21 comments …

Subscribe to this comment thread (RSS)

1. # Comment by Edana on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pm:

   I agree with you–I think this is the beginning of the end of my right to choose.

2. # Comment by Bob Torres on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 3:48 pm:

   It probably is. I think it’ll be slowly eroded through state laws — which this opens the door for — so that effectively getting an abortion is illegal in most places.

   BTW, I’d comment on your blog, but I’m not signing up with *another* service just to leave comments.

3. # Comment by Alli on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 4:21 pm:

   I agree that Bush is an idiot and that a woman’s right to choose is definitely on the decline. That states are choosing to ban abortion altogether is also a big factor in this. I don’t disagree with that. But I will say that a ban on Partial-Birth abortion is long overdue. A woman has a choice long before the baby has a brain.

   I don’t want to get into the correlations into animal rights, because that’s a circular cruise to nowhere.

4. # Comment by Bob Torres on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 5:04 pm:

   “a ban on partial-birth abortion is long overdue.”

   I can’t agree with this at all. If the life of the mother is in danger, all available options should be on the table. They are not now, even in that instance. The court has essentially said that the morality of the act itself is more important than the life of the woman. I don’t understand how this can be anything but a striking blow to the rights of women in this country.

   And as for the correlations to animal rights, there are none, so you’re wise to avoid it.

5. # Comment by Jenna on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 5:10 pm:

   Actually, most women that get partial birth abortions don’t have a choice - they do only do it as a last resort to save their own lives. The fact that the justices feel that the life of a woman is of no consequence is just absolutely abhorrent to me.

6. # Comment by Alli on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 6:50 pm:

   Whoa. Forgive my lack of knowledge on this, then. There are always extenuating circumstances that can and should alter what is deemed as “morality”. especially when it is thrust upon us by the state. if a woman’s life is at stake, then yes, she should have that choice. if not, i can’t see the purpose of killing something sentient that does not have a voice of its own or the ability to defend itself.

   i soooo shouldn’t have gone there, but i did.

   *ducks for cover*

7. # Comment by jenny on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 7:13 pm:

   This scares the crap out of me, as it should every single woman. I don’t think that those anti-choicers realize that they could very well be in a position where the termination of their pregnancy is the only option to save their life and now that option is gone. Considering that partial-birth abortions are most frequently used to save the life of the woman and not an issue of “choice.”

   I am, just in case my above statements are unclear, absolutely 100% pro-choice.

8. # Comment by Bob Torres on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 7:17 pm:

   Well, the question is this: to what extent is the sentient being capable of having interests that are, in any sense, definable as separate from those of its mother? This is a unique case in which the (presumably) sentient being is contained inside another sentient being (and the question of sentience is difficult — can we assume that an embryo is sentient? Not necessarily, but that’s another debate.).

   This produces a conflict of rights that raises a lot of hard questions, but I think that the solution is simple: the woman gets the right to decide what happens with her body, and since the embryo is not really a separate being at this point, and is integrated into her body, she should have the sole say in what happens.

   In any case, even if I concede that late term abortion is a problem, that doesn’t change the fact that late term abortion is, in many ways, a separate question from the kind of precedent this sets. The problem here is that this begins to erode 30 years of protection of the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body and with her reproductive future. I guarantee you that this will open the door to states outlawing abortion, and because of the way the ruling was worded, I suspect those bans will be upheld. Given that, it won’t be long before the right to an abortion is gone, I bet.

9. # Comment by Alli on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 7:26 pm:

   Touche, and, of course, you’re right in the end.

10. # Comment by Bob Torres on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 7:28 pm:

    bah! you give in too easily!

11. # Comment by Alli on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 8:38 pm:

    i dislike confrontation and lack the educational background to win an argument like this with a sociologist. ;p

12. # Comment by Luke on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 8:42 pm:

    I am just curious, what could have been done (if anything) to prevent this precedent from being made? Have we (or more correctly, Americans) just taken our liberties for granted, and not made it so damn clear what was expected?

    Or, does this have absolutely nothing to do with the issue not being raised loudly enough by the populace, and everything to do with the church and State over-stepping its bounds? That is, is it just more poll-position politics?

13. # Comment by Nicole on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 9:01 pm:

    “But I will say that a ban on Partial-Birth abortion is long overdue.”

    So, you have no problem with the government dictating what you can and can’t do with your body? Especially a right-wing Christian conservative government that thinks it has a right to control what you can do in your most private moments?

    What about the women for whom such a procedure is medically necessary? Would you deny the protection of these womens’ health because you have a problem with abortion and feel like it is okay to force your opinion on anyone else’s body?

    This decision sets up a very dangerous precedent in which the very same man responsible the invasion and occupation of foreign countries and war crimes can determine your rights and freedoms based on his own personal ideals. Bush has no place in deciding anything like this. And I have this to say to him: Keep your ideals out of my body.

14. # Comment by Jenna on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 9:44 pm:

    Nicole - fuck yeah.

    I love how 5 old white Christian guys can decide for all the women of this country what we can and cannot do with our bodies.

15. # Comment by Alli on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 10:29 pm:

    Nicole, you inferred a lot into one sentence. See above back and forth. You’ve read way too deeply into what I said and asked questions I believe I’ve already answered. See above. And so we’re clear, I admire your conviction and agree with you for the most part. However, abortion is hardly a clear-cut issue and there are gray areas open for discussion.

16. # Comment by Matt Hastings on Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 at 11:53 pm:

    I would like to throw my two cents in if I may. This issue is one that I have experienced as close to first hand as a male can get. There seems to be an assumption among many (not anyone here yet) that the decision to abort a fetus is one made after a five minute discussion over tea. As pretty much anyone who has had an abortion will tell you this is far from the case. Most people think long and hard about this before they commit to anything and to assume as many law makers do that abortion is used as some form of hillbilly birth control is extremely offensive. I am in 100% agreement with Bob’s reasoning for allowing women to choose what to do with their bodies. As someone who has had this debate way too many times I can safely say that the augments Bob (and Gary F.) use are some of the best I have ever heard. I’m not really sure what the point of this post was. I just wish these white male republicans would stop suggesting a woman’s decision to get an abortion is about as well thought out as the color underwear she decides to wear the morning of the procedure.

17. # Comment by noixtoc on Fri, Apr 20th, 2007 at 12:39 am:

    It’s really scary to be living in a country who’s neighbor is on the verge of taking away the right to chose, so I can only imagine how scary it is to be in said country.

    As someone who has adopted siblings and who knows that those kids were lucky, I want to know who the heck will be caring for all the un-aborted kids. Are they going to be left with parents who can’t care for them or never wanted them? Are they going to get stuck in the foster care system? What are the ethics behind potentially making a child suffer through a bad life when they would have otherwise been aborted?

    I don’t have the answers. I’m not even sure if they are fair questions to ask. But they always pop into my head when confronted with pro-life banter.

18. # Comment by Tijmetje on Fri, Apr 20th, 2007 at 7:46 am:

    Thanks for posting this, Bob.

    A friend of mine posted about this on her blog as well, but she’s *very* firmly on the other side of the argument. I’ve not yet replied to her, but my reply will include the suggestion to listen to Gary Francione’s explanation of his views the subject and mention of medical necessity.

19. # Comment by Bob Torres on Fri, Apr 20th, 2007 at 10:26 am:

    Thanks, everyone, for the thoughtful comments — Matt, Nicole, and Noixtoc all raise excellent points.

    I’d love to respond in more depth, but I’m on my way out the door for the weekend to go do my Blue Steel routine.

20. # Comment by Bob Torres on Fri, Apr 20th, 2007 at 10:27 am:

    p.s. I have a blog entry or two timed to pop up while i’m away

21. # Comment by Nicole on Sat, Apr 21st, 2007 at 4:47 pm:

    “You’ve read way too deeply into what I said and asked questions I believe I’ve already answered.”

    Actually, Alli, my comments had far more to do with my own beliefs and opinions about the subject of abortion than they had anything to do with you or what you have said. You’re the one reading too deeply into what I said, as I was making statements more than asking questions. I know what my answers are to my questions.

    Know that I am not at all arguing that partial-birth abortions aren’t awful events. But equally awful are the circumstances that lead to a woman having to make the decision to participate in any abortion. And it is all too easy for someone who will never physically be in that situation to think they have any so-called informed opinion about the matter.

    Frankly, I am not interested in having a discussion with anyone who thinks that they have any say in what I or any other woman has a right to do with our bodies. Why should any women ever have to defend their bodies as if those bodies were territories whose fertility and biological functions could be regulated and controlled like land? I am especially not interested in having someone who will never be pregnant, who will never have the experience of having another being inside them and understand the intimacy and profoundness of such an experience, force their politics into my womb and stake a claim there as if it were a place were theirs for the taking.

    If you want to talk about grey areas, how about you first consider the ramifications of this Supreme Court decision on all of our rights? Bush and his cronies have created a situation in which not only are the church and the state are far too cosy, but Bush himself uses his religious beliefs, and a nonsense book to defend those beliefs, to justify his invasion into all our lives, whether or not we live in the United States. And he has done this largely unchallenged. He and the Supreme Court can decide to outlaw partial-birth abortions, but what then? As that precedent is set, think about what this does to open up situations in which religion and government can dictate anything that has to do with our bodies. That the government has taken it upon itself to control what happens inside an individual is an insidious situation that has gone way beyond the boundaries of where the government has a place in the lives of the people. The only grey areas that remain are those in which it becomes difficult for those defending themselves against decisions regarding their bodies to fight against why these decisions should not be made. If the church and the state think they have a right to be inside of you, then there are no boundaries in your life they won’t consider transgressing.

Post a comment ...

You’re reading the personal website of Bob Torres, Ph.D., author, publisher, podcaster, and all-around geek.

Read more about my projects / info or get in touch.

I’m also available for media interviews on a variety of topics.