Abortion: I’m Pro-logic
If the Supreme Court ever gets around to abolishing the right to abortions, many who support women’s right to choose will find themselves understandably bent out of shape. That is because the people of the United States will be telling them what they can and cannot do with a baby in their wombs. I have never supported repealing Roe versus Wade because frankly I think it’s delusional, (and the evidence supports me) to think that this will bring all abortions to a grinding halt. I also believe that the sheer numbers of abortions performed is evidence that we have abdicated the personal responsibility of birth control. That said, in a weird way, I find myself almost looking forward to the moment when pro-abortion supporters are forced to stand in the shoes of right-wing Christian fundamentalists. How could this possibly be you say?For decades, the child of a Christian fundamentalist, (actually everyone’s child) has had the ability to obtain an abortion without requiring the permission, or even the notification of their parents regarding the procedure. Any female under the age of 18 has been able to waltz right down to an abortion clinic, receive her abortion, and her Mom and Dad were not allowed by law to be notified.
Most fundamentalist Christians have the belief that abortion is wrong, that it is against the rules of their religion. In most cases these Christians are allowed by law to raise their children whatever way they see fit, as long as they do not physically or sexually abuse them, and the child receives a proper education. Not so with an abortion, as this decision has been taken out of their hands.
Personally, I do not think that most young ladies under the age of 18 are ready for the responsibility of raising a child. I also do not think that we do the child any service by forcing these young girls to raise them. I would be the first person to advise their parents that their daughter should be utilizing some form of birth control, however for many Christian fundamentalists, using birth control is also against their religion.
If Roe versus Wade is overturned, and an abortion supporter’s daughter becomes pregnant, let’s say at age 14, the law will then tell this young lady’s parents, that she is not allowed to receive an abortion. The people of the United States will be telling both the parent and daughter, what she can and cannot do with a baby in her womb. This is an invasion of that parent’s right to raise their child whatever way they see fit. It is also not one bit different than what our laws now tell the Christian fundamentalists. We flatly tell them they have no right to be involved in their under-aged daughter's decision. We go even further by insisting that they do not have a right to be informed that their daughter is either pregnant, has had an abortion, and they are not allowed to be informed if she is using birth control.
I do not blame abortion supporters for being bent out of shape over the fact that they will not be able to raise their young daughters in the manner that they personally approve of. That said, I doubt seriously that any of these pro-abortion supporters had ever considered that we have totally removed Christian parent's right to make their own decisions regarding how their daughter should be raised. If they had ever considered this, perhaps they would have understood the frustration that has quite obviously compelled religious fundamentalist’s rabid attempts to overturn Roe versus Wade.
There is a tendency by human beings to ignore the encroachment of rights of other people, but very carefully scrutinize any such encroachments upon their own rights. You can call it what you want, but I consider this to be purely myopic, and I see this behavior coming from both sides in the abortion argument.
The fundamental question is, do parents have the right to decide how to raise their children? I personally think those who are in favor of abortion, and those who are against abortion each have the right to raise their child what ever way they see fit, so long as the child is not abused, properly educated, and cared for. This is not the behavior that abortion supporters have shown the Christian right. Abortion supporters have not allowed Christian parents to raise their children the way they see fit. If Roe versus Wade is overturned, then abortion supporters will find themselves standing in the shoes of Christian fundamentalists.
Personally I think the pendulum will swing back and forth on this issue forever, because I think both sides approach this issue from an entirely self-centered perspective. I think the pendulum that is known as our courts, will continue to swing back and forth on this issue till humanity has been wiped from the face of the earth; as soon as one side takes power, the other side loses, and vice versa. This is why I am Pro-logic.
It may be possible that if a majority of Americans felt as I do on the matter, this issue would’ve gone away from the radar screens a long time ago and our energies could be invested into other pressing matters. Too bad, but for now, I will just sit back and watch all of you idiots knock the snot out of each other. As far as I’m concerned you are reaping what you have sown. Literally.
Have a nice day dimdodes.
|
posted by rev. billy bob gisher ©2008 at 9:05 AM
16 Comments:
We can up the price of this decision by just thinking of an instance where a Fundamentalists child is pregnant and in a late term of that pregnancy. At that time, if the child or the fetus develop a medical condition that will kill them both unless the pregnancy is terminated - the parents can watch their child die in childbirth. That is their only option under the new ruling.
The five Supremes left no room for humanity in their ruling.
you know i agree with that statement if in fact the original law does not allow it in the event of the health of the mother, i must confess i have not read the full bill, but i glanced at it and thought, (emphasis on the word thought) it had such a proviso, but if it does not those guys are crazy heartless fools. as i have not stated this before i will say:
if it's the baby versus the mother on the health issue, i side with my priest on this: "toss the baby, and save the mother as she can produce lot's more catholics to put money in the collection plate."
can anyone tell i have had this issue up to my eyeballls? my friggin' eyeballs!!is it obvious?
do you people realize we are going to have another damned election totally ignoring major problems and pulling the lever on gays and abortions all over again?
last time we did this stupid crap we got george duhbeya bush.
bet ya $100 i am ignored yet again, as a fool and his/her vote shall soon part.
(hey daveaway, as you are the research king, did this bill have a health of mother proviso? not the ruling, the original bill. i am too high on nyquil now to look it up.)
Rev,
It's my understanding that Mary's right on the proviso. But, I may have been misled by someone else.
The example you gave about parental notification is interesting.
I think an all or nothing pro-choicer were argue that plenty of girls from stridently Christian homes would get the crap kicked out of them if they came home and fessed up. They'd also argue that these kids would be the most likely to get into trouble to begin with because the parents won't allow birth control to prevent it.
I was torn on this issue when I recently had to vote on it. I believe parents should raise the kids they way they see fit, but having personally seen such reactions, I also know a terrible asskicking or outright banishment from the home is a distinct possibility.
If that happens, it seems to me we've now created two unwanted kids. The baby the girl is carrying and the girl banished onto the streets.
I don't have an answer and therein lies the illogical thing about the whole argument.
Any ideas so we can save the world and go get a cup of coffee?
"I think an all or nothing pro-choicer were argue that plenty of girls from stridently Christian homes would get the crap kicked out of them if they came home and fessed up. They'd also argue that these kids would be the most likely to get into trouble to begin with because the parents won't allow birth control to prevent it."
this is a possibility in non christian homes too, and as for any abuse, we have laws on the books against that. we also have laws on the books against throwing them on the streets; real damn harsh laws exist on abandonment. you like go to jail dude.
someone could do either of these two horrible things to their pregnant daughter, but they would be thrown under the jail. frankly kids are abused in this fashion now, that are not even pregnant, and far more of them pooby. far more.
this may suprise you but i know a great many fundies, and adore most of them. they do have a hard time with such things yes, and some may be verbaly harsh or restrictive in such circumstances, but these reactions are not solely the domain of the christians, and frankly, i believe some harsh admonishment is called for. that however is a matter of differing parenting styles which turns back into the point of, as long as they are not abusing them, who the hell are we to tell them how to raise their child, or better, who the hell are they to tell us how to raise ours?
not you personally pooby, but this equation is tossed out frequently by the pro-choice crowd, and it is at best, faulty logic and at worst a smokescreen. i think it is also part of the rationalizing that occurs when you choose a posistion first and then try and defend it, rather than the other way around.(chrstians are famous for this tactic as well)
i might also add if you caught the last word in this post, i think banning abortions would hit the fundies harder than they think. they would start seeing how many of their own kids get abortions, and they cannot do that now. they would also have to raise a bunch of grandkids they were not exactly expecting too. frankly, fundies would suffer just as much in a sort of wierd way.
while i do think the number of abortions would go down, i do not think they would succeed in shutting them down ever, and if you look pre roe/wade, abortions occured quite a bit, even though it was illegal.
on that note some of these fundies would suffer the ultimate penalty of losing both a grandchild, and a daughter, after a botched abortion.
truly what goes around, comes around.
As Poobah said, there is no provision for medical emergency. Not only that, but these five unsupremes did a complete turnaround on an existing ruling from 2000 wherein they threw out a Nebraska statute because it did not have a medical provision. If you remember Alito and Roberts both said during confirmation that they would never even dream of overturning a prior ruling. They do adhere to the Bush program of lying through their teeth, so we know what we can expect on many issues in the future. Our country could be turned upside down or could that be upside downer and wrong-side out bleeding from the nose kind of thing.
You are right, this issue will come up again during elections, but it won't matter as the Supremes are there for life.
P.S. There are other medical procedures that will accomplish the termination at that stage, but they are much riskier and the Dr. should be the one to decide.
LET ME ALL CAP THIS. I AM FOR SAVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER OVER THE BABY, 24x7x52. IF THE IDJIOTS AT THE SUPREME TOSSED THE PRIVISO THEY ARE INHUMANE AND FRANKLY, CALLOUS. HAVE I BEEN PRECISE ENOUGH???
DAVE! where the hell are you???
i have phlegm coming out very orifice on my body, or i would do this myself. shit i am lucky to type as it is.
ADENDUM: FURTHER CLARIFICATION
I SUPPORT ABORTION WHOLE HEARTEDLY IN THE CASE OF RAPE OR INCEST. SHOOT I WILL EVEN PAY FOR THE PROCEDURE MYSELF.
I ALSO SUPPORT BARABRA BUSH'S RIGHT TO ABORT HER FIRST SON.
tax, title and dealer prep are extra.
found this via a local newspaper; "The high court on Wednesday upheld the ban except in cases where the woman's life might be in danger. The justices ruled that an individual - or as-applied - challenge "is the proper manner to protect the woman's health if it can be shown that in discrete and well-defined instances a condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the act must be used."
figure i'd help out a little since daveaway's out chasing babes and i'm chasing running orifices.
thanks to my better (and healthier) half. dave, you are slouching:)
if these 9 goobers wind up overturning roe vs wade it will turn this deal back over to the states, where frankly, it should belong anyway. frankly the federal government has stolen a ton of power from the states in the last 150 years.
roe vs wade was brought to life by drawing from property rights provisions in the constitution, which is completely friggin nuts on the part of that court. they must have been drunk, or geez, maybe legislating.
If they toss it, we will have states that allow abortions and those that do not. states where evangelicals have a numerical advantage will most likely ban it.
the women from those states will travel to those where the evangelicals are a minority to have their abortions performed.
abortions will still continue and little will have been gained except for the few moments of pure smugness and false rejoicing that these poor dear christians experience , before they realize they have been had by politicans and really accomplished nothing, other than enriching all of bush’s good friends at halliburton.
just like with drugs, they will fail. denial is more than a river.
I wasn't implying that it was only a Christian problem. It could, and does, happen anywhere.
At the end of the day, these discussions point out why it'll keep going and going and going. There is no right or wrong answer because it's a thorny problem. If it wasn't we'd have all agreed by now.
BTW, I'll go halvsies on that Barbara Bush offer, although the horse does already seem to be out of the bard.
Sorry I'm late, folks, but some of us work (nights) for a living and just cant get away. Sometimes.
When I saw the headline the other day about the supreme court decision, I thought to myself, "now people will see what's going down, now that it's too late". Maybe not, though. Still, it might be worth a post.
Sometimes, though, I think the whole slippery slope arguement is beyond ridiculous, absurd even. A lot of people act as if the banning of one unpleasant abortion technique is tantamount to banning all abortions, no matter what. I wont deny that the Right wont try, but I dont see that happening.
Rev, I'll agree with you on the parental notification thing. Until the child reaches the age of consent, they should have to involve the parents in any medical decision. But once they're old enough to decide, they're old enough to deal with the consequences.
My thanks to Mary for doing the research, the idea that I am the king of research is a deeply disturbing one.
I did a post last fall where I proposed that the Democrats trade Abortion for Torture, i.e., let the Republicans have their anti-abortion rulings in exchange for banning completely any form of torture that may be committed by the Government (including via contractors). I thought that it would have been a great deal, but, alas, never got that meme moving.
Personally, I dont like abortion, but I side with the Pro-choice crowd because anybody with half a brain knows better than to burn bridges. I also think that the Repubs blocking of the teaching of birth control is stupid on a level of criminality. I'm quite certain that even in their own insular little fundie worlds, abstinance doesnt work very well at all. Why they think it will be useful in the Heathen world is beyond me.
My mom helps out with a program in her home town that works with homeless pregnant girls (before and after) who want to continue with school and try to make a go of things. I dont know how many of them are underage, but I wouldnt bet on many families being up on charges for tossing them out. Not in Oklahoma, at any rate.
Oh, and as unpleasant as it might be, I'll go along with you on the mother vs. child thing, too. You can apply that to men (vs. women), also. Humankind is safe, as long as you can continue to make babies (and you only need a few men for that).
They're incredibly complex pieces of (meat) machinery, but fortunately can be built using unskilled labor.
pooby: that is called a real late, late, late term abortion. and i know you were not implying it was solely a christian problem, i was just making sure i left no stone unturned. and pooby, these discussions will keep going because this may be the only place where a civil discussion occurs on this issue. truly sad, but kudos to all commentors so far.
dave:
1)parental notication IS the major pox in the deal and i think it is a direct violation of amendment one.
2)research king disturbing? you do dig rather deep to draw your associations my friend, almost like a human groundhog.
3)i have always felt that torture performed on a non us citizen was not covered in the constitution, but also feel it is delusional to think someone being tortured is going to provide accurate info. that said, i used to use water-boarding on my kids to get their grades up:)
4)you know, as long as fundies do not try and remove birth control from those who choose to use it, even though our resources are stretched real damn thin and we have entirely too many mouths to feed already, let the idiots see how much their kids are doing the slappy tickle out there. i bet they won't like the results.
5) your mom is a gem, and i am furious that more churches do not step up, more citizens do not step up to the problem, they could help out much with adoptions, and geez, you cannot get a more local problem than teen pregnancy. our biggest problem is too many people want the government to do their work for them.
6)yes, the mother outwieghs the child indeed, but i agree with you, i find the whole buisness a disturbing concept. that is a job for solomons, and i do not desire it for myself. if you were a doctor, how in the hell can you reconcile this with "do no harm"? tough job they got.
Hey all, the Minnesota wingnut chiming in for a moment, hope all are enjoying their weekends to the highest possible degree...
The thing that always pops into mind whenever this topic comes up is how the adoption angle of this always, and I mean always (from both sides) is brushed off and given something below footnote treatment, and I wonder how much of it has to do with the idea that the issue of adoption brings to the table it’s own set of highly complicated and subjective issues of ethics? (I mean, the Chronicly Loud do their damnedest to keep the abortion issue as altruistic as possible – don’t need another shot of critical discourse getting’ the topic all muddy now do we? Keep it to God, rubbers, and the individuals right to fancy themselves intellectually infallible.)
Another fast observation (or two) is that it just baffles me that this is a political debate, it seems to be a health and/or individual(s) ethics issue, when has legislating either worked out very well? Why is it that many clamor for legislation on the 5 W’s of a being clocking in and clocking out of the mortal existence, but everything in between is subject to much looser interpretation? (I will be back to get into some of this deeper, but I’m VERY late on a contribution to a piece on the adoption issue, good old fashioned ink on paper piece. The abortion debate is the intro that I’ve been looking for as the intro that has been so elusive in the ‘writer hung-up on where to start’ way)
One last thing before I duck out for the electronic moment….why doesn’t anybody bother to get the actual text of the case law itself and bring it to any of these discussions? You know, to put a check and balance on the rhetoric and emotion, instead of relying on how its portrayed or reported by any given media outlet or lobby group?
thanks shawn it was a gorgeous day, but i have the creeping crud.
starting with the bottom first, mary matalin did bring in the actual real deal in this post, it's above, and you are correct, as folks did get a bit upset about the recent ruling without adequate cause.
and i also noted torts above, which pointed out that those who crave an abortion will still be able to get one, even if roe is overturned. i guarantee you both sides will not notice what i have said, as they seem to be blinded to the truth anyway. washington is entirely happy this is the case, as what else would they have to raise funds with?
you see shawn, adoption is a problem for the pro-choice crowd because they don't want any consequences for not taking some form of birth control, as that is really a bitch to have to walk around with that FETUS in their belly for nine months, and then to have to go through the pain of delivering that FETUS and then giving the FETUS up to loving parents. it's much easier to use monday morning quarterbacking (abortion) than to assume responsibilty for your actions in advance. we won't dare talk about abstaining from sex, because that is impossible.
for the evangelicals they want to save every BABY, and force everyone else to deliver the BABY, but hey, that BABY might be black, and a black BABY does not look so good in the family portrait. maybe that BABY is one of those mexicans trying to steal our jobs by surviving an abortion. so the evangelicals are not exactly standing in line to find good christian homes for these BABIES.
you are correct about a politcal debate, it should be a health debate, and it should occur at each state capital not washington.
but if you do that shawn, you cannot scare the hell out the voters into ignoring you have no real policy excepting gays and abortion.
that would really suck.
"you are correct about a politcal debate, it should be a health debate, and it should occur at each state capital not washington."
If I may needle you for a moment....
Now why you gotta go draggin' Fed-ralism in here like dat? Such a highheady big falootin thang? Don'tcha kno this is all about Gawd and rubbers?! (still working on the southern politician patois in the written form. How does one go about the 'lilt'? The 'ebb and flow' of a 'prr-ahpah' southern orator?)
As you mentioned in another 'comment forum', I think we're fairly paralell on/at a number of points, and look forward to watching as well as participating in/at your effort here, pardon any reference gaffs on my behalf . [the point of MMG pointing to language of actual case law reference] Just so-in's you know, and in the interest of transparency, I'll be taking the angle of the language that we use to tackle any issue (my little 'cause' if you will) and our manners or points of reference that we use to advance or participate in any discussion, really.
Got a good thing going on here RBBG, happy to have come across it. Hope the crud breaks up, dealing with a surgical version over here...10 more weeks....get well and be well and I'll leave the issue in the Federalist syringe for now.
damn i am sorry i injected what serious boobs our supreme court have been, my bad. no sense cluttering up a murky meaningless fight with actual facts, i shall refrain from it. doth appreciate the kind words and well wishes and hope you improve enough to wingnut your way on another day.
BTW: in case anyone asks, i raised several FETUSES and each one of these FETUSES is grown now and I wish the wife aborted then when they were still in the womb because each of them had several FETUSES of their own and now I go broke every christmas. Shoot i picked up 2 more FETUSES as a package deal with mary matalin. I gots FETUSES coming out my ears.
take my FETUSES please!
two FETUSES walk into a bar....
mary tells me i gotta stop now cause i am getting ridiculous.
Post a Comment
<< Home