« Taxing Our Patience | Main | The Knucklehead of the Day award »

Women make an informed choice?! How DARE they?!

Feministing is hyperventilating over a new Oklahoma law that requires for women to view ultrasounds before having abortions, and that the doctor must point out all the features of that child as well (heartbeat, fetal movements, etc.).

Because, you know, how dare women see an image of the baby they're about to kill!

An in-the-know friend of Feministing emailed to explain the bill to us:
SB 1878 is a hideous piece of anti-choice omnibus legislation that would, among other things, compel physicians one hour prior to performing an abortion to do an ultrasound on the patient and point out various features (e.g. heart beat, fetal movements) to the patient. A vaginal probe ultrasound is mandated if that gives the best image, even in those instances where the unwanted pregnancy is the result of rape. In first trimester terminations (almost all of them) that will be the case. There is a very hefty penalty if the physician fails to perform an ultrasound. (BTW, Oklahoma already has a law that requires doctors to offer women the opportunity to view an ultrasound at no cost to the woman by referral to a location that provides no-cost ultrasounds).

The bill also:
  • Prevents employers from "discriminating" against health care workers who refuse to perform a medical procedure (i.e. abortion, or a pap smear on a single woman)
  • Says only physicians can prescribe mifepristone (the abortion pill also known as RU-486) -- even though this is already the law
  • Requires women's health clinics that provide abortion to "conspicuously" post a sign on the premises that states it is "against the law for anyone, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you to have an abortion."

    The Oklahoma State Medical Association opposes the bill because it interferes with the practice of medicine. Also, if a doctor fails to comply with the law, the fines are absurd -- starting at $10,000 and possibly up to $100,000. (Compare that to the maximum fine for DUI or reckless homicide in Oklahoma -- $1,000.)

    ...

    Antichoicers call this "informed consent." But as Jessica wrote awhile back, when Will Saletan had a horrible column on mandatory-ultrasound legislation,

    Because obviously women who have made the decision to end a pregnancy won't understand the "truth" unless it's put up on an easy-viewing screen. As Amanda so aptly noted in an email exchange: "If women only knew that they were getting abortions when they got abortions!!!!!"

    Right. What mandatory-ultrasound-viewing bills do is insult women by assuming they haven't fully considered what they're doing when they decide to opt for abortion. We don't need the "help" of antichoice state legislators to understand what abortion is. We get it.

  • What is it with pro-abortion advocates being against this? If abortion is so great, and you aren't actually killing a child, then why does it matter if a mother sees an ultrasound? If it's no big deal, and it's just a "blob of flesh", as abortionists like to say so often, then it shouldn't be a problem.

    Of course, the reason abortion advocates are so against this is because they know that if many women see an ultrasound of their baby, they'll change their mind. And we all know how lucrative the abortion business is. But in this bill, women are allowed to "avert their eyes" if they so choose during the ultrasound, so really, aren't they really complaining about nothing? If she so chooses, she can close her eyes and never look at the baby she's about to murder. Fine, go ahead -- whatever makes you sleep better at night, honey.

    And why criticize the anti-discrimination part of the bill? If a doctor wants to work at, say, Planned Parenthood so he can help women who can't afford to see an OB/GYN or get birth control, but doesn't want to perform abortions, then isn't that his decision? They're basically arguing that doctors should be prosecuted for refusing to perform abortions. How does that make any sense?

    The sign, in my opinion, is a great idea. Too many women are forced into abortions, led to believe that they have no other choices, by boyfriends or husbands most often, but by the clinic workers themselves as well. (But hey, gotta bring in that dough!)

    So, posting a sign saying that it is illegal to force a woman to have an abortion is a negative... how?

    The complaints about these types of things really show that the "pro-choice" movement isn't about choice at all. Choice has nothing to do with it. They want all women to have abortions... they want abortions to be as commonplace as Pap smears (and no, Amanda Marcotte, they aren't quite the same thing). They don't want women to decide to keep their baby or give it up for adoption, for reasons I just can't understand. Even if you're pro-abortion, why is it something to be proud of, to push women towards? No one should want to have an abortion. It's a horrible, awful thing. If you really feel like you have no choice, then it's understandable (sort of). But to parade around like it's no big thing to abort a baby is ridiculous. It is a big deal -- it's a huge deal -- and it's something that will often have a lifelong (negative) effect on the mother.

    If abortion advocates really were about choice, then provisions like this wouldn't make them so angry. They'd want these mothers to make informed choices, they'd want them to know exactly what was going on with these babies so that they understand completely what it is they're doing. You can sneeringly claim that of course they understand what they're doing, but most don't. They're scared, they're confused, and they feel like they have no other options. It's only fair to them to tell them -- to show them the life growing inside of them, to give them all possible information about adoption and what help is available if they choose to keep the child. She should then be told exactly what the procedure will be like, including how painful it will be and what effect it has on the baby. Then, and only then, can you say that a mother has a made an informed choice. Only then can she truly understand exactly what she's doing.

    But see, if that were to happen before every woman went in to have an abortion, I'd wager that the number of abortions would plummet. And abortion advocates simply can't have that.


    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    /cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/29236.

    Comments (85)

    So you approve of a measure... (Below threshold)
    Brian:

    So you approve of a measure that contains "an explicit provision that allows a woman to avert her eyes".

    Do you not find anything wrong with a law that needs to include something like that?! That a person has to be "allowed" by law to avert their eyes from something the government requires others to show her?

    "A vaginal probe ultrasound... (Below threshold)
    Mike:

    "A vaginal probe ultrasound is mandated if that gives the best image, even in those instances where the unwanted pregnancy is the result of rape."

    I have never understood how a baby can somehow be less human or unworthy of life just because it was not conceived voluntarily. Impregnating a woman through the act of rape is evil, but why does this automatically mean that we have to commit another act of evil by murdering the baby?

    Those who insist on aborting children conceived through rape, yet oppose the use of the death penalty for adult criminals, should have to explain this obvious inconsistency. Barack "Punished With A Baby" Obama would be first on my list.

    Cassy, Looks like t... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    Cassy,
    Looks like the liberals would rather have more abortions. So all this talk about reducing the number of abortions is simply spin as usual. If they are honest, liberals would support this bill to allow women to make an informed choice.

    I am uncomfortable with leg... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    I am uncomfortable with legislatures, courts, religious, and others getting involved in matters that I feel should be between patient and physician(s). Abortion is one of them.

    Perhaps a bit OT, but I also discount vowed celibates dictating to married couples on sexual matters, non-veterans posturing authoritatively on military matters, non-athletes on sports performance matters, women on male sexual matters, men on female sexual matters, non-parents on child-rearing, etc.

    Anyone who believes in "saf... (Below threshold)
    P. Bunyan:

    Anyone who believes in "safe, legal, and RARE" would support legislation like this.

    "The complaints about these... (Below threshold)
    jp2:

    "The complaints about these types of things really show that the "pro-choice" movement isn't about choice at all. Choice has nothing to do with it. They want all women to have abortions... "

    This is bordering on raving. Meds, stat.

    Personally, I've felt for s... (Below threshold)
    SCSIwuzzy:

    Personally, I've felt for some time that if one needs to have a mandatory wait period to buy a handgun (to cool off etc), then it is reasonable to have a wait period on an abortion.
    A mandatory pamphlet or counseling would be nice too, to make sure that people have a chance to hear and consider the potential downsides of the procedure.

    jim2,I know vowed ce... (Below threshold)
    SCSIwuzzy:

    jim2,
    I know vowed celibates that talk about matters of family, but I've never had one talk to me, or near me, about sex. Unless it is to say abstain from it until you're ready for the implications that go with engaging in it.
    Very few of those celibates did not come from a family themselves...

    I have no problem with the... (Below threshold)
    Bob:

    I have no problem with the requirement that women be offered a free ultrasound upon request, but this bill goes way beyond reason - A $10,000 fine for failing to provide an ultrasound? A provision that allows a woman to avert her eyes? Why not just require the woman to read a 1,000 page medical text and pass an exam on it before undergoing an abortion? Abortion is the type of issue where I tend to favor the opposite of the side I last heard speak on the subject, and reading this anti-abortion bill fits right into that pattern. As with most personal decisions, the government should keep its nose out of this subject.

    As with most personal decis... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    As with most personal decisions, the government should keep its nose out of this subject.
    -------------------------------------
    Good point! We need to abolish Roe vs Wade as soon as possible before we can talk about gov keeping its nose out of this subject. BTW, people like Obama can support laws denying medical care to surviving aborted babies. So this shouldn't be too much for them in any case.

    A common theme I wonder abo... (Below threshold)
    Mac Lorry:

    A common theme I wonder about is the idea that abortion is a personal matter. It seems that hinges on what constitutes a person. Under current law a newborn must take a breath on it's own to gain full rights as a person under the law.

    Some argue that before that first breath, killing "it" is a personal matter and no crime at all. After that first breath killing the child is a government matter and murder.

    The first breath concept is archaic and has no basis in science as a child has been respirating for months and even breathing, just not air. It makes no sense that such an antediluvian concept has such a defining role in our laws? It's time they were updated.

    Mac, We have all ty... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    Mac,
    We have all types of appeal requirements for people on death penalty. I don't why people would be upset with this law. The woman can still choose abortion. This one just make it more informed. Liberals now want to impose health insurance on the young people who don't need and want to buy insurance under universal health care. Yet they don't want the women to make an informed choice.

    Abortion has become a relig... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    Abortion has become a religion on the left, much like global warming now.

    Global warming rage lets global hunger grow

    LAI,I oppose abort... (Below threshold)
    Mac Lorry:

    LAI,

    I oppose abortion in most cases, but I do understand why some oppose this particular law. Some, if not most, women seeking an abortion are of two minds; some part of them wants the baby, but another part of them doesn't want the baby. Maybe they are in financial hardship or feel they are too old to go thorough all the stress of raising a child (again). Many women who get an abortion subsequently suffer emotionally for it, some greatly and for the rest of their lives. This law is sure to increase that suffering, but it's not clear that it will deter any abortions. The way to stop abortion is to outlaw it accept in a few cases, not increase the suffering of women who believe it's their choice to make and then suffer for making that choice.

    I know that doesn't fit the pro-life view, but we need to address the issue head on rather than dilly-dallying around the edges where we risk doing more harm than good.

    Mac has a point. I'm not r... (Below threshold)

    Mac has a point. I'm not real sure I agree with it but if a reasonable (which in my mind is *really* early) point for the beginning of life is set and abortions limited that way I'd probably accept it as a good compromise. (Aborting downs children, etc., is something I find even more horrific than simple abortion for a variety of reasons and the arguments for late term abortions would most likely be those eugenic ones.)

    I wanted to mention the sign.

    "...it is "against the law for anyone, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you to have an abortion.""

    This needs to be posted. I don't think anyone has any idea how many abortions are coerced by parents or boyfriends or husbands, even. That's NOT CHOICE and anyone who believes in choice should have no problem whatsoever requiring that this notice be posted conspicuously. If you feel pressured it's illegal and whoever it is is breaking the law to pressure you or try to make you have an abortion if you don't want it.

    SCSIwuzzy -The Cat... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    SCSIwuzzy -

    The Catholic Church has a notorious history here.

    In RC, no BC used to be allowed at all. Only in the last few score years has "the rhythm method" been tolerated. Historically, the RC even took a dim view of marital relations when the wife was pregnant, as it was then just lust not procreation. Wives were historically told to deny their sex drives when pregnant for fear of injury to the child, but to yield to their husbands if they insisted despite that "danger". How's that for guidance?

    Even now, the RC will not sanction remarriage by even an innocent person without the sophistry the RC calls "annulment" which essentially states that the previous marriage did not exist, even if that leaves 10 children somehow unaccounted for. (Are they then bastards?)

    On abortions, historically the RC allowed many women to perish from tubal pregnancies. Their view of God's will then was eerily similar to those currently who pray as their children die from curable conditions.

    Avowed celibates ....

    Mac, You have a rea... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    Mac,
    You have a reasonable point. In order to address your concern, we should have an opt-out option for the woman. By law, we should have a waiting period for abortion and we should require the physician to show the ultrasound to the woman considering abortion. But we should have a waiver option for the woman to sign not to view the ultrasound. Just like the new 401K plus with opt-in as the default. You have to choose to opt-out of the plan.

    I also think that the outra... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    I also think that the outrage now should be directed at the abortion extremists like Planned-Parenthood. They use "pro-choice" rhetoric as a smokesreen for their abortion-for-profit operation. There are documented case of women dying because of their unsafe practice. Also there are documented cases of even covering up for sexual abuse of underage girls.

    This law is a much needed regulation of this dangerous practice of the notorious abortion industry.

    So I guess what's being sai... (Below threshold)
    yazoo:

    So I guess what's being said here, is that *this* band of extremists doesn't like or approve of *that* band of extremists -- absent the the sordid details, the stale frames, the stock arguments of the American political dichotomy, as conceived by the DNC and RNC. "I often think it comical/How nature always does contrive/That every gal and every boy/That's born into the world alive/Is either a little liberal/Or else a bit conservative." Iolanthe II, WS Gilbert.


    I guess the mainstream on t... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    I guess the mainstream on the left is to deny medical care to surviving aborted babies. Obama got a 100% rating from the notorious Planned Parenthood and got the strong support the most liberal wing of the Dem party.

    BTW, Mac has a good point. "Killing babies or children" should be a private decision between a woman and her physician. Whatever logic applicable to abortion should be directly applicabale to killing handicapped babies/children.

    jim2...What I can'... (Below threshold)
    CampionRules:

    jim2...

    What I can't stand are those damn ignorant people who talk about politics and aren't even political scientists! OMFG......How dare they!!!!!!!!!!

    CampionRules -I vo... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    CampionRules -

    I vote but do not bear babies.

    Also, one can run for office and be elected w/o that degree, but one cannot face the abortion decision w/o being pregnant.

    Sure one can. It takes two... (Below threshold)

    Sure one can. It takes two people to make a baby or create a pregnancy or whatever one wishes to call it.

    You can, without being pregnant, face having an abortion decision be made about your child.

    And you can, without being pregnant, face the knowledge that you might have had a child, an individual that was either a girl or boy, had dark hair or light, blue eyes or brown, was tall or short, who's genetic information was determined... and now you don't.

    It is true that one cannot ... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    It is true that one cannot have babies or children without being pregnant first. It is sad that people can go to the extreme to justify denying medical care to surviving aborted babies. It is even sadder that a person with such an extreme view can run for presidency with the enthusiastic support of a significant majority in the Dem party.

    Using the same logic, a man can say that he can vote but cannot bear babies, esp handicapped babies. So the decision to kill or terminate a handicapped baby or even a handicapped child is a private decision between the mother and the physician.

    You can, without being preg... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    You can, without being pregnant, face having an abortion decision be made about your child.
    -------------------------------------
    I guess we can vote to make it easy for a man to abandon a woman and let abortion take care of the inconvenient pregnancy.

    I don't understand this "Ab... (Below threshold)
    JillR.:

    I don't understand this "Abortion is a matter between a woman and a doctor." saying. It's not as if the doctor usually talks to the woman about the parenting, adoption, OR abortion options. That's the job of a counselor, however fairly or unfairly they may present the options. The doctor is simply there to abort.
    P.S. Is abortion the only issue that some liberals cry and scream over government creating rules for? They seem to be just fine with it in various other situations, such as the education of "already born" children.

    "I guess we can vote to mak... (Below threshold)

    "I guess we can vote to make it easy for a man to abandon a woman and let abortion take care of the inconvenient pregnancy."

    That would be fair. Horrible in some ways, but fair. It would give both parties involved (though not the third party) an equal post-conception right to chose.

    I'd rather both parties had equal pre-conception rights to chose.

    Synova -I disagree... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    Synova -

    I disagree (your #23) in that it is like the unequal contributions by the pig and the chicken to a breakfast of ham and eggs. The chicken was involved but the pig was committed. So, too, is the man involved, but it is the woman who must commit to bearing or aborting.

    It's her call, and so should it be.

    I disagree strongly.<... (Below threshold)

    I disagree strongly.

    Your analogy only fits the tiniest bit. Because bearing does not involve anything like the involvement of the pig. And the "breakfast" is not consumed, it is your child.

    We simply can *not* continue to pretend that men are not every bit as invested in their offspring as women are. It's YOUR CHILD.

    Synova -We'll just... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    Synova -

    We'll just have to disagree then.

    Keep in mind, though, that any attempt to impose your view of morality or religion upon another makes one akin in principle to jihadists.

    Jim, you're seeing it 180 d... (Below threshold)
    P. Bunyan:

    Jim, you're seeing it 180 degrees from reality. I agree with you that abortion does essentially remove the burden from the father and place it entirely on the mother, but what you don't see is that that is so very wrong on so many levels. That aspect of abortion is as least as bad as the young life that is terminated.

    It's no wonder that by far the largest support for abortion in this country is among young men. Legal abortion has made it a lot easier to get laid without consequences for the male.

    And the who knows how many adult men (hundreds of thousands at least) who rape young children reeeeeeaaaaly apreciate your support. They get to destroy the evidence and the Democrats make money off of it. Another marxist trifecta.

    "Keep in mind, though, that... (Below threshold)
    P. Bunyan:

    "Keep in mind, though, that any attempt to impose your view of morality or religion upon another makes one akin in principle to jihadists."

    Roe v. Wade is imposing YOUR veiw of morality on US not the other way around.

    180 degrees from reality.

    "Keep in mind, though, that... (Below threshold)

    "Keep in mind, though, that any attempt to impose your view of morality or religion upon another makes one akin in principle to jihadists."

    Yeah, being against killing people is just like being a jihadists.

    Sheesh.

    Good point from P.Bunyan.</... (Below threshold)

    Good point from P.Bunyan.

    Men used to leave it on the woman to use birth control or not.

    We figured that was pretty vile and worked for years to insist that men take responsibility.

    Now men leave it on the woman to go have a doctor rip the fetus from her womb. Or not.

    Not an improvement.

    Jim2,Are you Catholi... (Below threshold)
    SCSIwuzzy:

    Jim2,
    Are you Catholic? I am guessing that you are not.
    Your understanding of annulment, or at least your portrayal, is ignorant at best.

    Keep in mind, thou... (Below threshold)
    Mac Lorry:
    Keep in mind, though, that any attempt to impose your view of morality or religion upon another makes one akin in principle to jihadists.

    That goes back to my post #11. Current law is based on some magical transformation at the moment of first breath. That "religion" is currently being imposed on society, particularly on fathers who lose their child without consent or recourse. Obviously, you must oppose the current laws. Either that or it's just someone else's religion you don't want imposed on you, but it's fine to impose yours on them.

    One problem in this "debate... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    One problem in this "debate" is that both sides can point to the good and bad of each other's positions. I have children and shudder to think that their mother would ever have considered aborting them. Every child is a treasure, but my personal views should not be controling here.

    Are you going to let a woman deprive a man of a child?

    Are you going to force a brutally raped young girl to carry an unwanted child and give birth to it? - thus genetically rewarding the rapist?

    Does human life begin at conception when there is only a single cell?

    Does human life begin when there is enough brain activity to be detected?

    These are tough questions atop tough issues and tough choices, and I do not disrespect either side. The RC church takes what they consider the most conservative position that all life is equally sacred if there is any chance whatsoever it is human. I can respect that, and always have.

    However, in the battleground, it is the soldiers who must make the life and death decisions of when to pull a trigger, when to raise up out of a turret for a look, when to shoot at a car speeding towards a checkpoint, etc. All decisions are different however much they seem the same because humans are making those decisions. Generals can set things up, but they are not the ones in the trenches.

    It is the pregnant woman who is the one on the battleground - no other person is truly there with her. She may not always make the decision I would want, you would want, the man might want, the religious might want, or the lawmakers might want.

    But it should always be her decision.

    SCSIwuzzy -I know ... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    SCSIwuzzy -

    I know very well the RC position on annulment versus divorce and consider it disgusting sophistry. You, of course, can draw any inferences from that you wish.

    I know a very smart gal who... (Below threshold)
    Mitchell:

    I know a very smart gal who, instead of abort!/abort!/aborting, had the child despite dropping out of school and giving up a full paid scholarship.

    The road less travelled is sometimes better, you know.

    That kid is great, cute, and Mom is doing well. Has her own house.

    I'll refer you to Cassie's post above re miserable feminists for the moral to this story.

    If my kid keeps her kid, I'll support her to the limit. That's what decent people do, by God.

    It is the pregnant woman wh... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    It is the pregnant woman who is the one on the battleground
    ------------------------------------
    Sounds like Obama. The baby is kind of punishment. Ok, let 's try to reach out to the honest liberals who truly care about the women and babies/children. Let 's punish the man for the pregnancy. Now we can check who is the "father" of the unborn baby and make him pay the woman for 9-month of pregnancy, child support if she decides to keep the baby, or arrange for adoption himself (even pay for the adoption). It is up to the guy to make sure that he use "safe" sex practice to help the woman not to get pregnant. I think this is way better than the current notorious abortion "regime".

    I know very well the RC pos... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    I know very well the RC position on annulment versus divorce and consider it disgusting sophistry.
    -------------------------------------
    The Catholic church is not advocating the killing of surviving aborted babies. And the people can leave the Catholic church any time they want now. The abortion extremists like Obama are the ones who are trying to kill the babies at any cost. Planned Parenthood is the one you should direct your outrage for their abuse of vulnerable women and that is going on right now.

    On the battleground the sol... (Below threshold)

    On the battleground the soldier is responsible for following the ROE. The decisions and choices made are within that framework. This is another bad analogy.

    Should a woman have control of her own body? Yes, dammit. And I wish we'd quit exchanging that for some after-the-fact damage control and pat ourselves on the back for it.

    On the battleground the sol... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    On the battleground the soldier is responsible for following the ROE. The decisions and choices made are within that framework. This is another bad analogy.
    -------------------------------------
    Excactly the point. The soldiers are in a life and death situation. If it is a life and death situation for the woman, then it is an exception for abortion that people agree upon. So abortion should be allowed in case mother 's life is in danger. Otherwise, it is a really bad analogy.

    Again, the woman should have the right to kill a handicapped baby out of the womb? Who are we to stop her from it? She is the one who gave birth to the baby and she will have to raise the baby. So she should have the right to kill the baby if she so chooses?

    Synova (#42) -Sorr... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    Synova (#42) -

    Sorry, but the analogy works because R v W is the ROE.


    Love America (#43) -

    Birth or abortion, it is still the woman's life so the analogy works there, also. And, like a soldier who has to live with battlefield decisions, so must the pregnant woman no matter what she chooses - so the analogy works there as well. R v W does not force any pregnant woman to choose one way or another, it just does not let anyone else deprive her of her right to choose.

    I would prefer them to give birth, but I would never want to take away their right to choose.

    First, I am against abortio... (Below threshold)
    Allen:

    First, I am against abortions, however, as a male, who am I, or any male, have the right to tell a woman what she can/cannot do with her body?

    The male animal is the one who impregnates her, then refuses to take responsibility for his actions, refuses to pay child support, etc, this list can go on.

    So why are so many males against abortion when they cause the women to get pregnant? Or are some sections of the male populations think they know better than the female's do?

    Yes, lets outlaw all abortions, and also make it mandatory that all men have vasectomy's. Then there wouldn't be any rape children, unplanned children, etc.

    Just how would you men like that to happen to you? It boils down to one thing, men should have no say on abortion's! Can't handle that men, then start thinking with your big head instead of the little head.

    It ends up with a woman making the choice of what is best for her, because the a**hole that deserted her after she got pregnant, and that may/may not belong to a certain political party of family values says that abortion is wrong.

    This is a woman's problem, and should be up to the women of this country to make this decision, not the men.

    I would prefer them to give... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    I would prefer them to give birth, but I would never want to take away their right to choose.
    ------------------------------------
    So you are for infanticide? The woman has the right to kill their children, especially the handicapped one since she is the one who raised them up. In other words, killing children is the women's right to choose. I just follow the logic here.

    So Roe vs Wade just makes killing unborn healthy babies a choice. That 's immoral in various cultures. But it is OK to impose your morality on other people in this case since women's right to choose is absolute, including killing babies or children.


    The male animal is the one ... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    The male animal is the one who impregnates her, then refuses to take responsibility for his actions, refuses to pay child support, etc, this list can go on.
    -------------------------------------
    Why don't you make the men pay for the child support? Why kill the baby/the child and let the "male animals" free? This is perverse logic in my opinion. The "male animal" can walk away and you want to kill the baby instead! Why not make him pay for child support/adoption of the baby? This is taking both the woman and the baby, a win-win situation.

    I think people can agree on two exceptions for abortion: rape (against her will) and mother 's life. Otherwise, she has a choice to get pregnant or not. In the case, she does get pregnant, I would rather punish the guy who wants to walk away from his responsibility.

    BTW, are you happier if we ... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    BTW, are you happier if we jail the guy or make him pay $10,000 fine for example for making an unwanted pregnancy?

    LA, I -Redefining ... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    LA, I -

    Redefining terms to suit your view is a tired tactic. For example, the historical definition of child (or children) is a person between birth and puberty. The unborn is a zygote, embryo, or fetus, depending on the development from fertilization, though fetus is sometimes used in the more general sense. This is a teensy point, but I just wanted to let you know how obvious it is. Should I rebut it with an equally blatant redefinition or perhaps hypothetical anecdote of how a young girl feels violated and with growing self-loathing and your way makes her have to feel that way for nine months, and then she has to hope that stretch marks don't serve as constant reminders of her horror for the rest of her life?

    I did not impose my morality or even R v. W on anyone. R v. W itself does not impose infanticide on anyone.

    If you led a succesful drive that killed R v. W and made the law what you apparently wish it were, you would be the one imposing your view on pregnant women.

    Someone must make the decision. I just happen to agree with R v. W that you should not be the one doing it, unless you are the one who is pregnant.

    Oh, and if you are, congratulations!

    Oh, and if you were raped, I'm so sorry to hear that. But, at least as long as you haven't scotched R v. W yet, it's still YOUR choice what to do now.

    It will be a tough decision for you, LA I, and I feel for you and you will have to live with it the rest of your life. I cannot tell you what the best thing for you is, nor can anyone else. You may not be sure yourself yet, but aren't you glad it's your choice?

    Jim2,You are the one... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    Jim2,
    You are the one who is trying to redefine the term here. Unborn babies is the correct term also. In the third trimester, the unborn babies can survive outside of the womb now. If you are for killing healthy unborn babies in the third trimester (like Obama did), then it is very much infanticide unless you want to use semantics to avoid the unpleasant reality. Basically Roe vs Wade allows killing unborn babies who can survive outside of the womb. Let 's be honest and acknowlege that. Also I simply follow the logic of your argument: women 's right to choose is absolute, then we should allow them to kill their handicapped babies or children as well. Why limite women's right to choose in this case? She is the one who have to live with the handicapped child, right?

    BTW, we agree that we should make exceptions for abortion in case of rape or mother 's life. That should cover your concern. What I am trying to address is the ideology of abortion extremist like Obama. For other cases of unwanted pregnancies, why not punish the "male animals" while taking care of the women and babies? What 's the problem, really?

    Roe vs Wade impose the morality of abortion extremists on other people who find late term abortions objectionable at the very least. Let 's be honest and acknowledge that as well.

    BTW, accidents do happen in... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    BTW, accidents do happen in real life. Let 's say a woman want to have a baby and she delivers a healthy baby. By accident, the baby fell and became handicapped. The mother becomes distressed and it can be a big financial burden also. So we should allow her the choice to kill the handicapped baby or child if she decides that is best for her life. In other words, we should make infanticide legal as well since we can't make the decision what is best for the woman in this case.

    "First, I am against aborti... (Below threshold)

    "First, I am against abortions, however, as a male, who am I, or any male, have the right to tell a woman what she can/cannot do with her body?"

    Coward.

    Not that it's unusual.

    And I will say that you do NOT have a right to make her have sex with you. You do NOT have a right to force a choice on her that she doesn't want.

    But if you don't care about protecting your children, what good are you??

    The rhetoric that pro-life ... (Below threshold)

    The rhetoric that pro-life people want to force a woman to do anything is wrong. I support choice and absolutely support the right of women to decide for themselves if they want to have children or not.

    What I don't support is their right to kill a fetus because they were irresponsible.

    If they've been *forced* well then, that's not going to get FIXED by taking away the consequences is it? But we aren't talking about rape are we? Almost never, in fact, are we talking about rape. If it's some other sort of pressure than rape, well an abortion isn't going to fix that injustice either.

    Suppose you went up to some young thing wearing an "I had an abortion" T-shirt and said, Oh, it's so terrible you were raped! Or Oh, I sure hope you left the a**hole who flushed your pills and forced you to get pregnant! Imagine that.


    Religious: The belief that ... (Below threshold)
    Karen:

    Religious: The belief that a baby, which is exactly the same genetically and developmentally, the instant before he/she was born is therefore human in both places. Also, since a woman and her child do not have the same DNA, they are clearly differnt individuals.

    Secular: Human females are ameobas. A part of their bodies swells up and breaks off, and once fully discharged, magical life fairies transform it into a human child.

    Just clearing that up.

    Maybe someone in the MSM wi... (Below threshold)
    Ziggy in JC:

    Maybe someone in the MSM will read the names of the 40 million infants who lost thier lives for the "pro-choice movement".

    Jim2You're compari... (Below threshold)
    Lucas:

    Jim2

    You're comparison between women facing an abortion and a soldier pulling the trigger on the battlefield is interesting to say the least. I do not intend to educate you on what you should know by know, but here are some things you may want to consider.

    - Soldiers go through 6-13 weeks of basic training before ever getting the chance to pull the trigger (depending on the service)
    - Soldiers go through Use-Of-Force training that deals with the psychological and physical reactions they will experience when they pull the trigger
    - Soldiers often practice pulling the trigger using dummy rounds before they ever use live ammunition
    - When Circumstance requires a soldier to consider pulling the trigger, it is almost never a result of his personal choices or something he could have prevented
    - Soldiers are taught to pull the trigger as a last resort (please refer to the use-Of-Force training)
    - Soldiers often have the trigger pull at them first... when was the last time you heard of a baby trying to abort its mommy?

    EPIC FAIL!!!

    I swear I know 6 year olds who accept the consequences of their decisions more than some of the people on this board. Stop being Politically Correct and tell her what is right, not what is easy to say.


    Lucas -What is rig... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    Lucas -

    What is right is that it is her choice.

    I'm not saying that because it is "Politically Correct" but because it is legally correct.

    Furthermore, it is a decision that has to be made by SOMEone. No one could have a better right to make it than her. Certainly no supposed celibate or posturing politico has any better claim.

    No one will have to live with the consequences more than she will. The clergyperson will simply chant or pray and go look for another sinner, and the politician will just MOVEON looking for another vote and donation issue. The woman will have to live with the outcome for the rest of her life, no matter what it is.

    No one will ever feel more responsible than she will. No one will ever be more affected. The priest won't suffer labor or take any medical risks. The politician will not swell or bloat, well, not for this reason. The banner wavers will not suffer any except for arm strain from excessive enthusiasm.

    She bears unique responsibility, so it is only just that she have the decision authority.

    jim2,Then no, you ar... (Below threshold)
    SCSIwuzzy:

    jim2,
    Then no, you are not Catholic. Just come out and say it.
    Annulment and divorce are two separate issues to Catholics and the Church.

    SCSIwuzzy -Says yo... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    SCSIwuzzy -

    Says you. Decades years married, multiple kids, and a spouse decides to cheat and more-or-less goes crazy and the innocent spouse has to try for an annulment which would supposedly conclude that the marriage never really existed in the eyes of the RC and that the kids were the product of a civil union and not born within an RC marriage? "Catholically illegitimate"? Or does the innocent spouse just take the theological hit and ignore the RC, remarry to keep a two-parent family, and let the kids remain untouched theologically being born within an RC marriage?

    It's RC sophistry.

    Annulment has some bases for situations like Britney's first marriage. Long, sincere, happy marriages of adults with kids that come apart because of bad behavior by one spouse are a different situation. Annulment is sophistry and yet there is an innocent parent and innocent children.

    Evil sophistry by avowed celibates who (with few exceptions) never had kids to raise.

    If you think they are two separate issues, then you're one of them.

    Evil sophistry by avowed ce... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    Evil sophistry by avowed celibates who (with few exceptions) never had kids to raise.
    -------------------------------------
    Using the same lingo, we have the evil sophistry by abortion extremists who even favor infanticide. One of such abortion extremist got 100% rating from the notorious Planned Parenthood. He voted to deny medical care for surviving aborted babies. Yet he got the strong support from the most radical left who uses evil sophistry to justify the killing of unborn babies.

    BTW, I don't see the Cathol... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    BTW, I don't see the Catholic nuns/priests who sacrifice their lives to run leprosy camps and orphanage throughout the world. Mother Teresa served the poorest of the poor in India. All the while, the abortion extremists have been using evil sophistry to justify the killing of the young, the old, and the handicapped. Thanks for the term "evil sophistry". It aptly describes the liberal left and their extremist abortion ideology.

    LA I -So?... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    LA I -

    So?

    Are you putting those extremists on an equal footing with the RV?

    If so, then maybe you have a point.

    After all, the RC long required women to die from tubal pregnancies that would never ever produce a living child.

    Jim2, Oh sorry, let... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    Jim2,
    Oh sorry, let me try to explain slowly to you. I see the evil sophistry in the abortion crowd who support abortion extremist like Obama. Yet I see the Catholic church serving the poorest of the poor, the lepers, and the orphans. I haven't seen much action from the people who try to slander the Catholic church today while using evil sophistry to justify the killing of the unborn babies.

    I am not a Catholic myself. How many Catholic women have been dying of tubal pregnancy in the last 40 years? We had 40 million abortions already so far. Trying to bring up an irrelevant point to smear the Catholic church seems to be hate-filled evil sophistry to me.

    BTW, let me use your standa... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    BTW, let me use your standard and arg. Magaret Singer, the founder of the notorious Planned Parenthood, a mainstream abortion organiztion on the left, has much in common with folks like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. They do have a lot of evil sophistry.

    I am against rape and would... (Below threshold)
    Moluque:

    I am against rape and would never do it personally, but if someone else wanted to commit rape I would not stop them because it is their own personal moral choice. I have no right to force my morals on another.

    LA I -You're argui... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    LA I -

    You're arguing in a vacuum. I have never stated that I supported Planned Parenthood. I have never said I supported killing anyone who has been born. I have never even said that I think abortion is a good thing.

    You should maybe focus less on typing slowly and more on reading carefully.

    I have said only that it is - in the USA - the legal right of a woman to choose and that I think that is the right position for the reasons I stated.

    I even said above that I respected the RC's position in that the RC wanted to conservatively ensure that no human died. I just did not agree with it.

    The evil sophistry part is part of an entirely different dialogue on annulment. With that said, the tubal pregnancy bit is an historical fact as are the other things I stated. Facts are facts, not smears - face it.

    Many, many of the members of the RC certainly give reason to be admired for their good works in many situations. Still, the folk of the RC are humans and many of them also do bad things such as sexually prey on the young. That also is a fact. On balance, I would agree that the RC is a strongly positive organization for humanity. So what?

    Anything else you want to argue about or accuse me of?

    Moluque -So the pu... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    Moluque -

    So the puppy is your brother? Oh, sorry, wrong sophist argument.

    Jim2, I pointed out... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    Jim2,
    I pointed out the evil sophistry in the argument you used so far. I follow the logic of your arg to the conclusion that infanticide should be legal since women 's right to choose is absolute and we cannot tell the women what is best for them. I used exactly the same standard you have been trying to use. I think your argument leads to the evil sophistry that justifies even infanticide. That 's all.

    At least we can agree that the abortion crowd has been using a lot of evil sophistry to justify the killing of unborn children. Even Obama is using the evil sophistry to justify his abortion extremisim. I do thank you for the term "evil sophistry" to describe the abortion crowd.

    BTW, RC 's sexual abuse pro... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    BTW, RC 's sexual abuse problem is due to the fact they let the evil sophistry of the left to affect their standard about priesthood in America.

    What is annulment to do with the abortion arg here? Are you trying to use tubal pregnancy as an evil sophistry to justify Roe vs Wade? That sounds like evil sophistry to me since Roe vs Wade allowing the killing of unborn children in the third trimester. It is the imposition of the evil sophistry of the abortion extremist on the rest of the country. That 's all. Is there any sophistry you want to bring up to justify Roe vs Wade and its evil consequences?


    LA I -You can cert... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    LA I -

    You can certainly use anything and post anything anywhere.

    I have not agreed on anything that you said. For example, the definition of infanticide is the killing of a newborn infant:

    http://www.answers.com/topic/infanticide?cat=health

    Redefining terms to fit one's argument does not improve the argument - it just heightens the rhetoric.

    Repeating what I said in #66 concerning any pregnancy up to the moment after birth:

    "I have said only that it is - in the USA - the legal right of a woman to choose and that I think that is the right position for the reasons I stated."

    LA I -To answer yo... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    LA I -

    To answer your #69, it started in my #16.

    Jim2, Your analogy ... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    Jim2,
    Your analogy of soldiers to justify abortion is deeply flawed as pointed out above. Is this trying to redefine the term or another evil sophistry to justify Roe vs Wade and who are we to decide what 's right for a woman. If only a woman can decide what 's right for her life wrt her baby/child, then infanticide should be legal. You don't want to follow the logic of your arg? Maybe it is simply a sophistry to justify abortion. You don't mean to follow its logic in any case.

    Because something is consid... (Below threshold)
    Maggie:

    Because something is considered legal
    does not mean it's moral.

    LA I -The analogy ... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    LA I -

    The analogy to soldiers was asserted to be deeply flawed, not "pointed out". I never agreed with that. I simply chose not to argue. The principle that the soldier who is on the scene and the woman who is pregnant should both always be the decision makers remains valid no matter what handwaving quibbles are offered to the contrary.

    I never agreed that a woman should be able to commit infanticide, nor does current law permit it. It is you who attempted to redefine infanticide to apply to a fetus.

    There are only two bright lines available. One is the moment of conception and the other is the moment of birth. The RC advocates the former, R v. W legalizes the other. You and/or others can posture and handwave all you want, but that is the factual situation.

    Does the RC demand that semen be treated as humans? Unfertilized eggs? No, of course not. Why? Because it is on the other side of the RC bright line - they are not humans and so not covered by RC position.

    Does R v. W allow killing a child after birth? No, of course not. Why? Because the live infant is on the other side of the R v. W bright line - the infant is not covered by R v. W.

    Why is this so hard for you?

    Does the RC demand that sem... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    Does the RC demand that semen be treated as humans? Unfertilized eggs?
    ------------------------------------
    This is another evil sophistry or changing of terms again. Another post above showed you why a semen is different from an embryo at conception. The semen doesn't have the DNA of another human being. So Roe vs Wade is simply an evil sophistry to justify the killing of the unborn babies in the third trimester even though these babies can survive outside of the womb. And the fact is that you are OK with this evil sophistry . Partial birth abortion as allowed by Roe vs Wade is truly evil sophistry. I don't know why it 's so hard for you to see through this evil sophistry.


    BTW, the arg that only a wo... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    BTW, the arg that only a woman can decide what to do with her baby/child should lead to the legalization of infanticide. That 's the logic of the evil sophistry of Roe vs Wade. Why is it so hard for you to understand?

    LA I -Nope. You'r... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    LA I -

    Nope. You're handwaving and namecalling again. If it were simply DNA that settled the issue, then any cell of any human would be a human even to the RC. That, though, would be different silly argument.

    Should the RC dictate the law? Should you get to name the trimester? Why you? It's not your body.

    No, I think the current law is correct and I am glad that it IS the law.

    To paraphrase Seuss:

    "Somebody must make the decision. Somebody, Somebody has to, you see. Then the law picked out the right Somebody: Sally not thee."

    Off to bed. No more replies by moi tonight.

    BTW, here is the evil sophi... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    BTW, here is the evil sophistry of your soldier analogy: the soldier is trained to kill the enemies who intended to kill him/her as a last resort. So you seem to treat the baby as intentionally killing the mother or the enemy of the mother?

    BTW, Peter Singer at Princeton follows your arg to its logical conclusion: he advocates giving the parents the right to kill their retarded children. SInce Roe vs Wade allows you to kill unborn babies who can survive outside of the womb, what is the major difference once the baby is outside of the womb. The principle that only the woman can decide the fate of her baby/child leads to infanticide.

    BTW, historically this evil sophistry of abortion leading to killing of the elderly, the retarded happened in fascist Germany and communist countries around the world.

    No, I think the current law... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    No, I think the current law is correct and I am glad that it IS the law.
    ------------------------------------
    Thanks for admitting that you are glad that the law allows the killing of unborn babies who can survive outside of the womb. That 's a perfect example of evil sophistry for me.

    Why you? It's not your body... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    Why you? It's not your body.
    ---------------------------------
    Can you follow the logic of you arg? Why do you want to stop the killing of retarded baby/child? Why you? It 's not your baby!

    IS this another example of evil sophistry?

    BTW, science established th... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    BTW, science established the fact that the embryo has a unique DNA at conception. So you don't want to deal with scientific fact here and rather have the evil sophistry of Roe vs Wade?

    jim2,Annulment does ... (Below threshold)
    SCSIwuzzy:

    jim2,
    Annulment does not make children born of annulled parents bastards. Again, you are either ignorant, or you are lying. Given your obvious hostility, I am going to assume the later.

    SCSIwuzzy -You eit... (Below threshold)
    jim2:

    SCSIwuzzy -

    You either cannot read or do not care to be accurate.

    I said the following:

    "Even now, the RC will not sanction remarriage by even an innocent person without the sophistry the RC calls "annulment" which essentially states that the previous marriage did not exist, even if that leaves 10 children somehow unaccounted for. (Are they then bastards?)" - - - #16

    And I said this:

    "Says you. Decades years married, multiple kids, and a spouse decides to cheat and more-or-less goes crazy and the innocent spouse has to try for an annulment which would supposedly conclude that the marriage never really existed in the eyes of the RC and that the kids were the product of a civil union and not born within an RC marriage? "Catholically illegitimate"? Or does the innocent spouse just take the theological hit and ignore the RC, remarry to keep a two-parent family, and let the kids remain untouched theologically being born within an RC marriage?" - - - #59

    I never stated the children would be bastards - just raised the issue for contrast in the parenthetical. I was pointing out that the RC position would be that the children had not been born within a RC marriage, but instead within a civil one. I even expanded on that in the later post just to ensure that there would be no confusion.

    I am done with this thread because you and a couple others have sunk to inane dribbling with lots of baseless accusations, silly strawmen, and handwaving.

    Go assume anything you want and have a nice day.

    Hi Jim, The RC is a... (Below threshold)
    LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

    Hi Jim,
    The RC is against infanticide and killing of the retarded and the elderly. So we wouldn't want them to set the policy, right? So we should support infanticide and the killing of the retarded/the elderly. Just trying to follow the logic here.

    BTW, I also raised the issue that we may let people like Hitler, Stalin, or Mao dictate our abortion policy (similar to your concern that we shouldn't let the RC church dictate our policy). Enjoy the sophistry of Roe vs Wade.

    JIM2 is truly the example o... (Below threshold)
    JIM:

    JIM2 is truly the example of the SICKNESS that is. I will pray for you




    Advertisements









    rightads.gif

    beltwaybloggers.gif

    insiderslogo.jpg

    mba_blue.gif

    Follow Wizbang

    Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

    Contact

    Send e-mail tips to us:

    [email protected]

    Fresh Links

    Credits

    Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

    Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

    Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

    In Memorium: HughS

    All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

    Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

    Hosting by ServInt

    Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

    Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

    Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

    Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

    Author Login



    Terms Of Service

    DCMA Compliance Notice

    Privacy Policy