I’m always very disturbed when I see Michael Mathias at Pundit Nation…

September 19th, 2008

portray the pro-life position as being:

There’s no debate when it comes to giving women reproductive freedom rights—they’re our property and they do what we say

As, generic cialis sale I’ve said before, best viagra viagra the only people being treated like property when it comes to abortion are the unborn ones.

Entry Filed under: Abortion

13 Comments Add your own

  • 1. grumps  |  September 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am

    Not so, Elliott.

    Charlie Sykes’ black friend James says he owns his daughters and he’ll, by God, tell them what choices they’ll make.

  • 2. elliot  |  September 19th, 2008 at 9:56 am

    I know James and he’d say the same thing about his son. He’s asserting the possessive power of a parent, not the political power of a patriarchy.

  • 3. grumps  |  September 19th, 2008 at 10:56 am

    Well, then you’ve explained the distinction by yourself and there’s no more need to discuss.

  • 4. jj  |  September 19th, 2008 at 11:41 am

    Why is it that the pro-abortion group feels that the ONLY reproductive right is to kill the baby?

    While there are a few on the extreme right that feel that birth control is wrong as well, the vast majority of pro-lifer’s (myself included) believe that there should be almost no reason for an abortion because of the vast options for birth control available. Even over-the-counter Plan B for those “oh crap, what did I do last night” moment. The use of abortion as birth control is the untenable position for us.

    As a side note – where are all these champions of women’s rights when an honor killing occurs? Are those OK because we need to be multi-cultural and morally equivalent?

  • 5. grumps  |  September 19th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    jj- Last question first. No. And stop throwing crud at the wall in the middle of an argument.

    I’m not sure who on the Left you think is only advocating abortion. The plank says rare, safe and legal. A mix of education and birth control practice is everybody’s preferred method of preventing conception. The “abstinence only” foolishness and legal barriers to contraception drive the pregnancy as much as anything.

    I’ll concede that abortion will never cease to be used in America if you’ll concede that making it illegal will not make it stop, either.

    Can we build a discussion from there?

  • 6. jj  |  September 19th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

    Grumps – I was responding to the Mathias comment above. Not specifically to what you said. My apologies if I offended you.

    It irritates me to no end when I see comments like the above. I am a woman, I don’t believe I am against women. But the platform of rare, safe, and legal would draw some credibility if we could also find common ground on limits like say, if the baby is viable, an abortion is murder or that “I’m depressed” is not a legitimate reason for killing a 3rd Trimester baby (think Dr. Tiller in Kansas). Or how about parental consent for minors? Or how about for gender selection?

    The “general” left wants the pro-life group to compromise on stuff, but doesn’t want to budge from the “anytime, for any reason” position.

    I also don’t think the honor killing quesion was throwing crud against the wall. I haven’t exactly seen the NOW crowd organizing any protests over it. I would hold that honor killings in the name of a religion are a far greater threat to women’s rights.

  • 7. Tim  |  September 19th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    The honor killing question has nothing to do with the discussion on abortion — that’s why it’s throwing crud againt the wall. Now if elliot wants to start a seperate thread dealing with that issue, good-o.

    By the way, the correct terminology to describe the opposite sides is anti-abortion and pro-choice. Because, if the group on one side truly was pro-life they would be anti-death penalty as well, while the group on the other side is not remotely in favor of abortions all the time, anytime, as the other group erroneously thinks.

  • 8. charliesaurus  |  September 19th, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    Oh for pete’s sake Tim – Let’s just stick with pro-life and pro-choice.

    Throwing in the death penatly is another example of throwing crud against the wall.

  • 9. Dean  |  September 19th, 2008 at 11:28 pm

    I’ll concede that abortion will never cease to be used in America if you’ll concede that making it illegal will not make it stop, either.

    grumps, I will so concede. I’m not sure what you’re conceding, though. I would even concede that it is permissible in the case of rape and incest. But I find few pro-choice people who will compromise on anything.

    Tim, I think you’ll find, especially among Catholics, but certainly among other groups, though not all, granted, that pro-life extends to the death penalty. Certainly in my case it does and I’m not Catholic.

  • 10. grumps  |  September 20th, 2008 at 6:35 am

    Okay, so for purposes of this discussion we’ll leave the death penalty and the so-called honor killings off the table.

    Dean, you caught me. I overtyped my thinker. What I should have said was that I’d concede that abortion is not appropriate as primary birth control. I’m not sure where that sentence above came from.

    I struggle with asking the reason for an abortion, though. It’s just not the business of the state or of anyone but the mother. The way to get where we all want to be is via prevention and that starts with education.

    I’ll agree with jj that eugenic reasons or mental states are not what I would call good reasons to make that decision. But it’s a medical procedure for someone else and I have no say in it.

    If that same woman is depressed and wants a rhinoplasty, the state should have no voice in that, either.

  • 11. elliot  |  September 20th, 2008 at 7:05 am

    But the state would have a voice in it if she wanted to sell her extra organs for a profit, or rent her vagina.

    On the other hand, it’s fine if she rents her womb.

    Morality and medicine make for strange bed fellows.

    (And, I can’t resist pointing out that a rhinoplasty doesn’t involve ending a genetically distinct individual’s life. ;) )

  • 12. JJ  |  September 20th, 2008 at 9:28 am

    That seems to be where the two sides always seem to part company. The fact that an abortion is actually snuffing out a human life. The advent of advanced medical technology and ultrasound have shown that the baby is a “baby”, beit a miniature one, far earlier than the original “mass of tissue” crowd wants to acknowledge. Those same advances have saved babies born as premature as 22 weeks gestation.

    The ethics go far beyond trying to minimize the procedure as just a “medical” procedure like the rhinoplasty mentioned above. The only way to logically wrap your brain around killing a baby is to stop thinking of it as a baby.

    Could there possibly be some real medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy? I will concede yes. There are always heartbreaking instances and exceptions. The couple that has desperately wanted a child only to find out that she has cancer during her pregnancy. Another couple who finds out that their child has a genetic condition that will not allow the child to live – like the couple I know that induced labor at 5 months to deliver their daughter that had no skull or brain. The victim of rape that didn’t report the crime or go get Plan B because of shock and shame.

    So – where are the concessions from the other side saying that, for starters, the Dr. Tiller baby mill in Kansas should be shut down?

  • 13. Dean  |  September 21st, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    I’ll agree with jj that eugenic reasons or mental states are not what I would call good reasons to make that decision. But it’s a medical procedure for someone else and I have no say in it.

    grumps, I can respect that. After all, I am a small government conservative. Really. Or I try to be.

    I just think about that little life. I guess I can’t help it.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.