Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 9:58 PM
Mon Nov 9
52 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
Let's not let our own opinions and views on abortion color the memory of a woman who did such great work.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
I'm sure this is going to turn into a pile on of backlash...
08/12/09
08/12/09
Why do you have to "be generous" and say her work was still good even though she was anti-choice? Why does everything have to come back to someone's political stance on one (and often the same) issue?
The work she did was good. She didn't support abortion rights. Whether or not those two are connected, she was a crusader for the rights of the disabled and a hero to many people.
I guess I am just disappointed that society now likes to scrutinize and nitpick every detail of a person's life until the greater good they may have done has been overshadowed by every other thing the person may have done. She was what she was, and she did a lot of good in the world.
I guess heroes are a thing of a past.
08/12/09
08/12/09
And I am not going to apologize for believing that Eunice Kennedy Shriver did great things in her work for the disabled and it should not be overshadowed by her other political beliefs, even if she did not support abortion rights.
08/12/09
I apologize if the turn of phrase was off-putting; it was not my intention to deify or vilify her in any way, only point out that no one made an issue of this yesterday, and why should it be one today?
08/12/09
@monkeyriot: I agree, the wording of some of these comments has really bothered me.
08/12/09
First, it wasn't just you, and I've heard people in real life saying much of the same thing and it bothered me. Secondly, I think you more succinctly summed up what I was trying to say but quite clearly failed at - that she was a human being, she had beliefs, she was neither a god or a villain, just like everyone else. Yet she still managed to do a lot of good in the world, even if people do see her stance on abortion as being anti-feminist.
08/12/09
@monkeyriot: I'm done. I really don't want to argue about this. Sorry for trying to have a rational conversation with you. I was just trying to explain where people might be coming from in being somewhat disappointed on her stance on abortion. Somehow it became about starred commenters?
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
And those people are anti-woman bigots. Everything isn't relative. They want to take my rights away, and if they want me to be polite to them as they do, well, that's over the top.
08/13/09
People who are pro-life feel the same way about abortion. They see banning abortion as a measure that protects more lives than it impedes. I think calling pro-life people anti-women paints people with a variety of motivations with the same brush. It's small minded, not conducive to rational debate and it won't help pro-choice people get any closer to the goal of keeping abortion safe and legal.
08/12/09
08/12/09
As I'm sure you know, abortions are not inexpensive and are therefore a poor form of birth control. It's possible to get pregnant while on birth control, just like it's possible to become pregnant by rape (which is certainly not a woman "gambling" with her own body).
I always said that I was pro-choice but wasn't sure I could chose to have an abortion. It's easy to say that in the abstract. When I unexpectedly became pregnant (due to BC fail, not "gambling"), I was damn glad I had a choice. And I did what I was never sure I could do. Abortion is neither cheap nor especially easy, no matter how much you believe in it. And if you believe something should be legal, it doesn't matter if a woman has one or four or ten. It's HER body.
08/12/09
This has been done many times here before, but I'm going there again. *sigh*
The abortion issue is not a personal one. Personally, I don't care if you, or anyone else, would have an abortion. But the pro-life movement is about just that. They do care if I would have an abortion. So much so that they want laws to prevent me from having one. If you, personally, would not have an abortion, but don't care if I would have one, then you are pro-choice.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
What I meant by people abusing their right (which came out harsh, I agree) is that there ARE people out there who do not take ANY precautions fully knowing the risks of getting pregnant because they know they can just get aborted instead. There needs to be better sex education and I belive that if you do not want to get pregnant you should take precautions as best you can, and if those precautions fail, then yes, you have Plan B you can take or you can get aborted. But don't have sex without a condom cause your boyfriend doesn't like them and then just get an abortion every time you get pregnant (like the lady I was talking about).
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
If you support a woman getting one abortion in her life, why not two or three? what the heck difference does it make to you?
08/12/09
In the specific instance that I was speaking about, regarding the number of abortions a woman gets, I was referring to a woman who received multiple abortions because she wasn't willing to take birth control. I also cited the example of my friend as a contrast to that other woman's decisions on bith control. Therefore, I was merely stating that I could UNDERSTAND (although might not agree with) that these women would want to seek abortions in those cases, however could not condone the fact that this one women kept on coming back for abortions instead of choosing to try to PREVENT her pregnancies instead.
Also - I had stated that I believed a fetus was a living person as soon as they developped a heartbeat (which I believe can occur between 5-8 wks).
08/12/09
That's why I try to keep an open mind on this subject, but still maintain my own opinion on it. It's also why I believe it's important to talk about this issue and hear the opinions of everyone else, it leads to a better understanding of the complexities of the issue.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
We all know BC fails and rape occurs. We also know abortions to sometimes be medically necessary for mother, fetus or both.
So to argue for abortions to be less frequent sounds acceptable to me as it would seemingly be an argument in favor of better education and BC availability/affordability, which is better for EVERYONE. But to be completely against them, or to try to limit them through legislation instead of more pragmatic means, seems anti-woman, to me anyway.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
I often see comments on this site that suggest being anti-abortion is about imposing ones religious beliefs on others and trying to take away a woman's right to determine her own destiny, which I think is unfair.
While I am personally pro-choice, I understand that women (and men) that view a fetus as a human being view abortion as a murder, which is totally unacceptable. FOr them prohibiting abortion has nothing to do with taking away a woman's choice, but it only about protecting children.
I think we as a society would agree that once children are born, a parent's right to make certain personal choices is limited. For instance, You must get them medical care, regardless of your reliegious beliefs. You can't leave a small child alone, regardless of whether you feel that is OK. You can't abuse that child, regardless of whether you feel corporal punishment is good for a child.
We all seem to be comfortable with laws limiting the right to make certain personal choices with regard to children once the child is outside the womb, because we recognize the duty to protect your children supercedes an individuals right to live as their personal belief system may allow.
So the main difference between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-abortion is about when parental duty begins.
That is not to say there are not many pro-lifers that ARE mysoginists, and would love to impose their personal beliefs on others. I've met them.
But I also know many strong feminists that are anti-abortion because they see a fetus as a child, and that's it. Ms. Shriver appears to be one of them and pointing her out perhaps is beneficial in challenging the notion that the pro-life position is inherently anti-feminist.
08/12/09
08/10/09
I have a good friend who was considering this line of work (she is starting her second year of medical school in a few weeks), but she has guardianship of her young sister-in-law and plans to have children. She has decided that she cannot take such risks when her family depends on her.
As her friend, I was relieved when she made the decision. I know we need doctors willing to perform abortions and I want to support them - I just don't want my friend to be that doctor operating behind bulletproof glass. So here we have a perfect example of successful terrorism.
I'll add to the echo chamber just this once: Why aren't we prosecuting him as a terrorist? Roeder and his ilk win if we let him define his actions. And not calling this a terrorist act is doing exactly that.
08/10/09
Same application.
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09