And I'm anti-abortion, for reasons I've stated before.
So many people talk about "freedom of speech". It's easy to stand on a street corner and hold your signs and badmouth your fellow citizens, your country, or God--and then go home and have a burger and fries, eating more in that one meal than some people in the world will eat in two days.
Want to see bravery exhibited practicing freedom of speech? See this photo essay about the March For Life, a pro-life/anti-abortion march, in San Francisco. When you get to the end of the page, be sure to click on Part 2 and then Part 3. Those of you on the right will be proud of the quiet dignity the pro-lifers demonstrated. Rabid lefties and abortion supporters will probably like what they see of the lefties in this essay. They should, however, be embarrassed.
Here's a classic caption to one of several dozen photos in the essay:
When one young anarachist expressed infuriated incomprehension that the Christians could be allowed to display their messages, a friendly but stern policeman patiently explained to him the definition of "free speech." The anarchist retorted, "But who the hell do they think they are, saying that shit here?"
Again, "here" is San Francisco. My regular readers will understand my meaning. If you're new here, try this post. This isn't my first time writing about Baghdad By The Bay.
8 comments:
Did you know that before abortion was legalized by Roe vs. Wade, abortion was the #1 cause of unnatural death for woman in the United States. Outlawing abortion won't make it go away. It will simply cause women to have underground illegal abortions causing death and infection.
About all those pro-lifers, have they seen how many unwated children there are in the world already? Do they really want more babies left in garbage cans, foster care or children's homes. When each pro-lifer has gone out and helped atleast five unwanted children who are already alive, then they can start worrying about those that aren't even born. Arrogant, self rightuous Christian right wing. They preach prolife but support war and the death penalty. Tell me isn't there something a little incongruous about that?
By the way, pardon me if this isn't quite up to my usual standard of politness however this is something I feel rather strongly about.
As someone whose child was killed via abortion, I have strong feelings as well.
Overturning Roe v. Wade won't end abortion in this country. It will, however, restore the rule of written law. Even stark-raving-mad Eleanor Rodham Clift of Newsweek (and the McLaughlin Group) has so noted.
There's nothing incongruous about supporting war, the death penalty, and being anti-abortion. Don't rely on 17th century English (where "kill" meant the same as "murder" today) to justify your position. There's always been justifiable killing--self-defense, legal execution, and war are just three examples. You're smart enough to recognize the difference between killing innocents and killing those who are not.
You're right, though--this isn't up to your usual intellectual standards.
Were you proud of what you saw your comrades-in-belief doing at that rally?
As in so many other areas of our lives, technology is going to completely transform the abortion debate. Right now there are exciting developments being published on both the beginning and ending phases of gestation, meaning that technology is allowing artificial conception to take place and safeguard the fetus as it develops, and to allow pre-mature babies to be saved at ever younger stages of development. The research from both ends of this spectrum are converging upon ectogenesis, which we covered in this post.
With ectogenesis the rights of women not to proceed with pregnancy, for whatever their reasons, can be preserved because the process of fetal extraction need not be synonymous with fetal extinction. This technology will create some interesting social consequences. Currently, men forfeight their reproductive rights after conception takes place, in that it is the sole preserve of the woman to decide whether to continue with the pregnancy or not, and if the man objects he is still financially responsible, at the minimum, for the next 20 years. After ectogenesis is perfected we'll see reproductive rights between men and women equalized, in that a new, and heretofore impossible, outcome will arise - a woman who wants to terminate while the man objects will have the fetal tissue extracted and implanted into an ectogenetic chamber and the man will become the father after birth and the woman will be responsible for child support.
Further, it's possible that third parties, those not involved in the conception, who oppose abortion could now put their money where their mouths are and instead of forcing their moral decisions on the couple or woman, could step forward and pay for ectogenetic transfer and the raise the child as their own. This of course will raise issues pertaining to control of genetic material, for instance if both parents object to a child being born that is their offspring, despite someone stepping forward and willing to take responsibility for the welfare of that child.
As it is, we're at a statemate now, but genetic technology will certainly break that stalemate. Interesting times are ahead.
Ectogenesis. Sounds like something out of Ghostbusters :-)
I've put a lot of thought into abortion lately, and I think I've kinda sorta determined my position on it. That postition is this: I'm far more concerned about the inequity built into the law than I am about the actual abortion. I guess if both genetic contributors want to abort a fetus, I'm willing to accept that fact. I think.
When these technologies get perfected they're going to create quite a bit of passing the intellectual buck.
I would love to read a feminist opinion piece on why men who object to having a child should have to pay for support, but the women who object to the child (which the man wants and uses ectogenic processes to develop) should be exempt from child support obligations.
I would love to read why pro-life advocates are comfortable in advocating that women take on pregnancy obligations when they are not willing to step forward and disrupt their lives for the same prinicple.
I think the twisting and turning in these essays would make for interesting reading.
You're right about the feminists, but I'm not so sure about the pro-lifers. *They* aren't the ones who created the child in your example so I'm not so sure they are morally bound to care for it. Likewise, I'm not convinced that everyone who is for the death penalty should be required to pull the switch--although I sure would!
I didn't understand the concluding part of your article, could you please explain it more?
It means that San Francisco is one of the least "tolerant" places on earth. I find the politics of that city to be absolutely disgusting.
Post a Comment