|
|
 |
Reader Feedback on "Raw Nerve"
A lot of hyperbole in this one. "But how dare they call themselves "pro-life" — and how dare we let them?" Well, it's one thing to say that an aborted fetus has no rights and isn't human yet. It's another to say it isn't even alive. You can compare it to a parasitic organism, but you can't compare it to a log or a rock. Obviously an abortion by definition involves killing an organism in a stage of development. If it wasn't, an abortion would be unnecessary. There is a difference between a fetus and an organ. "Pro-life" is manipulative rhetoric as it posits opponents who are "pro-death," but so is "pro-choice," as they both have their assumptions built into them. Obviously the label "pro-choice" is nonsensical to someone who believes that a fetus is human and therefore also deserves choice. The author unfortunately is willing to leave the whole debate on the bumper sticker level it is at and wants to appropriate the other sides bumper stickers. Well, the bumper sticker mentality is a large part of the problem; the idea that the debate will be resolved by some sort of pithy slogan is idiocy. Likewise the suggestion that people "cannot live" without reproductive rights is hysterical. Abortion wasn't even medically possible for thousands of years. People survived and flourished. Today abortion is illegal in countries such as Argentina and Ireland, and yet you do not see masses of women dying in the gutters due to a lack of "reproductive choice." Obviously some mothers will die in pregnancy, and others will die getting abortions. Even more will die in car accidents, but you don't hear people lobbying against the car. But in Afghanistan, to hear certain feminist lobbying groups talk, it is more important to deliver "reproductive choice" to Afghan women than it is to remove landmines or provide sterile drinking water.
--PS
05/12 |
I don't know if I agree with taking "pro-life" in place of "pro-choice" or not, but I do have something to say to some of the posts here who criticize women for not "taking responsiblity" for their actions with regard to sex. You would probably be correct in saying that the majority of abortion-seekers were consenting adults/teenagers who may or may not have known the risk they were taking, but that doesn't include those of us who had NO CHOICE in the matter at all. Have you ever had your body taken from you? Well I have. There was NO CHOICE involved at all. For the first 12 years of my life I had no choice in what happened to me in my own home, by my own father. Luckily for me, I escaped before I had to suffer the consequences of somebody else's CHOICE. Could you honestly tell me that you would tell a women who was raped by her own father or husband that she has to "deal with the consequences" of actions that were not hers? And if you believe that abortion should only be for those victims of circumstance, then who would be the one judging what is really a rape crime? Some biased male who may hear one woman's plea for her self-respect as that of a cheap slut who let a game of necking go too far. How can a wife, who is completely dependent on her husband, turn in her husband when he forces her to have sex? Who would believe her? Should she be made to carry a baby that she never consented to having? If you ask me this country is too focused on "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" to see straight, to see the problem. There are so many other things we could be focusing on to make sure, as the author put it, that abortion is "rare" in any case. That is, above all, what almost all true "pro-chiocers" wish for...that a woman would never have to make the choice to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy; that all pregnancies are wanted. Until someone in this life can garuntee me that my choice will never again be taken from me, I will support "pro-choice".
--TR
05/12 |
It is unbelievable that people still think its their right to KILL A CHILD. So what if that woman in Maine went through all that trouble to find family planning. She made her choice to have sex, she got pregnant, and now she has to deal with the consequences. Damn, Ladies, learn how to take some responsibility for your own decisions, instead finding the easy way out. You put yourself in that position so deal with it. I'm sick and tired of hearing young girls and women saying they’re not ready to have a baby,"but you were ready and thought you were adult enough to spread you legs"! BS! Adults take responsibiliy for their actons. When you choose to have sex you need to realize and understand stand all the risk in having sex. Stops being selfish, grow up, and deal with it. AND ALSO HAS ANYONE HEARD OF ABSTINENCE? GEESH! And one more thing. Some of you "pro-choice" people are saying that pro-lifers are bible-waving fundamentalists. I am not a bible waving fundamentalists. I just believe that "every" human life should be valued and respected.
--NND
05/12 |
To call yourself pro-life is only accurate to say it when the mother is in serious danger of losing her life. The LIFE that Pro-life stands for is the life of a child. We do have the right to reproduce, but we truly do not have the right to be negligent when thinking of having sex. Meaning that there is no gaurrenteed way of ensuring that conception will not occur. You are right when you say that college age people take a handful of condoms and take abortion for granted. As a college student we think that we are invinsible and that it would never happen to us. Yet, every day I hear another pregnant girl say 'I cannot believe this happened to me.'
My mother worked in a Crisis Pregnacy Center for several years when we lived in Louisiana. She heard the laments of young women telling of how their partner in this has left them because they did not want anything to do with raising a child. A child is a gift and we should take the act of sex in the same manner, a gift. Sex design has only one purpose - to bring life into this world.
I have a very close friend that was willing to change his life around so he could raise his child. His now ex-girlfriend made the choice that she was not ready to be a mother and was getting an abortion. My friend was devestated by the thought, but she lucked out - she miscarried. He still cries over her decision even though it did not work out that way.
So, no, I do not think that there should be a fight over a label. She made the conscience decision to end a life that she made. That decision is called a CHOICE. We make it a choice that the child will live. Choices have consequences so make the right one from the beginning and choose not to have sex. We have the right, but remember there will be consequences.
--mc
05/11 |
THANK YOU! I've been trying to figure out how our generation can get fired up and take back a little bit of that self-righteousness from the anti-choice movement, steal a little of that passion. From now on, I'm "pro-abortion rights."
At least until we find a better name.
--DHB
05/11 |
While I do appreciate the passion with which Ms. Harris composed her piece, I do have to disagree with her on one point. Though she may feel that abortion is an inanlienable right...it is not. Even Roe and Casey and Stenberg - cases that protect abortion - recognize that the state has an interest in protecting the life of an unborn child, and that after viability, the state may in fact proscribe abortions in their entirety (so long as there is an exception for the health of the mother). Okay, so I have to disagree on two points. The second is that I think the "pro-choice" moniker is perfect for abortion advocates. It places the emphasis on the mother, and her right to determine the future of her own body - it is her choice to terminate the pregnancy or not. In those terms, it removes the grisly reality that accompanies abortion - that the choice is to prematurely end a life. Good luck stealing "pro-life" but I don't think it is going to happen. That would be like pro-death penalty people saying that they are pro-life because they value the life of the innocent victim. What life is a pro-abortion advocate in favor of? Certainly not the unborn child...so stick with the pro-choice.
--TSD
05/11 |
What nonsense.
The global abortion debate is about whether women should have the legal right to have a choice about their reproductive decisions.
Calling the abortion rights movement anything but "pro-choice" would be an exercise in foolishness.
--CC
05/11 |
hot topic. everyone wants to pitch in for "pro-life" or "pro-choice". You're right though, nobody wants to call it "pro-abortion" because that sounds so negative, and pro-life sounds so positive. The rhetoric will not change, only the people who are passing the laws will. If President Bush stays in office, he will make abortion illegal, in keeping with his religious roots. Just another bad example of religion cohabitating with state. At no point should religious beliefs be enforced by state mandate, that's one of the founding principles of our country. Just one of the reasons I'm considering moving to fucking Australia. This country is full of radical, fundamentalist Christians. Uh, I mean Muslims. No, wait, Protestants.
Never mind, they're the same damn thing...
--CM
05/10 |
Very true...I had an ABORTION a few years ago, and it was no easy 'choice'. I still feel shame and guilt, I assume that will never go away. I think it just means I have a concience. The underlying problem here is the judgement society casts on women that have abortions...it is definitely considered a dirty word, especially here in the 'bible belt' south where I live. Openly expressing disdain for abortion is the norm, brave is the woman that says she's 'pro-abortion'.
--mc
05/09 |
It might sound selfish but I think it should be called "My-Life" because that's exactly what it is. I thought the "Me" generation was dead. I guess it's still alive and kicking or if it's aborted I guess it's not. What a circle jill of insignificant semantics!
--RM
05/09 |
AMEN! Too many women's rights and abortion rights groups are letting religious fundamentalists frame the debate on abortion, to their own detriment. They use euphemisms like "choice" instead of standing up for themselves and proclaiming that abortion is an appropriate,ethical decision.
--SP
05/08 |
Terrorists exercise their freedom of choice too.
--I_R
05/08 |
Conserving the American public's right to abortion doesn not only concern Americans. Think of the message you are sending out to the world. If the world's mightiest (that is what you claim) nation cancels a woman's right to decide, that will for sure send a message to other countries. The biblethumpers will have scored a big one. Following the debate from Denmark where I live, i can only hope you are able to turn this thing around. I cannot tell you how SURREAL it looks from here. A civilized, modern society suddenly turning medieval. I send you american women all my luck and good wishes, because you do have a while to go yet.
--eva
05/08 |
Best 'Pro-Repro-Rights' article I'm read in, well, ever! Very inspiring and courageous. Right on, and keep fighting the good fight! I'm sending this article to my sisters, Mothers, friends, grandmothers...
--MA
05/07 |
You know, I'm getting very frustrated with people looking me straight in the eye and calling abortion 'murder.' Just to piss you people off, I'm now 'anti-life.' But of course, you too have the option of being 'anti-choice.' That way we all convieniently meet our perceived stereotypes. Have a nice day.
--JTV
05/07 |
The best abortion essay I've ever read.
--JTV
05/07 |
YES! YES! YES! Thank you for articulating so well the consumeristic aspects of the word "choice" and acknowledging what groups like NARAL won't - that our movement is in fact losing and it's time for a radical overhaul of our messages and our priorities. Let's not only say "abortion", let's broaden the language to say a whole barrel full of words that get left out when we sanitize the issue in the hopes of appearing more mainstream. Let's say "welfare rights" and let's say "access" and let's say "sexual rights" too ...
--GRC
05/06 |
"Pro-choice" may not be a perfect term, but it's the best for now. "Pro-abortion" doesn't cut it. There's some interesting posters around here from a group called "feminists for life" showing young women with rings in their noses etc and the quote "Women deserve better than abortion." I disagree with their goals, but they've chosen a great slogan. We do. I should have had access to higher-quality condoms, doctors should be better informed how to correctly prescribe the morning after pill (the famous doctor who eventually performed my abortion explained that I should have waited three days instead of taking it immediately, as I had already ovulated), rape should be abolished, all the causes of unplanned pregnancies should be dealt with. And when it comes down to the wire, and the pregancy happens anyway, a woman must be able to choose whether or not to have a child. I am not pro-abortion, I think abortion sucks, and I wouldn't even counsel a woman to have an abortion necessarily. But she has to be able to have power over her own body. She has to have choice.
--mit
05/06 |
Choice means you can say "no" to going to bed with someone in the first place.
--et
05/06 |
i work for planned parenthood. in a small city in a big state. i got the job as a mail girl and worked my way up to full-time organizer, sending thousands to the March. it was only until last year that i really realized abortion rights. had to have one. faced with unplanned parenthood in my tiny one-room apartment and caring for a being i wasn't expecting and not prepared for... it hit me. what i was working for had something to do with my life. rhetoric goes a way, but truth tells all. i still blush when i talk to my volunteers about abortion. it's still an explosive term. and carries many implications. to which our lt governor speaks eloquently: these women should not be either madonnas or whores. in sad situations so they must choose or sluts who have to choose. i was neither. and i am all. stigma makes for our conversation. we do have to change the rhetoric. but it changes to each person you talk to. parents: it's more emotional. legislators: it's about saving the state money. activists: we are pro-life! get the gov't out of the bedroom! republicans for choice: get the gov't out of the bedroom! swing voters: it's health care and saves taxpayers money. .... the discussion about abortion is wide-ranged. it's not a heart transplant, although it is surgery as is. but so loaded. when will we just come down to the fact that it's medical? a decision for women and men, families, and doctors, consciences. and ultimately a legal right, as is voting, freedom from slavery, climbing a ladder, renting a property, reporting on the news, having an abortion, having a triple by-pass, going on zoloft, searching hot singles on nerve.com/salon.com/onion.com, tasting a cosmopolitan... when will abortion become a right?
--lol
05/05 |
Lynn,
I have to take you to task about a woman in Maine needing to travel to New York City for an abortion. A ten second search on the Web turned up four providers in three major cities. They are:
Family Planning Assn. Of Maine - Augusta, ME
Mabel Wadsworth Women's Hlth Ctr - Bangor, ME
Planned Parenthood - Portland, ME
Women's Community Health Center - South Portland, ME
Abortion providers are out there. It is not, however, government's responsibility to pay for abortions. If abortion supporters realy cared, they would establish a fund to pay for women's travel and medical expenses.
I am pro-life. I say that because it exposes the mistake at the heart of abortion supporters. An unborn child is a child. Is is not a mere "blob of cells," as many abortion supporter claim it is. If left unharmed, that child will be born, grow, and live a life. Abortion ends that life. No amount of rhetoric can change that fact.
For the record, I put my money where my mouth is. I volunteer my time at a home for unwed mothers. I renovate buildings so they have places to stay and contribute money so they can get their lives together. It's a sacrifice, but given the stakes, it is well worth it.
Sign me - Proudly Pro-Life.
--RWC
05/05 |
Pro-life, pro-choice, anti-life, pro-family, pro-abortion: they're all titles that sometimes seem to get intertwined or mixed up. There shouldn't even be a need for "titles" like these.
I don't have a problem with people who choose to do such things, I just hope that people make "informed" decisions, which may be hard to come by.
"Nobody wants to say 'abortion,'" in my opinion, because of what the word implies: termination, end, etc., of a life. Just beacuse it's legal doesn't make it right. Just because she's not born yet, doesn't mean it's OK to
abort her. And if it is OK to abort her, then why isn't infantcide OK?? It's a slippery slope so look out, because soon it may be OK to kill children, elderly, etc. when they are not "wanted".
--KAH
05/05 |
Hell Yeah! By calling themselves Pro-life it autmatically labels abortion supporters as Anti-life, which is very far from what the "Pro-Choice" supporters are all about. We are all about LIFE. I am twenty years old and since I turned thirteen I have been a strong supporter of making abortion legal, accessible, and safe for the female population of this country and of the world for that matter. There are so many cases where abortion is the only way to save lives. What good is it to bring a child into this world if it can't be supported and nurtured? Even more than just abortion, strongly believe that access birth control (i.e. the pill, condoms, etc.) should be both women's and men's right. If anti-abortion politicians are so against abortion, why aren't they pushing a prevention plan? Why isn't the pill covered by most health insurances while Viagra is? It just seems like everyone is tip-toeing around human reproduction and SEX! it's ridiculous. Abortion is just the tip of the ice-berg.
--CLA
05/05 |
ApB, you argument that "no adult can live in their own, so why shouldn't we kill them" is flawed in several ways. When speaking of life, pure life, not quality of life, we are usually talking about physical life- your heart beats, your lungs work, and so forth. A fetus can not live on its own outside it's mother's body before a certain time, so therefore it is a part of it's mother's body. a person can live without the company of other people- their quality of life might be low, but they will be alive. However, medical science is constantly pushing back the time a fetus can live outside the body of it's mother, which is why abortions at later times in a pregnancy are being questioned. I don't think that at this time there is any doctor or machine that can keep a baby in it's first or early second trimester alive outside it's mother, so abortions at these times really can't be considered murder.
--MER
05/05 |
i am an entitled college student who grabs many a free condom. however, i have never taken legal abortion for granted, so screw you.
--rl
05/05 |
thank you for writing the article. i never though of the issue that way, and i'm glad someone finally had the guts to bring it to the foreground. you're right, why are we so scared to say "abortion?" BUT, i do have one gripe with your argument: what about the women who really do believe in pro-CHOICE, and are absolutely anti-abortion (such women do exist.) they, personally, would never have an abortion because they believe it is morally wrong, however, they fight for others who need and want the "choice" to be available. so what then? how does "pro-abortion" apply to them....which leads me to believe that we really DO need to take back the word "life" because it covers the entire spectrum.
--els
05/05 |
Maybe if we pull ALL our troops out of the middle east, stop supporting Israel, and make abortion illegal, terrorists will stop flying planes into our building. Are you listening Bush?
--WHO
05/05 |
rtest
--r
05/05 |
The classic counter to "life" arguments is "quality of life." And from my conversations with women who considered or have had abortions, they mainly worried about the quality of life of the to-be child. Your concern about "word games" is right on but I also have doubts whether the general American public is conversant enough with abstract ideas to really care. Also, our society is designed to give rhetorical ammo to the Bible-waving bunch. It's inherent to American politics and society.
--PAR
05/05 |
I think abortion should not only be legal, but it should be mandatory for people with IQ's under 80. We don't let chimps adopt, niether should we let imbeciles reproduce or raise kids. That would solve alot of society's problems.
--HO
05/05 |
Being “pro-choice” means you are for having men in the government STOP telling you what to do with you body. In my view, niether term works.
I am for reproductive freedom.
--ASW
05/05 |
Thank you very much for your article. You put into to words what I, and many others have been thinking for some time now. I can only hope that the progressive leaning members of our society shift towards this fearless way of thinking. It will do all of us a great deal of good one day.
--BW
05/05 |
I see that you "pro-choice" people are doing what you do best, trying to justify murder in your own minds by making it a "choice" and a "right" and "safe" etc. Sorry, but murder is murder, and abortion is just another word for murder.
As I said, I don't think it should be illegal, but it should not be as easy to do as it is. Yes, adoption should be discussed, I in fact was adopted. If, however, things are to stay the way they are with abortion being legal, anyone having one for a reason other than rape or self-preservation should also be given a hysterectomy as a consequence for their "choice" to murder.
--ApB
05/05 |
I can tell from the feedback already here that this is going to generate at least as much fighting as the thoughtful review of "Passion of the Christ." Just to throw my full support with the author -- no woman has an abortion with a cavalier attitude. Legal and safe and accessible still don't equal easy. For more sane, compassionate discussion of the issue, take a look at catholicsforchoice.org.
--sh
05/05 |
This is an insightful article that warrants consideration. If we alter our rhetoric (not our goals, mind you) in a way that can attract swing voters, then maybe we'll only elect presidents who use their authority to uphold our rights instead of thrash them. Good call, Lynn.
--
05/05 |
Pro choice vs. pro life. Why is it that adoption has been taken out of the equation? I believe abortion should be legal, safe, and available after counseling about adoption in certain cases.
--ckk
05/05 |
While I am pro-abortion, I am troubled by the advance of medical technology which allows "pre-mature" infants to survive. As the number of weeks after conception an infant can survive decreases, I think the window for abortion shrinks. After the date at which a fetus can become viable outside the womb, the woman's rights conflict with the fetus's rights.
No one seems to talk about this. Just my take.
--dh
05/05 |
Abortion should be used when a womens health is at risk period.Not for birth control as has become all to common.If you are worried about becoming pregant, try holding a dime between your knees, it works every time.
--RWM
05/05 |
One of my college professors several years ago said, "Without abortion, there are no female civil liberties."
She also said, "Rape is a way of policing women."
I think on both counts, she is right.
--CAK
05/05 |
The mentality of these "pro-choice" people always baffles me. How can anyone be so closed minded as to believe that an unborn baby is not a life and therefore its alright to KILL it because, well, "thats MY choice". How incredibly childish and selfish a mindset that is. Sounds like I'm pro-life, right? Yes, but I also do not think that abortion should be illegal. In extreme cases, such as rape or when the mother's life is threatened, then it should be allowed. But as a "choice", that is saying that it is alright to murder. All of the arguments that these "pro-choice" morons put forth are so easily dismissed and buried by rational thinkers. One of my favorites is the one that "its not alive because it can't survive on its own". Alright, not really a definition of "alive", but by that definition you should then be alowed to kill anyone since even adults could not live solely on "their own" either. Everyone needs some kind of help from someone else in some way in order to live.
And heres a senario for thought... A woman, pregnant, gets into a car accident. The man who's fault the accident was is charged with manslaughter since the woman lived, but her unborn child did not.
Right or wrong?
What if that woman driving was on her way to have an abortion? Should the man still be charged? And if so, then why shouldn't the doctor performing the abortion?
--ApB
05/05 |
DMS - The author never says that there is "nothing wrong" with abortion. Most people who advocate abortion rights would never want to have one; it's a difficult decision, morally and medically. To be pro-abortion is simply to acknowledge, as in the example the author gives, that abortions are sometimes sadly necessary. Abortion is not something that should be taken casually. This is the whole point of the article: the word "choice" seems to resonate with anti-abortion activists as "abortion on a whim." But it's not about that. God knows, no one should be in favor of that.
--ge
05/05 |
JAG, I think in Harris' example she explained why the second-term abortion would happen. The woman can't find a suitable doctor because only one third of counties have a doctor who will perform the procedure. Then she has to figure out how to pay for it, and with the bureaucracy of Medicaid it takes a long time to discover that she has to pay for it herself, and when she finally does, she finds out that Medicaid won't cover it. And she's taking care of children and working a lot, and can't devote all the necessary time to figuring out what to do about her pregnancy. And on top of that when she finally does know what to do, she has to come up with the money herself and rearrange her life to do it.
--
05/05 |
Hey Lynn,
I have an honest question for you. First you should know that I'm anti-abortion. But my question is, if you believe there is nothing wrong with abortion, i.e., its not killing a baby, why do you say that abortions should be rare. If I believed it wasn't murder, I would say, "who cares how many abortions someone has, it's all good". I'll answer my own question. I think there is a small part of you that thinks its wrong, otherwise, why would you want abortions to be rare? Anyway, that my two cents.
--DMS
05/05 |
Isn't Lynn Harris' conclusionary phrase: "Pro-reproductive rights" inadvertantly saying that she is **for** the right to reproduce?
--MS
05/05 |
To Jag--Second trimester abortions occur usually because some women are scared of the stigma and wait too long to make a decision. Also, in many states women get tied up in all the legalities of wanting an abortion. For instance, if the father of the unborn tries to block the abortion or the procedures that a state might have (such as counseling, parental consent if a minor etc).
Third trimester abortions don't occur as often or as easily as the "pro-life" organizations would like you to think. As far as I know, they can only occur if continuing the pregnancy will be life threatening for either the child or the mother (in the U.S.) I hope that answered your question...
To Lynne Harris--I'm ashamed to admit that hid under the label of pro-choice. I attended the march in washington. When my college roommate asked what the march was for, I said that it was for pro-abortion, pro-sex education, women's rights, etc. She immediately reacted to the word "abortion" and looked at me with disgust (I soon learned that she is "pro-life"). In reaction, I said that I was pro-choice not really pro-abortion, but who am I kidding? It didn't fool her that's for sure.
--cw
05/05 |
In the example Ms. Harris gives, she imagines a case in which you need an abortion and "by the time you figure all this out you're in your second trimester"... but why would it take you that long to figure out that you're pregnant?
If your period's over two weeks late, you buy a pregnancy test for $10 and find out instantly whether you're pregnant... I don't know what she thinks will take so long to "figure out."
I'm pretty strongly pro-abortion rights, but it still baffles me why women would need second or third trimester abortions. Can anyone explain it to me?
--JAG
05/05 |
send feedback on "Raw Nerve"
back to "Raw Nerve" |
|
|
