Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ABSOLUTE POWER: What "Pro-Choice" Is Really All About: Answers, Abortion, Fatherhood
4/14/2001 | Sarah E. Hinlicky

Posted on 04/14/2002 8:09:13 AM PDT by The Giant Apricots

What the Choice is All About

by Sarah E. Hinlicky

For a long time it baffled me. To be specific, it baffled me from the first time I heard what exactly an abortion is - I must have been 10 or 11 years old - till last week. I could never ever, for the life of me, no matter how hard I stretched my imagination or suspended my moral judgment, understand why anyone would want to be pro-choice.

I could get the "pro-life-for-me-but-not-anyone-else" point of view, I could conceive (ha!) of the "government-shouldn't-legislate-morality" perspective, I could even sympathize with the "our-country-isn't-there-yet" argument.

But I just couldn't figure out why anyone in her right mind would say that abortion is a right that all women should, must, and ought to have in order to be truly free in a just and democratic society, and thus all other rights should bow before it.

What does the dismembering of fetuses (if you insist on calling them that) have to do with justice and democracy?

And so it was that I spent lo these many years of my life assuming that pro-choice activists either have some sort of inexplicable blood lust, or live in perpetual denial of reality.

But this past week I finally got it. I don't know how they managed to communicate their message so poorly all along that it took me nearly a decade and a half. This is it: when it comes right down to it, pro-choice activists are not talking about fetuses at all.

They're talking about fear. They fear a future in which men control the bodies, lives and futures of women. And that's why we've been talking past each other all this time.

I first began to see the light (so to speak) about two months ago, talking to my old friend Catherine. Catherine does not hesitate to express her opinions or launch the conversation into dangerous topics. We started with capital punishment, and from there it was a short leap to her fears for women during the new presidential regime.

Choice will be taken away, she said, and you know what follows from that. Men impregnating women, keeping them home, beating them up, destroying their career chances, abandoning the infants, children starving on the streets, and the final re-institution of the 1950s.

I was, needless to say, somewhat stunned by the course of her logic. You think we'll get a better world by killing the children? I said.

You think anyone will care to look for solutions to economic and domestic problems when they can just knock off the main players in the drama?

Around and around the debate went. It expanded and contracted and went nowhere. At least we trusted each other to say what we really thought, no small accomplishment in the discussion of this particular issue, but by the end we had to admit that we'd reached a standstill and we might as well quit. (Ironically enough, afterwards Catherine went on to say that she thought our society was hostile to rounded female bodies because it fears fertility in women, and isn't that atrocious?)

The conversation percolated quietly in my brain until this past Thursday, when I went to a public debate on abortion policy over at Princeton University. The main draw: Peter Singer, notorious Australian "bioethicist" who is famous for advocating such things as bestiality and infanticide (the former only if it is mutually pleasurable, the latter presumably not).

His arguments were surprisingly unpersuasive, for they relied upon vegetarianism (?!). The really interesting speaker, in fact, was a student at the university, joining her illustrious colleague on the pro-choice panel.

She spoke very fast and very passionately, and as far as I could tell she only contradicted herself once. But there was this phrase that she kept repeating: "an incubator of the state."

It was her tag line, her emotional hot button, and every time she said it you couldn't help but have a little thrill of 1984-ish horror run up and down your spine. Bearing babies for Uncle Sam? Kitchen, children and church, like Hitler used to say? My uterus a public utility?

What could be more grotesquely offensive to my sensibilities - all of them, as a woman, as a Christian, as an American, as a modern (or even postmodern) - than that? I'm not an incubator of the state, no way.

It took a little while to snap out of the haze she had cast over the crowd. Pro-lifers are certainly not advocating incubation for the state; the phrase misses our point entirely. In the meanwhile, though, I had missed hers too. It took some reflection to get it. She really feared, like Catherine, that some nameless faceless bureaucrats out there (probably men) had it in for her, wanted to punish her for being a woman, being fertile, being (worst of all) sexually active outside of chaste Christian marriage.

She thought that that is what the pro-life side is all about, and she saw her life and future and career and hopes and dreams all threatened.

For her, it's not about life, or babies, or responsibility, or sacrifice. It's all about control. Who's going to control my body, me or the nameless faceless state?

Well heck, I can hardly blame her for choosing herself over them.

The question is, who's got the better grasp on reality? What is this really all about? Is it about saving the lives of innocent babies, or is it about keeping adult women under control?

By sheer coincidence (God's way of remaining anonymous, as the old French proverb goes), the very next day I stumbled across a novel in the library called The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood, copyright 1986. It's a movie now too, I guess, and I must have heard the name tossed about on the breeze, so I thought I should read it, ignoring the three 20-page papers I have due in less than a month.

It's a story of a theocracy in not-so-far-distant America, renamed the Republic of Gilead, run by nasty men who take some stuff in Genesis as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Women are divided into their three (and only) functions: Wives, who look pretty and with some luck bear sons, Handmaids who bear sons (for Wives who can't) but do nothing else, and Marthas who cook and clean. They lead regimented lives, every step and bite and word under scrutiny, but men come and go as they please.

Women who perform all three functions, for poorer men, are disdainfully called Econowives. All marriages are arranged and pleasurable sex is permitted only with prostitutes (called Jezebels, of course). Procreating is the only goal in life for women. Love is not a factor. Women who fail in their appointed duties are sent to clean up toxic waste in the Colonies; they only last a couple years, at most.

The moral of the story is not too hard to figure. Men must not control female sexuality, but they obviously want to. Abortion must stay legal. Love must stay free, marriage breakable.

If not, we will have social totalitarianism upon us, and all the progress of the past 40 years will be swallowed up by another interminable reign of the uterus. It's a well-told story, and properly terrifying. Imagine having my books, my school, my tank tops taken away! Imagine having my Bible turned into an instrument of torture! No, I don't want that either.

But is that the threat?

It clicked, finally. When I as a pro-life woman am talking to another woman who is pro-choice, we are not talking about the same thing. I am talking about my horror that the most vulnerable humans in our country are being slaughtered at the rate of 4,400 a day because they can't be paid for, because the boyfriend doesn't want that, because social disapproval has overcome the mother, because fear is the number one motivating factor. But she is talking about her horror that her education might be ended, her rights revoked, her career squelched, all because she has chosen to have sex with a man and nature has taken its course, or worse yet she has been raped by a man and nature has taken its course, and someone out there had decided to punish her for violating their morality.

We're not talking about the same thing. No wonder we can't understand each other. No wonder we can't persuade each other.

As a matter of fact, though, she raises some good questions. Is the pro-life side always motivated purely out of love for the unborn child? You don't need to go to the extreme of abortion clinic bombers to find exceptions to what should be the rule.

Pro-lifers often have strong feelings about chastity and sexual responsibility. Is there a certain amount of satisfaction in the thought that these women are being disproved in their casual sexuality? Or that single irresponsible men are being brought to account for their own wanton behavior?

Or that sex is manifestly not just about having a good time? Is there even a hint of that in there?

I'll tell you right now: that has to go. Not one of us is one hundred percent chaste in word and deed and it is not our business to judge. Life judges harshly enough as it is. Single mothers are the heroes of our time for not taking the easy way out, and we ought to be telling them that. We ought not to be moralistically informing the world that sex has its consequences and they should've seen it coming. They're smart enough to figure that out for themselves. And it shows very little love for people in situations of genuine personal distress.

But I have some questions for my pro-choice friend too. Who does she think is out to get her? Does she really imagine a conspiracy of control-freak middle-aged white upper-middle-class corporate men who want to turn her body into another profit-churning manufacturing plant?

In this prosperous job market, are they really out for her career and her job power? Do they really see her as a machine whose main purpose is to produce babies? I think it's fair to say that her enemies, in this society and at this time, are far more interested in her not producing babies - inconvenient, demanding, messy things that they are. The man most interested in her sexuality is the one who can profit from it without any cost to himself, and he's the one who'll keep her pigeonholed, as non-wife non-mother non-commitment, by his true commitment to abortion availability.

The sad irony for my pro-choice friend is that the abortion regime is far more likely to produce men indifferent or hostile to women than one in which love, marriage and children - the package deal - is given the highest priority.

An honest assessment of sexual dynamics in this country is in order. It is bizarre that possibly 50 percent of marriages fail. It is bizarre that so many abortions are deemed necessary. It is bizarre that pregnancy has been logically disconnected from sex. It is bizarre that broken relationships are the standard experience of modern people. It is bizarre that commitment seems irrational. It is bizarre that is so hard for young folks to fall in love, promise themselves to each other, get married and stick it out.

You've got to wonder about a society when the most natural thing in the world has been turned into the most unnaturally difficult thing in the world.

(Un)fortunately, it's also our only hope.

Enmity has been there between men and women since the beginning of time and shows no signs of abating. There is only one place where a man and a woman can really come to terms with each other, without the games, without the hostility, without the pretense and without the clothes. That is in marriage, operated on trust, and formed in love. Falling in love is the only thing that softens otherwise calculating and manipulative creatures; staying in love, loving willfully and deliberately and permanently against all the odds, is the only way to keep the enmity at bay. This is how men stop seeing women as meat, objects, possessions, trinkets, subplots; this is how women stop distrusting, deceiving and wheedling for power that they physically don't have.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Philosophy; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: abortion; father; fatherhood; fathers; feminism; feminist; leftwing; marriage; marxism; marxist; men; misandry; motherhood; pc; politicallycorrect; prochoice; prolife; propaganda; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next last

1 posted on 04/14/2002 8:09:13 AM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
Or that sex is manifestly not just about having a good time? Is there even a hint of that in there?

Sorry, but once you start to drop the idea that sex is a thing of meaning and love, with consequences, you lose any right to oppose abortion. All the anti-life brigade then have to say is "Men have the right to this pleasure and they don't need to worry about a baby - we only want equal rights".

2 posted on 04/14/2002 8:24:31 AM PDT by Tomalak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tomalak
The point that particular line---only one of many points in the article, it should be noted---seemed to be making was that pro-lifers, amongst whose number I ardently count myself, need to be focused on the #1 goal: protecting the life of the baby by every possible means.

That said, of course casual encounters should be discouraged. The abortion industry would not want them to be discouraged; they'd lose business.

And then there is athe father of the baby.

He needs to have the legal right to prevent the abortion of any child he fathers, from the moment of conception forward. Instituting that would dramatically decrease the number of abortions in America.

Feminists seek "procreative autonomy", but procreation is fundamentally non-autonomous: it is a contract between a man and a woman.

A contract which says she won't kill the baby, and he won't desert the baby.

That contract is the basis for all civilized societies.

3 posted on 04/14/2002 8:38:25 AM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
Food for thought. Thanks for posting this.

The turn of phrase "an incubator of the state," is very revealing.

Wouldn't the real "incubators of the state" be federally-funded laboratories that artificially create humans whom they can kill at will? It's interesting that this laboratory-base creation of human life would probably be fully acceptable to the pro-feticiders, who don't see the fetus as a human being. It is actually the Pro-lifers who fight against these incubators.

It all comes down to this. Pro-Choicers support the Right to Kill helpless humans, whether the helpless humans are in the lab or in the womb.

4 posted on 04/14/2002 8:41:49 AM PDT by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tomalak
"Men have the right to this pleasure and they don't need to worry about a baby "

Jesse Jackson wouldn't quite agree :)

5 posted on 04/14/2002 8:43:56 AM PDT by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
Not one of us is one hundred percent chaste in word and deed and it is not our business to judge.

Some of us (more than this author might imagine) are 100% chaste in "deed". And my thoughts are my own business, and irrelevant to the subject of abortion.

6 posted on 04/14/2002 8:55:25 AM PDT by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Chaste = chaste outside of marriage
7 posted on 04/14/2002 9:03:06 AM PDT by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
How can the support of abortion be viewed as support of "feminism?" By their decision to support abortion, Feminists are actually masculinizing women.

It would have been truer and purer feminism if, when the feminists came into power, they actually supported pregnant women instead of encouraging them to make themselves (temporarily) barren, like men.

Pro-choicers like to say, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." They never consider that men (the guys in power according to the feminists, remember) might have decided to support each other in their pregnancies. Men have made sure to arrange support for themselves in other situations. The men could have "chosen" to make pregnancy, not abortion, the "sacrament."

The more radical left-wing feminists think things through only about half-way. They stop thinking when they get to an unfounded "conclusion/assumption" that they like. In this case, they wanted to be able to kill fetuses. Feminists use their might and creativity to fight for so many causes. It's sad that they dropped the ball on supporting pregnant women.

8 posted on 04/14/2002 9:16:15 AM PDT by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
Great post!

As a guy from the tail end of the baby boom who experienced the wild and fun 80s of young adulthood I am always amazed at how they attempt to spin the message that men are trying to force women to bear children.

The fact is that abortions advance the convenience, comfort and pleasure of men most of all. The abortion industry serves one and only one constituency. Young bucks who need to get back to the business of bedding down as many does as possible with no strings attached.

The possibility of illegal abortions strikes fear into the hearts of not women, but men in their twenties who count success by the notches on their bedpost. I know. I've spoken to those guys, it's no secret.

It would probably never happen, but I would love to see the results of a survey of women who had abortions that asked who was the stronger advocate of their abortion; the man or the woman.

9 posted on 04/14/2002 9:41:05 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
And yet "pro-choice" men are lauded by feminists as being "sensitive to women".
10 posted on 04/14/2002 9:44:34 AM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Exactly. I don't think the feminists would have any problem at all with the idea of "incubators of the State," as long as the "incubators" in question were housed in government laboratories. What better way, after all, to free women from the constraints of biology?

That's what it's about, I think, and that's why the author misses the point. Granted, on the one hand this debate is about the issue of "control," but he misses the obverse - namely that it is also about the issue of emancipation. And it isn't merely about being emancipated from culture; it's about the emancipation of women from the constraints of nature or biology.

Which brings up an interesting question concerning the Left's rhetoric concerning nature. To them, nature is inherently a good thing, worth preserving, protecting. Science and technology, in this view, are inherently bad in that they make war against nature.

But science and technology aren't evil when they are used to control human biology. On the contrary, the Left is in favor of enlisting science in the struggle against population control, pregnancy. As Allan Bloom pointed out in the Closing of the American Mind, the Left is involved in a huge contradiction regarding nature and science. The principle of consistency has been repealed.

11 posted on 04/14/2002 9:51:55 AM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
Abortion is the biggist shaggy dog joke played on women by men in all of history.

12 posted on 04/14/2002 10:14:14 AM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Here's the scenario:

A woman is in the hospital for complications with her pregnancy. The doctor tells her that if she gives birth to this baby, she will die. So the woman has two choices. She can kill her baby and live or she can give birth and die.

What does she do?

13 posted on 04/14/2002 10:24:45 AM PDT by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
Here's the scenario:

A woman is in the hospital for complications with her pregnancy. The doctor tells her that if she gives birth to this baby, she will die. So the woman has two choices. She can kill her baby and live or she can give birth and die.

What does she do?


I don't know. Perhaps you can tell me what she did. I guess you like to dream up unlikely situations, like I do. :)

The scenario you mention is just one of the imaginative scenarios brought out in the late 60's to justify abortion.

It was used as a foot in the door, (by persons pretending they ONLY wanted to save women's lives), for abortion-on-demand (ie, killing a human for convenience).

How about this scenario--a baby is being born, breech. Her father is in the service overseas for the past 3 months. She is just beginning to emerge from the womb. The "still-legally-pregnant" woman doesn't realize, until that moment, that the female fetus is "racially mixed." The woman was sure she had taken adequate precautions, during a one night stand, nine months before. Her husband will know the child is not his.

Should the doctor follow the woman's directive and perform a partial birth abortion so the husband will not realize his wife had an affair?

14 posted on 04/14/2002 11:07:02 AM PDT by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
I forgot to say. If I had "given birth" at the end of my last pregnancy, my daughter would have died and most likely I would have, too.. Thanks to the wonderful advances of modern medicine, a C-Section saved both of us.
15 posted on 04/14/2002 11:12:40 AM PDT by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
How about this scenario--a baby is being born, breech. Her father is in the service overseas for the past 3 months. She is just beginning to emerge from the womb. The "still-legally-pregnant" woman doesn't realize, until that moment, that the female fetus is "racially mixed." The woman was sure she had taken adequate precautions, during a one night stand, nine months before. Her husband will know the child is not his.

Should the doctor follow the woman's directive and perform a partial birth abortion so the husband will not ealize his wife had an affair?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that skin color did not become apparant for some time after birth. I don't think that the doctor would be able to tell by the baby's feet what color his daddy is. In addition, what doctor would say to a woman in the middle of a breach birth, "Doesn't look like Daddy is who we thought."

What's wrong with the woman giving the child up for adoption and telling the husband the child died in birth? Considering the woman is already lying to her husband - he doesn't know she's had an affair. . . I would hope she would rather her conscience carry a second lie than the knowledge she killed her child.
16 posted on 04/14/2002 11:32:37 AM PDT by dubyas_vision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
I'm sorry to say, it is not an imaginative scenario, but a true scenario. Also, the wonderful advances in modern medicine are not yet available in all countries.

So, I'll give you the rest of the true scenario, the women is far along in her pregnancy and she is seeing the best doctor in the country and he has never done a C-Section.

So, do you let an untrained doctor preform a C-Section, or do you chose to live or die, kill or be killed.

Just to let you know, this women is my best friends wife, and she was in Africa at the time. What does she do.

17 posted on 04/14/2002 12:32:45 PM PDT by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
the woman should get a second opinion... but let's answer your hypothetical situation with this :

the woman chooses the life of her child, who, growing up hearing how brave her mother was and how she died, goes to medical school and becomes a reknowned pediatric surgeon who now can save the lives of countless mothers and children, all because one brave mother chose life over death... put that in your pipe and smoke it.

18 posted on 04/14/2002 3:23:47 PM PDT by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
So, I'll give you the rest of the true scenario, the women is far along in her pregnancy and she is seeing the best doctor in the country and he has never done a C-Section.

So, do you let an untrained doctor preform a C-Section, or do you chose to live or die, kill or be killed.

It seems a bit odd to live in a society where a skilled physician knows how to perform an abortion, but not a c-section, doesn't it? How does that happen?

19 posted on 04/14/2002 3:42:24 PM PDT by conservative cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r
but let's answer your hypothetical situation with this :

Sorry it's not hypothetical, it's true.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

20 posted on 04/14/2002 4:12:55 PM PDT by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: conservative cat;teeman8r;syriacus
You've obviously never lived in Africa.

After about 2 weeks of agonizing over what to do, they had the doctor do the C-Section. The doctor, in the mean time was consulting with other doctors in neighboring countries on the proper procedures. As it turned out, she did have a few minor complications, but both mother and baby were fine.

Unfortunately, the pro-choice / pro-life issue is not as black and white as some wish to believe.

21 posted on 04/14/2002 4:21:13 PM PDT by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
both mother and baby were fine.

How wonderful that the doctors persisted and found a solution that saved both the mother and her child!!

22 posted on 04/14/2002 6:55:54 PM PDT by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dubyas_vision
Some women view their child's birth by looking in a mirror, so the woman might be the one to notice the baby looked different than she expected.

I don't have answers to all your other points, but since this is a hypothetical situation I can try to change things a bit to make the example more suitable for this discussion.

For example, let's say the baby's real father's feet have extra digits or some other distinguishing characteristic-- so it is the woman (not the doctor) who realizes who is really the baby's father. If only males can inherit the characteristic, we'll make the baby a male.

23 posted on 04/14/2002 7:09:52 PM PDT by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
Which brings up an interesting question concerning the Left's rhetoric concerning nature. To them, nature is inherently a good thing, worth preserving, protecting. Science and technology, in this view, are inherently bad in that they make war against nature.

But science and technology aren't evil when they are used to control human biology.

A really good point... Thanks for sharing the insight.

24 posted on 04/14/2002 7:24:54 PM PDT by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
Thought-provoking article.

I view abortion as an abominable practice and sinful to the fullest extent. But these are not my primary arguments against it. When arguing from this standpoint, it becomes a moral issue and our system of law is not based on the Word of God.

My main, secular argument against abortion is actually a matter of technology. Though I am a man, I find absolutely no justifiable reason for abortion in the year 2002. There hasn't been one in quite a long time. My view is that a woman who gets pregnant today gets pregnant due to one of two circumstances: 1. She is reckless, and/or 2. She views abortion as the ultimate in contraception.

Think about it for a second. With the easily availability of condoms, birth control pills, and an IUD, how on earth is it possible for a woman to get pregnant if she really doesn't want to become pregnant in the first place?

25 posted on 04/14/2002 8:01:34 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
Unfortunately, the pro-choice / pro-life issue is not as black and white as some wish to believe.

or is, the mother and baby are doing fine, the mother chose the life of her baby and god blessed her with a doctor who was able to make the cut.

26 posted on 04/14/2002 8:24:30 PM PDT by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Good post. I concur. The strongest abortion "rights" proponents I've met are men. you're right, there is not much talk about men's involvement and influence in abortion. There should be much more.

There actually has been some research into men's involvement in abortion. Turns out men are actively involved in an aboriton decision some 85% of the time. One could justifiably interpolate that men are influence abortion even more than that by simply making it clear they don't intend to be around. Men are NOT innocent bystanders in abortion in our country. I think many men would fight harder than women to keep it legal.
27 posted on 04/14/2002 8:29:16 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Would you then support the instatement in law of a father's right to prevent the abortion of any baby he has biologically fathered in the course of consensual relations? If so, then you have a right to impugn the men who coerce their partners abortions. If not, than not. So?
28 posted on 04/14/2002 8:34:54 PM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Bull.
29 posted on 04/14/2002 8:38:10 PM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
No, I have not lived in Africa. However, it doesn't take living there to know that having an abortion when a doctor isn't qualified for c-sections is NOT the answer. The answer is doctors who are better trained for handling pregnancy and labor. Don't ask me how that is going to happen, but it's the right answer. The moral solution isn't always the easiest one. I am glad to hear that everyone survived! They are probably relieved that they chose to try to save both mother and child.
30 posted on 04/14/2002 8:38:41 PM PDT by conservative cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
My main, secular argument against abortion is actually a matter of technology. Though I am a man, I find absolutely no justifiable reason for abortion in the year 2002. There hasn't been one in quite a long time.

I agree. There is probably some extremely rare circumstance which might justify an abortion, but this is so rare as to make the "life of the mother" arguments meaningless.

My view is that a woman who gets pregnant today gets pregnant due to one of two circumstances: 1. She is reckless, and/or 2. She views abortion as the ultimate in contraception.

No. Women "get pregnant" by having sex with men. A man and a woman co-concieve. Your male-less description is a BIG part of the problem with abortion. Also, not only women, but many men use abortion as a back up birth control measure in lieu of taking precautions themselves. Therefore, any man who does take personal steps to prevent conception and does not want a child is complicit is using abortion as his birth control method of choice. If he is pro-Life he is a hypocrite. Everyone involved in conception that ends in abortion is complicit in that abortion.

Think about it for a second. With the easily availability of condoms, birth control pills, and an IUD, how on earth is it possible for a woman to get pregnant if she really doesn't want to become pregnant in the first place?

This is untrue. There are no 100% reliable contraceptives. The best we have are 1)Sterilization 2)Redundant contraceptive measures. Even with those most reliable ones it is STILL possible to co-concieve. Anyone, man or woman, who wants 0% risk has only one choice, abstain from sex. Otherwise, it is a calculated risk on the part of BOTH parties. The default consequence of sex is conception. Therefore BOTH people have an obligation, not just the woman, to prevent conception. If they co-conceive and later agree to abort, then they were BOTH using abortion as their back-up birth control plan.
31 posted on 04/14/2002 8:46:56 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: gophack
ping
32 posted on 04/14/2002 8:49:22 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
Would you then support the instatement in law of a father's right to prevent the abortion of any baby he has biologically fathered in the course of consensual relations?

Yes, I would support such a law. But I would go much further than that. I would include more strict laws on child abandonment and abdication of parental obligation.
33 posted on 04/14/2002 8:49:55 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Think about it for a second. With the easily availability of condoms, birth control pills, and an IUD, how on earth is it possible for a woman to get pregnant if she really doesn't want to become pregnant in the first place?

Oh it is VERY possible. I know of two cases personally.: 1. I know a couple who co-conceived after her husband had a vasectomy. (Yes it was his, they checked). They had the baby and the vasectomy doctor paid for the maternity and labor cost. :-)

2. I know a couple who co-conceived when the wife was 55 and the husband was 62. She had gone through (they thought) menopause. They also had the baby, the husband who was due to retire that year stayed on the job.

These are just the ones I know of personally. Lots of people conceive while on the Pill. The Pill is not as effective as everyone thinks. It can be compromised by common illnesses, stress, or other medications. Sometimes the doctor simply does not prescribe the right mix of hormones. There have been known factory errors too. Lots of problems.

Every method has problems and none is 100% reliable. The most reliable method is redundancy, Pill + condom for example.
34 posted on 04/14/2002 8:59:49 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Sounds fair. Well met.
35 posted on 04/14/2002 9:28:05 PM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
Bull

Who has the worse experience of it? Who generally makes out on the deal?

36 posted on 04/14/2002 10:10:56 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Who has the worse experience of it?

The father of the baby, who under the USSC Danforth and Casey decision, has to know that the prenatal baby he sired is scheduled for execution.

Who generally makes out on the deal?

The one who has the legal power to cause the abortion to happen. That is absolute power, albeit in a Mephistolpholean way, to destroy only.

37 posted on 04/14/2002 10:26:18 PM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
The father of the baby, who under the USSC Danforth and Casey decision, has to know that the prenatal baby he sired is scheduled for execution.

Knowing from a distant is worse than physically experiencing?

The one who has the legal power to cause the abortion to happen. That is absolute power, albeit in a Mephistolpholean way, to destroy only.

Putting scars in the body and on the soul to be rid of an 18 year responsibility is less agonizing than payiing a couple hundred bucks?
37 posted on 4/14/02 10:26 PM Pacific by The Giant Apricots

38 posted on 04/15/2002 6:16:36 AM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
No. Women "get pregnant" by having sex with men. A man and a woman co-concieve.

I thought that this was understood. That's why I didn't mention it.

Therefore, any man who does take personal steps to prevent conception and does not want a child is complicit is using abortion as his birth control method of choice. If he is pro-Life he is a hypocrite.

Well, my next statement is going to keep me in trouble with the sisters. Pregnancy, when it all boils down, is on the woman. A man can not, under any circumstance, get pregnant. Never! Therefore, the ultimate answer lies (no pun intended) with the woman. I'm not excusing irresponsible men, but let's face it. If a woman truly does not seek to get pregnant, she can either decline to have sex, or, take every means possible to thwart it. She can demand that the man wear a condom or say, "Nope. No nookie for you!" She can take birth control pills. If her body's hormones won't tolerate birth control pills, she can get an IUD. She can also use spermicidal products. The man can do this as well (prophylactics), but he's not the one who will get the pot belly. The woman will!

There are no 100% reliable contraceptives.

True. But, as a percentage, how many birth control pills fail? As a percentage, how many IUDs fail?

39 posted on 04/15/2002 6:55:57 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
The Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
40 posted on 04/15/2002 7:05:29 AM PDT by PeteF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
A woman is in the hospital for complications with her pregnancy. The doctor tells her that if she gives birth to this baby, she will die. So the woman has two choices. She can kill her baby and live or she can give birth and die.
What does she do?

The doctor delivers the baby by Ceasarean section and tries his best to keep BOTH mother and baby alive. There are very few instances in this day of advanced medicine where both cannot be saved.

This has been the red herring for the partial birth abortion crowd; what if there is an emergency? The answer to that is, you don't do a partial birth abortion unless you want a dead baby. Partial birth abortion takes time because a laminaria has to be inserted in order to expand the cervix; this takes several hours. In the event of a REAL emergency, no doctor is going wait that long. The mother would be in the operating room in a New York minute and the baby would be delivered. Of course, this would be a LIVE baby!

The Caring Foundation did a survey a few years ago and found just the sentiment that this article mentions. When presented with the three choices of abortion, adoption and childbirth, many young women chose abortion. They did not want to lose control of their bodies. Adoption didn't fare well because they didn't like the thought of a child of theirs floating around somewhere and not know how it was. They would rather kill it than wonder about it. That is just a SICK sentiment, but one that has been fed by popular culture since even before 1973. After all, the people had to be 'softened up' to support abortion before it became legal. Sitcoms such as 'Maude' presented it as a 'hard' but necessary 'choice' for some. So when abortion laws were struck down by Roe v. Wade, it was just a short jump from muted accepteance to full throated support. Most people don't think about it until confronted with the situation, and are willing to take the easiest and less socially messy way out.

Until society does get back to connecting sex with procreation, and young women TRULY take control of their bodies, we'll continue to have this attitude of 'my body, my choice'.

41 posted on 04/15/2002 7:35:36 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
I thought that this was a very well-reasoned, well-explained article on the differences between pro-life women and pro-choice women. You hit the nail on the head: it is about fear. And the part about men is right on the money as well -- more men are pro-abortion than women. The fear they have of being tied down "forever" just because they had a little recreational sex is a very real fear.

I also agree about the perceptions that we in the pro-life movement are too judgemental, too accusatory, "see, I told you so!" when a woman has sex and gets pregnant. We need to support these women so they have the structure to keep or give their baby up for adoption. The "easy" solution of abortion will end in pain and heartache for the would-be mother, but it might take years to realize the empty spot in her heart is a black mark on her soul, and it is harder to forgive yourself for your sins than it is to ask God for forgiveness.

42 posted on 04/15/2002 10:18:53 AM PDT by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Well, my next statement is going to keep me in trouble with the sisters. Pregnancy, when it all boils down, is on the woman. A man can not, under any circumstance, get pregnant. True but men ARE fathers. And there is another 18 years after pregnancy to consider. In short, you put too much emphasis on pregnancy and fail to account for the TWO people who create that state. YOUR attitude is why we have abortion.

Therefore, the ultimate answer lies (no pun intended) with the woman.

No it does not. But if you insist on making it so, we will continue to have abortion. YOUR attitude is why we have abortion.

I'm not excusing irresponsible men,

Yes, you are. That is exactly what you are doing. And that is exactly what you are intentionally doing. But you knew that. If a woman truly does not seek to get pregnant, she can either decline to have sex, or, take every means possible to thwart it.

And if a man doesn't want to be a father to a child he co-created, he can do exactly the same. We're not talking about pregnancy, pregnancy lasts only 9 months, (thats 4% of a childs life from conception to age 18). What you are doing is putting the onus on the woman to be Un-pregnant as a prevention for a child existing. That attitude leads directly to... you guessed it... abortion. She can demand that the man wear a condom or say, "Nope. No nookie for you!"

Typical. Where is the man's responsibility? Oh I know, it is Mommy telling him what to do. Do men not have free will? Can he not think for himself and take responsibilty for his actions. Apparently not. Your attitude is that men are little children who must always have a "mommy" to blame for not restricting him. You need your mommy don't you?

When o when will some men act like men and not whiney little boys?

She can take birth control pills. If her body's hormones won't tolerate birth control pills, she can get an IUD. She can also use spermicidal products. The man can do this as well (prophylactics), but he's not the one who will get the pot belly. The woman will!

The man can get a vasectomy and he can wear a condom (without being asked). And believe me, I see plenty of men with pot bellies! (That was a cheep shot showing just how much regard you have for women).
43 posted on 04/15/2002 11:51:51 AM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
YOUR attitude is why we have abortion.

Okay, now the gloves have come off, and all chivalry is thrown out the window.

IT'S MY FAULT? I'm a 30 year old, married man. I've been married for five years. My wife and I have not had children yet. Now, before I got married, and I'll admit it for what it's worth, I had more women than I care to remember. Yet, I NEVER impregnated one woman in my life. Not one.

It's my fault? It's MY attitude?

Coming out of the inner-city, I knew that outside of drug dealing, the only other sure way for me not to make it out of the 'hood was to get a woman pregnant. Therefore, I didn't.

It's my fault?

It's my attitude?

Who carries the baby? The woman. Who can get pregnant? The woman. The ultimate solution for a woman not getting pregnant is on who? The woman. Did I mention it is the woman who is the only one who gets pregnant? Yeah, I thought I did.

Now, for those men out there who are nothing more than sperm donors, I blame them for their practices. But let's be totally honest here. How many men are going to refuse a woman who spreads her legs, huh? How many? Therefore, the woman must not be STUPID enough to lie down with just any man! Yeah, I said it, and I'll say it again. I've come across tons and tons of STUPID WOMEN. Them there is the facts, like them or not.

Another thing, donating the sperm that fertilizes an egg does NOT make a man a father. It makes him a "baby's daddy," but it for damn sure doesn't make him a father. There's a huge difference. Though I am a stepfather, I am the definition of a FATHER. I may as well have sired him myself. His biological father dropped the ball big time, and I made up the difference. If I'm that dedicated to a seed that is not mine, how much more will I be to the seed that comes from my loins?

It's my fault? It's my attitude?

You better take that poppycock nonsense somewhere else. It doesn't fly here.

44 posted on 04/15/2002 12:20:33 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Gophack
Good points and well-spoken.
45 posted on 04/15/2002 1:34:57 PM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne;rdb3
When oh when will some men act like men and not whiny little boys?

When they are with women who accept half the responsibility and cede half the rights.

That scenario happens.

Just not in all cases.

46 posted on 04/15/2002 1:39:44 PM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
The correct line is: "Take that poppycock, shine it up real good, turn it sideways, and..."
47 posted on 04/15/2002 1:40:47 PM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
YOUR attitude is why we have abortion. You have the exact same attitude as pro-Choice, it's the woman's body the woman's choice. You get what you ask for.

Regardless of how you conduct your personal life you are supporting an attidue which ultimately places the responsiblity on women to prevent conception. Conception is the issue, not pregnancy. It takes TWO to initiate conception, it only taks one to sustain it. Therefore, by making pregnancy the issue, you are promoting abortion as the solution.

Your focus is twisted. When there is a pregnancy, IT IS TOO LATE to talk about blame. By focussing solely on the biological state of being pregnant, you have virtually ensured that the solutions will always be "after the fact" and exclude men ... which is what you want.

The correct focus is on preventing conception. And that involves TWO people, one male, one female. The reason you don't like that is because you're male and you wish to ensure your gender, at the end of the day, ultimately, has ZERO accountability in pro-creation and its consequences. you are valiantly defending the status quo "male exemption" option ... which is how we got to where we are today with abortion.

Pregnancy does not just happen by magic. It is a natural oucome of sex, then conception. The ony way to prevent "pregnancy" which YOU identify as "the problem" is to prevent conception. And since it takes TWO to concieve, the onus is on both to prevent. Any after-the-fact solutions are just that, after-the-fact. None of them are good. Prevention is the only way.

Yes, women sustain a conception and the result is a child. But we are ALL responsible for that child in the event of default of one or both parents. If not then what? Infanticide? Is that the preferable option to requiring BOTH parents be responsible to their offspring?

Apparently your only interest is to demonize (who knows maybe even criminilize) pregnancy. Anything to avoid the discussion of equal participation in conception. We must avoid that discussion at all costs right? You know what, demonizing women and pregnancy doesn't work. That's how we got abortion in the numbers we have today.

What YOUR attitude does is attempt to ultimately wash men's hands of ALL responsibilty in sex and its consequences by demoninzing pregnancy ... this is why we have abortion. You asked for it, you got it. There is no better reason to render oneselef un-pregnant, except to avoid being demonized by people like you. Ergo, abortion becomes the law of the land. Problem solved. You should be happy.

Now, for those men out there who are nothing more than sperm donors, I blame them for their practices. But let's be totally honest here. How many men are going to refuse a woman who spreads her legs, huh? How many?

Yadda yadda yadda. This is the classic "boys will be boys" attitude. You know what? Fine. Let's allow it. Men don't have to do a g@ddam thing, OK? And to be equal we'll also allow the "girls will be girls" attitude. Women don't have to be responsible either. Nobody has to be responsible for anything they do. There, happy now? Hope you like paying taxes for welfare and prisons, hope you like high crime rates.

What I'd like to know is when did the Conservative mantra of "personal responsibility" exempt men? I've come across tons and tons of STUPID WOMEN.

So what? There are an equal number of stupid men. You better take that poppycock nonsense somewhere else.

Oh really? Make me.

It boils down to... at the end of the day... you don't think men should be held accountable for their actions. Oh you think it would be nice if they were responsible, if they feel like it, but in the end you don't really think they have to be and you don't support making them accountable do you?

Since it takes two to make a child, it is unfair to make only one party accountable. That attitude is unfair and inequitable and it leads precisely to the situation we are facing now ... abortion.
48 posted on 04/15/2002 3:01:45 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
YOUR attitude is why we have abortion.

Yep. It's my fault.

Whatever you're drinking, let me get a swig. Oh, wait. I don't drink anymore.

Nevermind.

49 posted on 04/15/2002 4:19:41 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne;rdb3
Hey now: everybody come together, try to love one another, right now. You're both bright. Men and women should share the responsibility and rights inherent to conceiving a child in the context of mutually consensual relations, which indeed, tends to be the context. Share the credit, and once 23 and 23 become 46, the blame is too late.

Now shake hands, RDB3 and Lorianne.

You're on the same side.

Fight together in...

PAX APRICOTUS !!!

50 posted on 04/15/2002 10:05:40 PM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson