Jivin J’s Life Links 5-4-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- At National Review, Kevin Burke writes about Aerosmith lead-singer and American Idol judge Steven Tyler’s (pictured below left) experience with abortion which was cited in the band’s autobiography:
When Miss Holcomb and Tyler conceived a child, his longtime friend Ray Tabano convinced Tyler that abortion was the only solution. In the Aerosmith “autobiography,” Walk This Way (in which recollections by all the band members, and their friends and lovers, were assembled by the author Stephen Davis), Tabano says: “So they had the abortion, and it really messed Steven up because it was a boy. He… saw the whole thing and it [messed] him up big time.”
Tyler also reflects on his abortion experience in the autobiography. “It was a big crisis. It’s a major thing when you’re growing something with a woman, but they convinced us that it would never work out and would ruin our lives…. You go to the doctor and they put the needle in her belly and they squeeze the stuff in and you watch. And it comes out dead. I was pretty devastated. In my mind, I’m going, Jesus, what have I done?”
- A guest blogger at Feministe takes the old, worn-out path to defend Planned Parenthood funding – just forget about the unborn:
My general rule is that my opinions and politics should always be on the side of choice (unless you’re trying to bring a gun to class), but apparently most people do not abide by that, which would be fine if those same people weren’t trying to take away rights that I believe are necessary and fair and essential to my freedom. My beliefs aren’t affecting anyone else’s life, won’t restrict anyone from doing anything, and won’t force anyone into doing something that they don’t want to do. It would be nice if other people had enough respect for their fellow humans to adhere to the same principle.
Except that legal abortion affects the lives of unborn children, restricts them from developing and doesn’t respect them.
- Here’s a new video from the Guttmacher Institute on Abortion in the US:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY-bQ6UzhNI[/youtube]
- Typical of Guttmacher, the video pushes the idea that more access to contraception will decrease abortions despite their own research showing the majority of women who abort were using some form of contraceptive in the last month, large percentages of women using contraceptives did so inconsistently, and that only a low percentage (12% of non-contraceptives users) of women who had abortions cited their lack of access to contraceptives as their reason for not using them. Other reasons for non-use of contraceptives were cited by much higher percentages of women. 33% cited “the perception that a woman was at low risk of becoming pregnant.” 32% cited “concerns about contraceptive methods” and 27% cited “they had had unexpected sex.”
Why is access to contraceptives always the top concern for the Guttmacher Institute when it’s clear from their own research that a lack of access to contraceptives comprises a much smaller portion of women who abort than women who use contraceptives inconsistently, think they’re not going to get pregnant, don’t like various contraceptives, and have unexpected sex?
[Tyler image via dailystab.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Totally ID with Steven Tyler…they had a saline as did I…I remember thinking “oh my God, how is it possible this is allowed? What have I done?” I was a teenager in total shock and like them, pressured by others…
No wonder he got high for all those years..praying for his peace and healing (and hers too)
wish he knew about our men’s day on Saturday!
“My beliefs aren’t affecting anyone else’s life, won’t restrict anyone from doing anything, and won’t force anyone into doing something that they don’t want to do. It would be nice if other people had enough respect for their fellow humans to adhere to the same principle.
Except that legal abortion effects the lives of unborn children, restricts them from developing and doesn’t respect them.”
And don’t forget that defunding PP does nothing to your “right” except not force people to pay for it. I have a right to free speech, but not to demand that you pay for my bumper stickers.
I’m surprised he was permitted in the procedure room.
Dear Feminista Idiots: Abortion affects not only YOU, but your baby, and the baby’s father, and grandparents, and siblings. When will you get that through your thick skulls.
CT “pay for my bumper sticker” I love it!
So if–as is commonly cited on this website–“60%” of all abortions are “coerced,” then how does it NOT follow that a good portion of those pregnancies were conceived in abusive relationships?
You might want to read that study that came out in Contraception last year. You’re right, it’s often not lack of access to birth control, but the fact that many women are powerless in the bedroom. Boyfriends poking holes in girls’ condoms, flushing BC down the toilet, forcing sex on their powers…nasty behavior that happens more often then we’d like to think. It takes two people to prevent a pregnancy.
MaryLee,
And an unwanted pregnancy and birth affects everybody too.
Bottom line: Steven Tyler recognized the aborted being as a human being. Not just that, but as his child. He realized what abortion does.
That’s the bottom line with abortion…the end of a life.
There are other ways of dealing with unwanted pregnancies that do NOT include aborting the baby.
Megan,
You’re right, unwanted pregancies do affect everyone–but before you think you won me over here’s why I say this:
One of my brothers is adopted. His mother didn’t want him. But WE DID. In fact, he’s one of the best brothers a woman could have. He’s a fabulous human being and I’m delighted to have him as a sibling.
Just because someone doesn’t want that baby, doesn’t mean that there isn’t someone else somewhere who DOES.
A lady who (when she was younger and single pregnant young lady) stayed with my family while she went through her pregnancy, gave birth and placed the baby for adoption. Years later in response to a letter I wrote her she told me she was very grateful to my mother for talking her OUT of having an abortion. She was now married and a mother and very happy.
Three of my cousins are adopted. One of my sisters is adopted. And I know a ton of other people who are adopted as well. Not every one of those babies that was adopted was unwanted, some of the parents couldn’t take care of the child so they placed said child for adoption.
Like I said, just because the mother and/or father family members don’t want the baby doesn’t mean there isn’t someone else somewhere who wouldn’t love to have that child.
Those unwanted (or maybe wanted but not able-to-be-cared-for) children HAVE affected a lot of people/everyone. In many ways they have enriched lives, defended the USA (in the military), became wives/mothers, siblings and friends.
Theresa,
I’m so sorry for your loss. Thank you for your stand for LIFE.
Unplanned and unwanted do NOT equal unworthy of life. If you met me today while we were both standing in line at the bank, would you be able to tell if I was unplanned? Unwanted? No, you wouldn’t. So, why should I die or you die because of some cirmcumstances in the first year of our lives?
It’s illogical and inhumane to kill children to punish them for the crimes of their parents. Whether a mother is the victim of a violent crime or whether the mother engaged in consensual sex, the child does not deserve death.
Killing the child does nothing to solve the abuse that preceded the conception, Megan. If my husband beats me, then I kill our child, how does that stop him from beating me? It doesn’t. So, again, how does killing a child make an abuser suddenly become respectful and law abiding? It doesn’t, Megan, it does not.
According to my moral code, it isn’t just to use people as a means to an end, even if NOT doing so results in a death. I’d love to see a cure for cancer or HIV, and fast. But I would never advocate testing on unwilling human subjects. It might be easier to run another Tuskeegee-type study instead of taking the time to enroll people in a clinical trial, but the former option is just unconscionable.
Women are human beings. Their humanity shouldn’t be compromised even if they have new life growing inside of them.
Pre-born women are human beings too, Megan. How is a woman’s humanity “compromised” by giving life to her child???
If you were really so “pro-woman” you’d be AGAINST abortion, not for it.
Women are human beings. Their humanity shouldn’t be compromised even if they have new life growing inside of them.
Unborn children are human beings. Their humanity shouldn’t be sacrificed because the woman who conceived decides she doesn’t want to birth them. When does bearing a child compromise a woman’s humanity? We cease to be human when we carrying another human? How anti-woman are you if you think the natural bodily functions of a female somehow make her subhuman?
Megan – your misandry is showing.
Boy, that Guttmacher video just about had me convinced. Especially the beginning, about who these women might be. It’s much like what retired Senator Alan Simpson (A favorite of tv anchors because he’s not that conservative, doncha know?) has said about being pro-choice out of deference to the wisdom of his mother, wife, sister, and daughter.
AND THEN I REMEMBERED: Oh yeah, we’re talking about the LIVES of his sister, niece, daughter, and granddaughter. How about deferring to their rights?
One thing the above Steven Tyler snippet didn’t mention is that he was 27 and impregnated a teenage girl. He decided he wanted her when she was only FOURTEEN and convinced her parents to sign guardianship over to him so they could live together and essentially, he could rape her. When the relationship ended following the abortion (which had to be late-term, being saline and having the baby’s gender clearly visible), he signed guardianship back over to her parents.
For all the trauma he endure watching his son die, I guarantee you that this CHILD endured far worse. The man is a rapist at best, pedophile at worst. I pity any young lady whose parents would treat them as property to be signed over to a rock star. She was used, abused and then returned when she no longer suited his needs. I do feel sorry for the loss of Steven’s son- but our compassion belongs more with the underage rape victim.
Whats the thought on Oklahoma’s New Abortion Law?
http://abolishhumanabortion.blogspot.com/2011/05/its-against-law-to-kill-20-week-old.html
So true Jaqueline..I have been thinking and praying for her. I know how traumatic it was for me as a teen..cannot even put it into words..she has the added trauma of being given to him. what the heck did she know..she trusted in those who were suppose to love her.
I did not realize he was so old…I am however, glad he knows what he has done and is remorseful. God is merciful to all and we can just pray they both find mercy and healing…even her parents
“According to my moral code, it isn’t just to use people as a means to an end, even if NOT doing so results in a death.”
Megan, here is the problem with this line of thinking. If it proves anything, it proves too much. To use someone requires that the user have some sort of intent to engage in the relationship or action without thought or consideration for the person being used. Hence in order to justify the claim that someone is using someone else, we must know something about the person who is doing the using. In other words, whether or not someone is being used is not a function of only the person being used, but also the user. IN the case of the unborn, they can NOT make any such claim or have any such “using” disposition towards their mother. Thus your theory that the unborn uses the mother is based solely on the feelings of the mother and is completely cut off from the interior disposition of the alleged user.
The only way I see out of this is to claim that ALL unborn children use their mother and that it is completely up to teh mother if she wishes to keep the child. But this is problematic because if someone is using you, you have a moral DUTY to stop them from using you, or at least to not cooperate in their using of you. This then forces all pregnant women to undergo abortions because the fetus is objectivity using the mother, and we cannot allow someone to use someone else, even if we are okay with them using us. This is why the claim that the fetus is using teh mother is extremely problematic. Since there is no difference between fetus A and fetus B, there is no way to tell which one is using the mother and which isn’t and thus, they either both are using the their mother or they both aren’t. regardless of whether the mother wants to be used or not.
You should change your moniker to “Logic Bambino”.
Supposedly this a picture of Tyler and his baby-mommy back in the 70’s
http://www.feelnumb.com/?p=7630
There are actually commenters in that thread defending Tyler.
Seems like his book would be a fascinating read into the typical lifestyle of people who reached fame and fortune, couldn’t handle it, got high/drunk/violent on a regular basis, totally lost it, goes to rehab, and then lived to tell the story.
Jacqueline and Theresa, You are right, what were these parents thinking? A fourteen year old is a child! Didn’t they realize that Tyler just wanted to use her for sex? He had no intention of “guarding” her.
I read a similar story about Jim Morrison. His girlfriend had a saline abortion and not only was he not there, he didn’t care. While I admire the talent of both of these men, they are both some serious creeps.
Theresa, I related a while ago about a family member’s saline abortion. It really is a horrible and traumatic experience. I am so sorry you had to go through this.
“even if doing so results in a death”
Megan,
How can there be a death if the baby wasn’t alive?
This, as I see it, is where faith and hope and love comes in.
Jesus, whom i see as the personification of all that is best, allowed himself to be used BECAUSE of his love and hope for man.
When someone gives something of themselves that helps another because of love, both benefit greatly, the helper and the recipient. It is a physical manifestation of of love. The recipient often goes out and repeats the process. Pregnancy is the natural extension of this universal truth.
“If you met me today while we were both standing in line at the bank, would you be able to tell if I was unplanned? Unwanted? No, you wouldn’t. So, why should I die or you die because of some cirmcumstances in the first year of our lives?”
Maybe not you. But probably many others could be identified just standing in line. Those who are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves, who present a slovenly, uncared-for appearance to the world, quite often were never taught to value themselves because they were unplanned AND unwanted.
On further acquaintance, one could probably identify the unwanted by their attitudes and behavior. Unwanted children are not taken care of and cherished-they are tolerated at best and abused at worst.
Take it from one who knows-being born isn’t the gift you all seem to believe. Being born to parents who want you is.
Take it from one who knows-being born isn’t the gift you all seem to believe. Being born to parents who want you is.
It sounds like you’ve had a rough life, including an unhappy childhood. I don’t know if I was “unplanned” or “unwanted,” but my mother was severely mentally ill and also physically violent. Living with her was hell; she was so crazy that she actually tried to kill myself and my siblings on one occassion. But now my daughter is graduating college next week and my (adopted) son is expecting his first baby — my grandchild. I’ve been so depressed that I’ve wanted to take my own life, but I’m glad I didn’t.
Can you honestly say that you wish that you had been burned to death in utero and then discarded along with the rest of the “hospital waste?”
MST/Phillymiss,
Could you please stick to one moniker please?
Thank you! :)
This guy is slime. A poster child of one part of what is wrong with the sex without consequences revolution of the sixties.
Carla: Well, soon you are going to be able call me “grandmother” because my son’s girlfriend is having her labor induced!
droppingby,
Have you ever tried submitting your life to God and accepting Jesus as your saviour and presenting your child to God as His child to watch over?
droppingby,
If parents don’t want their child there’s a simple solution – adoption! Thanks to a birthmom who made this decision, my stepsister and stepbrother-in-law are now the proud parents of a new baby boy, and they are deliriously happy to have the child they’ve wanted for years and years.
Women are human beings. Their humanity shouldn’t be compromised even if they have new life growing inside of them.
Wait…Megan, I thought you and the other pro-choicers/pro-aborts didn’t believe the pre-born human being was a new life! If you do believe a woman is pregnant with a new life, then how can you justify abortion which ends said new life?
And their HUMANITY isn’t compromised. In fact, conceiving and giving birth is a very natural function of a woman’s humanity/fertility. There’s nothing “humanely compromising” about that in and of itself.
The only humanity compromised is that of the aborted baby. Now, a pregnant woman might find she has to make compromises in her life to be pregnant, but that doesn’t mean her HUMANITY is compromised.
droppingby,
I’m sorry you had a rough life, I really am. I know people who are adopted who were mistreated by their biological parents. However, they were adopted into loving homes. Some people choose to take in that love from loving people despite what their lives were like beforehand, and others reject it. God bless you and I hope things are better for you now.
In Megan’s defense, her argument is more subtle than many other pro-choice arguments. She is basing teh right to an abortion on the rights on the mother trumping the rights of teh unborn or on teh mother’s bodily autonomy. This is an argument which bypasses the question of whether or not the unborn is human or even a person and says that (more or less) just like one is justified in killing in time of war or for protection from a predator, so one is allowed to abort a pregnancy. Thus there is no problem with her admitting the humanity of the unborn because the point is moot to her argument which, admittedly, I have not attempted to lay out or articulate carefully. But it is important that we pro-lifers recognize which arguments pro-choicers are making and respond accordingly.
MST/Phillymiss,
That is wonderful!!
But please use one moniker and use it consistently.
just like one is justified in killing in time of war or for protection from a predator, so one is allowed to abort a pregnancy.
Bobby,
So, if I’m following you correctly (and let me know if I got it wrong) ESSENTIALLY speaking she’s calling the pre-born basically helpless baby a “predator”?
Oookay dokay.
(well, now that I think about it haven’t some of the other pro-choice/pro-aborts said as much in their own way? Or did I miss something?)
Congratulations, Phillymiss (should’ve said that earlier!)
“So, if I’m following you correctly (and let me know if I got it wrong) ESSENTIALLY speaking she’s calling the pre-born basically helpless baby a “predator”? ”
I’m not sure if this is how Megan would describe it, but there are many pro-choicers who do say this, yes. Eileen McDonagh is one who argues that a fetus is like a burglar who intrudes in your home and who you have the right to “kick out.” But there is the other famous argument, due to Judith Jarvis Thomspon, which says that no one has a right to use your body without your permission, even if that person is innocent. She puts forth the thought experiment that one morning you wake up to find yourself hooked up to a famous violinist who needs your body to stay alive. Do you have the right to unplug yourself from teh violinist, even though unplugging will cause his death? If yes, then you have teh right to unplug yourself from the fetus even though it will cause the fetus’s death, and even though the fetus is just as much a human person with rights and moral worth as you or me. So the very basic outline of teh argument goes. Again, it is more well thought out than I summarized here, and it is an attempt to make more precise teh sloppy “kidney analogy” that one often hears from pro-choicers.
But the point is that not all arguments in favor of abortion try to argue that the fetus is not human or a person or worthy of rights. Some grant that for the sake of argument, but try and argue that you can abort anyway. And of course, I think all these arguments are flawed. But we do need to be prepared to answer them.
Obviously the concept of “intention” is inapplicable to the fetus’ existence in its mother’s womb. The “use” of the woman’s body comes from without–individuals or policies that force her to continue a pregnancy against her will. Anti-choice statutes treat women as mere conduits for new human life. Oh yes, I know, that’s the “natural” purpose of the female body, but that’s a spurious line of reasoning. Humans have so blurred the line between nature and society that any attempt to create a dichotomy is going to be flawed. Do I have a uterus? Yes, but that doesn’t mean I want to use it to produce children. You know, slavery was once justified because black people were deemed more biologically “suited” to physical labor…but that idea wouldn’t be acceptable now, would it? In the end, arguments about “natural function” really just exist to maintain social hierarchies.
In this society we typically believe that human beings are entities bound off from each other and the world, beings that have the power to make decisions about things happening inside their own bodies. If a woman can’t decide to end a pregnancy, then in what other situations is it permissable to take such a paternalistic stance on self-determination? If every life is a life worth living–if mere existence is all that it means to be human–then would you be fine with purposely conceving a child to serve as a bone-marrow donor for an ailing family member?
If ANY life–no matter how miserable or painful–is better than not existing, then would you be fine with abortion-minded women simply inducing labor at the earliest point of viability?
Megan,
If every life is a life worth living–if mere existence is all that it means to be human–then would you be fine with purposely conceving a child to serve as a bone-marrow donor for an ailing family member?
No- because unborn children are human beings with human rights, rights that are violated in the utmost way when a mother decides to dismember and eject that child. Add to it that the child is only in the mother’s body by a willful act the mother took to PUT THAT CHILD THERE, your position that a baby is an invader like a cold germ is completely unfounded. I know if I have sex, then my baby could likely be conceived and grow in my womb. This BS audacity to act shocked and violated by my innocent child for being conceived when it was MY act that conceived them is absurd.
In this society we typically believe that human beings are entities bound off from each other and the world, beings that have the power to make decisions about things happening inside their own bodies. If a woman can’t decide to end a pregnancy, then in what other situations is it permissable to take such a paternalistic stance on self-determination?
There is a moral binding between a mother and her own child that she creates by her actions, absolutely. There is a moral binding between parents and children PERIOD, certain obligations that parents are expected to fulfill by virtue of being parents. We don’t let parents evict children from their homes and throw them in the gutter- we should not allow parents to evict children from their wombs and throw them in a dumpster.
Knowing this, the way I “exercise power to make decisions about things happening in my body” is to control what things I CHOOSE to happen to my body. Case in point: I don’t eat foods that make me ill (I’m gluten intolerant). Also, I don’t create a child in my womb if I don’t want to care for that child in my womb. It’s really that simple. The idea that self-determination is refusing responsibility at other’s expense mocks the very crux of self-determination. Self-determination ends when SELF hurts OTHERS.
The bottom line is that human beings only conceive and bear human beings, with the same rights that all human beings are afforded.
“In this society we typically believe that human beings are entities bound off from each other and the world, beings that have the power to make decisions about things happening inside their own bodies.”
Including the unborn human beings Megan. It’s simple. If you don’t want to accept the consequences of your actions then keep your pants on.
Do I have a uterus? Yes, but that doesn’t mean I want to use it to produce children.
Then DON’T! PLEASE DON’T! It’s very easy not to produce children. I have a uterus and it’s never housed a child although my child would be welcome there. Your uterus has housed a child that you put there, knowing before you conceived him/her that you were going to kill them.
Not using your uterus to bear a child is 100% preventable. The problem is though that you are greedy. You want what you want even if a child must die for you to have sex and you’re absolutely okay with killing your children to afford a lifestyle where you can have sex but no responsibility. You demand the ability to have sex and potentially make children and then want to turn around and kill that child you made that you didn’t have to make. Again, YOU DON’T HAVE TO MAKE A CHILD. No one is advocating motherhood for those that don’t wish to be mothers- What I oppose are mothers creating and then killing a child to allow a lifestyle when people have no intention or desire to care for their own children until birth.
The violinist argument has always struck me as remarkably inadequate since a woman does not just wake up and spontaneously find herself pregnant. It should be reworked to something like: assume that by engaging in a certain activity, you run a 20% chance of waking up the next morning attached to a violinist. You can take steps to avoid that outcome, but short of not engaging in the activity, you will always run some chance that you will wake up attached to the violinist. In this scenario, can you unplug yourself.
Even that doesn’t capture it b/c it would have to be an activity thats biological purpose was to attach people to violinists, but that was also enjoyable in some other way that made people who didn’t want to be attached seek to undertake it. But at least it gets a little closer.
Yep, and the last time sex was used primarily for procreation was…never. So you can go on and on with your rants on selfishness, and I’ll proudly accept your epithets. I’m in a committed longterm relationship and I have sex. That’s the reality of it: sexual activity is a healthy, and often necessary, part of romantic unions. If people were abstinent except for when they knew absolutely 100% that they wanted a child, there’d probably be fewer abortions. But it’s not realistic. The the same could be said for any behavior that carries risk with it. If people just traveled less there would be fewer car crashes. So.What.
Oh, and by the way, I DID take responsibility for my actions. I made a decision. That decision was abortion.
“The “use” of the woman’s body comes from without–individuals or policies that force her to continue a pregnancy against her will.”
Now this is very odd. So you are arguing that if person A is using person B, then person B has a right to stop person A from their using by killing person C? At least when one tries to make the “user” argument, the one who is doing teh using is “punished” or stopped from doing teh using. Now we may simply “trot out the toddler” and ask if we may kill a 2 year old to keep outsiders from using a woman. In other words, this begs teh question as to the humanity/personhood of teh unborn.
“Humans have so blurred the line between nature and society that any attempt to create a dichotomy is going to be flawed.”
Just because there is bad thought and bad philosophy out there does not mean that we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fact taht there have been bad analogies and bad reasoning does nothing to address teh current discussion.
“Do I have a uterus? Yes, but that doesn’t mean I want to use it to produce children.”
Speaking of blurring the lines between nature and society, you seem to now be arguing that right and wrong are determined by teh individuals wants and desires. Again, the uterus and in general the female body is ordered towards procreation. That doesn’t mean that we have to try to be pregnant 100% of teh time, but it does seem to cast doubt on any argument that claims that it is moral to end this process at the expensive of the life of a human being.
“You know, slavery was once justified because black people were deemed more biologically “suited” to physical labor…but that idea wouldn’t be acceptable now, would it?”
This shows a lack of understanding of a being’s natural ends or final cause. There is nothing about a strong black man in and of himself that implies that his ends are to serve another person against his will. The fact that he is strong means that he is strong. Strength can be used for all sorts of purposes and just because there happens to be ONE PARTICULAR one that is evil and that people used to justify does not mean that that is his final cause. So that analogy simply does not work.
Contrast this with the female body. What purpose does the uterus serve? What is it ordered towards? I guarantee if I asked 100 random people what teh uterus is ordered towards and what a black man’s strength is ordered towards, we would see almost 100% answering “pregnancy” in the former and almost 0% answering “slavery” in the latter.
“In the end, arguments about “natural function” really just exist to maintain social hierarchies. ”
Suppose this is true. How does it follow that teh arguments are therefore wrong?
“If a woman can’t decide to end a pregnancy, then in what other situations is it permissable to take such a paternalistic stance on self-determination?”
They also can’t abandon a child. They can’t kill someone the person that may get the promotion they want. They can’t fake their data in the lab to make it appear that the obtained a certain result that they didn’t. They can’t cheat on a test simply because “I’m never going to need to know this in real life.” Obviously I can go on and on. Megan, I’m not sure what the argument here is. We place restrictions on what people can do all the time because it is either evil or it hurts others or yourself, etc. We need to go deeper than simply “outlawing abortion takes away the right of self-determination.”
“…if mere existence is all that it means to be human…”
I would answer your question, but I argue with this assumption. The pro-life argument has never been existence=humanity. (at least not a well thought out one)
“If ANY life–no matter how miserable or painful–is better than not existing, then would you be fine with abortion-minded women simply inducing labor at the earliest point of viability?”
This is actually an interesting question, and I currently lean towards yes in some cases. In his new book “The Ethics of Abortion” Chris Kaczor discusses whether or not artificial wombs could end the abortion debate (that is, the INTELLECTUAL abortion debate). He seems to think so and argues that it would be morally permissible to extract a fetus or embryo (assuming it was just as safe as an abortion) from a woman who is TOTALLY set on having abortion and placing it in an artificial womb. This same line of thinking can be carried out today when we consider viability. So yeah, there may be some grounds for that, Megan. It is an interesting question, but I would also like to hear some arguments against it and against artificial wombs.
Yep, and the last time sex was used primarily for procreation was…never. .
I never suggested that sex was to be used primarily for recreation- I merely stated they fact that sex causes procreation. It does. But there is a limited fertile window, so most sex will not result in a baby meaning most of the time sex just results in romantic bonding and recreation. This is because it does serve other purposes. But the last time I checked, sex is responsible for 99.9% of procreation. So your attempt to divorce the procreative aspect from sex is ridiculous.
Oh, and by the way, I DID take responsibility for my actions. I made a decision. That decision was abortion.
No- you made a decision so you wouldn’t HAVE to take responsibility for your actions- so you could be alleviated of the responsibility to carry and birth your baby. There is nothing responsible about making another person sacrifice themselves to allow you to not be inconvenienced. That’s like saying that I took responsibility for that rape I committed by killing the victim so she couldn’t identify me and send me to jail. Owning up to your choices and accepting the consequences is responsibility- killing someone so you don’t have to is the ultimate in irresponsibility.
Question: If you loathe your body parts (uterus) working in their healthy intended function, why don’t you remove it? Then you can have all the sex and none of the babies. Oh wait, because you DO want babies someday. Like I said: greedy. You want babies when you want them and kill them when you don’t.
Yep, because pregnancy, childbirth and being a parent is just a mere “inconvenience.” Way to effectively trivialize the whole process. Gosh, with the support you’ve got to offer, what feeble-minded victim of the “abortion mills” wouldn’t want to run straight into your arms?
I have my reasons for the decision I made, reasons that you’ve made annoying snap judgments about. I don’t have to justify my decision to you, but I’ll do you a favor and say that whining and sermonizing aren’t very attractive behaviors.
Also, might I add how exhausting this issue is? I see so many people on this website who are really invested in their communities, who have the desire to affect positive change. I’m not really going anywhere with this comment and I’m going to seem stupid, but whatever. It’s unfortunate that we can’t channel our collective efforts to end, say, systemic racism or poverty, instead of arguing back and forth about an issue we’re all to stubborn to say we have common ground on.
Megan,
When you ovulate the egg only survives in your body for one day.
When you allow your partner to inseminate you his semen only survives in your body for 3-5 days. Yes we enjoy sex with our partner but we don’t have to do it in an irresponsible way where you end up having to kill your offspring. Nobody kills their own offspring without a sense of wrong including you. You are keeping yourself in denial to justify your past actions. One of the biggest problems with people like you is that they lead other women to the same anguishing decision to kill their child. There are many post-abortive women who assuage their own hurt and justify their their murderous actions by getting other women to do what they did and you seem to be in that mindset. Why do you ingest high dose hormones and use birth control if there were no negative consequence to your abortion?
“Like I said: greedy. You want babies when you want them and kill them when you don’t.”
Not sure that’s “greedy.” Sound reasonable to me. Your choice of language implies that these decisions are made lightly, which I don’t think is true. Even pro-choice women with unexpected pregnancies don’t always decide to abort. They think about it and try to figure out what to do. Even Sarah Palin considered her abortion option for a “fleeting moment.” She decided not to have an abortion. Other women choose to have one.
Hal, if killing one’s own baby seems “reasonable” to you, we have nothing to talk about. It doesn’t matter if the decision to dismember your children was made lightly or with great consideration, the fact is that your children are dead because you killed them. No amount of deliberation over their fate beforehand changes this.
Megan, you’ll discover one day that all the rationalizations you rely on for comfort and so you can feel good about yourself will ultimately fail you. You can go to great lengths to convince your head that something in constant opposition to your human conscience is perfectly okay- even seek out the company of people in the same position to reinforce your delusion- but your soul will never be at peace.
You are seeking validation, which is why you also engage in these constant debates. I could validate you the way you seek to be validated, and maybe your walls would come down enough to let some truth in, but all attempts to love you by so many who care about you have failed. They’ll come a time when it won’t, but I don’t think that time is now- but when it does come, all the advocating you’ve done for others to kill their children to validate your choice will just be salt in your wound. When that happens, you’ll likely have forgotten all about these words- but the important thing is that there were people who did say them to you.
“Hal, if killing one’s own baby seems “reasonable” to you, we have nothing to talk about”
I agree, we have nothing to talk about. At least on the legality of abortion in the U.S. It’s pretty settled. If you want to convince women to have less abortions, I won’t stand in your way. If you want to help women looking for assistance with unexpected pregnancies, I’ll help. If you want abortion outlawed, you don’t have much of a chance. Go for it, if you wish.
Hal,
Would anything have convinced you and your wife to have fewer abortions? Since you are on board with my quest to at least save some children, I’d really like to know what could have been said or done to spare at least one of your children’s lives. What assistance could I have provided with your unwanted pregnancies that would have let your children live?
“At least on the legality of abortion in the U.S. It’s pretty settled.”
Hal, you were complicit while they killed your son/daughter and you look for consolation in the fact that your abortion was ‘legal’. That is a pretty poor moral compass. Would you be ok with owning a slave too if slave ownership was still legal Hal. And if a personhood amendment ever passes in the US does that mean you were wrong in killing your child or are you from the campl that recognizes the personhood of their unborn and feels a right to kill them anyway?
truthseeker, We probably would have had the abortions even if illegal. I don’t generally tune my moral compass to what the law says. Smoking marijuana, for example, is certainly not immoral.
Ha! Wow, how awesome. A post-abortive, pot-smoking lawyer who cares about the law when it suits him. :D
“cares about law when it suits him” is another way of saying “taking personal responsibility for moral decisions.” If abortion is “wrong,” it is wrong whether it is legal or not. If it is not “wrong,” it is not wrong whether it is legal or not. Same with pot smoking, same with most things.
In other words, abortion good (legal or not), pot good (legal or not).
I wouldn’t want to be your client.
We probably would have had the abortions even if illegal.
Hal,
Were they boys or girls? Is sex-selective abortion immoral?
I hope that one day you will discover that maybe, yes maybe another decision could have been made.
Difficulties? Yes. Not ideal? Yes. But with the chance to see things differently, to value your children differently is a real step in the right direction. Compassion, even after-the-fact is a good.
Can that bring back the children? no – but finally places them in a sphere where they are valued as children; your children. And then the grief and healing can happen. While the past actions can not have a do-over, all the lessons in life teach us. And teach us to be better – to be more compassionate, more loving, more giving etc. if done and looked at in the right way.
Children killed in abortion were real: living, growing, moving and existing. One did not usually hold them outside the body – but they were real nonetheless. Recognizing the real and helping others do the same is important. Then we can truly love – free to see the real happenings in our lives and to help others do the same.
Love and courage.
Truthseeker, I don’t know if they were male or female. I believe sex-selection abortion to be immoral, but would not make it illegal.
“If you want to convince women to have less abortions, I won’t stand in your way. If you want to help women looking for assistance with unexpected pregnancies, I’ll help. If you want abortion outlawed, you don’t have much of a chance.”
My sentiments exaclty. Where on here have I “advocated” that women choose abortion? It’s a dumb thing to say. If I needed consolation for “what I’ve done,” I’d go see a pastor or pay the money for a decent therapist. Do you think that in some perverse way I’m here to clear my supposedly guilty conscience? No. It’s interesting to hear the ideas thrown about by the same kind of dudes who stand in front of the local health clinic (which only refers OUT for abortions, mind you) who yell at women going inside that theyr’e going to die of breast cancer from using contraception. I like to understand the rationate behind legislators in my state who seek to codify the personhood of a zygote but condemn women whose prenatal care is subsidized by Medicaid…the people who fabricate psychological conditions but wouldn’t bat an eyelash if a woman were psychologically destroyed after going through an unwanted pregnancy…the people who like to pretend that women get abortions because they don’t want to be too fat for their cocktail dresses…it’s a load of lies, nonsense, and misogyny disguised as compassion. I was prochoice long before I had an abortion, but the process of filtering out all the angry nonsense directed at me and this choice has only solidified my beliefs.
If you need abortion recovery someday Megan I would love for you to email or call ME!! :)
“I believe sex-selection abortion to be immoral”
Hal,
why is that any more immoral then your not checking the sex first before killing your child?
Megan – I am very sorry you felt you needed to have an abortion. And I am happy that you do not have any symptoms of post-abortion syndrome. My friends who have had abortions do have some residual problems – especially my girlfriend who has infertility. Thankfully, she has adopted a little boy.
Too bad you have lumped all un-caring people together regarding the suffering of women. No rejoicing here when women suffer. We want them to life a loving, full and good life. Just today we helped a woman get STD testing, helped women learn about natural alternatives to man-made hormones, helped a family get referrals for legal counsel, helped another family with a gas card to the family can get to work and school.
And no – we have not heard about an excuse to get an abortion to fit into a cocktail dress – but we have heard the following:
I want to run track
I want to play basketball (they ended up choosing life, and the woman continued her education, continued playing basketball and has a lovely baby boy)
I don’t want my boyfriend to know I slept with someone else
I don’t want to lose my figure
I helped her get an abortion because ‘I don’t like her anyway’
I am getting an abortion because this baby is not my boyfriend’s
My father has threatened to throw me out
I don’t want my mom to know I am sexually active
I don’t want my in-prison boyfriend to know I slept with someone else
I have a 4 month-old
I am going to grad-school
I already have two children
my children are already in school
I’m graduating, we have a job and it’s just not the right time
my husband threatened he would take my other children if I don’t have an abortion
I’m embarrassed my grandchild is bi-racial (they decided not to abort)
My dad is threatening me (she decided not to abort and that child is now graduating from law school)
I don’t want my brother to be saddled with a baby (said the 16 year old as she brought the 14 year old in for an abortion of her niece or nephew)
And the list goes on and on. And yet – for all the reasons why women abort there are brave women who decide not to – and have their children. We have met those children – seeing them as newborns, and going off to preschool and school. All the families are doing well – and we just attended a wedding of one couple and today found out another couple is marrying (and the fiance is not the baby-daddy of the child saved from abortion).
so lots of reasons, lots of reasons and hope for those not to abort, and we are happy to help out when women need help.
I could not make up these stories – all true and many more. No lies, no nonsense, just real life.
Hal said,
“I believe sex-selection abortion to be immoral”
Truthseeker said
“Hal, why is that any more immoral then your not checking the sex first before killing your child?”
‘crickets’…Hal goes back to lurking cause he now sees how immoral ‘his’ aborions were.
I’m in a committed longterm relationship and I have sex.
He’s committed and longterm until he finds the woman he wants to marry and start a family with. Lucky you’ll have that meaningful sex to reminisce about, Megan.
Oh, how cutting. Grow up, why don’t you, Praxedes. I’m sory your life was crappy and now you’re miserable and want to lash out at everything that doesn’t fit neatly into your safe lil’ conservative worldview. I don’t need marriage as a litmus test to know somebody is going to respect me.
The violinist argument has always struck me as remarkably inadequate since a woman does not just wake up and spontaneously find herself pregnant.
Good morning, CT. I agree – if we go that route with hypotheticals then I’d head right to the person-within-a-person deal, i.e. if I see Joe Blow walking down the street, that’s one thing, but if ol’ Joe is inside me, then we’re going to have to have a talk about the situation….
Indeed, there aren’t spontaneous pregnancies that I know of, and most of the time a pregnancy stems from willing actions on the woman’s part, but that does exclude forcible rape, where, like getting hooked up to the violinist, it presumably would be against the person’s will.
Lots of good discussion in this thread. : )
One thing the above Steven Tyler snippet didn’t mention is that he was 27 and impregnated a teenage girl. He decided he wanted her when she was only FOURTEEN and convinced her parents to sign guardianship over to him so they could live together and essentially, he could rape her. When the relationship ended following the abortion (which had to be late-term, being saline and having the baby’s gender clearly visible), he signed guardianship back over to her parents.
Wow, Jacqueline…. 14. Wonder what her parents were thinking.
When I was 14, I was a Freshman in High School, for goodness sakes (and listening to Aerosmith’s first album).
Megan,
As a post-abort Hal is having trouble answering this question. Maybe you could help him.
Do you know if the child you aborted was male or female? Is sex-selective abortion moral?
Grow up, why don’t you, Praxedes.
I grew up at age 23 when I took responsibility for my adult behavior.
I’m sory your life was crappy and now you’re miserable and want to lash out at everything that doesn’t fit neatly into your safe lil’ conservative worldview.
My life has had its ups and downs but was and is far from crappy. Because I see the error of your ways, doesn’t mean I am miserable. You sound just like me when I attempted to defend poor choices to those who could see my errors.
I don’t need marriage as a litmus test to know somebody is going to respect me.
Then there is no need to define your relationship as longterm and committed (how un-liberal of you) in the first place or defend it to someone you believe is miserable.
Once again:
Hal,
Would anything have convinced you and your wife to have fewer abortions? Since you are on board with my quest to at least save some children, I’d really like to know what could have been said or done to spare at least one of your children’s lives. What assistance could I have provided with your unwanted pregnancies that would have let your children live? What circumstances in your married, professional lives would have caused you to seek out abortions for those two children even if they had been illegal?
Since when did marriage because a “litmus test?” It’s a lifelong commitment! It’s the ultimate long-term committed relationship. In fact, in many ways, it’s the ONLY long-term committed relationship. Anything that can end with merely a word from either party is not a real commitment. People who are truly committed aren’t afraid to be officially so. If people are truly loving and committed and aren’t getting married, there is a reason.
It’s foolish to trade temporary gains for permanent, eternal losses. The temporary gain of fun or pleasure or not having to care for a child you created means the eternal losses of the bonding and purity that come with only sharing your body with a person who has committed their lives to you- And the gains of not having a child you created don’t match the loss of that child- a lifetime with your son or daughter that can never be gotten back once it’s done. The great irony about self-interested actions is that the short-run “gain” from them always result in long-term loss, even if a person is too big a fool to see it.