'Arguments about whether and how to restrict abortions in the second trimester - as many advanced democracies already do - would replace protests over the scope of third-trimester medical exemptions.'
Grammatical awkwardness aside, is he suggesting people (including politicians) aren't arguing over second-trimester abortions already?
And, not to sound like a broken record, but how many Canadian women are running to the abortion clinic at nine months?
You know, anti-abortion rhetoric sounds an awful lot like some of the arguments used to question women's claims of rape - Why didn't you protect yourself? How did you get in that situation? Were you a virgin? Do you deserve this abortion/trial?
Well of course a lot of these third trimester abortions were elective. These poor women had to decide to abort their babies after finding out they had no brains or that their spinal columns were not closed. Elective does not equal flippant, easy decision to abort healthy fetus so quit insinuating that it does, Douchehat.
ok, I'm not a stupid person but that column made NO sense to me. Not as in, it had bad logic and reasoning - which it did - but the syntax itself seemed to be completely nonsensical. Was anyone else utterly confused?
This man's brain doesn't work properly. He reverses and conflates, he uses syllogisms and words that don't mean what he thinks they mean, misses blatant distinctions, cites quasi-facts without backing them up... it's all over the freaking place. Complete and utter logic fail. (I'd almost like to send it in to those charming fellows who claim men are the more logical sex).
"...is that Americans aren't permitted to debate anything else" - those of us who are concerned about these things called "rights" are aware that there is a First Amendment that protects, among other things, our ability to debate pretty much anything. Just because states have limited abilities to regulate something doesn't mean we as Americans have been issued a gag rule on the entire subject. It's not like we can't talk about abortion at all or anything...
"Arguments about whether and how to restrict abortions in the second trimester - as many advanced democracies already do - would replace protests over the scope of third-trimester medical exemptions." Disingenuous and just plain incredibly untrue. This nation already does restrict abortions in the second trimester and, as previously stated, the right to argue about it has not been infringed. (Nor has the right to peaceful protest, I might add.) Also, let me make this clear: the type of person who puts a bullet through an abortion doctor's head is not going to stop because we've imposed stricter regulations on abortions or narrowed the scope of what abortions can be performed. A rational compromise, if that is indeed what he is espousing, will never prevent wackos and extremists from deciding the gun is mightier than the pen, or at least more effective in the short term. The wacko in question will not stop until there are no more abortions preformed ever, and then he will switch to a different perceived wrong to fixate his mania upon.
I think we do everyone a disservice by treating these self-appointed assassins as anything other than nutjob zealots.
These are the same conservatives who rant and rave that they don't want their tax dollars supporting the babies of drug addicts, unwed and teenage mothers and immigrants. They're not going to PAY for those babies, but dammit, they're going to make damn well sure that those women, all women, are forced to have those babies.
What frightens me is because it's in the NYT, this will be accpted as the utmost truth, fact and logic. Because, you know, it's the TIMES.
@TheExperience: I always wonder how they think they'll "promote adoption" in place of abortion. With what money?? There are thousands of kids in the foster care system now, available for adoption. There are tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of abortions every year. How the fuck do the conservatives think they could handle all those unwanted children put up for adoption? How much would it cost to pay for their care until they're placed with a family (IF they're ever placed)?
@blueberrypancake: They're the wrong kids though. I wish I was kidding. When abortion became legal, the supply of white babies from "nice" families dried up really quickly because these were the exact young women who had the resources to get abortions. There are plenty of children that need homes, but they are older, brown, or both. (I have actually had people talk about this in front of me, because they assume I must agree b/c I am white. They also assume I must be adopting a white baby/wish there were more white babies "available").
@blueberrypancake: Yeah, they whinge on and on about not wanting to pay taxes and do not support the very social services that are absolutely necessary should all these unwanted children be brought into the world.
If you think in terms of the almighty dollar, aborting is far less of a drain on the tax base than however many children that would become potential wards of the state. Without support for social services and a complete overhaul of the adoption/foster care system, the plan to reduce abortion through adoption is a complete logic fail.
There can be no denying that intellectual snobbery is its own reward, as outlined by your spiteful and inflammatory rhetoric in regards to the legality of abortion and the death of Dr. Tiller. It is clear you are not interested in the welfare or rights of others, only imposing your own self-satisfying, hypocritical, egocentric morality on others.
As a man, it's easy to sit in the comfort of your belief system and claim yourself to be a prophet on abortion. You do not possess a uterus, and therefor will never bear a child. You have means, and therefor will never be poor and low on options. You are a man, and the likelihood is that you will never feel the hot sting of rape, followed by the woe of becoming pregnant by your beast of an attacker. You will never been in the same situation as the millions of women who become pregnant when they were not prepared to be, and must wrestle with the decision of keeping the baby. You will never have to make that choice.
Nor will I.
The difference between us, however, is that I can put the needs of others ahead of my own pride and morality. I can suspend judgment, where judgment is not called for. And I will never ask a woman to do anything she is not prepared to do, simply because I feel it's best.
Before your next barbaric screed on the subject, take a good, long look in the mirror, and remember that it is always easiest to stand at the edge of the road and throw stones, than to reach out a hand.
@NefariousNewt: Did you notice that he never really even mentioned women in the column? He talks about "regulating second term abortions" as some kind of euphemism for "regulating WOMEN seeking second term abortions." Honestly, after a cursory acknowledgment of the personal stories of women who had late-term abortions because of fetal deformity, he talks about abortion as though it were some kind of phenomenon, not a REAL DECISION that changes the lives of women. Whether abortion is legal or not materially impacts thousands of women's lives. It's not some theory to discuss in general.
The thought of my BODY being put up for democratic vote makes me want to curl up and die.
@blueberrypancake: I think he doesn't talk about it as a phenomenon, much as he makes it out to be a decision along the lines of "Which shoes should I buy?". He acts as if every woman who has ever had an abortion didn't wrestle with the issue, so much as she consulted a Magic 8-Ball. It's this kind of feckless polemics that drives me up the wall.
It's alleged here that "Tiller abused the state's mental-health exemption to justify late-term abortions in almost any situation."
Not only does this minimize the immense impact that mental health can have on one's ability to make large, life-changing decisions (like bringing a child into the world!), it also stigmatizes mental health as a totally made-up thing that's used as an "excuse."
@tscheese: Pssh, don't you know that women suffering from "mental "health" "issues" just really have a touch of hysteria? A baby'll fix that "disease of the womb" in no time!
But, in all seriousness, I completely agree. Even if the pregnant woman is not mentally ill herself but the father is, there are real and tangible reasons why mental health is a significant factor in deciding to terminate or not. And to think that you could know all the factors that led someone to terminate due to mental health issues is arrogance of the highest order.
"God willing"... Doucherat, please remove any reference to a god, yours included, when writing. The NY Times isn't (or at least it wasn't at some time in the past) the Christian Science Monitor or your weekly missle from the parish diocese.
I don't buy into your whole god, soul, etc. theories. Your god notion is super insecure and neurotic. I don't want any of you fools legislating in this theory's name on my behalf.
@maggiethecat: The Christian Science Monitor is actually a much, much better newspaper then the NYTimes right now. They have excellent international reporting. (your point still stands obviously)
@TomRegan: If that's their "job," then I don't have a large amount of respect for their profession. I prefer intellectual discourse over punditry and ignorant rhetoric.
@TomRegan: Yeah, but typically you don't write op-eds about things you don't believe, unless you're writing about how you don't believe them. I know this because I, too, aspire to write op-eds for a living.
I simply can't imagine being friendly with someone who holds such insulting and abhorrent views. As a woman, I would have a hard time being friendly with someone who has such little respect for me, my body, and my freedom of choice.
I will grudgingly concede that most abortions are elective, in that no one is forcing someone to have one. See, that's part of the pro-CHOICE thing, and in fact is one of the greatest differences between the pro-choice and anti-abortion camps: we want for women to be able to elect to have an abortion, should they feel the need.
I still can't wrap my head around the idea that this is the single biggest threat to the religious right. Not hunger, poverty, or abuse of God's creatures that can breathe on their own.
@AuntieBee: None of the issues you mentioned can build up their numbers. HONESTLY for some, it's this simple: fetuses aborted = lost future converts. You can't build up God's army that way.
And I swear, I'm not delusional. For the flipside, look into the philosophies of Quiverfull.
@AuntieBee: I admittedly don't know the technical distinction between "elective" and "non-elective" medical treatment. But I've never heard anyone refer to chemotherapy as "elective" treatment, even though you can choose not to have it (at the risk, of course, of death). You can also "elect" not have life-saving blood transfusions, your choice. A lot of second and third trimester abortions strike me as "elective" in this very questionable sense.
@midwestdesigner: @Laulau: Problematic, isn't it? According to MedicineNet elective surgery is pretty much any surgery that isn't urgent/emergency surgery. The other side has taken this term and tosses it around to make abortion seem frivolous. And it's working for them.
06/09/09
Grammatical awkwardness aside, is he suggesting people (including politicians) aren't arguing over second-trimester abortions already?
And, not to sound like a broken record, but how many Canadian women are running to the abortion clinic at nine months?
You know, anti-abortion rhetoric sounds an awful lot like some of the arguments used to question women's claims of rape - Why didn't you protect yourself? How did you get in that situation? Were you a virgin? Do you deserve this abortion/trial?
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
"...is that Americans aren't permitted to debate anything else" - those of us who are concerned about these things called "rights" are aware that there is a First Amendment that protects, among other things, our ability to debate pretty much anything. Just because states have limited abilities to regulate something doesn't mean we as Americans have been issued a gag rule on the entire subject. It's not like we can't talk about abortion at all or anything...
"Arguments about whether and how to restrict abortions in the second trimester - as many advanced democracies already do - would replace protests over the scope of third-trimester medical exemptions." Disingenuous and just plain incredibly untrue. This nation already does restrict abortions in the second trimester and, as previously stated, the right to argue about it has not been infringed. (Nor has the right to peaceful protest, I might add.) Also, let me make this clear: the type of person who puts a bullet through an abortion doctor's head is not going to stop because we've imposed stricter regulations on abortions or narrowed the scope of what abortions can be performed. A rational compromise, if that is indeed what he is espousing, will never prevent wackos and extremists from deciding the gun is mightier than the pen, or at least more effective in the short term. The wacko in question will not stop until there are no more abortions preformed ever, and then he will switch to a different perceived wrong to fixate his mania upon.
I think we do everyone a disservice by treating these self-appointed assassins as anything other than nutjob zealots.
06/09/09
What frightens me is because it's in the NYT, this will be accpted as the utmost truth, fact and logic. Because, you know, it's the TIMES.
06/09/09
Morons.
06/09/09
(I have actually had people talk about this in front of me, because they assume I must agree b/c I am white. They also assume I must be adopting a white baby/wish there were more white babies "available").
06/09/09
If you think in terms of the almighty dollar, aborting is far less of a drain on the tax base than however many children that would become potential wards of the state. Without support for social services and a complete overhaul of the adoption/foster care system, the plan to reduce abortion through adoption is a complete logic fail.
06/09/09
There can be no denying that intellectual snobbery is its own reward, as outlined by your spiteful and inflammatory rhetoric in regards to the legality of abortion and the death of Dr. Tiller. It is clear you are not interested in the welfare or rights of others, only imposing your own self-satisfying, hypocritical, egocentric morality on others.
As a man, it's easy to sit in the comfort of your belief system and claim yourself to be a prophet on abortion. You do not possess a uterus, and therefor will never bear a child. You have means, and therefor will never be poor and low on options. You are a man, and the likelihood is that you will never feel the hot sting of rape, followed by the woe of becoming pregnant by your beast of an attacker. You will never been in the same situation as the millions of women who become pregnant when they were not prepared to be, and must wrestle with the decision of keeping the baby. You will never have to make that choice.
Nor will I.
The difference between us, however, is that I can put the needs of others ahead of my own pride and morality. I can suspend judgment, where judgment is not called for. And I will never ask a woman to do anything she is not prepared to do, simply because I feel it's best.
Before your next barbaric screed on the subject, take a good, long look in the mirror, and remember that it is always easiest to stand at the edge of the road and throw stones, than to reach out a hand.
NefariousNewt
06/09/09
The thought of my BODY being put up for democratic vote makes me want to curl up and die.
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
Picture it in your mind and remember how excellent you are.
06/09/09
@blueberrypancake: My body is not a political battleground. End of story.
06/09/09
06/09/09
Not only does this minimize the immense impact that mental health can have on one's ability to make large, life-changing decisions (like bringing a child into the world!), it also stigmatizes mental health as a totally made-up thing that's used as an "excuse."
Bad, bad, bad taste in my mouth.
06/09/09
It's like an nesting doll of disappointment.
06/09/09
But, in all seriousness, I completely agree. Even if the pregnant woman is not mentally ill herself but the father is, there are real and tangible reasons why mental health is a significant factor in deciding to terminate or not. And to think that you could know all the factors that led someone to terminate due to mental health issues is arrogance of the highest order.
06/09/09
I don't buy into your whole god, soul, etc. theories. Your god notion is super insecure and neurotic. I don't want any of you fools legislating in this theory's name on my behalf.
06/09/09
(your point still stands obviously)
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
You should be seeing this hitting the news soon -- the attorney for Tiller's family has said that they are permanently closing his clinic.
06/09/09
[jezebel.com]
06/09/09
I'm kind of ashamed of that, and I don't plan to be friendly with either of these men ever again.
06/09/09
Don't be too ashamed. People are usually different in person then they are in print.
Getting mad at op-ed writers for being controversial/oversimplifying is like being mad at bloggers for being snarky. That's their job.
06/09/09
06/09/09
I simply can't imagine being friendly with someone who holds such insulting and abhorrent views. As a woman, I would have a hard time being friendly with someone who has such little respect for me, my body, and my freedom of choice.
06/09/09
I still can't wrap my head around the idea that this is the single biggest threat to the religious right. Not hunger, poverty, or abuse of God's creatures that can breathe on their own.
06/09/09
06/09/09
And I swear, I'm not delusional. For the flipside, look into the philosophies of Quiverfull.
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
Strawman?