Mrs.Shriver was Catholic, being against abortion is a common catholic platform. Please let's not criticize her for her religious beliefs. I'm pro choice, but find it pretty stomach turning to start tearing about someone who has done a lifetime of good works because they are pro-life.
@meg9: um...I don't care what peoples religious beliefs are but it becomes a problem for me when they try to impose their religious beliefs on me. I know plenty of people who are Catholic who would never have an abortion but still wish it to be safe and legal for others who do want them.
@bluebears: and I can definitely respect that not all Catholics are pro-life, and maybe I didn't explain my feelings well enough, but I hate when it sounds like people are saying that someone isn't "feminist enough" because they hold this opinion or that opinion. Someone can do excellent things to advance the lives of women and still be pro life.
@meg9: Criticizing her for working to take away my rights(her many good works aside) is patently not equivalent to criticizing her for having certain religious beliefs. Her brother John held the same belief, and endured a lot of Church criticism for not imposing it on the country. He did not seek to undermine the personal and religious freedoms of everyone else because of what he believed, personally.
Also, the comments saying that she "wasn't perfect" do irk me a little bit. Just because someone does not support the same causes, particularly one so polarizing as abortion, does not make them less of a "perfect" human being. She was perfect in how she was, which I think is a lot of what she tried to show her work with the developmentally disabled - that each person, no matter how "flawed" we may see them to be, is perfect as they are. Eunice Kennedy Shriver should be remembered as being a hero who promoted the value of every human life at at time when many disabled people were treated as less than human.
Let's not let our own opinions and views on abortion color the memory of a woman who did such great work.
@bluebears: I just don't like that people are equating a person believing and supporting the exact same rights with being "perfect." She did a lot of good in the world, so why does not supporting something that was against her principles in view of what she fought for, make her "not perfect"?
I'm sure this is going to turn into a pile on of backlash...
@monkeyriot: I think people are just being generous and saying that although her views don't agree with theirs on abortion, they never expected her (or anyone) to be "perfect" ie perfectly in line with how they believe. She wasn't perfect. No one ever expected her to be. And honestly, no one really knows why she was anti-choice. I'm not sold on the idea that it stemmed from her work with the disabled. Women have abortions for myriad reasons not just because they fear they're carrying some sort of disabled child.
@bluebears: That is my point though.
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.
@monkeyriot: Because people (particularly on this website) care very passionately about the basic human rights of women its a defining issue for many many women, myself included. I wont apologize for it. No one is "nit-picking" her for something like what shampoo she liked or something. She actively protested a womans right to choose, its not a small detail.
@bluebears: I may not be a "starred" commenter, but yes, I do know and understand that many people are very passionate about abortion rights on this website, thank you anyways for the clarification. I'm not asking for you to apologize for your beliefs, just as I don't believe anyone should apologize for their beliefs - even Eunice Kennedy Shriver herself (which would be admittedly weird if she did, seeing as she is dead).
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.
@bluebears: And in my case, this was not meant as a pejorative. We are all "flawed," as it were. No one is perfect. But in the sphere of feminism, there tends to be the belief that certain issues form core values, and abortion is one of them. Her stance on abortion does not diminish her or her good works; it does set her apart from many Democrats, and even many in her own family.
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?
@bluebears: If a person is anti-choice, they most likely don't think of abortion as a basic human right. They likely see abortion as the murder of a human life, and therefore the right of a human to be born trumps the right of a woman to make a choice about her body. It's not something I agree with, but it's a completely different mode of thinking and it is not useful to think of the abortion debate only on your own terms. It just promotes hostility toword the "other side."
@monkeyriot: I agree, the wording of some of these comments has really bothered me.
@NefariousNewt: "it was not my intention to deify or vilify her in any way"
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.
@NefariousNewt: see that was the point I was trying to make. I can't believe all the consternation about people daring to suggest someone is less that perfect or flawed as you say.
@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?
@EarlyGrey: I know what they believe, I just give it absolutely no credence. Why should I? If someone believed that a black man was worth 3/5ths of a white man would you be urging people to see it from their point of view?
@EarlyGrey: "They likely see abortion as the murder of a human life, and therefore the right of a human to be born trumps the right of a woman to make a choice about her body. "
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.
@Hana Maru: I'm pro gun control, therefore I want to take away the rights of gun owners by putting limitations on who can have access to a license. This doesn't make me some kind of bigot. I used my own experience and rational thinking to come to the conclusion that laws should be put in place which limit access to something which some other people consider a basic Constitutional right.
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.
I don't want to get a lot of backlash saying this, but not EVERYBODY and not ALL feminists support abortion (as a personal choice). Maybe it was just a matter of her personal opinion and choice, and we cannot blast her for that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and maybe for her, abortion was just not an option. Personally, I think that the individual should have a choice, but I would personally choose NOT to have one. A close friend of mine in high-school had an abortion, and I went to the clinic with her to support her, even though personally it would never be something I would do. One of the ladies in the waiting room was there to get her FOURTH abortion (in Ontario, Canada, abortions are covered by our provincial health care program). THAT bothers me, it is a case of someone abusing their right to abortion. If you don't want to get pregnant, please take the necessary precautions as best you can to try to avoid that. Don't just gamble with it knowing that if anything you can always get aborted. Anyways, that's my rant for today.
@LittleWindmill: The difference between what you're describing and Shriver's apparent position is that you believe abortion should be a legal choice for all women (even if you yourself feel you would not have one). Deciding for yourself and mandating what others do with their bodies are two very different positions.
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.
@LittleWindmill:
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.
@LittleWindmill: "Abusing their right?" Well, there's lots of people that I think abuse their right to freedom of speech (see: the Klan), but that doesn't mean one should be against that right. I'm sorry, but abortion is a litmus test for whether or not you believe women and girls are human beings deserving of basic rights or not. If you don't have sovereignty over your very being, a most fundamental human right, then what rights do you have? Even if you believe fetal tissue is on par with a person, it'd be no better than forcing someone to donate some of their organs, none that would kill them, so that another person may live. Life is more than existing, it's about self-determination as well.
@JerseyGrrrl: I see where you're coming from, but in this particular case that I referred to, I was speaking to the woman myself, and she admitted to not using any form of birth control and her pregnancy had nothing to do with rape... THAT is what bothered me about this. Yes it's her choice to get as many abortions as she wants, but it's not something that I can support in her case. Because my personal point of view is that the foetuses (??) inside her are alive and are human beings, I think you can appreciate how something like that can really disturb me. One or two I can deal with, but FOUR? I think that's excessive and not necessary, in her case.
@Ramseylicious: I understand that by taking that stance and supporting groups that don't want women to have a choice, Eunice was trying to take away that choice from women. But my point is that it's her opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm just glad our opinions don't match hers :)
@AndalucÃa: I DO believe that fetuses are people (as soon as you can hear a heart beat anyways) which is why I personally would not have an abortion (even if I didn't want to keep it I'd put the child up for adoption). It is also why I believe that that fetus with the heart beat has a right to LIFE. Since I believe it is already alive, I believe it has the right to keep being alive and not to be terminated.
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).
@LittleWindmill: The lady you are referring to is within a tiny minority of women who have abortions. I guarantee that. Abortion is at best, a deeply unpleasant and painful medical or surgical procedure. It is a myth perpetuated by the anti-choice brigade that there is widespread use of abortion as contraception. Even if it were true, it's not relevant to the debate as I see it - it boils down to the woman/girl having control over her own body. I think it's possible to admire Ms Kennedy Shriver for the good she achieved in her lifetime and still be disappointed with her stance on women's freedom to do as they see fit with their own bodies.
@BiteMeMitchell!: You may be right, however I hear a lot of stories from people that have abortion for that same (or similar) reason. In any case, I hope you are right. But I would love to see women/girls having control over their own bodies in terms of knowing what types of birth control are out there and having information on all those types to help them make an educated decision, and not letting men sway them into not taking birth control. Again, just talking about this particular incident, and is turning into quite a different topic now! In fact, my friend who was getting the abortion was there because HER boyfriend didn't want to use a condom and she was too afraid of the repercussions of her parents finding out she was on the pill so she chose not to take the pill (she comes from a VERY strict and conservative family). After her abortion, she got on the pill anyways AND made her boyfriend use a condom, and she hasn't gotten pregnant since. The fact that this other woman kept coming back just really upset me. So I guess, all that being said, if cases like that are in the minority, then those are the ones that really bother me and I think those people should be better educated on the matter so that they can take preventative action instead.
@LittleWindmill: I'm cracking up over here at your logical inconsistencies. If you truly believe a fetus is a person with a right to life, why do you believe ANY abortions are okay?
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?
@TheGuvnah: Because I can understand that everyone makes their own choices in life, I just may not agree with their choices, just as they may not agree with mine. This is not an issue that is as clear cut as some people make it out to be, which is why each individual case may warrant a different opinion from me. I believe a fetus is a person with a right to live, which is why i would choose to NOT have an abortion. There are other people out there who may not hold the same opinion as me and who may therefore chose to have an abortion, and who am I to deny them that? I am confortable with having my own beliefs without condemning those of others, especially on such a topic like this that IS so complex.
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).
@SarahMC: I'm doing this!: See this is where the area gets really gray. Yes, a woman has rights over her own body. BUT, an argument can also be said for the following: what if a woman wants an abortion but her partner doesn't want her to get one? Does he have a claim on the fetus inside her, as genetically it is half his? If not, then why not? It takes two to get pregnant, what about the father's rights? I'm not saying that this is my stance on the subject, I'm just trying to point out there are are so many layers to this issue and so many different things to consider, it (unfortunately) isn't as simple as, this is MY right as a woman, and I don't think this is a black or white issue, it is just one big fat gray area.
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.
@SarahMC: I'm doing this!: you are right, however her action stemmed from her opinion. And this topic being such a gray matter, I don't think she should be faulted for it. That is all :)
I'm not surprised, considering that she was a Catholic, but her beliefs about abortion don't make any of the work she did with the physically and mentally disabled any less great.
She was Catholic, she was from a different time, and she was a Kennedy, ergo had plenty of money to support all the children she could ever want to have. It's not hard to see why she would think this way. Fortunately, Massachusetts is no worse for wear. She still accomplished many wonderful things in the face of tragedy few people have experienced.
I hardly know the nuances of her position, so I am certainly not going to place judgment. I am actually quite okay with people being anti-abortion if they support other issues such as contraceptive/family planning education, etc. A lot of people are uncomfortable with abortion, it's just that the debate has become so black/white that we often equate anyone who is "anti-abortion" as being anti women's rights, and I don't think that is necessarily true. Also, as Newt said below, he work with the developmentally disabled surely shifted her perspective on the matter somewhat.
@Penny: I agree. When people were talking about how OMG Betty Ford had some pro -choice sympathies when she was alive and OMG she was a Repubican ! I thought it was kind of derivative and petty, but I blamed it on the Republican tendency to make every last thing boil down to abortion.
@Penny: I see your point, but it sounds dangerously naive to me when people (like my grandmother did last weekend--OH, I didn't start!!) suggest that it's OK to be anti-abortion, because abortions shouldn't be necessary if people are educated and using birth control.
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.
Nobody said she was perfect. And I think her advocacy for the developmentally disabled perhaps colored her judgment in that regard, since she saw so much potential in them, and perhaps thought abortion would become a tool to simply eliminate them before they were born. Which, if you look at the statistics, is not the case.
@NefariousNewt: i don't think it 'perhaps' colored her judgment, it was a driving force behind her judgment. besides, babies being diagnosed with downs syndrome while in utero years ago were far more likely to be aborted. is that the case now? well, hard to say. the statistics now may not reflect that, but look back 20, 30 years ago and i'm sure it would be a different story.
@bluebears: I also imagine having lost so many people in her life to violent and gruesome deaths caused her to have a particularly sensitive appreciation for life. Her views seem nuanced; she was no right-winger, and her commitment to those who possessed otherness and were different from what was perceived as the core of society make her an invaluable part of American history. Why this post needed to be made the day after her death when this was information that was readily available during her life for the last thirty-five to forty years is beyond me.
@ampersandparade: I agree. Taking time to mourn someone and celebrate what they accomplished with their life is not a form of whitewashing and doesn't need to be "countered" by reporting on aspects of their life that are controversial.
@slowpoke.r: I see your point, but I think there is some value in talking about this.
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.
@sandie75: Of course there is value in talking about this in general, I am not arguing that. The problem is what amerpersandparade pointed out: people have known this for years, why do we need a post about what is bound to be a controversial position that this woman took on the day after she died? I don't believe we should put anyone on a pedestal but I don't think that celebrating the uncontroversial aspects of this woman's life for more than 24 hours is risking that. Let's get in her in the ground- it usually only takes three days- and then have a lively discussion about what her role in history should be and whether feminists can be anti-choice. That's all. A little admiring respect for the dead. I hate to think that the day after I die people will think it's okay to say, well, I do miss her and she was nice, but golly, what the hell was she thinking about x? Three days of just the good times, that's all I ask. After that, say whatever you want.
I have to say, prior to reading the article this morning I did not realized that Dr. Tiller had been shot once before.What a very brave man.
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.
@desertbloom79: Justifiable homicide is a valid legal term, though it certainly in no way applies to the premeditated shooting of an unarmed man in a church because you don't like his politics.
@TheExperience: "Terrorist" only applies if you don't constitute part of the Republican voting block. ELF? ALF? Terrorists. This fuckhead? "Lone wolf". BASTARDS.
Okay, so, we'll take the term "Abortionist" back from them, and they can try to revitalize and add the sparkle back to "Killer." I think that's a fair trade-off.
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