The abortion debate…
DAVID WHITESOCK — Because I have been called out, more than once, in the comments section of Brian Broekemeier’s column, “Please, have the kid, we’ll deal with it,” I thought it appropriate to explain why I decided to let the column run as it was submitted to me.
There seems to be an odd assumption that when someone; columnist, blogger, whomever, writes about abortion, that something new will be said or that everyone will just agree and that as that. Obviously this is never the case, so when writers do decide to stand upon this third rail, they play it safe, usually discussing policy positions or the latest in legal nuances from state to state.
Yawn. (except for the legal nuances… I’m a nerd)
Brian told me he was writing something up about abortion, and immediately I said “great!” From what I know of Brian’s writing to this point, it happens to be sarcastic, witty, and oftentimes satirical. This piece isn’t a direct satire, but it is witty and certainly sarcastic.
What he believes on the issue is irrelevant. I do not know his position on abortion, and frankly, I don’t care. What I do know, is that when I finished reading the piece, the only thought in my mind was, “huh, why isn’t there more talk about responsibility?”
We tend to merely discuss this issue down a woman’s right to chose or a religiously wrong line. Sure, those are the two sides, but let’s put religion aside and simply examine what is morality. You do not need to be of faith or subscribe to any such religion to be a moral person. As humans, we have set natural moral laws. These laws are basic. Don’t kill. Don’t steal. And, of course, there is the golden rule of treat others how you wish to be treated. Follow these fundamental rules and civilization could be good.
What has happened along the way, however, is we have confused liberty and freedom with a right to do whatever we want — this is so remarkably contrary to the idea of personal freedom, it is laughable. If you are a moral individual and you believe fully in your heart the tenets of liberty, than aborting an unborn child (regardless of the stage of birth) is absolutely wrong.
(Consider that this commentary is coming from a Libertarian!)
We all have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — this begins at the very beginning, does it not? Pro-choicers extend their philosophy based on these words scripted in the Declaration of Independence, but I guarantee if you asked Jefferson, Madison, or Franklin (Locke, Bacon, Hobbes from years before too) their thoughts on this matter, they would suggest that you have bastardized their meaning of freedom and liberty.
Last night while at the Political Science Awards Banquet, Matt Michaels, former South Dakota House of Representatives Speaker, gave a keynote address on public service, but more so on service to others. He said a number of times that governments cannot hug you, kiss you, wipe away your tears or even solve your problems. People do these things. Yet, this is what we have attempted to have our governments do, from the local level all they way up to the federal level.
You want the government to take care of you when you make a mistake. Well, that thinking is the mistake. You err, and you must deal with it. Government is merely a means for securing the very basic and fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government is there to secure life.
If you, and the individual you tango with, make a mistake and a pregnancy ensues, then it is not government which is meant to solve this issue for you — it is you, your partner, your family, and your community (i.e., church, neighborhood, etc.).
The debate which has been taking place in South Dakota for the last few years has been about the exceptions to the abortion law — those exceptions being rape, incest, and harm to the mother’s life. All of these instances of protection are proper and constitutional, not to mention morally correct. This is government acting within the natural law bounds set forth by Jefferson in the Declaration and carried out through the Constitution.
We have the freedom to do what we will to our bodies, consume alcohol or drugs, eat 18 cheeseburgers, pierce our unmentionables, whatever, but morally, the taking of our life or the taking of a life inside of us, is inhuman on every level — not just a religious one.
I let Brian’s column run because this is the debate I hoped would be had. I hoped a debate about morals and responsibility would come of it. We all have a responsibility for our own actions. If a man decides that he is going to not live up to his end of the bargain, then those around the woman need to step up and help her out — not some uncaring and unfeeling government program — but actual people who can hug and cry. As much as Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes a Village” phrase makes me want to projectile vomit, when the shit hits the fan with our family and friends, the village better step up to the plate, because that is how it is done, that is how we move forward, and that is how we know that when it is us who needs help, it will be there.
Not surprisingly, Dave, I couldn’t disagree with you more on most of this post.
“This piece isn’t a direct satire, but it is witty and certainly sarcastic.”
This is what I keep hearing from people who know Brian. I haven’t talked to a single person (and I think the comments on the website reflect this) who doesn’t know Brian that thought the column was witty or sarcastic. There are people who agreed and people who disagreed, but everyone seemed to take it seriously. I think Angie called it in the comments — when the sarcasm and wit is that hard to discern, it’s verging on inside joke territory.
“If you are a moral individual and you believe fully in your heart the tenets of liberty, than aborting an unborn child (regardless of the stage of birth) is absolutely wrong.”
This sure would come as a surprise to the many moral (and, in fact, religious) people who are pro-choice. There have always been pro-choice Christians (I count myself among them); in fact, prior to Roe v. Wade, many of the underground networks that helped women find abortion providers were run by members of the clergy. Check out the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (http://www.rcrc.org/) for examples of the many faith traditions that support abortion rights.
Even removed from the religious realm, however, morality is not as cut and dry as you’d like to make it. Ask people if it’s okay to steal, most of them will say no. Ask them if it’s okay to steal a loaf of bread for your child if you’re destitute and they’re starving, you’re likely to get a wider variety of answers. Ask people if it’s okay to kill, most of them will say no. Ask them if it’s okay to kill in self defense, to kill an animal, or to have a death penalty that kills murderers, once again, you’re going to get a lot of different answers. If I need a kidney, and you’re my only match, should you have to give it to me? Is letting me die the same as killing me? If you wear a condom when you have sex and allow your very much living sperm to die instead of joining with an egg and developing into a child, is that the same as killing? These “natural moral laws” you’re talking about don’t seem quite as all-encompassing as you’re making them out to be. And considering societies all around the globe have engaged in different kinds of pregnancy termination for millenia, it actually seems more “natural” for humans to control their reproduction.
As I said, I *am* coming from a religious stand point, and I understand that doesn’t offer a lot to you if you aren’t a believer. But I get my moral direction from Christ’s teachings and trying to live my life in a Christ-like way. And through that lens, I cannot support something that creates more suffering in the world. When abortion is not available, women and children suffer. Women die and children die (check out Save the Children — http://www.savethechildren.org — for some great info on how child spacing effects infant mortality). Maybe some people think forcing women to risk their lives, give birth, and watch their child waste away from disease and malnutrition is the moral thing to do, but I guess I just live by a different ‘natural law’ than they do.
Finally, I resent all this talk about responsibility, especially coming from people who will never have to deal with the real consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. Most women who have abortions are already mothers. They’re taking responsibility by doing what’s best for the family they already have. Seems pretty responsible and moral to me.
Comment by kcollierwise — April 26, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
The reply to this post seems to have me fired up. I have had two unplanned pregnancies. And there are a total of two (2) children sleeping upstairs. There is no village rallying around me, family support is few and far between, and we are not on welfare. My children are happy and adjusted and not clinging to life from disease, hunger, or malnutrition. Neither of their fathers are in the picture, and they have no idea what our financial situation is at the moment (it’s dismal, between you, me, and the post).
They will grow to be productive members of society. They are beautiful, strong children. And yet I could have quietly “done away” with them. Abortion is being talked about as some form of euthanasia. Like, if-I-just-make-this-go-away, I can live life again how I WANT. Abortion is NOT birth control. It’s NOT ok. EVER. It can’t be compared to stealing bread for a hungry child. It’s not ok just because “everyone else” has been doing it for millenia.
It’s NOT ok to tear a helpless child limb from limb and rip off their skin. It’s brutal and disgusting and it makes me sad. More people need to stand up and scream out for those who have no voice.
Comment by cubegirl — April 28, 2008 @ 12:44 am
Dave:
I’m not sure I could disagree more strongly with this post. First, it almost seems as if you’re trying to use your position as the section editor to give your anti-choice stance additional creditibliy. It’s fine that you wanted to explain why Brian’s column ran, but it’s *not* your job to jump onto one side of the issue in doing so. In fact, it’s your job to *not* do that.
That said, there are serious fallacies in about every paragraph of your post…so I’ll try to address them all:
First, why would you think that it’s an “odd” assumption that when someone writes about abortion, that they have something new to say? I’m pretty sure that contributing new thoughts or ideas to a discussion is one of the only good reasons to write a column. If new ideas aren’t being presented, what’s the point of writing them? To put them out there to make one feel better, to stroke one’s own ego?
The other part of your “odd assumption” part is the exact opposite, in that I don’t think anyone at all thinks that when an issue (especially one like abortion) will “just agree and that’s that.” I don’t think anyone assumes that. Like, ever. If that were true, the Opinion section wouldn’t be the most frequently read section of the Volante, or of any other paper.
You then mentioned Brian’s column specifically as “sarcastic.” There *is* such a thing as too subtle when it comes to sarcasm. Based on the comment section on the column, along with the fact that the only potentially “sarcastic” line was the one about diarrahea, I would say that this piece was not in fact sarcastic. I do happen to know Brian, and a couple of other people who we went to high school with said that it’s meant to be satire, because “anyone who knows Brian knows he’s pro-choice.” That’s all fine, but a reader isn’t supposed to have to be the author’s best friend in order to understand the column.
That being said, if you “don’t know his position on abortion” at this point, perhaps you need to re-read the column again. It’s pretty “cut-and-dry.”
I’m all for having a discussion about responsibility. But to do so at the exclusion of a discussion about both men’s responsibility (which was relatively lacking in Brian’s column, compared to several lines about “keeping your panties on”
as well as society’s responsibility is to gravely mis-place the “responsibility.” How “responsible” is that?
Furthermore, you said “We tend to merely discuss this issue down a woman’s right to chose or a religiously wrong line.” Just for the record, this is far from the first time anyone’s employed the “plea for responsibility” argument. It’s not even the first time anyone’s used that argument in the Volante. If you and Brian felt that it was time for another, that’s fine, but don’t let yourself be mislead into thinking that it’s such a novel thing to say.
As an atheist, I do have to say that I agree with your basic (although perhaps simplified) explanation of non-religious morality. The thing that gets me is that most of the time, people count the “not wanting to take away a women’s right” in the “treating others like you would want to be treated” part. In that view of morality, how is it moral that an undifferentiated ball of cells is given the same consideration as a woman with a life (and more than likely children) of her own?
After your brief treatment on morality, you said “If you are a moral individual and you believe fully in your heart the tenets of liberty, than [sic] aborting an unborn child (regardless of the stage of birth) is absolutely wrong.” If it was really so cut and dry as that, would reasonable (presumably moral) people all over America and the world be continuing with the abortion debate? Of course not. Do you really think that this is an argument between millions of “unmoral” people and millions of “moral” people? If that’s what you really believe, then you’re no better or different than the religious argument that you supposedly reject.
You then went on to say that “We all have an unalienable [sic] right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — this begins at the very beginning, does it not?” Now we’re back at the part of the debate about what the “beginning” is.
The choice community believes that it starts at birth, and the antis believe it starts at some point before that. Even then, there’s some discrepency there. Is it conception? Do four cells have these same “inalienable” rights that a completed, whole woman does?
At the fetal development stages where most abortions occur, the anti-choice folks like to point out when the heartbeat, brainwaves, nervous system, and fingernails (however random that is) develop, in their attempt to make that undifferentiated ball of cells more human. At the same stages, however, that undifferentiated ball of cells also has a tail and gills. Do humans have tails and gills? Do things with tails and gills share the same legal protections that you and I do?
After your over-simplified “abortion is always wrong” statement, you went on to say that “Pro-choicers extend their philosophy based on these words scripted in the Declaration of Independence…” First, I would say that it’s the antis who use the Declaration of Independence more frequently than the choice folks do. The choice folks have fun (legally binding) documents like the Constitution to invoke. Decades of precedent have shown that women have a Constitutional right to privacy when it comes to making medical decisions for themselves. Pro-choice men and women also point to the 14th amendment as providing ample justification for abortion rights.
I have to admit, I was most shocked when you involved many of our founding fathers and earlier philosophers to say that “we” (presumably you mean pro-choice women and men) have “bastardized” their meaning of liberty. I think, however, that banning abortion (which I presume is what you would like to see happen, either at the state or federal level) is absolutely bastardizing freedom and liberty and equality. Essentially, banning abortion tells women what they can do with their bodies, and what their options are when they become pregnant. I cannot possibly imagine a more private decision…and yet you (a supposed Libertarian) would involve government beauracracy in this decision? If *that* isn’t “bastardizing” freedom and liberty, I don’t know what is.
Subsequent to your bit about the founding fathers, liberty, and freedom, you went on to quote Matt Michaels’ comments that “governments cannot hug you, kiss you, wipe away your tears or even solve your problems…” and went on to say that “You want the government to take care of you when you make a mistake. Well, that thinking is the mistake. You err, and you must deal with it.”
There’s only one side in this discussion that’s asking for *more* government involvment, and it’s not the choice community. Families DON’T want the government involved in their decisions about reproduction. Families want the government to stick to what it does best–filling potholes, providing public safety, etcetera–NOT making medical decisions for people.
At this point in your diatribe, you made mention of the debate around exceptions, and pointed to them as “moral.” This seems to be quite a switch for you, though, since earlier you said “If you are a moral individual and you believe fully in your heart the tenets of liberty, than [sic] aborting an unborn child (regardless of the stage of birth) is absolutely wrong.” That seems to be quite a switch in position. Then you cleared it up by saying “All of these instances of protection are proper and constitutional, not to mention morally correct.” My question to you is that if in your world, the Constitution provides some right to privacy for victims of rape or incest, and (in your view) that the government should then get out of the situation, why is it that same right to privacy not applied to all women facing an unplanned pregnancy?
After that, you went back to your more hard line approach, saying that “morally, the taking of our life or the taking of a life inside of us, is inhuman on every level — not just a religious one.” That’s an even quicker flip-flop than the one from earlier. First you said that abortion is “absolutely wrong,” then you said “well, it’s okay with some exceptions,” and then you went back to saying “it’s inhuman.” How you keep all your versions of morality straight is beyond me.
Clearly, I’m the last person to run away from a debate. I enjoy discussing all sorts of issues, and I would never, EVER advocate censoring the content of a column just because I didn’t agree with it (I wrote a column to that effect a year and a half ago). I think with some clearer ideas of whether or not it was sarcastic, running Brian’s column was fine. Your response to it, however, was not.
Comment by Angie Buhl — April 28, 2008 @ 9:24 am
It is moral to ensure that all children who are born in America are fed and clothed. There are far too many children who are not taken care of and not loved. How dare we force children to be borne into such poor circumstances.
How dare we also believe that a woman’s body is not hers to choose what to do with it. The mental health of the mother is rarely a concern for people like you; but, don’t forget, that she also has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Abortion is not a form of birth control and I think you will find no woman would actually enjoy the process. It is not an easy decision. It is not something any woman looks forward to. It is a tough, private decision that she must make for herself.
Until we can ensure that every child will be cared for, that no woman will be coerced into sex (physically or psychologically), and that no woman will suffer undue consequences of childbirth (loss of job, unequal responsibility for a child, loss of life) - the right to choose is something we can not take for granted.
Comment by PROCHOICE. — April 28, 2008 @ 9:31 am
Dave is an excellent editor and kudos to him for deciding to run the story.
Regardless of what I said in my column, the choice to run it was the right one.
It was supposed to offer an alternative viewpoint on the one issue that always comes down to the same argument.
I’ll take the beating for writing it, but questioning his integrity for running it is pretty, for lack of a better term, lame.
Dave has taken the opinion section this semester and completely turned it around.
If our critics spent a little more time comparing the section now to that of days past, they’d appreciate all his hard work. I know we at the Volante have.
The ample and timely amount of material to read in print and online is because of him.
And on a personal note; No, none of you have spoken to my close friends. Neither them nor I appreciate people pretending like they have. I happen to know a lot of people and just because they know me, does not mean they would know much other than my name and where I am from. I have written about abortion in the past. It has been published. And it with a little research you might be able to find it.
My job is to get people who normally sit back and don’t take a stance, to get up and take a stance. If I say believe “this” and you disagree and it gets you to get up and fight. I’ve done my job.
I really don’t care what you think as long as you’re thinking about it.
Comment by Brian Broekemeier — April 28, 2008 @ 10:06 am
Wow. You’re an *editor*? Then perhaps you’ve heard of this strange ritual known as “proof-reading”. You might try it. It might make even your bubble-wrapped nonsense sound slightly intelligent.
As for your stance… First, As humans, we have set natural moral laws. These laws are basic. Don’t kill. Don’t steal. And, of course, there is the golden rule of treat others how you wish to be treated. Follow these fundamental rules and civilization could be good.
Don’t kill is a natural law? Heard of war? Heard of self-defense? Don’t steal? Heard of Haliburton? Oh, and believe it or not, the whole world does not and never has subscribed to the golden rule. Shit, find a Wiccan who can explain their Rede and you can get an earful.
But, going by your own “innate morality”, you want to have your life possibly ruined every time you screw? You want to go through nine months of hell (oh, sorry, “inconvenience” is what you brilliant pro-life thinkers call it, isn’t it?), and either a life-time worrying about the child you put up for adoption or a life-time raising and caring for your child when you already knew, way back when you were first pregnant, that you lacked some resource–external or internal–to care for this child.
You want to do that? You want to be treated like a broodmare? You want to be of less value than a parasitic organism? No? You want to go your merry way, slut-shaming as you like? Well aren’t you a prize.
Hon, you’re arguing–albeit in an exceptionally clumsy way–that unmarried guys–presumably like yourself–should never get laid until married to a woman who is willing and able to bear children.
Amazing. Back when I was in college, most guys (and gals) seemed to want as much sex as they could get and editorial staff actually had a grasp of writing semi-cogent essays. Weird how things change, huh?
Comment by shadow117 — April 28, 2008 @ 10:24 am
Cubegirl–
I want to respond to your post, but I wanted to do it seperately from my response to Dave. I understand your position well. In fact, I used to feel the exact same way, for very personal reasons of my own.
I’m adopted, and am the result of an unplanned pregnancy of a 24 year old woman and a 36 year old man (not exactly the stereotypical “teenagers” who made a mistake). I don’t know much about my biological parents, only that they were Catholic, and insisted I be raised Catholic as well. They were likely not pro-choice, and clearly rejected the idea of having an abortion. The fact that I’m writing this is evidence of that.
I went to Catholic grade school, and from the moment I knew what abortion was, the idea horrified me. I even wrote a paper when I was nine years old about how seriously I felt about the issue.
Throughout high school, I remained adamantly against abortion. I felt like there had to always be “another way,” and was frustrated that others didn’t see the issue as plainly as I did. When I got to college, I gained a slightly different perspective.
I started to realize that it’s not an easy issue for anyone, and that the stereotypical woman many of us think of when people talk about women using “abortion as birth control” (the Sex-and-the-Cityish woman in her late 20s or early 30s who has plentiful access to birth control, but would rather get abortions instead) is a myth. Women don’t seek abortions so that they can be self-indulgent. 60% of women who obtain abortions already have at least one child. Women most commonly get abortions because they can’t support a(nother) child. I would say that because the vast majority of women who obtain abortions do so not out of concern for themselves, but for their potential child, that abortion is a very responsible choice.
At the same time, I started to see that women’s rights to make medical decisions for themselves were being pushed to the back seat. I saw that the anti-abortion people felt that every unplanned situation is the exact same, and that they felt that they could make decisions for women, because “women don’t know what’s best for themselves.”
It took a lot for me to get to the place where I am now, but now I see that this really is a women’s rights issue. It’s not that pro-choice people want to have “abortion facilities on every streetcorner,” but rather that it should be safe, legal, and rare. Banning it outright does nothing to protect women, or anyone.
I can’t imagine the struggles you’ve dealt with in your life, and it sounds like the option you chose has been rewarding for you. I just don’t think that the government should tell women that all of their situations are the same, nor that all of the outcomes should be the same.
Comment by Angie Buhl — April 28, 2008 @ 10:26 am
Purposely my post was meant to be very narrow in it’s focus, concentrating mostly on an argument rooted in the idea of liberty and freedom. I only recently ascribed to this view. For a long time I was a pro-choice libertarian — which are not only a dime a dozen, but are hypocrites. I was tired of being a hypocrite.
So let me expound on my thoughts regarding the right to an abortion. I do not think the federal government, under the Constitution, has any say in the matter and has no authority to ban abortion. I tend to agree with Justice Scalia. No where does the Constitution mention abortion, therefore the federal government’s role in the matter is moot. The role of the states, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.
A federal system of governance was created to allow for each state to function (governmentally and socially) in differing ways from the many other states. Despite my moral objection to abortion on purely Lockean-based philosophy, I do not deny each state’s right to allow or ban the procedure in accordance with their people’s will — a right left to the state’s under the Tenth Amendment. If I do not like one state’s laws, I can move to another and enjoy their legal protections. Many will call this an Utopian view, but this view is not unreasonable considering our constitutional system of government.
Lastly, regarding the “It Takes a Village” bit, I only used that argument to address the larger societal context for which the abortion issue resides. The will of the individual human is extraordinary. We are capable on our own of surviving just about anything. Having a child and raising it is no small feat, but it is done every day, which is a testament to the fortitude of the human spirit. Having overcome my own personal issues over the last few years, what I know is this, in times of hardship, yes, we can fight and make it through, but with the help of even a small few, our struggle to persevere grows.
Comment by David Whitesock — April 28, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Angie –
I’m all for women choosing what they want to do with their own bodies. They can pierce, tattoo, smoke, drink, and eat whatever they want. They can get cosmetic surgery, implants, use birth control.. etc etc etc..
They even have the choice to get pregnant, or not. And aside from rape (which only accounts for 1% of all abortions.. and I think this would be a VERY different discussion if abortions were only used for rape victims), pregnancy is a CHOICE. It really is. I know this is probably shocking news to a lot of people, but you have to have “sex” to get pregnant. You really have to choose to take your pants off. And not use any form of contraceptive.
I got pregnant with my second child a year ago. He’s almost 4 months old now. I had a 4 year old I could barely feed, and was putting myself through my 3rd year of engineering. But I got pregnant. By choice. I had sex. Unprotected sex. And it was a dumb move. But you know what? You can’t get the toothpaste back in the tube.
So, now I have two. And life is hard. It really, really is. But if it saves my flesh and blood from being dismembered in a grisly, grisly death, then this is the way it will be. And if I can suck it up and do some parenting, every other princess out there can do the same.
Comment by cubegirl — April 28, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
Cubegirl-
For some women, pregnancy *is* a choice. For many women, it’s not. Your comment about “choosing to take your pants off” assumes that women are never coerced or pressured into having sex, and your comment about “having to choose to not use any form of contraceptive” assumes a lot about contraceptive access and affordability.
In reality, most women who do get pregnant used some form of birth control. What do you tell women who took all the possible precautions, and who still ended up with an unwanted pregnancy? “Suck it up and do some parenting?” I don’t see how having a child out of self-righteous indignation is very “responsible.”
Comment by Angie Buhl — April 28, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
The thing is, Dave, you didn’t make a state’s rights argument. You made a (very flawed) ‘morality’ argument. If you want to make a state’s rights argument, go ahead. It didn’t work for the slaveholders and segregationists that came before you you, but what the heck — I wish you the best of luck in overcoming mountains of jurisprudence and caselaw that treat the 10th amendment as a truism, as well Justice Scalia’s willingness to have the federal government regulate abortion (and anything else he doesn’t like) in the states when it suits him (see, for example Gonzalez v. Carhart).
And while plenty of people are capable of ’surviving’ hardships in their lives, a woman dies in childbirth every minute in this world and I don’t think that has anything to do with her ‘capability’.
Comment by kcollierwise — April 28, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Angie –
Pulling out is free!
Comment by cubegirl — April 28, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
Anything with a 20% failure rate better be free!
Public Service Announcement: Pulling out by itself is not an effective birth control method and it provides zero protection for STIs (even worse: spermicide by itself; don’t do it!). Your safest bet is hormonal birth control plus a barrier method (male/female condom). Obviously not the cheapest method (I just figured out that I’ve spent about $3000 on the pill over the last decade), and not medically workable or safe for everybody but it’s my recommendation if you’re in a position to pick.
Comment by kcollierwise — April 29, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
I can’t go back on the pill (or patch) since I had a stroke. I don’t want anything inserted or injected..
So I think I’ll just stay 30 feet away from all penises at all times.
Comment by cubegirl — April 29, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
“It’s NOT ok to tear a helpless child limb from limb and rip off their skin. It’s brutal and disgusting and it makes me sad.” Common Cubegirl!! I agree with Angie, people don’t get abortions for the reward of doing it, they do it because of the long term consequences of keeping that child and in reality are doing it out of what would be best in the long run. Personally, I think people should be free to do what they want with their own bodies, but that right has already been stripped with the passing of the 1970’s Controlled Substance Act. This shit can’t be allowed to continue, where does it stop? When the government tells everyone one what an individual can and can’t eat? When sleeping is ok? Most people will tell you that a law is to make “you” and everyone around “you” safe, but when does that safety from something actually start being destructive? I agree with Angie when she says we’re not looking to put an abortion clinic on every street corner but to make it a safe and realistic option if it is one that is needed. If that option was to be taken away people are still going to get abortions when they are needed, but in inferior conditions putting the women getting them at great risks. Let me tie this back into the CSA, with the passing of the CSA the federal government set legal basis by which the manufacture, importation, possession, ingestion and distribution of certain drugs are regulated. Now with this being passed, people still do drugs. It has just created yet another problem, it has helped facilitate the spread of disease. So with the passing of this we haven’t stopped people from doing drugs but just helped to spread disease. So why don’t we give them some clean needles so they don’t get HIV and Hepatitis ABCD from their buddy. History has shown that people will do what they want, I think that we don’t need to promote this, which I don’t feel is the case at all pertaining to this matter, but we shouldn’t create additional problems trying to fix another, let them do it, give them a clean and safe place to do it. Yet another example, prohibition stopped alcohol but people still made and drank it, and a lot was made in inferior conditions with less than acceptable ingredients, which lead to tainted alcohol that people died from, not to mention the organized crime that was created around it. However, this still didn’t stop the problem it just added more to it. So to go back to where Brian says, “…stop fighting and just ban the thing so we can worry about issues at hand for once.” I think banning it would be one of the worse things that could be done, not only would this not “fix” the problem it would just make abortion an even more dangerous and traumatic event for women and would add yet more problems that wouldn’t allow for “us” to worry about issues at hand. So let’s learn from history for once and instead of banning and doing away with something, make it available with as much information pertaining to it so any individual can make an informed decision for themselves.
Comment by Chris — April 29, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
Chris / Angie –
Heaven forbid I should ever be reincarnated as one of your fetuses. Or you one of mine.
Comment by cubegirl — April 30, 2008 @ 1:50 pm