jump to navigation

Myers injudiciously mangles the abortion issue.. . April 24, 2007

Posted by Administrator in Blogging, Cultural Pessimism, Pharyngulism, Pro-Life.
trackback

. . .(imagine that) by linking to this blog post.  In it, the author describes a harrowing period in his life where his pregnant wife begins such severe intra-uterine hemorrhaging that her blood pressure drops precipitously, then requiring a transfusion.  Once his wife is rendered mentally inert from this emergency, he then has to grapple with the decision to perform a D&C to stop the uterine bleed (we are operating on the reasonable assumption that this was the only course available to stop the bleeding).  The procedure will, of course, terminate the pregnancy.

The author then proceeds to vent significant spleen towards those that would hinder the availablility of abortion:

I sat there, wondering if I’d at least get my wife back after this. Then 20 minutes passed, and nothing. Thirty minutes. Forty. Forty five. I started to get worried and thought all sorts of horrible things that I will not put words to. Mainly, then, I start to think about the abortion debate. About pro-lifers, in particular. I think about all those meddling politicians that would want to interject themselves into everything that just happened to me, interject themselves between me, my wife, and her doctors. And then I had a strong, visceral reaction. I wanted the mutherf*****s to die. I wanted to rip off their heads and tear out their hearts, because how DARE they play politics with my wife’s life? The baby was fine until the end. I wondered if that would have meant they’d force us to let my wife bleed until almost death before they’d let us abort, because well, if she’s not near death, then it is just a ‘health’ exception, and we can’t have that! F*** them. F*** them all. They can f****** die, as far as I’m concerned. (asterisk editing by hoody)

Now, this man is describing a period in his life when he was understandably distraught at the prospect of losing his wife; compounded with his -erroneous- belief that pro-lifers would outlaw the D&C; a procedure recognized as common in maintaining the health of women.  He then proceeds to use it as a soapbox to advocate for the untrammelled access to abortion.

Myers, in his typical hypocritical and fundmamentalist extremism, suggests that this man’s experience is de rigeur.

I debate that point.  I would like to see some statistics that indicate the prevalence of D&C’s under the severe conditions his wife faced.

I’ll go out on a limb and say under 2% of all D&Cs are performed under similar circumstances.  Most are elective, in the sense that an otherwise healthy pregnancy is terminated, claiming that the baby is “unwanted.”

Again,

I wondered if that would have meant they’d force us to let my wife bleed until almost death before they’d let us abort, because well, if she’s not near death, then it is just a ‘health’ exception, and we can’t have that!

Horsefeathers.  Abortions are conducted all the time to protect the lives of mothers suffering from ectopic pregnancies.  This man’s wife would certainly fit in such a category.

Hie accusation above, and by extension, Myers’ sanctimonious and disengenuous endorsement of same, is malicious, mendacious and misleading claptrap.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Disgusted Beyond Belief - April 24, 2007

Not being a doctor, I cannot comment on the medical aspects. But then I did not intend to. And yes, it was an extremely emotional and visceral reaction, even in memory.

Ultimately, I think the last thing needed in any such situation is a politician. Personally, if it were up to me, I would not ever choose an elective abortion. I simply couldn’t do it. But that is my personal choice. Who am I to force that on anyone else?

Even under the best of circumstances, a pregnancy causes great stress on a woman’s body and risks death. I don’t think it is morally proper to force anyone to risk their life and health for someone else. And that a primary reason why I’m pro-choice.

2. demolition65 - April 25, 2007

I hear your moral position; and am grateful for your coherent and calm comment. I applaud you on your position re: elective abortion.

I appreciate your clarification regarding your stance. You are NOT claiming that your wife’s experience is typical, and I apologize for making such an assumption.

Obviously I disagree with you on the issue of moral propriety here; not least due to the fact that abortion is a form of murder. Now, in your wife’s case, if one wishes to argue this from a standard legal viewpoint, is one of self-defense, just as is the ectopic pregnancy example.

However, reducing the issue to one of legal combat is exceptionally problematic. I would be very hesitant to take such an analogy very far at all.

3. Disgusted Beyond Belief - April 26, 2007

Murder is a strong term. I can certainly understand its use here. The problem is that a fetus is NOT an independent entity.

How about this? How would you feel if, instead of killing a fetus, the procedure is, just cut the umbilical cord, because that is taking resources away from the woman, and no one can be forced to provide resources against their will, and then after that, it is up to the fetus to live or die on its own. Perhaps it could be implanted into someone else, perhaps not, but then why should the woman be forced to risk death (and there are ALWAYS risks with pregnancy) to continue providing sustenance to the fetus?

It’s, after all, not the woman’s fault that the fetus can’t usually survive without the connection to the mother, but why force the mother to provide it against her will?

What if I have some strange sickness, and I am going to die, but then I run into you in the street, and manage to save myself by attaching myself to you. This attachment leeches nutriuents from your body, causes you to gain weight, and, oh yes, has a chance of killing you, and even if it doesn’t, it will impact you physically for the rest of your life. But don’t worry, I’ll only stay attached for 9 months, then I’ll be cured and I can go on my merry way. If you detach me, I die. Should I be able to legally force you to have me attached with you for those 9 months? If you detach me, is it murder? Who gets to decide if I stay attached? You? Or should we just let a bunch of strangers vote and let them decide, leaving you out of it?

You think all abortion is murder. I can even respect that from a logical perspective, though ultimately the logic fails when fully examined. But why should your opinion on the matter be dictated to everyone else?

4. demolition65 - April 26, 2007

Murder is a strong term. I can certainly understand its use here. The problem is that a fetus is NOT an independent entity. We are in agreement with these three statements. The difficulty comes in suggesting that the fact the fetus is not an indepedent agent somehow muddies the waters.

It’s, after all, not the woman’s fault that the fetus can’t usually survive without the connection to the mother, but why force the mother to provide it against her will?

What if I have some strange sickness, and I am going to die, but then I run into you in the street, and manage to save myself by attaching myself to you. This attachment leeches nutriuents from your body, causes you to gain weight, and, oh yes, has a chance of killing you, and even if it doesn’t, it will impact you physically for the rest of your life. But don’t worry, I’ll only stay attached for 9 months, then I’ll be cured and I can go on my merry way. If you detach me, I die.

Herein lies the trouble; though I cannot believe that a man of your apparent calmness has not grasped this point, so I must assume you are deliberately minimizing it.

Your analogy is flawed. You do not “run into” babies in the street. They come about -most often- from a conscious desire to have intercourse. Folllowing from that decision, as all 4th graders know, comes the very real likelihood that a baby can be conceived.

The relationship is not parasitical. To make such a claim even de-facto is outrageous. If it were, our natural inclination to reject any type of enslavement would result in us either not mating, or killing all children in utero, as the are in effect enslaving us.

The relationship is one of mutual support; support offered from the mother, with the expectation that supprt is then given by the child in the mother’s dotage. Consequently, virtually all the remainder of the argument, Should I be able to legally force you to have me attached with you for those 9 months? If you detach me, is it murder? Who gets to decide if I stay attached? You? Or should we just let a bunch of strangers vote and let them decide, leaving you out of it?

You think all abortion is murder. I can even respect that from a logical perspective, though ultimately the logic fails when fully examined. is invalid.

This point, But why should your opinion on the matter be dictated to everyone else? when taken to its logical conclusion, states that criminals must not be incarcerated, as our opinion that their crimes deserve punishment are invalid. How can our opinion of their relative guilt be dictated upon them?

I appreciate your patience and attempt to engage the issue rationally. But I fear that your logic needs much to be desired.

5. Disgusted Beyond Belief - April 27, 2007

Maybe it is the formatting, but I’m having trouble following your line of reasoning in your comment, so bear with me.

First, you never answered my hypothetical, near as I can tell, but dodged it by saying it wasn’t about something that was consensual. But since there is such a thing as rape, that is a valid hypothetical to consider in considering abortion law. And not every fourth grader knows about reproduction. I think some of the same people who are for outlawing abortion also don’t much like having sexual education in schools, either.

So just within that limited framework, who should get to decide if you have to keep the sick parasite who has latched onto you in the street? You, or strangers voting?

And as for people never having children if the relationship of a fetus is parasitical, well, see, that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about choice. Some will choose to nurture the parasite, some won’t.

Once you’ve answered my hypothetical about the disease leech (as I fondly think of him) then we can discuss further the implications of that.

6. demolition65 - April 27, 2007

I did not dodge the hypothetical. It is logically flawed. Unless you are about to say that abortion is valid only during times of rape and incest, the analogy you provide does not wash.

I think some of the same people who are for outlawing abortion also don’t much like having sexual education in schools, either. Be that as it may, it is dodging the issue.

And as for people never having children if the relationship of a fetus is parasitical, well, see, that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about choice. Some will choose to nurture the parasite, some won’t. But that is EXACTLY what we are talking about. Viewing the organism as a parasite is a grossly alien view of reproduction. Not to poke at a sore spot for you, but as I recall, even in your post you were not viewing your child as a parasite.

The disease leech comparison is not a workable analogy.

7. Njordhr - May 30, 2007

Your analogy is flawed. You do not “run into” babies in the street. They come about -most often- from a conscious desire to have intercourse.

You are pointing out something important here, but it’s not as much of a difference as you make it out to be. There is planned pregnancy, accidental pregnancy, and rape. Accidental pregnancy isn’t all that different from “running into” a baby. It’s unintentional and unexpected.

And now you do your little speech on “you should know what to expect when you have sex.” Thing is, sex isn’t only for babies. It has other benefits. It’s unreasonable to ask people to never ever have sex unless they want a baby.

The relationship is not parasitical. To make such a claim even de-facto is outrageous. If it were, our natural inclination to reject any type of enslavement would result in us either not mating, or killing all children in utero, as the are in effect enslaving us.

A parasite isn’t necessarily unwelcome. It simply means that it is something obtaining nourishment from a host without benefiting the host. And can you really argue that definition? That’s exactly what it’s doing.

Some people don’t appreciate it feeding off them, so they have an abortion. Some people WANT it, so they don’t. It doesn’t change the definition. It IS a parasite whether or not welcome.

8. demolition65 - May 31, 2007

The basis of your argument stems from this statement: Thing is, sex isn’t only for babies. It has other benefits. It’s unreasonable to ask people to never ever have sex unless they want a baby.

True, sex has other benefits. The key is being OPEN to a baby, not necessarily WANTING one. But to reduce sex to its other benefits is to demean it, and to insinuate that it is then unreasonable to expect others to not have sex if they are not open to children is to render them to the level of animals.

In short, people need to control themselves and thereby give themselves dignity.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: