« Ex-Senator Craig ends appeals of his guilty plea | Main | Mindset I - Obama Versus the System »

Stop. Drop. And Think.


Has there been a more divisive subject in modern American society?

For many, it can be the deciding factor in how they will vote.

Some view it as a sin. A prism through which they view everything else.

Some feel that it is nobody's business what they do with their bodies. A prism through which they view everything else.

And for others, it's a non-issue. They could go either way, since it's not something that directly effects them.

For the record, I am against abortion. I think it's repugnant. However, I am also pro-choice in an unconventional way.

I am pro-choice, not in the sense that I believe it is a woman's right to have an abortion, but in the sense that she had a choice to do what was right and responsible at the time, or to do what was wrong and selfish. She made the choice to be irresponsible, all for a fleeting moment of sex and self-gratification. Never exercising her ability to be reasonable, she chose to ignore the gravity of the situation that she got herself into.

In this way, abortion is nothing more than a convenient way to rid oneself of a selfish, irresponsible act. Too many people take the act of having sex too lightly. Purists will say that we are inherently wired for sex, an animal instinct. But the undeniable purpose for creatures having sex is to pro-create. That said, as humans, we have the gift of reason: To appreciate sex for more than what it's intended purpose is. But to split the instinctive purpose from the human ability to control one's actions is to absolve the person of individual responsibility.

Animals don't know any better. They are instinctively wired to mate and procreate. We posses the ability to think about and assess the ramifications of what can happen. You'd think that would make us a bit more cautious about how we use our bodies, but, in reality it just allows us to reason everything we do into acceptance, just because we can.

We are the only species on the planet that purposefully and knowingly aborts its offspring. Think about that for a second.

The spark of so many promising souls snuffed out like the flame of a candle in the foul wind of human indifference.

Yeah, I'm pro-choice. Until you have an abortion.

Author's note:

Poster "abc" referred this post to be "sexist", as I only refer to the female's responsibility. It is a point well taken, and was not my intention. Obviously, it takes "two to tango", and obviously the male is part of the responsibility equation. However, ultimately, it is the choice of the woman to have an abortion, whether the male approves or not, and that was the sole reason for my posting in which the way I did.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (90)

Yeah, how selfish of those ... (Below threshold)

Yeah, how selfish of those rape victims to get themselves knocked up just for a fleeting moment of pleasure.

Yep, all 1.37 million of th... (Below threshold)

Yep, all 1.37 million of them in the US are victims of rape.

You are so predictable, Brian.

And the men who are impregn... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And the men who are impregnating these women and girls? What consequences shall they face for their fleeting moments of sexual pleasure? A lifetime of raising an unwanted child? No? the scorn and derision of their family, friends, and society at large? No? Monthly child support checks? Well, maybe, if they can be found.
What choice do victims of rape or incest have in the "fleeting moment of sexual pleasure"? How about the teenage girls sweet-talked by older men into seduction?
I'm not one for "abortion on demand," but I think I'm with the vast majority who want abortion kept legal, but with certain restrictions. As the father of two daughters, I can tell you that if one of them comes to me "knocked up," we'll decide together what to do about it, thank you, and the Government can stay the hell out of it.

It is a woman's choice whet... (Below threshold)

It is a woman's choice whether you agree with it or not. I'm on board with you an think it's an abomination when used as birth control. However, there are some circumstances where I think I'd abort ie: rape,severe retardation. Hey guys I don't ever remember anyone ever stopping me in the height of passion to talk about birth control? Take a fraction of responsibility. I was always pro-choice and very liberal until motherhood.

Bruce,Notice nowhe... (Below threshold)


Notice nowhere in my statement did I mention government intervention as per the subject of abortion.

I also think that you can infer from this article that "a fleeting moment of sex and self-gratification" has nothing to do with rape.

Get a grip.

Woah, Shawn, can of worms. ... (Below threshold)

Woah, Shawn, can of worms.

I'm impressed that the troll types always go straight to the rape and incest victims in this argument. Indeed, it's a hole in your argument. But I wonder how many rape victims Brian knows personally, and has interviewed about how their rapes and their abortions (or lack thereof) affected them. I wonder how many rape victims are pressured into abortions they don't want to have, because it's expected of them to get abortions. I wonder how many rape victims who have abortions end up feeling like they've been raped a second time.

I mean, I don't know how they feel any more than Brian does. But I think it's arrogant to use the rape victims as a trump card in this argument. I have a friend who counsels women with "crisis pregnancies" and she says, from her experience, rape victims are much different from their stereotype in the abortion argument.

Myself, I'm terribly conflicted on the topic, and I have trouble understanding how anyone can be certain they know what's best in it. It's difficult to even have a conversation about it, because everyone takes up sides and goes straight to the same old talking points I've been hearing since junior high.

You are so predictable, ... (Below threshold)

You are so predictable, Brian.

Really? You predicted that no matter what I posted, you would respond by attributing to me something that I didn't post?

Wow, you're good.

Weak.OK, Brian.</p... (Below threshold)


OK, Brian.

Comment on the abortions that do not involve rape.

How's that?

A non-drive by comment.... (Below threshold)

A non-drive by comment.

It has always seemed to me, that the best way to reduce - if not out and out eliminate - abortions, is by very comprehensive birth control. As an example, "Implanon.

Here is a method, whereby you only need to visit the doctor once every 3 years.

Theoretically - if every woman who was sexually active, had something like this - that 1.3 million abortion would drop to ZERO.

Isn't that change we can all agree on?

I hate it, but I have to ag... (Below threshold)
not me:

I hate it, but I have to agree with the less rabid liberals on this one, at least in the legal sense.

I think abortion is horrible. My girlfriend in college had one against my constant begging, pleading, reasoning, guilting, and finally describing the process in brutal detail. Seven years later, it still upsets me to think about it. It eventually ended our relationship.

But it would have been far worse for her to have gone through a dangerous back-alley type deal (and possibly end up barren or worse) in order to prevent shaming her very traditional Chinese parents. Yes, they were that bad. She would have risked her life without a second thought rather than tell them she was pregnant.

I'm impressed that the t... (Below threshold)

I'm impressed that the troll types always go straight to the rape and incest victims in this argument. Indeed, it's a hole in your argument.

So it's a valid hole in his argument, but I'm a "troll" for pointing it out.

If Shawn didn't intend to lump all of the complex issues surrounding abortion under his simplistic "be responsible" argument, he should have said so.

>Weak.I wasn't goi... (Below threshold)


I wasn't going to go there, but since you brought it up, I'll agree that your writing here is simplistic and weak.

I agree Brian. Shawn's arg... (Below threshold)

I agree Brian. Shawn's argument is flawed in this post and needs some qualifiers. WOW, I agree with you on something!

But you were a troll before this post, not because of what you said here.

<a href="http://operationpi... (Below threshold)
Quick change to above comme... (Below threshold)

Quick change to above comment - "if every woman who was sexually active not looking for a child".


JC -- Sarcasm or eugenics? ... (Below threshold)

JC -- Sarcasm or eugenics? Which way should we comment on your idea?

Would anyone care to commen... (Below threshold)
not me:

Would anyone care to comment on my response (#10)?

What am I, a willing father, to do in that case? What should the law do in that case (a pregnant, scared girl that will risk everything and do anything to have an abortion)?

Eugenics? How so?... (Below threshold)

Eugenics? How so?

From Wikipedia:

"Eugenics was defined by Francis Galton as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations""

Implanon (or similar birth control methods)has nothing to do with race.
Implanon (or similar birth control methods) has nothing to do with improving the quality of future generations.

What birth control methods do do, is PREVENT unwanted pregnancies, that then are NOT ABORTED.


Despite Brian's attempt to ... (Below threshold)

Despite Brian's attempt to sidetrack the issue, I think it's quite apparent in which context I am discussing abortion.

I mean "She made the choice to be irresponsible, all for a fleeting moment of sex and self-gratification" obviously does not mean conception caused by rape and incest.

To use the poster's eloquen... (Below threshold)

To use the poster's eloquent last sentence, "The spark of so many promising souls snuffed out like the flame of a candle in the foul wind of human indifference", will no longer happen there will no longer be unwanted pregnancies.

I don't think eugenics is n... (Below threshold)

I don't think eugenics is necessarily racial, at least in the sense that I'm bringing it up. In its broader concept it is about trying to engineer the human race to be, simply, better, "better" defined by the engineer. If 100% of women not trying to concieve had birth control implants in order to keep unwanted babies from being conceived (many of the women implanted against their will, because you'll never get 100% of women to agree to such a thing), that would be an attempt to engineer the human race to be better? Even if it wasn't 100%, your goal is this, right?

not me -- I don't know what to say in response to your story. It breaks my heart. This is why I have such a hard time knowing for sure what's "right" in the abortion topic.

I think it's quite appar... (Below threshold)

I think it's quite apparent in which context I am discussing abortion.

Of course you think that; you're the one who wrote it. But I'm not alone in observing the sloppy writing on this one. If you want to supplement with a bunch of "but what I meant to say was..." that's fine. Just own it.

not me--you should find a w... (Below threshold)

not me--you should find a willing mother with whom to partner up. I cannot think of any circumstances in which a woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term. You're not doing anything wrong by expressing your heartfelt desire to raise the child, but the line must be drawn at coercion. It's her uterus, and we must allow people to take responsibility for themselves and make choices--good and bad ones.

(Which reminds me: how is getting an abortion "irresponsible"? If you think it is, necessarily, then your conception of responsibility is narrow and probably patriarchal.)

Wow, what an incredibly sex... (Below threshold)

Wow, what an incredibly sexist post. Last I heard, it took a man and a woman both making bad decisions for the woman to become pregnant. Evidently, all it takes is a selfish woman. Call the biologists!

Maybe i did try to coerce. ... (Below threshold)
not me:

Maybe i did try to coerce. Honestly, I wanted to have the child. But I also wanted her to be absolutely 100% certain, and made myself into a total jerk in order to do so. Eventually, I gave up and drove her to the clinic.

Martyredcars,I mos... (Below threshold)


I most definitely am NOT in favor of 'mandated' or forced, implants, against someone's will.

But your definition of eugenics, as such, is clearly invalid, and as you present it, would apply to any and all substances manufactured by a lab, and ingested into a human body - including all the medicines we take. It would also apply to the drugs given to those infertile couple trying to create new life.

And again, what you aren't acknowledging - if a 'SOUL' is created, when there is conception - and then this SOUL is killed, this potential life is killed, then it is the moral imperative to REDUCE those unnecessary deaths, to as few as possible.

If there is enough education, any time that a woman goes in to see a doctor for a checkup, or a flu shot, then if she is sexually active, and not looking for a child, she would quickly have this done.

And so - in the U.S., over one million souls a year - if you go by that definition - would be saved.

Isn't that the priority?

RE the Mallow post: I don't... (Below threshold)

RE the Mallow post: I don't find flaws, just interesting avenues to continue to pursue.

I think we're the only species to NOT condone eating their young. Or competitors' young.

Geez, I married wife #1 and now am not happy with the consequences. I did get more than one moment of ecstasy out of the deal. It would save so much money and grief if one or the other of us could hire someone to evacuate the other permanently from their lives in a fatal operation. Kind of like a shotgun divorce. There's no difference between this approach and abortion on demand. Maybe we could just limit its use to wife beaters and malignant naggers if you fear the effects universal availability.

We are the only species ... (Below threshold)

We are the only species on the planet that purposefully and knowingly aborts its offspring. Think about that for a second.

We're the only species that has the capacity to purposefully and knowingly abort our offspring. Consider how many species of animal eat their own young, and rethink your "we're worse than the animals!" implication.

Also, for those of us who don't believe souls exist (how much does one weigh?), and thus don't believe any have been "snuffed out," do you have an alternate argument?

RE: "universal availabilit... (Below threshold)

RE: "universal availability of birth control."

Implanon (nor any form of birth control) is not completely effective. Their is a failure rate.

Implanon use is contraindicated in many fertile women.

Mortality and morbidity from Implanon is less than pregnancy, but more than non-pregnancy without Implanon.

The expense of the device and implantation, monitoring and removal is significant. You gonna make us pay more for this "bailout" of poor decisions too?

not me--certainly not an en... (Below threshold)

not me--certainly not an enviable position to be in. You did all you could to persuade her and then you respected her wishes and her autonomy. I'm not the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong in the universe, but I'd say you did the right thing.

mantis--the abortion debate got pretty stale here once Jay Tea walked off. It's an academic discussion, thus one that certain blogger (*ahem*) would do well to avoid.

The peculiar notion of "souls" aside, JC is addressing the topic in the only reasonable way: we all care about reducing the number of abortions--for different reasons--and birth control is the only viable solution. Better sex education = less abortions. Them's the facts.

I don't agree with a lot of... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

I don't agree with a lot of the choices people make for themselves but it's not my place to hector them. And it's sure as hell not the government's responsibility.

Since the mechanics of pregnancy are well known and there are "morning after" options for the occasional "irresponsible" encounter, anyone who winds up needing an abortion must be daft.

But they're the ones who have to live with it, so who am I to point fingers?

I don't know, JC. Are you r... (Below threshold)

I don't know, JC. Are you really not being sarcastic? Do you really think that a woman "with enough education" will automatically have something with implanted in her, without regard to side effects and whether it is "right" for her? That seems, well, scary. And eugenic. By my definition.

And I'm going to need your scientific sources on soul creation before we can go any farther.

epador,Implanon is... (Below threshold)


Implanon is one of the most effective methods. But, there are others as well.

The point is, you can HIGHLY REDUCE/CLOSE TO ELIMINATE the number of abortions. At least close to the rate of the fertilized embryos that are mass produced by the various fertility procedures that occur across the country.

As far as the cost - that is the whole point with Implanon, the cost is fairly minimal, and is easily covered by insurance, as birth control pills are now. Plus, the cost would go down, with mass usage.

"We're the only species tha... (Below threshold)

"We're the only species that has the capacity to purposefully and knowingly abort our offspring. Consider how many species of animal eat their own young, and rethink your "we're worse than the animals!" implication.

Also, for those of us who don't believe souls exist (how much does one weigh?), and thus don't believe any have been "snuffed out," do you have an alternate argument?"

Mantis, you are proving my point. Animals "eat their own young" not because they decide to, but because that's how they are programmed.

And as far as "those of us who don't believe souls exist ", well, I pity you.

martyredcars,You d... (Below threshold)


You don't have to believe in souls. I do, although I'm not sure when a soul 'enters' the body. Myself, I don't think it's at conception, but later on in the pregnancy.

However, it really doesn't matter, and isn't relevant. The point is - it's in everyone's interest, from the absolute atheist, to the most committed pro-lifer, to GREATLY REDUCE the number of abortions. And it's very clear, it can be done to a HUGE degree.

So why not focus on something that everyone can agree on first, and do that, rather than spend endless energy about whether abortion itself is right/wrong, and get into the morass of individual rights/public rights - and for now, spend that endless energy in making sure that women have easy options to NOT get pregnant.

Shawn, you write, "I am pro... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Shawn, you write, "I am pro-choice, not in the sense that I believe that it is a woman's right to have an abortion, but in the sense that she had the choice to do what was right..."
But if a commenter (not me) points out that not everyone HAD that choice, you squawk.
"Too many people take the choice to have sex too lightly." But only women should have to live with the consequences, right? Let's say your teenage son knocks up some little Lolita. You gonna be so judgmental about the choices he made, or are you gonna be a little more flexible in your moral outrage?
I agree that abortion should not be used as routine birth control.
And yes, I understand that you didn't mention the Government. But many anti-abortion arguments wind up being about overturning Roe v. Wade. Sorry to get all preemptive on ya.
As for the guy with the miracle birth control method, he may not be aware of this, but many true believers (like, for instance, the freaking POPE) believe that artificial birth control is just as much a sin as abortion.
Oh, and by the way, when I envision these scenarios in which your children or mine engage in this behavior, the "God Forbid" is unspoken.

Mantis, you are proving ... (Below threshold)

Mantis, you are proving my point. Animals "eat their own young" not because they decide to, but because that's how they are programmed.

Animals aren't software; they aren't programmed. Also, filial cannibalism happens in the animal world for a variety of reasons, many of which cannot be explained as pure instinct. For instance, some fish are known to eat their entire brood on occasion. If they have a strong instinct toward procreation, what would cause them to do that?

And as far as "those of us who don't believe souls exist ", well, I pity you.

Save your pity. We have no use for it.

Oh, and btw, pity is not an... (Below threshold)

Oh, and btw, pity is not an answer to my question, or do you not have an argument that appeals to any perspective but your own?

JC -- Just a btw, are you a... (Below threshold)

JC -- Just a btw, are you aware of the environmental effects of mass usage of hormonal birth control? It's worth reading about, and pretty scary.

It really comes down to how... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

It really comes down to how a human is defined under the law. Some don't hold religious beliefs, so science should be the guide. The only definition of what constitutes a living born person is brain activity. The body can be alive on life support, but if the person is brain dead, the law says they are dead. Another person may be on similar life support and has brain activity and the law says they are alive even if they are not conscious nor able to live off life support.

You can think of the unborn as being on life support inside their mother's womb and at some point prior to birth they will have human brain activity. Prior to that point the law would allow abortion, but after there's brain activity it's a child under the law and taking it's life would be a homicide.

Such a definition gives rape or incest victims ample opportunity to abort. If a woman's life or permanent and significant health is in danger then she could still abort after the unborn person has brain activity under the right of self-defense. The abortion, in that case, would be considered justifiable homicide.

Such a definition should override all state and federal laws so we don't get into the situations where it's legal to abort a fetus, but murder if the same fetus is killed in an accident or other crime.

I don't expect every women to be examined to see if her baby has brain activity. There's some typical gestation period where significant brain activity develops and that gestation age could be used by the law to define when a fetus becomes a child. It seems like a rational compromise to an otherwise intractable problem.

And also, I totally believe... (Below threshold)

And also, I totally believe in souls. I just think it's weird that you equated conception with "soul creation." I'm not even sure what religion thinks about it that way. A soul, almost by definition, is more eternal than that.

I'm going to take a slight ... (Below threshold)

I'm going to take a slight detour for a moment. I've always found it quite interesting that a woman can abort a life who in fact has no say in the matter but lets say for instance a man capable of making his own decisions is terminally ill and wants to end his life and wants assistance that's murder...go figure??

martyredcars,Links... (Below threshold)



Also - I believe there have been mass effects - particularly on male develoopment - of a whole host of various compounds used in our food. More FAKE hormones.

here is an article

"Aside from the hormonal alterations, males are exhibiting decreased sperm counts, delayed puberty, feminization and atrophy of reproductive organs. Effects of endocrine disruptors on females exhibit accelerated puberty, decreased fertility, altered menstrual cycle, and ovarian malfunction. As our ability to reproduce is threatened, our immune systems are also being compromised. The human race is slowly altering itself mostly from pesticides and other chemicals.

The list of hormone disruptors is long and getting longer. There are literally hundreds of compounds such as DDT, PCBs, dioxins, furans and others that are endocrine disruptors. Even though we no longer use DDT, it has entered the food chain and is stored in body fat with all the rest of the other chemicals. When pesticide compounds enter our environment they continue up the food chain. They do not just go away"

That is a HUGE problem, I agree. But it rests in our whole food chain, and has more to do with hormone disruption. These effects need to be regulated, and eliminated, from the commercial food chains.

Clearly, the hormone risk from more availability of birth control products, is of a much smaller scale.

I'm pro choice because God ... (Below threshold)

I'm pro choice because God is pro choice. He lets you make your choice, so why shouldn't I?

God is against murder, yet he allows it. So who am I to tell others what to do?

As a Christian is that wrong for me to be that way, or should I work to stop abortions?

I'm not sure what to think of doctors who preform abortions though - the same I guess.

Didn't state my point on so... (Below threshold)

Didn't state my point on souls well. Notice I said "soul enters" in a later comment.

Can anyone say abstinence??... (Below threshold)

Can anyone say abstinence?? I know I'm being ridiculous I just wanted to throw that into the mix.

At my age, I'm not up on al... (Below threshold)

At my age, I'm not up on all birth control methods, but I'm aware of only two kinds that prevent conception -- condoms and diaphragms. All the others (including the morning after pill) prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, thus no fetus develops.

I have read arguments that methods which prevent implantation are equivalent to an abortion. I find that reasoning a bit bizarre in that it leads to defining life as the ability of cells to divide.

Which then leads to the belief that infertility treatments involving in vitro fertilization produce viable humans.

Then I have a real problem with abortion after the point in the pregnancy where the baby can live outside the mother's womb. I do not understand how at that point the child is not a viable human with rights equal to the mother's.

Myself, I could never have had an abortion, and I did get inconveniently pregnant once. I realize that I was lucky to be very healthy, married, and able to care for and support the child.

However, that doesn't mean that every woman who becomes pregnant is in that situation. I cannot judge a woman who decides on an abortion before viability because I simply do not know what her circumstances are. I can easily imagine situations where an abortion might be the best of all the horrible options.

As for mandated birth control - no way. That's a basic violation of human rights in my opinion. I'm all for more education about pregnancy and birth control. And I think it would help if adoption were made easier for both the birth mother and the adoptive parents.

Frankly, Shawn, I think your post is quite shallow in that it merely repeats talking points we've all heard before. A shallow response of "what about rape and incest" is not surprising.

Bruce, go back and actually... (Below threshold)

Bruce, go back and actually read my response to the commenter you are referring to. That's not a "squawk".

And if you actually read the article, it's pretty obvious that I'm talking about people who are engaging in risky behavior that leads to the possibility of abortion (fleeting moment of sex and self-gratification), and not those that didn't have a choice (i.e., rape).

I actually would have expected you to get that.

And you were so close to being promoted to a Level 1 Troll from a Level 2 Troll.

So why not focus on some... (Below threshold)

So why not focus on something that everyone can agree on first, and do that, rather than spend endless energy about whether abortion itself is right/wrong

What makes you think that's something everyone can agree on? Prophylactics, morning-after pill, and sex education all reduce the number of abortions, but there's strong opposition to all of them. And almost exclusively from the right, notably. Meanwhile, study after study shows that kids from strongly conservative/religious households or who rely on abstinence pledges are more likely to not use contraception. Who's stepping up to address that issue?

Brian,Two things -... (Below threshold)


Two things -

1. Everyone can agree - it would be wonderful abortions need to be reduced/eliminated.

That is what we agree on.

FACTUALLY - every study in the world shows this, as does common sense - THE most effective way to do this, is birth control education and implementation.

So, there shouldn't be any controversy, over birth control, particularly if someone does think that 'abortion is murder'.

It is incumbent then to reduce abortion. And birth control is the best available means.

As usual, the post has been... (Below threshold)

As usual, the post has been hijacked. The subject, I believe, is abortion. How about we make abortion legal for rape and incest inpregnations and none others? And to say this only effects the woman, I think that is simplistic. Many are effected by that choice in the micro and macro of things. ww

WildWillie,I assum... (Below threshold)


I assume you want to make abortion illegal, to reduce the # of abortions, correct?

And that's a very laudable goal. A spiritual one, to my mind.

But making abortions illegal is against the views of the majority of the population. So we won't have any progress towards our goal of reducing abortions that way.

But the same people who would vociferously protest making abortions illegal, would have no problem at all, with more active birth control education and prevention - as long as it is not a mandate.

So THAT'S how we achieve the goal, of reduced abortions!

"Frankly, Shawn, I think yo... (Below threshold)

"Frankly, Shawn, I think your post is quite shallow in that it merely repeats talking points we've all heard before."

Sorry, Donna. No talking points here. Simply what I believe, and felt like posting.

My thanks for your opinion.

I shall aspire to write in a deeper, more insightful manner, such as the content contained on your blog.

Re # 48:"...it's pre... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 48:
"...it's pretty obvious that I'm talking about people who are engaging in risky behavior..."
No, it's pretty obvious you're talking about WOMEN, and not so obvious that you're talking only about women who are engaging in risky behavior. See, but now is when we get down to a critique of your writing skill, and I was trying not to go there, but to remain all substancey as you requested.
I would say that commenter # 47 is the most thoughtful and insightful commenter on this thread so far, including my own humble contributions.
Now, suppose you address my nightmare scenario, in which your hormone-addled teen son impregnates Little Miss Thang. What to do, there, Dad? Or, I mean, Grandpa? Especially if she is of a different race or "socio-economic background"?????

"Sorry, Donna. No talking p... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

"Sorry, Donna. No talking points here. Simply what I believe, and felt like posting."

How disingeuous. Simply what you believe, which miraculously happens to coincide perfectly with pro-life talking points.

Shawn, you are not Saint Simon Stylites, meditating on a pillar in the desert.

Shawn, I don't address issu... (Below threshold)

Shawn, I don't address issues like abortion on my blog because the blog is mostly for my entertainment and a way to communicate with a few friends and family.

I don't often post about truly serious matters, as you noted. But you chose to address abortion on this blog, but did it such a shallow way that it adds nothing to the debate.

Frankly, you used the same deep and insightful manner I use on my blog to post photos of my grandchildren and my dogs.

Some of the other commenters have expressed much more thoughtful ideas than your post does. And if eliciting such comments was your goal, you did fine.

"most thoughtful and insigh... (Below threshold)

"most thoughtful and insightful commenter on this thread so far, including my own humble contributions"


Humble? Who the hell are you kidding?

"Now, suppose you address my nightmare scenario, in which your hormone-addled teen son impregnates Little Miss Thang. What to do, there, Dad? Or, I mean, Grandpa? Especially if she is of a different race or "socio-economic background"?????"

You mean it would be a nightmare if "my son" impregnated a girl of a different race? Do you have something against interracial babies?

In answer to your disgustingly worded question, I would lobby for her to have to child.

Sorry Bruce: "the child."<... (Below threshold)

Sorry Bruce: "the child."

1) According to statistics ... (Below threshold)

1) According to statistics provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood), the vast majority of women in the USA seeking abortions are single women who became pregnant as a natural consequence of their choice to have sex.

2) I would like to know what makes a baby conceived by rape or incest less valuable a person than a baby conceived without the involvement of rape or incest.

3) I would like to know what morality standard that people use when determining the moral status of abortion.

Hey Shawn, I think you're r... (Below threshold)

Hey Shawn, I think you're right, this comments thread did go all screwy. And for some reason I felt the need to feed the absurdity, my apologies. But I would suggest that you slow down, and consider the possible rebuttals to your argument when you're crafting your posts. Not that you need to totally troll proof them, but filling in the obvious holes would help keep things on track. This I suggest with all respect as an English 101 prof who thinks you've made an excellent contribution to the Wizbang staff.

Good perspective. In liber... (Below threshold)

Good perspective. In liberal land, no one ever has to accept the consequences of their actions. "If you make a mistake, I don't want you to be punished with a baby...or a foreclosure...or a bankruptcy...or a prison sentence...or a trouncing at the polls...or an impeachment"


Guess I was projecting agai... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Guess I was projecting again. I meant that my worst nightmare is that one of my daughters will come home and announce that she is pregnant.
I just assumed you were a racist because you are so obviously sexist. Hand in glove and all that. But aside from that, and in case you hadn't noticed, interracial couples seem to have a more difficult time than non-interracial couples. Whodathunk it, huh?
FYI, in the South, "Little Miss Thang" is race-neutral.
But nice job implying that I am a hypocrite.
Mallow FTW.
But would you really? Even if you had to support Li'l Lolita and her baby financially for a few years? And even if "your son" married her, thus condemning himself, her, and the baby to a life of probable penury?

@59, I too have often wonde... (Below threshold)

@59, I too have often wondered what the difference is with the child if they were conceived through incest or rape. Isn't it still a child? I've often thought of that argument to be the height of all hypocrisy.

Shawn, what makes you think... (Below threshold)

Shawn, what makes you think that a "troll" (e.g. a liberal who has been posting here far longer than you have) would give a shit what "level" you deem them to be?

Your post sucks. All of your posts suck. They lack depth and appeal only to the peculiarly anti-intellectual stream of anti-liberalism. (I wouldn't deign to insult conservativism by branding your posts as conservative. You don't aspire to promote a set of ideas, but only to cast a dark light upon those that you are ideologically predisposed to dislike. Weak.)

The over-use of abortion is... (Below threshold)

The over-use of abortion is just one of the symptoms of the descent of our culture. Got careless and got pregnant? Get an abortion. Got yourself in debt? File bankruptcy. Bored with your spouse? Get a divorce. It's a lack of willingness to accept that one should be responsible for an action. If it's easy to get out, then why think things through beforehand? If it's easy to just call foul, then why try to take responsibility and make good?

Please do not construe my argument to be a blanket condemnation of everyone who has ever done one of these things. It is not intended to be and I will ignore any attempts to paint it as such.

So build your straw men and beat them down yourself.

"including my own humble co... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

"including my own humble contributions."
See, Shawn, that was what some people might call a "figure of speech."
You know, something to make a sentence a little more interesting, like saying "snuffed out like the flame of a candle" instead of "killed."
Eng Comp 101, dude. Didja ever take it?

"She made the choice to be ... (Below threshold)

"She made the choice to be irresponsible, all for a fleeting moment of sex and self-gratification."

You're ignoring the women who use birth control in good conscience but find that it hasn't worked, women whose relationships with their partners change, women who lose their jobs partway through pregnancy, women who already have four kids to feed, and women who find out about health problems.

Characterizing the women who get abortions as selfish sluts doesn't help anyone. You'll do a better job of convincing women not to get abortions if you first do a better job of understanding why they get them.

Unless the Law rationally d... (Below threshold)

Unless the Law rationally defines "fetus" then the war will continue.

As the most discriminatory Law in America stands (Roe vs Wade), the definition of "fetus" changes according to Gender, Need and Time:

If She chooses government-funded pre-natal care then She can choose to define the "fetus" as Life.

If She chooses Planned Parenthood-funded abortion then She can choose to define the "fetus" as a clump of cells.

Now if she can't choose what is the definition of "fetus" within the first trimester then She can choose to define herself as a victim seeking out barbaric means to rid Herself of Her indecision.

Now if She asks He to kick her in the abdomen in order to rid Herself of the "fetus" and He complies then He is sent to prison for killing Life while She remains free to choose to define "fetus".

Ah yeah Baby! We have came a long way from Medea's bloody barbarism.

My gender, some Empowerment. We alone have Chosen to butcher our off-spring bloody.

"You're ignoring the women ... (Below threshold)

"You're ignoring the women who use birth control in good conscience but find that it hasn't worked, women whose relationships with their partners change, women who lose their jobs partway through pregnancy, women who already have four kids to feed, and women who find out about health problems."

Perhaps if the female gender would stop playing the hapless victim card every time anything happens then females in general might actually mature into adulthood.

There was a time when woman fought against abortion (Susan B Anthony) so that females would not be forced into destructive measures on their bodies, minds and souls so how is today's abortion movement any different than the days when females were forced into abortions?

Susan B Anthony fought for the right to vote so that we would not be forced into abortion so why are women voting to enforce abortion?

Bruce,You likening... (Below threshold)


You likening anything you write as "humble" is hilarious.

So you do equate aborting a fetus as "killing"?

Bravo, Broose!!

We are the only sp... (Below threshold)
We are the only species on the planet that purposefully and knowingly aborts its offspring. Think about that for a second.

Although rabbits don't have abortions per se, they frequently will eat their babies after they're born. This behaviour is not unique to rabbits, it fairly common among animal species.

Poor attempt at "gotcha", M... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Poor attempt at "gotcha", Mallow. Fail.

For a marginally better pos... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

For a marginally better post about issues like this, see DJ Drummond's new one above, Shawn.
Read. Learn. Emulate.
You are no DJ Drummond, sir. How pathetic is that?

"Characterizing the wome... (Below threshold)

"Characterizing the women who get abortions as selfish sluts doesn't help anyone."

Shawn's argument was not a blanket criticism any more than mine was.

I know many women who have had abortions. None did it because of health reasons discovered after the fact. None did it because their relationship with their partner changed, unless you want to call "sobering up" a relationship change, or you want to call two weeks of dating a "relationship". One already had two children, by two other "partners".

One had four abortions. One had three abortions. Most only had one and completely changed their behavior because it was far more psychologically traumatic than they thought it would be. Most won't even talk about it.

These are the women Shawn talks about. To ignore that and point to arguable cases is to ignore the real problem.

And losing a job partway through pregnancy? Oddly enough, that happened to me. Running to Planned Parenthood to end my pregnancy seemed a bit over-reactive. Especially when there are numerous avenues one can take for financial help. Not only did I lose my job, but shortly afterward my husband of 5 years left me for an old girlfriend. I did not darken the doorway of an abortion clinic. I got help, pulled through it and that child has made me the proud grandparent of two beautiful children of her own.

"You'll do a better job of convincing women not to get abortions if you first do a better job of understanding why they get them."

And that has been discussed at length. For the majority, it's a lack of taking responsibility before the fact.

How large a majority, Oyste... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

How large a majority, Oyster?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but your anecdotal experience doesn't prove anything, nor does your sarcasm about "sobering up."

What's up with Wizbang's comment policy? Some people's comments are here for a few hours, then disappear. Others are left up, but all the vowels are removed. Always liberal commenters. What kind of childish crap is that? Is Wizbang afraid of us? Is that supposed to be some kind of warning signal, or a three-strikes policy or something?

Well said Shawn. Responsibi... (Below threshold)

Well said Shawn. Responsibility. Who'd a thunk.

Bruce Henry.If you... (Below threshold)

Bruce Henry.

If you don't like Wizbangs commenting policy,
don't comment.
Libs are not the only ones who discover their
comments unpublished, or vowels missing.
I encourage you to publish your own blog, that
way you won't have to complain about some one
elses commenting policies.

Bruce,Your attempt... (Below threshold)


Your attempt to change the subject is a cop-out.

Your contributions to this blog consist of two things:

1) You criticize the grammer of the author.

2) You play, as you say, "Gotcha!".

And in the tolerant, liberal, colorblind mode we've all come to know and expect, here's the qoute from your recent post:

"Now, suppose you address my nightmare scenario, in which your hormone-addled teen son impregnates Little Miss Thang. What to do, there, Dad? Or, I mean, Grandpa? Especially if she is of a different race or "socio-economic background"?????"

Your words, buddy. Don't try to get out of explaining the reasoning behind what you meant by them. "Little Miss Thang"? That's some choice of slang you used to make your pointed question about impregnating a girl of another race. Again, do you or don't you have a problem with interracial pregnancies?

Sure sounds like it.

And I take it as a complement that you compare, good or bad, a writing of mine to that of D.J. He's been doing this a hell of alot longer than I.

What I wrote was opinion. Not factual. Not statistical. Just what I personally feel.

Agree or disagree with it, but don't play the "Gotcha!" cop-out when someone calls you out on one of your loaded qoutes.

Now go crawl back from under whatever bridge it is you emerged from.

OK, Shawn, I apologise.... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

OK, Shawn, I apologise.

Now will you explain by what criteria Wizbang "disem-vowels" certain comments, and removes others after displaying them for a few hours?

Honest, I'll try to be good. I already stopped with the spelling and grammar thing.

To be honest, I can see how my "nightmare scenario" comments could be misconstrued. But, really, I don't know where you live, but "Little Miss Thang" is indeed race neutral in my neck of the woods. And no, I personally have no problems with interracial dating, marriage, or babies, but I do acknowledge that life is often tougher for a biracial kid than a non-biracial kid. Don't you think so? That's why I called it that.

My accusation of gotcha was aimed at your interpretation of my "snuff out=killing" remark.

But I really am curious about the policy itself. I am also curious about something Jay Tea posted on another thread about a "moby alert." I don't know what that is, either.

If you guys have a policy, I'll follow it. But I can't follow it if I don't know what it is.
By the way, I myself only have had one comment removed. I just noticed a couple of other people got "disem-voweled."

In other words, Maggie, I'm... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

In other words, Maggie, I'm just askin'. I'll play by the rules if you let me know what it is to go too far.

Bruce Henry.You've p... (Below threshold)

Bruce Henry.
You've posted on comments once before,
and I responded to you.

The editors, and comment section editor has
the authority to change comments they deem
inappropriate. Which means they may disappear,

If you have problems with Wizbang comment
policies, I encourage to set up your own
website where you control the comments.

Mr.Henry,As I am a... (Below threshold)


As I am assuming you are a responsible adult,
you should know where the line for civility
is located.
Otherwise you'll know when you start seeing
changes in your posts, or they disappear.
Don't crap on Wizbang and you'll be okay.

Fair enough. What's ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Fair enough.
What's a "moby alert"?

Maggie: I'm sure I h... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I'm sure I have bored everyone who may read this to tears, but I'd like to explain.
I only found out about this site because I'm a regular reader of another, much more liberal site, Oliver Willis. A guy who seems to be somewhat of an icon around here, Jay Tea, is a "troll" there. I don't know what level troll he would be considered by Mr Mallow, but he regularly kicks ass, and gets his ass kicked,(not by me), over there.
So, after the election, I decided to get out of the me-too mode I was in and visit here more often. Lo and behold I liked it. I seem to have got off on the wrong foot with Mr Mallow here, but that was because I assumed he could take it on the same level that Jay Tea dishes it out. He never gives quarter, or asks any.
So when I ask about your comment policy I'm being sincere. Seriously, you should read Jay Tea and this guy called "Quaker in a Basement" discussing the Gaza situation on Oliver. They go at it like cats and dogs, and it is a thing of beauty to behold.
Seriously, I'm just trying to have a little fun here. No offense meant.

Wait a minute now. I slept ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Wait a minute now. I slept on this, and it still bothers me.
I've seen liberal commenters here referred to as "stupid fucktards", "idiots", "kool-aid drinkers", and "morons", not to mention the ever-popular "asshat" and "assclown".
I've seen Ted Kennedy called a "murderer", a "drunk", and "scum."
I've seen the President-elect called "incompetent", a "lying, hypocritical POS", and a "Muslim terrorist-sympathizer".
But, being an adult, I'm supposed to know that being sarcastic to Shawn is "crossing the line of civility"?
Seems kind of capricious to me, and hence my question. Of course it's your blog, and you can do what you want, but you do want to be fair here, don't you?

Bruce, I get the distinct i... (Below threshold)

Bruce, I get the distinct impression that you are largely arguing on the basis of emotion and while the cases you mention are indeed factors in abortion statistics, they are definitely a minority.

The fact is, over 90% of abortions are elective, meaning the mother's health is not in danger, the health of the child is not problematic and no rape or incest has occurred. Of that 90% a myriad of reasons come into play; economics, marital status careers, education, etc.

Statistics and facts are easy enough to look up if one has a desire for the facts rather than to cite minority cases and use them as a blanket excuse for the rest.

You can start here where a few states statistics are cited over a period of many years. And then look up more on your own.

If you don't want to look at the link, here's some numbers you should consider. These were given as the "main reason" for having an abortion:

* 21% said they were "unready for responsibility"

* 12% cited "problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood"

* 21% said they "can't afford baby now"

* 16% said they were "concerned about how having baby would change her life"

It is my contention, and always has been, that if one is unready, can't afford a baby, doesn't want their life to change or they're in a relationship that is not conducive to rearing a child and nearly half of them weren't using contraception then it's time to start talking about responsibility before the fact.

And that's what Shawn was addressing.


"For a marginally better post about issues like this, see DJ Drummond's new one above, Shawn. "

Why? Because DJ didn't bruise your delicate sensibilities? Because you feel he gave your argument credence?

DJ and Shawn are BOTH correct. They're simply two different facets of the same issue.

I don't know how long you've been around, but I was an adult when Roe v Wade was decided. The arguments were heated and took place everywhere across the country; at the dining room table, around the water cooler at work and even between mothers at the playground. Those of us who brought up the slippery slope argument were roundly poo-pooed. We were told that this did not mean women would be walking into hospitals demanding abortions for just any reason. No. Of course not! They wouldn't be getting abortions in their fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth months!

Look at us now.

Bruce,As far as yo... (Below threshold)


As far as your "being sarcastic to Shawn is "crossing the line of civility"?", you are still here, posting, and you have not had your posts deleted, have you? I think what Maggie is trying to say is, it seems that's all you do (not just to me). And that, to me, is hijacking a thread. I can personally take your crap, but, it may not be what Wizbang wants from one of it's commenters most all the time.

I would also say that, in most of the instances which you sited, the posts weren't consisted solely of that type of, er, a descriptive nature. And I've been around here long enough to know that just because a liberal poster used a word like "idiot" or "asshat" when describing a conservative or an author, they also did not automatically get their posts amended.

I have also seen posts directed at liberals which have been deleted, dis-em-vowelled, etc., so to suggest that there is a one-sided discipline here is, at least as far as I've witnessed, not true.

You also say that you've seen nasty things written about Obama. Are you telling me you've never seen degrading things written about President Bush here? That's a whopper.

Oyster: Those are go... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Those are good points. I was 19 at the time of Roe v. Wade, so I've been around a good while. You're right of course that some people (people, not just women) are so careless and irresponsible as to use abortion as birth control, and that is reprehensible. But many people were just as irresponsible BEFORE 1973, and were getting abortions (or pressuring their partners or daughters to get them) whether they were legally performed or not. Are more abortions performed now than were being performed then? We can't know, because illegal abortions were obviously not reported. My guess is that there ARE more being performed nowadays. My only quibble with you was in your use of anecdotal evidence.
I think my mistake was in asking about the comments policy in the middle of another, unrelated argument. One thing had nothing to do with the other, so it was wrong of me to raise it here. I should have asked about it on the thread in which I first noticed it.

Bruce,Quibble all ... (Below threshold)


Quibble all you want. I was offering anecdotal evidence to someone else's commentary. Not as proof of anything to you.

Again, Oyster, as I said, t... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Again, Oyster, as I said, those are good points. You and I largely agree.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


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