Obama Calls for Open Minds in Wife Beating Debate
BY: WC WINDBAG
Can you imagine? Probably not… nor could I. The idea of trying to find open minds on the violent beating of women would be considered preposterous, if not lunacy by our President, and his feminist supporters of NOW and NARAL. But when we hear our pro-choice friends call for “open minds” on abortion like this:
That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.”
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.” Those are things we can do.
…the media praises the call for a “civil tone“. But could you imagine this passage of the speech (or any passage from it) that replaced the topic of abortion with domestic abuse? Let’s see what Bizzarobama might say:
That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on
abortiondomestic abuse, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for anywomanhusband is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.”So let us work together to reduce the number of
women seeking abortionsspousal punishments, let’s reduce unintendedpregnanciesdomestic disagreements. Let’s makeadoptionoutlets for aggression more available. Let’s provide care and support forwomenhusbands who docarry their children to termnot break out in a violent rage. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree withabortiondomestic abuse, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of ourhealth carelaw enforcement policies are grounded not only in soundsciencelegal theories, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.” Those are things we can do.
Huh? It makes little sense to me that there is any middle ground. Is this not the type of discussion that we have with some in the Muslim community about honor killings and women’s rights? Is it not as ridiculous sounding here as it is there? The correct answer is that you lock up the bastards who beat their wives in prison. General Sir Charles Napier did not have a problem with these politically correct nuances:
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
The idea that there is a middle ground for extinguishing a human life is about as off-base as the Indian practice of suttee was to Napier. It is either immoral or it is not. Compromise can only be a short term solution, as saving one life is better than saving none. Ultimately, banning this barbaric practice will come only when humanity evolves further. Yes, I said it… those of you who favor abortion rights support a barbaric practice.
I’ll wrap this up with the immortal words of Susan B. Anthony:
“No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death…”
Instead of calling for open minds, let’s instead call for the saving of some souls.
- Open Thread - August 12th, 2010
- Fun Video of the Day - July 22nd, 2010
- Jimmy Buffet Channeling His Inner Obama - July 9th, 2010
- Shocking Poll of Elites: W One of the Worst Presidents Evah - July 2nd, 2010
- Funny Video of the Day - June 25th, 2010
While the analogy presented here is flawed, the argument presented here illustrates the huge divide in the debate over abortion rights.
If abortion were outlawed today across all of North America, whose life would we be killing? Women would go to illegal clinics (such as those prevalent right up to the 60’s) where a woman’s life is literally in danger. Many women died in such clinics.
This begs the question of whose life. Whose life is more important to you?
The question of abortion rights, or choice, centers on whether life begins at conception or when it is a viable independent entity. Historically, religion has never treated life as beginning at conception. It is only recently that we have this concept. Strangely, the bible is silent on this issue (raising questions as to why).
If we get past life begins at conception and agree that we don’t want a woman to abort past the first trimester, then I think we can have a very constructive and civil dialog. It would be to help women allow adoption (in and of itself very damaging to the woman), or to carry to term.
By help, I mean financial help, which gets into the question of welfare and access to free medical care. Those were the goals of the 60’s, lofty and controversial, but socially well intentioned. It proposed then what many religious groups would today consider religious social values.
Row V Wade is not centered on when conception occurs. It is centered around privacy as defined in the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment. Does a person have a right to make decisions around privacy? Do they have a right to chose their method of birth control? Can the government interfere on issues of how a human body is used?
Interesting questions. You know where I side on this. Obama wants a debate that includes many help provisions and that are of interest to many Christians and Jews. Of course, it may not be a bridge to people who believe that life begins at conception.
Hi Mike… thank you for the thoughtful reply, even though I disagree with much of what you said. I will try to respond to the points where we have both conflict and agreement…
I would say there is very little opportunity for a perfect analogy, but I think mine is pretty close. First, a wife beater devalues the role or life of his wife and minimizes her humanity… sometimes seeing her as his property or responsibility. Second, the wife beater sees himself as a wise enough to know when he can dispel punishment beyond what others would think. Third, the wife beater sees this as a private matter and does not feel he is doing anything wrong. Those pretty much sum up why abortion rights people feel abortion is OK. They do not see the fetus as human, they feel they are wise enough the make this decision independently, and they see it as a private matter.
I also agree with you that there is a huge divide in the debate regarding fundamental issues. Pro-life argues about the life of the child… Pro-Choice ignores that and instead argues about independence and liberty.
You are totally right… if abortion was outlawed today, tomorrow women (and men) would have to go (and take women) to illegal clinics. Fortunately, that is a straw man argument because there is no way that abortion would ever be declared illegal overnight. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, the result would be for the decision to (rightfully by our Constitution) return to the States. Each State would make its own decision. There is little doubt where New York, Illinois, California, and 30-35 other states would go. I would not even be surprised if ~45 states decided to be pro-choice. Would this make it harder on women in Mississippi who wanted an abortion? Probably… but it would be the first step in the right directions. Like the wife beater, we don’t always get what we want.
I value both lives the same. I don’t see either of them being more important. On the other hand, pro-choice people see the woman’s life as significantly more important. I think we can agree on this. Most pro-lifers would agree with me on this. There might be some that say that the baby has no sin, and the mother is attempting murder, so therefore the baby’s life is more valuable. I would find that opinion significantly in the minority. Most pro-lifers are religious (many are not, such as Christopher Hitchens, for a famous example) and therefore believe in forgiveness of sins.
Science can easily prove that life (human life) begins at conception. The fetus, even at its earliest stages are cells which are alive. It would pass any scientific test or scrutiny. It is a life that is also independent and unique from its mother, since its DNA is made up of both the mother and the father. Unique and alive… of that there is no scientific doubt.
This is a falsehood that has been perpetuated for years, most recently by Nancy Pelosi misrepresenting the positions and history of her own church. Pelosi should have better information before speaking publicly as she has a staff. I will be clear on this Mike… I don’t think you are lying, I just don’t think you know all the information. You and I are having a discussion.
The infant Catholic Church always spoke of abortion as a sin. The BIble spoke to it as well. I think the idea of abortion as we know it today would never have been conceived in Jesus’ time, let alone the time of Abraham Lincoln. Science has made the procedure so routine, that it is accepted as a process as clean and acceptable (to some) as an appendectomy.
I think the Bible is only silent on the term abortion, but it also does not dwell on it. There are plenty of discussions when it said life begins (“in the womb”) and even Exodus calls it a crime (murder) for someone independent from the mother killing a child in the womb. Like I said above, I don’t think those writing the Bible would have anticipated our modern dilemma and wrote for it, nor did they write about how it was sinful to cook up ones neighbor in a pot with a mix of tasty vegetables.
This is not something to get past. This is a fundamental believe. This would be like saying Al Gore “If we can get past all this belief that the planet is warming, then we can have a real discussion on how to clean up pollution.” Gore is true believer in Global Warming, and Pro-Lifers are true believers that life begins at conception… and what I mean by “begins at conception” here is not only the independent human life (which is scientifically is impossible to disprove), but also the human soul… which is where I think most Pro-Choicers have differences in opinion.
You will find no one who will provide more financial help to women who decide against abortion than certain Pro-Life groups. The Church is also a place where financial and moral support is always available. Unfortunately, it may not meet the definition of “necessary” for some, because charity by its very nature is more of a minimal support and not luxury. It would require sacrifice from the woman, and this is not often accepted. My anti-government spending position is not anti-charity. I think the government needs to get out of the charity business and let the non-profit sector take care of this. But like I said, a poor woman with no support who is looking for help from charity will likely not get a 5-star medical program, but would have to take some sacrifice.
This is a very interesting discussion that could take up this much room all on its own. Safe to say, I do not see privacy being part of the Constitution nor the 14th Amendment. Nor did the framers of that Amendment ever intend for Abortion to be part of it. Here is the complete text of that Amendment. The purpose of this Amendment was to make African Americans, some newly freed by the 13th Amendment, equal citizens of the United States. Congress was in no way trying to make abortions private.
I would be one to take success in reducing abortions the right way, but I do not think there is any way to get away from the question that life begins at conception, whether you mean actual independent life or a human soul.
I also agree, this is a very interesting discussion.
I feel compelled to enter this debate, although Windbag covered most of the salient points.
As a parent of two adopted children, I can say that I am glad that those women chose life – the ultimate choice. While there is incredible pain associated with giving up a child for adoption, how much pain is associated with the elimination of that child, fetus or whatever you want to call it? There is even a term associated with this regret called Post-Abortion Syndrome. A common misconception is that when the procedure is done – it is done.
As far as financial help, there are tremendous resources already afforded by the government to assist in all medical care. Both of my childs birthparents utilized this assistance and paid for nothing (financially). As far as financial help, many birthmothers can ask – and receive – financial assistance from the potential adoptive parent. The question is do they want to carry the child to term. Believe me, there are plenty of potential adoptive parents out there and not enough babies to go around. Strange but true.
Taking this back to the states is the most logical end. This is a states rights issue that should have never been regulated from the bench. Put it to a vote in each state.
Those comments in my original response were meant to think about what creative steps everyone could take to reduce abortions. No one expects abortions to be abolished overnight, but at some point that would be the end effect if laws were overturned.
The net effect would mean that governments would have to ramp up financial support for the mother and child. Pro-Life clinics can only do so much. They would not be able to scale to handle millions of people.
Therefore, while your statement is true, it is also somewhat off point. It all centers on whether you are prepared financially for such an outcome.
(Exodus 21:22-23) “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.”
I am not picking and choosing here. You have to take every thought in the bible, so clearly it is not murder.
That said, I don’t think anyone wants to abort life after a certain point in the womb. To sustain this it requires a strong medical care, family support, and where necessary financial support.
You are right that the bible never spoke of abortion… and I worded the reasoning in above passage poorly, and never meant to imply that abortion was mentioned in the bible. What I meant to say was that the Bible valued the unborn… not that it spoke of the procedure known as abortion. Your passage shows that through the penalties owed as a result of the murder. Many passages speak to life beginning in the womb and not upon birth. In addition, omission of its definition is not the same as “clearly not murder”.
The question is, when does it become immoral to perform the fetus destroying act? Is it right after conception as I believe, or at 12 weeks? How about 9 weeks, or 15 weeks? How do we draw a line? What is the reasoning? If it is repugnant at one point, and not at another, what is the relevant differences that makes the decision less offensive? I can not fathom what is different at 12 weeks minus one day and 12 weeks plus one day with the one trimester. From the other angle, why does a woman have the “right to choose” on one day, but not on the next?
I would say that we are having a civil conversation on abortion.
We agree that as a society we both would want fewer abortions; and that abortions should not be casual birth control. We both know that abortions take an emotional as well as a physical toll.
Taking your example further, would abortion be allowed if (a) the woman’s life was in danger?, (b) the child’s life was in danger, or (c) the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest? I am sure you would allow for all of these exceptions.
You have tried to draw a woman’s right to choose in the most stark terms. Why the right today, but not the right tomorrow.
I would say that the following principles answers all of your questions: There is a point at which the fetus becomes sufficiently developed to be able to survive on its own.
This occurs sometime towards the end of the second trimester. Science speaks of chances of survival. At the end of the second trimester, chance of survival are 85%.
Given your example, I would hate to see an America where a child who made a mistake in Jackson, Ms is made to stay home while a child in Boston gets to go to college – both because they got pregnant and only one had the right to choose. In my America all young girls have the right to make their own choices based on their own conscience – and everyone has the same access to opportunity.
The life begins at conception is not supported by medical practice, not supported in the Bible, is not practical in a world where there can be illegal clinics, is not supported (according to you, in 45 of the 50 states), and is not supported by the US Constitution.
The US Constitution is clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What we can do is make the decisions to keep the child easier. This is something both sides of the debate can agree upon, have a civil discussion about, and help shape legislation to make it happen.
Agreed! And I would add not only fewer, but close to zero abortions as possible, because I think we both would agree that abortions are not a good thing. It is an ugly choice either way, whether you support choice or not.
I will take each point separate. (a) No individual should be required to sacrifice their own life for another. Soldiers do it out of duty and honor, and sometimes under orders because that is their job. Firefighters and police officers are the same. This is a moral issue. If a woman’s life is in danger, she should have the right to self preservation.
But I would add this argument is a strawman, as the life of the mother is rarely in danger. An early term abortion (with rare exception) is almost always optional and voluntary. In a late term abortion where a risk is more common, a medical option is often available to save both the child and mother, with obvious greater risk to the child who will be removed prematurely. Is this option sometimes not available and a mother makes a choice one way or another… sure. I am sure that happens, but it is rarer than rare.
As for (b), if the child’s life is in danger, the medical option would be to save the child. I can not imagine a doctor saying, “your baby’s life is in danger” and the mother saying “oh, we must abort.” More likely, they would try to save the baby, but if it died, they would do a D&C.
I think we would disagree ultimately on (c). Although I sympathize with the victim of either crime (and for incest, I assume you are assume a minor, which then is also statutory rape), I can not help but think that two wrongs do not make a right. The child conceived from that horrid act is not a tumor or faulty appendix, it is a unique and independent individual, with unique DNA. It is a human being. By extinguishing the life of that child, one does not erase the rape or incest. It just ends another life. Maybe that helps some people move on, but I think not. The crime will affect most women long after the abortion, and many will live to regret the act.
Are we there in our society today where you could tell a rape victim that they had to carry a child to term because it would be immoral to kill the fetus? Absolutely not. The culture is clearly in favor of “choice” in these situations. I can only hope that someday that victims of crimes can look at situations like this and at best see an opportunity to have closure in a different way, and at worst see that abortion is not the right solution.
I actually do not think that would practically work. I am more of the mindset that there is a clear moral and ethical line, but not a clear line on legal and public opinion. I would rather reduce abortions than wait for the day when there are none. Each life saved is precious. The moral high ground means nothing if the low ground is littered with dead bodies.
I would say that would be one good legal argument to define the beginning of life, and there would be many more. Another good legal argument on when life begins is when do brain waves begin? How about when is there a heart beat? Another one, and my favorite, is when is the DNA of the fetus is separate and distinct from the host organism?
But I think that your argument is a weak morally. As I stated in my last response, what is the difference in a day? Why would the last day of the first trimester and the first day of the second trimester become such a solid line? I would argue the fetus is a baby on either side of the line. Do we not value individuals in their lives? Why would we cut off an entire class by one day? Should we not always err on the side of life? If there is a chance that this sack of goo or early formation of a human body (or soul) be potentially “human”, should we not give it all benefit of the doubt? Why take the moral chance that we are wrong?
I know it is not your intention to insult, and I have not taken it that way, but I would say that many could take your example in such a manner. Someone missing college over the birth of a child is hardly on par. I value both of my children more than my degrees, as I know my wife does. Although they have been a “pain” many times, I have never thought to myself that they have held me back from some great opportunity in life. All pales in comparison to their existence. They live, breathe, make people laugh and smile, and give the best hugs one could ever imagine. I can not imagine trading a degree for them. I know some who suffer and cry each year from the pain of their teen abortion. It is not worth it, they say, as they saw children on playgrounds who would have been the same age as their child. They suffer more than I can imagine.
I also can not help by inject that most of these people who elect to have an optional abortion made a choice to have relations with the child’s other biological parent. There are significantly less victims of crimes, and even less Virgin Mary’s in the world. Choices are made with the full knowledge that putting that in there could open up the possibility of a baby coming out of there 9 months later. It is a myth that people do not have the same opportunities of choice… whether they understand how they will feel later is another story.
Life begins at conception because science says it does. Whether medical practice recognizes this or whether the Bible understood the science behind it 2000-3000 years ago is irrelevant. We have better knowledge of when life begins now than we did when the Good Book was written. Churches did not close their doors when we found out that the world was round, nor did they when we discovered proof of an evolving planet and life. Medical practice should take lessons from the church. When you learn more, you can adapt. Now that we know that sperm + egg = distinct individual at conception, we should call it what it is. With that knowledge, we as a society can choose to say that this life is more valuable than that life, but then we get into some further ethical questions. No one wishes to acknowledge that life begins when it does, because it would make the decision to abort that much harder, and insulting to those who do it. Using clinical terms like “fetus” and “procedure” are so much easier than saying “do you wish to end the life of the baby growing inside of you?” No one would go to the doctor who would say this.
Back to the Bible, there is several places in the Bible where life in the womb is considered sacred and precious. The fact that there is no passage regarding the practice is irrelevant. Life is considered precious by the Bible, and children in the womb are acknowledged as such.
As I said above, the fact that most of the states would keep abortion legal is no reason to maintain bad law (Roe v. Wade). Pro-life can only work if we can win the culture war, but it is being lost badly against a much more slick, and individual-centric society. I can only hope that some day that we will turn the tide, but I don’t think we will in my life time.
Which raises these questions from my heart and off the cuff… why do we want to reduce abortions at all if there is no moral or ethical issues involved? Why is it a bad thing? If we can define why it is bad to have an abortion, we can say why it should not be done.
I agree that that Amendment is clear. It was also never intended to give anyone privacy, or rights to abortions. The 14th Amendment was adopted to give free blacks and recently freed slaves the same rights under the Constitution as whites and others. It is easily extended to other groups such as Hispanics, Asians, and Eastern Europeans because they too had their Constitutional rights violated. I will go out on a limb as say that there was no one in the Congress that drafted and enacted this law, as well as any State that ratified it that could claim they were doing it so women would have rights to abortions. You may claim it was an unintended but potentially anticipated possibility, but that would be a huge stretch, at best.
Perfect way to end… as I agree with that wholeheartedly.
The 14th Amendment altered forever the relationship between the States and the Fed Gov’t. It was the intent of the Fed Gov to make protections available to those in NY apply to those in CA, or anywhere in the Southern States. It was the assertion of Union.
Many conservatives feel that there are States Rights – and there are. But they don’t fully appreciate the extent to which the 14th Amendment altered the basic constitutional relationship between States. Further, I would argue that the 14th should stand as a significant piece of legislation: it was about people and their rights, ratified by 2/3 of the constituent assemblies.
In our discussion thread you singled Mississippi as a state that, given the opportunity, might repeal the right to an abortion. My example was to demonstrate the effect that might have on its residents.
Two 17 year olds, their futures before them, should have the same opportunity to go to college and become self sustaining. Both need the same laws, the same rules, the same opportunities, regardless of where they live. – Boston or Jackson.
Morality is not defined as life begins at conception. It is not an immoral life to have an abortion. If your daughter were to define life as beginning at conception and choose to live her life that way, she would not be any more moral than someone who defined life in more medical terms, such as life begins later, such as when it can be self-sustaining.
We don’t need the Bible to tell us that life begins in the womb, just ask a doctor. But the Bible is also clear that it does not begin at the moment of conception. It is, in fact, very consistent with the medical view of life beginning sometime after conception. From the point of view of the Jewish tribes that wrote the Bible to describe their world, life probably was defined when a fetus was visible: either a woman “showing” or a fetus of a certain size.
You can change the perceptions around the “individual centric” society without enforcing a life begins at conception idea that is not supported by medical practice, not supported in the Bible, is not practical in a world where there can be illegal clinics, is not supported (according to you, in 45 of the 50 states), and is not supported by the US Constitution.
You can have a reasonable argument about abortion after all.
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 26 months, 0 weeks, 3 days, 0 hours, 37 minutes, 38 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags