Ignoring Anti-Choice Terrorism

The car bombing in Glasgow and attempted bombings in London have understandably been all over the news this weekend — after all, trying to blow up a car in order to kill and injure people and damage property in furtherance of your political ideals is a pretty big deal right?

Well, not when the terrorist is an anti-choice activist. This guy was sentenced on Friday for driving his car into a women’s health clinic and then trying to set it on fire. He thought he was bombing an abortion clinic. It turns out that the clinic doesn’t even provide abortions, but that’s neither here nor there — the bottom line is that it’s not terrorism when nice “pro-lifers” are doing it.

Now, the threat of international terrorism certainly feels more imminent and more random. The ideology behind it is ominous. Its backers have succeeded in carrying out devasating attacks.

But anti-choice terrorism is still terrorism. In the first post-9/11 anthrax scare, Planned Parenthood received more than 150 letters and packages containing white powder and threatening notes. The head of Pro-Life Virginia said that he supports the actions of the people sending the letters. A second wave of anthrax letters were sent out to another 200 abortion clinics and advocacy organizations.

There have been plenty of murders and attempted murders, stalkings, threats, firebombs, and arsons carried out by pro-lifers, but they’re rarely labelled “terrorism” — instead, they’re just par for the course.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

124 comments for “Ignoring Anti-Choice Terrorism

  1. Bitter Scribe
    July 2, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    Well, at least the jerk got five years. That ain’t chopped liver.

    But I see your point (I think). News orgs don’t want to call anti-choice terrorism by its right name because they’re afraid of “taking sides.” Very depressing.

  2. July 3, 2007 at 7:58 am

    The way the government here (and it’s not like it;s any better in the US) does on and on about terrorism when there are way bigger problems going on out there is so frustrating. Apparently the terror alert here is now “critical”.Which means carry on as normal but worry about terrorism so much you don’t notice your civil liberties being washed away with the morning tide.

  3. July 3, 2007 at 8:41 am

    Jill,
    Donald Spitz (who the BBC article mentions) isn’t the head of Virginia Right to Life. According to the article, he’s the head of some organization named “Pro-Life Virginia” which isn’t associated with any mainstream prolife organization and is basically the same thing as the Army of God (a radical organization which promotes violence).

    I hope you’ll correct this obviously false information and maybe next time do a better job of carefully reading an article and doing 10 seconds worth of research before posting vicious smears.

  4. July 3, 2007 at 10:45 am

    Jill,
    Nice of you to update the post but don’t think you should have noted your errors and apologized? Wouldn’t that be the appropriate thing to do after accusing an organization you thought was a mainstream prolife organization of being in favor of violence and threats?

  5. July 3, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    Jill–

    Yes, terrorism is a bad thing, but don’t you think that it’s far worse to imply that people who compare legal abortion to the holocaust would condone violence against abortion providers?

    I know that advocating antichoice terrorism would be completely consistent with the rhetoric of the “abortion is murder” crowd, but don’t you think you’re being unfair when you assume that they have consistent patterns of thought?

    And while Pro-Life Virginia’s positions on abortion are entirely consistent with “mainstream” anti-abortion groups, isn’t it unfair of you to imply that that they are in any way a mainstream group?

    And isn’t your smear of the pro-life movement much worse than any act of terrorism?

  6. July 3, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    And isn’t your smear of the pro-life movement much worse than any act of terrorism?

    Are you kidding me? So smearing a group is worse than killing people?

    Don’t get me wrong. Jill is/was wrong to lazily smear a group undeservedly. But to equate that with terrorism and the killing of others is ridiculous.

  7. July 3, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    I think Gordo was being sarcastic.

    And I’ve fixed the post. I made a mistake in referring to Virginia Right to Life instead of Pro-Life Virginia. It has been corrected, and it was a simple misreading on my part, not a malicious or purposeful act.

    To Rev Spitz, whose comment I deleted: You’re nuts if you think I’m going to approve a comment from an Army of God member. Take your terrorism elsewhere.

  8. July 4, 2007 at 2:35 am

    I’m kind of in love with Gordo right now, and I don’t even swing that way.

  9. July 4, 2007 at 12:27 pm

    The terrorism label is just a political tactic.

    Pro-lifers who murder abortion providers aren’t terrorists because labeling them so would lose precious right-wing votes.

    Vegans have never killed anyone yet are labeled terrorists because they cause economical damage.

  10. July 5, 2007 at 3:08 am

    Wow: we compare abortion to the holocaust and all of the pro-choicers start crying; the mainstream media doesn’t compare pro-life extremist violence as the same thing as Muslim terrorism and the pro-choicers start crying.

  11. July 5, 2007 at 9:58 am

    Jill,
    You did more than confuse “Pro-Life Virginia” with “Virginia Right to Life” – you asserted that mainstream prolife organizations were supporting this kind of violent action and then corrected it without any kind of apology or note until I wrote another comment. Don’t your readers deserve a higher level of honesty?

    Gordo,
    That’s so pretty bad sarcasm. Even worse logic. I don’t see where anyone argued that Jill’s actions were worse than terrorism. You also make no argument for why saying “abortion is murder” is consistent with bombing abortion clinics. If so I guessed you’d also believe that the people who say “Fur is Murder” aren’t being consistent unless they kill people who make fur coats. Nor do you show how Pro-Life Virginia’s (Spitz’s) position on abortion is the same as mainstream prolife organizations. I guess if you can’t make a good argument spew a bunch of assertions with sarcasm.

  12. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 11:14 am

    Jill,
    I think it is always wrong to use violence or vandalism to make one’s point. Wether one is defending the unborn, or a forest creature. I will never support it! I am more interested in reaching people’s hearts, and making persuasive arguments. I must say however, for a journalism major, the language you use is somewhat caustic in nature and confrentational. You can defend your viewpoint with grace and dignity. Furthermore, I do think you should have posted an apology to those pro-lifers who clearly did not defend the violence of the other group. It would have shown some humility on your part. But, that is of course, your call. After reading some of your postsings, I was not suprised to see you are so young. There is a great deal of passion that comes with one’s youth. It’s clear you do have that, and used properly will serve you well in the field of law. I have had the opportunity to meet with and speak to many choice advocates, even Gloria Feldt. I do not agree with her viewpoint on choice, but she is well spoken. Also, you list a dislike of the smell of baby powder in your bio. May I ask a question ? And I mean NO disrespect to you. You are a choice advocate, you plan to work for more abortions world wide. You hate baby powder. Do you just not like babies or do you just really believe you are serving the best interests of women? The baby powder comment just really piqued my interest. Very respectfully yours, LV

  13. blondie
    July 6, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    As one of Jill’s readers, I don’t believe she owes anyone any apology, and I believe she has been entirely honest.

    I further believe the attempts here to argue she should apologize or that she was being dishonest are, in themselves, disingenuous. She indicated (as was obvious) that she took the Pro-Life Virginia to be the same entity as Virginia Right-to-Life, something easily understandable. She corrected the “error” when she learned of it. That’s sufficient.

    For those readers to come here and proclaim a need for honesty or an apology is hypocritical, again something that it is easy to confuse in the cases of many pro-lifers. If they want apologies, they should demand them from the violent subset of those who call themselves pro-life and commit terrible crimes, which tars them with that same brush.

  14. zuzu
    July 6, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    Tell me, antichoicers who are haranguing Jill for making a simple mistake: have any of your mainstream anti-choice organizations strongly and consistently condemned anti-choice terrorism?

    Because I don’t recall a whole lot of that when Eric Rudolph was running around loose.

  15. July 6, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    You are a choice advocate, you plan to work for more abortions world wide.

    “Pro-choice” != “Pro-abortion”. We just don’t think people should be able to take away a woman’s bodily autonomy. But, concern trolls will be concern trolls.

    Very respectfully yours, LV

    HA! Gotta love the passive-aggressive obfuscation followed by “Hugs and kisses! :-)”.

  16. July 6, 2007 at 1:08 pm

    we compare abortion to the holocaust and all of the pro-choicers start crying; the mainstream media doesn’t compare pro-life extremist violence as the same thing as Muslim terrorism and the pro-choicers start crying.

    Your comparison to the Holocaust is non sequitur at best, and malicious at worst. Terrorism, however, as defined by most people, is using violence to affect social upheaval, and instill fear into a given populace, which are the stated goals of anti-choice extremists.

  17. July 6, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    My god, she’s being caustic and confrontational about terrorism! STONE HER!

  18. micheyd
    July 6, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    Wow, because Jill hates baby powder, she probably hates babies? Is LV for real?

  19. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    You are a choice advocate, you plan to work for more abortions world wide.

    Ever notice that “choice advocates” typically advocate for comprehensive sex-ed and increased access to effective, affordable birth control? Why would we advocate for policies that PREVENT unwanted pregnancies if we really wanted more abortions worldwide?
    You are a pro-lifer. There is not one mainstream pro-life organization out there advocating for better sex-ed or increased access to effective, affordable birth control. Now who’s working for more abortions worldwide?

  20. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    Jill,
    I read in “About Jill” that you dislike California rolls. I mean no disrespect, and pardon me if I am way off base here, but may I ask why you hate people from California?
    …Or is it just the sushi you dislike?

  21. July 6, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    I hate the smell of baby powder because it really screws up my taste buds when I’m eating babies for dinner.

  22. July 6, 2007 at 2:48 pm

    Wow. Best trolling ever. I mean no disrespect, I’m just wondering if all your principled arguments for choice are just a cover for your irrational hatred of babies, which you give away by mentioning you hate the smell of baby powder (which everyone else agrees is delightful). You must hate babies, which is why you support the right of women to remove insentient clumps of cells from their bodies.

  23. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    ” But, concern trolls will be concern trolls.”
    Jack,
    Your Ad Hominem attacks aside, which by the way , do not make an argument, they evade it, but, are you saying that you think that making restrictions on abortion will interfere with a woman’s bodily autonomy? LV

  24. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 4:27 pm

    LV, ad hominem does not mean what you think it means.

  25. Kristen
    July 6, 2007 at 4:29 pm

    are you saying that you think that making restrictions on abortion will interfere with a woman’s bodily autonomy?

    Wow….perhaps I’m just too new to the whole blogosphere, but I believe that got to be in the top five for the most trolling statement ever made on a feminist website.

  26. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 4:37 pm

    Jeff,
    What scientific evidence do you have that shows it’s only a “clump of cells”. Because if you read any textbook on embryology, it will tell you that life begins at conception. And how is it that in clear violation of the law of science called biogenesis, meaning that cats produce cats, snails produce snails, and humans produce humans, that two human parents create a seperate being that is not human at first, but later becomes one after it’s born? LV

  27. July 6, 2007 at 4:41 pm

    You think that by calling a clump of cells “life,” that bestows some magic power on it. It’s still just an insentient clump of cells.

  28. July 6, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    LV, no one is saying that it’s not “alive” and or that it’s not “human.” But lots of things are live and human (e.g., individual skin cells, cancer) and yet are not people fully endowed with rights.

    Not that it matters. Even if a (blastocyst, embryo, fetus) were a person, it wouldn’t have the right to use my body for its own purposes without my consent.

  29. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    “But lots of things are live and human (e.g., individual skin cells, cancer) and yet are not people fully endowed with rights.”
    Doctor,
    With all due respect, I believe you are confusing parts with wholes. Somatic cells are part of a human, not a whole human entity as is a zygote, or fetus. Since the fetus is a part of the human family, it deserves our protection.

  30. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    Jeff,
    You still did not answer the question. How can 2 human beings create a non-human entity?

  31. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    *headdesk*

    Humans create human offspring. Embryos are indeed alive. Nobody has argued with that. But just because it’s ALIVE doesn’t mean it deserves rights. Remember that snails and trees are also alive.

  32. July 6, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    Oh, it’s an “entity,” alright, just not one that I think takes precedence over an actual human being. I understand what you’re saying, LV: you think that because an insentient clump of cells will, if left alone, possibly develop into a fetus and then be successfully birthed, it has some particular claim on our attention. I just don’t agree.

  33. Roy
    July 6, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    are you saying that you think that making restrictions on abortion will interfere with a woman’s bodily autonomy?

    Um.
    Yes.
    In fact, it will. You know, by virtue of telling her what she can and can’t do with her body.

    I know, it’s easy to forget that it’s the woman who is pregnant, but, yeah… I’m pretty sure that the womb is part of her body.

  34. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 5:07 pm

    Kristen,
    The reason I asked that is because the fetus is seperate from the mother. It has it’s own heart, kidneys, etc. . It’s true that it is dependant on the mother for it’s nutrition, but so is a newborn so how is that relevant to it’s humaness? How does carrying the child to birth interfere with the autonomy of the mother? Furthermore, if you or anyone you know is dependant on medication, does it follow that you are less human because of this? How about people under anesthesia? They are completely dependant on other humans to keep them alive, does it follow that they have no right to life or that they are less human than awake people?

  35. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 5:10 pm

    Fetuses are unique in that they are dependent on ONE, PARTICULAR person (the woman carrying it) for life.
    Born humans do not have the right to use other people’s bodies against their will. Fetuses shouldn’t either.

  36. Roy
    July 6, 2007 at 5:12 pm

    And I think that there’s the rather significant point that a fetus isn’t just relying on the woman for nutrition, it’s physically attached to her and causes myriad physical changes in her body as a result. If someone has a child they don’t want, they can put it up for adoption, among other things.

  37. Roy
    July 6, 2007 at 5:14 pm

    How does carrying the child to birth interfere with the autonomy of the mother?

    If you have to ask how forcing a woman to carry a child through to birth interferes with her autonomy, I’m not sure you understand the concept of “autonomy.”

  38. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 5:14 pm

    Since I have been pregnant, I do not ever forget that it is the woman who is pregnant. And we already tell women they are not allowed to use street drugs on her body, or engage in prostitution. Why? because it may be her body, but they are activities harmful to her. And while her womb is part of her body, the fetus is it’s own entity.

  39. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 5:18 pm

    Ahh, unwantedness…..If I decide that I just do not want my 2 year old anymore, may I kill him? Of course not. So why is it okay to kill an unborn child for the same reason?

  40. Roy
    July 6, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    Since I have been pregnant, I do not ever forget that it is the woman who is pregnant. And we already tell women they are not allowed to use street drugs on her body, or engage in prostitution. Why? because it may be her body, but they are activities harmful to her. And while her womb is part of her body, the fetus is it’s own entity.

    1. Nobody is allowed to use street drugs or engage in prostitution where it’s against the law.
    2. It’s entirely possible to think that laws against drug use and prostitution are wrong.
    3. Abortion isn’t harmful to the woman. It’s harmful to the fetus. Which is, as far as I can tell, sort of the point, isn’t it?
    4. The fetus is an individual entity that is physically attached to another entity in a way that no other person has a right. A restriction against abortion punishes women by saying that embryos have rights against them that nobody else ever has. Nobody has a right to control my body against my will, why does the fetus get the right to control a woman’s body against hers?

  41. July 6, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    This is a total thread derail, but I’m in the mood to procrastinate my work so I’ll continue to participate.

    LV, biology simply does not tell us anything about personhood or anything about ethics. You can make all the stupid semantic arguments you want (but it’s alive! but it’s human!) and none of them will add up to us considering an embryo a person on an ethical level.

    And yes, restrictions on abortion will interfere with a woman’s bodily autonomy. How can it not? I’m pregnant right now. My body is changing in all sorts of ways: my blood pressure has changed, my response to exercise has changed, my appetite has gone totally haywire, my bladder is compressed, my abdomen is distended. It will change much more over the next few months: much larger abdomen, glucose-processing changes, stretch marks, risks to my health and life. And then, a birth. A birth is a huge event, risky, and a hell of a lot of work. It’s likely I will tear my perineum and vagina. I may end up temporarily or permanently incontinent. It’s possible I will require major abdominal surgery with all its risks and recovery time. All those things are the common side-effects of childbirth; the uncommon ones are much scarier. I’ll need to take time off work (this would be true even if were to choose not to raise the child myself.) I’m up for it; I volunteered for this. But restrictions on abortion mean that all sorts of people who did not volunteer for it would be forced to go through this huge, life-altering, body-altering process.

  42. July 6, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    Ahh, unwantedness…..If I decide that I just do not want my 2 year old anymore, may I kill him? Of course not. So why is it okay to kill an unborn child for the same reason?

    Nope, but you can give him up for adoption. Hey, anyone want to adopt my fetus? We’ll just remove it from me right now and see how long it lives in your care.

  43. zuzu
    July 6, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    The reason I asked that is because the fetus is seperate from the mother. It has it’s own heart, kidneys, etc. .

    Great! So it can move out with no trouble at all!

    It’s true that it is dependant on the mother for it’s nutrition, but so is a newborn so how is that relevant to it’s humaness?

    Not its humanness, its personhood.

    Though I can see that it’s worthless engaging you, since you fail to distinguish between “physically plugged into the mother’s organs and circulatory system and sucking nutrition from her” and “unable to go to the fridge on its own.”

  44. July 6, 2007 at 5:38 pm

    Though I can see that it’s worthless engaging you, since you fail to distinguish between “physically plugged into the mother’s organs and circulatory system and sucking nutrition from her” and “unable to go to the fridge on its own.”

    Seriously, this is another place where you fail at logic, LV. Repeating yourself is no argument, either. No person has the right to attach themselves to someone else for the purposes of using that person’s body for food without that person’s consent.

    Also, an ad hominem requires that I make an argument. Had I said “You are a concern troll, and are therefore wrong”, that’s an ad hom, though not as much an ad hom as an incomplete set of premises followed by a conclusion. The reasons why you are a concern troll make you wrong.

  45. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    To those who come here to defend the pro-life position:

    Is what Jill describes terrorism? If not, why not?

  46. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 7:33 pm

    Doctor,
    Did they not “volunteer” when they chose to have sex, which is what creates babies in the first place? If you do not want to have kids, fine, do not have sex. It’s not a nessesity like breathing, you know. Why should an innocent child have to give it’s life for a sex act?

  47. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 7:38 pm

    Jack,
    You also make the “without consent” argument. How did she not consent? She agrees to have sex, knowing she can get pregnant.

  48. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 7:38 pm

    Pfft.
    I feel like an idiot every time I even entertain the “don’t have sex” argument. People want to have sex. Even when they don’t want kids. It’s not necessary to want babies to want to enjoy a sexual relationship with one’s partner. Are married people supposed to be celibate once they decide they’re done having kids, or until they’re ready to have kids (if they want them)?
    You, like most other pro-lifers, seem to believe that irresponsible sluts who just wanna party are the only women who get abortions. Some women get abortions because their fetus has a condition that’s incompatilble with life. Or because their pregnancy is incompatible with THEIR life. Some got pregnant via rape. Not that I think anyone should have to prove they have a “good” reason to abort – it just seems like pro-lifers don’t think about all the factors that might be involved.

  49. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 7:48 pm

    Doctor,
    When I compare a born child to an unborn one, I find only four major differences, none of which are relevant to denying it’s humanity.
    1) Size. How is this relevant? Gov. Schwartzeneggar is larger than Sen. Boxer, is she less human than he is? Women are generally smaller than most men, should men have more rights than we?
    2) Level of development. Since Jill is in her twenties, she is less developed than her parents. Is she less human. A five year old girl is less developed than her colllege aged sister. Is she less human?
    3) Environment. Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Give a child a doll. Inside the box, it’s a doll. Open the box, same doll. A seven inch journey down the birth canal does not change a non-human into a human. Do you stop being you when you get into your car?
    4) Degree of dependancy. An unborn baby is dependant on it’s mother. So is a newborn. So are you if you take medication that keeps you alive. Is a diabetic less human?
    None of these are morally relevant in denying the humanity of the unborn child.

  50. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 7:55 pm

    Sarah,
    Rape is a terrible crime. As a victim of violent crime myself, I have first hand knowledge of the horror. An abortion is not going to make you feel better. It only brings more problems later. I have a great deal of compassion for women who endure this violation of thier bodies. The perpetrator should prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But, do we send kids of murderers to the electric chair for the crimes of the fathers? I also had eclampsia with a pregnancy, they feared I may die. The early birth of my child was needed to try and save both of us. Her birth, not her death. I also had another child deemed incompatable with life. Little or no brain and a deformed brain stem, and other problems. She just won a beauty pageant over the weekend. Should I have killed her?

  51. Kristen
    July 6, 2007 at 7:57 pm

    Did they not “volunteer” when they chose to have sex, which is what creates babies in the first place? If you do not want to have kids, fine, do not have sex. It’s not a nessesity like breathing, you know. Why should an innocent child have to give it’s life for a sex act?

    It always comes down to this same argument with pro-life advocates. Women should be “punished” for having sex.

    Fine, here’s your analogy. You get into a car accident.* Said accident is your “fault” but still an accident. By some freakish turn of events the person in the car that you slammed into had his kidney damaged during the accident. His kidney needs 9 months to heal itself. He can survive those 9 months only if he can “borrow” your kidney for those 9 months. Are you LEGALLY obligated to let him borrow your kidney?

    * And don’t argue that the risk of pregnancy is a greater risk than a car accident. That’s just silly.

  52. July 6, 2007 at 7:58 pm

    LV, you’ve repeatedly missed the major difference.

    It’s not just degree of dependency. It’s type. If this fetus were no longer using my organs to support its life processes, it would die. I can hand a newborn off to someone else and it would survive, but this fetus is totally unable to survive without changing my body, taking nutrients from it, etc.

    People have repeatedly made this point to you and you are choosing not to listen. You’ve completely derailed this thread and you’re wasting our time.

  53. July 6, 2007 at 8:13 pm

    She agrees to have sex, knowing she can get pregnant.

    Sex does not equal consent to allowing someone to use her body as food for nine months.

  54. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 8:21 pm

    LV,
    Abortion certainly IS going to solve a rape victim’s problems if she DOESN’T WANT TO BE PREGNANT! Who the hell ever said abortion would make rape victims heal after rape? That’s not why women get abortions. They get abortions because they don’t want to be pregnant!!!

  55. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 8:21 pm

    OKAY then, here is a comment from pro-lifer Wesley Smith on the vandalism of Dr. Tiller’s establishment over the weekend. Maybe you will like this better Doctor.
    “Such acts are not civil disobedience. They are mere criminality. CD is when one openly violates the law and then openly accepts the legal punishment as an illustration that a law is unjust. Taking the law into one’s own hands is mere vigilantism. It cannot be supported in a society based on the rule of law–no matter how odious the target.”
    You see, just because we are pro-life, does not mean we condone vigilantism.
    My husband and I are both missionaries. We care for people, all people, no matter what end of the political spectrum they happen to be on. Me, a staunch conservative, and medical professional once spent my entire Christmas vacation, 4 weeks, caring for a group of migrant workers who I am guessing, were undocumented. I care for women, especially those working in abortion clinics. I will never condone acts of violence against them. We should pray for them, not harm them. Is that more on topic, Doctor?

  56. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 8:25 pm

    Sarah,
    I have counseled victims of rape who all regreted thier abortions. I have seen the damage first hand. And I , myself have lived through trauma decent people can only imagine. I have volunteered in the local battered women’s shelter. I have seen the aftermath of post abortion syndrome first hand. Since I have, I can not deny it’s damage.

  57. zuzu
    July 6, 2007 at 8:32 pm

    But, do we send kids of murderers to the electric chair for the crimes of the fathers?

    But do we punish the families of the victims?

    I knew it was only a matter of time until the “BUT YOU HAD SEX!!!” argument reared its ugly head.

    Just because I invite you in for coffee doesn’t mean I can’t ask you to leave.

  58. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 8:35 pm

    And through which organization did you counsel them, LV? A pro-life organization that actively sought out women who regretted their abortions? Some women WILL regret their abortions. Most do not. Just because you worked with a group that counseled members of the former group does not mean there aren’t women in the latter group. Since they didn’t need counseling, you’d have had no reason to meet them, right?
    Women (and men) make decisions in life they regret. That’s the nature of the human experience. Some people regret getting married to a particular person; does that mean we should outlaw marriage in order to “protect” people from decisions they may later regret?

  59. July 6, 2007 at 8:42 pm

    I have seen the damage first hand.

    It is curious what being told you have sinned egregiously against a merciless God. Trust me, I was raised Catholic, I know the damage religion can do. Some people do regret abortion, but a large amount of thm are influenced by a shaming, patriarchal culture.

  60. July 6, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    It is curious what being told you have sinned egregiously against a merciless God.

    God, proofread! Should say:

    It is curious what being told you have sinned egregiously against a merciless God will do to someone.

  61. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 9:19 pm

    Zuzu,
    Asking someone to leave your home is a personal preference issue. Killing someone because they are in the way and can not defend themselves is a moral issue. They are very different actions.

  62. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 9:22 pm

    What if the person you’ve asked to leave really needs a place to stay?

    If you can come up with a way to evict a fetus without killing it, I’d like to hear it (and no, giving birth to it doesn’t count; I’m talking eviction at 8 weeks – when it’s still an embryo).

  63. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 10:10 pm

    Since an embryo is inherently human, killing it, or evicting it through elective abortion is morally wrong. I have two problems with abortion, it harms women and at times, kills them. It also takes the life of an innocent human being. If not for these 2 facts, I’d have no problems with abortion. As for your analogy, if I knew leaving the confines of my home meant the person will die, and this person is guilty of no crime, I would not evict them. I have hidden battered women and children in my home, just because of this moral principle.

  64. zuzu
    July 6, 2007 at 10:13 pm

    What if the person you’ve asked to leave really needs a place to stay?

    That would be Not My Problem. Especially when that person is eating all my food and crowding me out and looks to be someone I’ll have to wait on hand and foot for some time.

    BTW, LV — birth control: pro or con?

  65. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 10:21 pm

    Jack,
    Oh my goodness….I think telling these women they need to feel ashamed is terrible! God is eager to forgive ALL sin. I may not have ever had an abortion, but….”…all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”, Romans. We need to love these women. This means telling them the truth about abortion, but also, helping them to heal, and loving them through the process of repentance. I have seen this work, and work well.

  66. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    Jack,
    Oh my goodness….I think telling these women they need to feel ashamed is terrible! God is eager to forgive ALL sin. I may not have ever had an abortion, but….”…all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”, Romans. We need to love these women. This means telling them the truth about abortion, but also, helping them to heal, and loving them through the process of repentance. I have seen this work, and work well.

  67. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    Jack,
    Oh my goodness….I think telling these women they need to feel ashamed is terrible! God is eager to forgive ALL sin. I may not have ever had an abortion, but….”…all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”, Romans. We need to love these women. This means telling them the truth about abortion, but also, helping them to heal, and loving them through the process of repentance. I have seen this work, and work well.

  68. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    Sorry about that glitch Ms. Moderator, not sure how it got there three times when I only wrote it once…my apologies.

  69. evil fizz
    July 6, 2007 at 10:31 pm

    Little or no brain and a deformed brain stem, and other problems. She just won a beauty pageant over the weekend.

    Are you saying that you had an anencephalic baby and she’s now old enough for beauty pageants? I know those things start early, but forgive me if I’m unable to suspend my complete and total disbelief.

  70. July 6, 2007 at 10:35 pm

    I think telling these women they need to feel ashamed is terrible!

    Yet you use rhetoric with no logical basis other than your own religious beliefs to say that their actions were wrong. You’re so completely disingenuous, there’s no reason to assume good faith. Same with any anti-choice person.

  71. zuzu
    July 6, 2007 at 10:36 pm

    I have two problems with abortion, it harms women and at times, kills them.

    Funny, but pregnancy does the same thing.

  72. micheyd
    July 6, 2007 at 10:39 pm

    Well, LV, I don’t believe in your god. I don’t believe in your sense of morality. You say your god loves these women with accidental pregnancies, yet you try to shame them into continuing a pregnancy against their will. I don’t care what you think your god thinks, that’s immoral in my position.

  73. July 6, 2007 at 10:39 pm

    Oh, and calling people “baby killers” or implying that that is their purpose is also shaming and will produce a large amount of anxiety in people who are subjected to the notion constantly, no matter what they believe. You have no logical basis for it, except semantics and equivocation, as well as illogical attention to absolutist ethics.

  74. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    So someone has told you that a fetus will eat all of your food? Hope not, because this not true. And when you can no longer care for yourself, who will “wait on you hand and foot”? As for birth control. I am against any form that causes abortion. However, it is my understanding that there may be some available that prevent fertilization altogether instead of causing the death of the embryo during the implantation stage. It also depends on who is using it. I do not think it would be wise for a young, healthy married couple to use it because it can interfere with intimacy. It encourages selfishness, and discourages self control. There is the natural method acceptable by most religions. I do not think kids should be having sex at all. So that’s a “no” on that one. It would just really depend on who was using it and why. For example, if a woman who is being abused by hubby or boy friend comes to me and says she is ready to get out and she tells me she does not want to get pregnant. In this situation where sexual acts are being forced on her, I might tell her to ask her doctor for the kind of birth control that does not cause the death of the embryo. Surely, she will have enough to deal with without getting pregnant again by a louse who beats her and won’t pay support after she is gone. I think in this scenerio, it makes sense. But I am not infavor of married couples using it, and I am not in favor of teens using it, and only in narrow circumstances do I think women should be using the non-abortifacent type of BC. In the case of rape, it is very difficult for pregnancy to result from a rape. Pregnancy also takes 24 to 48 hours to occur. If she gets medical attention in time, fertilization will not occur in the first place.

  75. July 6, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    Funny, but pregnancy does the same thing.

    Since sex = pregnancy (an idiotic and simplistic idea), pregnancy is always okay, and alwaysnonfatal, except when it is, and then it is tragic. *shrug* Next!

    /snark

  76. Lorelei
    July 6, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    *YAAAAAAAAWN*

    LV, go on a conservative blog please. I, for one, do not go on pro-life/conservative blogs and go, ‘YOU ARE ALL WOMAN-HATERS. SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE!’ because I respect their right to converse upon a topic without the interference of someone who 1) is not part of their group, 2) may not understand the issue they are discussing fully, and 3) is derailing the thread and making it All About Them… even thought I disagree fully with everything they say, they have the right to do so without me coming in and disrupting their time. I don’t see how you can justify doing this on our blog.

  77. Lorelei
    July 6, 2007 at 10:52 pm

    What I mean by ‘not understanding the topic fully’ is not that you are stupid and have not thought about the pro-life/pro-choice thing or anything. What I mean is:

    I know that on feminist blogs, there are certain things that are generally agreed upon as points that do not need further discussion (for example, the fact that rape culture exists), since they have been discussed many times before and tend to be fundamental to the ideology. This means that everytime there’s a post about, say, rape, there should be no need for us to rehash the rape culture issue. Then someone comes along and decides that they know better than us, and clearly, we have not examined it thoroughly, and that we need to spend about two days entertaining this person and explaining to them the concept of rape culture and why we believe it exists.

    An accepted concept on this blog, I think, is that zygotes/embryos/fetuses should not be regarded as human beings with full rights. I’m sure this has been discussed in other posts (look under the reproductive rights tags) or at least in related (and linked to) blogs. I don’t know what makes you think that we have to spend this much time explaining our beliefs to you. This blog has never claimed to be a Feminism 101 blog. It has never claimed to be a place where pro-choicers and pro-lifers can come together and debate their points. This blog is for feminists.

    Just sayin’.

  78. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 10:53 pm

    Micheyd:
    I only tell the truth about what abortion really is and does. It kills a child. If anyone feels shame, it’s not due to me or my morality, it’s because a person has become aware that they are doing something wrong. As a moral relativist, would you complain if I stole your purse? I bet you would, and rightfully so. So this thing about “I don’t believe in your morals”, is self refuting. Here is an example:
    Father Frank Pavone was in New York debating a feminist on the issue of abortion. She said…”Father Pavone, I resent your forcing your Catholic morals on me!”……mean time, he walks over to her podium and takes her purse, and starts to go through it! (not that I think stealing purses is right) She said “Hey, you can’t do that!”….2 words from him….”Why not?” You can’t live this way, with so sense of real truth and a moral code.

  79. zuzu
    July 6, 2007 at 10:58 pm

    I only tell the truth about what abortion really is and does. It kills a child.

    Well, you *do* have problems distinguishing between a fetus and an infant.

  80. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 10:59 pm

    Lorelie:
    Just here for the Socratic quest for truth. What kind of woman would I be to let others of my sex stumble in the dark?……just ‘sayin.

  81. zuzu
    July 6, 2007 at 10:59 pm

    Father Frank Pavone was in New York debating a feminist on the issue of abortion. She said…”Father Pavone, I resent your forcing your Catholic morals on me!”……mean time, he walks over to her podium and takes her purse, and starts to go through it! (not that I think stealing purses is right) She said “Hey, you can’t do that!”….2 words from him….”Why not?” You can’t live this way, with so sense of real truth and a moral code.

    Right. Because nobody but the Catholics ever thought of prohibiting stealing.

    *eyeroll*.

    New trolls, please.

  82. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 11:00 pm

    btw,
    I have marched arm in arm in DC with Femenists for life!

  83. evil fizz
    July 6, 2007 at 11:00 pm

    “Hey, you can’t do that!”….2 words from him….”Why not?” You can’t live this way, with so sense of real truth and a moral code.

    Actually, what you can live without is religion. Morality and religion are neither synonymous nor functionally equivalent. I can make perfectly defensible arguments from a number of ethical systems which would permit abortion and prohibit purse stealing.

  84. zuzu
    July 6, 2007 at 11:04 pm

    Incidentally, how does Father Frank Pavone feel about priests diddling altar boys, and the Church hierarchy covering it up?

  85. July 6, 2007 at 11:05 pm

    LV, me, I don’t give a hoot about your morals, really. That’s between you and… well, whoever else you wish it to be between, which appears to be everyone, but still. I don’t consider them any of my business unless you, hiding behind the excuse of your “morals”, decide that you have a right to invade my life, my doctors office and my personal decisions.

    You do not.

    People’s personal medical decisions are between them, their medical professional, their families – it they wish – their own spiritual traditions and their own consciences, if that applies. Whose business it is not is yours, mine, the cabbie’s down the street, the guys on the corner or the woman next door.

    Simple as that.

  86. zuzu
    July 6, 2007 at 11:05 pm

    btw,
    I have marched arm in arm in DC with Femenists for life!

    Wheeeeeeee!

  87. micheyd
    July 6, 2007 at 11:06 pm

    What evil fizz said.

    Also, my purse and my uterus-they both are MINE.

  88. July 6, 2007 at 11:08 pm

    Di they teach you how to spell “Feminists”? If they did, they were wrong in that as in everything else. Bueno trabajo.

  89. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 11:09 pm

    Evilfizz,
    She has very little brain, holoprosencephaly, hydrocephalus, and a badly damaged brain stem. Yet, she goes to school, just took 2 medals for running track, sings in the chior, and performs on the drama team. She also visits shut ins at the local nursing home. She is quite beautiful, with big blue eyes. She won a princess title in a local pageant last weekend. Should I have let her die? She is a blessing to everyone who knows her. But, she is not valuable because of her ability to function, she is valuable because she is human!

  90. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 11:10 pm

    My apologies , Jack. I am multi-tasking.

  91. July 6, 2007 at 11:11 pm

    Morality and religion are neither synonymous nor functionally equivalent

    Morals and ethics are equal.

  92. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 11:14 pm

    Nanette,
    You mean you have a right to privacy? Of course you do! However, was it okay for Andrea Yates to drown her kids because they were hers and she did it in the privacy of her own home?

  93. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 11:16 pm

    That would be Not My Problem.

    Well, I know that zuzu; I was asking LV.

    LV, my cousin had anecephaly and died at age 8 after 8 years of life as a human vegetable. And he survived longer than most do.
    What makes you think respecting other people’s property is unique to Catholicism?
    I think it’s funny when religious folks call atheists/agnostics moral relativists, considering the fact that they blindly accept the morality handed to them in a book. On top of that, they clearly hold certain morals more dear than others. They’re obsessed with fetuses, for instance, and gay people. But executives at Enron weren’t met with much protest by conservative Christians, were they?

  94. July 6, 2007 at 11:17 pm

    Jill, I’ve never quite figured out why domestic terrorists just sort of produce an “oh well, nutters will be nutters” type reaction, even after McVeigh.

    I corresponded briefly with a right wing opinion columnist who writes for a Texas paper not that long ago. He wrote on their blog something silly like he was in favor of profiling because “while all Muslims are not terrorists, all terrorists threatening the US are Muslim”.

    I was appalled that none of his fellow newspaper persons called him on it, so I wrote and told him how inane *and* untrue it was, citing various domestic terrorists arrested since 9/11, with enough fire power to bring down a good many buildings – including a pretty big multi-state white supremacist plot that originated in Texas, as well as a guy who was arrested while he was on his way to a church to blow it up.. because they were not anti-choice enough.

    Yawn. (was the gist of the reaction)

    I can see how that wouldn’t worry some, as most of the incidents were um… ‘targeted terrorism’ sure, but that’s sort of like ‘smart bombs’ – hits what it’s aiming at, yeah, but “whoops, my bad!” for those who are in the way.

  95. evil fizz
    July 6, 2007 at 11:17 pm

    However, was it okay for Andrea Yates to drown her kids because they were hers and she did it in the privacy of her own home?

    So how is the fact-gathering for your next Onion article going? (Or did you actually just make this argument in good faith?)

  96. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 11:18 pm

    AH! You have the right to privacy as long as you’re not harming other people, for goodness sakes. Have sex with whomever you want (as long as they’ve consented and are of age), smoke dope, watch American Idol – I don’t care. Drowning kids in a bathtub has nothing to do with privacy.

  97. July 6, 2007 at 11:20 pm

    LV, don’t bother.

    I don’t play that nonsense game.

  98. LV
    July 6, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    Ahh, you are right Sarah, a right to privacy does not have anything to do with it….same with killing the unborn.

  99. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    Morals and ethics are equal.

    That was very well written. LV might benefit from reading it. Slowly.

  100. SarahMC
    July 6, 2007 at 11:29 pm

    Are we back at square one, LV? The unborn are not people with rights. They exist by leeching off another (born) person’s body. Another specific person (not just anyone with a baby bottle). The BORN do not have the right to do that against a person’s will; why should the unborn? Fetuses/embryos/zygotes are not viable, not sentinent and are not moral agents. They are not children. If they were, pro-lifers would consider frozen embryos members of the homeless population for lack of a warm uterus.

  101. Lorelei
    July 6, 2007 at 11:35 pm

    LV,

    Incidentally, most feminists do not consider ‘Feminists for Life’ to be feminists. Just because they call themselves feminists doesn’t mean that they actually *are* feminists.

    Would it be possible to bring your ‘Socratic quest’ somewhere else, or at least to a post on Feministe that is on topic? The topic here is domestic terrorism perpetrated by pro-life extremists. Your topic seems to be the humanity of a zygote/embryo/fetus. Find a post concerning your topic, at least.

  102. zuzu
    July 6, 2007 at 11:54 pm

    Jill, I’ve never quite figured out why domestic terrorists just sort of produce an “oh well, nutters will be nutters” type reaction, even after McVeigh.

    I corresponded briefly with a right wing opinion columnist who writes for a Texas paper not that long ago. He wrote on their blog something silly like he was in favor of profiling because “while all Muslims are not terrorists, all terrorists threatening the US are Muslim”.

    You know, I think this gets at the heart of something. The definition of “terrorism” seems to be “acts committed by People Who Are Not Like Us.” And if someone who isn’t an Obvious Ferriner commits an act of terrorism, it’s handwaved.

    Especially if it’s by someone who’s a Good White Christian. But it’s also handwaved if the person is black — though handwaved right on over into Thuggery. But if the person is Hispanic, or South Asian, or Middle Eastern — then they’re sufficiently Other that their acts can count as “terrorism against the US.”

    Plus, women who get abortions aren’t Real Americans!

    Incidentally, I wish I’d saved this article I came across today which demonstrated how certain ethnic groups are never assimilated in the popular consciousness — it was a story about a woman who was convicted of hiring her lover to kill her husband, who was described in the headline as an “Indian doctor.”

    The kicker? The story said he’d come here in 1971.

  103. LV
    July 7, 2007 at 12:02 am

    Lorelie,
    Check my first post and post #56. They were both concerning “clinic terrorism”.

  104. LV
    July 7, 2007 at 12:08 am

    “What makes you think respecting other people’s property is unique to Catholicism?”

    I do not recall saying this. Besides, I am not Catholic. Nor am I pro-life because of my religious beliefs. I am pro-life because I believe the pro-life position is true.
    The humanity of the unborn can be backed with scientific and philisophical evidence.

  105. LV
    July 7, 2007 at 12:12 am

    Sarah,
    fetuses are viable after the fifth month, in some cases. So your statement that fetuses are not viable is false. And I see you used the word “sentinent ” again. So folks in a coma are not human anymore?

  106. LV
    July 7, 2007 at 12:22 am

    “Incidentally, most feminists do not consider ‘Feminists for Life’ to be feminists. Just because they call themselves feminists doesn’t mean that they actually *are* feminists.”

    I am all for equal pay for equal work. Women choosing a number of things for themselves, like health care providers, jobs, relationships, where to worship. I think law enforcement needs to do better in protecting women. I think victims deserve more rights than the criminals who brutalize them. I think abused women should have free legal representation because clearly the abusive man holds all the money! I fought for laws in Maryland, and won, to get non-violent pregnant women out to home detention so they did not have to be apart from thier kids! I think a single mother should be able to get a free education instead of the violent criminals in jail getting a law degree! What’s not pro-woman about these things?

  107. July 7, 2007 at 12:24 am

    zuzu, yep, I was just thinking about that the other day – although possibly the most visibly different, Black people in the US are usually assumed to be USians, and ones who are not are sometimes considered exotic or something. But other groups seem almost always assumed to be ‘foreign’ – I think it was Kristi (Christi? something) Yamaguchi that said that people are always asking her where she learned to speak English so well (she was born in the US.)

    I find that so odd, considering the very long history that Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, so on have in this country.

    You know, I think this gets at the heart of something. The definition of “terrorism” seems to be “acts committed by People Who Are Not Like Us.” And if someone who isn’t an Obvious Ferriner commits an act of terrorism, it’s handwaved.

    Which is baffling… after all, who would have the greater access to not only being able to purchase weapons and bomb making stuff, but also to areas where others would attract suspicion?

    I do have to give credit to what I imagine are the career investigators and such with the DOJ and ATF and whoever, because – even tho the arrests are given very little play in the press – they’ve stopped any number of plots that were real doozies over the past 3 or 4 years.

  108. zuzu
    July 7, 2007 at 12:39 am

    But other groups seem almost always assumed to be ‘foreign’ – I think it was Kristi (Christi? something) Yamaguchi that said that people are always asking her where she learned to speak English so well (she was born in the US.)

    Yeah, a Chinese-American friend of mine from law school had a lot of trouble crossing back and forth over the border at Detroit just because of the way she looked, even though her Michigan accent was a dead giveaway. I took a trip with her and a mixed-ethnicity group of friends to Wah Court, this fantastic Chinese restaurant in Windsor, ON, for dim sum. We had no trouble getting into Canada, but on the way back, Anna was the only one asked to provide proof of citizenship by the US Customs agents, and she was separated from us. Luckily, she knew the drill from prior trips with her Taiwanese-born parents, and had her passport on her (these were the days when a driver’s license was theoretically sufficient).

    And the black woman among us was smuggling Cuban cigars; they didn’t touch her once they saw her Chicago DL.

    I do have to give credit to what I imagine are the career investigators and such with the DOJ and ATF and whoever, because – even tho the arrests are given very little play in the press – they’ve stopped any number of plots that were real doozies over the past 3 or 4 years.

    A lot of the credit for that goes to big-city PD anti-terrorism forces, too. The NYPD’s, for example, is notable for having a lot of officers *from the relevant communities* who are invested in keeping their home cities safe.

  109. Kristen
    July 7, 2007 at 1:16 am

    Incidentally, I wish I’d saved this article I came across today which demonstrated how certain ethnic groups are never assimilated in the popular consciousness — it was a story about a woman who was convicted of hiring her lover to kill her husband, who was described in the headline as an “Indian doctor.”

    This has been bothering me too lately, although I haven’t exactly been able to articulate why. It’s something strange about the difference between how ethnicity/national origin is treated on the mainland as opposed to Hawaii. At home I say…my husband is Japanese and Okinawan and everyone understands that this is an ethic description and that he was born in the U.S.. (In Hawaii you add -national to connote that you’re a first generation immigrant or visitor.) However, this phrase apparently *shocks* people and they ask (and sound all most horrified) “from Japan??” This irritates the crap out of me…it irritates me even more that the explanation that his family immigrated to the island even before the U.S. took power seems to mollify them. I don’t know how to sort this reaction really. I just know it pisses me off.

  110. zuzu
    July 7, 2007 at 1:25 am

    Kristen, you’re from Hawaii? My sister, Kat, who floats around these parts, spent nine years there, her kids were both born there, and her younger son is a native Hawaiian (albeit blond and blue-eyed).

    I remember that she had something of an epiphany about race once she’d spent some time out there after having been sent there with her first husband. I don’t think she’d ever lived in a place where getting people who looked even nominally Irish was an issue for an Irish pub, when she looked for part-time look.

  111. zuzu
    July 7, 2007 at 1:26 am

    Or, “part-time work.”

  112. Lorelei
    July 7, 2007 at 2:29 am

    LV,

    Please look at the second point of my comment again:

    Would it be possible to bring your ‘Socratic quest’ somewhere else, or at least to a post on Feministe that is on topic? The topic here is domestic terrorism perpetrated by pro-life extremists. Your topic seems to be the humanity of a zygote/embryo/fetus. Find a post concerning your topic, at least.

    I’m not even saying to shut up, but at least… find… a relevent post… You are detracting and derailing a very important issue, that I think you can agree should be able to be discussed without distraction. Your topic, I can agree, should be able to be discussed without being derailed and without it derailing another one. I don’t think you’d appreciate me going on blogs and derailing a topic to serve my own needs/desires. We want to talk about this topic. Let us without making the thread all about you.

  113. SarahMC
    July 7, 2007 at 7:27 am

    LV,
    Again, human unborn are indeed human. Try to find someone who’ll argue against that point. For the most part, they are neither sentinent nor viable. Even when they are viable, they are still surviving off another individual person’s biological functions.
    For the sake of argument, let’s say there’s an 8 week-old embryo. Why should it have more rights than its host?

  114. LV
    July 7, 2007 at 11:10 am

    Not more rights , Sarah, equal ones. Since you agree on it’s humanity, then killing this innocent human being because it can’t defend itself, and it’s in the way is not just a personal preference like deciding what to have for dinner, it’s a serious moral wrong. You should never take the life of one human being to benefit another. The Jewish Holocaust illustrates this well. Just like it is always wrong to use violence against abortion providers, that is not a personal preference issue, it’s a moral one. Elective abortion is wrong, but so is the use of violence to stop it.

  115. July 7, 2007 at 11:22 am

    Not more rights , Sarah, equal ones.

    Ignoring the rest of your obfuscations, taking this at face value implies that women also have the right to use another person’s physical body as a food supply via some mechanism of physical attachment. You imply that fetuses have this right, and if their rights are equivalent to a woman’s rights, then the woman also is able to do this. As this is not the case in any society or any system of ethics I am aware of, your argument falls apart, as you are obviously giving more rights to the fetus than the woman by virtue of who they are, not their humanity. Starting from first principles, your argument is fallacious.

  116. Kristen
    July 7, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    Zuzu,

    Yup, I’m from Hawaii (well, mostly, I was born on the mainland, but we moved to Hawaii when I was young). It very different being white in Hawaii, you are a minority. Actually everyone is a minority since there is no majority ethnic group. Not to mention there is so much inter-racial marriage and children that no one really thinks of it. When my husband (then boyfriend) and I moved to North Carolina it was extreme culture shock. (For example I had never thought of the two of us as an interracial couple until we were told that that was the reason we couldn’t get a certain apartment.)

    Living away from Hawaii (particularly seeing how my husband is treated in comparison to how I’m treated) has given me a lot of observations about race…I haven’t been able to process them into anything that makes sense. I’m just generally angry about it. :)

  117. LV
    July 7, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    “Ignoring the rest of your obfuscations, taking this at face value implies that women also have the right to use another person’s physical body as a food supply via some mechanism of physical attachment. ”
    No Jack, I am saying that it is morally wrong to kill a human being to benefit one’s self.

  118. July 7, 2007 at 8:39 pm

    I am saying that it is morally wrong to kill a human being to benefit one’s self.

    This is non sequitur, since the supposed “benefit” is bringing the situation back to normalcy. No person has the right to use someone else’s body as a physical food supply, or to put it another way, no one has the right to use another person’s body to benefit themselves by stealing their nutrients to survive. If the fetus is a person, it should be able to abide by these rules of conduct. Else, you grant it more rights than you grant everyone else, and you do so at the detriment to women only.

    The phrase “human being” obfuscates the very real moral and ethical problems of saying that a fetus is a person, with full rights, but regardless, if it were a person, it has no more rights than the rest of us, and I can’t use your body as nourishment, just like you can’t use mine, and a fetus can’t use a woman’s, without the consent of the person providing the nourishment. If a woman doesn’t consent to being an incubator, the fetus has to get out. Furthermore, having sex is not consenting to giving up your rights to not let someone else to hook themselves up to you for food. Driving your car is not consenting to having to deal with broken bones without medical assistance in the event of an accident. Your argument is based on sentimental platitudes that have no basis in anything but your opinion that women do not have the right to say “no”. I predict you’ll continue to obfuscate, as that is the only argument any of you ever have.

  119. LV
    July 7, 2007 at 10:17 pm

    Actually, Jack, my arguments are based on scientific evidence. I gave a list of four major differences when comparing an unborn fetus to a born child. Size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependancy. None of which are relevant as such that you can site them to deny the unborn’s humanity or right to life. The fetus is a member of the human family. Guilty of no crime. So, killing it is wrong, because it’s human and innocent. btw, driving does not create another life, sexual activity can. Apples and oranges…….Question.
    When your elderly relative, your mom for example, becomes totally dependant on you for food, will you kill her too? And women do have the right to say “no” to pregnancy, as long as they do so before the child is concieved. Otherwise, they are taking the life of an innocent human being in order to benefit, they think, themselves. A serious moral wrong. I’d be interested in knowing where you stand on Peter Singer’s book, “Practical Ethics”. You know where he says that it’s fine to kill a handicapped newborn on the spot, or even up to one year if the parents wish it. And you think I am extreme?

  120. July 7, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    Ha, thanks for the laugh, LV. :)

    Would my mother have an umbilical cord attached to me, siphoning off nutrients from my body? Because otherwise, your argument is not about what I have said.

    None of which are relevant as such that you can site them to deny the unborn’s humanity or right to life.

    I think if there were a way to keep the fetus alive without needing the mother, it may be unethical to kill the fetus, but since there is no artificial womb yet invented, your morals force a system of rights on a woman that are unequal for her. This is morally wrong.

    btw, driving does not create another life, sexual activity can. Apples and oranges…….Question.

    Driving is an act. An accident and injury is a possible consequence. Sex is an act. Pregnancy is a possible consequence. My broken arm from the car crash can be mended via medical treatment. A woman’s fetus can be aborted. The “create another life” part is sophistry, as it neglects the fact that the fetus does not have a right to use the women without her consent.

    And, for what it’s worth, I spent a year and a half watching my grandmother slowly waste away after a diabetic stroke. She lost both her legs due to poor circulation, and my mother and I had to apply ointment to her bed sores. She, herself, was suffering from extreme dementia the whole time. I helped feed her and did all those things because she was a born person, my grandmother, and I could do them. Forcing me to attach myself to her as a life support is something I might have consented to, but to do so would require my consent.

  121. zuzu
    July 7, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    Question.
    When your elderly relative, your mom for example, becomes totally dependant on you for food, will you kill her too?

    Mom was hooked up to machines when she died, not my kidneys, circulatory system, brain, etc.

    So, no. Try again.

  122. July 7, 2007 at 10:51 pm

    Ha, thanks for the laugh, LV

    I guess I should be sorry if this comes off as snide, but I’m really not. No, LV. Newborn babies are born, their ability to exist without being attached to life support in the form of another human. I’m not advocating killing newborn babies, nor would I. LV, we’re down to arguing semantics, so there’s really nothing else to say.

    Believe me, I’ve had this argument with myself many times a long time ago. It always ends up at the same place. For some, their ethics are okay with forcing pregnancy. For others, their ethics are not.

  123. evil fizz
    July 7, 2007 at 10:52 pm

    I’d be interested in knowing where you stand on Peter Singer’s book, “Practical Ethics”. You know where he says that it’s fine to kill a handicapped newborn on the spot, or even up to one year if the parents wish it. And you think I am extreme?

    LV, Singer is a utilitarian (well, a preference utilitarian if you want to get specific) and his argument is more than a little different than those being made here. Singer has attempted to define personhood by the characteristics necessary to be considered to be a rights-bearing individual and he regards delivery of a fetus as an arbitrary point for assessing personhood. That’s *not* the point any of us are making.

Comments are closed.