Comments on: Recasting the abortion debate: is it or isn’t it murder? http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1231 BTC News: News, politics, opinion and satire Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:52:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: weldon berger http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1231/comment-page-1#comment-18293 weldon berger Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:06:38 +0000 http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/?p=1231#comment-18293 I don't doubt that some among the anti-abortion movement are not on board with the punitive, controlling, anti-woman agenda I've described. But the keys to reducing abortion are good sex education, easy access to contraceptives, easy access to good health care and a social safety net strong enough to provide women who might otherwise abort with the resources — sufficient food, money or day care, or whatever combination of those things is necessary — that will leave them confident they can provide for their children. Yet the anti-abortion movement as a whole opposes all or most of those things. Just yesterday, the Missouri state legislature <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/14098907.htm" rel="nofollow">voted</a> to ban state-funded health clinics from dispensing contraceptives because, in the words of one legislator, "if you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that." That move guarantees more abortions. By the standards of anti-abortion activists, the legislature should all be booked for negligent homicide. I don't think the South Dakota legislator who described rape and sodomy in such loving detail is a man of good will. I don't think the Missouri legislator I quoted above is a woman of good will. I don't think the Tennessee legislators promoting a state constitutional <a href="http://www.ashlandcitytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060310/NEWS0201/603100400/1291/MTCN01" rel="nofollow">amendment</a> that would permit a ban on abortion without even an exception for the life of the mother are people of good will. I do think they'd all be happy to imprison women who seek or get abortions if it were politically acceptable to do so. I no longer think abortion is a question on which people of good will can differ. If people who want to prevent abortions on purely ethical grounds are serious, then they should work to create the conditions under which abortion will become the least desirable option for women and they should denounce the creeps who refuse to do so. Until that happens, I have no sympathy for them. I don’t doubt that some among the anti-abortion movement are not on board with the punitive, controlling, anti-woman agenda I’ve described. But the keys to reducing abortion are good sex education, easy access to contraceptives, easy access to good health care and a social safety net strong enough to provide women who might otherwise abort with the resources — sufficient food, money or day care, or whatever combination of those things is necessary — that will leave them confident they can provide for their children. Yet the anti-abortion movement as a whole opposes all or most of those things.

Just yesterday, the Missouri state legislature voted to ban state-funded health clinics from dispensing contraceptives because, in the words of one legislator, “if you hand out contraception to single women, we’re saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that.”

That move guarantees more abortions. By the standards of anti-abortion activists, the legislature should all be booked for negligent homicide.

I don’t think the South Dakota legislator who described rape and sodomy in such loving detail is a man of good will. I don’t think the Missouri legislator I quoted above is a woman of good will. I don’t think the Tennessee legislators promoting a state constitutional amendment that would permit a ban on abortion without even an exception for the life of the mother are people of good will. I do think they’d all be happy to imprison women who seek or get abortions if it were politically acceptable to do so.

I no longer think abortion is a question on which people of good will can differ. If people who want to prevent abortions on purely ethical grounds are serious, then they should work to create the conditions under which abortion will become the least desirable option for women and they should denounce the creeps who refuse to do so. Until that happens, I have no sympathy for them.

]]> By: PubliusToo http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1231/comment-page-1#comment-18065 PubliusToo Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:25:28 +0000 http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/?p=1231#comment-18065 I think you miss the main point behind the pro-life movement’s promotion of anti-abortion laws and related criminal statutes punishing for criminal injury to fetuses. The pro-life movement is not so much interested in retribution for the “taking of a life” as preventing the abortion or killing of a fetus. The pro-life movement is not a debating society seeking a consistent rationale for its position, but a group of individuals from various religious faiths that believe all abortions to be the taking of a human life. Their goal is to prevent abortions, not to punish women or even doctors. The new South Dakota law punishing the doctor, for example, is intended to bring the issue before the courts to secure a reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision. Criminalization of the woman would merely cloud the issue for the courts, raising questions of capacity, etc., that are best left for legal scholars to ponder should the courts ever overturn Roe v. Wade. Thus I agree with Professor Buell; consistency is the hobgoblin of a losing political movement. I think you miss the main point behind the pro-life movement’s promotion of anti-abortion laws and related criminal statutes punishing for criminal injury to fetuses. The pro-life movement is not so much interested in retribution for the “taking of a life” as preventing the abortion or killing of a fetus. The pro-life movement is not a debating society seeking a consistent rationale for its position, but a group of individuals from various religious faiths that believe all abortions to be the taking of a human life. Their goal is to prevent abortions, not to punish women or even doctors. The new South Dakota law punishing the doctor, for example, is intended to bring the issue before the courts to secure a reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision. Criminalization of the woman would merely cloud the issue for the courts, raising questions of capacity, etc., that are best left for legal scholars to ponder should the courts ever overturn Roe v. Wade. Thus I agree with Professor Buell; consistency is the hobgoblin of a losing political movement.

]]>