I certainly believe that people are entitled to their own opinion on the question of Abortion. While I remain officially "pro choice," I mean just that.
I remember a bit of a kerfuffle at the end of the Bush presidency regarding pharmacists who didn't want to provide the morning after pill (or was it all contraception) because it violated their religious beliefs. Perhaps someone with some research skills could link to that for me, as I'm not inclined to go searching for it tonight. My response to that was basically "if you don't want to sell birth control, then don't work in a profession that involves selling birth control." It seems to me akin to a Luddite apprenticing as an Electrical Engineer.
I also remember some discussion on the FDA appointments made by President Bush being premised on this topic (again, links are welcome).
The reason I bring this up is because I was reading this article by Professor Friedman at Religion Clause Blogspot that discusses a Court case (Tummino v. Torti, ED NY Mar, 2009) wherein the Judge ordered the FDA to reconsider its restriction on Plan B ("The Abortion Pill"). The reasoning, as Professor Friedman notes, is that the Judge felt that the FDA's position was premised on political motives, rather than "good faith agency decision making" (from Professor Friedman's article).
What I find interesting about this is the Family Research Council's response - "This ruling jeopardizes girls' health and the ability of parents to care for their daughters' physical and emotional well-being." I'm not entirely sure I follow that logic, as, if the child finds herself in a situation where she needs the medication, then isn't it entirely possible that she found herself in that situation particularly because of her parent's inability or unwillingness to care for her physical and emotional well-being? I leave the answer to you.
11 comments:
"if you don't want to sell birth control, then don't work in a profession that involves selling birth control."
Exactly. This should be a non-issue. Are the religious going to get bent out of shape when another religious person, say, a Jehova Witness decides that they no longer want to provide blood transfusions? If it is against your beliefs, you are probably in the wrong profession.
Plus they said... ""Hundreds of women have had serious side effects from Plan B as it has killed millions of preborn babies."" ...I hope they realize what the intended consequences of Plan B are!
By being so decidedly pro-choice you are unfortunately on the right side of the law and probably on the right side of all the cool kids in your law classes. But, if there is a god in heaven then you are also most certainly on the wrong side of Him.
Well, that decision to tempt God should remain in the hands of those who decide on the operation and not the government. Choice means that people are personally responsible for the consequences of their actions be it legal, emotional, or divine. Do you really think it is in the best interest of freedom to allow a government to dictate our personal decisions? Where do you draw the line once you grant the government this ability?
Remember, what you believe isn't what everyone else believes. Why not allow people to make these decisions on their own and keep the government out of it? You, nor I, know what is in the best interests of someone else. Only they do. If there is a God, there is nothing you or I can do to save a "sinner" by mandating laws.
“Choice means that people are personally responsible for the consequences of their actions be it legal, emotional, or divine.”
Agreed.
“Do you really think it is in the best interest of freedom to allow a government to dictate our personal decisions?”
If I believed that a human in the womb is nothing more than a lump of worthless cells then I’d agree with you. But, I believe that those cells in the womb are a human, and therefore entitled to the same rights as all humans. All humans should be protected.
“Where do you draw the line once you grant the government this ability?”
I draw the line at protecting human life.
“Remember, what you believe isn't what everyone else believes.”
Agreed.
“Why not allow people to make these decisions on their own and keep the government out of it?”
Sometimes, it is necessary for the government to step in and protect the rights of those who are being held down, enslaved or murdered. We have fought many wars and amended the Constitution several times to do just that.
“You, nor I, know what is in the best interests of someone else.”
What is in the best interest of the human still in their mother’s womb?
“If there is a God, there is nothing you or I can do to save a "sinner" by mandating laws.”
Agreed.
You say that you believe those cells are human and you acknowledge that other people don't necessarily share your beliefs...do you feel that your beliefs are, for lack of a better word, superior and should be forced onto them?
I understand the argument about protecting human life, but I have a hard time swallowing such a shallow commitment to such a life when the people who push this view on the public often ignore that life after birth. They are against "socialist" medical care for these kids because of the connotation, insurance for kids who are from poor families, broad adoption laws for loving couples not legally allowed to adopt because of people forcing their beliefs on others, education spending to bring schools up to basic standards, and various other social commitments to the lives they claim they want to protect. In my opinion, these people want to force their pro-life view on others but want to remove themselves from that commitment as soon as it comes to their own wallet. Being pro-life is a noble cause, but that commitment is for life, not just during pregnancy. When I start to see those attitudes change in the conservative movement, I will start to change my attitude on this issue.
My wife is currently pregnant :-D and we will have the child under any circumstance, but I am not able to make that decision for someone else. We are more fortunate than most. We can afford to give this child the care and education it needs, the medical attention it may require, and the opportunities that will reveal it's character. In such trying times as these, I find it hard to make that call on behalf of another family.
“do you feel that your beliefs are, for lack of a better word, superior and should be forced onto them?“
No. But if one feels strongly about something they are free to protest, debate, discuss and vote for like minded representatives.
“I understand the argument about protecting human life, but I have a hard time swallowing such a shallow commitment to such a life”
You’re right. The conservative movement is similar to every other movement in a lot of ways. The most obvious is that they all hypocritical tendencies. There is not one human institution that is perfect. But if people used a lack of perfection as their reason for supporting an idea then nothing would ever get done. There would be no one in our armed forces, the Constitution would have never been written, etc., etc. There is a lot of non-governmental help out there for pregnant women, but not enough. Those same church going pro-lifers generally lead the way with donations and volunteer work for mothers who decide to keep their children. More help is always needed.
“When I start to see those attitudes change in the conservative movement, I will start to change my attitude on this issue.”
If you believe there is nothing wrong with abortion then why would you ever feel the need to change your opinion of it? If it’ll be wrong in the future then it’s wrong today. Why do the actions of conservatives hold such power over you? That would be like white people in the early 60s saying “I’d support equal rights for African Americans if it weren’t for those scary Black Panthers.”
“My wife is currently pregnant :-D and we will have the child under any circumstance...”
Congratulations! I say that with sincerity. Now, please try and imagine your unborn son or daughter being torn from your wife’s womb limb from limb. Then imagine your wife, for the rest of her life, living with the knowledge that she killed her child. It’s heartbreaking. But that will happen in the United States over 4,000 times today. Mostly for the sake convenience.
if one feels strongly about something they are free to protest, debate, discuss and vote for like minded representatives.
Fair enough. Which is why we debate this here and I personally hope Obama doesn't fail. He has to my satisfaction reversed a few Bush anti-choice policies. Even strong conservative states like Wyoming have defended a woman's reproductive freedom as recently as the last election.
But if people used a lack of perfection as their reason for supporting an idea then nothing would ever get done.
It isn't about a lack of perfection, rather the lack of sincerity and their agenda to push their views on everyone else which makes me question the sincerity of their position. I question their motives. They say they are pro-life, but they don't act like it, so why would I think their position is any more valid than mine? Had I felt their position is sincere and honest, I may have an easier time being open to their arguments.
I see this issue solely as a right-wing religious one where the they feel it is their duty to "save" others and have no problem forcing others to think like them. Their agenda doesn't end at abortion, rather just starts there. Conservatives controlled all three branches of government for 6 years and nothing was done to reverse Roe v Wade...I don't think anyone outside of the religious right community is buying their arguments.
If you believe there is nothing wrong with abortion then why would you ever feel the need to change your opinion of it?
I am always open to new evidence and arguments. I don't personally agree with abortion, but my stance is that it is not my decision (or the government's) to dictate reproductive laws. I believe reproductive freedom is an individual right and until someone can make an argument to change my mind, I will remain under that opinion. Different people have different beliefs.
for the rest of her life, living with the knowledge that she killed her child
It is not the government's job to protect people from their emotions. As great as freedom is, it still has it's consequences on the individual.
May I assume you are 100% against abortion? What is your position on baby's conceived through rape or incest or will put the mother's life at risk? Should that 9 year-old who was raped by her father in Brazil be forced to carry her babies to term even though it would have killed her?
Wow, this is a great debate. Personally, I am "pro-life" with respect for and friends with many people who are "pro-choice" and have used that choice to have abortions. To me, it's a little comical that there are so many Pro-Choice, Anti Death Penalty people out there. Of course, the same is true in reverse as well! And, how do you jive the fact that if that same pregnant woman were shot and killed that it would be a double homicide? Strange. We choose to debate when the "cells" becomes a human being. When the bible says "He knew me when He formed me", I have to believe that no matter what stage of conception, the creation was a willful act of God. So, at the end of the day, I try to act out my beliefs and abide by the laws as best I can. For me, that means never having an abortion for any reason. For others, it's just the opposite. Part of living in a democratic society means that we won't always have our "beliefs" in line with our "laws" but we cannot restrict the freedoms of others. That is a very slippery slope.
Okay, I feel like I need to stop this debate right here. This is NOT a debate about abortion because YOU'RE TOTALLY WRONG if you think abortion and Plan B have anything to do with each other.
Plan B, aka emergency contraception, aka the morning after pill, IS NOT AN ABORTIFACIENT!!
Oh my god, I am SO EFFING SICK of having this discussion with people who don't take the time to educate themselves about the pharmacology of hormonal contraceptives. Emergency contraception is the same thing as "the pill" but it is just taken in a different way. It is not the same as mifepriston/misopristol, which is also known as RU-486 or the "abortion pill." They are two entirely separate things.
Here's the shortened version of how hormonal birth control works. The body emits certain hormones that stimulate ovulation each month. Once ovulation has occurred, other hormones are produced which cause a "negative feedback" loop that signals the body to stop producing the hormones that stimulate ovum production. Hormonal birth control pills essentially cause this negative feedback loop to occur so the body doesn't produce the hormones that cause an ovum to form and release into the Fallopian tubes. Therefore, ovulation never occurs. There is never a fertilized egg. And even if there was some massive failure (less than a percentage point, if even that) and an egg was released, there are other safeguards against any potential fetus coming into play. First, the hormones stimulate production of thick cervical mucus, which basically keeps those pesky sperm from ever making it past the cervix and further along on their journey. And the endometrial lining is thinned, which is also why the pill is a great way to reduce incredibly painful periods, endometriosis, ovarian cysts, and other problems that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy but for which many women take the hormones. So, a) no egg, b) no way for sperm to even get in the vicinity and c) harder for anything to implant into the uterus on the incredibly rare chance that there was any fertilized egg to implant. In fact, there are no studies that show fertilized eggs fail to implant on the pill at any rate higher than for women who aren't on the pill. Know why? Because you can't prove a negative. Self-professed "pro-life" doctors have even admitted this.
It's all total bull crap and misinformation spread by misogynist creeps who are more concerned about keeping women from controlling their own reproduction and making independent decisions than in giving a rat's behind about medical science. In fact, I'd argue that these same people aren't big fans of science in the first place, or at least have very little respect for it.
So, in review, Plan B is the same thing as "the pill," hormonal contraceptives. It does not work if you are already pregnant. It does not work if the egg is already fertilized. If you are ovulating and have unprotected sex and you happen to get pregnant that night, Plan B is not going to do anything for you. It is also not going to harm the fertilized egg. It's not going to cause any more harm to any potential human that whatever else someone might be doing when they have unprotected sex and have no desire to nurture a pregnancy. Like not taking prenatal vitamins, drinking, smoking, doing drugs, eating vast quantities of sushi, cleaning out their cat's litter box, drinking boatloads of coffee and any of the laundry list of things pregnant women are expected to do/not do in order to hopefully pop out a healthy child. You know, a whole lifestyle-changing list of expectations that we as a society should really only want women to have to subject themselves to if they are ready and willing to do so. You know, for the sake of the propagation of a healthy species and better society overall. But whatever. That's for another debate BECAUSE THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION. PLAN B IS NOT ABORTION. GOT IT?
Goddamn.
Red Hot Mama, you are awesome. Thank you for clearifying this issue. I had no idea what the difference is as I assumed they were the same thing and/or worked the same way, but I do now with the benefit of being entertained while learning! Much appreciated.
YOU'RE TOTALLY WRONG if you think abortion and Plan B have anything to do with each other.
RHM - No one debated anything about Plan B on this thread. I made mention of Steve’s pro-choice stance and went from there.
DB - Putting aside all of your pro-life stereotypes*, I will sum it up simply. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder. If there is a baby in a crib who is the result of a rape**, is it not murder to dismember that child, crush its skull and discard the body? In our book, abortion is the same thing.
*I really admire(sarcasm) the pro-choice movement for trying to demonize the pro-life movement by calling us “anti-choice” and claiming that you’re for “reproductive freedom.” It’s a slick attempt at making it appear that you’re on the side of good.
**In the United States:
-rape/incest related abortions +/- 1% of abortions
-health related abortions +/- 6% of abortions
-convenience +/- 93% of abortions
Post a Comment