You wouldn't think that this would be such a hard question.

July 30, 2007 5:30 PM

If abortion is outlawed, what should be the penalty for mothers who get abortions? Let's ask some anti-abortion protestors.
posted by Pope Guilty (358 comments total)

It makes absolutely no sense that if it's really murder, why should only the doctors get punished and not the mothers? This is the one thing they never want to talk about, usually.
posted by amberglow at 5:37 PM on July 30, 2007

Well, shouldn't the doctors be punished? IANAProLifer and even I could answer that...
posted by puddpunk at 5:37 PM on July 30, 2007

grind grind grind?

Lotsa circular logic there, with the second interviewee.
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:38 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

You wouldn't think that this would be such a hard question.

I would, actually.
posted by freebird at 5:38 PM on July 30, 2007

This thread will end very, very well.
posted by chlorus at 5:38 PM on July 30, 2007 [5 favorites]

Pro-lifers love fetuses. Babies? Not so much.

As long as that fetus is in the woman, it's the Pro-Lifer's biz.

Afterwards? It's not their problem.
posted by rougy at 5:39 PM on July 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

What gets me is that it's pretty much the same question, if you honestly believe that abortion is the murder of a fully morally considerable human being, as "If a person hires an assassin to kill someone, what should the punishment be?"

It always goes back to that chart that circulated awhile back which points out that almost none of the pro-life nostrums are consistent with the view that abortion is murder, and almost all are fully consistent with a desire to punish women for having sex.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:40 PM on July 30, 2007 [41 favorites]

the real question is what the penalty should be for miscarriage.
posted by geos at 5:41 PM on July 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

If a person hires an assassin to kill someone, what should the punishment be?

I also deny that *this* always has an easy, consistent answer for people.
posted by freebird at 5:43 PM on July 30, 2007

what Pope said. It's all about control of women and reducing their options.
posted by amberglow at 5:43 PM on July 30, 2007 [5 favorites]

I'll tell you what should happen if abortion were illegal: in order to be morally consistent the abortion doctors should go to jail and so should the woman. If it IS murder, then the punishment ought to fit the crime. I don't see what is so complicated about this.
posted by chlorus at 5:43 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

And the same people are always against birth control and realistic sex ed--which would reduce unwanted pregnancies so that abortion wouldn't be as needed.
posted by amberglow at 5:44 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

This video shows how blindly people often follow religion. Regardless of their beliefs vs. mine, I think it's ridiculous that they try to interfere in other people's lives, and that they try to force their beliefs down other people's throats (huge posters of dead fetuses? I mean, come on.) when they themselves haven't fully thought it through.
posted by alona at 5:44 PM on July 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

You may now return to your regularly scheduled bashing of those simpletons who really don't care about the fetuses but simply use it as a cover for their secret agenda to control everything that women do. Also, Jews did WTC.
posted by chlorus at 5:44 PM on July 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

(and against Cervical Cancer vaccines, and plan B, etc...everything that's even tangentially related to sex, whether it saves lives or not--lives of those already living, of course)
posted by amberglow at 5:46 PM on July 30, 2007

The only moral abortion is my abortion.
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:46 PM on July 30, 2007 [19 favorites]

Sweet tentacled baby murdering diety, I commented in an abortion thread. I *know* what the punishment for *that* is.
posted by freebird at 5:46 PM on July 30, 2007

You may now return to your regularly scheduled bashing of those simpletons who really don't care about the fetuses but simply use it as a cover for their secret agenda to control everything that women do. Also, Jews did WTC.

If you're going to shit, toilets are much more sanitary than threads.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:47 PM on July 30, 2007 [9 favorites]

I think nine months to life is fair - it's what they get if they keep the little parasite.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:47 PM on July 30, 2007 [10 favorites]

If you know nything about the way it worked prior to legalizing abortions you would know that those with the educaion and the means simply went to a doctor (usually a therepaist) and got a note saying they were not emotionally able to have a child and then, to a reputable hospital and D and C...voila, no fetus. All perfectly legal. Those without education or money went to the coathanger guy around the corner. I have known many women who went this route. No one got arrested or into any sort of trouble.
posted by Postroad at 5:49 PM on July 30, 2007

If you're going to shit, toilets are much more sanitary than threads.

More sanitary than the front page, as well.

And I say that as a long-time contributor to Planned Parenthood.
posted by dersins at 5:49 PM on July 30, 2007

Wow. This is what YouTube is perfect for. Awesome.
posted by kableh at 5:50 PM on July 30, 2007

I love this.

It always goes back to that chart that circulated awhile back which points out that almost none of the pro-life nostrums are consistent with the view that abortion is murder, and almost all are fully consistent with a desire to punish women for having sex.

I would love to see this.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:51 PM on July 30, 2007

It makes absolutely no sense that if it's really murder, why should only the doctors get punished and not the mothers?

From a practical standpoint, you want to punish women who can have children.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:52 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

what Pope said. It's all about control of women and reducing their options.

I disagree, amberglow. I think the people in this video, protesting, have good intentions (saving life). This makes it obvious, though, that many haven't followed that line of thinking to its logical conclusion.

The assholespoliticians who exploit these well meaning people, however...
posted by kableh at 5:52 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

If I travel back in time and kill myself as a todler, do I cease to exist? Lets ask some crazy people!
posted by SweetJesus at 5:52 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

what Pope said.

I read that as "the Pope" on first glance and nearly had a stroke ;)
posted by Cyrano at 5:54 PM on July 30, 2007

I wish the videographer had continued on to the 'George' that the last woman referenced him to. As the (I assume) head of the protest, he should be the most well-considered person there.
posted by Kickstart70 at 5:56 PM on July 30, 2007

I think the people in this video, protesting, have good intentions (saving life). This makes it obvious, though, that many haven't followed that line of thinking to its logical conclusion.

It would make sense if they simply felt that abortion was wrong, which they clearly do. They it's wrong and they think God thinks it's wrong. To them, it is a violation of God's law. Fair enough.

But they say they want to make it illegal in the real world, but when it comes to the real world consequences of that, they start running around in circles, because only a crazy person would make a woman who'd just gotten a coat hanger abortion go to jail for Murder One. And that would be the natural extension of everything they believe, unless they're willing to admit that the laws of this world are of a separate category from what they believe will ultimately be God's judgment.

Of course, if you actually think God is the head cheese and his judgment is final, then the law of the land would hardly matter - unrepentant murderers would go to Hell, and that's that.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:56 PM on July 30, 2007

Sticherbeast,

http://shotsacrossthebow.com/weblog/images/prolifebeliefchart.gif
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:56 PM on July 30, 2007 [34 favorites]

So pro-lifers don't actually want to punish women who have abortions. Makes it a bit harder to hate pro-lifers, I guess.
posted by The World Famous at 6:02 PM on July 30, 2007

So, is the point of this thread that most protesters are ill-informed and thoughtless? You should talk to globalization protesters some time: "What do you think of the Tobin tax?"

Is the point of this thread that this is an unanswerable question? Sadly, the pro-life movement has this all worked out, even if it hasn't filtered down to the rank-and-file. First, you criminalize the practitioner, and that removes all but the back-alley types. Then, you hit the black market abortioners with a murder charge. You convict the mothers of a conspiracy charge, set the term in the assault range, and that'll scare the rest of 'em. That brings the whole machinery of police departments to bear: all vaginas become potential crime scenes, so you hire forensic gynecologists. Perhaps you could even enlist regular doctors, require them to report any signs of an abortion performed elsewhere. Finally, you start doing DEA-style busts, using undercover agents to infiltrate the black market. The state has the power to do this.

Don't think this isn't possible. The average Hutu couldn't have told you what Rwanda would do after it killed a third of its population, but he didn't have to figure that out for himself: he just picked up a machete, thoughtfully provided by the state, and got to work.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:03 PM on July 30, 2007 [8 favorites]

Superstar columnist Anna Quindlen's take, in today's Newsweek.
posted by Sfving at 6:04 PM on July 30, 2007

I tend to avoid these arguments, but was quite amusing to watch that nobody had thought about it.
posted by lundman at 6:04 PM on July 30, 2007

panacea, we already have an example of that in El Salvador.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:06 PM on July 30, 2007

Thanks Pope Guilty, I was about to obAOL for a link to that chart.
posted by djeo at 6:07 PM on July 30, 2007

I guess it would depend on when you classify the foetus as a separate human entity. Which is obviously the problem pro-lifers have, because then it makes it difficult to apply a coherent homicide policy.

I'm unaware of the exact stance of such groups (is it a separate entity from conception, or from a certain date, or from a certain biological indicator etc), but there are two ways they could perhaps deal with this.

One way would be to define when it becomes a separate life, and allow a window for "abortions" (phrased another way, no doubt - "potential offspring prevention"), and make anything after that illegal, with regular homicide principles applying (one might even see this as a way to remove the death sentence. A woman having an abortion intends to kill the baby, and it's premeditated, so that's 1st degree (USians, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). There might be a public backlash against this, due to the fact that people are probably less likely to think that they "deserve" it.)

Another might be to allow women who have an abortion a special plea, akin to diminished responsibility or something, whereby the status is downgraded from first to second, or something.

I think the main problem is that no one really wants to punish the women at all. But of course (and the whole point of the video) that would mean that making abortion illegal would be pointless.
posted by djgh at 6:10 PM on July 30, 2007

I wish the videographer had continued on to the 'George' that the last woman referenced him to. As the (I assume) head of the protest, he should be the most well-considered person there.

I believe she was referring to Joe Scheidler, of Operation Rescue fame and others.
posted by SteveInMaine at 6:10 PM on July 30, 2007

It's amazing how people can take confusion about a simple question ("When does human life begin?") and build a whole industry around it.

For the record, the ancient Hebrews (you know, the folks who brought you 'God') believed that life doesn't begin until 30 days after birth. Given that they invented God, you'd think they would have some credibility in this debate.

I apologize for posting here, you can all now return to your regularly scheduled shitstorm.
posted by mullingitover at 6:14 PM on July 30, 2007 [11 favorites]

Another might be to allow women who have an abortion a special plea, akin to diminished responsibility or something, whereby the status is downgraded from first to second, or something.

I think the main problem is that no one really wants to punish the women at all. But of course (and the whole point of the video) that would mean that making abortion illegal would be pointless.

It comes down to a desire to control women and to control sex.

If abortion is indeed murder, letting women off the hook is, in its own way, quite sexist. It treats women not as people, but as fluffy little baby machines who sometimes get confused by all the fancy words used by liberals and abortion doctors.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:16 PM on July 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

Uh, this is a double.
posted by jokeefe at 6:16 PM on July 30, 2007

It's customary to provide a link, joekeefe.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:18 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

My apologies folks. This is really embarrassing. At least they got the "abortion is wrong" part. Stupid fuckers. Years ago I actually had very strong minded minions during the inquisition and the crusades to name a couple. Ah, the good old days.

Much love,

Satan (Actually known as Baby Jesus to the good folks in LIBERTYVILLE.)

Seriously, Libertyville?
posted by snsranch at 6:19 PM on July 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

This really does show that the anti-abortion folks are human, loving and doing this out of sincere belief. I guess you posted this because you expected them to show anger and evil emotion and you somehow think they are hypocrites for showing love. I hope you are not so foolish. We have about a million abortions or so every year in this country. We should have far, far fewer. IMO just making it illegal is about as effective as making drugs illegal has been at curbing drug abuse. Direct the same dollars at birth control and save thousands of lives. Whatever, these people are standing up for their beliefs out of love, not hate (too bad that is not universally true in the movement though).
posted by caddis at 6:19 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Organizing a Clandestine Abortion Service

In any case, the other option for pro-lifers is simply to prosecute doctors, but leave mothers alone. They could go after back-alley abortioners for "practicing medicine without a license," and hit auto-aborters with the same charges they use for mothers who abandon their children in the trash, which range from 'endangerment' to 'murder.' This would have a sufficient chilling effect to accomplish their goals, and like Scalia always says, the great thing about democracies is that they don't have to be consistent.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:21 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

caddis, I don't think they're hypocrites for showing love. I think they're jerks for being patronizing toward women.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:23 PM on July 30, 2007

we already have an example of that in El Salvador.

Yes, but see also.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:25 PM on July 30, 2007

This the same reason I never understood the whole abortion laws with exceptions for rape and incest.

If it's ok "to kill babies" that are the result of rape and incest, but not people that are born as the result of rape and incest, then how is making abortion illegal anything more than punishing women for having sex that isn't for the purpose of procreation?

They don't want these women to go to jail because not even they equate it with mothers killing their 1 year olds.
posted by whoaali at 6:26 PM on July 30, 2007

What should be the penalty for people who like to punish women while having sex?

I'm asking for a friend.
posted by Eideteker at 6:26 PM on July 30, 2007 [12 favorites]

Makes it a bit harder to hate pro-lifers, I guess.

You're such a wonderful and caring person.
posted by dhammond at 6:26 PM on July 30, 2007

god told me pro-lifers are dumb
posted by lisalisa123 at 6:27 PM on July 30, 2007

I hate these threads as well, but that was very well done. You can just about see the sudden cognitive dissonance in each one of these people when they are forced to listen to the question, open their mouth, and realize that they have nothing to say.
posted by yhbc at 6:29 PM on July 30, 2007 [7 favorites]

The point of this post is here:

"They never connect the dots," says Jill June, president of Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa. But her organization urged voters to do just that in the last gubernatorial election, in which the Republican contender believed abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest. "We wanted him to tell the women of Iowa exactly how much time he expected them to serve in jail if they had an abortion," June recalled. Chet Culver, the Democrat who unabashedly favors legal abortion, won that race, proving that choice can be a winning issue if you force people to stop evading the hard facts. "How have we come this far in the debate and been oblivious to the logical ramifications of making abortion illegal?" June says.

You all think that forcing pro-lifers to think through the policy implications will make them change their core beliefs. This is clearly false: I'd bet that every one of the people interviewed now has an answer to the question, and that it involves either jailtime for the mothers (pour encourager les autres) or a subtle argument about the impact of only prosecuting the abortion-performer. Making thoughtless people think doesn't necessarily give you better results, since they're starting with screwy premises. A little learning is a dangerous thing.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:31 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

I'm assuming the United States is going to have marshalls in Mexico ready to arrest rich Americans who fly across the border to get abortions correct? Because that's where they went when abortion was last outlawed. Abortions have always and will always be "legal" for anyone who can afford a plane ticket. This is a law that punishes poor women who get abortions not as a lifestyle choice but because they got fucked.
posted by any major dude at 6:32 PM on July 30, 2007 [12 favorites]

What gets me is that it's pretty much the same question, if you honestly believe that abortion is the murder of a fully morally considerable human being, as "If a person hires an assassin to kill someone, what should the punishment be?"

I think part of what complicates the matter is that for some portion of the anti-abortion crowd there is a very real sense in which the autonomy of the woman is simply not taken seriously to start with. She is the vessel in which the child grows, the nurturer, but she is not the figure of authority. The mother is taken as a passive figure all around, which is why women making choices is not seen as important. Her choosing to kill the fetus isn't taken seriously because her choosing anything isn't taken seriously - she is forced or pressured or ordered by the men in her life to take this action. It's all consistent with 19th century society, really...
posted by mdn at 6:32 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

I have to admit, I was surprised by their answers. Pro-lifers have been stereotyped in my mind so much that I expected them to get all bug-eyed and Fred Phelpsy, screaming "DEEEEEEAAAAATH!!!! DEATH TO THE BABY KILLERS!!!!" but instead, they were just ignorant. Interesting.
posted by fungible at 6:37 PM on July 30, 2007

You're such a wonderful and caring person.

You don't know me, man.
posted by The World Famous at 6:38 PM on July 30, 2007

I think they're jerks for being patronizing toward women.

You know, I think they realize the pain these women go through in this decision. They just want them not to kill the baby. It's not patronizing, it's a desire to save the lives of the unborn children. Your view of them as patronizing assumes their ignorance and in and of itself could be construed as patronizing. It really all depends on where you fall on the spectrum of whether abortion should be illegal or not and whether abortion equates to murder or not. The answers on this are not black or white, despite the passions on either side.
posted by caddis at 6:40 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

caddis, a lot of people undergo pain as a result of the crimes they commit. Do you suppose that these individuals would support amnesty for murderers of adults were those murderers sufficiently torn up over the decision?

(the answer, for those of you playing along at home, is of course not.)
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:48 PM on July 30, 2007

This makes the pro-life movement slightly less terrifying, and seems vaguely reminiscent of some sort of Monty Python sketch.
posted by SassHat at 6:49 PM on July 30, 2007

Not all people who want to rid the world of abortions want to control women or control sex. I'm pretty liberal in most respects but I feel that abortion is usually wrong. I think that it is murder to kill a human being once it has achieved sapient consciousness. Since it is unknown exactly when that happens in fetal development, I don't think it should be done at all.

I also think that everyone should have free and unfettered access to birth control and realistic sex education so that the demand for abortions would be reduced.

When it comes to the idea of punishment for women who have abortions, I find a moral black hole. The important thing isn't punishing the woman for having an abortion it is saving the life of the fetus.
posted by SteveTheRed at 6:51 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

You know, I think they realize the pain these women go through in this decision. They just want them not to kill the baby. It's not patronizing, it's a desire to save the lives of the unborn children.

They certainly understand the pain a woman goes through when faced with the decision to have an abortion. It's why they try to drown it out with guilt, shame and fear.
posted by uri at 6:52 PM on July 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

The important thing isn't punishing the woman for having an abortion it is saving the life of the fetus.

That's it, and the guilty pope doesn't get it.
posted by caddis at 6:56 PM on July 30, 2007

SteveTheRed, nice try at obfuscation via the "sapient consiousness" canard. The m-w.com definition of "sapient" is "wise". Far from being wise, I'd posit that even months after birth no baby knows what the hell is going on, less even than a puppy of the same age. The slippery-slope argument you pose is, well, specious.
posted by notsnot at 6:56 PM on July 30, 2007

They just want them not to kill the baby. It's not patronizing, it's a desire to save the lives of the unborn children.

Actually, their deeds never lived up to this. Combined with their rants to dismantle welfare, they were not just patronizing, but dehumanized women into a double-bind. The anti-choice mantra was always, "They must take responsibility for the child." The odd thing is, the aborter did just that, they took responsibility and ended it. The anti-choice crowd was consciously deflecting their own responsibility as the insult to injury.
posted by Brian B. at 6:58 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

That's it, and the guilty pope doesn't get it.

I get it, I just regard it as a lie told to conceal the far less publicly palatable truth.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:03 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

If I travel back in time and kill myself as a todler, do I cease to exist? Lets ask some crazy people!

Oooh! Got link?
posted by humannaire at 7:04 PM on July 30, 2007

You know, I think they realize the pain these women go through in this decision. They just want them not to kill the baby. It's not patronizing, it's a desire to save the lives of the unborn children.

I might believe that for more than a millisecond if the flip sides of their dismembered-fetus signs had "FREE PRENATAL CARE NOW!" or "GOD DEMANDS FREE PRENATAL CHECKUPS" or even just "FOLIC ACID HELPS PREVENT NEURAL TUBE DEFECTS" on them. But they just have more dismembered fetuses.

Their behavior is inconsistent with the hypothesis that they are motivated by saving fetuses. Hell, their behavior is inconsistent with the hypothesis that their goal is to minimize the number of abortions, since the empirically proven way to do that is through comprehensive and accurate sex education combined with easy access to contraceptives.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:06 PM on July 30, 2007 [32 favorites]

Pope Guilty: how dare you impute secret motives on an entire group of people. Who are you to say what is really in their hearts?
posted by chlorus at 7:06 PM on July 30, 2007

You people don't understand. Abortion doctors should be punished because they are the ones going into small towns and convincing otherwise happily expectant mothers to kill their babies because they love destroying human life. Don't you people get the memos?
posted by Deathalicious at 7:07 PM on July 30, 2007

num 5:11-6:1

11The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 12Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband, so that she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her since she was not caught in the act; 14if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; 15then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord; 17the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman’s hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, “If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband’s authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse. 20But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you,” 21—let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman—“the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; 22now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.” 23Then the priest shall put these curses in writing, and wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her and cause bitter pain. 25The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall elevate the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; 26and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and turn it into smoke on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. 27When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. 28But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children. 29This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, 30or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her. 31The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:09 PM on July 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

You know, we are talking about dead babies.

That's what abortions cause. Dead babies.

There were people who suggested very early on to my daughter that she should abort her pregnancy -a pregnancy that was keeping her from going into the AF.

She was offended that people thought she should kill her baby. She decided to marry the father instead.

That baby is now almost seven months old. Cutest thing you ever saw. Just precious.

And some of you seem to think that it's okay to try to save the planet, it's okay to try to save the ozone, but if some of us want to have fewer dead babies, that we are big meanies who hate sex and hate women?

Maybe, just maybe, we love babies. And think that it is wrong to murder them in what is supposed to be the very safest place of all.
posted by konolia at 7:10 PM on July 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

The important thing isn't punishing the woman for having an abortion it is saving the life of the fetus.

That's it, and the guilty pope doesn't get it.

There are things a society can do to reduce the number of abortions. It's not like trying to make it a legal matter is the only choice for people who want there to be less abortions.
posted by 23skidoo at 7:11 PM on July 30, 2007

This really does show that the anti-abortion folks are human, loving and doing this out of sincere belief.
Your view of them as patronizing assumes their ignorance

Oh fucking please! These people are trying to enact a policy that will affect the lives of other people and they could not be bothered to think literally ONE STEP ahead. In all the years they've spent protesting, not ONCE had they thought about the ramifications of what they are trying to do and how it will affect others. Even if they were for jail time or death penalty, it would not be as bad. But they just don't give a shit about the women they are trying to "protect", not enough to even consider what will happen to them. All they care about is an idea. Either that or scoring brownie points for the afterlife. "Loving" my ass..
posted by c13 at 7:11 PM on July 30, 2007 [6 favorites]

I think I've said all I can on this issue before...and we can see how that ended up.
posted by mystyk at 7:11 PM on July 30, 2007

this question illustrates the difference between a social problem and a political one. do we really want the ham-fisted power of the state to handle this delicate social issue?

you can have catholic pro-choicers, and i've seen them march on washington.
posted by eustatic at 7:17 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

There are things a society can do to reduce the number of abortions. It's not like trying to make it a legal matter is the only choice for people who want there to be less abortions.
posted by 23skidoo at 10:11 PM on July 30 [+] [!]

you didn't actually read the comments did you?
posted by caddis at 7:18 PM on July 30, 2007

You know, we are talking about dead babies.

No, we're not.

That's what abortions cause. Dead babies.

No, they don't.

(Put on the coffee, Martha. This may go on for a while.)
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:18 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

And some of you seem to think that it's okay to try to save the planet, it's okay to try to save the ozone, but if some of us want to have fewer dead babies, that we are big meanies who hate sex and hate women?

Konolia, distributing contraception and providing sex education in public schools reduces pregnancy and abortion rates, and these practices are associated with healthcare policy that reduces infant mortality rates.

If the goal is genuinely to have fewer dead babies, do you support distributing contraception and providing sex education in public schools, yes or no?

This question also applies to any other anti-choice proponent in this thread.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:19 PM on July 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

Konolia: dead fetuses. I will conced your right to assert a blastocyst is a baby, but...what is your answer to the question in the FPP?
posted by notsnot at 7:19 PM on July 30, 2007

MetaFilter: Proof That Hip Snark Makes For Really Good Political Argument
posted by chlorus at 7:19 PM on July 30, 2007

konolia, where's your support for welfare for mothers? Where's your support for government-funded healthcare for the mother and the child?

I don't believe that you really want to save babies because the only bit of support you're willing to provide is making it illegal to kill fetuses. That pro-lifers don't seem to give a damn about the welfare of children beyond preventing women- many of whom can't afford to raise a child- makes their protestations of "But, but, but, we just loooove the little helpless babies!" ring as hollow as the promises of a career politician.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:19 PM on July 30, 2007 [10 favorites]

Or hell, to be short and frank and to the point- why don't pro-choicers believe that pro-lifers really just want to save the little babies?

Because actions speak louder than words.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:21 PM on July 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

What is more gross than a barrel full of dead fetuses?
posted by caddis at 7:22 PM on July 30, 2007

Pope Guilty: instead of knocking down straw men why don't YOU answer a question: when do you believe life begins, or, more precisely, at which point in human development is the termination of life a crime? Why?
posted by chlorus at 7:23 PM on July 30, 2007

konolia writes "And some of you seem to think that it's okay to try to save the planet, it's okay to try to save the ozone, but if some of us want to have fewer dead babies, that we are big meanies who hate sex and hate women?"

Well, if you want to be utilitarian about it, you could check the abortion rates around the world, and do whatever works elsewhere to lower it here. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't involve making it illegal. But that's the problem with this debate. The "solution" of making abortion illegal doesn't really work to lower the abortion rate. The Netherlands has the world's lowest abortion rate. And it's legal there. Contraceptives are widely available. Much of Latin America has high abortion rates, and it's generally illegal.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:24 PM on July 30, 2007 [9 favorites]

She was offended that people thought she should kill her baby. She decided to marry the father instead.

That baby is now almost seven months old. Cutest thing you ever saw. Just precious.

So the pro-choice crowd allowed her to have a baby? Oh, we aren't such meanies afterall. So don't stand in the way of a mother who wants to end her pregnancy because she might know that it was exposed to drugs in poverty and it won't be the cutest thing you ever saw. You admitted it was all about cuteness.
posted by Brian B. at 7:25 PM on July 30, 2007

because he's too cowardly too answer such a question
posted by caddis at 7:25 PM on July 30, 2007

konolia sez: Fewer dead babies.

I say: More dead baby jokes.

Seriously? Let's see...

1) anotherpanacea: The Tobin tax is different from this case because it's obfuscated by a specific term, nor is it a prime focus of anti-globalization protestors. When we're talking making "free"-trade illegal, and then ask what the ramifications of that are, THEN you'll have parity.

As it stands, c13 has it right when saying "they could not be bothered to think literally ONE STEP ahead."

It's pretty much an important obligation, I'd think, that if you're advocating a cause, to at least have a simple answer to a very basic question. It's this that's disturbing.

Now, onto konolia and the dead babies.

Some of us don't see it that way, dig? That's the fucking point. And maybe you do, fine, great. Even more, you might like all the pink skin little bundles of joy, and admittedly, I love my nieces and nephews and family, etc... But when it comes down to it, the world DOESN'T need more people. It needs less. So, a lot of us who are for the environment tend to be for a reduction in population. Doesn't mean we agree with the forced-sterilization of China, for example, nor forced euthanasia... Most of us are in the left-liberal tradition and believe in choice as paramount in these decisions.

Also, we're not saying you're insincere, we're saying that some of the ramifications of the actual policies being promoted are pretty much not being looked at, and that's short-sighted.

The "we hate women" thing, isn't so much you or the "grassroots" of the movement (I grew up in the 80s attending Wisconsin RTL booths at the county fair with my Mother and attending the meetings, so I've been there, at least partially)... The grassroots are sincere, as are most people in the world, but politics leads to nasy manipulation of opinions and darker agendas.

You may not see women as property, you may not even see it as part of our history, but we who advocate for choice tend to see that, and are wary of a return to such a state.
posted by symbioid at 7:27 PM on July 30, 2007

That cake looks good. I would like to eat it and have it.
posted by Flunkie at 7:29 PM on July 30, 2007 [5 favorites]

What is more gross than a barrel full of dead fetuses?
posted by caddis at 7:22 PM on July 30 [+] [!]

The live one at the bottom.

At least, that's how I was told it.
posted by djgh at 7:29 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Damnit, caddis beat me to the punch!
posted by symbioid at 7:30 PM on July 30, 2007

They just want them not to kill the baby. It's not patronizing, it's a desire to save the lives of the unborn children.

Only if you believe that unborn children have lives to save.

I'm not being snarky, and I don't know exactly where I stand - but I do believe we are a secular country that has decided to live by the rule of law. Laws are for living people (the ones that are already here), and their rights have to take precedence over the people yet to arrive.

Are abortions good? No. Are abortions necessary? Sometimes, for a myriad of reasons, regardless of what God's minions have to say about it.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:30 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

I love babies too! They're so delicious with marinara sauce and a bit of lemon.
posted by casarkos at 7:31 PM on July 30, 2007

The live one at the bottom.

... eating it's way out.
posted by caddis at 7:33 PM on July 30, 2007

Maybe, just maybe, we love babies.

Then go make some more. But stay the fuck away from other people's lives.
posted by c13 at 7:35 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

konolia, the point to this thread (if there is one) is that we are NOT talking about dead babies. Rather, we are talking about, if abortion is made illegal, what DO you do to a woman who has an illegal abortion? Using your own daughter's experience of NOT having an abortion does not answer that question.
posted by yhbc at 7:35 PM on July 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

In answer to that question - we hug hug her, console her.
posted by caddis at 7:37 PM on July 30, 2007

You? You personally hug and console every one of them?
posted by c13 at 7:41 PM on July 30, 2007

Then wouldn't it make more sense for the people picketing abortion clinics and screaming at the women going in to put down their picket signs and hug the women coming out?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:42 PM on July 30, 2007 [6 favorites]

Pope Guilty: instead of knocking down straw men why don't YOU answer a question: when do you believe life begins, or, more precisely, at which point in human development is the termination of life a crime? Why?

I believe that personhood starts sometime in the first years of life, as cognitive functions develop, and that it's more of a process than an on-off switch. I don't think that zygotes, blastocysts, fetuses, or newborns are persons, that they have any rights whatsoever, or that killing any of them is morally wrong. I think it's best for society to extend the "rights" (in the social contract sense, rather than in the natural rights sense) of persons to infants starting at childbirth due to a myriad of factors.

As to why? I don't believe that personhood is tied up in species, as the pro-life movement does. Imagine, for a moment, that you met a talking dog, one capable of all the cognitive powers of a human being. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who would argue that said talking dog would not be a morally considerable person. If you accept that the dog would be a person, you've admitted that personhood is not intrinsically a property of species. That personhood is a property of species is a necessary premise for a position that abortion is murder.

This sets me very, very, very far apart from the vast majority of the pro-choice movement, which is mostly full of people who believe that the unborn are at some point morally considerable persons whose rights are superceded by the mother's.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:44 PM on July 30, 2007 [11 favorites]

One thing that caddis is(?) hinting at is that the pro-life movement isn't entirely made up of people who are anti-choice. As some of the protesters say, they believe that the government should preserve the right to choose, but that individuals should choose life. These are the most thoughtful and also the most empathetic of the protesters... I strongly recommend finding such a person, sitting down with them for a chat, and getting inside their head, regardless of your politics. It's a mistake to think that protests have to always reference the far away state, as if we could only ever talk to the nine people on the Supreme Court and not to our fellow citizens.
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:45 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Maybe, just maybe, we love babies. And think that it is wrong to murder them in what is supposed to be the very safest place of all.

Nobody here is talking about murdering babies. Except you.

What are you hiding?
posted by oaf at 7:48 PM on July 30, 2007

This is what happens when you conflate politics and religion.

Religious ideals are wonderful, and leading by example is a beautiful thing. But "God says..." is not an acceptable legal argument in our system - at least, it's not supposed to be.

If you want to make a legal case, then use legal, logical arguments.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:51 PM on July 30, 2007

As some of the protesters say, they believe that the government should preserve the right to choose, but that individuals should choose life.

And what do pro-choice people say? That all babies should be aborted?
And if protesters believe that the government should preserve the right to choose, than why are they protesting and trying to make the abortion illegal in the first place? Is this something that I need Jesus to understand?
posted by c13 at 7:53 PM on July 30, 2007

they believe that the government should preserve the right to choose, but that individuals should choose life.

Well, that would be me, and very many people. I think people should have the right to choose, I just want to minimize their need to make the choice, and hope when they do that if possible they can choose life.

believe that personhood starts sometime in the first years of life, as cognitive functions develop

In which case you believe that a parent should be perfectly justified in killing their new baby if they find taking care of it inconvenient? yeah, you have staked out a defensible position here. your post was just LOL right to lifers, but it has shown your own shallowness.
posted by caddis at 7:54 PM on July 30, 2007

I don't believe that personhood is tied up in species, as the pro-life movement does. Imagine, for a moment, that you met a talking dog, one capable of all the cognitive powers of a human being.

Why don't you believe that personhood is tied to species, given that talking dogs are imaginary?
posted by 23skidoo at 7:55 PM on July 30, 2007

It doesn't matter when you believe life begins.

If you want to prevent abortions, make sure that every pregnancy is planned and every baby is wanted. Make every step in the pregnancy is as easy and as close to free as possible.

If you want to prevent abortions, become a strong advocate for birth control, and put your money where your mouth is.

It's in remarkably bad taste for people to be so vocal about what is inherently a private and incredibly painful experience. Calling it 'killing babies' is breathtakingly crude and shameful, and deliberate or not, it's like a knife in the heart of many who've experienced it.
posted by mullingitover at 7:56 PM on July 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

Why don't you believe that personhood is tied to species, given that talking dogs are imaginary?

Yo quiero Taco Bell.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:56 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

I have to wonder whether these people genuinely held no opinions about the penalty side of things, or whether they were just uncomfortable because they were speaking on camera and didn't know which talking point to recite.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 7:57 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

That cake looks good. I would like to eat it and have it.

Is it made out of dead babies?
posted by kigpig at 7:58 PM on July 30, 2007

The one person interviewed shown in the clip who was honest enough to accept that a woman undergoing an illegal abortion should face imprisonment (but not capital punishment) is pretty hot (on the outside).
posted by porpoise at 7:58 PM on July 30, 2007

In which case you believe that a parent should be perfectly justified in killing their new baby if they find taking care of it inconvenient? yeah, you have staked out a defensible position here. your post was just LOL right to lifers, but it has shown your own shallowness.

Actually read the comment instead of simply skimming it for gotchas.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:00 PM on July 30, 2007

You know, we are talking about dead babies.

That's what abortions cause. Dead babies.

no. If your daughter killed her 7 month old now, we'd be talking about dead babies. If she had had the fetus extracted before it came to term, we would have been talking about abortions. It's not the most pleasant thing, though few medical procedures are dinner-table-worthy, but it's not murder.

There were people who suggested very early on to my daughter that she should abort her pregnancy -a pregnancy that was keeping her from going into the AF.

She was offended that people thought she should kill her baby. She decided to marry the father instead.

Pro-choice people support your daughter's right to complete autonomy in this choice. If she was happy to give up her future in the AF for a marriage and a child, that is absolutely her decision. The point is simply that it is up to her, not the government, because the growth inside her is not yet a citizen, and relies for all food and shelter on the body of the woman in which it is implanted. The woman can choose to become the food & shelter for the growth, and bring it into being, until it is born - at which point it becomes a citizen itself - or she can choose to reject the growth until such time when she is prepared to undertake the intense project development necessary to take a microscopic piece of dna into an actual individual.

Maybe, just maybe, we love babies. And think that it is wrong to murder them in what is supposed to be the very safest place of all.

why is it the woman's responsibility to be the safest place of all? Why is she first and foremost a place and only secondly an autonomy?
posted by mdn at 8:00 PM on July 30, 2007 [13 favorites]

Think those protesters have ever heard of "cognitive dissonance"? Nah, me neither.

In the same vein, check out this Boston Globe article which deals with the White House's stand on stem cell research and the cognitive dissonance involved there.
posted by zardoz at 8:02 PM on July 30, 2007

Wow... the quality of dialog in this place really has plummeted.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:02 PM on July 30, 2007

As has been stated, the single biggest contribution pro-lifers could make to reducing abortions would be to fill sacks with condoms to hand out and ensuring their children, and the children of their communities, were educated about sex and its mechanics.

Not really holding my breath on that one.
posted by maxwelton at 8:03 PM on July 30, 2007

Why don't you believe that personhood is tied to species, given that talking dogs are imaginary?

The talking dog is merely a hypothetical which demonstrates the failure of identifying personhood with species. It's a somewhat less abstract way of getting people to consider why they identify humanity with personhood.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:06 PM on July 30, 2007

Wow... the quality of dialog in this place really has plummeted.

So says the man who dumped a load of bible verses as his only contribution to the thread...
posted by c13 at 8:07 PM on July 30, 2007

This is easy.

The woman and the doctor should both be given the death penalty, as abortion is an affront to humanity.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 8:10 PM on July 30, 2007

c13 writes "So says the man who dumped a load of bible verses as his only contribution to the thread..."

Did you read them? They basically describe the YHWH-sanctioned process of getting an abortion from the temple priest. I tried taking my pregnant wife to the local church and hitting the priest up for this service, but apparently they've falled into sin because he said they're no longer offering it.
posted by mullingitover at 8:10 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Me, I'm just impressed that Konolia is willing to admit that her daughter was a slutty sex crazed tramp who had sex out of wedlock. I mean, since K. believes in the literal word of the KJ Bible, shouldn't she have stoned the little sinner?

Honestly people, we've had this fight a zillion times. Why even bother? It's not like anyone's views are going to change. Rational people will still seek rational answers and the god squad will continue to insist that unwanted children are a blessing upon us all.

I've spent way too many years on the front lines of this fight to be amazed or amused by this video. It's sad, but it's not surprising. When the anti-choice crowd starts adopting all the abused foster kids I see on a regular basis, I'll start to believe that you give a rat's ass about "the babies".
posted by dejah420 at 8:10 PM on July 30, 2007 [11 favorites]

She was offended that people thought she should kill her baby. She decided to marry the father instead.

the beauty of it is that your daughter, under the auspices of that poor, terminally-ill Roe vs Wade, had actually a choice. when the SCOTUS justices appointed by Presidents belonging to the party you guys have very cannily and succesfully lobbied in the last 30 years (and that's a lesson in influence that the unsuccessful US liberals should always keep in mind) eventually overturn Roe, the choice will disappear. and then women who can afford it will fly to Canada/Mexico, poorer women will do backalley abortions, often dying in the process (adequate punishment to their sin -- which is fucking, of course).

what's really amazing is that just like the Democrats permanently lost the South after they rammed the Civil Rights Act into its collective ass, the GOP will permanently lose millions of women votes after the first woman, post reversal of Roe, gets indicted for murder in the first by a jury of konolia's peers

but that's a future tragedy. the present tragedy is that unwanted pregnancies happen to women who practice safe sex, too, but then some people are just sloppy or uninformed and end up getting pregnant because of sloppiness and/or ignorance when it comes to contraception. if the Fetus Folk were actually interested in not simply taking rights away from women, maybe, just maybe, they'd be pro-sex education and pro-free condoms in schools and pro-cheap and widely available birth control, too. they usually aren't because of their own interpretation of what their God might think on the issue. or, well, because of their own hypocrisy.


Cutest thing you ever saw. Just precious.

on the other hand, I'm sure a lot of fetuses that get aborted were pretty ugly. so it's not that bad!
posted by matteo at 8:11 PM on July 30, 2007

ack! large block of biblical text!! nnnnnooooooooooooo!!!!
posted by lisalisa123 at 8:12 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Laws are for living people (the ones that are already here), and their rights have to take precedence over the people yet to arrive.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:30 PM on July 30

See, that's where the pro-choice argument all goes wrong. Laws are not for living people. They are for the preservation of society, specifically social order. Laws do not provide liberty or freedom, they proscribe it.

It pro-life people can change the law, then under this logic, that would be the law as it reflects the will and values of living people for how they want their society ordered.

And the counterargument to konolia's "dead babies" argument - that the other side in the debate doesn't see them as babies - is silly. It's pretty fucking well established that but for the abortion, most of those fetuses would have become babies.

The argument that mature people in society should be having is whether the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus. Roe made it quite clear that (a) the fetus in fact has rights even in the first trimester, and (b) that it is entirely within the purview of the government to determine whether it has an interest in protecting the fetus's interests over the mom's. So you can't argue that the fetus has no rights - of course it does. You just have to accept the unpleasant fact that you are making a decision as to whose rights dominate.

The real issue of course is why people find the thought of women having lots of recreational sex bad, if men doing it is merely "boys will be boys". See, the boys aren't being boys with other boys, the boys are being boys with girls. But by definition these are "loose" girls. In other words, this community needs "loose" girls in order for that community's boys to be boys. These "loose" girls make their boys into men. Thus, the loose girl plays a vital role in this community.

The community's moral code survise because while these girls are necessary, they are also ostracised becasue of their role. To bring them into the fold would be to give them too much power. These are patriarchal communities where the gateway to manhood is through some woman of ill repute (again their terms, not mine), because good girls are good because they don't do this. So the good girls need some way of asserting dominance, and that's through exclusion, mockery, bullying, whatever you want to call it.

So the situation in the abortion debate is not simply power over women's bodies, its over the power to compartmentalize women based on their use of their body. It isn't inconceivable to these people that some women enjoy sex and have it frequently, what is inconceivable is that these women be permitted enjoy some social status above pariah.

This is what the contraception issue makes no difference in this debate. Contraception is welcome in these communities, not openly, but it is permitted to exist, because these mom's and dad's want Slut Girl on the pill as their son Joe Football "sows his wild oats" after the prom so she won't get pregnant and so mom, dad, and Joe can all maintain plausible deniability about sex.

But they need abortion to be illegal, because they need their pariahs. They need their openly obvious cautionary tales to exist so they can raise their Little Miss Perfect to be risk averse. The risk is not so much that they get pregnant, the risk is that they will be labeled a slut.

So, at least in this bagel's humble opinion, the abortion debate will rage on pointlessly until these people can be convinced that the amount of sex a woman has or wants is a fundamentally value neutral proposition with respect to society.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:14 PM on July 30, 2007 [15 favorites]

Calling it 'killing babies' is breathtakingly crude and shameful, and deliberate or not, it's like a knife in the heart of many who've experienced it.

Well, that's what my friends WHO HAVE HAD ABORTIONS call it.

The reason it's a knife in the heart is because it's the truth.

I'd have more respect for the prochoice crowd if they'd just admit it.

One hundred years from now, our collective descendents will call us barbarians for ever allowing the practice.
posted by konolia at 8:14 PM on July 30, 2007

I think nine months to life is fair - it's what they get if they keep the little parasite.
Thanks, Mom; You were always unaffectionate, critical, impossible to fully please and crazy, but thankfully Catholic.
posted by longsleeves at 8:15 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Did you read them?

Only partially. Because without any context they just seemed like ravings of a mad man. However, I still maintain that inserting long quotes from texts randomly into the thread does not make a conversation any better.
posted by c13 at 8:15 PM on July 30, 2007

Maybe, just maybe, we love babies. And think that it is wrong to murder them in what is supposed to be the very safest place of all.

So, konolia, let me be the third or fourth to ask YOU to answer the question: what should the punishment be for a Mother who chooses(my word) to murder(your word) her Baby "in what is supposed to be the very safest place of all"?

And, as long as you are willing to sacrifice your daughter's privacy for the sake of making an argument here, including the fact that "she decided to marry the father instead", are you suggesting that it was an either/or decision there, with no other alternatives?

And since you sincerely feel that abortion should be outlawed, should there not also be laws mandating that the father of a child conceived out of wedlock marry the mother? While not directly protecting the life of the unborn, it would have a profound effect on the life of the child, as well as represent the moral declaration that the man must take responsibility too. Or does that cross the line into forcing your morality on others?
posted by wendell at 8:17 PM on July 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

c13 - you didn't even read my comment. You saw Bible verses and your narrow, tiny little brain had a little seizure and stopped working. I hope that doesn't happen when you're driving a car.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:18 PM on July 30, 2007

konolia writes "One hundred years from now, our collective descendents will call us barbarians for ever allowing the practice."

Are you calling God a barbarian for sanctioning the abortion process described in the text Baby_balrog cited?
posted by mullingitover at 8:18 PM on July 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

I mean, since K. believes in the literal word of the KJ Bible, shouldn't she have stoned the little sinner?

John 8:7.
posted by oaf at 8:18 PM on July 30, 2007

This sets me very, very, very far apart from the vast majority of the pro-choice movement, which is mostly full of people who believe that the unborn are at some point morally considerable persons whose rights are superceded by the mother's.

For me, the person is reproductively "cloned" as offspring into existence, taking on all the good and bad qualities of the parents. When this reproductive function is confused by the "blank slate" or "ghost in the machine" concept, it takes the form of a religious mandate. The fetus is then "pure" and without sin, and therefore must be protected from the sinful culture, even the parents, which then dovetails with the feudal order. The right to reproduce is a major threshold in society.
posted by Brian B. at 8:20 PM on July 30, 2007

Why don't you believe that personhood is tied to species, given that talking dogs are imaginary?


There are, however, perhaps talking monkeys and parrots that can really talk. Read the articles to decide for yourself how much personhood the animals get (an example - the parrot coined the word 'banerry' for an apple, supposedly because he only knew 'grape', 'cherry', and 'banana' for fruits and decided an apple was a banana-cherry), but they seem to me around as smart as toddlers. It's an interesting topic.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 8:20 PM on July 30, 2007

Laws are not for living people. They are for the preservation of society, specifically social order. Laws do not provide liberty or freedom, they proscribe it.

It pro-life people can change the law, then under this logic, that would be the law as it reflects the will and values of living people for how they want their society ordered.

Agreed. Nuance on these kind of things is impossible in little snippets on a web site.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:21 PM on July 30, 2007

And there you go. Talking monkeys. This is what we get.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:21 PM on July 30, 2007

One hundred years from now, our collective descendents will call us barbarians for ever allowing the practice.

Not if we kill them first, they won't!
posted by darksasami at 8:23 PM on July 30, 2007 [17 favorites]

Why is she first and foremost a place and only secondly an autonomy?

That is an illogical statement. A uterus is a place, a woman is a person. Do I need legal permission to kill my own offspring in order to be an autonomy? What kind of sick concept is that?
posted by konolia at 8:23 PM on July 30, 2007

you didn't even read my comment. You saw Bible verses and your narrow, tiny little brain had a little seizure and stopped working.

That's correct. There is only that much irrational stupid shit that my brain can put up with.
posted by c13 at 8:26 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

I hate to post two in a row, but God is Anna Quindlen ever a dope:

But there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can't countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can't have it both ways.

Hey, stupid. The proposed law criminalizes abortion, i.e. conducting any of the medical procedures known as an abortion. A woman receiving an abortion does not perform an abortion, and therefore she would be committing no crime. The doctor does, and he/she would be the criminal.

Furthermore, the question of how much jail time a woman should get is a dumb rhetorical point that gets pro-choice advocates nowhere. If abortion were illegal, then hypothetically, suppose women who get an abortion get the same jail time as someone gets for public drunkenness, a night in jail. So? How about a $3000 fine, same as for speeding in Virginia? What the hell is Quindlen's point?

Every time I read something from Newsweek or Time it's like I'm reading some propaganda tract from a secret underground religious cult. They are bewildering arrays of logic-defying paragraphs designed to leave you confused and vulnerable. You have to turn off your brain before you start reading.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:28 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

And since you sincerely feel that abortion should be outlawed, should there not also be laws mandating that the father of a child conceived out of wedlock marry the mother? While not directly protecting the life of the unborn, it would have a profound effect on the life of the child, as well as represent the moral declaration that the man must take responsibility too. Or does that cross the line into forcing your morality on others?

It was never a law but it certainly was how life was conducted back when I was young. Not all those marriages worked out, of course, but there was a principle that the man take responsibility for the new life created. But that was back when society actually required men to take responsibility.

And for those who are nagging me about it, I consider the abortion punishment enough, really.
posted by konolia at 8:30 PM on July 30, 2007

Wow. I was getting ready for LOLCHRISTIANS (even though I hate that term), but that was super interesting. Though I'm on the pro-choice side of that, I'd never really thought about that either.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 8:31 PM on July 30, 2007

You know, I think they realize the pain these women go through in this decision. They just want them not to kill the baby. It's not patronizing, it's a desire to save the lives of the unborn children.

No, it's very patronizing. Very patronizing. They want to control us, force us to live our lives according to their religious/moral beliefs. They want to force us into something we don't want.

They may be superficially nice people, but I don't see that they're good people. Good people would be pro-life by not having abortions themselves and by putting the time they put into protests into actually helping the born who are having troubles. Oh, and paying to help women through pregnancies they can't afford but don't want to end. I see very little of this.

It's amazing, too, how many of them would absolutely jump to make sure their daughters had access to legal abortion if they became pregnant inadvertently. It's those filthy whores who use abortion as birth control who are the problem, not their precious little angels who 'just made a mistake and shouldn't have to pay for it for the rest of their lives'.
posted by watsondog at 8:32 PM on July 30, 2007 [5 favorites]

Are you calling God a barbarian for sanctioning the abortion process described in the text Baby_balrog cited?

That was misinterpretation of that scripture. But even if balrog was correct, God Himself has the authority to take or save a life. Every one of us draws breath because He permits it, and every one of us dies when He decides our time has come.

We are not the boss of us nearly as much as we like to think.
posted by konolia at 8:32 PM on July 30, 2007

I'd have more respect for the prochoice crowd if they'd just admit it.

Admit that abortion is not murder.

Or just keep believing wrongly that you're right. Your choice.

Are you calling God a barbarian for sanctioning the abortion process described in the text Baby_balrog cited?

Nah, just the Jews.

should there not also be laws mandating that the father of a child conceived out of wedlock marry the mother?

We'd have to make divorce illegal while we're at it. And we all know that that would...wendell.
posted by oaf at 8:32 PM on July 30, 2007

Pastabagel, there are blanket laws about being an accomplice in, being an accessory to, and aiding and abetting other unspecified criminal activities, of which abortion would be one.

Damn, that was unsettlingly alliterative.
posted by darksasami at 8:33 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

One hundred years from now, our collective descendents will call us barbarians for ever allowing the practice.

Our forebears for thousands have years have had this practice, and I don't consider them barbarians. For hundreds of years, it was only considered abortion to end a pregnancy after the 'quickening' - the first discernible movements of the fetus. At any stage in the pregnancy before that, no one could really prove the woman was pregnant anyway, and procedures which led to abortion were seen as restoring her to her normal cycle. (Of course, abortion after this point was a crime punishable by death, assuming it could be proven, which wasn't terribly likely.)
posted by frobozz at 8:33 PM on July 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

konolia writes "But that was back when society actually required men to take responsibility. "

For the record, it still does. In fact, in many cases you can be required to provide 18 years of care for a child your wife produces even if it can be demonstrated that it is not your own.

Paternity laws are whimsical and punitive enough as they are, please do your homework before claiming they don't exist.
posted by mullingitover at 8:35 PM on July 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Well, that's what my friends WHO HAVE HAD ABORTIONS call it.

Konolia actually has a point here. This is stark dilemma of the pro-choice crowd. Most women (think it was 90%) think having an abortion is a really bad thing but want to allow the option for others if needed. But if it's not killing a baby, it's really not bad, but only tough as a medical choice like surgery you kind of need but are a bit scared to do (and generally with less complications). If you're not sure if you want the child, you sure as hell shouldn't have it. No emotional breakdown involved. We coddle women as ultra-sensitive beings in this regard and if we want equality, this is something that should not fall beyond reproach.

But to a comment on the video...honestly it's not as cut and dry a question as it seems. Women don't tend to give self abortions (though there are some) so really they are an accessory or potentially a pawn in their eyes. They probably didn't think of it because they don't see the women as the problem but the victims as much as the uterine tumor. Remember they don't see women as people so they're not really responsible for their actions.

On preview it seems pastabagel beat me to it.
posted by kigpig at 8:35 PM on July 30, 2007