The only moral abortion is my abortion?

March 23, 2006 10:54 AM

The only moral abortion is my abortion? What do some anti-choice women do when they experience unwanted pregnancies themselves? "I never dreamed, in my wildest nightmares, that there would ever be a situation where I personally would choose such an act. . . ."
posted by cybercoitus interruptus (106 comments total)

In summary they're a bunch of hypocrites.
posted by zeoslap at 11:00 AM on March 23, 2006

whenever i hear the word "abortion" i think of that scene in Godfather where she tells him, "it was an abortion michael! just like our marriage is an abortion!"
posted by obeygiant at 11:04 AM on March 23, 2006

In summary, humans are fallible.
posted by nebulawindphone at 11:06 AM on March 23, 2006

Well, if we're all in favor of parental notification, how about we notify the other members of the picket lines? Huh? How about that, huh?
posted by lumpenprole at 11:11 AM on March 23, 2006

In summary, humans are fallible.
posted by nebulawindphone at 11:06 AM PST on March 23

Their hypocrisy is their failure. Read the stories: many of these women went right back to the picket lines after having abortions. They're fucking disgusting, and the doctors who put up with them are saints for their tolerance of these uneducated, ignorant, hypocrite, hillbillies.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:19 AM on March 23, 2006

_{"I have done several abortions on women who have regularly picketed my clinics, including a 16 year old schoolgirl who came back to picket the day after her abortion, about three years ago. During her whole stay at the clinic, we felt that she was not quite right, but there were no real warning bells. She insisted that the abortion was her idea and assured us that all was OK. She went through the procedure very smoothly and was discharged with no problems. A quite routine operation. Next morning she was with her mother and several school mates in front of the clinic with the usual anti posters and chants. It appears that she got the abortion she needed and still displayed the appropriate anti views expected of her by her parents, teachers, and peers." (Physician, Australia)}

OMG HIPPA VIOLATION!!!11
posted by delmoi at 11:22 AM on March 23, 2006

In summary, christians are lying hypocrites who seek to control others while doing as they please.
posted by 2sheets at 11:23 AM on March 23, 2006

This should end well.
posted by crunchland at 11:23 AM on March 23, 2006

these are all hippa violations!!! each and everyone!

I mean except the ones that happen in other countries.
posted by delmoi at 11:25 AM on March 23, 2006

Hmmm, I don't know if this posting is really contributing much to the abortion debate. Here we have second hand (third hand, maybe) anecdotes that paint pro-life supporters in a bad light. While I agree that (if true, and some of these may be true) that the level of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance on display is troubling, I don't feel any more informed about the perspective of the people involved after reading through the stories.
posted by elwoodwiles at 11:26 AM on March 23, 2006

After explaining to her that I do not perform abortions for people who think I am a murderer or people who are angry at me, I declined to provide her with medical care. I do not know whether she found someone else to do her abortion.

That one is funny. Although still a HIPPA violation.
posted by delmoi at 11:27 AM on March 23, 2006

In summary, christians are lying hypocrites who seek to control others while doing as they please.

Oh, come on. Nobody's is making that generalization but you. Yes, I'd say that women who have abortions and then picket abortion clinics shortly afterwards are hypocrites. How precisely am I bashing Christians by saying so? I've stood next to a number of non-hypocritical Christians while we defended clinics together, thanks very much.
posted by Fenriss at 11:29 AM on March 23, 2006

HIPPA x a billion
posted by delmoi

Wouldn't there need to be identifying details for it be a violation, delmoi? Otherwise, docotrs could never even talk about work.

"How was your day, honey?"
"It was good, except this one guy had a boil on his ass that -"
[delmoi bursts in]
"HIPPAAAAAAAAAA!"
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:33 AM on March 23, 2006

Is HIPPA anything like HIPAA?
posted by mbd1mbd1 at 11:36 AM on March 23, 2006

OC: That'd be a great SNL character.
posted by elwoodwiles at 11:36 AM on March 23, 2006

Is HIPPA anything like HIPAA?
posted by mbd1mbd1 at 11:36 AM PST on March 23

Yeah, they're the same thing except delmoi spelled it wrong and permanently screwed up the part of my brain that holds acronyms.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:38 AM on March 23, 2006

Are all pro-life/anti-choice supporters Christian?

I'd really like to know.

Tha being said, what a bunch of hypocritical asshats. That's what disgusts me most about the anti-choice faction. Love to point the finger, with a rabid hatred of mirrors.
posted by C.Batt at 11:39 AM on March 23, 2006

In summary, christians are lying hypocrites who seek to control others while doing as they please

the good thing is, at least these women had the good sense not to spawn more little hypocrites!
posted by matteo at 11:46 AM on March 23, 2006

How many girls having abortion because of HIPPIE violations?
posted by qvantamon at 11:50 AM on March 23, 2006

I liked the link. Thanks.

It's interesting to start to think about, as one of the clinicians said, "When a woman expands her need for care beyond herself, you no longer have an 'anti'." And to see how these people each saw their own pregnancies as catastrophic and unique.

It reminded me of the Sen. Napoli quote in South Dakota, where the only woman "deserving" of an abortion would be: "A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged," he said. "The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

And yet when they're in a run-of-the-mill accidental pregnancy, they see their own situation as emotionally analogous to the scenario above.
posted by occhiblu at 11:52 AM on March 23, 2006

I think there is too much generalization in the comments in this thread. In a possible scenario, a person who accepts abortion for herself, could likely picket the clinich the next day, in a case where she does not agree with all the abortions (different women, different cases, different backgrounds etc) performed at a clinic. Perhaps she believes that a certain time limit governs wether the fetus is a human or not, or perhaps she believes in wether parental notification is necessary or not.

I dont suppose such nuances mean any thing to Americans any more, perhaps explaining why Gore and Kerry lost to some one who refers complex calculations to fuzzy math.
posted by adnanbwp at 11:57 AM on March 23, 2006

27%
posted by butterstick at 11:57 AM on March 23, 2006

The stories where the situation totally changed the viewpoint of the person involved are very interesting. I'd seen some of the others before, but not those.
posted by digitalis at 11:59 AM on March 23, 2006

I had a friend who was staunchly anti-abortion - did the rallies on the Mall, did the pickets, the whole deal - until she got pregnant from a one-night stand. To her credit, I never again heard her express anti-abortion sentiments following her own abortion.

[/anecdotefilter]
posted by ereshkigal45 at 12:02 PM on March 23, 2006

Doesn't everyone have different standards for others than oneself?
posted by semmi at 12:03 PM on March 23, 2006

semmi:

The standards that you hold yourself too should be higher than those you hold others too, not lower.
posted by -harlequin- at 12:05 PM on March 23, 2006

I'm with elwoodwiles. This is as unhelpful as a bunch of anecdotes about nameless pro-choice women who changed their minds after they had "bad" abortion experiences. At least we know Norma McCorvey's name.
posted by Cassford at 12:05 PM on March 23, 2006

Just so you know-I informed my husband and parents years ago that if I was ever raped and became pregnant as a result, I would have the baby. I mean that with every fiber of my being.

Oh, and go look up Ethel Waters' life story. Especially the part of how she got here.

Babies are not a catastrophe or a tragedy. They are simply babies.

Any one who claims to be antiabortion and then goes and haves one? Well, that says something about the depth of their convictions. I don't judge them but I am extremely disappointed in them.
posted by konolia at 12:09 PM on March 23, 2006

Just so you know-I informed my husband and parents years ago that if I was ever raped and became pregnant as a result, I would have the baby. I mean that with every fiber of my being.

Wow thanks for this powerful anecdote.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:11 PM on March 23, 2006

If I ever get pregnant by rape I think I'll keep it too. I shall inform my wife.
posted by NailsTheCat at 12:14 PM on March 23, 2006

"you people spend your lives, reputations, careers and energy fighting for, maintaining, and providing an option that I needed, while I spent my energy lambasting you. Yet you still allowed me to make use of your services even though I had been one of your enemies. You treated us as kindly and warmly as you did all of your patients and never once pointed an 'I told you so' finger in our direction. I got the impression that you cared equally about each woman in the facility and what each woman was going through, regardless of her reasons for choosing the procedure. I have never met a group of purely non-judgmental people like yourselves."
posted by funambulist at 12:19 PM on March 23, 2006

Also I decided to edit this for clarity:

Just so you know-I informed my husband and parents years ago that if [any woman] was ever raped and became pregnant as a result, I would [petition the state to force them to] have the baby. I mean that with every fiber of my being.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:20 PM on March 23, 2006

Delmoi, those aren't HIPAA violations. First, half of them are from other countries. Second, the persons haven't been identified.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:23 PM on March 23, 2006

Just so you know-I informed my husband and parents years ago that if I was ever raped and became pregnant as a result, I would have the baby. I mean that with every fiber of my being.

Optimus Chyme handled it more succinctly, perhaps, but while I applaud your conviction, and your choice, konolia, I believe others should have the option to choose differently, and I hope that if, God forbid, you ever were raped, you'd have the option to reconsider your decision, even if you ended up keeping the baby.
posted by jalexei at 12:24 PM on March 23, 2006

I don't judge them but I am extremely disappointed in them.

Wow. Serious cognitive dissonance.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:26 PM on March 23, 2006

Hey, give konolia a break. We may not agree with her, but if her personal convictions are so strong that she would choose to go through a pregnancy that was the result of rape, more power to her. That's the beauty of having choice. My hope is that she could respect another person's right to choose differently.
posted by echolalia67 at 12:27 PM on March 23, 2006

Just so you know-I informed my husband and parents years ago that if I was ever raped and became pregnant as a result, I would have the baby. I mean that with every fiber of my being.

That's awesome for you! Does that mean you automatically get to choose for me, too?
posted by Maisie Jay at 12:28 PM on March 23, 2006

"I would have the baby."

You say that as if you have a choice.
posted by 2sheets at 12:28 PM on March 23, 2006

From the definitions section of the HIIPA statute.
(6) INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE HEALTH INFORMATION.--The term 'individually identifiable health information' means any information, including demographic information collected from an individual, that--

"(A) is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse; and

"(B) relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual, the provision of health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual, and--

"(i) identifies the individual; or

"(ii) with respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used to identify the individual.

From the substantive section:
SEC. 1177. (a) OFFENSE.--A person who knowingly and in violation of this part--

"(1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier;

"(2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or

"(3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

Hope that helps.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:30 PM on March 23, 2006

Are all pro-life/anti-choice supporters Christian?

Secularist vs. Secularist - Abortion Debate.
posted by tweak at 1:34 PM on March 23, 2006

My hope is that she could respect another person's right to choose differently.

And from her previous statements we know that that's not the case.
posted by bshort at 1:39 PM on March 23, 2006

My thing is, why did these docs perform the abortions on those they knew to be "anti?" I don't know what the various laws are, but if I'm a doc and someone I know had picketed my clinic shows up saying, "My case is different," I'm sending them back outside with a big "Buh-bye."
posted by kgasmart at 1:42 PM on March 23, 2006

In summary, christians are lying hypocrites who seek to control others while doing as they please.

Well, let me first say that I am a Christian. I can not remember a time I have ever tried to control anyone. Jesus whom we follow gave many warnings about hypocrites. So I guess hypocritical Christian is somewhat of an oxymoron.

Most Christians try not to point fingers at others, because we have never truely been tested in the faith. I mean the Apostle Peter swore he would NEVER EVER deny Jesus Christ and yet he did three times as Jesus predicted he would. My point, you don't know what you will do in a situation until you are in that situation so it is better to love God and one another (the only commandments Jesus ever gave) and not judge others. Yes, I am a Christian and I am NO hypocrite.
posted by Tablecrumbs at 1:46 PM on March 23, 2006

I don't judge them but I am extremely disappointed in them.
posted by konolia at 12:09 PM PST on March 23 [!]

Perhaps you don't know what "to judge" means?
posted by sic at 1:56 PM on March 23, 2006

I informed my husband and parents years ago that if I was ever raped and became pregnant as a result, I would have the baby. I mean that with every fiber of my being.

You can't really know that you mean it with every fiber of your being until you are actually impregnated through rape. If you actually have borne your rapist's child, I'll apologize for what I'm about to say.

You can protest all you want about it, but your statement is just talk, and talk is cheap and easy. You say that, but you're not carrying the bruises from your rape. You don't have a sutures running through your flesh to close the wounds he left you. You don't shake with fear every time you walk past an alley, and wake up screaming. You're not desperately afraid that people will find out that you were raped and think you're a slut. You can't still feel his weight on you every time you stop thinking. You can say that you'd bear that child until you're blue in the face. You can really believe, now, that that's what you'd do. But really you can't know what you would actually do when you're in that position, because you've never been there.

I hope you never have to walk that walk and face up to your stated beliefs. But parading your words around as if you've proved that you would actually carry your rapist's child to full term is offensive.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:57 PM on March 23, 2006

Hmmm, I don't know if this posting is really contributing much to the abortion debate...I don't feel any more informed about the perspective of the people involved after reading through the stories.


Actually, what I get from the link is not hypocrisy but a sad undercurrent among people who believe in something so strongly that their own complicit actions in the thing they most hate doesn't even phase them one bit.
I think an element of this is a human trait that shows up often. You know:
"Alcohol and drugs are bad - except when I drink".
"Sex out of wedlock is wrong - except for me".
"Porn is evil - except when I look at it".
Etc.
posted by Rashomon at 2:05 PM on March 23, 2006

In my experience, the humble way to say it is "I hope with my entire being that I am never subject to the horrible violence of rape, but I'd like to think that I would have the child." Being so definitive on reactions to possible events is a little wacky, or so my experience tells me.

From someone who's actually had to understand the HIPAA guidelines and handles HR data occasionally, delmoi is off. If the doctor and a patient age were identified it might be a giveaway, but unless there's one doctor performing abortions and a statistically insignificant number of, say, 16 year olds who have been to that doctor, then there's no violation.
posted by mikeh at 2:13 PM on March 23, 2006

well, let's put that faith to the test a bit more, shall we.

if I was kidnapped by terrorists, locked in a cave underground and fed live rats and cockroaches, tortured with electrodes and my fingernails ripped and deprived from sleep and forced to listen to the bluegrass version of sgt peppers all day, raped by four goats and three ninety year old sheep farmers with scabs, siphilis and HIV, and got pregnant, I'd still have that baby.

and I'd send it over to konolia for adoption.
posted by funambulist at 2:45 PM on March 23, 2006

Just so you know-I informed my husband and parents years ago that if I was ever raped and became pregnant as a result, I would have the baby. I mean that with every fiber of my being.

I find it quite presumptive for anyone who hasn't become pregnant from a rape to state what they'd so with certainty, be they pro-life or pro-choice. I'm staunchly pro-choice, but I don't think I can say with certainty that I'd have an abortion. Or that I wouldn't.

I'm sure most of the women in this piece were just as sure of their convictions until they, too, experienced an unwanted pregnancy.

All I can say is, if an unwanted pregnancy were to happen to me (as a result of consensual sex as well as rape), I can't say what I'd do for sure. But I'm pro-choice because I want to be able to choose by and for myself.
posted by anjamu at 2:48 PM on March 23, 2006

I agree with Rashomon. Human nature sucks.
posted by TorontoSandy at 4:23 PM on March 23, 2006

I just think in the long run I'd prefer that I'm the one making the decision on whether I get to exist or not rather than the parent that doesn't want me.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 4:28 PM on March 23, 2006

but if I'm a doc and someone I know had picketed my clinic shows up saying, "My case is different," I'm sending them back outside with a big "Buh-bye."

I would as well, but not out of some sense of spite or vindictiveness. I'd be sending them outside because I wouldn't be comfortable doing something so permanent to somebody that was so expressly opposed to their stated beliefs and value system. I mean, who knows what sort of psychological damage you could do to somebody in this situation? And given the potential for doctors being sued in the USA, I certainly wouldn't want to expose myself to that risk for having proceeded when it wasn't in the mother's best interests.

So I'd send her back outside, telling her that she'll thank me for it in nine months time.

Then, the next time her buddies decided to demonstrate in my office, I'd make damn sure that her file was sitting open on my desk.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:31 PM on March 23, 2006

2sheets wins.
posted by Miles Long at 4:39 PM on March 23, 2006

I agree with Rashomon.


depends on who you ask.
posted by Miles Long at 4:40 PM on March 23, 2006

We may not agree with her, but if her personal convictions are so strong that she would choose to go through a pregnancy that was the result of rape, more power to her.

I agree. Anyone who would do what perhaps one woman in a billion would choose to do is a rare flower to be treasured. Or studied. With lots of tests, forever.
posted by solid-one-love at 4:49 PM on March 23, 2006

I don't judge them but I am extremely disappointed in them.

Perhaps, "I don't damn then, but am extremely disappointed in them"?
posted by Richard Daly at 4:54 PM on March 23, 2006

Re Senator Napoli's statement:

The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated.

I read his words earlier and thought here is a man who has come up with his own hierarchy of rape badness and I, a non-virgin, non-Christian, fall to the bottom of the scale. As a 48 year old, atheist, married woman, I guess being raped would be easier for me.

He threw the sodomy in there because either a) he thinks sodomy is the worst thing that can happen (I can think of may worse things such as having an eye goudged out) or b) he can't imagine a rapist not sodomizing if given the chance.

Scary peek at the inner thoughts of one of our legislators.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:05 PM on March 23, 2006

So I guess hypocritical Christian is somewhat of an oxymoron.

So would you say these abortion protesters who got abortions and then went back to protesting are: A) not Christians or B) not hypocrites?

I can not remember a time I have ever tried to control anyone…My point, you don't know what you will do in a situation until you are in that situation so it is better to love God and one another (the only commandments Jesus ever gave) and not judge others.

Are saying you're pro-choice?
posted by designbot at 5:07 PM on March 23, 2006

My thing is, why did these docs perform the abortions on those they knew to be "anti?" I don't know what the various laws are, but if I'm a doc and someone I know had picketed my clinic shows up saying, "My case is different," I'm sending them back outside with a big "Buh-bye."

I guess they're bigger men than you.

Or, at least, they can put aside personal feelings and do their job to the best of their abilities.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:20 PM on March 23, 2006

You can't really know that you mean it with every fiber of your being until you are actually impregnated through rape. If you actually have borne your rapist's child, I'll apologize for what I'm about to say.

You can protest all you want about it, but your statement is just talk, and talk is cheap and easy. You say that, but you're not carrying the bruises from your rape. You don't have a sutures running through your flesh to close the wounds he left you. You don't shake with fear every time you walk past an alley, and wake up screaming. You're not desperately afraid that people will find out that you were raped and think you're a slut. You can't still feel his weight on you every time you stop thinking. You can say that you'd bear that child until you're blue in the face. You can really believe, now, that that's what you'd do. But really you can't know what you would actually do when you're in that position, because you've never been there.

I hope you never have to walk that walk and face up to your stated beliefs. But parading your words around as if you've proved that you would actually carry your rapist's child to full term is offensive. posted by ROU_Xenophobe

Signed. Double signed. Jesus onna stick Konolia, do you have to wave your freaking "I'm so superior" flag every single time this issue comes up?

You know what princess, I hope you never experience what rape is. I hope you're never hurt. I hope you never spend a few weeks in the hospital not sure you're going to live through an attack. I hope you never need reconstructive surgery. I hope that 20 years after the fact you never know what night terrors are, you don't feel compelled to carry a weapon if you have to leave the house alone, you don't develop agoraphobia so severe that it's almost crippling.

But until you do...Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
posted by dejah420 at 5:47 PM on March 23, 2006

"I just think in the long run I'd prefer that I'm the one making the decision on whether I get to exist or not rather than the parent that doesn't want me."

Wha.

Who decides whether or not they are born? Did you mean this to sound that ridiculous?
posted by crabintheocean at 6:00 PM on March 23, 2006

Is it also offensive to say that if you were in a burning building, you'd try to save the elderly man or child in the next room? Because, you know, you've probably never even been in a burning building, so how can you possibly have any idea what you'd do?
posted by transona5 at 6:55 PM on March 23, 2006

Is it also offensive to say that if you were in a burning building, you'd try to save the elderly man or child in the next room?

If you said it to impugn the decency of people who had actually been in a burning building and just up and ran for their lives, it would assuredly be offensive.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:04 PM on March 23, 2006

Is it also offensive to say that if you were in a burning building, you'd try to save the elderly man or child in the next room? Because, you know, you've probably never even been in a burning building, so how can you possibly have any idea what you'd do?

Right, because that's the same thing at all.
posted by bshort at 8:24 PM on March 23, 2006

You believe everything you read on the inter-web?
posted by cmacleod at 8:35 PM on March 23, 2006

Scary peek at the inner thoughts of one of our legislators.

Yes, now we all know what kind of deviant porn Sen Napoli probably likes best.
posted by fshgrl at 8:57 PM on March 23, 2006

Is it also offensive to say that if you were in a burning building, you'd try to save the elderly man or child in the next room? Because, you know, you've probably never even been in a burning building, so how can you possibly have any idea what you'd do?
posted by transona5

I'm a pussy. So I'd probably just run out and call the fire department.

Anyway, I think the theoretical situation is that you have to choose between saving an embryo and an actual living human being. The point being, of course, that it would be manifestly insane to prioritize the embryo over the person.

I can certainly respect a person's conviction that they would not have an abortion under any circumstances, even rape. Though as the link illustrates, this conviction doesn't always hold when people are faced with the brutal reality of their own situation. I can speak with similar conviction that I most definitely would have an abortion if I were impregnated through rape, in part because I think it's ridiculous to bring an unwanted, unplanned-for person into the world, regardless of how they are made.
posted by apis mellifera at 9:48 PM on March 23, 2006

Is it also offensive to say that if you were in a burning building, you'd try to save the elderly man or child in the next room? Because, you know, you've probably never even been in a burning building, so how can you possibly have any idea what you'd do?

More along the lines of saying "I know I've never been in a fire, and no-one I know well has been in one either, but I've thought about fires a lot, and what I'd do if I was in one is, I'd save the people in the next room, and I'd put out the fire before the fire brigade arrived too, because I'm not the least bit scared by fire, and smoke inhalation doesn't bother me a bit. In fact, I've told my friends and family that it's safe to store their valuables with me, because if there's ever a fire in my house, I'll handle it." Sure, it's possible that person's telling the complete truth. But I'll bet a dollar their friends nod and smile and change the topic of conversation quick smart. Doesn't seem to me the sort of assertion one makes without a certain vehemence, and wildness in the eyes. As though one wanted it to be true, wanted that very much.

Offensive? No. Utterly naive and kinda weird? Yes.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 9:56 PM on March 23, 2006

The self-righteous are natural hypocrites. Thinking they are better than everyone else also means they can do what they want with the rules. It also explains the double-standard that the media seems to ignore. The anti-abortion policy is generally unwilling to own up to the responsibility to pay for the children they are forcing on parents and society.

All the evidence points to the anti-abortion crusade as part of a rogue breeding program that produces more cannon fodder and cheapens labor. Religion is not only expected to babysit and brainwash the lowest strata of society, but also to rally against any rational planning and behavior.
posted by Brian B. at 9:58 PM on March 23, 2006

5FF: Or, at least, they can put aside personal feelings and do their job to the best of their abilities.

I'm undoubtedly a nastier person than you, but speaking for myself, I'm always delighted to see irony kick my enemies in the ass, and up close is a better view. Always nice when one's ethics and one's sense of humor align.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:01 PM on March 23, 2006

> I can certainly respect a person's conviction that they would not have an abortion under any circumstances, even rape.

I certainly don't have any respect for a sanctimonious attitude of flaunting a 'if I was raped I'd have that baby and these women who didn't are lacking in conviction' like it was a declaration of bravery vs. cowardice. Ooh wow congratulations to the hypothetically raped and hypothetically pregnant, you're the Jack Bauer of antiabortionists. Please.

Of course the women whose stories are told in the link, at least those who didn't have any epiphany on the concept of choice, are hypocrites, not because they don't want to acknowledge that what they did is in contradiction with their ideology, but because they don't want to acknowledge that the reality of the situation they found themselves in *is* the whole point of the debate on attitudes and laws about abortion. They had to deal with real life in all its complications, a reality that hypotheticals and debates on abstractions are wholly inadequate for, then they went back to forgetting about it and sticking to those ideological abstractions. It just shows how indifferent and callous to real life situations the antichoice position is.

But I also appreciate how the doctors treated them like individual women, like anyone else they see, and how even those who turned them away did so because of the psychological reasons (what PeterMcDermott said above) rather than out of spite (that'd be a very lousy reason for a medical professional to refuse people). That's more eloquent than any debate.
posted by funambulist at 1:09 AM on March 24, 2006

Two points:

1) The hypocrisy of one or more people does not logically imply that everyone is a hypocrit.

2) In regards to the all the indignant and self righteous language in the room, sheesh. A lot of you who are pro-choice are angry at the pro-life contingent because we put pressure on people to avoid putting to death what we consider a human being. You can hardly fault a person for considering the life of an innocent more important than the inconvenience (or hardship) of another.
posted by walljm at 6:59 AM on March 24, 2006

Something about the poster's nickname is irking me...
...Hmmmm...
posted by Smedleyman at 7:09 AM on March 24, 2006

A lot of you who are pro-choice are angry at the pro-life contingent because we put pressure on people to avoid putting to death what we consider a human being.

A lot of it is because you base what you consider to be a human being upon principles that are totally uninformed by science, reason, or logic. It's also because people who are "pro-life" are generally only pro-life up until a child's birth, at which point you petition the government to remove all support for welfare or school lunch programs or basic health care for the children of the poor. It's also because most of you who are "pro-life" are also against all sexual education that describes in any way methods of birth control other than abstinence, and because you oppose a vaccine for HPV, which can cause cervical cancer, and because you oppose programs that would give condoms to citizens of third-world nations who desperately need them. We're angry because you're only pro-life in the most minute way.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:14 AM on March 24, 2006

Anecdotal Evidence.
posted by elderling at 7:40 AM on March 24, 2006

I don't believe anyone concluded that all anti-choice protesters have secret abortions, elderling, so what's your point?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:43 AM on March 24, 2006

> The hypocrisy of one or more people does not logically imply that everyone is a hypocrit.

No, but it shows that ideology is preferred to reality, so there is a disconnect. Even for those antichoicers who don't get to make exceptions for themselves.

> You can hardly fault a person for considering the life of an innocent more important than the inconvenience (or hardship) of another.

Too bad no laws assign the same person status to a woman as to an embryo. Let's see what kind of legal system would come up with that equivalence to the point of enforcing a system to jail women and force them to continue pregnancies they don't want. Hint: it would not be a democratic legal system. Your idea of 'inconvenience' is another actual person's own life, body, freedom, human rights, all that crap that allows you to live in a free society.
posted by funambulist at 7:47 AM on March 24, 2006

Anecdotal Evidence.

Quote: "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts."

Usually, anecdotal evidence is used to form a hypothesis which can then go on to be tested by a more rigorous study. So, what's our hypothesis here?

Some proportion of those who profess pro-life positions and seek to deny others a choice in the matter of abortion actually choose abortion themselves when they or someone close to them is faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

That doesn't sound like a particularly contentious hypothesis, nor does it sound unlikely to be true. So what's the argument at issue here? As Optimus Chyme points out, nobody is claiming that it's true of all pro-life activists. I imagine that the number of people who find themselves in this situation are actually pretty small.

Nonetheless, it is an extremely interesting subject for further study. If I were the federal government, I'd be spending some serious money to find out as much as I can about these people. Would they actually be happier if they'd had the option removed from them completely? Why didn't they seek counselling at one of the pro-life counselling centres? What are the long term consequences of living with the choice that they made?

It seems to me that these are all fascinating questions and the answers have important implications for public policy on this issue. Or they would if you had a government whose agenda was driven by science and reason, rather than religion, dogma and ideology.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:44 AM on March 24, 2006

I'm undoubtedly a nastier person than you, but speaking for myself, I'm always delighted to see irony kick my enemies in the ass, and up close is a better view. Always nice when one's ethics and one's sense of humor align.

I'm all for schadenfruede (sp?) myself, but there are times to put it aside. I think access to healthcare is one instance.

As for "undoubtedly nastier," we'll just have to let it slide. I don't want to get into a pissing contest on who's worse!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:12 AM on March 24, 2006

since i first started hearing about teenage virginity contracts, i've always wanted to push a few of my own church movements...one being that those opposed to stem cell research should be morally obligated to wear medic-alert bracelets saying that they will not accept any form of treatment derived from such research...another being that pro-lifers volunteer to put themselves on a permanent no-abortion list given to all abortion providers...

i think it's interesting that anyone is particularly shocked about this, though...anti-abortion is all about telling others what to do, and i never doubted that the position comes with a disclaimer: *except for me, my wife/girlfriend, or my daughter...rather like the more general view of lawyers--you despise them until you need one yourself
posted by troybob at 11:30 AM on March 24, 2006

The abortion debate is from a Christian prespective is not rooted in scripture; it is completely man made. Everyone thinks life is precious; however, scripture states "life is in the breath..."
That is pro choice.
posted by sameasthem at 8:45 PM on March 24, 2006

"I would have the baby."

You say that as if you have a choice.

exactly. I don't feel a need to inform my loved ones that I'm not going to commit murder. Why is it even an issue of discussion? If you believe no one should have the option to have an abortion, no matter the circumstances, doesn't that immediately clarify that you would never have an abortion, no matter the circumstances?

I found this link interesting, just for highlighting the difficulty, seen in every sector of life, of people understanding things from outside their own perspective. Some philosophers say that we can talk about solipsism as a theoretical choice, but no one actually lives that way, so it's meaningless - but I'm not sure that most people don't live that way, to some extent - just "not getting" the reality of other people's lives. Like that spin class quote from konolia - it was a perfect example of just being blind to one's intrinsic equality with everyone else - that one is no more special (and no less) than 6 billion other human beings. It's hard to remember sometimes, because life is vivid & immediate, while numbers and concepts like 'equality' are harder to see, and unnecessary for getting through the day. It is also just hard to see oneself from the outside.

But I think perhaps this is a specific downfall of some strains of christianity - that they emphasize so strongly the "personal relationship" with god, and the absolute certainty of their faith, so that they to some extent cease to be pushed to question themselves, check themselves, and see themselves as morally identical to everyone else (because they're not, in their view - they're saved).
posted by mdn at 6:47 AM on March 25, 2006

I found this link interesting, just for highlighting the difficulty, seen in every sector of life, of people understanding things from outside their own perspective . . . just "not getting" the reality of other people's lives.

Me, too. Glad to see other people found it valuable to read.

Smedleyman: Something about the poster's nickname is irking me...

Ha! Nothing sinister or ideological about it, I swear. I've been meaning to put an explanation for my nickname in my profile for a while now. Thanks for the reminder.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 11:02 AM on March 25, 2006

"I just think in the long run I'd prefer that I'm the one making the decision on whether I get to exist or not rather than the parent that doesn't want me."

I would also prefer that I'm taken care of by my "pro-life" government even if my parents don't want me, and not just tossed into abusive, low-paid foster homes and miserable, prison-like group homes until I'm 18 and on the streets,... but hell, the right for existence is the only thing anti-choicers are fighting for, right? They don't have time to help out any lowly, unwanted kids now do they?
posted by hellameangirl at 1:28 PM on March 26, 2006

that one is no more special (and no less) than 6 billion other human beings.

What has that got to do with anything? I never said I was better or worse than anyone else. What I was communicating is the fact that I am consistent with my strongly held beliefs. If you are gonna be against something, be against it. If you are gonna be for it, be for it with every fiber of your being. But be consistent!
posted by konolia at 8:02 PM on March 26, 2006

A lot of it is because you base what you consider to be a human being upon principles that are totally uninformed by science, reason, or logic. - Optimus Chyme

I'm amazed. How is it logical that a child, when born premature (for the sake of argument 4 weeks early) is considered a human being, but a child aborted one week early is not? Uninformed by reason, logic or science? If a pregnant mother is murdered, the killer is culpable for two deaths by law, not one? Why? If the child isn't a person? The sheer obviousness of the fact that the baby is a human being makes your statement so astounding I'm almost at a loss for words to respond.
posted by walljm at 5:09 AM on March 27, 2006

How is it logical that a child, when born premature (for the sake of argument 4 weeks early) is considered a human being, but a child aborted one week early is not?

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed in the first two trimesters. Late-term abortions are usually only done when birth would present danger to the mother. So this whole "4 weeks early" thing is a non-argument and I'm embarrassed for you for trying it.

If a pregnant mother is murdered, the killer is culpable for two deaths by law, not one? Why? If the child isn't a person?

Because it was not the choice of the mother in these cases. All parties involved are additionally damaged by the termination of pregnancy as well as the mother's murder.

The sheer obviousness of the fact that the baby is a human being makes your statement so astounding I'm almost at a loss for words to respond.

You're clearly at a loss for something, because your arguments are nonsensical and juvenile. You should know that abortions are only done "one week early" when there are compelling medical reasons for doing so. You should know that such abortions are usually prohibited by law except when the mother's health is in danger. You should know all this, but clearly you don't. Why is that?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:13 AM on March 27, 2006

I never said I was better or worse than anyone else.
posted by konolia at 8:02 PM PST on March 26

Sure you did. God answers your prayers about your silly little class and ignores the starving and poor, remember? One would think you'd use your communion with the Creator for good works instead of for trivialities, but oh well.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:16 AM on March 27, 2006

What I was communicating is the fact that I am consistent with my strongly held beliefs.

You're consistent in your untested beliefs. What exactly does that prove? If you wanted to point out that everyone should be consistent in their beliefs, why didn't you just say so?

As a woman who has actually been pregnant due to rape, I'll acknowledge that I don't know what choice I'd make if it happened again. You do not know. You're guessing. I would put to you that those two things are not the same.
posted by nuala at 7:20 AM on March 27, 2006

"Just so you know-I informed my husband and parents years ago that if I was ever raped and became pregnant as a result, I would have the baby."

No, you didnt say you were better than anyone else, but this statement surrrrrre implied it. And "just so you know" maybe you wouldn't have gotten such flack if you had prefaced that statement with "I DID get pregnant by rape and kept the baby" or "I've never been raped and I cant imagine the horror of it, and I think no rape victims should be forced to birth a child due to rape, but I would" etc, but instead you come off with your nose in the air and sound more like, "if rape got me pregnant I would consider it a test of my rightness and I would jump at the chance to prove what a holy, baby rescuing, saint I really am! No matter how tramatic and painful the rape was, and no matter if the baby is woefully unperpared for, and even if my husband doesnt want to raise another man's child and this will cause marital problems, and no matter if my health will be at risk, DAMMIT! I'M CONSISTENT!"
posted by hellameangirl at 6:49 PM on March 27, 2006

*sigh*

This will be my last post on this subject, because it doesn't directly apply to the original post, and I don't want to derail the conversation any further.


*walljm* -- How is it logical that a child, when born premature (for the sake of argument 4 weeks early) is considered a human being, but a child aborted one week early is not?

*Optimus Chyme* -- The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed in the first two trimesters. Late-term abortions are usually only done when birth would present danger to the mother. So this whole "4 weeks early" thing is a non-argument and I'm embarrassed for you for trying it.

I think you missed the point here, really. Babies have survived being born far earlier. My point was to demonstrate that the current definition of "life" used to defend the killing of unborn children is illogical. That definition being that life doesn't begin for a child until he/she pokes hi/her head outside his/her mothers womb.


*walljm* -- If a pregnant mother is murdered, the killer is culpable for two deaths by law, not one? Why? If the child isn't a person?

*Optimus Chyme* -- Because it was not the choice of the mother in these cases. All parties involved are additionally damaged by the termination of pregnancy as well as the mother's murder.

So a man who kills a pregnant mother is culpable for two lives because the choice of a woman was taken away? By your logic, the sentence seems rather extreme.


*Optimus Chyme* -- You should know that abortions are only done "one week early" when there are compelling medical reasons for doing so. You should know that such abortions are usually prohibited by law except when the mother's health is in danger.

93% of all abortions are done for reasons other than rape, incest, or for the health reasons of the mother. That means that of the roughly 1.3 million babies killed each year 1.2 of them were discarded because it was not convenient for the mother, or because the parents pressured the girl into it, or the boyfriend did, or something else. (See this for a more accurate breakdown)

Third trimester abortions are not prohibited by law, and are performed for reasons other than the health of the mother. In fact, it is estimated that 3000 to 5000 times a year, partial birth abortions are performed on healthy babies in healthy mothers according to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers as cited in The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997, p. A11.

There are ample sources of information out on the web for this kind of thing, and I won't reproduce all of it here. My arguments were neither nonsensical nor juvenile.

A person cannot logically define human life the way the law does. If a child is alive once it exits the womb, then it must surely have been alive just seconds before. And if that is true, it naturally follows that it was alive well before that. (Information available on how a child develops)

I'll leave it at that. My original comment was meant only to defend the Pro Life movement. Hypocrisy is a problem; it exists on both sides and in every organization. It's unfortunate. I won't stand in judgment on those who exhibit it, doubtlessly many had to face hard decisions. But the actions of some members don't affect the facts nor the truth of the issues. I wanted only to shed some light on the motivations of many pro life demonstrators. As cruel as some might have been, for us, there is a lot at stake.
posted by walljm at 7:28 AM on March 28, 2006

Here's what is at stake for you walljm: if my wife ever chooses to abort, and you try to get in our way, I'll do everything in my power to destroy your ability to get in our way.

I am dead serious: I will put my life on the line to protect my wife.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:00 AM on March 28, 2006

*sigh*

A human embryo is already alive. It is life, and it is human, certainly not mineral or vegetable or belogning to another animal species. It just lacks that little something that makes human beings more than a mass of cells. Without a neurological system, how can you have a human being? Abortion does become more ethically problematic as the fetus grows and develops a brain and nervous system. That's also why most abortion laws in most countries limit abortions to the first x months, after which it's only allowed when there is a risk etc., (and even then, more so because those cases are so comparatively rare, the application of the principle will still depend on individual circumstances).

But here's the thing. HOW do you envisage preventing the availability of abortion in all cases YOU or anyone else don't 'approve of', whether it's about it being x weeks after your personal ethical limit, or about the personal motives for abortion being antithetical to your personal ethics? What do you plan to do to those women? Let's hear it.

Because antichoicers can go on and on and on about all those stages of a development of a future human being in utero, but the ethical part of how to take away a present human being's decision about her body and her life never bothers you, why? Are you just going to tell us it's not her body anymore anyway? or the usual should-have-thought-about-it-before? or, no I don't really want to lock anyone up, just maybe restrain their freedom a little? or, I don't consider it freedom anyway, it's murder? or, my approval on someone else's choices is more important than that person's capacity for decisions? or, I don't really care if it goes underground as long as it's not sanctioned by law? what?

on preview, five fresh fish managed to say all this in three lines.
posted by funambulist at 9:33 AM on March 28, 2006

A person cannot logically define human life the way the law does. If a child is alive once it exits the womb, then it must surely have been alive just seconds before. And if that is true, it naturally follows that it was alive well before that.

It naturally follows that it was alive three months before that. And three months before that. And three months before that. And somehow, magically, we keep going backwards and backwards, until it turns out that the proteins in a Big Mac which eventually make up part of a man's sperm cells are actually innocent babies!

IT'S A CHILD NOT A CHEESEBURGER
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:39 AM on March 28, 2006

Hmm, actually, the proteins in a Big Mac, coming from the mass produced meat of hormone-fed cattle, are believed to reduce the sperm count.

The very first stages of the little innocent babies are to be found only in certified vegan organic food eaten by amoral godless baby-hating communists. So, IT'S A CHILD NOT TOFU!
posted by funambulist at 9:58 AM on March 28, 2006

funambulist, optimus, I agree we can't argue with the anti-choicers about where life begins because they DO keep going farther and farther back to the point where not only do they want to outlaw birth control but perhaps even masturbation, because, you know, somehow thats killing an unborn child as well.

My thing is, if they care soooo much about children, then how come soooo many children are in foster care? And how come foster care budgets continue to be slashed? I have friends who work in social services and group homes, and those friends are pro-choice, because they can't imagine growing up like these kids do.

walljm, could you please find a break-down of how many anti-choicers actually foster or adobt children, or at least work in clinics for low-income mothers so they can get affordable pre-natal care? My guess is not many.
posted by hellameangirl at 10:01 AM on March 28, 2006

While I vehemently disagree with you walljm, I'd like to thank you for trying to argue for your beliefs in a clear way. (I hope that doesn't sound patronising.) The biggest problems I have with the anti-abortion camp are the issues Optimus Chyme raises here. This inconsistency is much more damning than any failings of the women in the main link.

Optimus, you're funny.
posted by wilberforce at 10:14 AM on March 28, 2006

five fresh fish,

As it is legal for your wife to choose abortion, I'm certainly not going to commit a crime to try and prevent your wife from doing so, even though I think the decision will do her harm physically and perhaps emotionally. Your loyalty to your wife, though, does you credit.

funambulist,

A pregnant mother is a steward of a life. I consider both very valuable. But the child, who feels pain and can learn is not her body, even though it is dependant on her for life. That is why it doesn't bother me to take away her choice.

And incidently, the majority of all the organs and systems in an unborn child are fully formed after 9 weeks, and after 12 weeks all of them are. Though I can't quote to you statistics demonstrating how many abortions take place after that time period, I know that some do, and the life of a fully formed unborn child is not protected by law. I personally believe that the only definition of "life" that makes any sense in this context is conception. Otherwise you run the risk of sentencing a human life to death simply because in 93% of the cases it wasn't wanted

hellameangirl,

While your point does serve to argue whether or not a given pro-life supporter cares about children in general, I don't think it really proves anything or adds to the moral debate over whether it is right or wrong to allow a woman to take the life of an unborn child. And, I don't think those particular statistics are even gathered. I can offer only anecdotal evidence, in that my own mother volunteers her time to assist low income mothers who do choose to have their babies with the various things you mention. In fact, there are a number of pro life organisations that do just that.

wilberforce,

I appreciate that. The issues Optimus raised that you pointed to are to lengthy to argue here. Let me just say that the moral problem of the life of an unborn child exists regardless of how people deal with the problems of disease and poverty. Without debating the individual merits of these concerns, you are right in that they need to be addressed and I might add that Christians especially have an obligation to do so.
posted by walljm at 12:40 PM on March 28, 2006

> That is why it doesn't bother me to take away her choice.

Ok, walljm, that contradicts the "valuable", but I guess we have a different concept of ethics. That's fine. Difference of opinions and all.

What's not fine is if you want to physically take away, by force of law, my choice, my daughter's choice, my friend's choice, the choice of any other woman I never met.

No one else will be in that pregnant woman's situation and forcing women to have babies is devaluing human life. You know, no one who supports legal abortions actively wants to be faced with that choice; no one wants to impose any single option on others; they just don't want those options to be taken away from them. Try and understand the difference.

So, what is your plan for taking away that choice, in detail?

> the majority of all the organs and systems

I was talking of the brain and neurological system.

> I personally believe that the only definition of "life" that makes any sense in this context is conception.

Life, sure, everything that is not dead is alive - even the friendly bacteria in yoghurt are alive, no? - but that's not the same as "person". Cerebral functions are pretty much essential to that.

Anyway, I'm more interested in the question of what to do with all these women. There's no scientific or bioethical or religious debate on their being a person after all.
posted by funambulist at 12:58 PM on March 28, 2006

As it is legal for your wife to choose abortion, I'm certainly not going to commit a crime to try and prevent your wife from doing so...

You are going to use your religious power to restrict me from doing something your religion doesn't want me to do. You do so by not telling your religious organization to keep politics and religion separate, you do so by voting for religiously-influenced politicians, and so on.

You are not committing a crime, but you are acting against the spirit of the Constitution.

And in doing so, you choose to jam out and assign a proxy to take your place. I repeat: I will never allow you to subjugate my wife to your will. It matters not one bit whether you succeed in having the laws written to your religious standards: if my wife chooses to abort, so it shall be.

You are absolutely powerless against my will: it is fundamentally impossible to prevent a smart couple from figuring out how to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Do you begin to understand just what I mean by my statement now?

So let us venture into your woolly-brained world where religious fundamentalism is the law of the land. My wife chooses to abort. I make sure it is possible. In doing so, we have aided, abetted, commissioned, caused, or committed a crime.

What punishment shall you seek to impose upon my wife and myself? If you answer anything, answer this one question.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:06 PM on March 28, 2006

walljm,
your mother sounds like a good person, and as a volunteer she has made a choice to prove her support of the underpriviledged....but I cant help but wonder, what if she was forced? What if it was U.S LAW that everyone must "volunteer" time and resources to serve the less fortunate? OR even further, what if you, as a fit parent, were chosen by the government to raise a child that wasnt yours because the mother didnt want it? What if for every child's FORCED birth from an unfit or unready mother there was another person who FORCED to raise it? How would the pro-life movement feel about that?

You say that my earlier point doesnt prove or add anything to the debate, but I say it proves that "pro-lifers" arent willing to face the issue of what happens to these children after they are born. Its as if you are saying "well, children don't play into this issue at all, its about controling women". It seems that "pro-lifers" arent really pro-life, just the "moral police" out on a crusade against "unsavory" or "un Christian" women. It just makes y'll look like bullies, really.

funambulist, fresh fish,
you guys post the million dollar question: How is this "illegal abortion" thing going to be enforced? Anti-choicers have made clear that they want abortion doctors thrown in jail, but what will happen to the women? Will they go to jail too? Fined? How much? What if a woman is caught while going into a fake abortion clinic (like a sting operation) and is arrested for attempting abortion, and now she must deliver the baby, is that baby atomatically gov. custody due to it being born to an unfit mother? Or do they make her raise it in jail? What will happen if the women are underaged? What if an underaged girl is being forced to have an illegal abortion by her boyfriend or parents? Will she still be punished? What will happen if a women gets caught in an alley after the process has started but before the termination process is finished, what do the cops do? Or if its botched and there will be birthing complications, will she still be forced to have the baby? What if the woman attempting abortion is an illegal immigrant? Will she be punished here or simply deported?

There are so many unanswered questons.
posted by hellameangirl at 10:56 AM on March 29, 2006

There is no unanswered question in this debate: the only valid answer is FO and MYOB.

Whether it's by performing a coat-hanger abortion by our own hands, drinking pennyroyal tea, or getting a proper medical procedure performed by a legitimate doctor, my wife will not be subjugated to walljm's demands.

walljm is ultimately entirely powerless in this situation, and should give his head a shake.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:52 AM on March 29, 2006

Christians get more abortions than others.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:52 AM on March 30, 2006

"I would have the baby."

You say that as if you have a choice.

Yes. Amen to that.

I'm pro-choice. And when at 19 I was pregnant and in a new relationship, I chose to carry the pregnancy to term and gave birth to my lovely daughter. That was my choice. You don't choose to get raped, or to have your contraception fail. But it was powerful for me to be able to choose that I wanted to become a mother and to choose to take on that responsiblity, and I've embraced it fully. But it I hadn't had the choice, if I'd been forced to go thorough with it and saddled with a kid it would have been bad for me and for my child.
posted by raedyn at 10:17 AM on March 31, 2006

Idle thought...

...shouldn't the religionists be using prayer to solve their undesired pregnancy problems? Can't they just pray a miscarriage out of God?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:26 AM on March 31, 2006

Ok this thread is old but I just want to mention about the whole having-a-baby-that-is-the-result-of-rape thing that there's always the additional wrinkle of the possibility that the rapist will demand child visitation. Because it's his baby, too, right?

I wonder how / if that possibility would affect the decision to abort or not.
posted by beth at 9:03 AM on April 10, 2006