As Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin announces the
coming December birth of her first child, her Brookings neighbor PP offers the
predictable political spin, turning her joyous event into a critique of her position on abortion. He suggests Herseth Sandlin's position on abortion is simply youthful folly and that having a child may open her eyes.
Stephanie's pregnancy is none of our business. Other than "Congratulations!" I have nothing else to say about it. But the suggestion that young missy will learn a thing or two now that she's finally acting like a real woman (that thinking is out there) makes me think about my own experience with marriage, fatherhood, and political evolution.
Not so long ago (still within this decade), I could have taken or left the abortion debate. My old conservatism left me uneasy with government intervention with medical decisions, but I could also sympathize with the crusaders who would mingle Jesus and personal responsibility to say, "You have sex, you're having the baby."
Then I got married. Having an articulate woman in my house all the time made me think a little more concretely about women's rights; having a pregnant woman in my house, all the more so. As my wife would go to the doctor for her pre-natal checkups, she and I would think about her relationship with the doctor and the choices we had to make. she even more than I saw how the language of the (failed, thank goodness)
2006 abortion ban and the
retread language in this year's anti-abortion initiative would make her and our new daughter second-class citizens.
Initiated Measure 11 declares opinion to be fact. It disguises obligations as rights. It turns declares doctors to be dunces (or devils) and women to be wards of the state.
Much to my disgrace, in my bachelor days, I could have let such lawmaking pass. Not any more.
Marriage and fatherhood have put two real-life women in my household who make me recognize that legislation like Initiated Measure 11 is bad law based on bad science and bad philosophy. My wife and my daughter have made me realize that they and all the women around me are not abstractions or props in a debate. They are real people, with real rights, facing real danger from people who think women are irrational creatures who can't be trusted. My love for my wife and my daughter requires that I stand against Initiated Measure 11 and all other forms of misogyny.
I guess
PP and Elli Schwiesow are right: the profundity of having a child really can open one's eyes.
This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
I am a mother of three children. All of which are gifts that I could never have thought about just throwing away because it was the wrong time or because I simply didn't want to be pregnant.
ReplyDeleteI love my children, and I hate the fact that the availability of abortion is so ingraned in our society.
Every life is a gift, and every life, EVERY CHILD, deserves the opportunity to live.
you say the law would downgrade women. I say, having abortion available downgrades how society feels about children.
I was never passionate about women's rights...until I had my two daughters.
ReplyDeleteNow it's so important to me that my daughters have rights and choices.
I'm a strong believer in: Just because it isn't right for you, doesn't me it isn't right for me.
It all still boils down to whether you consider an unborn child to be an actual living person or not. For those of you who do not, you can be comfortable with your decision that a woman's right trumps a fetus' right.
ReplyDeleteBut for those of us who believe that a baby on one side of the birth canal is as alive as one on the other side, abortion simply is killing an innocent human being.
This is the basic disagreement on this issue.
Cory, did you ever once while looking at your baby's ultrasound or listening to her heartbeat, or watching her kick, ever consider that she was not truly alive?
Nonnie
The founders knew what a "quickening" was. And they maintained it as a private matter.
ReplyDeleteOnce everyone has had a loved one carry a fetus without a brain and with a spinal cord filled with water, then maybe the self-centered judgmental attitudes will stop. Until then, but for the grace of God, go they.
AS a mother of two wonderful children AND having seen the ultrasound of my son at 12 weeks gestation I could never consider an abortion the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteHowever it is not my place nor anyone else's place to determine what is right for a woman but herself.
At age 22 I was pregnant with my first child and was sick with the common ailments in the first trimester, I remember thinking, as I threw up in the stairwell at my college, an abortion would be so much easier than dealing with this. I was pro-life and "screw all the conservatives", it's my body, not yours.
ReplyDeleteBut then I grew up. We are all born liberals until we see that those initial emotions not acted upon are really a wise intervention from some deep seated conscience in our brains. We are all born liberals but a few of us grow up.
Being a strong intellectual woman has nothing to do with "it's my body I can do what I want with it." It's looking toward the preservation of our society and ourselves, the fundamental truths that have, up until the past 50 years have, given every embryo a chance at life. We do not know what that embryo may grow up to be, maybe a president, maybe a serial killer, but at the point where we have allowed ourselves to do what is natural, being that of birthing that child, the judgement from ourself, our family, our God, is taken off our heads. It is not natural to have a suction machine suck out your baby, or sodium chloride injected into a beating heart.
I have had 3 friends that have had abortions, I contemplated one, and those 3 friends have issues to this day of what they did. What's worse, having a baby and giving him/her up for adoption, raising that child, or saying "Screw it, I'm getting an abortion.", and then dealing with all the "what ifs" and the condemnation that you WILL feel after it is over. I have admitted many a patient with psych issues stemming from this emotional and radical decision. I too have been told that my baby was going to have a Trisomy 18 disorder, live for a couple of weeks and then die, luckily I did not have an abortion at that stage, as the doctors were wrong.
Women in America do have rights and choices, it is just unfortunate that so many women feel that it is their perogative to kill their own babies or be pushed into believing that it is alright. A truly intellectual and strong woman should be able to see that sometimes we don't know everything and that there are things that are meant to be and are not to be handled by our unknowing selves. The sign of a truly intelligent person is that of being able to reconcile the fact that we don't know everything and never will. But you try waking up every morning knowing that you took an innocent life and nothing is ever going to change that fact. My husband is a combat vet who did take someone's life, who has to deal with that everyday, even though in society's eyes, it was a justified decision, in his eyes, he thinks maybe there could have been a better way.
I am so sick of seeing and listening to women (and men) who are "liberated baby killers", who are "highly educated", yet too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong.
If you truly love the women in your life then support them, love them, but guide them in morally right decisions that won't fester and deteriorate their self esteems later in life.
From,
The girl next door
Registered Nurse
36 years old
Mother of 9 children
Before Katarzyna was born, was it Erin's body? No, it was Katarzyna's body. It's a women's body argument for rights is scientifically false. Therefore Natural Law says the pre-born has the same right to life as we all do.
ReplyDeletethe world is too overpopulated now and you guys want to ban obortions? The 21st century is all about Life Boat Economics and you guys want to cram more people on the already overcrowded lifeboat...
ReplyDeleteI stand happily on the fence in this case since I believe abortion is wrong but not murder.
ReplyDeleteHowever the issue should never have gone to the supreme court in the first place. There is nothing anywhere in the constitution that has any bearing on when human rights begin.
I don't consider it murder but it is killing, and the unborn will certainly become a full human life with an immeasurable value. Unless we are willing to take the human soul down to a single zygote where that immeasurable value springs into existence we are left with the obligation of finding where living organic tissue becomes a human entity on our own. I haven't seen anything to prove objectively the existence of a soul in a full grown adult and I have seen nothing to show where that distinction must be made in the womb. It is a vacuum in science that should have been filled by our representatives, not a court fumbling around with a false justification that it relates to women's rights. It doesn't.
I find it abhorrent to abort unnecessarily but I also find it ridiculous to call it misogyny when the people of a society legislatively decide for their own reasons and beliefs to establish where that human line should be. The line for where that tissue has rights or not is absolutely necessary, and if we draw that line within the womb than the women no longer has complete control over her body any more than she has a right to not feed the infant after it is born.
Nonnie, nurse; congratulations, despite you having no influence upon it, all your fetuses had brains and spinal cords. Please don't judge the decisions of those who carried fetuses who had no viability outside the womb.
ReplyDeleteWhile I still think abortion is wrong, it shouldn't be outlawed and only allowed after very careful consideration.
ReplyDeleteIt's a poor form of birth control.
I can see both sides of the abortion issue. In my opinion, the proposed abortion ban represents government intrusion into private affairs, and is bad on that account. But calling it "misogyny" seems like a stretch to me. I don't think the people who crafted that bill are woman-haters.
ReplyDeleteHadn't we best be careful about the use of powerful terms like this? Cory, I could call your income tax proposal "socialism," but that would be a gross exaggeration, wouldn't it?
How about those "honor killings" of the teenage girls in Texas? Now that's misogyny!
Sorry, Stan, but I stand by my word choice here. Initiated Measure 11 contains misogynist language:
ReplyDelete1. IM11 assumes the majority of women who choose to have abortions are uninformed or irrational.
2. IM11 assumes women are not strong enough to resist bad advice.
3. IM11 assumes women who say they've been raped and want an abortion are lying.
4. IM11 reinforces the concept that women are lesser beings if they do not fulfill their obligation to bear children.
5. IM11 declares women wards of the state whose bodies may be placed in servitude of another being in a way the state never demands of men.
Denigration, suspicion, second-class citizenship—that's a lot more misogynist than arguing Herseth Sandlin's position on abortion is a simple product of youth an inexperience.
Steve, you own your body, but you can't pass a law requiring my wife to give you a kidney or a blood transfusion to keep you alive. (Or can you?)
ReplyDeleteBack at you, Cory!
ReplyDeleteI just read the text of IM 11 (which I arguably should have done before commenting at all.)
I can't see anything that assumes women are not strong enough to resist bad advice, or that assumes women who say they've been raped and want an abortion are lying, or suggests that women are lesser beings if they do not fulfill their obligation to bear children.
I will concede that the bill seems to declare women wards of the state whose bodies may be placed in servitude of another being in a way the state never demands of men.
But then, I have simply set my threshold of reaction higher than you have. You have a wife and child, and are closer to the situation than I am. If I have learned anything after staggering around as a single man for all but three (tempestuous!) years of my life, it's to be slow to assume that people have malicious intent even if their actions would interfere with someone else's life. However, if the state were telling me I could not eat snails any more, and if I did I would be thrown into prison as a felon, I would think that our legislators were crazy and evil.
And I will concede that there are likely one or two genuine misogynists among our legislators. They're everywhere, like cockroaches. It's up to us to elect them out.
Here is the part of the text of IM 11 that troubles me the most:
"The people of the State of South Dakota find: (1) That all induced abortions, whether surgically or chemically induced, terminate the life of an entire, unique, living human being, a human being separate from his or her mother, as a matter of scientific and biological fact ..."
This suggests (to me, anyhow) the bizarre idea that mortal humans, by fiat, can establish scientific truths. As a scientist, I consider that notion ridiculous and dangerous. If that were so, we could vote against global warming and thereby establish that it's not taking place.
In any case, I doubt the measure will pass. Nevertheless, you are right to be concerned about a possible "slippery slope" phenomenon if, by some strange warp of destiny, IM 11 does become law. More likely, however, it would merely convince the rest of the country that we South Dakotans are a bunch of hicks.
You say, Cory, "IM11 declares women wards of the state whose bodies may be placed in servitude of another being in a way the state never demands of men."
ReplyDeleteYou are here admitting that the fetus is in fact alive and a "being". How can you then sanction murder, which is what destruction of life is? I really am just asking for how you and your wife can justify abortion if you believe that the fetus/baby is a living being.
In the largest, international study ever undertaken (it was done by the WHO) on this issue, it was found that the number of abortions is not less in jurisdictions where abortion is illegal than in jurisdictions where it is legal. However, the number of female human beings dying as a result of botched, illegal abortions increased dramatically.
ReplyDeleteAbortion is not easy or great, just as killing a fully sentiant person in self-defence is not easy or great. However, making abortion illegal does not create a culture of life. It does just the opposite.
A culture of life is one where people who are pregnant have access to decent medical resources, real information, basic necessities such as food and shelter, and are free from violence. It is one where parents and children have access to affordable, safe childcare, and real community support. It is one where abortion is not illegal, as the reality is that the only result of illegality is an increase in death and injury, but rather where abortion is prevented - through real, actual sexual health and biological education; through accessible contraception; and through providing people with the information, resources, and dignity they need to be able to make healthy choices.
Anon 7/25/2008 9:43 AM
ReplyDeleteThe arguement that you are making is that when women choose to put their lives at risk to get rid of the life growing inside them, They put their lives at greater risk where policy makes that execution illegal. Therefore we should make the execution legal.
You are ignoring the entire reason for it being illegal in the first place, the possible rights the unborn child. If society has decided pregnancy contains a person (or contains one only after X weeks), than it has simultaneously decided aborting it is the equivalent to murder. Flipping that decision based on statistics that the murderers are putting themselves at more risk isn't exactly consistent.
If the WHO's information is accurate. The consequence should be for society to give the mother more security in her options in keeping the baby alive. Why is it so important to her to abort? Find that out and resolve her fears instead of legitimizing murder to prevent suicide.
Heidelberger -
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that it is not appropriate to pass a law forcing your wife to keep me alive by hooking us up so I can use her functioning kidneys.
That is not to say, though, that the "right" personal action would not be to do just that. I know that if being attached by the medical tube would save the life of my loved one, the right choice would be to aid them. Yes, forcing me to do this would be wrong; allowing me to disregard their sanctity of life for my own personal convenience would also be wrong.
Legality and morality aren't always synonymous, CAH. But on some level, to maintain a civilized and respectful society, we must legislate community mores. Exactly what that means as it applies to the abortion debate is a determination with which I am still struggling. I'm a big personal responsibility fan, so the current situation masked by feel-good concepts of "choice" and "free will" makes me queasy.
Good luck with such a heated topic, my friend.
I wish everyone to read this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.abortion-and-bible.com/
Keep in mind that there are more passages in the Bible that defend the unborn human such as Psalm 71 and Psalm 139. Planned Parenthood has never proved that unborn fetuses are just merely tissue.
Because nothin' says lovin' like: Son, you came this close to being baby puree!
ReplyDeleteI was totally rebuffed by your description of Anessa Klumb as a "female chauvinist pig". If you are so intelligent and wide-minded, you can rebut her opinions civilly, rather than rely on pejorative terms. You have failed to assess and rationally defend your stance; you've just exercised an episode of name-calling as would an eleven year old on the playground. I DO support Miss Klumb. I am a university educated (top 10% of my MU class) grandmother who did stay at home to rear my children and inculcate in them the values for which I, as their parent, am responsible. Remember that by rearing the next generation, a parent has the opportunity to change the world. This cannot be done in a few minutes before and after the daycare time.
ReplyDeleteBless you, Anon, for staying home and raising your children the way you saw fit. Did anyone say your husband had the same obligation?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying you or Anessa are obliged to do anything with your university education other than what you think is best for your family and your community. I would ask you to accord the same courtesy to Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and every other women in society who can figure out for herself what's best for her family and her community.
But if you and Anessa are going to presume to tell me that every woman's job is to stay home and make and raise babies, then you and Anessa should be rebuffed—i.e., rejected outrightly and bluntly. To argue that I should vote for a man instead of a woman because a woman has parental duties but a man doesn't is nothing but sexism. Female chauvinist piggery remains a perfectly apt term for such outmoded thinking.
See, I'm pro-choice about a lot of things. Basically, I believe all women have the wisdom and the right to make their own significant life decisions, not just the handful of women who want to make rules for all the others.
ReplyDelete