Comments on: Amazing love

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:52:22 +0000

Should the fathers of the unborn children get a choice?
Interesting question. I imagine you were thinking of the father having a right not to have his unborn child killed. But some people have looked at the other side of the coin, noting that if a woman decides to keep the child, she has the right to collect child support from the father even if he didn’t want the child to be born.
In the name of gender equality, some have proposed a “paper abortion,” whereby the father could relinquish all his rights and responsibilities regarding the child. Of course, I think that’s a terrible idea and moves society in the wrong direction, but the inequality of the status quo regarding abortion is an interesting problem nonetheless.

By: lifesteward

lifesteward — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:56:37 +0000

First, to Jason, great post. The women who carreid babies to term that were the result of Rape are certinaly heroes. Greg, here is a link with some interesting statistics for you. It shows over time the rate of abortions has risen from 14/1000 to 300/1000. (the number of abortions per 1,000 live births).

By: Gregory Travis

Gregory Travis — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:23:32 +0000

f you support an action, you must also support the consequences of that action,
First, I support free speech. By your logic I support terrorism because terrorists promulgate via speech.
Second, abortion was never “legalized” in this country — at least not at the federal level (where the discussion is currently) so your point about legality/illegality is a strawman.
Finally, I don’t have the data to accept or reject your claim that legalization increases abortion (it may, but I’d appreciate a cite). Irrespective of whether it does or not, can we drive the incidence downward in a manner that doesn’t involve the state’s penal apparatus?
greg

By: RobSF

RobSF — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:55:52 +0000

Greg is doing a fine job at muddying the philosophical waters, but tragically ignoring the inconvenient reality. Legalizing abortions increased the number of abortions being performed, for the very simple reason that illegality tends to make most law-abiding people avoid the illegal act.
Since legalizing abortions increased the number of abortions, it is reasonable to say that being “pro-choice” means that you support an increased number of abortions. To say otherwise is like saying that you support people’s right to drink & drive, but you are horrified by drunk driving. If you support an action, you must also support the consequences of that action, or at least find them to be “acceptable” in light of other circumstances.
Perhaps the “pro-life” label is a little simplistic. After all, there are people who are both “pro-life” and pro-death-penalty, which is arguably a contradictory position. However, “pro-choice” is simply a lie. The reality of abortion is that there are more people involved than pregnant women. Should the fathers of the unborn children get a choice? Should the parents of a pregnant teenager get a “choice” about whether or not their daughter is allowed to undergo a surgical procedure? Most importantly, should the unborn children get a “choice” about whether or not to live? No, all of those “choices” are sacrificed on the altar of the woman’s “choice”.
I suppose that we could rename the “pro-choice” faction to “pro-women’s-choice-and-anti-everyone-else’s-choice” … but that’s way too much of a mouthful. Let’s just acknowledge the effects of their “choice” (as noted above) and go with “pro-abortion”.

By: Karl

Karl — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:24:18 +0000

To clarify my point before, though it would certainly be inappropriate to call people who favor the death penalty “pro-death,” it is or should be possible to use the term “pro-death penalty” to refer to a person who thinks certain convicted murderers should be executed, but who is not categorically in favor of the death penalty. At least in American politics, it would not be assumed that a person who is called “pro-death penalty” is in favor of executing people for stealing gum or using profanity on the radio or who were not convicted, even though the term itself does not include these qualifications. Likewise, people who go beyond indifference to abortion to performing them or arguing that they are beneficial, under certain circumstances, may be “pro-abortion” at least in that context, even if they would prefer that those circumstances not exist in the first place. It is a loaded term, and in the way it is usually used, it is inaccurate, but I do not think that to be accurate it would have to refer only to people who actually prefer abortion to avoiding “unwanted pregnancies.”
I realize that the term “pro-abortion” is sometimes used to refer to all people who think abortion should be legal (which is inappropriate and inaccurate if there is a way to oppose abortion altogether on grounds that would not justify government action), and the comparison I made above between “pro-death penalty” and “pro-abortion” is imperfect (it makes a little more sense to use the term “pro-death penalty” because the policy they call for is the thing they are being said to promote: the death penalty; people who favor legal abortion because they think it may be the best way to go, under certain circumstances, are not saying that the government’s policy should be that the government promotes abortion, unless they favor taxpayer funding for them), but I am just saying that when people use the term “pro-abortion,” they probably do not seriously believe that the people who they are talking about want there to be as many abortions as possible.

By: philosopher

philosopher — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:17:27 +0000

(Greg — I think you’ve been doing a great job on this thread, but I would’ve suggested leaving that anonymous alone. It wears its trollishness sufficiently on its face; why grant it even that thinnest veneer of respectability that comes from being responded to?)

By: Gregory Travis

Gregory Travis — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:21:23 +0000

Thanks for that stimulating and informative commentary, Anonymous. It’s tragic enough that a discussion of something as important and divisive as as the subject at hand has to be adulterated by cheap shots such as yours.
But what’s really sad is that not only are you willing to pollute the discourse, but you don’t even believe your own rhetoric.
greg

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:47:11 +0000

Don’t leave Planned Parenthood out of the discussion-a very large business who makes millions off of killing human beings. Those who support these killers would not be considered pro-life nor would their financial supporters in the various governments who feed our tax dollars to them.

By: C M

C M — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:29:51 +0000

The complexities of the situation as detailed by Greg quickly fall to the wayside as conservative pundits turn this issue into yet another black/white right/wrong fiasco.
I know several women who’ve had abortions, as I’m sure many people reading this do (though perhaps they haven’t told you because of the negative associations) and none of them are happy about it. They live with that decision every day, and I’m sure they in no way consider themselves anti-life. It’s just more cheap rhetoric.
Legislation can’t change social realities in an open, heterogenous, pluralistic society, and the quest to have it do so only causes the extreme rifts that we see in America today.

By: Gregory Travis

Gregory Travis — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:09:21 +0000

Karl is exactly right. I would never refer to those who believe that capital punishment is a sometimes necessary evil as “pro-death” just for cheap rhetorical points. It’s divisive, unnecessary, and ultimately harmful to both sides of the debate.
All else being equal, I would like there to be fewer abortions, not more. In no way then can I be considered “pro abortion” even though I may differ with some from ITA about specifics such as [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] (or I may not, I may surprise you).
And I find it simply offensive that some are attempting to bifurcate the nation into those who are “pro life” and those who are (assumedly) anti-life. I’ll put up my track record against anyone else’s any time.
greg