Somebody made a comment on a recent post of mine where I mentioned abortion. I know this is a super controversial topic, but I've noticed that I can sometimes post about really controversial stuff and nobody seems to care, whereas I'll say something about rice and get 200 comments.
Anyway, my statement was mostly that I think the Republican party's platform that abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape and incest is total bullshit. Completely hypocritical.
If you think abortion should always be okay, fine.
If you think abortion should never be okay, fine.
If you think abortion should be okay after a certain number of weeks or that some procedure is inhumane (even if that procedure is actually the safest for the mom), well, okay.
But I just can't understand how anyone could say with a straight face that they think abortion illegal except in the case of rape and incest. If you think it's murder, then it's ALWAYS murder. Do you really think that fetuses conceived through rape or incest have less of a right to live than those conceived by two stupid teenagers who never heard of a condom?
Okay, maybe you could argue that a girl who was raped went through some horrible trauma and she shouldn't have to relive nine months of the results of that trauma. And you know what? I totally agree. But I also think that a teenage girl who has consensual sex with protection and that protection fails shouldn't have her entire life ripped apart. There are tons of women who make responsible choices and still get pregnant.
To me, the Republican platform is about punishing women for choosing to having sex. It's not about saving poor little babies from being killed. If you are the child of rape, I still think your life is as valid as mine, so I don't know why that shouldn't apply prenatally.
well for what it's worth I agree 100%
ReplyDeleteKay
Me too....I have long thought that the rape/incest "exception" was hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteNo fair, logic. Agree - 100%.
ReplyDeleteAnd the screaming comments blitzkrieg begins in 5...4...3...2...
ReplyDeleteI'd like to think if you address a topic in a mature, logical way, people will respond likewise.
Deletelol, hahahahahahahaha.... You've been on the internet long enough to know that isn't true.... But if you use the mallet of loving correction (TM Scalzi) it can work out okay...
DeleteI think it's awesome that so far you have just had people that agree with you! (Me too!)
ReplyDeleteSo I completely agree with you that it doesn't make sense for an individual to have that philosophy. Rather its a political compromise by a group of diverse opinions that probably no one is really happy with. Look at any two separate political positions a party holds and you will find plenty of them that disagree with each other on core principles.
ReplyDeleteI know it's a compromise, but I just don't see how anyone could logically justify that platform.
DeleteAh, I see your problem. You think they can "logically" justify their platform. Logic and politics are oxymorons.
DeleteI have long argued this very thing! Big ups, Fizzy!
ReplyDelete--Dr. Alice
So you're saying that killing another human is always wrong?
ReplyDeleteWhat about wars? Is it always wrong to kill the enemy who is trying to kill you?
What about self-defense? If someone is trying to kill you, is it wrong to kill them to stop it if that's the only way out?
What about defense of others? If someone was trying to kill your child, is it wrong to kill them to stop that, if there was nothing else that could?
What about ending the suffering of people who are in extreme pain and are still able to communicate that they'd like to end their life with dignity? Is that killing someone? Is that doing an act of mercy?
Life isn't black and white. Right and wrong aren't always clearly defined. There are lots of shades of gray out there, and I'd rather the Republicans recognize that things aren't always as perfect as we'd like them to be.
For the record, I am pro-choice and I long for the day when abortions are a rare event, because we have safe and effective birth control, with as few side effects as possible, for all genders, available the same way we buy a bottle of ibuprofen.
I wouldn't think it's hypocritical to say that abortion is okay only if the mother's life is in danger since that's self-defense (frankly, I think it's inhumane to say otherwise). But there are few exceptions to when murder is wrong... You named most of them and NONE of those apply to a fetus of rape or incest.
DeleteDefinitely agree with your last statement.
You are conflating vastly different situations to make things seem a lot more gray than they are. You bring in multiple examples of killing people who took direct action leading to the situation in which they are killed, and place them alongside a situation when the person being killed has never taken any action at all.
DeleteThe only other instance of killing which bears any similarity to elective abortion is deliberate killing of civilians in a totalitarian country in a war. Civilized countries agree that this is wrong.
For the terminally ill, I understand the perspective of people who support "assisted suicide" and agree that it is somewhat of a gray area. As a physician, I support providing pain control without regard to side effects in the terminally ill, provided the patient does not wish to have extreme measures taken to preserve life. This is known as "comfort care" and is standard of care in New York and Pennsylvania. This is, however, quite distinct from abortion, in which the party being killed in most cases has neither an imminently terminal condition nor any say in the outcome.
Phillip
Regarding the party, Hildy has it. Unfortunately, there are individuals who attempt to logically justify the position, which is clearly absurd.
ReplyDeletePolitics is like a married couple that couldn't spend time together on weekends because they had completely different interests. They went to counselling because this bothered them, and the counselor told them they should compromise when they had a disagreement, and do different activities on alternating weekends.. The following weekend the husband wanted to take his boat out and sit in the middle of the lake and fish. The wife wanted to go to the mall and look for a new pair of shoes. After much discussion they settled on a compromise. They went to the mall and sat in the middle of the fountain and fished. The following weekend they drove out to the boat launch in her car and looked for shoes.
Phillip
It is a logical fallacy, isn't it? The nuances of the issue of control of one's body and health are not easily addressed from a political perspective. I think you are right on with this post. As long as you don't criticize rice.
ReplyDeleteAs re abortion when the mother's life is in danger ...
ReplyDeleteIn modern medicine, this happens rarely, one would think. I can think of a few instances, like uncontrolled eclampsia or ectopic pregnancy, but really, there are few medical reasons (to my knowledge) in which pregnancy puts the life of the mother at risk.
Except ...
I started my nursing education and career in the years before Roe v. Wade. I learned that an unwanted pregnancy often puts the mother's life at risk. I saw what happened when women attempted to abort the fetus with any number of dangerous maneuvers. I took care of them when they hemorrhaged, or when sepsis was ravaging their bodies. I remember one young woman who was bleeding uncontrollably, but she wouldn't tell us what she did for fear of being arrested. Finally, facing death, her husband (yes, her husband) told us that she was given a purple pill to insert vaginally, which would induce bleeding, and assuming a miscarriage, the doctor would do a D&C. This is what happened, but the bleeding did not stop. The purple pill was, if I remember correctly, potassium permanganate. It burned through the wall of her vagina, and ultimately, her rectum. They operated and saved her life, but to say that her life would never be the same is an understatement.
I do not believe we can legislate abortion. It is a matter that can be decided only by the woman and her physician; however, no doctor should be forced to perform an abortion if s/he is morally opposed. To make abortion illegal will just drive the women underground and they will surely die. Tricia
I think that a pregnancy putting a woman's life in danger is not an unrealistic situation. Modern medicine allows people to live with more serious medical conditions, so someone can be fairly ill and yet still be functional and conceive a child.
DeleteA friend of mine who had a serious medical condition that nearly killed her and left her with a major disability did accidentally become pregnant. She did want a child but the pregnancy was not viable. She was told by her surgeon that she would not be able to carry a pregnancy to term, and several weeks in, she began to bleed. She went to her PCP to get medical clearance for an abortion. The PCP refused because she did not believe in abortion. My friend started hemorrhaging and had to be rushed to the ER, where she did have an emergency D+E. Except there are actually laws that would have protected hospitals if they turned her away while hemorrhaging.
I don't think this is rare. And honestly, it makes me sick.
God that just turned my stomach Fizzy. It really is about punishing women. You did this to yourself so you have to pay for it? Gross.
DeleteI stand corrected - sadly. I did my OB/GYN training in an inner city Catholic hospital and saw things like that and worse.
DeleteMy case study patient hemorrhaged after delivery and her doctor, the very Irish Catholic chief of service refused to perform a hysterectomy because she was still of childbearing age. The Jewish chief resident argued loudly with him as did the patient's husband, to no avail. If she died, it was "God's will." Thankfully, the chief resident took it upon himself to do the hyst after the chief left and the patient lived.
I thought those days were over. TCG
A woman in Ireland died a few months ago because they wouldn't induce her during a miscarriage:
Deletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
As far as "punishing women" goes, what gives you the idea that ardent "pro life" politicians would ever be motivated by a desire to see women punished for having sex? I mean it's not like one of them ever came right out and said exactly this just three years ago...
http://coloradoindependent.com/22746/state-senator-hiv-babies-are-punishment-for-promiscous-moms
You only mentioned rice because you're such a skinny mofo
ReplyDeleteAllow me to ease your worries about the hypocrisy of the Republican party platform. It hasn't allowed for rape or incest exceptions for over a decade, and last year they explicitly called for "human life" amendment to the constitution: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/us-usa-campaign-republicans-abortion-idUSBRE87K14J20120821
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Fizzy. What if the condom breaks?? Is it just to force someone to have a baby because a condom broke even though they were being responsible?
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't get is why do men tell women what to do with their uterus?? Do women tell men what to do with the dicks?? Something so personal should be left up to the individual to handle on their own.
I think as a nurse, that patients should be given proper education on their choices. Patients all too often are shuffled through the health care system and never understand a word that is said to them. Health care practitioners ought to be more aware of the patient's ability to learn and understand what is being explained. Abortion is not the only option.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the pregnancy was not planned, then there should be education on how to safely prevent future unplanned pregnancies. I bet that last step goes all too often forgotten.
Patients are not a number or just another procedure.
But who am I? Just a nurse.
Have you ever been a nurse in a family planning clinic? Because that is a specific type of nursing, so I am imagining you have not.
DeleteIf you had, I am betting you would know that people actually ARE told of their options before proceeding with an abortion. In fact, it's very formally a part of PARQ for consent - the Alternatives section - continue the pregnancy, keep the baby, adoption, here are social services and an LCSW who will help you connect with them if that's what you want.
Additionally, I have NEVER seen or performed an abortion without someone leaving with a prescription for birth control, most often the so called LARC methods (Long Acting Reversible Contraception) which are, in actually often EVEN MORE EFFECTIVE THAN A TUBAL.
But who am I? Just an abortion provider.
I'd argue that the stance is not as much mean-spirited hypocrisy, as it is pandering to the left out of cowardice. Typically, those in that camp who believe most strongly that abortion is 'wrong' believe quite simply that human life begins at conception, that a mother's or father's choices or lack thereof do not impart some mystical life or personhood, and that ending innocent human life is 'wrong' and should be illegal. Why the allowance for rape and incest? Look at what happens when politicians *do* hold the conclusion that abortion should always be illegal because it is always the ending of human life - Santorum's speaking out on this view sparked a fire-storm. It is not because the right largely does not see the logical conclusions, it is because they want to avoid the name-calling and false outrage and vitriol that the left will spew. Hypocritical? Probably. Cowardly? Much.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I think the real hypocrites are those on the left. For example, Fizzy writes: "If you are the child of [rape, incest, two stupid teenagers], I still think your life is as valid as mine, so I don't know why that shouldn't apply prenatally" yet supports pre-natal terminations. How are those conclusions reconcilable? Furthermore, on the other side, the argument is that it is a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her body. I agree with that whole-heardtedly - could not agree more! If a woman wants the insides of her uterus removed - hell, the entire goddamned uterus removed - go for it! However, given that a fetus has a 50% DNA contribution from someone other than the woman and that it is an organism that is genetically distinct from the woman, I cannot argue that the fetus is actually a woman's body and she thus has whatever rights she wants over it. When human females evolve to undergo parthenogenesis, then I will grant that the fetus is actually the mother's body and hers to do with what she will. As to telling men what to do with their bodies...of course we do. They can't place their dicks anywhere they want; rape is illegal, as is public exposure and public urination (at least where I live). It is when the bodies of others are involved that what one can and cannot do becomes an issue; to disagree with the legality of abortion on the same principles (whether in the first, second, or third trimester), just requires the recognition of the fetus as an entity separate from the mother. For some (of whom I am one), that separation is based on DNA; for some, based one physical location (inside the uterus/vagina, or outside); for others, some combination of biochemical processes such that the fetus/infant is a 'person' (brain wave/pain capacity/heart beat); and even for some, a notion of 'soul' (eg, Islam permits abortions before 120 days).
Jasmine
Um, I think you completely missed the point of the "my body" argument. I don't think anyone is arguing that a fetus is a part of a woman's body. They are arguing that the uterus is part of the woman's body, and she shouldn't be forced to have a foreign body growing inside of her uterus if she isn't OK with that.
Delete(Also, DNA contribution should be totally irrelevant. I mean, we don't allow two parents to kill their children as long as both DNA contributors agree to it, do we? We don't allow an identical twin to kill their sibling, do we?)
My conclusions are completely reconcilable depending on how you define "life". If life begins at 24 weeks gestation, which is when the fetus is viable, then any prenatal termination prior to that is not ending a life. "One life is as valid as another" doesn't apply if you don't consider it a life. After that point, it IS a life, and it doesn't matter what the process of conception was, rape or incest or love--all equal in my eyes.
DeleteSame is true of your argument about the fetus being the father's property. Sperm sticks around in the body for three days. If you had sex with a random guy, then two days later, he got a court order to retrieve his "property", that would be ridiculous, right? But it's his! It's HIS genetic material! Shouldn't he be able to get it back? Of course, that's silly. But if one of those little pieces of his property combines with an egg, then instantly, now he has ownership over it? Well, if you consider that a life, I guess maybe he would, but if you concede it's just a bunch of cells, then he should have no more right over those cells than any stray sperm he deposited in your body. And of course, if we gave men that right, we could only allow very late abortions, even if the real father actually DID want it, because you can't prove paternity without genetic testing.
In summary, I think whether you buy the pro-choice or pro-life arguments all comes down to when you truly believe life begins. But no matter how you look at it, the rape/incest argument is hypocritical.
One of the greatest scenes in movie history is when Kay Corleone confesses to her husband that the baby he thought she had miscarried was actually an abortion. She did not want her baby to be part of the Sicilian thing.
ReplyDeleteAnd it was a BOY. *gasp*
DeleteAlthough we obviously don't agree on the morality of abortion itself, I completely agree with you on the hypocrisy of the Republican platform. Even though I'm prolife I find voting for the republican party nauseating because of their hypocrisy on this and other issues.
ReplyDeleteI didn't read all the comments. I'll agree with you, and that's no fun, my comment is like looking at yourself in the mirror. A cheerleader.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll make one point on your blog. It's not just women choosing to have sex, it's men and women. But the women get the brunt of the consequence if they get pregnant. And the men can sit back and claim innocence and legislate all the "sluts" out there. It's so freaking ridiculous it makes me see spots when I read about it. The Republicans want to have their fun and then make moral judgements on the women and the consequences of adult actions.
Don't even get me started on the exemptions. I hear North Dakota passed laws without exemptions for rape or incest. Back-asswards. Our senators first try with our nasty anti-abortion bills (there are two - and more anti-women legislation is being brought about every week - latest is Equal Rights bullshit) didn't have the exemptions either. Luckily our state crossed that part out.
So a woman has to defend her right in court to have an abortion - going on trial after already having trauma? PUH-LEAZZEE. Insane. I hear there are habitual rapists who lurk on Indian reservations and rape women because they know there aren't any laws there to protect the women or prosecute them. In this country. In this day and age. We like to think we are progressive, but we aren't.
Oh Fizzy I could go on an on. But I won't. I'll have a glass of wine instead.
Exactly. Which is why abortion really isn't ok, unless the mother will die in addition to the baby.
ReplyDelete