The Abortion Debate in America - A New Ambivalence

[maldon_road]

It has always been my belief that for the big mass in the middle, there is compromise; but the debate is being led by the extremists.

Oct. 8, 2007 issue - Although plenty of people are passionate about abortion, few of them would spend 16 years and $7 million of their own money making a movie about it, especially one that tries not to take sides. British filmmaker Tony Kaye, who says he's not pro-life or pro-choice but "confused," can't even explain why he became so obsessed with the topic. But in his 152-minute documentary, "Lake of Fire," which opens in New York this week, Kaye—who also directed "American History X"—offers an exhaustive look at the extremes of the abortion fight. Pro-choicers will wince at the graphic footage of actual abortions—including one at 20 weeks, where tiny appendages are measured against a ruler afterward. Pro-lifers will be dismayed they're represented largely through the rantings of extremists like Paul Hill, who was later executed for murdering an abortion doctor. Though it mentions South Dakota's recent attempt to ban nearly all abortions, the movie concentrates on the protests and clinic violence of the 1990s. It doesn't take into account any of the profound changes of the past decade: pro-lifers' move away from the picket lines into state legislatures and courtrooms, the battle over "partial-birth abortion" that forced Americans to focus on the specifics of the procedure, or even how more-sophisticated technology is changing minds about just when life begins.

Despite our tendency to focus on the extremes of the abortion debate, many Americans—including those who say they are pro-choice or pro-life—have come to realize that the issue won't be settled any time soon. In a national poll to be released this week by the influential Democratic think tank Third Way, nearly three quarters said they wish elected leaders would look for common ground on abortion. The country is pretty evenly divided on their standing view of the question: 40 percent of registered voters say they're pro-choice, 39 percent pro-life and 18 percent volunteered the response "neither." (In a new NEWSWEEK Poll of Iowa voters, 17 percent selected "neither.") Although many liberals fear a reversal of Roe by a conservative Supreme Court, and many conservatives fear a rampant culture of abortion, much of the country in fact seems more ambivalent than adamant.

Which brings us, inevitably, to the politics of the question. Third Way argues that Americans have already embraced the moral complexities of the issue and that Democrats can win by acknowledging them, too. In the Third Way poll, 72 percent said the decision to have an abortion should be "left up to a woman, her family and her doctor," while at the same time 69 percent acknowledged that abortion "is the taking of human life." So while the hard-core activists may remain as entrenched as Kaye portrays them, much of the country is searching for a quieter way forward. For the first time in recent memory, abortion could be off the table as a general-election issue if both parties nominate pro-choice candidates, which, with Rudy Giuliani in the running, might just happen....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21047655/site/newsweek/

[fellowtraveller]

the debate is being led by the extremists

In my view, there is extremism - but it is one sided. There is no plural to 'extremist' in this argument.

One side insists on "The Right to Life", that every fetus is a human being from conception, that every cluster of sells has an absolute right to live. One of the greatest tools that this faction has commandeered is the language: to choose life implies the other side chooses death, which is false.

The 'other side' does not insist that humans - women in particular- are limited to carrying any fetus to term. The 'pro-choice side' premise is that a woman has the right to control her reproductive choices, that she is permitted to choose to carry the fetus to term, or abort. I find this offer of choice to be entirely reasonable. Having the oportunity and/or inclination to abort does not translate to automatic abortion. I think you will find many millions of people that support a womans right to choose have children, children they chose to carry to term. But every sperm is not sacred.

Edited September 30, 2007 by fellowtraveller

[fellowtraveller]

And I also think that terms like 'Third Way' and 'a New Ambivalence' are more examples of the anti-abortion groups attempting to take further control of the language of the debate. Lets call it something other than 'Pro Life', that one is getting stale.......

Most people will not be fooled by this, any more than creationist introducing the intellectually slimy 'intelligent design' red herring were.

If you don't want an abortion, then don't get one.

In the meantime, get out of my life.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you don't want an abortion, then don't get one.

In the meantime, get out of my life.

Ummm...OK..but if I want a third trimester abortion in Quebec they will send me to America. What's up with that????

[ScottSA]

If you don't want an abortion, then don't get one.

In the meantime, get out of my life.

Let me rephrase this doctrinal orthodoxy to put in the context the other side understands:

"If you don't want to kill someone, then don't.

In the meantime, get out of my life."

You see there ARE two sides to the debate, but you are merely adopting one and dismissing the other. Either you are killing someone or you're not. "Rights" have nothing to do with it.

[M.Dancer]

I am personally opposed to abortion as a form of birth control, but that is my personal opinion. How another person reacts to the parasitical lifeform within is their personal business.

But we have come along way. In the days of Rome (before the visogoths crossed the Rhine (tabu tabu) the unwanted offspring would be left on some lonely rock to die of exposure or to be rescues for life as a slave......so in effect the bar for what is considered an acceptable abortion has moved form new born to the 1st trimester.

[fellowtraveller]

Let me rephrase this doctrinal orthodoxy to put in the context the other side understands:

"If you don't want to kill someone, then don't.

In the meantime, get out of my life."

You see there ARE two sides to the debate, but you are merely adopting one and dismissing the other. Either you are killing someone or you're not. "Rights" have nothing to do with it.

And that comes to the crux of the issue, with all the emotion-heavy rhetoric - like the word 'kill' You consider any two or more cells to be a baby. I don't. I'm not killing 'someone' by flushing those cells out of my body. Every sperm is not sacred. I have no problem with a woman choosing to eliminate a fetus at any time up to the point where it will be a viable human. I have no problem with a woman choosing to end a pregnancy where a child carried to term wil have no quality of life, or where her life is endangered.

And yes, women do have the 'right' to control their reproduction.

And I'm glad that I live in this country, where the majority of the population agree with me.

[fellowtraveller]

The 'two sides' are this in Canada:

- you can choose not to have an abortion

- you can choose to have an abortion , or not have an abortion.

I'll take the latter.

[Guest American Woman]

I am personally opposed to abortion as a form of birth control....

I have to wonder how many women who've had abortions actually use it as their "form of birth control."

And that comes to the crux of the issue, with all the emotion-heavy rhetoric - like the word 'kill' You consider any two or more cells to be a baby. I don't. I'm not killing 'someone' by flushing those cells out of my body. Every sperm is not sacred. I have no problem with a woman choosing to eliminate a fetus at any time up to the point where it will be a viable human. I have no problem with a woman choosing to end a pregnancy where a child carried to term wil have no quality of life, or where her life is endangered.

And yes, women do have the 'right' to control their reproduction.

And I'm glad that I live in this country, where the majority of the population agree with me.

I agree with you 100%. I don't live in Canada, but the majority of Americans agree with you/me too.

Edited October 1, 2007 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

I have to wonder how many women who've had abortions actually use it as their "form of birth control."

Every woman I know who has had an abortion were using it as birth control. How else does one define "having a baby right now isn't convienent"?

It's not like their life was put in danger by being pregnant....just their lifestyle

And I know of 7 women* who have had abortions, none for medical or even psychological reasons.

*And these are only women who have told me about it.

[Guest American Woman]

Every woman I know who has had an abortion were using it as birth control. How else does one define "having a baby right now isn't convienent"?

It's not like their life was put in danger by being pregnant....just their lifestyle

And I know of 7 women* who have had abortions, none for medical or even psychological reasons.

*And these are only women who have told me about it.

Did you ask them if they used birth control that failed? If they truly used abortion as their "birth control method," I'm guessing they've had more than one abortion-- or very little sex.

[M.Dancer]

Did you ask them if they used birth control that failed? If they truly used abortion as their "birth control method," I'm guessing they've had more than one abortion-- or very little sex.

Whether it was their only method, or method of last resort is irrelevant, when the issue is are they using it as a boirth control method.

In each case (and I acknowledge that this is anecdotal) they were childless adult women in the flower of their youth. Two I know weren't using any BC because they belived their periods were so erratic that they couldn't get pregnant. One of those girls has had at least 2 abortions. At least one made an error with her BC and having a baby would have dampened her career. One because her boyfriend already had two kids and he didn't want anymore. For the rest I can't particulary say.....

I think there are valid reasons to have an abortion. Upsetting your social calender isn't one of them

[Guest American Woman]

Whether it was their only method, or method of last resort is irrelevant, when the issue is are they using it as a boirth control method.

It's totally relevant. If someone is on the pill, that is their form of birth control. If someone uses condoms, that is their form of birth control. When you ask a woman "are you on birth control" the answer is either yes or no. What isn't an answer is "yes, my birth control is abortion."

So most women have abortions because their birth control failed. If they didn't want to have a child in the first place, and their birth control failed, they shouldn't suddenly be expected to go through a pregnancy that they didn't want in the first place. Going through an unwanted pregnancy and having an unwanted baby is a little more than an "inconvenience."

Edited October 1, 2007 by American Woman

[buffycat]

And what of a woman who is raped? How would those who are dead set against abortion for any reason deal with that? Lock her up? Force her to have the child?

While in my own heart I would not be able to have an abortion - I think it is important to at the very least provide safe abortions to those women who DO choose to have one.

AW - you are right - it is relevant.

I always get a bit of a kick when men comment on abortion.

[M.Dancer]

It's totally relevant. If someone is on the pill, that is their form of birth control. If someone uses condoms, that is their form of birth control. When you ask a woman "are you on birth control" the answer is either yes or no. What isn't an answer is "yes, my birth control is abortion."

So most women have abortions because their birth control failed. If they didn't want to have a child in the first place, and their birth control failed, they shouldn't suddenly be expected to go through a pregnancy that they didn't want in the first place. Going through an unwanted pregnancy and having an unwanted baby is a little more than an "inconvenience."

So in other words some use abortion as the birth control of last resort.

Not because the infant will live a life in suffering or because the mother's life will be harmed.....but because, well having a baby right now isn't the choice they would make. It is inconvienent. Afterall, if you were using BC and it failed, no one should expect someone to give up a promotion just to nurture a new life......that would be a real drag....

[Guest American Woman]

So in other words some use abortion as the birth control of last resort.

Not because the infant will live a life in suffering or because the mother's life will be harmed.....but because, well having a baby right now isn't the choice they would make. It is inconvienent. Afterall, if you were using BC and it failed, no one should expect someone to give up a promotion just to nurture a new life......that would be a real drag....

Good God. If a woman isn't in the position to have a child, and therefore is using birth control to prevent a pregnancy, do you think she is suddenly in the position to have/raise that child-- just becuase she got pregnant?

You talk as if raising a child were a simple matter, a cheap matter, nothing more than an "inconvenience." Running out of milk and having to go to the store to get some is an "inconvenience." Going through an unwanted pregnancy, having an unwanted child, not having the means/resources to raise an unwanted/unexpected child is a helluva lot more than an "inconvenience."

[marcinmoka]

So in other words some use abortion as the birth control of last resort.

Would the fact the fact that she already was on a (unfortunately ineffective) form of birth control proof enough she had no intention of getting pregnant.

Having said that though, I will also concede to fact that there are also many who seem to have never heard of the pill or condoms, and rely only on abortion as a means of BC.

Granted, if the parents in said case are so 'wise', maybe it is better they don't reproduce!

[M.Dancer]

Good God. If a woman isn't in the position to have a child, and therefore is using birth control to prevent a pregnancy, do you think she is suddenly in the position to have/raise that child-- just becuase she got pregnant?

Good God. Often yes.

You talk as if raising a child were a simple matter, a cheap matter, nothing more than an "inconvenience." Running out of milk and having to go to the store to get some is an "inconvenience." Going through an unwanted pregnancy, having an unwanted child, not having the means/resources to raise an unwanted/unexpected child is a helluva lot more than an "inconvenience."

I have two children I know what's involved in raising children. I think you are making out that every woman who choses an abortion does so because she has no choice. Some don't but most do. Amd most chose convinence over life.

[ScottSA]

I think you are making out that every woman who choses an abortion does so because she has no choice. Some don't but most do. Amd most chose convinence over life.

That's a standard marketing technique. Create or find a problem (eg "your underarms stink), posit it as a universal (everyone's underarms stink), pump up the problem (eg everyone's underarms stink so bad even flatulent dogs leave the room), and then solve the problem (eg buy XYZ and your underarms will smell like soft summer breeze for days, maybe weeks). According to the standard feminist pro-abortion song and dance, hordes of struggling and dispossessed women huddle against the cruel winds of patriarchy, suddenly find themselves imposed upon by pregnancy, a "condition" they bear no responsibility for, but which will put them starving in the gutter or curb Saturday night's party or some other tragedy of insurmountable horror; the only solution to which is to have it out, like a sore tooth.

I have always held the position that I'm against abortion, but can't condemn it because I'll never stand in the shoes of a woman. Well, except for Halloween 1979...but we won't talk about that right now... But I find myself drawn closer to the pro-Life position all the time. There is really no excuse not to bring a child to full term in the west. No one is going to starve in the west. If a woman doesn't want the child, why not take 9 months to save a life? It's expected that a man take 18 years to pay for it, at the woman's whim, so why can't a woman be beholden to the same thing for 9 months?

[M.Dancer]

I have always held the position that I'm against abortion, but can't condemn it because I'll never stand in the shoes of a woman.

My thoughts exactly. But because I feel that I am not in the position to condemn a woman's choice doesn't mean I can bless it either.

I am against it* and if it ever (God Forbid) came to my door personally where it was an option, I pray that we choose life.

*I do believe that when abortion for medical reasons and when the mother is still a child are valid options.

[ScottSA]

*I do believe that when abortion for medical reasons and when the mother is still a child are valid options.

I'm fine with that too, depending on the definition of "child."

What I gag at is the elevation and parading around of abortion as some sort of VIRTU. It's becoming more evident every day that we in the west will be looked back on by history as suicidal maniacs intent upon killing ourselves in the name of convenience. Or simply mass murderers on a scale that makes any previous genocide pale in comparison. Either way, flaunting abortion as a good unto itself is horrible.

[M.Dancer]

I'm fine with that too, depending on the definition of "child."

I would say generally under 16.

I would also make an argument that in all cases of incest and rape, an abortion would be a valid choice that I wouldn't gainsay.

[fellowtraveller]

My thoughts exactly. But because I feel that I am not in the position to condemn a woman's choice doesn't mean I can bless it either.

I am against it* and if it ever (God Forbid) came to my door personally where it was an option, I pray that we choose life.

*I do believe that when abortion for medical reasons and when the mother is still a child are valid options.

Your thinking that your condemnation or your approval of another persons life choice is relevant to other people is typical of the profound arrogance of the "ProLife" side. Allowing a woman to choose not to carry a child to term does not interfere with your choice in any way. Denying all women the right to choose does interfere with their right to control their own uterus. It is not yours to control, but theirs.

The only surprising thing about this thread is how long it took to hear about God and praying.

[M.Dancer]

Your thinking that your condemnation or your approval of another persons life choice is relevant to other people is typical of the profound arrogance of the "ProLife" side.

Your thinking that my opinion, or approval or disapproval has no relevance is typical of something or other, but to be honest, I really couldn't give a flick what you think about the matter.

But given you low comprehension about this issue, segmenting it into one side or another, I'm not surprised you put me in the pro life side. I suppose that is typiocal too of some group or another too....again, I could give a shit which group. Suffice to say I have said nothing about curtailing the legal right of a woman to make a horrendous decision, in fact, I affirmed it in my fiorst post.

No why don't you go trot off and affirm your right and abort something.....

[Guest American Woman]

(American Woman @ Oct 1 2007, 04:44 PM) You talk as if raising a child were a simple matter, a cheap matter, nothing more than an "inconvenience." Running out of milk and having to go to the store to get some is an "inconvenience." Going through an unwanted pregnancy, having an unwanted child, not having the means/resources to raise an unwanted/unexpected child is a helluva lot more than an "inconvenience."

I have two children I know what's involved in raising children. I think you are making out that every woman who choses an abortion does so because she has no choice. Some don't but most do. Amd most chose convinence over life.

So you know what's involved in raising children. What you don't know is:

- firsthand what's involved in being pregnant

- what's involved in going through an unwanted pregnancy

- what's involved in having an unwanted child

- what it's like not having the means/resources to raise a child

- what it's like to be hassled by your boss for calling in sick due to a pregnancy, much less lose your job because of it

- what it's like to be passed over for a promotion because of being pregnant/having to put the child first

- what it's like to raise a child on your own

- what it's like to not be able to give your child all that you wanted to give him/her, much less the basics- including a father.

- what it's like to be condemned by society for giving birth to a child you cannot afford without public assistance

- what it's like not to be able to afford to give your child the health care he/she needs

- Last but not least, in spite of your claim, you don't know why "most women" choose abortion. You don't know their finances. You don't know their ability to parent a child. You don't know if they have support from the baby's father. You don't know the first thing about their lives/ their decision.

I have to ask all of you who are so concerned about "saving a life"-- since there are millions of children already on this earth who have no parents, who will surely die, why are you not out advocating saving their lives and or "nurturing" a child who needs it? As in why have you not taken a foster child out of the system and adopted him/her; why have you not adopted a child with special needs; why have you not adopted a child from a third world nation? What are your reasons? I'd really like to know.

Edited October 3, 2007 by American Woman