I'm just going to play ring announcer and step back and let you read these two posts, unmediated.
In the red corner, Bob Krumm, appalled to learn how lightly some young women apparently take abortion:
I was at a luncheon a couple months ago where I was seated with two young women who were not long out of college. The subject of abortion came up . . . . I expressed my sentiment that abortion makes it too easy on the man, who walks away freely, while leaving the woman to confront the tragedy of her situation alone. Boy, did they tell me I was wrong.They shared stories of college girls who joked about how many abortions they’ve had. They said that a common Saturday or Sunday morning remark made by women who had spent the previous evening partying with a random hookup was, “I guess I’ll have to make another trip to the clinic.”
I was stunned.
Last April, Peggy Noonan described an example of the callous change in American culture that she’s observed. She had recently attended a Broadway revival of Lorraine Hansbury’s [sic] brilliant play Raisin in the Sun, which she hadn’t seen for years . . . : [The misspelling is Noonan's, uncorrected by Opinion Journal. It's Lorraine Hansberry.]
An important moment in the plot is when a character announces she is pregnant, and considering having an abortion. . . It is a dramatic moment. And you know as you watch it that when this play came out in 1960 it was received by the audience as a painful moment . . .But this is the thing: Our audience didn't know that. They didn't understand it was tragic. They heard the young woman say she was about to end the life of her child, and they applauded. Some of them cheered. It was stunning. . .
. . . They reacted as if abortion were a political question. They thought that the fact that the young woman was considering abortion was a sign of liberation. They thought this cry of pain was in fact a moment of self-actualizing growth.
[Krumm continues:] Rush Limbaugh has often said that abortion is a “sacrament” to the left. I’ve always considered that remark to be part of Rush’s shtick: hyperbole for the sake of shock value. However, when crowds cheer an abortion, and girls brag about having them . . . I have to wonder: is Rush right?
(Make sure to read Bob Krumm's whole post, because I've left out one of his examples.)
In the blue corner, Carla at Preemptive Karma. First, she quotes this declaration by Sheelzebub at Pinko Feminist Hellcat:
I'm not one of those people who decry abortion as a necessary evil. . . . I don't hate abortion.I think it's wonderful.
I think it's wonderful because it frees women from unwanted pregnancies, it keeps women from enduring the risks and complications that can arise from pregnancy, and it gives them say over when they will have children. If ever.
I'll quote just a little more of Sheelzebub than Carla did:
This probably makes me a selfish, cold woman since I don't get weepy over a fetus. Fine. I don't care. Get this straight--moralizing about the fetus will do nothing to change my mind. For me, abortion is not horrible, it's a godsend.
Then Carla relates her own experience:
When I was 19 years old I had an abortion.I've never regretted my decision to do it. I was halfway through my sophomore year in college. My boyfriend had recently become my ex boyfriend because I'd caught him cheating with another girl. I was emotionally, spiritually and financially unprepared for pregnancy and subsequent motherhood.
As one of their excuses for banning abortion, the anti-choice set has insisted that abortion lays too heavy a burden of guilt on the woman. They say that many women wear this guilt like a millstone and we have to protect young women from this unbearable weight.
I've never experienced that guilt. Not once.
I have however thought perhaps that something was out of whack in my own psyche for not toting that burden around. . . . What's wrong with me? Am I so evil and unfeeling because I don't have regrets for not bringing an unwanted child into the world? . . .
Instead of lugging abortion guilt..I lugged "lack-of-abortion-guilt" guilt. . . .
Sheelzebub['s] . . . piece helped to lift that from me.
I waited to have children until I felt the time was right. I didn't place an unwanted infant into society. I took responsibility for myself and my actions by ending an unwanted pregnancy.
I have no regrets about those decisions because they were the right decisions for me.
I'm a better parent and a better person for having made them, too.
And the bell!! They come out swinging . . .
OK, folks, have at it. I'll add my responses in an Update later on.
(Thanks, Karen, for getting me into this mess.)


[Krumm continues:] Rush Limbaugh has often said that abortion is a “sacrament” to the left. I’ve always considered that remark to be part of Rush’s shtick: hyperbole for the sake of shock value. However, when crowds cheer an abortion, and girls brag about having them ... I have to wonder: is Rush right?
First of all, how does one know whether the cheering crowds were liberal? Talk about stereotyping. What is it with conservatives that equate morality with conservatism. They are not necessarily one and the same. It's no wonder I like the Ghandi saying, "Show me a Christian and I'll be one."
Posted by: Spud | August 28, 2005 at 05:36 PM
Spud, You're right; we don't know that the cheering crowd was "liberal." However, read the Peggy Noonan article I referenced, consider the location, consider the crowd, and give me your best mathematical guess as to percentage of liberals in the audience.
And, by the way, the answer doesn't matter. Left or right, Democrat or Republican, cheering--actually cheering--an abortion, that's just sick.
Posted by: Bob K | August 28, 2005 at 06:43 PM
The bottom line for me Bob, is I do not equate pro-abortion with liberalism. That is totally ridiculous to me. I agree that cheering for an abortion is wrong. However, I do believe what Peggy wrote about is the exception rather than the norm. I personally do not know many people who have had an abortion. But I do know one person who had one, she never had a relationship with a man again. She is now 43 years old. I just get sick and damn tired of conservatives who like to paint liberals as pro-abortion. The fact that abortion is legal makes everyone pro-choice in my opinion. I call myself pro-life because I'm against abortion. I just don't favor making abortion illegal. But I'm pro-life. From my perspective the issue is about whether abortion should be legal or not which has nothing to do with as far as I am concerned, whether one is pro-life or pro-abortion.
Posted by: Spud | August 28, 2005 at 08:51 PM
I don't think I have the energy to do battle, again, but damned if I know how to shut up :)!!
A few yrs ago i was given a tape (audio)about the repercussions of abortion and even birth control on the children of families that used these methods. Yes, it's a Catholic man. These are Canadian studies, i believe, about how subconsiously these kids begin to realize that by being planned, they are very fortunate to be on earth because they were *wanted*, as opposed to accepted.
I'm saying it all wrong, but the fact that evey child is a precious gift kinda flies out the window when it's realized they only exist because their parents (mothers?) decided it was either *time* to have them, or convienient or even financially secure.
This audio said kids felt, lucky, yes, but also saddened(?) by the fact that if their parents hadn't *wanted* them, they wouldn't be here at all. Nonexistent. They know about birth control.
One friend of mine wanted a child to replace one she had aborted since the tests came back that he was going to be *wrong* and was going to die soon after birth. They had a funeral for him and then had a little girl; she is 10 yrs old now.
One day, she asked her mom," I wouldn't be here if my brother had lived, would I?"
The answer is... no.
You know, spud, Christian is just a name-- it means nothing unless the people using it are sincere. Many, unfortunately, give only lip service. It's too bad you use Gahndi's words to mock all us self-righteous, conservative Christians. Yeah, if I'd a been at that play you could be sure my Catholic ass would have lept from my seat and applauded right along w/ all my self-righteous, conservative Christian bretheren 'cause we are all so thankful to be released from the chains of unwanted pregnancies; yes, that would definitely be me.
Posted by: karen | August 28, 2005 at 11:12 PM
Karen,what does Ghandi's statement have to do with mocking conservative Christians? Nothing, it's ideology neutral. I take issue with Rush Limbaugh saying, "abortion is a “sacrament” to the left." It's a stupid and irresponsible statement. Unfortunately, I'm sure many people believe it.
Posted by: Spud | August 29, 2005 at 10:12 AM
Karen,
Your argument about the psychological impact of planning upon children is very weak. It amounts to little more than saying a child's existence depends on its parents having sex. Duh. None of us would be here if our parents didn't have sex, and this relates to whether or not they used birth control how? How is the use of birth control any different from the Catholic approved rhythm method in this regard? In both cases, pregnancy is hoped to be avoided, however, there is a chance that it will be happen anyway. Would you object to a couple who was celibate unless they wanted to conceive a child? I don't see how you can NOT plan in some fashion, unless you feel that both parents should always give in to lust without any regard to whether they want a child or not, or how many they can afford to take care of.
Spud,
I think you're right that most liberals do not take abortion lightly. However, enough do so that is a problem, and they happen to be politically powerful.
Likewise, most conservatives believe in separation of church and state, but a few hardly at all. It's a problem because they exist in moderate numbers and are politically powerful. I think the sensible resolution between Bob and Carla is to say that we ought to take abortion seriously, we ought to be very careful about using it, but if a woman does decide it's the best course of action she should not feel guilty about it for the rest of her life.
Posted by: Adam | August 29, 2005 at 01:00 PM
Adam, The Natural Family Planning Method accepts that a child may be conceived if it is God's will. The NFP method, practiced properly, is as effective for avoiding conception as chemical birth control methods. 99.7%
The difference is the attitude. A couple practicing NFP has to make a decision each month as to whether they should bring another child into the world. If not, then they must abstain for approximately 7 days depending on the woman's cycle. This method is much more involved than counting days on the calendar. A woman's body has several signs of fertility which are tracked and monitored daily.
Posted by: Cindy | August 29, 2005 at 10:11 PM
Oh, Cindy... akind voice in the Wilderness!! It's about respect for eachother as a couple, as well and the handbook is more like a text w/ their very own Plan A and Plan B, shoulda copywrited, eh?
Married couples are supposed to give 100% of themselves to the other and that includes fertility.
Adam-- a feeding tube isn't artificial life support any more than oxygen is to an asthmatic, hell, we all need food. I know a man that had a stroke and lost his ability to swallow anything but his own saliva, just like Terri. He now can have it removed as he has recovered, but has to be careful how he chews his food. How many other people are on what you call *life support*? All those frothing at the mouth Liberals screaming at the mistreatment of captured prisoners at G'tmo Bay, God forbid they miss a meal- inhumane. Terri Schaivo is another matter, though, she has half a brain!!
Everything is so backwards. As a farmer, we cull the herd due to productive value and lack thereof. Baby bull calves that become veal or hot dogs or leather calfskin shoes. PETA rages. Terri schaivo, a human woman that had a terrible accident that renders her speechless and probably witless we watch starve and thirst to death on national TV. I increasingly feel like the Liberal lately by championing causes of emotion that are usually scorned by conservatives. Unborn children could be considered slaves to their mother's womb, persecuted due to reliance on another until (actually) an age far beyond childhood. If they were consider a person at all. What does it really mean to be CREATED equal? i can't wait to see what the colour of the sky will be this morning. i'm really hoping it's still blue!!
Posted by: karen | August 30, 2005 at 06:16 AM
Karen, you implied that ALL planning would have a negative effect on children. But NFP, by its very name, is a form of planning.
Karen, in regards to PETA, one side's extremism does not excuse the other. I find pro-lifers such as yourself extreme. You need to answer the following question if you want me to respect your position: if banning abortion would only result in rich women leaving the country and poor women using a black market, thus only minimally reducing the abortion rate would you support it? Don't forget our failed attempt to ban alcohol in this country.
I concede that I did not word the Schiavo argument carefully enough. By your own words, Schiavo was witless. I feel that if someone has lost the great majority of their thinking capacity and is unlikely to every regain it, we should let them die. A feeding tube is an artificial means of keeping someone alive, although it is not technically life support.
Posted by: Adam | August 30, 2005 at 09:33 AM
Oh, and Karen, for what it's worth, you should be aware of the recent "exchange" between "us" and Peggy Loonan. Check out the post in the archives do fetuses feel pain. Don't think we need to reactivate that thread though. Scroll down towards the end of the comments, and you'll see Peggy Loonan challenging you to a "duel" and my "defense" of your position.
Posted by: Adam | August 30, 2005 at 04:25 PM
Gosh, Adam. I stopped checking that post a couple of days ago or more. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Peggy, since you're listening (more than likely)... my position still stands. You did goad me, I did my best and you wouldn't be satisfied for you know the Book oh, so much better... and you probably do.
I always, always go to MoltenThought. I feel what I say is my business and since I used a word I've personally been accused of myself... you know, you are kinda nuts over abortion. But, to be fair I'm as nuts about the child aborted. It's not an apology, but an admission of a lesson hard-learned.
i may not be able to prove God is supportive of either abortion or Life, but if we are to do the will of God, "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven", I would think ripping,sucking out, poisoning or dismembering the unborn person God knows even before the world began,is not the will He had in mind!!
We have no ground common between us. I think Adam is correct in saying a gradual decrease of the blanket ability of abortion is a good place to start. i wonder what it originally entailed at it's *birth*?
PS I hate homework. I am not knowledgeable in the venacular, but that doesn't give anyone the right to tell me , albeit politely, to shut up about it. and, Peggy- I may be batting zero, but you're wrong on you're count... it's over 40 million and counting.
Posted by: karen | August 30, 2005 at 05:38 PM
I was slightly confused by that response in that I didn't always know who you were talking to.
In case it's unclear, I'm not asking you to do homework or to be quiet. You don't need to respond.
I'm just asking you to consider whether an outright ban on abortion might do more harm than good. It might even create more abortions in some perverse way. I'm asking you to think outside the box.
I'm not asking you to change your stance that abortion is always wrong. I'm trying to get you to think about how best to achieve the goal of reducing abortions.
I really think amba's idea that we ought to limit abortions to the first trimester and then devote our other efforts to the culture would be the best way to reduce the number of abortions.
After all, people are still smoking pot in record numbers and it's illegal. Even our presidents have smoked pot!
I'm just asking you to consider that maybe legal means wouldn't actually accomplish what you desire. Making something illegal doesn't stop it. But changing people's attitudes and behaviors can. So I truly believe that you can be firmly pro-life, but believe that we ought to allow first-trimester abortions. Not necessarily because they are any less evil, but because an outright ban an abortion would not accomplish what you wanted. And, you know Karen, if you can strech your mind in this way, you can work to reduce abortions with a whole slew of people who are not as staunch in their positions as you are.
Posted by: Adam | August 30, 2005 at 06:12 PM
I'm sorry,Adam. It was Peggy I guess I was talking to, and I meant to thank you for asking her to hold her fire!! Sorry.
I can wrap my pea-brain around a lot of things, Adam, but saying that some human life is more valuable than others is just wrong, to me. All I say, i believe and I know that it's idealogical, but i believe that's how it was meant to be. We, as humans, twist the rules and Truth to fit our needs. We always have.
I was implying that amba's Blog was leftwardly tilted, along w/just about every commentator... yes, compared to me. Compared to most of the company I keep, excepting Spud, and I think coming here and pouring out my heart and my ideas that are really considered a bunch of bunk by most, is opening my mind... and trying to open up others minds. It's sharing, not really expecting a reversal of opinions, just a sharing of Faiths, etc; even if it gets heated and firey.
I'd be willing to link arms to educate and hopefully eliminate to fewer abortions. I think the pro-choicers, pushing abortion as a woman's given right, may have changed the atmosphere of the culture into expecting and relying on the availability of abortion. They have their agendas to alter, too. Age limits and parental guidence, the state law thing(again). Roe isn't going to fall, anyway. I'm not that big of a dunderhead to think it would ever happen, but to whittle it back down to the original size? What was the original size? I'd do all I could. I just wouldn't stop.
Adam, do you consider a, man... what's the word... something *ostomy* bag, colonostomy? Anyway, a waste bag as an artificial means of life support? Because we all need to void waste to live, and many people don't have the natural ability, so isn't that a qualifier? Just a thought I had.
I find the comparison of alcohol or drugs to abortion like the fruit basket; drugs are the oranges that lead us to the fall of the abortion apple... oh,comeon, that's kinda cute :). I can't find the corollation. I see how you present it, accurately, I guess I don't agree w/that take on it.
Posted by: karen | August 30, 2005 at 07:59 PM
I don't have problems with artificial means of extending life. I just feel if someone is severely brain damaged and has very little hope of recovery, we should not keep them alive by artificial means. What if God wanted to bring Terri home a long time ago, but we prevented that from happening by our all-too-human attachment to her. After all, wouldn't Terri be happier in heaven, than just lying there for years on end just because her parents couldn't let go?
As for abortion, I think we need to distinguish what is right in theory from what would work in practice. Your goal is to save lives, isn't it? All I'm suggesting is that maybe laws might not be the best way to save lives. You know how sometimes denying someone something makes them more determined to do it anyway? I just feel that a ban on abortion might actually cost lives, not save them.
I'm not sure of this and you'd have to really study the data to figure it out, but here's the real deal question:
Assume that you knew, for a fact, that banning abortion would not save lives but just create a nasty black market, what would you do?
I kind of feel that a lot pro-life people just assume that the best way to reduce abortions is via an outright ban. I'm suggesting that we need to think carefully about that assumption.
Ideals are beautiful, but I doubt that they can be imposed by law. They have to come from the heart.
Don't just keep putting yourself down Karen via "pea-sized brain" comments and all. I don't know if this would interest you, but a good way to increase your knowledge without going back to school is use The Teaching Company.
They produce college courses on tape and DVD for life-long learners. I love them. I would only buy a course if it were on sale, and they often are, or see if you could get them through your local library. They're challenging, but are on an introductory college level.
Posted by: Adam | August 30, 2005 at 08:31 PM
I guess I've fallen into the habit of putdowns to beat everyone to the punchline... me. Then, I get to make the joke, at my own expense. i'm not really dumb, I know that. I have an Associates in AgBusiness (of course) and studied Enviromental Science at a local college for a BS, but never finished it. farming and the enviroment are strange bedfellows. i guess it was easier to farm, I already have that BS.
My bigest regret was not following up on the second Cornell application, I was a scaredy-cat to be away from home at a large college. i needed maturity, and I think i'm getting there.
i'll take that link, Adam. There's also a UVM professor I should look up that teaches ethics classes. I think i'd like that, although, these comment threads are, in their own way, ethics classe. i'm learning, Adam and thanks for the uplift :)
Posted by: karen | August 30, 2005 at 10:24 PM
Also, about the black market abortion scenario. Not to sound harsh, but it will anyway... wouldn't that be a choice? All choices have consequences. How long can we look at the choicemaker as the victum when they know the consequences? Why risk such high stakes of their own life? Is a child that hated and feared in society for women to risk their own lives in blackmarket or even now, for I'm sure women die of complications from legal abortion. They do from RU486.
Is it right? no. People die in car accidents for travelling beyond sane road conditions or sane speed. Is that a choice?
I don't want anyone to die. All life is of the same value to me and if those that make the choices are doing so for those that can't and the result is non-existence... where's the equality in that?
Organic dairy farmers cannot purchase an animal unless it's last trimester in the womb is 100% organic. That's a law. To ensure the quality of my herd and status, should I break that law if it were most convienient? If a cow can be affected in the last trimester of it's womblife and people recognize this, why can they not recognize the life of the child?
Oh, I know you belong to that choir, Adam. We'll have to work on us meshing the rest.
Posted by: karen | August 30, 2005 at 10:38 PM
Victum?... ahem, victim. I never took Latin.
Posted by: karen | August 30, 2005 at 10:39 PM
Are you an organic dairy farmer? Hey, I buy organic milk by the boatload. You mentioned Vermont, are you with the the Organic Cow of Vermont? Pretty nifty. If so, do you realize that pro-choice hippies are your major clientele? Pretty ironic huh. So you see, the left and the right can cooperate.
In my hypothetical scenario, I meant saving unborn lives. So the question should read, would you support a blanket ban if it left the abortion rate pretty much unchanged but created a nasty black market?
My basic point is that laws don't always change people's behaviors. People often find a way to do what they want anyways. My guess is that the abortion rate would drop but not by a whole lot and we would create a nasty underworld if we banned abortion. I don't think we can easily return to a pre-Roe world. The cat's out of the bag, so to speak.
But again, it's so dumb to beat oneself up. People are only competing against themselves. You have to happy with who you are and work from there.
Posted by: Adam | August 30, 2005 at 11:07 PM
Hey Adam, don't buy Organic cow, that's Dean Foods, a 11 billion dollar company that could care less about dairy farmers. Organic Cow was a good company before Dean Foods bought them out. Then it was the real deal when it consisted of traditional small Vermont dairy farms. Now with Dean Foods in control they are taking their factory farm model of 5000 cows and selling it as organic when that is clearly a violation of what organics is all about. The only real deal now is Organic Valley whom both Karen and I sell our milk to. Actually most of our milk goes to Stonyfield Yogurt. Organic Valley is committed to local milk, family farms and the environment. Go to Organic Valley website and check them out.http://organicvalley.coop/
Posted by: Spud | August 31, 2005 at 06:05 AM
I'm thrilled that when I've eaten Stonyfield Farms Organic yogurt it might have been from your cows! Also that this vital information is changing hands on my blog.
Posted by: amba | August 31, 2005 at 07:29 AM