Babies shouldn't be having babies
Backers of the abortion parental notficiation initiative have been successful in gathering the requisite number of signatures needed to qualify for this November's election. This fall, Oregonians will vote on whether a young girl would be foreced to share medical information with a possible hostile family environment. Unsurprisingly, Dave's latest column emotionally manipulates personal tragedy and hardship to make the case for creating another barrier to legal, lawful abortion.
Look, I'm fine with Dave using his alloted editorial page space to discuss various efforts to outlaw abortion. He's a conservative, and abortion is the conservative's pet rallying issue. (If there were no abortions being committed, how could conservatives possibly get elected?) Now that it's on the ballot, the volume of the discussion on the parental notification initiative will get ratcheted past 11 as state and national conservative groups go overboard and bombard Oregon's voters with propaganda and rhetoric to turn out conservative voters in hopes of electing conservative candidates. But so what. There's one iniative like that on every ballot. (Measure 36, anyone?)
Dave taking a stand for parental notification is hardly a brave stand. It was to be expected. And I'm sure if you were to ask Dave why he opposed abortion, his reply would invariably include the phrase "pro-life." But, I don't know, I kind of wish Dave would be a little more, you know, consistent. I mean, given his most recent editorials that were barely nothing more than cheerleading rah-rah pieces encouraging the death and destruction Israel is reigning upon Lebanon, it's quite clear that Dave supports an ideology of militarized, efficient murder. And that negates any claims he would have of being "pro-life."
And what of this parental notification bill? Isn't it odd that the decision-making process of perhaps the one most major medical procedure a patient may undertake can't be undertaken by a patient and their doctor? Doctors are sworn to a vow of secrecy, but if this bill is passed, would be forced to share incredibly private information with a third-party. Wouldn't this crack in the wall of doctor-patient privilege eventually lead, through whatever psuedo-populist rhetoric championed by the conservative cause at the time, to the eventual dissolution of said priviledge? Until the day comes that everyone's entire medical history is available on some easily-accessible database?
Let's take a moment and consider some of the language Dave uses in this column. He says that the bill "would allow exceptions when notification wouldn't be in the best interest: the small number of young girls who are or may become vicitms of fmily abuse. (Italics mine.)" Who would make this distinction? Would the simple act of sharing this information potentially turn a stable, healthy family environemnt into a dangerous, hostile one? And besides, if you give the anti-abortion crowd an inch, they'll take a mile. South Dakota passed a parental notification law that included all sorts of exceptions. That led to the eventual passage of their draconian anti-abortion law passed year, in which exceptions weren't even allowed for rape or incest.
Do you see why passage of this bill could be dangerous to women's future rights for reproductive choice in Oregon?
Proponents of this bill say that it's unfathomable that girls should be haved to face this decision-making process alone. I agree, to a degree. However, it's also unfathomable that girls get raped by their father or stepfather. It's unfathomable that the same supporters of this initiative rail against the teaching of birth control in our public scools- which would be the most sure-fire way of limiting the number of unplanned preganancies. (Something, naturally, that Dave doesn't mention in his column.) And its also unfathomable to consider that, if this bill passes, some girls would be in such a desperate situation that they would have to resort to illegal back-alley abortions, in which no parental notification would occur. Unless, of course, the girl were to die during the procedure.
I oppose this inititiatve as it involves placing limits on individual's abilities to make decisions regarding their freedom and indiivudal liberty. Babies shouldn't be having babies- is anyone really going to argue against that? And don't give me any crap about "fetus rights" either. As long as fetuses are attached to the mother, than that is all that they are- clumps of tissue attached to a host.
Certainly the numbers of abortions should be reduced, but placing a number of limits on a woman's ability to receive a legal, lawful, and safe abortion is going to reduce the need or numbers any. In the end, a committed effort to public education and family planning that is conducted in an unpatrionizing manner which encourages healthy relationship-building (both with potential partners as well as family members) would be the best steps to take to limit the number of abortions being sought. And let's not forget, if abortion were ever to be completely banned in this country, nothing would stop rich women or wealthy duaghters from traveling abroad to get one if they wanted.
For poor girls unwilling to share such medical conerns with a dangerous family environemnt, the only option available would be the back alley.
Look, I'm fine with Dave using his alloted editorial page space to discuss various efforts to outlaw abortion. He's a conservative, and abortion is the conservative's pet rallying issue. (If there were no abortions being committed, how could conservatives possibly get elected?) Now that it's on the ballot, the volume of the discussion on the parental notification initiative will get ratcheted past 11 as state and national conservative groups go overboard and bombard Oregon's voters with propaganda and rhetoric to turn out conservative voters in hopes of electing conservative candidates. But so what. There's one iniative like that on every ballot. (Measure 36, anyone?)
Dave taking a stand for parental notification is hardly a brave stand. It was to be expected. And I'm sure if you were to ask Dave why he opposed abortion, his reply would invariably include the phrase "pro-life." But, I don't know, I kind of wish Dave would be a little more, you know, consistent. I mean, given his most recent editorials that were barely nothing more than cheerleading rah-rah pieces encouraging the death and destruction Israel is reigning upon Lebanon, it's quite clear that Dave supports an ideology of militarized, efficient murder. And that negates any claims he would have of being "pro-life."
And what of this parental notification bill? Isn't it odd that the decision-making process of perhaps the one most major medical procedure a patient may undertake can't be undertaken by a patient and their doctor? Doctors are sworn to a vow of secrecy, but if this bill is passed, would be forced to share incredibly private information with a third-party. Wouldn't this crack in the wall of doctor-patient privilege eventually lead, through whatever psuedo-populist rhetoric championed by the conservative cause at the time, to the eventual dissolution of said priviledge? Until the day comes that everyone's entire medical history is available on some easily-accessible database?
Let's take a moment and consider some of the language Dave uses in this column. He says that the bill "would allow exceptions when notification wouldn't be in the best interest: the small number of young girls who are or may become vicitms of fmily abuse. (Italics mine.)" Who would make this distinction? Would the simple act of sharing this information potentially turn a stable, healthy family environemnt into a dangerous, hostile one? And besides, if you give the anti-abortion crowd an inch, they'll take a mile. South Dakota passed a parental notification law that included all sorts of exceptions. That led to the eventual passage of their draconian anti-abortion law passed year, in which exceptions weren't even allowed for rape or incest.
Do you see why passage of this bill could be dangerous to women's future rights for reproductive choice in Oregon?
Proponents of this bill say that it's unfathomable that girls should be haved to face this decision-making process alone. I agree, to a degree. However, it's also unfathomable that girls get raped by their father or stepfather. It's unfathomable that the same supporters of this initiative rail against the teaching of birth control in our public scools- which would be the most sure-fire way of limiting the number of unplanned preganancies. (Something, naturally, that Dave doesn't mention in his column.) And its also unfathomable to consider that, if this bill passes, some girls would be in such a desperate situation that they would have to resort to illegal back-alley abortions, in which no parental notification would occur. Unless, of course, the girl were to die during the procedure.
I oppose this inititiatve as it involves placing limits on individual's abilities to make decisions regarding their freedom and indiivudal liberty. Babies shouldn't be having babies- is anyone really going to argue against that? And don't give me any crap about "fetus rights" either. As long as fetuses are attached to the mother, than that is all that they are- clumps of tissue attached to a host.
Certainly the numbers of abortions should be reduced, but placing a number of limits on a woman's ability to receive a legal, lawful, and safe abortion is going to reduce the need or numbers any. In the end, a committed effort to public education and family planning that is conducted in an unpatrionizing manner which encourages healthy relationship-building (both with potential partners as well as family members) would be the best steps to take to limit the number of abortions being sought. And let's not forget, if abortion were ever to be completely banned in this country, nothing would stop rich women or wealthy duaghters from traveling abroad to get one if they wanted.
For poor girls unwilling to share such medical conerns with a dangerous family environemnt, the only option available would be the back alley.
posted by true_slicky at 5:55 PM
6 Comments:
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm from Australia and we don't have to deal with any parent notification bills. In fact, this is the first I've heard about it. The idea is disgusting however. Sometimes I feel I have to walk away from the abortion debate because it invariably makes me want to bang my head against a brick wall. It especially aggravates me to hear about conservative male columnists using their space to infringe on female reproductive rights.
And I completely agree about fetuses being parasites to the host. If everyone could seperate their emotions, they could see that scientifically speaking this is the truth.
It seems like 'Dave' has the unfortunate conservative belief that killing babies is murder, but killing innocent civilians who are 'against freedom' (like that even means anything) and are invariably brown skinned and muslim is not murder. It makes you wonder how he feels about muslim abortions...
You may be interested in a piece I wrote recently about my own abortion. You can find it here. It discusses a lot of these ideas of parasite versus life etc and is unapologetic or racked with guilt. I sometimes feel that women think they need to act guilty about having an abortion - like you hear all this talk all the time of, "Oh it was the hardest decision I've ever had to make," and "I still wonder if I did the right thing." Obviously this is true in some cases, but I wish sometimes that more women would say what they doubtless think: "It was the best decision I could have made and I'm glad I did it."
Anyway, liked your post.
Of course, what you forget is that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds (or whatever that old Emerson phrase says) and we all know that Dave does not have a small mind.
BTW check this out: http://mandatemedia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/malachreinhard_1.jpg
L - Normally I would ignore such blatant ignorance as yours, but I would hate for you to think that you'd upset me somehow or made me regret my choice and indeed my entire belief system.
Firstly, babies are parasites. Sorry, but it is scientifically so. Until they are born, they feed off the mother and rely on her to ensure their growth.
Secondly, to label caring about babies a 'basic human right' is an insult to the concept of actual human rights. It is a human right to have a child should one want one. It is not a human right to care about one - that is an expected responsibilty. Learn the difference before you label people 'inhuman'. I am neither a psychopath nor a murderer and I would bet a gazillion dollars that your argument wouldn't hold up in any court of law.
Thirdly, my abortion was my decision and was right for me. I have no guilt over the matter. I am a healthy minded person and I don't want to have a baby right now. Deal with it.
Fourthly, I am surprised you term this woman a friend considering you clearly have no respect for her whatsoever. Further, it wasn't selfish of her to abort her baby. It's perhaps selfish of her not to move out of her parents' home and find a job, but that's a different matter entirely. I actually think it's selfish of you to foist your archaic and narrowminded belief system on someone who clearly needs an actual friend right now. To say that children make people better people is ridiculous. Basic human decency and the desire to do good makes people better people.
Fifthly, I couldn't have put a baby up for adoption because I would never carry to full term a baby I didn't want. I am not prepared to hand over my body to something that I don't want in it and that makes me feel sick even if it is just for a 'lousy 9 months'. Sorry, but I actually don't believe it IS a woman's role to simply procreate.
Finally, "you did give it up to a bloke who got you pregnant and allowed you to abort his offspring. Ironic."
There's just so many things ridiculously ignorant about that last statement I don't know where to start. I don't 'give up' my body to anyone. I share a loving and respectful sexual relationship with my partner. He didn't 'get me' pregnant. We fell pregnant despite our best efforts not to. He certainly didn't 'allow me' to abort 'his' offspring. I made the decision and he supported it. My body, my choice.
What's ironic is that you seem to be under the impression that labelling me an inhuman, pschopathic, selfish monster will actually make me feel bad about what I've done. Sorry, but this soul remains entirely guilt free.
Like I said, deal with it, but don't ever insult me like that again you small minded, ignorant, conservative harpy.
"I" wrote about her friend who aborted a child and is now "loony" and "bleeding off her parents" and "living in her garage." How in the world does "I" think that her friend would be a good parent? How does she think that a child would have "made her a better person"??? It sounds like this individual was in no way ready for the responsibilities of partenting and quite possibly made the responsible decision to abort and not attempt to have a child that she was incapable of raising.
Certainly adoption would have been another option, but I have to seriously question the intelligence and wisdom of "I" in thinking that somehow putting a child in the care of someone incabable of caring for themselves is a good idea.
I just had a long-winded argument with this guy, who, until today, I had no idea who the heck he was.
Boy, talk about an idiot. It's all I can say. I am completely at a loss as to why this guy has a paycheck from the Oregonian. It's like the newspaper has their very own Bill O'Reilly wannabe. (Ugh!)
Thank you for writing this blog. I thought my head was going to explode until I read your post this afternoon.
If you are curious about what the discussion was about, I'd be happy to forward you my emails from him. Basically, I was responding to his write-up today in the Oregonian about how the torture at Gitmo is just a "myth".
Abortion is an individual decision, for a woman to make. And peronsally, I cannot understand how so many who are anti-abortion....for whatever reason...one the one hand say "your killing babies" but at the same time these are often the same people who: Support unjustifible warfare against innocent people, believe in the death penalty (and that IS murder no matter how you slice it)....How can you argue "the sanctity of life" on one hand...and end one on the other...I personally support abortion rights for one main reason....I have had a family member, my grandmother DIE IN CHILDBIRTH...and if not having an abortion is going to cause a woman to die...give her to treatment to SAVE HER LIFE. After all...if the mother dies...are you going to raise the child (I doubt it...few people in this country are willing to adopt American children...they'd rather "buy a baby" from Russia, Latin America, or some other foreign country than except the hassles and responsibility that comes with an adoption (and I know what I am talking about, my mother is adopted).
Post a Comment
<< Home