaganda shills in the con media.
They all need to be exposed for aiding and abetting the most dangerous threat to domestic tranquility !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Unless a politician or cleric has called for the murder of those who have or perform abortions I would not hold them responsible for the acts of deranged people who go to this extreme. After all, being truly prolife would mean not committing murder, a sentiment with which I suspect 99% of prolifers would themselves agree.
When politicians (including all of the GOP candidates, but especially Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee) constantly hammer this issue and talk about Planned Parenthood committing murder, committing barbaric acts, and murdering live babies to harvest their organs for profit (and continuing to repeat this lie after all evidence to the contrary), they are enabling and comforting those who commit these acts, even if they do not specifically endorse violence. They constantly talk about fighting against Planned Parenthood, protecting Christian values, and even endorse shutting down the government to prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving funding (because, after all, it is a war for the soul of America to them). Those news outlets who would constantly and uncritically cover the lies put forth with those recent videos and provide platforms to people like Fiorina and Huckabee are also enabling those who would commit violence.
I think they absolutely share some responsibility for these actions. Criminal liability, no, but responsibility for sure. It’s not terribly far away from the anti-choice activists who will post the names and addresses of abortion providers online.
You can add scum-bag Ted Cruz to the list, too. In the past couple of days, he, too, attempted to incite violence against PPH by repeating the complete falsehood that PPH is “in the business of selling baby parts.”
I agree that it is valid for a politician, or cleric, or any other individual to hold private views about abortion, just like any other issue.
In my view, it is not valid for a politician to use his or her office to impose their privately-held opposition to abortion or contraception on public policy. These issues have been settled law for decades. The opposition to this law comes from religious belief, and that belief should NOT be imposed on public policy.
Politicians and clerics don’t have to explicitly call for murder, bombings, or vandalism against providers like Planned Parenthood — firing up an already blood-thirsty mob with language like “evil”, “immoral”, and “obscene” is more than enough to inflame the extremist fringe that exists in every movement.
A mob boss who knows full well that a raised eyebrow offered at an appropriate time will cause an underling, unknown to the boss, to execute a targeted individual. In my view, that mob boss is just as guilty of the resulting murder as the underling who pulls the trigger. I see ZERO difference between that mob boss and the cleric or politician who uses incendiary language against, for example, Planned Parenthood.
Most of my pro-life friends are committed adherents to the consistent life ethic and oppose war, the death penalty, police killing of unarmed black men and women, and the greed and usury of Wall Street with equal fervor. These folks are honest grassroots activists who have started their own crisis pregnancy centers, have lots of kids and foster kids, and walk the walk. They recognize the GOo has sold them out and they are trying to create a “whole life” movement that focuses on common cause with liberals on family economics issues. Even the ones that are more single issue conservatives in that issue recognize that they have to win at the ballot box and win at the courts. It’s a case by case voter by voter persuasion.
What is the opposite of that is backdoor regulations that de jure eliminate abortion rights in a state, and political acts of terrorism like this goaded on by those that compare slavery to abortion and terrorists like this to John Brown. That’s the repugnant extremism that has to stop, and should be investigated as much as Islamic preachers praising ISIL. This apparently widespread belief that adherents are above laws they disagree with-whether it’s abortion or Kin Davis. Now I am not comparing her to this terrorist, she is far from that, but her extremism stems from the same roots as his far more violent branch. A belief that the courts, ballot box, and democratic process are illegitimate. The belief that the moral minority, which it is now, can still override the majority and nullify the rule of law by appealing to the rule of God. That shit has to stop. Full stop.
…but just because something is “settled law” doesn’t mean that those who disagree are obligated to sit down and shut up. In a system like ours citizens are always within their rights to speak up to change settled law if they believe it to be immoral. I’m not sure the mob boss in your example is guilty of much and even Carly Fiorina whose calls for defunding PP are based on a non-existent video didn’t ask for anyone to be murdered and I’m confident she does not approve of what happened in CO.
Here’s what Fiorina said. When asked specifically about whether outrageous rhetoric incites violence, her answer starts with a very clear and continued lie about Planned Parenthood’s practices (which the terrorist specifically cited after his arrest) and then goes into how the Left is just demonizing the messenger before telling another lie about how the majority of Americans want to defund Planned Parenthood (63% oppose such a move).
I wouldn’t expect her to take responsibility (in the same way she doesn’t accept any responsibility for her epic failures at HP), but her answer continued the outrageous and untrue rhetoric while pointing the finger elsewhere.
Also, she hasn’t just called for defunding Planned Parenthood. She said at the GOP debate:
She continued the lie on the Sunday shows.
She didn’t tell this guy to shoot up a health care clinic and kill patients and a police officer, but she (and many others) has aggressively and regularly singled out Planned Parenthood as a violent enemy that needs to be stopped. That creates an environment that very easily allows people to think that violence is an appropriate solution.
Trying to force the President to veto funding is a far cry from calling for anyone’s murder.
…seriously think, “if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this bill, shame on us.” can be legitimately read as a call for violence?! I get emails all the time calling for like minded people to try to stand up and force an elected official to do our bidding (or implicitly pay the political consequences), but in no way suggest that violence is the solution. In a system such as ours we should always assume the intended remedy is ballots, not bullets, unless of course someone actually uses a phrase like “second amendment remedies” a la Sharon Angle.
I downrated because I think your comment was silly and simple-minded.
It seems that only a direct call to arms will satisfy you in terms of holding these politicians accountable. Again, I am not calling for criminal liability for saying these things (I would if there was a specific and direct call for violence), but I do think that that deserve to share some responsibility because their charged rhetoric and lies have led to an environment in which a health care provider is viewed as a violent and dangerous enemy and must be stopped to save the soul of the country. With a constant barrage of language like that, especially one amplified in right-wing media outlets, it is not surprising in the slightest that a person would take action like this. Words from those in office or those given certain platforms have power and they should be held accountable when those words lead to actions.
They have a right to say these things, but we also have a right to hold them accountable.
I do think the call has to be more direct. Anything less I fear would have a chilling effect on vigorous debate.
I’ll stick with calling out people on their hate speech and lies. If that prevents people from engaging so recklessly in such speech, good.
Again, I’m not calling for criminal liability or the government restricting their speech. They have a right to say it. We have a right to call them out.
…(and if this is already happening I just don’t recall at the moment), is if we can hold people legally liable for those who publish the names, photos, and home addresses of abortion providers without running afoul of the first amendment. THAT to me seems to induce terror in the targets even the person providing such information never pulls the trigger and constitutes a more direct even if still technically implicit rather explicit call for violence.
their followers / flock to murder those who have or provide abortions. They don’t have to.
All they have to do is call abortion — baby killing —and leave the rest to the mentally/criminally unstable/violent who are armed to the teeth and just need the spark of instigation to commit the real murder.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
…will also expressly and publicly condemn such actions too, but to insist that they do is like wondering why every Muslim doesn’t consistently come out and condemn every act of terror committed by other “Muslims” when it’s just as obviously evil to them as it is to us. I actually don’t want to find myself in a situation where I have to censor every piece of my rhetoric based on how the most deranged person might react to it.
I don’t think that is the correct analogy. The correct analogy would be to ask the Muslim cleric whose rhetoric the terrorist perpetrator heard who constantly preaches about the west being murderous and barbarous, and that Muslims need to fight back to protect their homeland and faith – but without explicitly calling for violence.
There is a big difference between believing and saying publicly that abortion is wrong and having a platform that you use to incessantly refer to abortion providers as murderers and butchers while saying that they need to be stopped because this is the great moral battle of our time.
Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, and
Malcom X were each radical black clerics who actively led movements during the tumultuous civil rights era.
Each made frequent and fervent expressions of their support or opposition to violent acts committed by extremist followers. Leaders are different followers, clerics are different from parishioners.
You are not a cleric or politician. If you become either, then you most certainly will have to at least edit, if not “censor”, your rhetoric based on how your most extremist (or deranged) follower might react to it.
To do any less is to ignore or betray the responsibilities and obligations that come with the position you accept.
…but I really am not sure I agree.
to terrorize a whole nation of people from exercising their Constitutionally protected rights. These murderers and those who aid and abet them as accomplices to murder are the most despicable, evil and vile excuses for human beings I know. They should all be hunted down, prosecuted and brought to justice. And that is exactly what our Attorney General Lynch is going to do.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
…but if you are including among “those who aid and abet them as accomplices” anybody who speaks out against the practice of abortion you are going to run into some major constitutional difficulties of your own, and I for one would vigorously oppose it on the merits.
Speaking out is different from acting out. I agree that there are serious constitutional issues with prosecuting those who speak in support of pro-life extremists. The suggested prosecution of those who speak in support of ISIS suffers from the same constitutional issues.
The KKK has a constitutional right to exist, hold meetings, and hold gatherings. I view the anti-abortion movements and ISIS through the same lens.
I seek a society where would-be politicians who agitate against abortion and in favor of ISIS join David Duke — free to say whatever they wish, and absolute pariahs when it comes to seeking public office.
who refer to abortion as murder but don’t have the balls to commit the crime of murder to terrorize the population themselves; yet, goad the dim-witted and criminally insane to do their dirty work.
You know who I’m talking about. I’m talking about those who want to force their religion into my bedroom.
This is why we must have a clear separation of church and state.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I am so damn sick and tired of listening to this bullshit for the past 50 years,
Fred Rich LaRiccia
But if someone genuinely believes abortion is murder, then they would move to make abortion illegal. Do you believe shooting someone in the head and killing them is murder? What if I said “Fred, if you believe shooting someone in the head is murder, then don’t do it”, and tried to make the act of shooting someone in the head legal.
There’s no difference between an abortion and a shooting death to a genuine pro-lifer, because in both circumstances they view it as one person taking another person’s life.
To me, the most unfortunate part is that “personhood” doesn’t extend to basic dignity of life. If the pro-life crowd had as dramatic a fervor in human dignity as they do human life, and set themselves to end poverty, hunger, homelessness, addiction, and other crimes against social justice, there would be something there.
I think we should ask pro-lifers more and more these kinds of probing policy questions. What would the post-Roe United States look like? How many women dying from botched back alley abortions are you willing to tolerate as the price for a world where abortion is illegal? How will you pay for all these new mouths that are created, will you feed them and provide them with healthcare and an education? How will you punish those that break the law?
Very few pro-lifers are willing to tackle these questions head on. The ones I know who are ‘whole life’ activists are decidedly left of center on most economic and foreign policy questions and have been removed from the politics of this issue for decades. They view it as a moral cause, if they can help one woman in a crisis pregnancy choose life over abortion it’s a victory, like that old story about the old man on the beach throwing starfish into the sea. I applaud these friends of mine, and honestly feel like their work would continue whether abortion was made illegal or not (though they don’t share this conclusion).
But other thinkers like Ramesh Ponnuru (who wrote a book calling the Democrats the ‘Party of Death’), or Ross Douthat have proposed fining doctors for performing future illegal abortions and some form of a welfare state. The fines seem to indicate that they few these ‘crimes’ as less than the murders and death industry that they rhetorically call them. My friend Charles Comasay, who has written a new book on the subject, would institute the welfare state reforms first and then gradually roll back abortion rights, to a 20 week federal ban and eventually a state by state experimentation on how best to control against it in a post-Roe environment. He is the first to concede that the modern GOP is nowhere near being the pro-life party he wants it to be, because of it’s rejection for social programs that alleviate the need for abortion. Unfortunately, his knee jerk social conservatism precludes him from making much of an impact on our side of the fence either. Abortion and gay marriage being state based issues are about as far as he can come to our side.
None of these thinkers, arguably mainstream conservatives, are embracing the conclusions their outlandish rhetoric should lead to. It’s like they are conceding that abortion is an act different from murder, that women and doctors engaged in it are doing something far less evil than that.
And that is where it is deficient to me. I can conceive of effective policies that respect a womens right to choose while reducing the need for abortion. I can’t see the right doing the same thing. Ultimately, if it’s truly murder, this kind of terrorism is morally justified. It’s why O’Reilly can’t wash his hands and say he was only kidding after calling George Tiller a baby killer on national television night after night. He didn’t need to pull the trigger to put a target on that man’s back. And while they can say ‘pro life means respect the right to life for abortion providers’, we don’t propose fines for murderers. Their rhetoric about this moral calamity falls short of their proposed remedy, which leads to situations like these where the disenfranchised and isolated pro-life extremists take the law into their own hands.
I agree with your observation about those who genuinely believe that abortion is murder. In my view, this is why we separate church and state, and it is why have already gone too far in excusing illegal behavior because of “religious belief”.
There are a number of practices that most Americans find acceptable that some Americans find immoral, evil, and for some as justification for illegal acts including murder. Here are some others besides abortion:
– Same-sex marriage
– Sexual intercourse among unmarried partners
– Anal intercourse
– Enjoying or creating depictions of sexual activity among consenting adults
– Working on Sunday (for those who view the KJV as the “inerrant word of God)
– Using artificial contraception
– Allowing women to speak in church
– Mixing dairy and beef on the same plate with the same utensils
– Eating pork
– Eating shellfish
– Eating meat
While I agree that there is no difference between an abortion and a shooting death to a genuine pro-lifer, most of us reject that equivalence. Too many of our religious leaders and government officials allow their religious beliefs to trump the rights of all of us to be protected from the imposition of those religious beliefs on us.
When the press gives the nutty right a pass, they damage ALL of us.
Like I said, there is a growing “whole life” movement seeking to move beyond the abortion wars and focus on actually reducing abortions. But, the fact that they still cannot accept the right to choose limits their influence on our side and they are viewed as apostates on theirs because (heaven forbid!) their policy program would expand government and treat women seeking abortions as human beings deserving assistance and compassion instead of harlots seeking guilt free sex.
I largely feel that our system is well designed, in theory, to allow
people the freedom to practice their faith without their faith threatening the rights of others. But policing it requires a vigilant, bias free media capable of making the critical distinction and a government interested in enforcing it. And there will always be gray areas. I’m against burka bans on religious liberty grounds, some feminists favor it on women’s liberation grounds. I believe Kim Davis has a right to withhold her signature on the liscense itself but loses any right to withhold the actual issuance of that license by her office which has to follow the law, a balance to which some secularists and obviously her many supporters find offensive. I support the right to protest and freedom of assembly, but recognize those rights can come into conflict with a women’s right to privacy, and some kind of buffer zone is needed. Especially after incidents like this. And frankly civil disobedience is in the eyes of he beholder, I think the religiously motivated civil rights movement was a righteous cause, along with all the churches supporting BLM and standing in solidarity with them against City Hall here in Chicago. But blocking a health care provider to me threatens the rights of another human being, and seemingly does little to actually save the potential ones they claim to be concerned with. It seems that the fervor some have towards this cause makes it less likely we can disagree agreeably and more likely violence is utilized as an alternative to the political process.
..states that while government shall not establish a state religion, it shall also not prohibit the free exercise thereof. Your immorality is another person’s morality and you are both free to advocate for your points of view. For example, the support of transgender rights can also be deemed an imposition of belief, yet you would not agree that those who hold contrary beliefs be protected from that imposition.
Both sides of any issue have protected rights to advance that point of view, and persuade others to agree.
…but in my view conservatives have interpreted the free exercise clause too broadly. Many of them think they should be able to act in a way that infringes on others due to religious belief. Invoking the history I can confidently say I don’t think that is what the drafters had in mind. Free exercise meant to them specifically the ability to worship as they pleased without having to hide in catacombs or in somebody’s home in the dead of night, that they could erect houses of worship and announce their presence in the community without fear of harassment by authorities. This also means that church attendance could not be compelled.
FWIW, I think liberals often interpret the establishment clause too broadly, again based on the historical context in which the amendment was written. That generation objected specifically to a tax-supported church such as the Church of England, whose prelates also ex officio participated in governance. It also meant that church contributions could not be legally compelled. It could also be construed to prohibit religious tests for office if that had not been expressly forbidden already in the original constitution. It did not mean that there would never be references to God in the public sphere.
Nobody has suggested inhibiting anyone from freely exercising their religious beliefs.
There is no “imposition of belief” in legalizing same-sex marriage. Nobody is forced into a same-sex marriage, no church or synagogue is forced to perform same-sex marriages. When Ms. Davis refused to issue marriage licenses, she was improperly imposing her religious beliefs on others. She should have been quietly transferred to a position where she was not asked to issue those licenses. Would an Amish believer who worked in the Pennsylvania RMV have been held up as a hero if he or she refused to issue drivers licenses? I certainly hope not.
I’m not suggesting that Ms. Davis should have been prosecuted. I am objecting to the cynical and dishonest way in which the press and the GOP have attempted to make her illegal discrimination into an act of heroism.
The GOP and the religious right is driving us into Sharia-style religious conflict by advancing these offensive impositions — not coincidentally at the same time that the beat the war drum against Muslim nations that do the same.
Is that equivalence of a shooting murder and an abortion. Whether driven by religious view or simply the thought that personhood is from the moment of conception, rather than an arbitrary point in gestation or birth, you are asked to excuse murders that are occurring because it’s someone else’s choice and their body.
While I disagree with that view – deeply – I have trouble finding an answer for that. Morality regarding diet, chastity, or modesty are widely recognized as being subjective. The moral question of “is murder okay” is something that, generally, everyone agrees with. I don’t think that the term that women have an abortion really qualifies the expectant child for personhood.
Personhood is a very valid moral question. It wasn’t too long ago that we didn’t even view certain colored grown men and women as qualifying for the same personhood as other grown men and women.
Even with church and state separate, is this an issue that will never go away, simply because scale of the question prevents compromise?
I think the dichotomy between churches (including my own, lamentably) that equate abortion with murder and folks like Gloria Steinem equating it with a sacrament is passing with time, despite incidents like this. Like I said, most pro-lifers I know under 30 tend to be in the ‘whole life’ camp and are a lot less willing to call it murder and want to instead treat it as a policy problem that can be solved via government intervention. They still rely on prohibition as a solution, but at least they are willing to acknowledge it can’t succeed in a vacuum and requires substantial investments in social programs to be compassionate.
Friends on the left seem to be moving away from the libertarian position of the past ‘her body, her choice, leave government out of it’ to a more communitarian approach ‘safe, legal, and rare’ with the rare coming from preventative and alternative remedies.
I am struck by the words of Pope Francis coming off the plane from Kenya:
In one fell swoop he is condemning the narrow xenophobia that fears Islamic refugees and the kind of fundamentalism, which he admits our church has been a party to in the past to great calamity, that targets a clinic or holds one’s faith up as an idol that can justify murder and depravity. ISIL and the coward who attacked PP are cut from the same cloth, the Pope recognizes the connection and calls it out.
My partner works in choice as do many people I know. The “safe, legal, and rare” line of thinking is increasingly viewed negatively and as harmful to ensuring access to abortion. It’s damaging for messaging because if you admit it should be rare, you admit it is a problematic practice, instead of viewing it how it should be viewed – as a common and very safe part of normal health care.
Similarly, saying it is “the toughest choice a woman can make” is often just not true – and to the extent it is a tough choice, it’s often because the procedure and the places where the procedure is done are so heavily attacked.
I agree that the dichotomy is passing, but it was interesting that when I attended a memorial service in Boston for Dr. Tiller after his murder, one clergywoman gave a fantastic talk about how abortion is a blessing.
…but I doubt any woman takes the decision lightly or casually. I don’t believe abortion is murder, but neither is it just having an appendix removed.
It’s usually much easier than appendix removal.
You’re obviously coming from a place that views abortion as a wrong. Many people who choose abortion do not come from that same place, and for many it’s one of the easiest decisions they make and one they do not regret (95% according to one thorough study).
Living in a country where you’re more likely to hear abortion referred to as murder rather than health care in the media, having to drive 500 miles to the nearest clinic (and maybe losing your job to do so), having to face harassment and threats going into a clinic, or having to worry about getting killed while trying to get health services – those are things that can make the decision a lot more difficult.
Here’s more from that clergywoman in a speech fully addressing the issue.
My appendix comment was not about the relative medical ease of the two operations, but the gravity. I’m not sure I’d go quite as far as the clergywoman you quote, but mostly I consider it a medical procedure. When asking myself how I feel about a particular aspect I think of how I would approach another medical procedure. I am pro-choice because I figure that with any other operation the patient and doctor need to decide what is best in a given situation without government interference. Thus I apply the same standard to abortion.
I actually agree with her stance more than I did even a year or two ago, having really seen first hand the effects of a 1950’s Catholic policy on the Philippines or the continued effects of a draconian abortion policy even in a first world country like Ireland.
That said, I think there is a growing number of people in the middle waking up to the idea that these services are essential and in need of protection, who are deeply troubled by the videos and the blase attitude people have towards fetuses that could, theoretically, develop into fully capable children if given the chance.
I even think that some of them can be convinced to sign on to more government if it can be framed as reducing the need for abortion. Absolutely we have to be honest about the fact that birth control reduces abortion, just look at Colorado, and that’s something even centrists and maybe even soft social conservatives can embrace. In my view, at the point a woman is facing an unwanted pregnancy the government has already failed her. Either by not educating her on birth control, not empowering her to ask her male partner to be equally vigilant on that front, and allowing the existing conditions where raising a family is becoming a luxury rather than a right due to soaring costs and depressed wages. I strongly think if we focus on all of those issues we can reduce the abortion rate without reducing abortion rights. And it’s a goal the pro-choice movement should embrace.
…that sincere pro-lifers and pro-choicers can come together to accomplish, such as making sure that adoption is as accessible as possible, and that the mother has access to quality pre- and post-natal care. A true pro-lifer would want to make sure the lives of mother and baby are well cared for and a true pro-choicer would want to make sure that any choice is practical and that abortion does not seem to the woman like the only practical choice.
While that should be the case, unfortunately that is now how things have worked out in practice.
Those on the anti-choice side are more likely to support a much more limited safety net, not support universal health care, not support effective and honest sex education, and not support access to birth control (which, I think is one of those horrible policy positions not worthy of respect – like wanting to cut discussions of evolution from schools).
And even those that do support things like a more robust safety net, like some of those who run “crisis pregnancy centers,” they still often mislead women about their health care options and about basic science.
To the extent that “true pro-lifers” exist in large numbers, they have almost no sway among politicians who fall on that side.
On the other side, however, you’re much more likely to find pro-choice supporters also supporting a more robust safety net, supporting universal health care, supporting increased use of effective sex education, increased access to birth control, and yes, adoption.
My devoutly Methodist fiancée has just begun her nursing training, but is looking to go into obstetrics and is fully comfortable with having to assist in an abortion if need be. Precisely since it’s not her job to ascertain the personal circumstances about it, but just to ensure the full spectrum of health care is available to patients that request it.
Having seen the effects of a fully by the book Catholic approach to birth control and abortion in her birth country in the Philippines, I would never seek to reimpose something like that here. She has far more opportunities than her cousins did, precisely since they got stuck in shotgun marriages and had to drop out of school, since there weren’t any alternatives available.
Both statements are largely true. I guess I still prefer emphasizing the safety net, universal health care, sex ed, and adoption access as preferable alternatives to abortion, and there is a growing ‘whole life’ movement building on these issues, but you are right that it is politically homeless and relatively powerless at present. I hope that changes in the future, it would be great to have a real majority committed to economic equity. That said, as much as I prefer alternatives to abortion, I now recognize there are no alternatives to abortion rights. It’s a distinction I now appreciate.
I am pro-choice, I try to not care what other people want to do. But I can’t think of a better place to go to find opinions about a question I’ve had. At least the pro life people can give me a definition about what they want. Life begins at conception, anything after that is murder.
When does the right of a mother to terminate a pregnancy stop, or does it ever? If the baby is out of the birth canal then it’s infanticide. First 4-6 weeks not a real dilemma. What if it’s 3 weeks from the due date and healthy? And as soon as the idea of “it’s up to a doctor” gets introduced it begins to get fuzzy around the edges because doctors can be bought. There could be a decision made when medical care was unavailable.
Just my two cents. If the pregnancy needs to be terminated late I would advocate doing it live if possible. We aren’t there yet, but I can envision a day when the technology is far enough advanced that the progressive view in the tradition of being voice for the voiceless will turn to sustaining life because there will no longer have to be the choice between ending a pregnancy and letting the baby live.
I used to agree with this approach. I think medical and genetic advances have made it obsolete.
IFV clinics routinely fertilize multiple eggs for a single participant, and routinely select the most viable embryo. I think that’s right and moral. The result is to make parenthood available to thousands of men and women who very much want a baby.
Genetic carrier screening of prospective parents is now available (although at high cost). These test report the likelihood that offspring of these parents will have any of the genetic disorders included in the test.
Tay-sachs, for example, is much more likely among Ashkenazy Jews. I am profoundly disturbed by the premise that religious opposition to abortion — driven primarily by Roman Catholic dogma — should be used to effectively block such a couple from having babies.
In my view, imposing an expectation (or worse, regulation) that forces those embryos that are NOT viable to be kept alive as long as possible creates FAR MORE problems than it solves.
When a fertilized embryo is known (through genetic testing, for example) to have profound genetic disabilities, I find it immoral and selfish to insist that it be somehow brought to term so that it can suffer and die.
Some questions do not have simple answers. I note, for the benefit of scott12mass, that the Catholic dogma that life begins at conception is VERY new (in comparison to other matters of dogma). In fact, the definition of when life begins has historically been all over the place — from the moment of birth, to the “quickening” (when a mother first feels the fetus), and multiple points in between.
In my view, there will never be a simple universal answer to the question of whether or not a fertilized embryo or fetus can be destroyed.
Which has made great strides with providing universal contraceptive care to it’s citizens, and incidentally, reducing the teen pregnancy rate by 40% and the overall abortion rate by 42% in the process. You’d think stopping nearly half the abortions in the state would be cause for celebration by the pro-life community, but their spokesmen responded with evidence free platitudes about condoms causing promiscuity. If there is anything to point to convince folks on the fence, as I was, that these folks want to regulate sex rather than save lives it would be that. Fortunately their Governor* and the Republican Mayor of Colorado Springs were quick to call this political terrorism, and recommit the state to defending these constitutional rights.
*I did link to Breitbart which had the best summary I could find of his remarks, but Gov. Hickenlooper should consider their condemnation a badge of honor
Colorado Springs in particular has long been a hotbed of extreme religious right sentiment. I believe, for example, that Focus on the Family is headquartered there.
don’t kid yourself. Move out of Mass. and go to Oklahoma, and you’ll be pro-life. You say you’re pro choice but only out of political convenience.
I am pro choice. Political convenience? I don’t benefit in any way. I vote for the libertarian when I can. Remember the first political party that had the balls to support gay marriage, long before Democrats had the courage.
Some Libertarians have supported same sex-marriage and some have for a long period of time. I’ll grant you that. And, that’s great. As far as I’m concerned, the more the merrier on that issue.
Nice that the pro-life side holds an ill-informed, theologically unsustainable position, but I don’t see why I have to take it seriously. When you factor in that another ~15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, the reality is that if life begins at conception, then most people never get born. Never seen an explanation for how that works at a metaphysical level. Do they claim zygotes possess spiritual self-awareness? And then what happens to them if they’re part of the unborn majority? The Bible doesn’t provide any answers on that subject. We also don’t attend funerals for miscarried embryos.
Life pretty clearly does not work like a light switch. The maternal cycle takes nine months. The process starts with genetic coding and doesn’t reach fetal viability until 22 weeks. That’s five months before we get to the stage where that zygote has a chance to survive as a human. By any fair reckoning, you do not have a baby during the first trimester of a pregnancy. Most of that time is spent in the embryonic stage of development. In most instances the parents want that embryo to continue to develop into a baby, but the differences are fairly stark (working brain/organs, fully formed human anatomy).
There’s’ a nice set of bookends on the life cycle. You start as a mass of cells that continues to take form until you finally reach viability/life. Then at the end you die, leaving behind a much larger mass of cells that decompose (though some of those cells – hair, nails – continue to work after death). We recognize death as the point where brain and organ function cease. Not sure why anti-abortion folks don’t recognize that it takes time for those signs of life to develop in utero.
To me, much of the discussion about this issue gets philosophical and misses the practical. Is it a blessing? Is it a blessing if a woman can have an abortion and that allows her to continue with her education? Is it wrong to use abortion as a form of birth control? Is five months too many? Should it be 18 weeks? Is it viability that matters? Positive good vs. inherent wrong? What did Roe v. Wade hold? Safe, legal and rare? Let’s all agree that adoption should be available? The toughest choice a woman can make? Not the toughest choice?
Number one, we’re lumping everyone together which tends to gets problematic. Number two, I have no fucking idea what the answer is to these questions and issues. And, neither do the people asking the questions, and raising the issues. It’s just opinion, personal belief. But, it’s different from other types of personal beliefs because it directly impacts what another human being can or should be able to do with their own body.
What I do know is that each woman should get to decide what she does with her own body. And everyone else should STFU. Sure, dive into the minutiae, debate the politics and the policies, and lump all women together for the purpose of the discussion. But, when you’re done, just recognize that each woman MUST make these decisions for HERself, without interference from murderous assholes, politicians, philosophers, clergy, etc.
But I haven’t seen anyone make an argument to the contrary of what you are saying on this thread. Like I said up thread, most voters who self identify as pro life are really stating a moral opinion without thinking through the policu consequences. The choice to them, is a society where abortion happens and a society where it doesn’t. What they don’t understand is that such a society where it doesn’t happen is a utopia that has never existed.
The real policy decision is between safe and legal abortions or unsafe and illegal ones. That’s it. We can reduce the rates via universal contraception like Colorado and we should adopt family leave, single payer, and a parents wage or income floor because they are the right thing to do in general, but I do suspect they will reduce abortions as well.
And, I agree with you—that really is the debate (or what it should be).