geekgrrl said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Two complaints from Ms Pollitt. The first revolves around birth control. This is a smoke screen. Many birth control methods are widely advertised, distributed and available to anyone who wants to use them. No advertising or support is needed from the Pro-Life groups.
You're missing the point entirely. There are so many anti-choice groups (let's call them what they really are, please, for correctness' sake!) which are opposed to birth control (BC) on religious grounds. Not the least of these is the Roman Catholic Church. Proper use of BC would drastically reduce the demand for abortions because more pregnancies would be *planned* and more children would be *wanted* children.
Birth control and abortion are two separate and distinct subjects. Akin to an apple and an orange. If a person chooses to use birth control to avoid pregnancy, that is one thing. If a person becomes pregnant, then a human life has been created. Avoiding pregnancy is not the same as terminating a human life. When one seeks to combine them in one discussion, neither subject can get fair treatment. The introduction of religion into a discussion of abortion is nothing more than a tactic designed to obscure the secular medical, scientific, and biological fact of what is going on in the womb.
So, Katha Pollitt's point is, why don't people who oppose abortion stand with pro-choicers in advocating the use of birth control to achieve these goals we all share of making every child a loved and wanted child? Religious reasons? OK. Admissible. But the problem with the Catholic insistence on use of only the Rhythm method of birth control is that it takes a lot more work (people are naturally lazy) and there is a lot more likelihood of failure resulting in a pregnancy.
You make reference to "anti-choicers" and pro-choicers. Why not go all the way and remove the euphemisms. Since the only choice is whether a child lives or dies, the correct terminology is Pro-Life or Pro-Death. These terms may not meet the test for political correctness, but how can one ignore their grammatic accuracy?
Again, you muddy the water with references to religion in what should be a secular discussion of whether there is any medical, scientific, or obstetric fact which justifies terminating the life of a human being in the womb.
The only argument you make is on emotional grounds which amount to nothing more than, "If I don't want the kid, I'll simply flush it."
"...every child a loved and wanted child?" This totally ignores the child involved. I wonder how many bastards regret having been born? I wonder how many children who ranked third, fourth, fifth, or higher in the order of siblings would prefer to have been aborted?
There are many alternatives if a mother doesn't wish to keep a child. However, must the only alternative to the embarrassment of an unintended pregnancy be to deprive the child of its life?
Thus, Pollitt posits, and I concur, there must be some other reason behind the religious right's opposition not just to abortion (opposition understandable) but to the most effective method for eliminating the need for abortions -- prevention (opposition incomprehensible). If we take the pregnancy out of the picture, which is what BC can do, we're left with just the woman herself. What does the religious right want with the woman? Judging by their publicly expressed attitudes toward women, a reasonable person would surmise that the fringe right's focus is on control -- control of the woman, of her body and her seeming magical reproductive power, and, finally, of her independence of male control and domination.
Who is this Religious Right about which you rant incessantly? Again, avoiding pregnancy is one thing. Terminating a life is another. Are you unable to discuss one without introducing the other?
I think it's interesting that you don't hear religious objections to Viagra, Levitra, Cialis, and all these other erection-enhancers. What if a man takes them and strays from his marriage bed? Moral crisis? Not hardly. The consequences of sex (gasp! sinful!) are still to be laid entirely on the woman. I might pay more attention to what the religious freaks are preaching if they'd just eliminate the double standard. When are they going to inveigh against men who create pregnancies in the first place? When are they going to explain why men can do what they want with their bodies but women can't?
Religion, religion, religion. Abortion is not a religious subject. It is purely a biological event. A sperm cell unites with an egg and a new human life is concieved. What's religious about that? It even happens with atheists and those who profess no religion. The problem seems to be that there are those, on both sides, who don't know how to argue the question on the basis of fact.
As an aside, what this suggests to me is that some men are attracted to religious fundamentalism because it offers a social mechanism that makes women both available to and controllable by them. Women who grow up with such beliefs learn not only their place in the world, but also that their options are very limited in it. Some are smart enough to reject this environment; others are not. My observation is that men who can't attract women on their own genetic merits gravitate toward religious fundamentalism because there is a supply of women primed for availability and servitude, with the only precondition being marriage.
What's wrong with marriage? That institution advanced humanity more than any other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Second, irrespective of the fact that it is a human life that will be taken during an abortion procedure, the inconvenience of the pregnancy and the avoidance of its attendant responsibility is of greater importance to Ms Pollitt.
There is no responsibility attendant upon pregnancy unless the pregnant person (usually female) chooses to carry it to term. A wanted pregnancy is not an inconvenience, an unwanted one is. That's how the real world looks at it. That's how Katha Pollitt looks at it. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. Nobody I know of on the left wants to compel you to do anything you don't want to do. We'd appreciate the same consideration in kind from the folks on the right. Don't try to shove your personal religious beliefs down everyone else's throats. Don't try to make your personal religious beliefs the law of the land in a pluralistic society.
Nothing religious about it. Just a belief that one human should not have the power of life or death over another. This belief is held by every legislature in the land. The problem is that many of these legislatures have been cowed by the incessant shouting of those who believe that the pile of infant corpses, now nearly fifty million high, will never be high enough. Their desire to garner votes for reelection blinds them to all else, especially since it doesn't cost money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Ms Pollitt ignores the fact that mothers who do not wish to raise a child may, in nearly every state, bring a newborn child to any fire house or hospital, where it will be accepted, with no questions asked, and eventually placed for adoption or foster care. A woman of her intelligence and understanding would certainly know this. Why does she not include it in her writings?
Again, you've missed the point. You're now two for two. It's not about providing shelter for unwanted babies delivered by crying, terrified teenagers. That's a long-overdue public service that hopefully will help keep newborns out of dumpsters.
What it's about is that women have a natural (some would say God-given) right to control their own bodies, including their reproductive functioning, in the same way that men do. This means that some women don't want to go through nine months of pregnancy. Some women don't want to go through one month of pregnancy. And their right to say no to becoming a living incubator for someone else is absolute. Nobody can compel you to jump into the water to save a drowning swimmer unless you choose to do so. And nobody can compel you to surrender your body's life support capabilities for use by another without your consent. That's the law. And the minute you succeed in changing it, you will find yourselves on the losing end of the bloodiest public uprising since the French Revolution.
It's not a law. It's the interpretation of seven justices that, since they didn't know what was going on in the womb in 1973, there would be little harm done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Why does she introduce the crutch of a religious argument into a secular biological process?
It's not *her* religious argument. It's yours.
If you're up to challenges, try this one.
I challenge you to cite a single instance in which I argued against abortion on the basis of religion.
