Personhood and Sonogram Bills Make Me Wonder About BD’s, Virginia’s Future
By JR Hoeft | Friday, February 24th, 2012 | Catch-AllI don’t think you can be a political observer and not be stunned by what transpired in Virginia this week. But the fierceness of the debate makes me want to do some soul-searching.
When Democrats accuse Republicans of wanting to “wage a war on women” (DPVA release yesterday and repeated by Terry McAuliffe today), well…that kinda hurts. I’m not joking. I don’t want to have a war with anybody.
I mean, Republicans and conservatives were accused of being rapists this week because we wanted mothers on the brink of an abortion to have information already available before making the final decision to abort; that information comes from using an accepted practice by the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood.
Senator Dick Saslaw was perceptive enough to say that he understood that what socially-conservative Republicans were interested in doing was giving more information to the mother before she went through with an abortion – in hopes of preventing the abortion. Of course, he said this as if it was a bad thing.
The reality is that I don’t live my life trying to be hurtful to anyone or take away anyone’s freedom or choice. But I have questions out of this week that I just can’t answer…
Why am I a rapist?
Why do you think I want to wage a war on women?
Why is this sort of rhetoric now acceptable in the political arena?
When does life begin?
What constitutes murder?
What’s the definition of rape?
Whose rights matter more – the right of the mother to have a medical procedure or the right of the unborn to be born and live?
What role of government exists where it can mandate healthcare but cannot mandate a procedure that protects the health of a woman about to undergo an abortion?
What is the proper role and function of government? Does it protect the unborn or does it preserve the liberty of a woman?
Are a woman and her embryo/fetus/baby two separate beings? Or, is the woman effectively removing a growth?
Is abortion a medical procedure or the end of a life?
When a woman voluntarily consents to having an invasive procedure (abortion), and a sonogram is part of making that procedure safer, why can’t a woman see those pictures?
Where does it go from being a discussion about life to a discussion about Women’s reproductive health?
Why am I accused of being a Theocrat?
Why do we use extreme examples to justify extreme positions?
What if conservatives didn’t fight abortion and just let it happen? Would they become more rare?
Why is it wrong for men to be concerned about the life of a child? Why, in the eyes of some women, can the debate only involve women?
Why do people who don’t really know me accuse me of hateful things?
Does Bearing Drift make any difference at all or is this just a big waste of time?
Should we go with Facebook comments so people no longer can comment anonymously?
Did Bob McDonnell choose self-interest over principle? Did he really think, as has been suggested, that his decision to amend the sonogram bill will help him become vice president?
Why did the Republican Party of Virginia, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, and Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli not say one word this week on Personhood or the ultrasound bill?
Why are two bills getting all the attention when hundreds of other bills have gone through with little interest?
Do SNL and Jon Stewart think abortion is a joke? Have they thought seriously about the above questions?
Oh, and finally, why the hatred? Is there something else going on?
Are we really so far apart between life and choice that there will only be hostility and anger?
This was not a civil debate – lines of passion were drawn and I think it affected the Senate budget vote. Are elected officials incapable of working together? How will this debate affect the future of Virginia debates and discussion?
And I know there are more questions…that’s just a sampling of what’s on my mind.
I don’t know the answers. Anyone game for helping me understand what’s going on?
Just some easy questions to think about on a Friday afternoon and over the weekend.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
61 Responses to "Personhood and Sonogram Bills Make Me Wonder About BD’s, Virginia’s Future"
You are correct J.R., this was not a civil debate. I happen to have a different philosophy than you do on this particular topic, but I enjoyed learning your insights and debating with you. Others, I could have done without. Kirwin, for example, is still trying to get someone to believe that everyone who was against these bills must be pro-slavery.
My main concern at this point is the damage that was done to the GOP here in VA. No matter what side of the issue you are on, the GOP came off as weak in the end. McDonnell can kiss any chance of being VP goodbye. Allen, if successfully linked to this debate, can kiss his chances in November goodbye as well. Cuccinelli, who according to McDonnel in his Politco interview today, advised against passing this bill, a kiss of death according to the “Six Pack” post.
Moderates and a large percentage of solid GOP women will not quickly forget this debate.
I too have recently suffered not only defeat, but a sense that those whom I have supported pulled the rug out from under me and other supporters.
First, don’t take defeat too personnally. Second, time heals. Third, talk to people outside yoru normal circle to gain perspective and understanding.
Fourth, none of this works, but you learn a bit in the process, refreshed to take on the next issue.
JR:
I sat in the South Carolina senate chambers last Tuesday to watch the proceedings for a conservative woman to be confirmed (the Democrats are still filibustering that!) Before the confirmation discussion, the other business was brought up. My senator has 20 of the 24 sponsors he needs to get the personhood bill on the floor. I hope he is able to get it done and I will work to help him on this one.
The South Carolina senate currently has no women in the body, and one Democrat basically was making the argument that you described above–that men shouldn’t speak to the subject of a “woman’s right to choose” simply for the fact they aren’t women.
Of course, those same male senators tell us women what to do with regards to every other aspect of our lives as they pass laws that tell us what kind of light bulbs we can use, what kind of cars to drive, how far away from a house you have to be to shoot a BB gun, etc. I wish more men would speak out regarding abortion! It is like telling a parent who did some things they shouldn’t have as teens and college students that they are hypocrites to tell their children they can’t do those things. If they are good parents, they had better tell their children what is right, regardless of their own personal past!
I also listened to that same Democrat senator tell my senator that they have the same goals regarding abortions in the state. All I can say, is that he has a funny way of showing it.
Lets go with FB comments. Don’t let the keyboard bullies get us down. I like my freedom of expression to be known – and that is why I post my full name.
Nathan, here’s the thing – plenty of moderates were watching and they were just as disgusted at Democrats and they were at the Republicans.
I’m one of those moderates. I’m pro-life, but it’s not the top item on my agenda. And while I’m sympathetic of the goals of the folks who are behind both the personhood and ultrasound bills, I had serious problems with them as drafted.
But what got me out defending the folks behind those bills was the unbelievably ridiculous rhetoric the Democrats and the pro-choice crowd was using. It was completely over the top and unnecessary.
It frustrates me that the left cannot have a debate in which they don’t accuse the right of being evil.
Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable. There’s no reason to say these Republicans are rapists and want to traumatize 13 year old victims of sexual assault for their own pleasure, as has been stated on Bearing Drift in the comments.
Jim’s right. What’s the point in debate if you cannot at least come to the table believing that your opponents aren’t demons?
I agree with you Brian. It was a disgusting debate from both sides. I’m pro-life as well, but I take a more libertarian view in that I don’t think the government should be involved in this discussion at all, so I was/am against these bills.
I’m hopeful the General Assembly can now move forward with the work of this great Commonwealth. I am also hopeful that GOP did not tarnish their brand so harshly that our chances for success in other areas is ruined.
Well, if you’re going to wage a war, I hope you’ll follow the Constitution and get a declaration from both houses of Congress first.
I have a post on Blue Virginia, not long after all of this started, saying that transvaginal ultrasounds are not rape, and that, as a woman, I do not need my body or my ability to decide my reproductive health protected by either the left OR the right.
Back in my salad days, I was pro-life. I even protested for it. But as I grew into my early 20′s, as I started realizing that pregnancy wasn’t only an idea, or a desire, but going to be an actual part of my life, my feelings and convictions changed. These things were crystalized by my own pregnancies: I’ve given birth to two children, and have had a miscarriage, which (gasp!) was detected with a transvaginal ultrasound. I did not feel that I had lost a child at that time. I felt that I had lost a pregnancy and the potential for a child. The child wasn’t just a clump of cells, but it just wasn’t a baby for me at that point either.
So I’m a liberal, and I’m pro-choice, and I did, at least once, feel the way that you did. But I no longer do. So I ask, in all sincerity, how is someone like me, who, at least in my own mind, thoughtfully came to a different position from your own, best able to engage you in a dialogue about it?
By simply asking what our motivations are for these bills. Most of us have a sincere belief that life begins at conception and that the life of an unborn kid deserves at least some level of protection.
I don’t think either you or any of the rest of the pro-choice crowd wants to see massive increases in abortion. So what I think would be more productive would be to see where we can work together to find ways to reduce the numbers.
It won’t matter if abortion is legal or illegal is no one is having them anymore. That should be the goal, even if it’s an ambitious one.
Gretchen, I thoughtfully arrived at my position as well. My birth parents were minors and unmarried. They weren’t getting married. It was a time when the pregnant teen would be taken out of school until she gave birth and the church would facilitate an adoption.
It was 1968. Pre-Roe.
I was adopted. Never met my birth parents, and never wanted to. The Kirwins are my family and have been since I left the hospital. But for some amazing reason, they always knew my story. Everyone knew everybody through Church.
Regardless, every time this issue comes up, I realize that statistically I know darn well what would’ve happened if I was created five short years later than I was.
I have a wonderful child, and will soon have another. Those are two people who would never exist if a “different choice” would’ve been made in 1968.
While pro-choicers look at abortion through the eyes of the woman, I consistently look at it through the eyes of the vulnerable unborn who through others’ choices never take a breath…because I could’ve easily been one.
And it strikes me that protecting those who are powerless is a pretty high calling.
It is and remains a hot-button issue, that is very clear. Additionally, there does not seem to be a great deal of common ground.
@JR. At last. Reasonable, thought provoking, and an attempt at real dialogue. You aren’t a rapist or theocrat any more than I’m a baby killer.
What is a human? When does life begin? The pulpit gives one meaning and science another – not all that dissimilar to the creation vs. evolution controversy. If one accepts the church’s definition (life begins when human DNA is joined) then clearly one’s position MUST be abortion = killing.
And if you truly believe –as the HB1 law states –that life begins at conception, than how can you come to any conclusion OTHER THAN hormonal contraception and IUD use is also murder? Those DNC ‘claims’ that republican personhood amendments also seek to outlaw contraception aren’t really all that wild or outlandish because banning any intervention after conception does just that.
OTOH, if one accepts a secular definition, one comes to a different conclusion than our biblical guided friends. Pro-choice republicans generally fall into this category. We don’t dispute a fetus is human in the sense it consists of human DNA (as opposed to chimp DNA). Yet although a human zygote (single cell entity that results from conception) contains human DNA and is the first developmental stage for human life … it is arguably still not a human. And while a fetus increasingly looks like a human as it develops, saying that something looks human doesn’t mean it is a human.
Also important to understand … the word “murder” is a technical and legal term and when used in statements like “abortion is murder,” it has real legal implications. IF abortion is, in fact, murder of an innocent human being, then anyone who performs one and anyone who allows one to be performed on her body should be … MUST be … prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to commit. And since both are felonies, both a woman and her doctor should be charged w/ felony murder and thus, eligible for the death penalty.
If you guys aren’t willing to ‘go there ‘… then you shouldn’t be posting that abortion is murder.
The sad fact is this issue is completely irresolvable. Our best hope is to educate and eradicate the reasons why women end pregnancies. The terrible irony is that the same groups who oppose abortion generally oppose sex education, free condoms, funding for Planned Parenthood (a poor family’s source for reproductive health treatment) and insurance policies that cover contraceptive care.
Senator Jim DeMint said at CPAC a couple of weeks ago that you can only compromise when you have the same goals. I would argue that there is not a lot of common ground because the vocal parties on both sides do not share the same goals.
I too was flabergasted at the virulent opposition to the ultrasound bill. Women who knew that the ultrasound was already industry SOP for the safety of the woman (gestational age, location of the placenta, tubal pregnancy, etc) Screaming bloody murder that the ultrasound was an attack against women! I do not understand why this issue makes the left lose their minds. Why can they not be sympathetic to the arguement for the basic protection of the most vulnerable in our society? Willing to risk the lives of women to prove a point?! I believe if given the option, the left would have banned the use of any ultrasound this week just to prove a point, despite knowing it would hurt women in the future…
Brian (K) — thank you for sharing your story. I can completely understand why you feel the way you do.
Here is mine. My family has been in West Virginia since the beginning of time. (Ok, the 1760′s.) When I say the word “West Virginia” what is the first thing that comes into your mind? Chances are, it isn’t a very positive image.
My parents married in 1965. My mother was one of the first women to get the pill, in part because it was handed out like candy in WV. Indeed, the very clinical trials done on the pill were done in West Virginia and southern Ohio (and Puerto Rico.) Why? Because let’s face it, Appalachians have too many babies. And to put it bluntly, Appalachian OBs didn’t need Roe-V-Wade to make abortions happen. What’s one more West Virginian more or less? Even before the court ruling, they were fairly common.
So there my mother is, pregnant with me in 1968-69. She’s desperately ill. The pregnancy is slowly killing her, due to the inability to keep food and water down. She’s been on an IV multiple times, but there isn’t the money to keep her in the hospital for the next 6 months, and besides, an IV alone won’t save the pregnancy or her. She needs to eat. Her doctor tells her that if she doesn’t get something down, he will have to “take the baby.” He doesn’t ask her, he doesn’t lay out her options, he TELLS her.
My mother is a deeply religious woman, who wanted more than anything in her world to be a mother. She tells him that she won’t do that, and that there has to be another way. After awhile, he agrees that there is a medication that she can take that might help, but it might cause complications for the baby. Those are her choices — an abortion or complications. At least it’s a choice, and she gets to make it.
She chose (obviously!) to have me. There were indeed health complications that plague me to this day, and she feels very guilty about them, despite my reassurances to her that it was her choice to make. But here’s the thing — I can also say with all honesty that I can envision a world without me in it, and that’s ok with me too. That’s a world where likely my sisters would not have been born at the time they were, where my husband wouldn’t have met me (and I think I can say with some quiet confidence that my husband would tell you point blank that I’m the best thing that ever happened to him) and my own two wonderful children wouldn’t be here. It’s not an easy thought, but one I’ve tried to ponder thoughtfully and earnestly. There is no getting around that a world without me would be a different place (not to mention Virginia blogs!) but because I don’t know what that world would look like (better? worse? indifferent? – and isn’t the latter the scariest of them all?) but it would be a world nonetheless. And if you’ll forgive the biblical reference, I believe truly in the verse that tells us that “all things work for the good of those who love Him.” It doesn’t say that things will be the best they can be, or even better than they could be, but they will be good. I know my parents. I know the world they created with me in it, and I’m pretty confident that they would have created a good world for their family without me in it. A little sadder, perhaps, but a good one.
I bring this up because I AM interested in a real dialogue. I would do ANYTHING to not have to relive the past few weeks of Virginia politics. I am happy to support pregnancy crisis centers. I’d personally like to see better health care for women who DO choose to have the pregnancy (in my post at Blue Virginia, I said that what infuriated me about the bill was that women would have to lie and say they wanted abortions to get this very needed scan early on in the pregnancy — but they are already lying to doctors in emergency rooms to get them, because they lack the funding or access for them. How about offering this service to women who want to keep their children?)
To many who are pro-life, this is a black and white subject. (It is to my mother, who remains staunchly pro-life.) But for me, it’s an enormous amount of ever shifting shades of gray. I am there for you if you want to help women make the choice to keep her baby (which I very much believe in), but ultimately, I have to fight for the right for the woman to make that choice. I understand that for someone who feels it is the murder of a child, they can’t sit still and let it happen, what do we do when your position and mine collide? I’ll be honest, I don’t know how we bridge that enormous gap.
Mr. Kirwin, I am the father of three children, the youngest in kindergarten. My wife is the proud mother of four, including a 35 year old son, a fine young man she met for the second time when he was 21 years old. I am so very proud of my wife for giving birth to her son, going back to finish high school and continuing on to college and graduate school. She made the right choices. I am so happy your birth parents made the right decisions too and support your efforts to help people get the best information to make appropriate decisions.
In my view, the ultrasound drama was way overblown. I’ve sat though many sonograms, transvaginal and not. I’ve seen and heard the heartbeat of first trimester babies (before the experience I would have said fetus). I’ve also seen lifeless blobs of early stage miscarriages. Both types of experiences were incredibly revealing and disclosed information that anyone wanting to make a profound decision should want to have.
Well, as the commenter who allegedly said that Republicans “want to traumatize 13 year old victims of sexual assault for their own pleasure, as has been stated on Bearing Drift in the comments,” I guess I have to respond. First, that is hardly what I said, Brian S., and I am disappointed that you would twist it that way. What I postulated was that the proponents of the personhood law had not fully considered the Law of Unintended Consequences and how this law would be applied. Was that an extreme example? Of course it was. But does the fact that it was an extreme example in any way lessen the plight of a 13 year-old rape victim? The personhood law has the same basic flaw as these so-called “zero tolerance” laws and regulations. People are not automatons and the law cannot be applied indiscriminately. Abortion is not murder. It is an ethical medical procedure upheld by black letter law. If you oppose it, good for you–I would like to see it become the exception rather than the rule. But to equate it with murder greatly diminishes the quality of the discussion.
As to the larger issue, I’m no longer convinced that it is possible to have a rational, civil discussion on any level when the topic is abortion, gun control, the debt, property rights, gay marriage, or even flag-burning. I will grant you that the left is quick to become derisive and self-righteous when engaging conservative arguments. But there is plenty of blame on the right as well. Take, for example, the frequent charges of “socialism” made against Obama and the Democrats. There is not a single true socialist country on the face of the Earth today, with the possible exception of North Korea and that is only because we really don’t know very much about how their economy operates. Isn’t labeling liberal economic policies “socialism” a form of demonization?
Bearing Drift is an important forum if for no other reason that it tolerates alternate points of view, something I have pointed out in the past as a rarity when you look at Smurf Virginia and some of the other liberal blogs. But the True Believers at BD need a reality check: about 22% of all American voters self-identify as “conservative Republicans.” That leaves a lot of folks out there who are not like-minded with you. If you are going to get all bummed out when politicians make compromises in order to live to fight another day, then you have missed the whole point of politics.
Gretchen, I don’t know the answer either. Birth control is still available but 1.2 million babies get aborted still. Birth control doesn’t solve the “girl who gets pregnant, guy leaves” problem. It doesn’t solve the “consciously don’t use birth control” and “a baby would change my life and career.” Heck, I am sure some have abortions because they feel they have no choice or a man is pressuring. That baby that’s waiting to know if he or she will be chosen to be allowed to live doesn’t care much.
MD, I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about Susan G.
MD – no one is bummed out. Just asking questions and looking at cost-benefit.
Brian S.,
I stand corrected. My apologies.
Jim,
You have got a publication here that you should be proud of. That is the benefit; the cost is to be occasionally disappointed, thwarted, or (the very worst) ignored.
Brian K. and Gretchen,
Your stories are powerful and, like most readers here, I appreciate you sharing them to help put abortion in perspective. May I share my birth story with you to shed some light on the other side of the argument?
My mother was a devout Roman Catholic married to a Protestant man who converted later in life. When they were having children, we were born at Norfolk General instead of St Vincent DePaul. The reason was that in the late 1940s and early 1950s women still died too often during childbirth. In most hospitals, when the mother’s life was in danger they would offer the option of “taking the baby” to save the mother’s life–a late term abortion. Not so in a Catholic hospital where they would protect the fetus even if it cost the mother her life. My mother and father decided that they didn’t want that decision taken away from them.
Fortunately, Mom and I came out of the delivery room just fine. But if we had been at the Catholic hospital and there had been a complication, then Dad would have been a widower with three young boys instead of having a wife and mother for his two sons. I think that they made the right decision. I cannot imagine what it would have been like to not only grow up without a mother but to know that I had caused her death.
So, did Dave Albo’s performance on the House floor help or hurt the cause??? I say it made him and those howling alongside him look like insensitive sophomoric idiots.
BD always allows for discussion, and I appreciate that.
Having said that, I think the moping of the Bearing Boys, is due to the fact that the left fought back this time, and won.
The left rarely fights back. They usually takes the blows from the right and act as if they deserved the humiliation. The rightwingers are not use to this response from the left. Reminds me of the scene in the “Christmas Story” when Ralphie couldn’t take it anymore from the bully and his cronies and just pummels the the lead bully unmercifully. The rest of the kids look on with great satisfaction. The only difference between that and the battle that raged this week in Virginia is the the onlookers, the citizens of Virginia, joined in.
Brian K — no, birth control isn’t the answer. And one of the points that I make to Democrats who don’t understand why working and lower class people so often are among the strongest pro-life votes are that they don’t want the decision to be made easy for them. They know, perhaps more than anyone, that a child may be the most significant aspect of their lives, more than a good marriage, strong ties to community, a successful and satisfying career, etc. I grew up in that world, and realize how easy (and smug) it would be for someone like me, who has been given far more than she deserves, to simply say things like “Why do you make so many bad choices?” Which, ultimately, is what both the left and the right say, albeit over different points of view.
MD — thanks for sharing your story. (I hope there are others out there who will do the same. This discussion has been very helpful, I think.) When I did the research on this subject for my novel, 15+ years ago, the point I kept coming back to was that a family would often survive a pregnancy that didn’t work out, but the death of the mother too often shattered that family. Until the 20th century, it wasn’t even up for discussion, really, who’s life would be saved — it was always the mother if at all possible. At least in the Appalachian culture that I was studying. It’s only been in the past few years that we’ve even been in a position to make a real choice in those harrowing circumstances, but I’m uncomfortable saying now that the baby’s life is worth more than the mother’s simply because our ability to access technology has changed. I can make the ethical argument, of course, but that doesn’t mean I can accept it and live with myself when I look in the mirror.
Edit – and that should be “birth control ALONE isn’t the answer.”
Susan G,
You are delusional. The left rarely fights back? I guess that you have never heard of George Soros, Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, or Bill Maher. The left not only fights back but launches preemptive attacks based on lies and innuendo instead of facts. Thanks for being part of the problem instead of being part of the solution. People like you are the left-wing parallels of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh–full of hatred and invective who have nothing positive to add to the discourse. You disgust me.
Republicans you got to love them when the heat is on they fold!Lack of backbone is their main trait. One thing you can say about the Democrats they fight no matter how dumb their issue is.
JR, here’s another question to add to your list: What could we accomplish –as a nation and a party – if we dumped this issue (and gay unions) from the republican playbook?
Imagine the change in dynamics if we lived by the constitutional premise America is a nation founded on the rule of law and the ecclesiastical code of one religion must not be elevated above another … and never elevated above the law.
@MD, surely you put your post in the wrong place by mistake? There are several other battle zones on BD more suitable for your comment. Please go there and get off this thread.
I just don’t know who’s who anymore on these threads. MD thinks I’m disgusting, but I can’t read a thing he said that I disagree with. I was the one who first introduced the 13 year old rape victim( an extreme example that I noted at the time)and MD explains further explains it well.
I guess I’ve been on Bearing Drift too much lately.I’ll move on. Bearing Boys, I’ve enjoyed your tolerance of me, and please don’t address me again. OBAMA 2012
Good lord, Susan Garrett, get off your high horse for a second and let’s have a discussion.
I’m trying to get perspective here – I’m not moping. Your words – not mine.
And we haven’t “lost”. A bill was tabled and another one is up for a vote next week in the Senate. Things still look good for social conservatives.
Finally, after talking with the governor’s staff, I have faith he hasn’t changed his position and that this amended bill actually does what social conservatives want it to.
But the point is not the legislative fight. There are serious moral, philosophical, and ethical questions that I am thinking about.
I want to thank Gretchen and others for taking it seriously. When will you?
Good luck with that, Susan. Thanks for reading us for a little, but also thanks for proving a point that liberals refuse to think seriously about issues and cannot move beyond talking points and reckless rhetoric.
JayD,
I will post on whatever thread I think is appropriate and you can stick it where the sun never shines if you don’t like it. At least I am posting under my real name and not hiding behind a cartoon fish.
What if
Susan G was actually a democratic operative that was given the task of disrupting republicans at Bearing Drift ??
JR, I’ve thought about these very things before I read this thread. JR, the questions you ask is from a person who has already realized that a real life worth living isn’t just about me, me and me but God and others. Yes, those “others” also include the unborn whose very lives depend on the “choices” of others, some of whom have not yet learned about living for more than just me, me and me.
My only daughter and I have often had conversations of the “what ifs” because the what ifs have already happened to too many close by. The grandson who lives with me now, his parents never married. He is a great light in our family and we don’t know what we would do without him and the blessing he is to all of us. I’m thankful his mother didn’t abort him, we all are thankful.
OG, to add to your conspiracy theory, maybe Susan G. was part of an “Occupy Bearing Drift” attack? It was fun having her as the “village idiot” to remind us of the insane tactics and mockery the left will use to disrupt and provoke those with otherwise thoughtful and considered content who have deeply held and serious beliefs about some recent topics. The ridiculous “victory lap” in her post above was the equivalent of a big ‘ol fat fly circling around her choice for president.
Ok, I’ll throw this out. It’s easy to say that abortion is a selfish decision. (ie, referencing Kathy’s comment above that it’s only about “me me me”). But it’s not that hard to argue that giving a baby up for adoption, or accepting someone else’s baby for adoption, doesn’t also have a self-centered “me me me” aspect to it as well. (How about a viewing of MOMMY DEAREST?) And I’m sure we all know people who are desperate to have babies for themselves, not because they can actually see that child as a human being. (TEEN MOM, anyone?)
But the truth is that the vast bulk of these situations are never about “me me me”. None of them. They are about people in complex situations trying to do the best they can with the resources (emotional, physical, financial, social, etc) that they can. Reducing any of these choices down to a stereotype scores each side points on the fundraising circuit, and gets lots of media attention, but does it really advance the ball?
And what if Susan G is a loyal, albeit pro-choice, republican trying to keep old geezers from shooting this party in the foot?
Saw the Guv debate yesterday w/ his buddy O’Malley and he’s putting as much distance between himself and these bills as he can. Wonder why?
Interesting discussion and mostly civil. People will always have differing views on abortion. I have differing views within myself on abortion. Why should our personal views and political views on public policy be the same?
Often our own lives and experiences shape our feeling about abortion. Our feelings can shift as life’s events pass us by. I try not to play ‘what if.’ My game of ‘what if’ always goes to ‘what if’ the atomic bomb hadn’t been dropped and my father ended up as part of the invasion of Japan and had been killed. Obviously the conversation stops there.
Make no mistake, I am stridently pro choice as a voter. Abortion rights have been under attack my entire life. They started long before Roe v. Wade. My first awareness of them was over Miss Sherrie Finkbine and thalidamide. I was a child and even then I thought it was awful that she was forced by politics to have a flipper child. She had enough money to fly to Europe and have a legal abortion.
However, my favorite person in the world is here because her very pro-choice mother chose not to have an abortion. Why she chose not to go down that road will always be a mystery to me. It would have been so much easier and less complicated. But she chose to have her daughter and I am delighted every day with the choice she made.
The bottom line is, that was her choice to make. It is always the woman’s choice to make. It always will be regardless of the roadblocks.
Everyone is pro-life. The anti-abortion folks don’t own that one. If pro choice people could ever get off defense for more than a second, perhaps they and the anti abortion people could work together towards common goals. I suggest that the common goal become fewer unwanted, unintended pregancies. Then you would get few abortions. You will never totally stomp out abortion but reducing the incidence I think we would all consider a great victory.
Becky Stone. That was her name. A beautiful, intelligent, kind, Thalidomide baby. Yep, a “flipper baby”. And one of the most popular girls in my graduating class. I’m so glad I had a chance to know her.
Alton Foley, that could well be. Afraid you missed my rather woman focused point. I expect the Israelis and Palestians have a great chance of seeing eye to eye disputed territory than you and I do.
You seem incapable of seeing any point of view but your own.
A comment: the legislation was ill advised and poorly thought out, typical of the stupid VA Republican party….pro life is the right position but we must first support limited government intrusion into our lives so we are not laughed at. Lastly, the counter point is that the real war is not Republicans against women, but women against fetuses… war means killing your enemy/opponent to achieve (win) your objective and defeat the enemy. Republicans aren’t killing but defending; however, Planned Parenthood and pro choice folks support killing the fetuses, that is the real war. That’s where the real body count is. They won’t take proper responsibility for their actions so they kill the perceived threat to their future, the innocent unborn child. Plain and simple wrong-headed thinking…what would Christ say? I think as a political issue we’re fighting a battle that cannot be won and on the surface contradicts our desire for limited government. This is a moral argument which must be won at the individual level and no longer pursued via political means…..its a loser and will bring down other efforts on other important fronts.
Since it’s the rage going around, it’s pretty graphic but gets the word across with a picture. The last one may be just tissue to some, but to me, it is a human being.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2970151805450&set=a.1306457414130.2045711.1011366954&type=1&theater
Gretchen, any mother who goes through pregnancy, childbirth and gives her child up for adoption, and the parents who adopt the child are absolutely NOT selfish in my book. It is the most unselfish act a person can do if they know it’s best for the child to give them to someone who is better prepared to raise the child and a couple who choose loving a child that is not from their own bodies. As a Christian, I’m adopted, grafted in through faith.
Pastor Hauser of Bartlesville Wesleyan College said in a sermon in the early 80′s that he “chose his children”. He adopted children from a family in trouble and Neal was one of his children he adopted. Knowing the family, it was a beautiful love story, for all of them.
Why am I a rapist?
You’re not.
Why do you think I want to wage a war on women?
Again, not you. But there is a confluence of problems the GOP is facing right now: Santorum and his anti-birth control ideas, the Catholic Church using “religious freedom” to deny birth control to its students, employees, etc. And instead of focusing on family planning, sex education, etc. to eliminate abortions, the right goes after Planned Parenthood even though PP provides many services for women. The all male Congressional hearing certainly didn’t help the cause.
Why is this sort of rhetoric now acceptable in the political arena?
Politics tends to drive wedges. Can’t we all agree that we don’t want to have any abortions? The difference is the solution. The right = ban abortion. The left = educate as best we can and what happens is what happens. Why not try something in the middle? Say mandatory sex ed and family planning. Try to eliminate abortion through other means instead of making it illegal or pressuring women not to do it. If women don’t have unwanted pregnancies then we wont have abortions.
When does life begin?
That will never be agreed upon. I don’t think there’s a need to distract from the real conversation (preventing unwanted pregnancies) to fight this out.
What constitutes murder?
Already defined by law, the killing of another person, no?
What’s the definition of rape?
Already defined by law, the unwanted penetration of anther person, no? And, did this law not do that?
Whose rights matter more – the right of the mother to have a medical procedure or the right of the unborn to be born and live?
How about the rights of a teen mother not to be ridiculed, supported by the father, not kicked out of her family by her parents, her ability to get an education, or a job? Maybe if there weren’t the stigma or near impossibilities of being an unwed/single/teen mom we wouldn’t have as many abortions.
What role of government exists where it can mandate healthcare but cannot mandate a procedure that protects the health of a woman about to undergo an abortion?
The procedure doesn’t protect the health of the woman. It does in certain cases, not all cases. Just like your doctor can’t force you to have a prostate exam. You sure as hell should, but if you don’t want it and the force you to, it’s rape.
The purpose of this bill was to intimidate women, by forcing them into an unnecessary procedure, to not have an abortion.
What is the proper role and function of government? Does it protect the unborn or does it preserve the liberty of a woman?
This is the 21st century, the roll of any government should include ensuring that every citizen has access to affordable health care. If every woman had access to birth control or other contraceptives then we wouldn’t have any unwanted pregnancies or abortions, at least theoretically, no?
Are a woman and her embryo/fetus/baby two separate beings? Or, is the woman effectively removing a growth?
Doesn’t really contribute to the discussion, I don’t think. If it were a separate being then it could be removed, put in a growth chamber/incubator, and live on its own, albeit with some help.
Is abortion a medical procedure or the end of a life?
If we’re trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions, I don’t think debating this contributes to the solution.
When a woman voluntarily consents to having an invasive procedure (abortion), and a sonogram is part of making that procedure safer, why can’t a woman see those pictures?
Is it a necessary procedure? No. If a woman wanted to have the procedure and see the pictures, she could. If its not necessary then why are we even debating this. It’s not necessary, it’s more expensive, and it doesn’t (at least what I’ve read) reduce the number of abortions.
Where does it go from being a discussion about life to a discussion about Women’s reproductive health?
When a bunch of men are making the decisions that women should be making. Those ass holes in Congress really screwed things up as well. You can disagree, but at least include women in the conversation about their bodies and their health.
Why am I accused of being a Theocrat?
Do you really think religious freedom should enable the Catholic Church and any other religious organization to prevent providing birth control to its female population? Where do we draw the line? Should a religious organization not have to cover anesthesia if they don’t believe in it? When we start letting our personal religious belief influence the secular American government it gets tricky.
Why do we use extreme examples to justify extreme positions?
Because we don’t ever want to meet in the middle. We pander to our bases and they’re the extreme.
What if conservatives didn’t fight abortion and just let it happen? Would they become more rare?
Yes, if they ensured that every woman had sex ed and family planning classes and had access to birth control and other contraceptives.
Why is it wrong for men to be concerned about the life of a child? Why, in the eyes of some women, can the debate only involve women?
It’s not that it can’t involve men but it can’t exclude women which is what happened in Congress and certainly happens in the Catholic Church.
Why do people who don’t really know me accuse me of hateful things?
The abortion issue is always heated. Try eliminating abortion by advocating for women’s health, family planning, access to contraceptive, and sex ed. You’ll eventually eliminate abortion and make a lot of friends.
Does Bearing Drift make any difference at all or is this just a big waste of time?
Big waste of time. But I enjoy challenging my beliefs. I wish that the comments and some of the posters were more rational and less emotional; it would certainly elevate the conversation.
Should we go with Facebook comments so people no longer can comment anonymously?
Not my blog. I dont use Facebook so I don’t think I’d comment. You’d certainly elevate the level of discussion. There wouldd be less offensive and stupid comments.
Did Bob McDonnell choose self-interest over principle? Did he really think, as has been suggested, that his decision to amend the sonogram bill will help him become vice president?
I think that’s what I mentioned and was lambasted.
Why did the Republican Party of Virginia, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, and Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli not say one word this week on Personhood or the ultrasound bill?
Politics. They want to be re-elected and realize that the people in the middle and women (who make up most of the populace and voters) disagree with the Republicans on this issue.
Why are two bills getting all the attention when hundreds of other bills have gone through with little interest?
Men have been going after women. It was a breaking point.
Do SNL and Jon Stewart think abortion is a joke? Have they thought seriously about the above questions?
Jon Stewart is extremely intelligent. He went to W&M, you can probably find a conservative roommate of his to tell you he knows exactly what he’s talking about and doing.
Oh, and finally, why the hatred? Is there something else going on?
Remember the cling to guns and religion quote, was Obama that far off base?
Are we really so far apart between life and choice that there will only be hostility and anger?
NO! Everyone agrees we shouldn’t have any abortions but the methods of going about it couldn’t be farther apart. Abstinence is stupid and doesn’t work. Sex ed, family planning, contraception, social support and we’d have no one needing/wanting abortions.
This was not a civil debate – lines of passion were drawn and I think it affected the Senate budget vote. Are elected officials incapable of working together? How will this debate affect the future of Virginia debates and discussion?
Men shouldn’t tell what women to do, or what they can and cannot do. This is the 21st century, let’s quit being stupid and work together.
Unfortunately, I think the debate is being directed by the far, anti government right. Again, this is the 21st century filled with multinational corporations, 6 to 7 billion people, and limited resources. As soon as we quit living in imaginary 19th century land then progress can be made.
As a final note, preventing women who have been raped from having an abortion will turn off virtually all women to even listening to you, no matter what your opinions of other matter are.
The other thing I’d add is that if you’re going to be small government, be small government.
If you’re anti gay marriage and anti abortion then don’t claim to be small government. You can’t pick and chose your dose of small government.
And don’t demand to cut taxes and reduce the size of government but refuse to cut the defense budget. Don’t demand reduced spending but fight for increased spending in your state or district.
It drives me nuts watching interviews with people who think the govt is too big or does too much but then claim they couldn’t live without food stamps or Social Security.
From
“Virginia’s Ultrasound Bill; Governor Bob McDonnell’s Statement”
“James “turbo” Cohen February 23, 2012 08:55 am
TADA! Tim wins a cigar. Thank you sir.
Its simple. Lets end public funding for Planned Parenthood. If women want to screw around they can face the consequences at their own expense. I won’t ask them to pay for my mistakes.. and Obama won’t punish them with a baby.. oh, wait.”
Comments like that dont help either. Because women are screwing around, you know with other women? How is it that one gets pregnant anyways?
One gets pregnant when one is a female and is inseminated via voluntary or involuntary intercourse, surgical implant or turkey baster..
If you are trying to say something ToR, say it. I’ll say it. Women who are inseminated via voluntary intercourse and decide that they are being violated by an ultrasound before electing to have an abortion performed have less respect for human life than other women who choose the most effective birth control device there is.. Their brain.
Abstinence and virginity are cool. And the upside of abstinence is far fewer STD’s and cancers triggered by swapping body fluids with a DNA carrier or affected male. Its a woman right to voluntarily admit a man or multiple men into her personal recreational area, that is special no doubt. But, it carries a risk and penalty of sorts all too often when the law of unintended consequences is erected, no pun intended.
I am a strong proponent of teaching a basic genetics course in schools. Mandate it. Show kids how dna plays a huge role in their life. I spend a good deal of time researching dna profiles and genotype in my spare time in pursuit of healthier, smarter and longer lived golden retrievers. Any time we breed we have a plethora of genetic test results in hand. We also have a ton of tests regarding the damage to dna that may be due to age, exposure to viruses and more. If young girls knew just how much they put at risk to future offspring when they collect semen they might think twice before giving it up.
No apologies.
ToR has outlined one of the most comprehension sets of intelligent answers I have seen. Thanks ToR. You have restored my faith in humanity. Great answers. Please stop by moonhowlings.net. We need a little sanity there too.
~moon~
James “turbo” Cohen
You apparently don’t know much about young people. They are immortal, in their own minds. Having said that, think about how strong sex drive is in human beings.
Let’s go back in time 125 years. How many women died in childbirth or complications from childbirth? Yet they still had sex, knowing how many friend and relatives had died. I bet that very few of them just wanted to have a baby.
For the record, lots of people have sex for fun other than teenagers. Pregnancy usually results from males and females having sex, not just females, as your comments imply.
Its all fun and games until someone gets knocked up, Moon. Then there are three unless of course you do not consider an unborn baby to be human. I digress.
Human beings produce human beings. I believe the point we might disagree on has to do with stages of development rather than DNA make up.
I don’t believe a zygote has the same degree of sentience that you and I have. That’s the starting point for me, not the species.
Jews of nazi germany did not have a conscience either according to some. Thts off topic.
At whaat point after conception does human DNA = a human being? Ask god this question then aswer it to yourself. When you are done getting your answer, post it here.
James, sentience isn’t about just having a conscience. Check that one out a little more thoroughly.
Let’s all get on the same sheet of music. You are digressing. Human DNA doesn’t turn into something else. What on earth are you talking about?
We aren’t talking about some magic show here.
Moonhowler, Lets start at day 1 outside of the womb. At what point before the first day of life outside of the womb was the baby not human?
Better still, do human beings have the right to exist?
A simply yes or no will suffice.
Shaun,
A simple “no” unless you are unalterably opposed to the death penalty.
…and in the post on faith in the public square, you said you were a practicing Catholic? or a cafeteria Catholic?
You sound really conflicted there.
Of course, in an instance of say, self defense or where the death penalty must be applied to protect society (a condition that does not exist in the United States, to be sure), you’ve introduced qualifications into the argument.
The answer is, naturally, yes — human beings have the right to exist.
But I would like to know — since you seem so keen on equivocating here — specifically what offense the child in the womb has conducted that meets the standard of someone deserving the death penalty in the “no” category of “the right to exist”?
Sleep on it, MD.
Shaun,
I don’t need to sleep on it.
A child in the womb who is the product of violence, a child in the womb who has no viable life expentancy, or a child in the womb who threatens it’s mother’s life has no right to exist.
The child that is the product of violence gets the death sentence but the rapist will not. Interesting.
md, if an unwanted child is conceived, is the child or are the parents illegitimate?
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.