Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
The abortion issue is not solely about a women’s right to choose, it is about the hatred and fear of women’s sexuality. There is a subtext to this movement, shown plainly by the actions of many Anti-Abortion supporters, that goes way beyond the issue of whether abortion is murder. This is not asserting my opinion as to the validity of either side in the Anti-Abortion debate. It is not to stir up a debate for or against abortion. I’ve commented here enough for people to know where I stand on the issue. What has bothered me for a long time on this issue has been whether it is just about being for or against a women’s right to choose? If it is only about the right of choice, then I could at least accept that those who would deny it have sufficient beliefs to justify their actions, without there being another unspoken agenda. Indeed, the original initiator of the anti-abortion issue was the Roman Catholic Church.
The RCC’s position is that society should ensure a safety net to take care of babies and children after they are born. I may not agree with the Church’s teachings, but I applaud the fact that they at least recognize that if you are going to have the State ban abortions, then the State must also have responsibility for taking care of those children not aborted. This makes sense to me as a viable belief to have if you are solely against abortion.
An article in Friday’s Huffpost, got me thinking about this issue and the implications of trying to de-fund Planned Parenthood, a Non-Profit that I believe is providing extremely important services throughout our country. Fully 96% of Planned Parenthood’s services go to identification/treatment of STD’s, Cancer Screening, Contraception, and other vital women’s health services. None of these services include abortions. These are essential services needed by all women. However, the viral opposition to Planned Parenthood funding and the de-funding of its’ programs by various States, comes primarily from those opposed to abortions. Planned Parenthood provides very necessary services to the community at large that government should support. Remember it is a private not public institution, cheaper in provision of these services than can be offered by profit making institutions. Why do anti-abortionists hate Planned Parenthood and other similar Non-Profit services?
One female member of Congress, discussing Planned Parenthood de-funding put it this way:
“The real purpose here, as I’ve come to view it, is to impose a traditional view of a women’s role,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told HuffPost. “Republicans don’t really care what the benefits of Title X funding are in terms of women’s health, so women’s health is held hostage. Planned Parenthood can prevent 4,000 women a year from dying of cervical cancer with screenings and vaccines, but that is not of interest to them because of a personal and philosophical agenda.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/defund-planned-parenthood-birth-control_n_899334.html
What is the personal and philosophical agenda to which Rep. DeLauro is referring? It goes far beyond some peoples deeply held beliefs that abortion is murder. Beyond that belief is that women do not have the right to sexual autonomy and therefore are in need of punishment if they have sex outside of marriage. Therefore, women should be denied birth control counseling, STD identification, and treatment to ensure that they are sufficiently chastened for daring to go beyond the bounds of some people’s religious beliefs. This is the only logical inference to be drawn, and yet if one examines this logically this is highly inconsistent with the ostensible aims of the anti-abortion movement. If they were actually worried that abortions are murder of a fetus, then you would think that birth control, which would prevent many abortions, would be a good thing.
We know that this is not the case. Since the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t approve of birth control, we know what answer they would give. I would suppose those religious fundamentalists who believe in abstention until marriage would also be against it. However, what is a worse sin? Is it “murder” as the anti-choice people deem it, or is it preventing an unwanted pregnancy in the first instance?
I find answer obvious. We generally see murder as the worst of human crimes. One would think that if something could prevent “murder”, better the lesser of the two sins, than the ultimate one. The reasoning of the anti-choice people doesn’t seem to follow that line of logic. Therefore, I can only conclude that the concern to halt abortions is only secondary to the real agenda of some leaders of the anti-choice movement.
My conclusion is that the subtext of this anti-choice movement, at least its leadership, is a hatred of women being autonomous sexually and the concomitant desire to punish them for having sex outside of marriage. This is why they also oppose birth control education. The “abstinence only” meme they push is a failure. As a result we find that incidences of teen pregnancy are higher in states more aligned with anti-choice, anti women’s sexuality values.
“Only a quarter of evangelical teens abstain from sexual activity more than other teens. And expanding access to contraception, rather than abortion, is the best way to delay marriage and promote stable families.”
The above article, a book review, delves more deeply into the subject. The quote I’ve presented provides interesting evidence of the fear that fundamentalist anti-choice people have about female sexuality. Despite all their preaching of abstinence, their teen women are having sex a lot and it makes them angry. Angry at a “permissive” society where sexuality is rampant and angry enough at their “disobedient” children to see them punished for not following their rules. There is probably another dichotomy that exists in that many men are proud when their son has loses his virginity, but enraged if it is their daughter.
The notion of female sexual autonomy is frightening to many religious people, since all major religions have a history of male domination. If women can assert their own right to be sexual beings, then this would also give them leave to assert that they are to have equal footing with men in all respects, including in marriage and worship. This would represent such a radical revolution of ideas to those of religious fundamentalist bent, as to create fear and loathing, which of course translates readily into hatred.
Anticipating objections to funding Planned Parenthood, FactCheck.com presents the following article detailing the funding of Planned Parenthood and showing that the opposition to it can’t possibly be all about abortions. The following relevant quote is from this article:
“Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.”
Mike,
Thanks for the words of support; but shamefully enough I haven’t played a game of chess in twenty years. I used to read books on the game, but now I wouldn’t survive a match against a ten year old.
Noway: “Blackstone did not say “as soon as the mother can feel the infant stir in the womb”. He said as soon as the infant is able to stir. Stir means move. To stir is to be in motion.”
Tell that to Scalia.
Elaine: “As a man, you’d never be put in the position of a pregnant woman whose life may be endangered by a pregnancy. This discussion may be philosophical to you. It isn’t to me.”
Elaine,
That line of argument is just as wrong as this commercial:
http://gizmodo.com/5822317/douche-ad-proclaims-vagina-most-powerful-entity-in-history
kderosa: “how would you justify the welfare state? No individual has the right to take my property from me even for presumptively good causes. So, what right does a bunch of indivduals have to take my process through the democratic process?”
I’m not sure what you mean; are you saying that using taxation to fund welfare is a form of tyranny? Existing by virtue of policy established by legislation, I don’t see how that argument flies. Usurpation; perhaps. Tyranny, no.
kderosa: “So we agree that the Federal Government has no such right. But the question remains what right does the Constitution give to the federal government to prevent states from doing that, assuming that’s what they are doing?”
You mean power; don’t you? The Fed was never granted a general power to promulgate penal laws; thus the reason drug laws evolved from tax acts such as the Harrison Tax Act of 1914. But I’m not sure what you mean regarding the Fed preventing state legislation regarding abortion.
Me: “A state government has no more power to breach the social contract than the Fed.”
kderosa: “That would depend on each state’s Constitution whether that right has been delegated or not.”
No, the social contract is the condition precedent to any government (here in the U.S.). Just as space and time are prerequisites to experience, so too is the social contract a prerequisite to the existence of government.
Me: “My argument goes to the necessity of the window per the social contract remaining valid; anything beyond the first trimester is irrelevant per my argument.”
kderosa: I don’t see where this first trimester magic comes into play.
See above regarding the existence of the social contract being the prerequisite for government. Without that window, the social contract becomes void as illusory.
kderosa: “If the majority believes that life begins at conception of at some point before the end of the first trimester and that human rights should be accorded at this time, then we’d have to balance the competing interests to see what right should trump the other.”
Given your, dare I say, conservative bent, I suggest you take a step back from this singular issue and reconsider the importance of keeping the government to its original promise of limited power. To argue that the government can exercise power at conception necessitates that the government has absolutely no limit on the power it can exercise over the individual; i.e. the citizen of becomes property of the government because the social contract no longer exists. The true conservative knows where the main power switch to government is and is never afraid to turn it off when said government strays out of bounds with power. And the main power switch always goes back to the distinction between tyranny and usurpation.
Me: The premise that life begins at conception and the state has an interest in protecting that life from conception is an exercise of power over the woman’s inalienable right of self-ownership and is tyranny per se.
kderosa:: How is that so?
“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every [one] has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.”
“As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”
Without that first trimester window, the government exercises a property interest in the individual at conception which is tyranny per se.
just a few questions for all the anti abortion people on the boards.
1. HOW MANY UNWANTED,ABUSED BABIES HAVE YOU TAKEN INTO YOUR HOME??
2. how many of you men have caught a std from having sex outside of marriage and are now scared to have sex with your wives for fear of passing it on?
3. how many more dead and abused children must we mourn before you idiots open your eyes?
4. how many of you men want to support a child conceived by rape?
5.how many of you women want to give birth to a child conceived thru rape?
So long as a woman is married she gives up her right to decide for herself. It is the mans rules and respect for the man which is your apparent problem. Learn to deal with it.
Turning in for the night. Will post tomorrow.
Come on, with paragraphs like:
“Blackstone did not say “as soon as the mother can feel the infant stir in the womb”. He said as soon as the infant is able to stir. Stir means move. To stir is to be in motion.”
Do you actually expect to be taken seriously?
NoWay
1, July 18, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Blouise,
Other than providing snarky responses, what value do you bring to the discussion? Can you elaborate?
———————————————————-
Nooooo way!
I think this set of trolls is a set up for better things to come….
“Noway: “If you are dependent on the snarky remarks of your friends as support for your position, you already lost the debate.”
Bob is dependent on no one in debate or for position support. He could handle the likes of you and your friends simultaneously while playing chess
and putting together a brief. Silly boy, if you think you’re anywhere near his league in thought or debate.
Bob,
“Once again, I brought up partial birth abortion to contrast with your apparent dead certainty that consideration for the mother’s life is always paramount.
“What’s funny here is I’ve been waiting for you to justify your position regarding the mother’s life always being paramount; i.e. by introducing the problem of viability. Yet you keep asking me what my position is. How is that relevant?”
**********
I’ve compiled my comments on this thread with the exception of a couple that don’t relate to this specific discussion about a mother’s right to choose:
*****
I understand why some people are anti-abortion. I think there are probably many people like me who are not pro-abortion–but who believe that pregnant women should have choices when their lives are in danger or when they are victims of rape and incest.
One thing I find troubling is that some of these anti-abortion people are the same folks who don’t want to spend any taxpayer money on programs that would help prevent unwanted pregnancies, would provide contraceptives to women, would make inexpensive healthcare available to poor women who are pregnant, would help provide for the children whose mothers were forced to have them.
*****
If someone killed another person in order to defend his/her own life, would you consider that to be murder?
*****
Let me return to the question I asked Antonio–and why I asked it. I attended parochial schools through 12th grade. When I was in the 6th grade, my teacher, a nun, brought up the subject of Catholic doctors and a woman giving birth. That nun told us that if a Catholic doctor had to choose between saving the life of a mother or a baby during a problem labor/birth, he’d have to save the baby. That didn’t seem right–nor did it seem fair–to me.
I don’t know if that nun was correct–but it troubled me greatly when I thought that could possibly happen to my own mother.
*****
Can you provide me with a medical definition of partial birth abortion and information about when and why one may be performed? For example, are partial birth abortions ever performed to save a mother’s life?
*****
What is considered “late term?”
What are the reasons for late terms abortions? Are partial birth abortions ever performed to save a mother’s life?
*****
I just found this from Cornell University Law School:
§ 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00001531—-000-.html
Excerpts:
(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.
(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.
In a case such as that noted in (a) above, I think a woman ought to have the right to choose between saving her own life or that of her baby.
Do you think a woman should have that right?
*****
Please note that I wrote the following: “I don’t know if that nun was correct–but it troubled me greatly when I thought that could possibly happen to my own mother.”
I didn’t say I was relying on what the nun told me–but that I had found it troubling.
Do you think a woman has the right to choose between saving her own life or that of her baby?
Why don’t you ask the Catholic Medical Association about its position on the subject and get back to us with the information?
*****
“I don’t know Elaine; don’t you think the issue of viability makes that decision a tad more difficult
It does indeed make for a difficult decision. Who do you think should have the right to decide–the doctor or the mother whose life is in jeopardy?
*****
“I don’t see that as the primary issue. The issue is the decision itself.”
Are you saying that you think no decision should be made by either the doctor or the mother and that they should just let nature takes its course?
*****
“No, I said ‘The issue is the decision itself.’ When viability enters the equation it’s no longer a simple late term abortion of a fetus.”
First, I doubt a late term abortion is simple. Second, what would it be then if not a late term abortion?
*****
And I’m attempting to make you reflect on your comments here too. I think you’re trying to avoid answering some of my questions.
– Who do you think should have the right to decide–the doctor or the mother whose life is in jeopardy?
– Are you saying that you think no decision should be made by either the doctor or the mother and that they should just let nature takes its course?
– Second, what would it be then if not a late term abortion?
*****
Elaine: “Who do you think should have the right to decide–the doctor or the mother whose life is in jeopardy?”
Bob: “When I said the issue is the decision itself, I meant determining the moral equation to make the decision; whether made by the mother, doctor or the law.”
Is that your final answer to my question above? Or would you be willing to provide us with a moral equation on the subject?
*****
Bob,
I didn’t say the woman’s life was paramount. I did say that I believe a woman should have the right to make the decision when her own life is in jeopardy. Some women may choose to save their own lives; some may choose to save the lives of their babies. How would you like me to justify my belief? I am woman and I think women should have the right to choose.
As a man, you’d never be put in the position of a pregnant woman whose life may be endangered by a pregnancy. This discussion may be philosophical to you. It isn’t to me.
@Bob, Esq.
No, just not a doctrinaire conservative, especially with respect to social issues.
I certainly don’t disagree. However, how would you justify the welfare state? No individual has the right to take my property from me even for presumptively good causes. So, what right does a bunch of indivduals have to take my process through the democratic process?
So we agree that the Federal Government has no such right. But the question remains what right does the Constitution give to the federal government to prevent states from doing that, assuming that’s what they are doing?
That would depend on each state’s Constitution whether that right has been delegated or not.
I don’t see where this first trimester magic comes into play. If the majority believes that life begins at conception of at some point before the end of the first trimester and that human rights should be accorded at this time, then we’d have to balance the competing interests to see what right should trump the other.
How is that so?
“Actually, I meant it in the way Scalia would interpret it; through the eyes of Blackstone when Blackstone was alive.”
Now I get it. You want to rely on the 18th century ignorance of Blackstone as though it would be the same today.
“LIFE is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.” -Blackstone
Blackstone did not say “as soon as the mother can feel the infant stir in the womb”. He said as soon as the infant is able to stir. Stir means move. To stir is to be in motion.
Elaine,
Once again, I brought up partial birth abortion to contrast with your apparent dead certainty that consideration for the mother’s life is always paramount.
What’s funny here is I’ve been waiting for you to justify your position regarding the mother’s life always being paramount; i.e. by introducing the problem of viability. Yet you keep asking me what my position is. How is that relevant?
kderosa: “Bob Esq, I never called myself a conservative, that was merely a bad assumption on your part.”
So what are you; a simple contrarian?
kderosa: “Since the Declaration of Independence isn’t law, you’re saying that the social contract is codified in the Constitution. I agree.”
I didn’t say that and the terms of the social contract are simple; thou shalt not exercise power beyond right which no one has a right to. It’s self evident actually.
kderosa: “So where in the Constitution does it say that a “woman … retain[s] the right to determine the course of her own life within the first trimester.”
Actually, since the constitution is simply a scheme of specifically enumerated powers, the question becomes where is the specifically enumerated power to treat women as property of the United States?
kderosa: “The Constitution appears to be silent on this matter, not giving any enumerated power to the federal government, instead deferring this question to the states through their police power.”
Just because a power was not given to the Fed doesn’t mean that the individual bestowed the same power to the state. A state government has no more power to breach the social contract than the Fed. “Thou shalt not exercise power beyond right which no one has a right to” applies to all governments.
kderosa: Again, the issue isn’t the first trimester window because no such window exists, women can get an abortion well past the first trimester.
My argument goes to the necessity of the window per the social contract remaining valid; anything beyond the first trimester is irrelevant per my argument.
kderosa: “The issue is really about two conflicting rights: the woman’s right to reproductive freedom and the fetus’ human rights and when they should be accorded those rights.”
Absolutely.
kderosa: Each of my examples does involve a trespass, as does the woman’s right to an abortion trespasses on the fetus’s human rights as soon as those rights are accorded. some think those rights don’t exist until the vaginal canal, other’s think the rights begin at conception, still others at stirring/quickening/viability. Seems to me that this is a policy issue that should be left in the hands of the people to decide and if you think there should be some Constitutional limitations, then we have a process to deal with that as well.”
The premise that life begins at conception and the state has an interest in protecting that life from conception is an exercise of power over the woman’s inalienable right of self-ownership and is tyranny per se. The first trimester window is sufficient to separate government from individual for purposes of preserving the social contract between the government and the mother and preserving the rights of the unborn thereafter.
Bob,Esq.,
Elaine: “Who do you think should have the right to decide–the doctor or the mother whose life is in jeopardy?”
Bob: “When I said the issue is the decision itself, I meant determining the moral equation to make the decision; whether made by the mother, doctor or the law.”
I that your final answer to my question above? Or would you be willing to provide us with a moral equation on the subject?
Noway: “Stir? Quickening? Do you mean that as soon as the fetus demonstrates signs of being alive that it should be protected?”
Actually, I meant it in the way Scalia would interpret it; through the eyes of Blackstone when Blackstone was alive.
Noway: “If you are dependent on the snarky remarks of your friends as support for your position, you already lost the debate.”
Really? Are you that much of a douche bag?
Elaine: “Who do you think should have the right to decide–the doctor or the mother whose life is in jeopardy?”
When I said the issue is the decision itself, I meant determining the moral equation to make the decision; whether made by the mother, doctor or the law.
Elaine: “Are you saying that you think no decision should be made by either the doctor or the mother and that they should just let nature takes its course?”
No, see above.
Elaine: “Second, what would it be then if not a late term abortion?”
I’m not sure what you mean here, but from my previous post you’ll notice I was talking about the IDX abortion of a viable fetus.
@Mike Spindell– ” It is far better to allow people of belief to practice their own moral codes upon their own lives, without trying to impose them on others.”
That judgment is itself a policy issue that the majority does not appear to believe is correct since we have always and routinely permitted government to take morals into consideration in exercising their police power.