Can They Get Any Crazier?

Tags

abortion, right to choose

I do not mean to offend anyone.

That said, lets begin offending!

Seriously, I recognize that people have legitimate feelings and beliefs on this subject. I can sympathize. I can even say (easy coming from my perch as post-menopausal of course), that I might personally agree with those who say that it is taking a life. For me it might have been had I decided to do such a thing at the time that I was capable of conceiving. It never happened so I can’t say.

All that being said, let’s look at some points of contention:

(1) when does life begin? The simple answer to the simple-minded is “at conception. When egg meets sperm, cell division begins. But pregnancy does not, and some 50-80 percent of all fertilized eggs don’t implant successfully, and this can take six to twelve days to happen. Where you draw the line raises a host of really ugly problems that are legal in nature, and that is why when life begins is a subject medical and legal experts would rather avoid.

(2) Is personhood different from life? Surely most of us would say yes. When in the growth of the foetus does it become a person? Most would argue when it has viability outside the womb. Other’s of course want to return to that moment of conception. Again, medical experts will differ and the legal implications are huge.

(3) can you rationally be for some types of abortion and not others? Can you justify logically abortion to save the life of the mother? Are you not tampering with God’s province then? Can you make exceptions for rape and incest and if so why? Morally aren’t you compelled as Steve King is to ban them all? (men find these issues so darned easy don’t they?)

(4) what are the common lies told about abortions: (a) it causes  breast cancer (b) it causes infertility (c) most women regret them later (d) forcing women to watch ultrasounds will change their minds (e) abortions psychologically damage women (f) imposing severe regulations on abortion clinics makes abortions safer (g) abortions threaten women’s lives and health. None of these claims are remotely true.

(5) Fetuses suffer pain at abortion. This is not true either. Most medical experts based on a myriad of studies don’t believe a fetus is capable of pain prior to the cortex being wired in at 24 weeks. The vast majority of abortions are done before this period.

(6) the US in the guise of the right to anti-abortionists is well-known for its save the fetus at all costs” but then ignore the infant, child, youngster afterward. The same people who are in the forefront of pushing these anti-abortion bills through the House of Representatives, are the same folks who vote against food stamps, contraceptive care for women, medical care for children, and a host of other social programs that ensure that youngsters born in this country will be raised under healthy conditions. The argument is clear, you aren’t pro-life if your ONLY concern is bringing forth a birth, a birth you then abandon.

As you can see, the issue is a complicated one and there are no easy answers. While it is easy to take a flat stand as many Republican men do (not having to contend with pregnancy has it’s benefits), when you get in the weeds the going gets pretty darn hard. Not that most of the far right has any problem with being disingenuous or illogical.

On the anniversary of Roe v Wade, the GOP House thought to take advantage of the situation and pro-offer a bill that would make their base happy, and accomplish nothing since it could not pass the Senate, nor be signed by the President. It was a win-win for them. •

Until even some of their Republican ladies even thought that the bill went too far, encompassed too much, and was just full of some of those unintended consequences mentioned in (1) and (2). Marsha Blackburn, (R-TN) and all around stupid person, charged with marshalling the bill through the House, retreated in the face of  growing distrust in their own caucus. The provision that proved deadly was the requirement that rape victims would be denied an exception to the general ban unless they had reported the rape to police.

The extremists on the right are predictably displeased and threatening to pressure those wavering Republican women. I’m sure it’s the traditional, if you want to keep your job, you better!

With all this at hand, just how comfortable are you with telling another woman what is best for her? I know I’m not. And I will support her right to decide these very complicated matters herself and with the people she chooses to ask advice of. As they say, if men could have babies, this would never be an issue.

• • •

The Big Lie of the Anti-choice Right

Tags

abortion, abstinence, pro-life, religion, right to choose, sex education, sexuality, women's bodies, Women's issues

It is probably true that there is no basis of compromise between the two sides. One either believes that there is a fundamental right of a woman to control her own body or one believes that  conception and the resultant life trumps all other issues from the moment that sperm meets ovum.

We can all agree to that. What choice people profess, and most anti-choicers refuse to acknowledge, is that choice people also want to reduce abortion in every effective way possible short of legally restricting the right. Nobody is “for” abortion as the “pro-lifers” are want to insist.

Reasonable heads should prevail, one would assume. The question should become, “what can we do to effectively work toward reducing abortions?”

It would seem obvious that we can get together to work on that, right? Wrong.

Because that is part of the big lie of the right. They are not so much interested in reducing abortions as they are in winning on this issue, and controlling women’s bodies. And that suggests that it is not some “overriding” moral conclusion that is beyond religion as they claim. Make the argument that abortion is a religious issue, and wait for them to begin howling. No they claim, it’s not religion, its simple morality. Odd, since they will surely claim that all sense of morality comes from God, thus non-believers cannot be “moral” exactly.

If abortions are immoral, then reducing abortions must be more moral than merely  stubbornly objecting to abortions as being immoral. And the dirty little secret is that abortion is only part of the agenda for the religious right. The other item on the agenda is “contraception.” And this of course is very much a religious issue, and depends on a very specific type of belief, namely that sex is only for procreation and that to use any type of barrier to conception is a slap in the face to God.

No matter of course, that an omnipotent God can presumably frustrate the best efforts of humans to defy his wishes. It is the internal desire to take conception out of God’s hands that is objected to. And most every if not all the right to life organizations are anti-contraception.

There is a fascinating article by AlterNet on the subject, and with some amazing statistics. Tim Ryan, (D-OH) and pro-lifer, has been removed from a pro-life board of directors because he favors means to reduce abortion, including contraception. He has gone public and is underscoring that the real war is between a tiny segment of the “pro-life” movement, and the vast majority of pro-lifers who are like him, fine with contraception.

The realities are stark. Abstinence only programs are a failure, at best postponing for a few extra months, teens experimentation with sex. Worse, when they do begin having it, they don’t use protections and have a much higher incidence of STD’s and pregnancy, thus abstinence only programs actually result in increased abortions.

Study after study shows that broad based sex education works. States are moving away from AO after watching their statistics start to re-climb, back to comprehensive sex education, a proven method of reducing STD’s and unwanted pregnancy. Joining with Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Ryan sponsors the “Preventing unintended pregnancies, Reducing the need for abortion and supporting Parent’s Act,” which aims at instituting practices found useful from the “The Third Way,” a left-center think tank.

Various anti-choice organizations now call Ryan “so called” when it comes to being pro-life. But when polled 80% of those who self-identify with a pro-life stance, also are pro-contraception. The bill supports contraception, help for poor women who wish to carry to term, comprehensive sex education, and help for adoptive families. No pro-life group supports the legislation.

Only the Catholic church 0pposes contraception, even though 90% of its faithful use it or are in favor of its availability. There is no denomination whose support of contraception is below 88%. Jewish support is at 97%.  Even 70% of Republicans and Independents favor contraception and only a measly 2% of them don’t.

According to Ryan, only 20% of the pro-life movement favors no contraception, but they seem fully in control of the movement. Ryan urges that those within the movement need to hold that 20% accountable now.

It is obvious that this minority has an agenda separate and apart from reducing abortion. And I contend that that agenda is religious in nature and is theocratic in intent. It is nothing less than to impose religious concepts of sexual behavior onto the public at large, regardless of what their religious believes are or are not.

Certainly, it is perfectly fine for anyone to believe personally that contraception is wrong for them, and somehow against God. One’s personal theology is sacrosanct. However, to allow it to intrude to the point that one will not work for a  legitimate goal of reducing abortion, is telling to say the least. It in fact shows all too clearly that something else is at stake. The article is a real eye opener. It is what I have been contending for some time, and what no doubt others have realized as well.

It’s not just about “life” its also about controlling women and their sexuality.

On Whose Hands?

Tags

abortion, activism, George Tiller, moral responsibility, murder, right to choose

                                                                                                             Dr. George Tiller is dead. He was killed by some demented anti-abortionist activitist. Most of the right-to-lifer groups are trying to distance themselves. Not all, but most.

Dr. Tiller did what was and is legal in the United States of America. Agree with him or not, he was practicing medicine, as a fully licensed physician. I’ve been given to understand that Bill O’Reilly took him on as a special “cause” to be stopped.  Well, he’s been stopped, killed by an assassin while ushering in his church as the congregation looked on in horror.

Why do I have something to say about this? I haven’t anything particularly news worthy to say. You can get better up to the moment information from any number of online news sites. But I’m angry, not quite beyond words, as you can see, but enough to set aside a more humorous post to speak my piece here today.

The issue is responsibility. Who is responsible here? The nut case that pulled the trigger? Certainly. But I would suggest that a whole lot of others are morally so as well.

The past couple of days, I’ve been engaged in a conversation with a gentleman on a forum, about fanaticism. He’s been defending both himself and another who are utterly rude and viciously mean to posters who don’t agree with them. It’s their “way” of “defending” the church.

I pointed out a truth to him. That in the past couple of months, three people have indicated so much disgust with the behavior of a couple of people there, that they were seriously thinking of changing their minds. In two cases, people had come to the forum to investigate Catholicism, thinking they might want to join. They were becoming convinced that if this was representative of that faith, they wanted no part of it. Another had converted to Catholicism two years ago, but was so distressed at the manner and method of some individuals, that they were considering returning to their earlier faith traditions.

One can argue of course, that people within a church shouldn’t be the prime motivator to one’s decisions like this. But the truth is they often are. In all three cases, I counseled the individuals to spend time in a local parish, talk to RCIA people and priests. I said that I doubted that they would find such people in most Catholic churches. I rather thought most priests would agree that such behavior was wrong and not supported by the institutional church.

As to the gentleman in question, I asked, would you want to be responsible for causing someone to leave your faith? He of course responded that that wasn’t his fault, their faith was weak if that’s all it took. He said categorically he wouldn’t change one single thing about how he “defended” the faith.

I have written here of my experience with a co-worker who committed suicide. We had never gotten along. No one had any idea this person was on the verge of suicide. It was hard to figure out why it had happened. I learned a lesson that I have tried to keep in the fore front of my mind when I encounter difficult people. And that is simply that I don’t want to be the final straw in someone’s life. I don’t want to be the “that’s enough, I’m ending this life,” person in anyone’s life.

I no doubt don’t do as well as I should or as I would like. But when I see evidence that someone is unbalanced, I back off. The trouble is, as I said of my coworker, there is not always evidence.

Those who are against allowing women the right to make decisions about their own bodies are entitled to their opinion. It is a severely difficult issue, and honestly no one is in favor of abortion. We all wish desperately that other answers can be found. Some of us, in the end, feel we have no right to invade this very private place and dictate to any woman how her body will be used, and how her life will be altered.

So I am not laying the blame for Dr. Tiller’s death on all those who are against Roe v. Wade.  No, I reserve that place for all those who rant with increasing violent rhetoric, calling those who perform abortions “murderers,” and those who support them, the same. I reserve that place for those who show vulgar ugly pictures of fetuses, and practice the “in your face” kind of demonstration. Who scream at nurses and workers, who vilify and torment women trying to enter clinics. Who invoke their personal belief that God is going to punish and send to hell all such persons.

They have, with systematic legal knowledge spewed forth their hatred and their venom upon the public, knowing that some of that public is unstable and mentally deranged. Those folks will take that righteous indignation and turn it into a personal challenge to act for God, and become the crusader who exacts God’s justice when the government fails to act to “do what is right.”

These activists will claim they didn’t personally counsel any such violence, but in fact they did. It is  legally called,  having the “reasonable belief” that one’s actions and words would cause the actual result. Were those results in fact reasonable foreseeable?  

All the pundits, right and left, who try to whip up the “base” on any number of issues are taking this risk. The risk that others, who are out of control emotionally, will misconstrue the remarks and think they are being told that the truly righteous must act. And act they will, and act they do. That is what is so damning about an O’Reilly and a Hannity and a Limbaugh, and a list of others that is frighteningly long.

This is madness. And I stand and point my finger and say SHAME. It is you, you self-righteous puffed up arrogant, self-styled morality definer who will stand before God and weep, “I had no idea, Lord, I had no idea. I thought I was doing your will.”

Leave God to God. He’s had a good deal more experience with being God. Try to work on taking that damned plank out of your own eye.

The Inevitable Fear Push

Tags

abortion, Catholicism, FOCA, fundamentalism, right to choose

Declan McCullagh photographer

Alternet has a post you ought to take a look at. It’s about abortion. Yes, THAT subject again. It is about the campaign being run by the USCCB to fight the passage of a bill not yet in Congress. The bill is the Freedom of Choice Act.

Conservative Catholics and no doubt other right wing religious groups find this legislation threatening and of course are getting ready for another fear driven fight over it. The did their best to urge their members to not vote for Obama because of his pro-choice position.

The fact of the matter is,  most Catholics ignore this sort of thing. They voted, for instance, for Obama to the tune of 54%. What is worse, is that internal polling by the USCCB turns up the fact that 9 out of 10 Catholics support the right to choose, believing that there are valid reasons for allowing abortion in at least some cases.

The hardliners, of course can allow no such exceptions, since their logic collapses if they do. They are also, for the most part silent on punishment as well. If abortion is murder, then the penalties for murder must apply. In fact, it is clearly premeditated, so only the severest penalties would be appropriate.  Only the most rabid of anti-choice people are willing to go that far, but of course, by failing to, they lose the argument.

A walk around the forums uncovers that nobody on the conservative side has a nice thing to say about Obama. There is to them, still only one issue, abortion. It is all talk about who in the administration is “pro-abortion.” Of course, nobody really is pro-abortion. People are pro-choice, and that is hugely different.

The writer of the piece at Alternet is president of Catholics for Choice. He makes the important point, that if we could eliminate the fear tactics and get on with some meaningful discussion, we might actually be able to work on the problem we all should see as foremost: what can we do to help reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies? What can we do to find solutions to unwanted pregnancies that are short of abortion?

Sex education is a huge component in this of course. It is universally considered a major key to reducing the number of teens and young adults who find themselves in the situation where abortion becomes an alternative to examine. I am saddened, that the Roman Catholic church cannot explore this means of addressing the problem, since at least from the prospective of the radical right, any discussion of contraception is unacceptable.

In this, Catholicism has of course painted itself into a corner. And although again, most Catholics use contraception with no thought to the Vatican position, or with due thought, the conservative element in the Church seems to be the one in charge now and for the foreseeable future.

That pretty much leaves them out the of mix, at least publicly, though no doubt many fine Roman Catholics work quietly and effectively with other Christians to reduce the number of abortions by improving sex education.

The Alternet article serves to remind us all that the minority is vocal but they hardly carry the day. Rational thoughtful and compassionate middle of the roaders and progressives and liberals, on the other hand, do have the actual votes. It might be worth reminding your congresspersons of that when the Freedom of Choice Act comes up once more.