In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Why the Life of the Mother is Not a Valid Exception for Abortion

Jill

Working title: Die, sluts.

This one is really unbelievable.

It is because of this truth that we embrace the spirit of R.M.S. Titanic commander E.J. Smith who proclaimed “women and children first” as the great ship went to its demise. A man worth his salt will not try to evaluate the value of his life in comparison to that of his wife or children. He will simply die for his loved ones. He will play the part of the man and willingly sacrifice his life for those dependent on him. He will give up his seat on the lifeboat for them; he will face death and make any sacrifice for those that God has placed under his protection. Just as every man should know that it is his duty to die for his wife and children, every wife should know that that it is her duty to sacrifice for the child she has nurtured in her womb. Sacrifice is implicit to the Christian definition of mother.

Could they be any more clear? The anti-choice position does not care about women. They do not consider fetuses to be equal to born human beings — they consider fetal rights to trump the very right to life of adult women.

To conclude, mothers should never kill their babies. There are no exceptions. The Bible condemns abortion and offers no exceptions to this rule. Abortion is not even biblically permissible in so-called “life of the mother” cases. As with all ethical decisions, our approach to the question of “abortion for the life of the mother” must be dictated by Scripture alone. We are not to look to situation ethics, the advice of the medical community, personal opinion, or even “common sense” to help us make life-and-death decisions concerning our unborn children. Nor may a Christian look to their emotions, to human traditions, to majority consensus, to their personal experience, or to a private revelation from God as the basis for their decision-making. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof and for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly equipped unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This is the only source of wisdom for our ethical decisions.

Ha. I hate it when those pro-choice devils try and trick me with “common sense,” too.

The article is so ridiculous I can’t even pick it apart properly. Really, you have to read the whole thing for yourself. Best of luck to ya.

60 thoughts on Why the Life of the Mother is Not a Valid Exception for Abortion

  1. The Bible condemns abortion and offers no exceptions to this rule.

    I’d love to see the chapter and verse on this one.

    Because for centuries, the prohibition was against abortion prior to quickening. And Jewish law considers a mother’s duty to her existing children to trump that of her unborn child, so that if continuing a pregnancy will deprive her already-born children of a mother, she is obligated to abort the fetus.

  2. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof and for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly equipped unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

    Using scripture to justify using scripture? This reeks of ‘clueless’ to me.

  3. Um. actually the only reference to abortion I recall in the Bible advocated it if it was proven the woman was an adulterer and the child was the product of adultery.

  4. The Bible condemns abortion and offers no exceptions to this rule.

    Yeah, it’s in that commandment, you know.

    Thou shalt not abort the fetus of thy unborn child under any circumstances, in the event that this medical procedure becomes possible.

  7. My understanding is that Doug Phillips went to William and Mary for his undergraduate degree and then the George Mason University School of Law. His father is Howard Phillips, who is a well known far-right political type.

    The Vision Forum site is a fascinating but disturbing look at the world view of very extreme “dominionists.” They believe that women should be under the headship of either father or husband throughout life, and that courtship and marriage should only occur with the father’s approval. There are some articles on the site that suggest that women should not have the right to vote (or at least that women’s right to vote is unnecessary) and that women should be accompanied by men for their own protection.

  8. The thing I find interesting about them is that their ideas are on the extreme fringe, but, unlike Phelps, Phillips is actually able to present and market himself and his organization in an articulate way.

  10. Good luck saving tubal pregnancies by just letting the mothers die.

    I can think of situations where you can save both lives by delivering early, and I can think of situations where you can save the mother’s life by removing the pregnancy, but I’m having real trouble seeing where it’s even possible to save babies by letting pregnant women die.

  11. Um, Titanic sank in 1912, and that’s the last time men en masse had to die for the wimmenfolk—er, excuse me, the upper class wimmenfolk, that is. Half the women and children in steerage died. Furthermore, men outnumbered women three to one on that boat, so there’s no excuse that any woman should have died. But anyhoo, if women are supposed to give their all for their fetii, doesn’t that mean that men are supposed to give their all to women? No more fights about no sex, no more wrangling over support—every child is sacred, you know!

  12. Wow, this guy is even more extreme than the Vatican, which does have a life-of-mother exception.

    Really though, what’s scary is that guys who write stuff like this are husbands and fathers themselves. What woman wants to be married to a man who not only wants her to give birth all the time whether she wants to or not, but could care less if she dies doing so? Do their wives have any self-respect?

  13. Why do we shudder at reports of ancient pagan parents who threw their children into the flames or put them to the knife to appease a heathen god? We shudder and cringe because the parent-child relationship is the most sacred, the most inviolable, and the most foundational to life and civilization.

    Wait, isn’t the entire basis of Christianity that God killed his kid so the rest of us could be saved?

    The Bible gives no authority for a parent to ever take the life of an unborn child. Scripture does give three valid bases for taking the life of another, none of which can even remotely be construed as a justification for “abortion for the life of the mother.” Man may take another’s life in the case of just warfare; man may take another’s life when acting on behalf of the civil magistrate to execute a person guilty of a capital crime; or man may take another’s life as an act of self-defense, or in defense of others where there is a significant and immediate threat to life best remedied with a lethal response.

    Don’t forget when a son is stubborn and rebellious. Then you can stone him.

    And don’t forget that time Dinah was raped, and Abraham’s great grandsons killed everyone in the rapist’s town after tricking them into getting circumcised. The best part was when God saved them from retribution from other towns.

    God alone knows the future because He planned it and superintends every micro detail

    Guess he planned all those abortions, then. Who are you to question God’s divine micromanagement?

    Concerning abortion as a form of self-defense, the Bible teaches that such killing is only valid as an act of self-defense against a wrongful party. Wrong requires intent.

    What?! Doesn’t this contradict the above, where all that was required was a “significant and immediate threat”?

    Because there is no biblical distinction between the value of life in utero and ex utero

    Exodus 21 disagrees. There’s even a biblical distinction between the value of a life that’s less than less than one month old (zero) and greater than one month old (five shekels for a boy, three for a girl)(Leviticus 27:6).

    Ah, if only more Christians would read their bibles.

  14. And what are we to do about the disgustingly high number of men who “aren’t worth their salt”…? Because sadly… a *lot* of men aren’t these “protect the wimminfolk” gung ho types.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Let’s give these idiotic people what they want. Let’s just close our wayward legs. I’m sure Mr. Phillips would be TOTALLY supportive of his forced celibacy.

  15. Just as every man should know that it is his duty to die for his wife and children, every wife should know that that it is her duty to sacrifice for the child she has nurtured in her womb.

    Well this is a convoluted comparison because I bet men are faced with this decision a lot less than women, because they are never physically attached to their offspring at any time. Their own physical health is not usually jeopardized directly by a child (obviously there are some exceptions like donating kidneys or running into burning buildings but I would bet this happens a lot less than unintended and/or complicated pregnancies).

    And do we know if ALL men ALWAYS risk their life for women and children? And if they don’t, are they banished to Hell? Because that seems to be the punishment they are implying for women who choose that path.

    And… they are only taking into consideration that a mother has this ONE child (the unborn one). This presumes the woman has no other children to care for, who may lose quality of care if she dies. One of the hardest things of being a mother is balancing the needs of ALL your children. Tough stuff.

    As for the whole Titanic thing… huh??? Weren’t there lots and lots of men on those life boats despite many women and children left to fend for themselves? Although I suppose Leo DiCaprio can be thought of as a good Christian man for sacrificing himself.

  16. The Bible is a woefully inadequate source to “prove” God’s imperative regarding abortion, simply because it is extremely inconsistent. Take this verse from Exodus, for example:

    Exodus 21:22

    “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”

    Where this verse is concerned, the fetus is NOT a human being, and the killing of a fetus is NOT a criminal matter but a civil matter to be punished with a mere fine.

  17. In fairness (or, perhaps, in anti-religious vitriol… you decide!), this isn’t an outlandish position for a Christian to take. These people revere Abraham’s choice to follow a mysterious voice’s command to sacrifice his son. For these people, whatever God says just is right. Unfortunately, American Christianity has come to a point where very few people actually read the Bible anymore… Rick Santorum, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell are standing in for God. Whatever Ann Coulter says just is right.

    So, even though everyone here is quite right to note that the bible doesn’t really take a hard line against abortion, that doesn’t matter, because these people just mean “my religious leader” when they appeal to the authority of “God” or “the Bible”.

    Reason is not the weapon to combat religious “conservatives”, nor is polite disagreement. You have to expose and humiliate them for their ridiculous beliefs. You have to point out the inconsistencies. You have to appeal to the onlookers. You have to keep your friends and families safe from falling under the sway of the faith-bots. You’re not going to convince them, they do not respond to reason. Next time you see the crazy street preacher attracting a lot of attention, go and argue with him (or, more rarely, her.) Just present an alternative view. One that makes sense. It is easy for these insane doctrines to take hold when they are presented alone.

  18. or to a private revelation from God as the basis for their decision-making.

    God: Listen, I hate to break this to you, but the fetus has to go. All part of My plan, you see.

    Woman: I’m sorry, but my Bible says I can’t do that, even if God tells me to Himself.

    God: Medammit, lady, I am the LORD your God. Get to obeying. It’s in the Commandments.

    Woman: Sorry, I can’t. Bible says so.

    God: Oh, for the love of Me… Why did I have to call my “stash” a “knowledge tree”?

  19. What I find really illuminating is that, every time he talks about the risks to the life of the mother, he frames it in terms like these:

    Furthermore, there are four other children at home who will suffer greatly if they lose their mother. The loss of a brother is tragic, but the loss of mother can harm many lives by depriving other children of love and affection.

    Even within the Christian community, however, some would argue that it is better to kill one unborn baby, than to risk depriving a family with living children of their mother.

    Etc. So the only downside to letting the woman die is that her other children will grow up without a mother. I guess this maroon can’t conceive of (no pun intended) a woman who is not otherwise a mother. Or maybe it’s not so tragic to this guy if a single woman or a married but childless woman dies, because, doncha know, women’s only value is as mothers.

  20. I love how all the pro-life people call their opponents anti-life and the pro-choice people call their opponents anti-choice. Can’t we find a middle ground, such as simply trying to reduce the total number of abortions?

  21. I had a family member actually have to make the ‘life of the mother VS the baby’ call.

    His wife had a life-threatening allergic reaction to something she ate while almost 7 months pregnant. I’m talking a CPR being performed in the ambulance, rushed to the ER, woman’s body can no longer support the pregnancy level reaction.

    The husband and wife were Roman Catholic, with a 4 year old child already at home. The doctor was a member of their parish.

    The conversation held outside the operating theater included the phrase ‘God forbid I should have to make a choice, but if I do…?’

    The husband replied, ‘I want my wife back. Screw the Vatican if they disagree. I can always become Episcopalian.’

    Turned out the parish priest had just arrived and overheard this. He put an arm around the man’s shoulders and said, ‘If it came to that, I’d go with you.’

    She and the baby pulled through, against the odds.

    It’s my understanding the family member has become one of those work from within the church for moderation types, a far cry from his pre-marriage hard line stance.

  22. The example: Susie, a mother of five children, finds herself and her three-year-old year son Johnny adrift at sea in a tiny one-person raft. They are hundreds of miles away from the nearest boat or landmark. The prospects look grim for both mother and child. On board is a container of water and food. One problem is that there is no realistic means for acquiring additional food at sea and even less for collecting rainwater. If the food and water on board are carefully rationed, Susie will have enough provisions on board for one person to barely survive two weeks at sea,

    so, if Susie flings herself overboard so that Johnny can survive…how’s a three year old going to survive shark-infested peril without an adult’s help?

    sorry – off-topic, but stupid.

  23. Can’t we find a middle ground, such as simply trying to reduce the total number of abortions?

    The pro-choice side keeps raising these issues, and recommending comprehensive sex ed and widely available contraception. What we get back is pharmacists refusing to fill Plan B prescriptions and federally-funded abstinence-only curricula. It’s their side that refuses all compromise. Can we please stop with acting as though both sides are unreasonable?

    Besides, none of us ever blew up or shot any of them.

    The hard core of their movement wants to eliminate contraception altogether, eliminate all abortions, and refuse to vaccinate children to protect them from the effects of sexually transmitted disease. They refuse to negotiate.

  24. Ooooh, I like this part of their example:

    ” If the food and water on board are carefully rationed, Susie will have enough provisions on board for one person to barely survive two weeks at sea, which is the time she has estimated it will take for the little raft to follow the currents to a latitude and longitude frequented by shipping vessels, one of which, she is sure, will rescue her”

    So Susie is a math-and-science whiz who can come up with a reasonable estimate for time to rescue, taking into account all the confounding factors and somehow figuring out both her current location and the best place to find ships, but she can’t figure out how to obtain food or water at sea despite having food (known in other contexts as “bait”) on the raft with her.
    One should also point out that in the old days the British Navy didn’t prosecute sailors who, while stranded on liferafts at sea, killed and ate a fellow castaway. It was technically illegal, but they didn’t prosecute because it was understood to be the best of the available bad choices.

  25. British Navy didn’t prosecute sailors who, while stranded on liferafts at sea, killed and ate a fellow castaway.

    Not true. Famously, in Regina v. Dudley & Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884), two sailors were sentenced to death for exactly that, though the sentence was later commuted to six months’ imprisonment. Most lawyers get this in first year Crim Law, but I’m not sure how many non-lawyers are aware of it.

  26. Actually, we did look at that case in college, though I couldn’t remember the name of the damn thing. Before that case, they were not prosecuted for cannibalism (and it didn’t have to be consensual – for that matter, in the Dudley and Stephens case, the victim wasn’t exactly lying down to be slaughtered) or at least not sentenced to death.
    I’d argue that “prior to 1884” qualifies as “the old days”, anyway.

  27. The Bible gives no authority for a parent to ever take the life of an unborn child. Scripture does give three valid bases for taking the life of another, none of which can even remotely be construed as a justification for “abortion for the life of the mother.” Man may take another’s life in the case of just warfare; man may take another’s life when acting on behalf of the civil magistrate to execute a person guilty of a capital crime; or man may take another’s life as an act of self-defense, or in defense of others where there is a significant and immediate threat to life best remedied with a lethal response.

    For example, taking the “life” of some”one” that is going to kill you if it keeps doing what it’s doing. Duh.

    Just as every man should know that it is his duty to die for his wife and children, every wife should know that that it is her duty to sacrifice for the child she has nurtured in her womb.

    And what if the child will not benefit from that sacrifice (i.e. in cases such as ectopic pregnancy where the pregnancy will kill the mother before any chance of fetal viability)? I’d say then, that such a sacrifice is not “for” the child, as the child will gain nothing from it and will in fact technically lose its life because of the sacrifice that the mother is being forced to make. (Mother dies; instead of being helped, the child is killed by it.) Rather, in such a case the fetus is doomed period and there’s nothing the mother can do for it, so she might as well remove it (which has no significant effect on the fetus that wouldn’t happen anyway).

    Does the person who wrote this dare to call itself “pro-life?”

  29. The Bible gives no authority for a parent to ever take the life of an unborn child.

    The bible gives no authority to post religiously-fueled hate on the internet, either, but that doesn’t seem to stop anyone.

    All Scripture is given by inspiration of God

    So that homeless guy on the subway this morning who claimed to be speaking God’s word (thus, “inspired” of God) was dictating his own scripture? Shit, I shoulda taken notes.

  31. Exactly what I was thinking, Kyra. If the pregnancy will kill the woman before viability, isn’t that two people dead, by the anti-choice logic? Seems like one dead would look better than two dead even to the nutcases, especially if that one could, y’know, get pregnant again later.

  32. Can’t we find a middle ground, such as simply trying to reduce the total number of abortions? – Political Critc

    Of course, one part of that strategy is heavily promoting birth control. There is a certain kind of Dem (with a lot of power in the Dem. establishment) who would shrink from that promotion because “some religious people also are against birth control, especially for un-married folk, so pushing birth control would be too divisive”.

    What these people do not get is that being “divisive” is exactly what we need to be on some of these issues. Look, the GOP did not divide off social conservatives from the Dem. party by being “inclusive” … “big tent” rhetoric aside, they divided the Dems. by being, well, divisive. If we Dems. come out and say “look, if we promote birth control better, it’ll reduce the number of abortions”, it will have several good effects:

    (1) it shows people who may be uncomfortable with abortion that we Dems. actually have a plan to deal with the issue

    (2) it shows even people who disagree with us on birth control that we Dems. actually stand for something and would not compromise everything just for political expediency

    (3) it focuses the discussion to something that, in fact, divisive for the religious right

    While the religious right is generally against un-married women having teh sex (funny they tend to focus on women here and not men … hmmm …) without having to “face the consequences”, they are divided on married women’s access to birth control. If we start arguing “if people use birth control, we’ll have fewer abortions”, even if the religious right would be unified in opposing that particular argument, it will bring out certain parts of the religious right complaining about “a culture of contraception” and otherwise acting as if even married couples shouldn’t have access to contraception and this will scare the “I could, if I wanted to, go to the corner drug store and say ‘Harry, I want a condom’ for I am a Protestant” corners of the religious right into supporting us. Heck, it’ll even rile up many Catholics who, while opposing contraception, would still be nervous about over-turning Griswold to the extent that they know, e.g., the history of Catholicism in England.

    In general, if we can focus the issue on contraception and get the far right starting to make noises about Griswold, then even the glibertarians who would happily suspend their rights for the fun and profit of Bush & CO would get nervous about “gummint beurocrats” digging into their personal affairs, etc (’cause when beurocrats — sp? — are doing it, no-one is having fun or making a profit, so it ain’t ok) and maybe be a little less supportive of the right.

    So yes — we should seek a middle ground … but not because we should be reflexively moderate but because that middle ground (1) has aspects to it that are things we should be seeking and (2) that middle ground is itself divisive — to the other side and not our own — even as, being the “middle ground” it appears like it ought to be unifying and sheds a very harsh light on those who set themselves against it.

    The GOP is very clever about politics even if they are dense about policies (and part of this has to do with their belief about politics being a power game rather than the mechanism of the hiring of a government that does constructive things for society and the citizens that have hired it) — it would be nice if our side gave itself a fighting chance.

  33. The Bible condemns abortion and offers no exceptions to this rule.

    I thought in the old code of Jewish Law abortion for the sake of the mothers life and health was not only permissable but the rule.

  34. zuzu,

    You said –

    Because for centuries, the prohibition was against abortion prior to quickening. And Jewish law considers a mother’s duty to her existing children to trump that of her unborn child, so that if continuing a pregnancy will deprive her already-born children of a mother, she is obligated to abort the fetus.

    What is your authority for this?

    lou,

    You said –

    Um. actually the only reference to abortion I recall in the Bible advocated it if it was proven the woman was an adulterer and the child was the product of adultery.

    Where is your authority for this?

    I am not sure I agree with the position of the person you are criticizing, but it seems you are engaging in the same behavior for which you are criticizing him. That is, making unfounded assertions.

    Also, addressing the issue of how the law treats innocent life, the law has always as in Dudley & Stephens refused to place the value of one innocent life over another. That is why coercion, while an excuse defense to most crimes is not an excuse for homicide. That is, if I hold a gun to your spouse’s head and say I will shoot him if you don’t kill a third person, if you kill him, it’s not a defense (although it would certainly mitigate the crime).

    You do have a right to protect yourself from someone who unintentionally or unwittingly threatens your life. The abortion issue is closer to this.

  35. These people revere Abraham’s choice to follow a mysterious voice’s command to sacrifice his son. For these people, whatever God says just is right

    Somewhat off topic, but an interpretation I heard of this story once, that I kind of like: God told Abraham to sacrifice his son as a test. A test which Abraham failed miserably. The correct answer was “screw you yaweh, I’m not worshipping any deity that demands that of me.”

  37. Why do we shudder at reports of ancient pagan parents who threw their children into the flames or put them to the knife to appease a heathen god? We shudder and cringe because the parent-child relationship is the most sacred, the most inviolable, and the most foundational to life and civilization.

    Um.. Abraham and Isaac anyone? So, if god tells you to do it, you should blindly follow along and take your kid to an altar to kill her… But those evil pagans are wrong for it… ugh.

    If you’re going to use scripture, at least research it first… Every kid who’s ever been to sunday school knows that story!

  38. /cold amoral logic mode

    Calculate the amount of food, clothing, shelter, money, education, resources, etc. that are allocated and expended in order for a woman to grow to a healthy, child rearing age.

    Compare to the resources expended generating a fetus.

    It seems to me that the life of the mother is clearly of greater importance by all economic measures; in terms of opportunity cost, a healthy mother who survives a troubled pregnancy can attempt to procreate again in the near future, and in terms of protecting investment, a grown woman is a proven viable lifeform with established social connections.

    Conclusion: it is better for the species and society at large to jettison a fetus the moment the mother’s life is at risk.

    /end ugly logic mode

    My new pitch to the religious right. Think they’ll go for it?

  39. I thought in the old code of Jewish Law abortion for the sake of the mothers life and health was not only permissable but the rule. – Carpenter

    Health = permissible

    Life (or life of kids … e.g. kids are un-weanable and pregancy threatens breast milk production) = mandatory

    OTOH, there are many religious Jews who think they are pro-life/anti-abortion ’cause they misunderstand what anti-abortion types want. Having lived in pretty closed Jewish communities (it is easy to grow up in certain sections of, e.g., NJ, and not know any white non-Jews for the whole of your child-hood) they have no idea of what the religious right means by “anti-abortion” and think they mean merely “no abortions after the first trimester as a form of birth control” or some such which is how such traditionally religious Jews view the issue — they simply cannot believe that anyone would believe something so bizarre as to think that women should die rather than abort.

  40. Pingback: swirlspice

  41. Shira and Blitzgal both point to Scriptural passages that undermine the argument that the bible supports a notion that life begins at conception. Pro-lifers are usually reduced to quoting the lovely but vague language of Psalm 139:13-16. When I hung out in anti-abortion circles, we quoted that a lot.

  42. BTW — ironically, the passage used by Jewish authorities to conclude, among other things, that one must abort when one’s life is in grave danger from continuing the pregnancy is the verse about “choose life” that the pro-lifers always are (mis) quoting.

  43. Which book of the Bible contains the story of the Titanic? Since only the Bible can be used to make decisions, I want to find the verse this guy is quoting from.

  45. If the woman knows she will die if she has the child, doesn’t it then become suicide NOT to have the abortion? What to do, what to do???

  46. Numbers, Chapter 5, Sean. Says a woman caught in adultery should take “bitter water”…
    I only quote the Bible to show these boobs don’t know what they’re talking about. I love selective literal reading. If you want to be literalist about anything in the old Testy, then ya gotta accept the whole kit and caboodle.
    Here’s a few choice others.
    Their fruit shalt Thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men.
    – Psalm 21:10

    The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born?let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
    – Psalm 58:3,8

    As for Israel, their glory shall fly away like a bird, and from the womb, and from the conception? Give them, O Lord: what will Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts?they shall bear no fruit?
    – Hosea 9:11-16

    And besides, the scripture always advocating stoning women caught in adultery or having elicit sex. if God was so worried about them thare fetuses, wouldn’t there be an edict about waiting until it’s known if her womb has quickened?

  47. Somewhat off topic, but an interpretation I heard of this story once, that I kind of like: God told Abraham to sacrifice his son as a test. A test which Abraham failed miserably. The correct answer was “screw you yaweh, I’m not worshipping any deity that demands that of me.”

    In Dan Simmons’ “Hyperion Cantos” there’s another interpretation: that Abraham was testing God – that is, any god who wouldn’t stop the knife from harming Isaac wouldn’t be worth worshipping.

  48. Wow…. just wow. I grew up in an extremely anti-abortion household, where most of my extended family was also anti-abortion and I have never heard this level of disgusting anti-woman language ever. You can’t force anyone to sacrifice their own life on behaf of another person, no matter how vile other people may think you are for it. If we’re in a burning building and I choose to get myself out and not risk my life to get my kids, that’s my right to self-preservation. I can’t picture myself doing it, but it doesn’t make me a criminal if I do. I used to think that I would never abort, even if my life were in danger… since having my children, I know that my kids need me more than an unborn child in it’s first trimester, or even early second trimester. I couldn’t leave my kids without a mom for the sake of a child who will most likely die along with me. Do these people know anything about pregnancy? Most things that are fatal to the mom are also fatal to the baby. In the very rare cases where they aren’t, you cannot force someone to risk their life for the sake of another person. Period.

  49. In Dan Simmons’ “Hyperion Cantos” there’s another interpretation: that Abraham was testing God – that is, any god who wouldn’t stop the knife from harming Isaac wouldn’t be worth worshipping. – Ledasmom

    This interpretation predates Hyperion Cantos — IIRC, it may even date to Talmudic times.

  50. Somewhat off topic, but an interpretation I heard of this story once, that I kind of like: God told Abraham to sacrifice his son as a test. A test which Abraham failed miserably. The correct answer was “screw you yaweh, I’m not worshipping any deity that demands that of me.” – Dianne

    Woody Allen has a very funny take of the story along these lines in “Without Feathers”.

  51. If the woman knows she will die if she has the child, doesn’t it then become suicide NOT to have the abortion? What to do, what to do??? – Michelle the Red

    That is why in Jewish law a woman in such a position must have an abortion — to do otherwise would be a suicide (although probably it would be considered ok because anyone having to choose between their own life and even the life of a fetus could fairly be described as “as distressed as Saul” which is the standard in Jewish law for when suicides are considered not to have sinned — which pretty much applies to all suicides) — you know, the whole “choose life” thing that fundies are always mis-applying.

  52. What woman wants to be married to a man who not only wants her to give birth all the time whether she wants to or not, but could care less if she dies doing so? Do their wives have any self-respect?

    That is exactly why anyone who cares about the status of women is very concerned about the status of girls and young women.

    The wives obviously have little self respect as you and I understand it and frame their value only in relationship to serving a man. Millions of girls and young women are being brought up either in homes where they are horribly abused, exploited and/or indoctrinated. Men like this asshat prey on such women and hate social services or any person/agency who tries to interfere with the way in which they treat ‘their women’.

    The fundies operate among the working class. As a woman in a male dominated field — the trades, I meet fundies all the time. Although most are respectful on a business level, I’ve dealt with some who have refused to do business with me. If that were it alone, I’d chaulk it up to any number of reasons, but usually the doubting of my decision making, a preference to defer to other males they think may have influence over me (a long search indeed), or a plainly and uncalled for disrespect and an unexplanable withdrawl of bid/proposal/appointment(upon learning I am the head of the company) — all these or a few working together are a pretty good hint.

    It gives me comfort to know that a) they know their views are not mainstream and go against the grain of truth they see everday — which must cause them great discomfort and s) they are cowards and cannot even garner the kahunas to tell me their stupid views to my face.

  53. In Dan Simmons’ “Hyperion Cantos” there’s another interpretation: that Abraham was testing God – that is, any god who wouldn’t stop the knife from harming Isaac wouldn’t be worth worshipping. – Ledasmom

    So … why did God command him to sacrifice Isaac in the first place? And at what point would Abraham have stopped (assuming here that he’s not willing to kill his son just for the sake of figuring out what this God dude is all about)? And isn’t it kind of ludicrous to play chicken with an omnipotent being?

  54. Maybe someone mentioned this already, but what do these people think about ectopic pregnancies? There is no way to save the “baby” in these situations. But if the woman doesn’t get an abortion, she could die too. So is it more Christian for just one person to die (the baby), or is it more Christian for two people to die to avoid an abortion?

    Obviously it’s a load of crap, I’m just wondering how they justify this.

  55. I love how all the pro-life people call their opponents anti-life and the pro-choice people call their opponents anti-choice. Can’t we find a middle ground, such as simply trying to reduce the total number of abortions?

    Going back upthread a bit, but here’s what pro-choicers work hard for in order to reduce the unintended pregnancy rate and the abortion rate:

    -Comprehensive sex education
    -Affordable and available contraception
    -Affordable and available healthcare, including pre-natal and well-baby care
    -Aid to low-income families with dependent children, making it more feasable for low-income women to continue wanted pregnancies
    -Wider availability of adoption services, including letting gay and lesbian couples adopt
    -Emergency contraception (EC) available over-the-counter
    -EC available in emergency rooms for rape survivors

    Here’s what pro-lifers work for:
    -Illegalizing abortion.
    -Limiting abortion.
    -Stopping sex education
    -Allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense EC
    -Blocking EC from hospital emergency rooms
    -Cutting aid to low-income people
    -Crisis pregnancy centers that lie to women in order to convince them to give birth, and promise to aid them, then cut all help off when the child is a year old

    So please do tell me who’s trying to find a middle ground, who’s actually trying to prevent the need for abortion, and who’s just digging their heels in.

  56. Don’t you just love it that not only do the fundies not read their Bibles, but that it hardly ever occurs to people that the Bible is NOT God’s words. If you are a Christian, then the 10 Commandments are God’s words, as he said them. That’s it. The rest was written by men.

  57. Sweet crispy jumpin Jesus.

    You’ve got to adore the gall of a guy who tosses out the quote generally (and stupidly, in context, but that’s an entirely different matter) used to support the idea of Biblical inerrancy five sentences after telling a flat-out lie about what the Bible says.

    It’s enough that these people show ridiculous priorities in the passages they cherry-pick, that they twist the meaning of so much, that they desperately look for anything to support their positions, ignore what doesn’t fit and pretend they’re the only ones who respect the whole thing. You would think that they could settle for doing that. But no, we need an absolute, unspinnable, unmitigated lie about an explicit statement that IS NOT THERE. And that goes against the heavy implications of several passagesthat do exist, but that’s nothing unexpected.

    I am sick of these literalist assholes shitting all over the Bible. I am sick of them having a lock on piety the way the neocon numbskulls have a lock on patriotism, while the one shows the same regard for the ideas in Christian holy texts that the other shows for the welfare of their nation.

  58. Oh, and Jill’s dead on. What people loose sight of is that, really, most of what the pro-choice movement is putting forward IS the middle ground. I’m not sure what the middle ground between “it’s murder” and “it isn’t” is, but the middle ground between “it’s necessary” and “it’s wrong” is “let’s try and prevent people from getting in a position to have to make that choice as much as we can,” which is what pro-choicers fight hard to do with NO, and I do mean ABSOLUTELY NO, support from so-called pro-life organizations. Encouraging everyone in poor position to be a parent to abort, working to pressure people not to have children they couldn’t afford on their own, forcing abortions on the unwilling–that would be extreme, that would be pro-abortion, that would be something that cried out for a compromise position. When you start out by being reasonable, the extremists just keep running farther to the extreme while demanding that you compromise with them.

  59. Encouraging everyone in poor position to be a parent to abort, working to pressure people not to have children they couldn’t afford on their own, forcing abortions on the unwilling–that would be extreme, that would be pro-abortion, that would be something that cried out for a compromise position. – dragonsmilk

    Maybe the political problem of the pro-choice movement is that we are the compromise position then? Those in the media, who by training have a reflexive desire to think in Hegelian “objective” terms about there being “two sides to every issue” and a “compromise position in between” make us out to be a strawman, pro-abortion version of ourselves as we must be on one side? And in this environment, especially when ill informed consumers of media assume that media to be taking our side, is it any wonder that the majority of people think there should be an abortion compromise exactly between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” positions — and since the pro-choice position is itself a compromise, the “compromise” people think would be “fair” is necessarily tilted toward the pro-life side?

    While some argue that having anybody be “pro-abortion” as you use the term would disgust people right into the arms of the pro-life movement, perhaps it would be better for our side if there really was a “pro-abortion” movement (rather than just a straw-movement used to frighten people into the pro-life camp) that way we could be the moderates?

    In general, I wonder to what degree the Republican’s constantly throwing bones (if no meat, so as to keep them hungry and wanting more) to their base so the base remains rabid is done exactly to allow more moderate Republicans to position ourselves at the center? Perhaps the abortion debate, as I hinted at before, is a microcosm for what we Dems. should be doing in general? Should we, rather than being straw liberals used to scare moderates away from our party, actually nurture a true radical leftism in our country so as to position ourselves as the moderates?

  60. Try here, here, here, here, and here, to start. – zuzu

    I never knew Saletan was that much of Brooksian … I actually would say that he ventures into anti-Semitic territory with his misrepresentation of how Jews think about certain issues.

    Has Saletan otherwise shown any signs of anti-Semitism? I actually don’t know much about him — for all I know he could be Jewish …

Comments are currently closed.