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

Passing the Buck

zuzu

Through Amanda, I learned that the Biting Beaver, who last month wrote about the gantlet she had to run in order to obtain Plan B when a condom broke during sex, is now pregnant as a result of being given the runaround from so many doctors and hospitals that she missed her window of opportunity for preventing pregnancy. So, now, she has to pony up $450 for an abortion, and worse, she has to deal with the emails and comments at her blog wishing her death and worse for daring to have sex; she has to visit the clinic four times and face angry, hostile protesters each time; and she has to go through a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy that could have been avoided. And the guy who was wearing the condom when it broke? His biggest worry is getting time off in order to go to the appointment with her. Nobody’s bothering him about having sex.

I highly recommend both Biting Beaver’s righteously angry post and Amanda’s. I want to take a slightly different spin on something Amanda wrote about, and relate it to one of my new obsessions, Battlestar Galactica. This concerns something that happened in the season premier, so if you haven’t seen it, I’m putting spoilers on the next page.

Here’s what Amanda said:

I think an important point worth considering here is that every doctor who turned his nose up to her requests for EC had good reason to know that this is what would happen—she would get pregnant, she’d have to get an abortion, she’d have to pay for it out of pocket, and she’d have to tolerate picket lines of people screaming insults at her about how her gender makes her worthless in their eyes. So basically, they set her up to be humiliated and put out like this, on top of the physical suffering that comes as a side effect of RU-486. Being doctors, they can’t claim to be innocent of the knowledge that this was going to happen, but they consoled themselves that it was okay to make Beaver suffer because she “deserved” it; she wouldn’t be in this situation if she hadn’t had sex, right?

What strikes me as interesting about that line of thought is it’s exactly the excuses that apologists for torture are making about the people they “get” to torture. Hell, they must have done something wrong, even though we have no court of law to prove it. The excuses are thin as paper, but just enough to make someone feel justified in power tripping on another person.

I read this and immediately thought of the scene where Baltar has been presented with an order of summary execution by the Cylons for his signature. He resists, and questions why they need his signature when he has no real power and they run everything on New Caprica anyhow. Some of the Cylons start in with explanations about how they’re allies and friends, and really, Baltar is president of the Colonies, so anything has to be done under his orders, but Brother Cavil (Dean Stockwell), who is skeptical of the Cylon religion, says that the Cylons want Baltar to sign the order so they can kill without worrying about whether it’s a sin.

IOW, they were passing the buck.

The doctors in Biting Beaver’s scenario were doing the same thing. They knew they had someone on their hands who did not want to be pregnant, but they didn’t want to actually, you know, take any part in preventing or terminating that pregnancy. So they erected some barriers, threw up their hands, and got to tell themselves that they didn’t take part in anything sinful.

Except, they did. Instead of acting in a timely manner to help prevent an abortion by preventing a pregnancy, they told themselves that they were simply not going to condone that horrible, sinful sex that BB was having by letting her get away with it. And the result of their self-righteous condemnation of sex is that now there is a pregnancy that will, in fact, be terminated.

But, hey. They didn’t sign that order.

54 thoughts on Passing the Buck

  1. Are you talking about the webisodes or the première? I saw the première and blogged about it, and I don’t remember a scene that worked out specifically that way, unless it’s the scene where they’re talking about executing someone just to make an example. I never saw the webisodes, however, since they insisted on putting them in Flash 8 form.

  2. Oh my god. She’s pregnant. Oh my god. This poor, poor woman. I would scream myself to a miscarriage, I would. My eyes almost bugged out of my head when I realized that this was all a low, dirty, underhanded way of shaming a woman for exercising her legal rights. Disgusting.

  4. I’m liking the idea (it was ginmar’s, actually) of having a sort of pledge drive, where for every nasty troll or piece of hate mail she gets you can pledge a certian amount of money.

    I’m trying to think of a way to do it thats the least intrusive to Biting Beaver…

  5. Cant she sue her doctors for cost of terminating the pregnancy and emotional damages ?
    Afterall they failed in their responsibility by not supplying her with medical care and even obstructing her attempts of getting a doctor who would supply her with it.

  6. I cried when I read this.

    May those “doctors”, clinic “protesters”, etc who did this to her burn in the hell they so fervently believe in.

  8. Mandos (or, should I say, Mandos, Mandos, Mandos):

    No, that scene was in the broadcast premier, and happened just as zuzu described it. It’s the same scene where the 6-in-Baltar’s-head shows up. The Cylons want to execute the 200 humans they recently rounded up, and they force (thanks to a literal gun to the head) Baltar to sign the execution order.

  9. What strikes me about how crazy this all is, is that for all intents and purposes, she’s practically married. This isn’t a textbook “slut” scenario: she’s having sex monogamously with a partner she’s been with for many years. If she had a little certificate with a stamp on it, then she’s allowed to have Plan B? Then it’s okay to abort? How on earth do people justify that as moral in their minds?

    Poor lady. I was hoping this would end alright for her.

  11. I was denied EC and treated like a slut myself, but I didn’t get pregnant. God damn those so-called doctors and the anonymous shits, so empowered by hiding behind their computer, sending death threats to this woman.

    And apologists like Dawn Eden keep simpering about how we have “all the rights we need.” Bloody hell.

  13. There is something I find very difficult to understand when I read posts and comments like this one. The story is horrific, certainly, and the comments are appropriately indignant. Where then are all the indignant voices at the polls? Where are the supporters of a woman’s right to choose in politics? The media? How about in the general public?

    When I hear Democratic candidates declare that abortion should be safe, legal and rare, it makes me think of liberal Republicans, not the Democratic Party that is supposed to be guarding my right to choose. But when we consider that the political parties are simply reflecting the beliefs and moods of the voters, we must realize that “rare” abortions are the only ones that will be tolerated. Political parties only repeat what is in the mainstream of society. “Rare” is also a detriment to my right to choose. It implies that abortion is something that should not be except in special cases, and that abortion is something to be ashamed of because it is fundamentally wrong. Issues that are looked on as fundamentally wrong are usually challenged and an invitation to legislators to restrict that which should be “rare” even further.

    But where are the women? Those of us that feel it is our right to abortion on demand, something that is not discussed with any enthusiasm because it makes women look like whores, sluts, and every other ill term that can be conjured, look to the rest of our gender and ask, “Why am I alone?” Women who have education, women who have influence, women who were once courageous in the fight for our freedoms are now silent. Why? Could it be self involvement? “I have what I need and that is all that matters.” Or perhaps apathy? “Oh, that issue doesn’t pertain to me. Why should I care?” Maybe it’s fear. “What would the neighbors think?” I think it may be good old-fashioned manipulation. “It’s a sin.” [This last excuse not taking into consideration that science has not yet discovered the moment when life actually begins, and that when people say “I believe that life begins at conception,” they are really quoting religious doctrine. That is a great way to legislate. Ask the Taliban.]

    Whatever the reason for the silence of American women concerning their own futures and the futures of their daughters, it is a fact. Women like me are becoming an endangered species. I am not ashamed of my belief that abortion on demand is my right. Although I have never been in the situation of needing an abortion, I would never hide the fact. I would not be ashamed, nor would I regret.

    Until the American woman can climb out of the hole that she has helped dig for herself, there will never again be an indignant voice to shout, “How dare you?” Women, all women, have to work together to overcome this backsliding into the subservient and dependent roles that are now being prepared for us. Without that, there is no reproductive autonomy, and without reproductive autonomy there is no future for our daughters and granddaughters.

    Can you say “Please sir, may I…”

    Shawn

  14. The same amazing premiere where they’re controlling Starbuck through her child that they used her ovary to produce, without her knowledge.

  15. Shawn — I think a big part of it is the demonstrated willingness of the ‘pro-lifers’ to use violence. Women are, as we all know, not only set up by the ‘rape culture’ to be victims of violence, they are also continuously admonished not to give anyone an excuse for that violence.

    When you speak out against anti-choicers, you cannot help but feel that you are painting a target on your head. From actual fears about walking through the protestors to get to a clinic, to the worries about the bodyshop bill if you put that bumper sticker on your car, the pro-lifers have managed to insert a niggling fear in all American women. Much as a post or two on Beaver’s own website talks about how the established threat/memory of male-on-female violence can be present or used in a relationship where no violence has actually occurred, the pro-life movement can sit back and enjoy the chilling effect that their disowned acts of violence have produced. They don’t have to threaten us — we already know what they’re capable of. That, I think, is why so few women in America are willing to speak out.

    As I heard from a Planned Parenthood advisor the other day — my state is one of those fighting off a parental notification law — “This is the time for courage.”

  16. Cant she sue her doctors for cost of terminating the pregnancy and emotional damages ?
    Afterall they failed in their responsibility by not supplying her with medical care and even obstructing her attempts of getting a doctor who would supply her with it.     – Redutionist

    I second this thought: these people claim the mantle of “personal responsibility”? It’s about time they take responsibility for their actions — protesting, stonewalling patients, etc. … it’s all “cheap”. It’s high time the people who think getting pregnant is no big deal actually are made to face the situations in which they are trapping other people.

    Didn’t that guy they claim to worship say “do unto others as you would have done unto you”? Well … it’s high time some people experience the “as you would have done unto you” part …

  17. Cecily,

    Yes, I agree with your observation. Violence is a concern. It’s to the African American’s credit that in the 60s when violence was used liberally against those who believed in civil rights that they persevered against tremendous odds. Perhaps women should look to their example. I believe that is the definition of courage.

    Shawn

  18. On BB, well, I don’t know what more can be said. This is terrifying.

    Shawn and Cecily, great posts.

    And because fiction is easier to discuss than reality:

    The same amazing premiere where they’re controlling Starbuck through her child that they used her ovary to produce, without her knowledge.

    If they are truly controlling her, if she truly feels anything for a random child she has no connection to (and that is waaaaaay too old to even be hers), if they have mommy-ized even frackin’ Starbuck just like they’ve done with every other female character on the show because all women want and automatically love babies, I am going to throw up all over the place.

  19. They didn’t mommyize Kat or Dee or Galactica Sharon. Laura is borderline if you count her guardianship of The Child. And to be fair, they daddyized Helo and Tyrol, at the very least.

    And I’m really guessing that this child is just some random kidnapped child that Leoben is using to manipulate her. Of course Starbuck doesn’t want the poor kid to come to harm, but I too would be really disappointed in her (and the writers) if she falls for Leoben’s manipulations. My guess: she’s going to end up playing Leoben. His vision might be even right, but it’ll be on her terms.

  20. I’m hoping that Starbuck is using the presence of this child and Leoben’s desire to get her to love him as a new tactic for trying to get out. She kept killing him, and he kept coming back; now he’s introduced this new element into the mix, and she has to change her strategy.

    Also? I think Leoben pushed the kid down the stairs while Starbuck was in the bathroom.

  21. I’m almost sure that Starbuck is faking – on the off-chance she’s not, it’d be because she feels guilty since her mother was abusive and she’s afraid of continuining the cycle, etc. I’m nervous, but I kinda trust them. (Kinda – see, every show I’ve gotten into has given the female lead a mystical pregnancy – X-Files had Jesus-2 or whatever his name was, Buffy had Dawn who was made out of her body, Cordelia on Angel had Jasmine but she was mommy to Connor before that.)

    Still… even once her fakeout is revealed, I’m sure she’ll show a soft spot for the kid and act maternal, beyond what might be needed to rescue her from the Cylons.

    And Leoben totally pushed her.

    They didn’t mommyize Kat or Dee or Galactica Sharon. Laura is borderline if you count her guardianship of The Child. And to be fair, they daddyized Helo and Tyrol, at the very least.

    Sorry, I meant every main character. And I’m not sure about how each Cylon model varies enough to count them as separate characters – Galactica Sharon might want babies as much as Caprica Sharon did. I don’t think Tyrol really counts as daddyized as much as Cally was mommyized – she was doing nothing but caring for the baby, he was out running the revolution and … maybe… working? Does anyone actually work on that planet?

    Helo probably counts, though. Ah, Helo.

    I think Laura is a mother-figure because she teaches the kidlets, but I like her as a pseudomaternal figure – it makes her behavior as president all the more interesting. Dee has never had a storyline of her own that I remember – she’s as close to a main character as any of the supporting characters are, but she’s still mostly there to support others. And apparently hold a torch for Adama Sr. Ew.

  22. And for the moment, Starbuck seems to be out of the prison. Good time to catch Leoben offguard by seeming to come around. I thought I saw something in her eyes, planning.

    And zuzu, I hadn’t considered a push, but I buy it.

  23. I agree with Shawn’s rundown of “Safe Legal and Rare”. The abortion rate itself is not a number that concerns me much in any meaningful way. It is a metric of our effectiveness at preventing unwanted pregnancies and creating a friendly atmosphere for raising children. To bring up an analogy I used talking to a friend: Think of an air conditioner. It’s job is to make a room a more pleasant place to be in. A thermometer measures that effect, but the height of the mercury is itself irrelevant. Safe/Legal/Rare seeks to drain the mercury instead of cooling the room.

  24. You know, I think we should move the BSG discussion elsewhere. I’ve started a new thread; please post there.

  26. Is there even any biblical justification for all this focus on the fetus at all? let alone birth control? yah, the Onan thing, but that’s been used for everything from masturbation: bad! to “no, point was the guy was selfish.”

    shrug. not my field of expertise, but…

  27. Shawn, yours is a good point.

    Perhaps weblogging, rather than giving us a voice, is taking away the energy we need to spend ‘out there’, rather than exchanging the same views, with echos of ‘good posts’.

    Where will BB need to go, and can we provide a guantlet to protect her as she enters the clinic? Will we step away from our computer, and put our butts on the line?

    Or just use this as the fodder for another pointless debate?

  28. The March for Women’s Lives had a pretty spectacular attendance rate. Ms. Magazine just published an article in which women who’ve had abortions in the past speak up on the record, using their own names. I don’t think it’s fair to pro-choicers to say that they’re pissing away their energy on blogging. People can blog AND agitate for their rights. It’s not one or t’other.

  29. I would disagree, Shelley. Without the internet, most of us would know nothing about BB. Instead many people are concerned, and there have been many offers of help and assistence to go along with the rampant hatred.

    Certainly it’s possible to debate without doing anything else, but that’s not what I see happening in this case.

  30. I’ve worried about that, Shelley, but reading feminist blogs gives me ammunition and tactics for engaging with people who most decidely AREN’T feminist, both on the web and in real life. I’m in some pretty male-dominated hobbies, so I do end up more or less the sole voice of feminism sometimes.

    Also, of course, I imagine many people who post here also do ‘real world’ activism of one sort or another. I wouldn’t claim I do as much as I could, but I am involved in pro-choice activism in my state in a small way.

  31. Maybe a mobilization of supporters for abortion clinics would be a good way to not only lend support to our sisters who need it, but also a way to show the anti-choice extremists that we are not afraid of them. A group of women on hand to escort clients in and out of the clinic in a group may send a powerful message without having to reduce ourselves to the screaming, angry, uncontrolled methods they use. Dignity and calm are hard to redicule.

  32. Also, blogging is an important way to network with like-minded people. It is not just opinion if we refuse to let it be. Perhaps more ideas woven into posts would be helpful. I do know one thing for certain, an issue that is not discussed has little chance of being addressed.

    Peace to all and never forget our sisters.

    Shawn

  33. Expanding more on Shelley’s idea about BB, how could we apply that concept to all women, or all clinics? If it is access that needs to be addressed, let’s see…

    How about an emergency fund set up within each clinic that people can contribute to for use by women who cannot afford abortion?

    Volunteers can add themselves to a list that could be used for transportation for women who need it.

    Another list could be made up of people willing to take in a woman overnight if she has had to travel a long distance, or at least a fund could provide a motel room. A volunteer to lend a sympathetic ear would probably be welcome in that situation. A child watching volunteer would be helpful in some situations.

    Perhaps NOW and Planned Parenthood would be able to help with the set up of such programs and get the word out.

    I know that there are probably more types of assistance that could be offered. These are just a few off the top of my head.
    I also believe that if clinics themselves had such support they would be more willing to put up with the extremists. We all need to work together.

    Shawn

  34. Is there even any biblical justification for all this focus on the fetus at all? let alone birth control? yah, the Onan thing, but that’s been used for everything from masturbation: bad! to “no, point was the guy was selfish.” – Belledamme222

    Dunno about how some so-called Christians pull some of the stuff they claim to find in the Bible, which the Prod fundies claim to take “literally” — but traditionally in Judaism, condoms are not considered acceptable except under certain limitted circumstances because of a “fence” around the Onan thing, the “be fruitful and multiply” thing and condoms are considered to “interfere” with sex. Interestingly, “be fruitful and multiply” is considered to only apply to the men, so women are allowed to use the pill and the sponge.

    As far “the fetus is a human” thing is concerned, I have no idea where that comes from. The Torah is fairly clear, if only indirectly in terms of case law, that the fetus is not a human (e.g. some guilty of causing a miscarriage is not considered a manslayer). That being said, Judaism was, back when it first developed, rather “anti-choice” in the scheme of things at the time (e.g. the fetus is to be respected as a potential human life and traditional Judaism frowns upon the use of abortion as “birth control” although abortion is allowed for the physical or psychological health of the mother-to-be and required if a pregancy endagers the mother-to-be’s life), and a lot of the rhetoric of traditional Judaism reflects that position: indeed, many traditionally Orthodox Jews, who have no clue as to what the “pro-life” movement really stands for (it would be, pardon the pun, inconceivable to them, that someone would forbid a woman from having an abortion if her health were in danger), fancy themselves to be “pro-life”/anti-choice.

    But yes … there really is no Biblical basis for the anti-birth-control, anti-abortion beliefs of the religious right. But it’s hard to actually read the Bible when one is too busy thumping it!

  35. To be fair, clinic defense teams sort of died out because protesters were pushed back by law. The need for them vanished, so as a real world activist route, I don’t think that’s a place that we need to focus. I’m liking the idea of protesting crisis pregnancy centers as retribution, though.

  36. Maybe a mobilization of supporters for abortion clinics would be a good way to not only lend support to our sisters who need it, but also a way to show the anti-choice extremists that we are not afraid of them. A group of women on hand to escort clients in and out of the clinic in a group may send a powerful message without having to reduce ourselves to the screaming, angry, uncontrolled methods they use. Dignity and calm are hard to redicule.

    Unfortunately, in my personal experience, escorts are just another target for protesters. While we do provide a vital service, it gives the antis something to do when no patients are walking in.

    HOWEVER, I don’t want to discourage escorting. It has been a profound experience for me, is a much needed service, and shows the antis that we are willing to put our bodies (and at some clinics, our sleepy Saturday mornings) on the line for women’s rights. I would LOVE to see everyone out there!

  37. I know it would never work, but I think BB should submit the clinics bill to the doctor who refused to prescribe her EC.

    Fuckers, the lot of them.

  38. What a horrible experience for BB. I’m so sorry she has to go through this. It does give us another really good example of how others’ ideologies are oppressing people everywhere, though. Lets hope, and work for, a day when there are no more stories like this.

    BB, I hope things get better for you. If I were feeling tenacious, in your shoes, I would think a lawsuit would be in order.

  40. Hugo, I think in the comments on her page it mentions that her e-mail (bitingbeaver@yahoo.com) is associated with a Paypal account, and while they are not asking for donations, they will accept anything sent their way.

  42. Thank you Shawn for this.

    When I hear Democratic candidates declare that abortion should Thankbe safe, legal and rare, it makes me think of liberal Republicans, not the Democratic Party that is supposed to be guarding my right to choose. But when we consider that the political parties are simply reflecting the beliefs and moods of the voters, we must realize that “rare” abortions are the only ones that will be tolerated. Political parties only repeat what is in the mainstream of society. “Rare” is also a detriment to my right to choose. It implies that abortion is something that should not be except in special cases, and that abortion is something to be ashamed of because it is fundamentally wrong. Issues that are looked on as fundamentally wrong are usually challenged and an invitation to legislators to restrict that which should be “rare” even further.

    I totally share this view and have for some time struggled against any candidate who articulates this. But it seems to have become the normative ‘moderate’ position. Which makes me sick.

  43. How about setting up a site or perhaps something not as “public” so as to ensure arrest, but enough so that BB would’ve received her EC? ie If I -in a “Blue State”- bought it and overnighted it to her “Red State.” I’m not bright enough to think of the logistics but there has to be a way of organizing at the very least an “underground” organization that can help these women.

    I say this and I’m a practicing Muslim who does not (*ideally*) believe in abortion and/or pre-marital sex. But I am pragmatic and realize that mistakes will happen and not everyone believes as I do. The question basically for everyone is “How do we minimize the rate of abortion?” Obviously, by curtailing the amount of “mistakes” to begin with. And that won’t happen with governing people’s bedrooms….

  44. Concerning the “safe, legal, rare,” argument, I would have to say I agree with that statement but disagree with how people envision implementing it. The first step towards achieving this has to be unfettered access for all men and women to the full spectrum of birth control products, and the second step has to be education, starting at a relatively young age, about the advantages and disadvantages of each kind.

    Somehow conservatives have come to believe they know how individuals should best lead their private lives – to me this is the antithesis of conservatism in its traditional sense. The restrictions they would place on the transfer of information are anti-democratic to the core.

    The only conclusion to draw from this episode is that “pro-lifers” are not anti-abortion. They are anti-individual rights. The rights they oppose go far, far beyond the right to have an abortion and extend to who you can sleep with, what pharmaceuticals you can or can’t buy, and of course, who you can or cannot marry.

    In BB’s situation, there was a clear opportunity to prevent the need for abortion. “Pro-lifers” left her with absolutely no choice but to have an abortion. That goes beyond irony. It is a tragedy.

    I never post on blogs but this one has me fired up.

  45. “Rare” is also a detriment to my right to choose. It implies that abortion is something that should not be except in special cases, and that abortion is something to be ashamed of because it is fundamentally wrong.

    Shawn, I completely agree with you that women should have abortion available on demand. And I completely agree with you that nobody should ever be made to feel ashamed of the fact that she has had an abortion.

    But I’m not sure that I agree with you about what the implications of “rare” are. To my mind, “rare” implies that the resources that are available to prevent unintended pregnancy in the first place ought to be more well-known and more accessible. Easy access to EC makes abortion rarer. Easy access to birth control makes abortion rarer. Educating young people about birth control makes abortion rarer.

    I don’t think abortions should be rare because they are shameful or morally wrong. I think we should strive for them to be rare because they are a stress on women’s bodies, and if I can avoid surgery by taking a pill, I’d rather take the pill.

    Sylvs, http://www.getthepill.org/ will fax prescriptions to a nearby pharmacy for women who are having trouble finding a doctor who will treat them with dignity. They do have legal restrictions on which states they are able to operate in, however.

  46. It actually amazes me that this is an issue, the whole morning after pill and sex before marriage and what not. Not being American, this is foreign to me. Im actually going to America next week, perhaps I need to study up on ultra conservatism, otherwise I may offend someone with my “cut the tall poppy down”, challenge everything and take playful verbal jabs at anyone, attitude that is so nurtured in Australia. I think it is shameful for a medical practitioner to take such non chalant approach to medical care and really screw someone over. What happened to ethics?

  47. Anna,

    You make some very good points. I will keep this in mind. Clever, aren’t they? Choose words that mean different things to different people. That way they can defend their position from any angle.

  48. But yes … there really is no Biblical basis for the anti-birth-control, anti-abortion beliefs of the religious right.

    DAS
    Exodus 21: 22,23. Indeed if the unborn child is injured and dies, the responsible party is a manslayer and is to be put to death. So thats just one biblical reference against it.

  49. Brett: nope. Exodus 21:22 says that if fetus dies, a fine must be paid. 21:23 says if the woman dies, the offender must be put to death.

    But do try again.

  50. Brett: nope. Exodus 21:22 says that if fetus dies, a fine must be paid. 21:23 says if the woman dies, the offender must be put to death.

    You best read it again. 22 says that if the baby is born premi, but lives, there is a fine, but if there is serious damage or it dies, then the man injuring the child is to die. Its pretty straight forward.

    This is just one bible version “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,”

    This is really pretty cut and dry. I don’t advocate pro choice or pro life, I dont really care what you do with your body. But I dont like Incompetent and unethical doctors, or anti religionists saying religionists have no biblical backing, when clearly they do.

    The bible quote above was taken from:
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:22-24;&version=51;
    I just googled it. There are many versions there and they all say the same thing.

  51. Having pointed out the biblical reference, I would also like to say that this still leaves room for personal choice.

    If you believe in the bible, then you wouldnt get an abortion, as it is wrong by God and considered murder, as shown in the bible.

    If you do not believe in the bible, then I dont see how you have any moral obligation not to get an abortion. Do what you want. If you are an Atheist, or believe in a god(s) but not the bible (barring any other holy books that condemn abortion) then who cares if you abort?

    All in all I still dont think doctors or even other pro life fundamental Christians have the right to tell you that YOU cant get an abortion because THEY believe it is morally wrong. That is wrong.

  52. Brett, why do you think that the verse refers to serious injury to the fetus, and not to the woman?

    The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible has the following:

    21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
    Note: If two men fight and cause a woman to miscarry, but do not hurt her, then the one who hurt her shall pay her husband an amount determined by the judges. Only if the woman dies is the punishment to be death. Apparently, then, with respect to abortion, God is pro-choice since he considers a woman’s life to be more important that that of the fetus.

    21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

    It also has a whole page on what the Bible says about abortion:

    Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

    If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. — Exodus 21:22-23

    The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

    And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. — Leviticus 27:6

    Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

    Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. — Numbers 3:15-16

    God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

    And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. — Numbers 31:15-17
    (Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

    Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. — Hosea 9:14

    Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. — Hosea 9:16

    Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. — Hosea 13:16

    God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

    Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. — 2 Samuel 12:14

    God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

    The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. …
    And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. — Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

    God’s law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

    Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. — Genesis 38:24

  53. Logially, since the Mosaic law already talked about “thou shalt not kill” and that people who kill will in turn be killed and it talked about penalties for injury, why would it need to be rehashed to specifically talk about pregnant mothers? If taken in the context of it being about the mother, it is a redundant scripture as it has already been covered earlie rin law. However if it is taken to be about the unborn child, then we have a meaningful scripture. Logically then, it must be about the unborn child.

  54. Logially, since the Mosaic law already talked about “thou shalt not kill” and that people who kill will in turn be killed and it talked about penalties for injury, why would it need to be rehashed to specifically talk about pregnant mothers?

    What you’re missing is that the prohibition against killing only applied to people who had reached one month after birth. So, killing a full-grown woman got you death, whereas killing her fetus only got you a fine.

Comments are currently closed.