The odd political issue rant...

[missroserose]

...after all, it wouldn't be a proper blog without one, would it? You have been warned. No, scratch that, you are going to be warned:

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S WARNING: The following views have been scientifically tested and found to be extremely liberal. Continuing to read this entry may cause nausea, vomiting, hair loss, and SS members to show up at your door for violating family values. Free speech? What free speech?

There, now that that's over...the topic today is the new "partial-birth" abortion ban, and the attitudes of those who are proponents. Let's start with some quotes, shall we?

"Today we have reached a significant victory as we continue to build a more compassionate society and a culture that values every human life." --Sen. Rick Santorum, the bill's sponsor, quoted in Yahoo! News on October 22nd.

"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a heart surgeon, said the ban could save the lives of thousands of soon-to-be-born babies." --Also from Yahoo News, October 22nd.

While I'm not opposing the fact that we should value human life, this argument is blatantly hypocritical. The bill contains no provision for emergency procedure in the case of endangerment of the mother's life, which is why President Clinton refused twice to sign it into law. Who's to say that the life of an unborn child is any more or less valuable than that of the mother who ideally would provide for the child? If our culture truly "values every human life," why aren't we allowing the woman the right to choose life as well?

As for my own personal feelings on the subject, well...it's a difficult issue, obviously. I've never thought of abortion, especially partial-birth abortion, as something morally right, but I also very strongly believe in a woman's right to choose - pregnancy discrimination has become a rising issue in the U.S., and there are far too many women who are in no financial situation to even go through the physical problems associated with a pregnancy, let alone support the child. While I agree that abortion should not be used as the one-and-only form of birth control, in emergencies it should be available to any woman who needs it, no matter how far along she is.

I also have problems with the "value every life" argument because, well, let's face it...the world is overcrowded. I'm not saying that we *shouldn't* value human life, but if we insist on making women, often with limited financial means, carry unwanted children, it's going to do absolutely nothing to help our population problem. This reason is also part of why I support gay marriage, contraceptives, and masturbation - it's a form of population control. And, quite frankly, we need all the help we can get in that department.

(I realize that the above paragraph is going to raise a few eyebrows and more than a few hackles. Yes, I know it sounds callous, but it often seems that half our problems with population have to do with our placing value on human life, and producing more human life, over everything else. It may be evolutionarily ingrained {ha! Now I've pissed off the creationists as well!} but it's become anti-survivalist. Is there some way we can balance our intrinsic instinct to reproduce as quickly as possible with our ever-decreasing food and energy supply without sounding callous?)

While the bill to ban partial-birth abortion is understandable in its humanistic values, I simply can't bring myself to support it, not as it is, and definitely not if it leads to further anti-abortion laws. It should be the woman's choice, not the government's, and our world is in no shape to support more life, especially if it is unwanted. She is the one who has to live with the financial and moral repercussions of her choice, whatever it is; therefore, let her be the one to make it.

@->--Rose

Comments

[errant-variable.livejournal.com]

This is a 2-part reply and may take up too much space for your tastes. I can repost it elsewhere. Also remember that this isnt, in my view, the pure right-to-life-or-choice that it is touted as by both sides, but rather what a humane way to abort is and is not and when it is acceptable to put "humane" behind "necessary".

the entire final text of the bill may be found here:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial-birth%20abortion%20Ban%20act%20final%20language.htm

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030917-104555-1303r.htm
"The Senate sent its partial-birth abortion ban to be finalized with the House version, after first approving, 93-0, a motion by Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat. Mrs. Boxer's motion insists on language in the Senate version of the bill supporting Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that struck down state laws against abortion." <--Have been unable to find this specifically but there are several passages that this might refer to.

First things first... I dont like the way this bill is worded... it seems to say "trust me, we're right" all the way up until the language of the actual law. Many convincing facts and findings are mentioned and paraphrased, but there are no names, nothing concrete to go look at. This probably wouldnt have made it through my senior year law class, so why did it go through here? (Im going to have to hop over to talk with a couple people about it... see what they have to say about the style and language of the bill). I also noticed that this bill contains a disturbing amount of preening, self-ass-kissing, and selfrighteous rhetoric (referring specifically to sections 8-13) that seems to state "people have bowed to us before, therefore you should do so now, for we are the highest, most omniscient power in the land and are therefore infalliable". This does, to a degree, work with the references to the Turner Media cases quoted herein where Congress was apparently far better equipped to deal with massive amounts of information than the Supreme Court. It does NOT work on the "kiss it again, bitch" basis that Congress is hoping to push through here and cover the not-so-minor detail that they are using this case as much to establish their own power and lesssen that of the Judicial branch as to further the cause that the bill seems to outwardly support, as well as that the Supreme Court is not herein being asked to deal with a massive economic model debate but rather a question of necessity: is this procedure really necessary? That aside:

-I dont like partial birth abortions. There has to be a better way of aborting a pregnancy than reaching up with a forceps, grabbing a baby's feet, pulling it most of the way out, and then sucking its brains out through a tube. If the bill gave solid, concrete alternatives, or at least gave concrete references to studies that showed that there is always an alternative (mentioned at least twice, probably more, but never concretely) that alone would probably hook me.

[errant-variable.livejournal.com]

-I *really* dont like late-term abortions. If you cant support the child, use protection, and if your going to have an abortion have it early on when it is less dangerous to you and the child is far less likely to be sentient. Admittedly, there are going to be occasions where the mother's life is in danger and there is no way to save the child, or the child must die so the mother may continue living. These are actually protected by language in the first paragraph of actual law text:
[quoting from top of section that will appear in U.S. Statutes]
`1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.

`Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.
[/end text quote]
Prove that its necessary and your good to go. Read on for why I feel it should be required to prove necessity.


-This is a ban specifically on partial-birth abortion, aka pulling the child out and then killing it. Reasons mentioned for banning this include that the fetus has been proved to feel pain as if not more acutely than a fully born person (Ive never had my brain sucked out but I doubt its pleasant) and that partial brith abortion falls just short of mother - literally by a head's length, and if a baby pops all the way out then its legally born and cannot be legally killed. Thats almost like having a runner in a race, chopping his head off as soon as his neck is over the finish line, and saying "Sorry, you lost because your entire body didnt cross the line at once." Im all for banning that. There is nothing in here that bans other forms of abortion. There remains the possibility that this heralds an increasingly conservative view of the world by the U.S. government and that it paves the way for further legislation totally overturning Roe v. Wade, but I would say the chances of that succeeding in the near future are roughly the same as that of a ban on all abortions on moral grounds going through. Not that Im exactly confident that WONT happen, but...

-Pure personal opinion: American culture, on a whole, is declining in accepting or even recognizing personal accountability for actions. "I didnt think about it" is becoming a more and more frequent sight, or "I didnt think this would happen" as a more balanced one as people learn to cover their ass as much as possible when someone else brings them to task. Nobody I know, not even myself, has escaped this trend totally. Even the formerly-vaunted Republican War Machine has used the latter repeatedly in the last couple of months, most notably Rummy himself. If this wasnt such a sad reflection of America as a whole, it would be damn funny. Use of late-term abortions, especially something as quite frankly brutal as sucking the baby's brain out, is being used as a cover for mothers who concieve, enjoy the initial "Im a mommy" rush, and then decide "fuckit, I dont want the morning sickness and the pain" and lose the baby before it gets too big to hurt coming out. If there are financial considerations involved "I cant afford to raise the child", they should be obvious from the start and an early abortion should have been performed. If America is acting like a spoiled post-teen (at best!) we need some leashes so we dont revert to children.

-I lied. 300 characters over the limit. Only one more to go.

[errant-variable.livejournal.com]

Grow up America. All of you. Take some damn responsibility for yourselves so a doctor doesnt get to play "invasion of the brainsucking aliens" with your unborn, even if it simply extends to finding a more humane abortion procedure. Yes, it is the mother's decision to abort or not but I do consider it reasonable to restrict access to certian procedures for reasons amply stated above.

Yes, that goes for the GOP and Friends having a great big mutual masturbation session up on capitol hill. There is a time, there is a place, and Im fairly certain that Thomas Jefferson wasnt wanking George Washington when everyone was hammering out the Constitution. Nice idea, but the pages are covered with something almost to unreadability - and it sure isnt hand cream. Clean up the sticky mess off those desks and leave it clean for the next crew. Please.

D'oh...

[errant-variable.livejournal.com]

Let me clarify something, especially about my last post. I said that the big wank-fest on Capitol Hill should stop [because it is interfering with good lawmaking NOT because I think Republicans and other lawmakers should stop masturbating]. I concede to Rose's point that masturbation and getting pleasure from other males are both effective forms of population control... and the politicians have no less right to keep themselves out of the gene pool than any of the rest of us. Go, Ridge's Right Hand! (Sorry, Ridge's Left. Your not quite as good as some of the Lefts out there.)

Re: D'oh...

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Well, you've got a couple of points. I wasn't aware of the fact that there was a stipulation for endangered mothers, that does help somewhat.

While I do agree that the partial-birth abortion procedure is not something that should be condoned, what worries me here is essentially what you've just said: (a) the fact that there are no reliable (or even unreliable!) references or anything that have been given to the public to accept as fact, (b) the "we-say-it's-right-therefore-it's-right" attitude, and yes, (c) the worry that eventually there will be more anti-abortion legislation. Maybe it's not likely, but I still have this gut feeling that this is a step backwards...

@->--Rose

Marriage v/s masturbation

[(Anonymous)]

My salute to the last bestions of reality and liberal thinking

"This reason is also part of why I support gay marriage, contraceptives, and masturbation - it's a form of population control. And, quite frankly, we need all the help we can get in that department.".........Whow? I mean that is compleatly my openyon from a difrant point of view! I generly say that the population needs to be controled by shooting all the Republicans, but I am beging to change my mind, maby I shuld just shoot the lawmakers on capital hill? I mean why not? They continue to make these laws which the only reason I can see for them to exist is to cause suffring and misery to those people who have to abide by there laws, so why not strike first and reduce the population first, but the reason I pulled out the quote was that I thought it was striking how these simple things that would make life so much more enjoyabull for many people seem to upset right wingers. Is it posabull all right wingers are on some sortove sell depravation kick? Is self denial the gole of every republican? If so they are cirtanly makeing a lot of laws to help themselves in that direction.

Just wanted to say that I totaly agree with every point you maid, and that I think the claws Ian was talking about, the one for an exception being made for procting the life of the mother, Well that was a preposed idea but that it didn't make it to the final bill. Gee I wonder why? Maby because this is a case of the lawmakers trying to tell doctor what to do! Not what is safe, or right.
Ryan

PS. I think masturbation is much more fun than marrage, but much less effective at preventing population groth.

Re: Marriage v/s masturbation

[errant-variable.livejournal.com]

Grr... goddamnit. Its only when I have a long-winded, emotionally driven reply that things go "fritz" on me here, and only when I have no backup that they sporadically dont recover.

I think that shooting congress will help popluation control about as much as cutting the brake lines of 10 or so random buses... there are more where those came from, and it is far less efficient to remove the end products than to stop them at their source. There are always people who are going to put personal pleasure (physical or otherwise) above the good of the community be it whatever size. If not putting yourself on the highest rung of every ladder you percieve is self-denial, so be it. I know that not doing many things I could have done in the past has saved people far more pain than I would have caused with the involved heartbreak (and PLEASE dont start comparing me with "self-denying" republicans...). On Republicans, legislation, and self-denial: not only are they not denying themselves specifically but denying the entire nation legal access to these behaviors, if they take such great joy "causing suffering and misery" to those they have theoretical power over, is not making these laws a form of selfindulgence, making them some of the more hedonistic people Im aware of?

There is never going to be a balance where everyone is happy... either the conservatives will have the power and the liberal groups will complain about having their freedoms taken away and their expression denied, or the liberal groups will have power and the conservatives will be complaining about the decay of what many of them honestly believe to be right and true. You will never have a system where you can implement "Do what you want, just dont fuck with me and mine" without someone hurting others in the pursuit of pleasure, and you will never have a system where all controlling powers are perfect and nonabusive because, face it, we're human. In a changing society where new concepts are being introduced and outdated laws are still holding on, there likely cannot be this sort of balance... and the conservatives have the upper hand right now. Big f'n hoo... some people (including me, if you couldnt tell) agree that it is a really stupid thing to drag an unborn child out of its mothers womb before you abort it - and that sucking its brains out cannot be the most humane way to do things. I also agree that if someone can prove that its necessary to do so, great, go ahead and do it.

Yes, that is the final version of the bill, and the "medical necessity" clause made it through to Bush. For once I think the lawmakers had their collective heads out of their asses when writing the actual legal code, although I am still disgusted with the self-aggrandizing preamble and reasoning behind this law.

The only way masturbation would be more efficient than marriage at preventing population growth is if it was the sole form of sexual expression practiced by a significant portion of the population. While this may actually be the case, we have yet to see the benefits wrought from the wide availability of internet porn.