Posted on 06/19/2002 12:10:49 PM PDT by gordgekko
Abortion. The word alone causes civil conversation to flee the room. This is largely because the pro-choice and pro-life positions are being defined by their extremes, by those who scream accusations in lieu of arguments.
More reasonable voices and concerns, on both sides of the fence, are given short shrift.
For example, pro-life extremists seem unwilling to draw distinctions between some abortions and others, such as those resulting from rape or incest with an underage child. They would make no exception in the recent real-life case of a woman who discovered in her fifth month that her baby would be born dead due to severe disabilities.
On the other hand, pro-choice extremists within feminism insist on holding inconsistent positions. The pregnant woman has an unquestionable right to abort, they claim. Yet if the biological father has no say whatsoever over the woman's choice, is it reasonable to impose legal obligations upon him for child support? Can absolute legal obligation adhere without some sort of corresponding legal rights?
The only hope for progress in the abortion dialogue lies in the great excluded middle, in the voices of average people who see something wrong with a young girl forced to bear the baby of a rapist.
Any commentary on abortion should include a statement of the writer's position. I represent what seems to be a growing "middle ground" in pro-choice opinion. Legally, I believe in the right of every human being to medically control everything under his or her own skin. Many things people have a legal right to do, however, seem clearly wrong to me: adultery, lying to friends, walking past someone who is bleeding on the street. Some forms of abortion fall into that category. Morally speaking, my doubts have become so extreme that I could not undergo the procedure past the first trimester and I would attempt to dissuade friends from doing so.
Partial-birth abortion has thrown many pro-choice advocates into moral mayhem. I find it impossible to view photos of late-term abortion — the fetus' contorted features, the tiny fully formed hands, the limbs ripped apart — without experiencing nausea. This reaction makes me ineffectual in advocating the absolute right to abortion. I stand by the principle, "a woman's body, a woman's right" but I don't always like myself for doing so.
It is difficult to remember how many times other feminists have urged me not to express moral reservations. "Abortion requires solidarity" is the general line of argument. Such voices do as much damage to the pro-choice position as the anti-abortion zealots who harass women as they enter clinics do to the pro-life one.
Fanatics on both sides are using reprehensible and deceitful tactics. An honest dialogue on abortion must start by re-setting the stage, by denouncing the approaches that block communication.
What are those approaches?
Many pro-choice advocates approve of using tax money to fund abortion. For example, starting in July, abortion training — formerly elective — will be required training for obstetrics and gynecology residents in New York City's 11 public hospitals. Those wishing to avoid the required training must provide religious or moral justification. The furor created by this use of tax money has been phrased as a battle over abortion when, in reality, it is about whether government should finance women's personal choices with the taxes of those who strenuously object. Government support of abortion must cease.
Pro-life extremists threaten the lives and safety of both those who provide and those who undergo the procedure. The murder of "abortion" doctors is in the news with the current trial of anti-abortion militant James Kopp, accused of murdering Dr. Barnett Slepian in New York and wanted for attacks on two doctors in Canada.
Recent concerns have been raised for the safety of the women involved. Anti-abortion zealots are photographing women as they enter clinics and, then, posting the photographs on the Internet. The women are identified as "baby killers." The pro-life movement must lead in denunciating this violence or no discussion can occur.
Pro-choice advocates should stop the attempt to silence those with doubts and cease their hypocrisy on issues surrounding abortion. Consider the National Organization for Women. NOW decries the anti-abortion stand as violence against women's reproductive rights. Yet it is mute (or much worse) on the greatest reproductive atrocity against women in the world — China's one-child policy.
Pro-life leaders should start being candid about how they plan to enforce a ban on abortion. For example, if they believe abortion is premeditated murder, then they seem logically constrained to impose first-degree murder penalties — including the death penalty, if applicable — upon women who abort and those who assist her. Are they willing to do this while remembering that murder has no statute of limitations?
Those who shove posters depicting an aborted fetus into the faces of pro-choice advocates have an equal responsibility to confront the consequences of their own policies. How, short of totalitarian government agencies, can they control what is in a woman's womb, and when?
I don't know if good will is possible on this highly charged and divisive issue. Both sides may find themselves able to work together on measures that improve the situation, for example, by making adoption far easier. What I do know is that the extremes cannot be allowed to dominate debate. The stakes in abortion are too high.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the forthcoming anthology Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.
Then I guess you will just have to live with Abortion-on-demand then. If you can't differentuate between a doctor knowingly killing a baby and a pill that might prevent a pregnancy, we will just have to live with the status quo.
They already do. That is the abortion lobby's Achilles heel. No matter how strident they are about "the woman's right", they have this nagging feeling which they cannot admit having, that they are committing murder.
It's ironic that an abortion, supposedly performed to secure the health of the mother, particularly her mental well-being, actually destroys it because the abortion culture disallows her attempt to face the reality of what has happened. Instead, they demand that she buy into the collective lie, and become "twofold more the child of hell than themselves."
That way madness lies....
When you kill a being inside your tummy, it has a different genetic code that your own, the DNA is unique, you have committed murder.
To prevent this, keep your legs shut until you are married, and make sure you marry a man who will stick around.
Why do you keep posting this lie. This was a poorly designed study not showing what you claim it does. In fact the Melbye (Danish) study found exactly the opposite, but did not put that information in their conclusions.
"Gee, I love that kinda talk."
Very well put.
All the Best to You and Yours.
So make the rapist pay. Confiscate all his assets, and lock him in prison for the rest of his life to do hard labor with the money going to support the victims.
It's extreme to try and defend the lives of innocent murder victims now?
Is giving birth to a rapist's baby more painful than giving birth to another kind of baby? Or are you talking about psychological pain. That can be dealt with by helping the mother not to transfer blame. Additionally, many victims of rape who have aborted their babies tell of the guilt of adding the crime of murder to the crime of rape. Aborting the baby does nothing to unrape the woman, it just compounds the crime.
Not only are you forcing her to give him a child, you're forcing her to pay out of her wallet for 18+ years for his evil.
I think you're forgetting who the rapist is.
I have a better idea. Why don't people like you register your names with the government saying you support making women give birth to than who raped them's baby. Then the government when the government completely outlaws abortion it can sieze all of your assets and levy a 100% income tax on you to pay for the cost of supporting rape victims who are legally forced to have the baby.
There are plenty of people who would adopt the child and I may already be listed as one of them. Since you have no idea, please take your fatuous arrogance elsewhere.
If you are going to demand that they have the child, you have to help them pay for it.
Once again, you seem to be forgetting who the rapist is.
Shalom.
I intuited the smiley (. . .but I wasn't 100% sure).
Grace and peace.
They have this new thing, it's called "adoption."
SD
There are obvious signs of someone who is repeating propaganda rather than thinking independently.
The big key in that post was the fact that someone else raped the woman, but by making abortion illegal I would be forcing her to carry a baby. The rapist would be forcing her to carry a baby. I would not be forcing her to take any action whatsoever. I would just be stopping her from taking the morally repugnant action of killing a child who never raped anyone.
But such twists of logic are the standard MO of the left.
Shalom.
You have no right to tell her that she has to have that baby. It's not her child unless she chooses it to be because it was forced on her.
I think you're forgetting who the rapist is
I am well aware of who the rapist is.
Interesting police state you want to set up.
Anyone in favor if its abolition would be required by law to adopt any kid the state puts at their doorstep. If you refuse you are either fined or sent to prison.
Do you honestly think this is a deterrent? Putting aside the "individual" list, there are certainly groups of people who would be happy to take any baby. I call your bluff and repeat the words of Mother Theresa: "If you don't want them, give the babies to me."
If you are going to burden society with your opinion you should have to pay dearly out of your pocket for it.
People are such a burden aren't they?
SD
I'm not telling her she has to have that baby. I'm simply telling her she may not murder it. I certainly have the right to proscribe murder by law.
It's not her child unless she chooses it to be because it was forced on her.
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read, and that's saying a lot. First of all, we don't own people. When we say a child is "mine" we mean "my responsibility" not "my property." Responsibilities often have nothing to do with our choices. Circumstances often thrust them upon us.
There is no right, implicit or explicit, for a mother to kill her child except in self-defense. None.
I am well aware of who the rapist is
Then quit trying to blame me for what the rapist is forcing the woman to do.
All I am doing is protecting the baby from being murdered, no matter what excuse the murderer is offering.
Shalom.
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.