H 32°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°
One of my dad’s — and most dads’, for that matter — favorite expressions is “Opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one.” Some writers quote T.S. Eliot, William Blake or Thoreau to start an article, but why bother when you have a modern day Blake full of gold like this? Of course, something like this is usually only said, by my dad or otherwise, when somebody else’s opinion doesn’t align with one’s own opinion. It does ring true, however, because despite what most of us think, few actually care about what our opinions are.
That is, until we are forced to.
Doug Erickson of The Capital Times noted on Jan. 17 that anti-abortion activists from the Madison Vigil for Life and Pro-Life Wisconsin have maintained a physical presence at the Madison Surgery Center at 1 S. Park St. for over a year. Signs adorned with religious sentiments like “Pray to end abortion” and “Jesus loves them both: Mother and Child” accompany the adamant protesters. This has been the scene at the Surgery Center nearly every day since it was announced that the UW Hospital was proposing adding abortion procedures to the Center.
It seems fundamental to me, and apparently these protesters, that what makes an opinion really persuasive is having lots of other people who agree with you on your side. Better yet, if you and all those who agree with you could get together, say, once a week and repeatedly pound your opinions into other people’s brains until they were no longer opinions but convictions, well, you would have just done something special. Better still, if you could, in some way, indirectly threaten those who disagree with you by assuring punishment from some invisible, all-powerful force, I’d have to tip my hat to you, for you would have just created an opinionated army. And there’s nothing more frightening than an army that doesn’t rely on tanks or guns; because who needs those when you have the wrath of the creator of the universe on your side?
When one asserts religion into an argument — like some members of Pro-life Wisconsin and Madison Vigil for Life groups do — an insurmountable disparity is created and the debate no longer circulates around the issue but instead around the validity of your religious assertion. Even more, this situation only magnifies when the argument is also a political one.
Of course, this debate loses momentum when people who refuse to concede their religious beliefs for the sake of the debate meet people who refuse to support religious beliefs taking part in the debate.
The issue is abortion; not heaven, not hell.
The truth is that regardless of the number of people and types of threatening forces that support one’s opinions, my dad’s favorite saying still holds true. Except now the asshole is a collective one debating the other sizable, collective oppositional asshole. In the end, all that has resulted are two giant assholes refusing to care what the other has to say.
Being religious is a choice. If I decide I’m not religious, I have also decided to disregard religious beliefs. As far as any non-religious person is concerned, one’s religious beliefs shouldn’t extend any further than the believers of that religion. The belief that life starts at conception, in the eyes of the non-religious, is just another religious belief which one may choose to take part in or not.
The persistence in these religious anti-abortion activists is commendable, but it’s also just forming a roadblock, distorting elections and political platforms and, at times, resorting to violence. A compromise between the Lifers and Choicers needs to be made just as any other democratic decision is made. Both sides need to become willing to make concessions. And the debate should proceed by focusing on what those concessions will be.
When it comes to political debates, it is always good to remember to keep church out of your state of mind, because nothing becomes more esoteric, and thus refutable, than citing religious reasons in one’s political argument. With religion out of the abortion debate, maybe real progress can be made.
Both groups of assholes have valid points, and without God presiding over the discussion maybe someone will finally listen to them.
And if after this article prints, I am smote, Pro-Lifers win.
David Carter ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in forestry.
IP hash: 5ace043a
As far as I’m concerned, the very fact that those hateful people exist is evidence that god doesn’t.
IP hash: c100a0b6
Wow! You really nailed this one. We certainly should never let morality, or ethics, or honesty, or integrity, or personal responsibility, or our heartfelt beliefs enter public debate or policy! Bravo!!!!!!
After all, disagreeing with anyone that supports abortion (or any other ill thought liberal agenda item) immediately brands you as “hateful” and “evidence that God doesn’t exist”. Ahhhh, such logical and rhetorical mastery!
A forestry major that can’t see the trees…… supported by third trimester surgical sycophants……. Priceless!
IP hash: 85265cac
Third trimester? Who told you that? The addition to hospital services would cover like, weeks 12-20.
IP hash: 9e712b95
I struggle to see where a compromise might come from.
IP hash: d3a931a3
cases of rape, for example
IP hash: 9e712b95
Oh certainly. I would have thought that was nearly a given. I’m saying beyond that, compromise is virtually impossible. You would have to convince one side that something they think is morally wrong, isn’t.
IP hash: d3a931a3
i think concessions can be made to limit the amount of abortions, which might be seen as a small victory for pro-lifers while still respecting a woman’s rights.
if one party feels abortions are against everything they stand for, then they should never get one. however their beliefs should not have the power to limit others from doing what they see as morally permissible.
IP hash: f151ec33
If respecting a woman’s rights is important and anti-abortionists are advocating the violation of those rights, then how is compromising a good solution?
Why should women compromise their rights to placate those who “feel” that abortions are wrong?
IP hash: 9dc45a99
I think the point is that one side of the debate feels that it isn’t about women’s rights after conception. It’s a woman’s right to choose to have sex that could lead to conception (obviously excluding rape, etc.) But the argument is that once that life is formed, it is no longer a woman’s right, nor anyone on Earth’s, to terminate that life.
Not saying that I buy it completely, but that is the argument. Not that it’s a restriction of rights, merely saying that it was never a woman’s right to begin with.
IP hash: f151ec33
Sure, anti-abortionists believe that women don’t have the right - that it’s some supernatural power’s right - people believe a lot of irrational things. The question is: what is true?
A society cannot be based on religious beliefs, it has to be based on reason and fact. Is a group a cells a human or potential human? Does a woman have the right to her body (including the cells that are developing in her) or not?
These questions are essential to the abortion issue and cannot be answered by feeling or faith.
IP hash: 85265cac
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
When you leave your house every day, there’s a chance you can get mugged on the street, but consent to one is not consent to the other.
IP hash: d3a931a3
they shouldn’t compromise their rights, i agree. but if pro-lifers have it their way those rights will not just be infringed upon but totally taken away. coming up with an agreement that allows pro-lifers to feel they had some input in the final decision may end some of the hostility. concessions made by those that are pro-choice, like limiting abortions to contraceptive failure, rape, those in dire financial straits, or the like might appease both sides.
i do agree that this would infringe on a woman’s right to choose but it would also infringe on pro-lifer’s beliefs. both sides are left slightly unhappy, like most compromises.
if both sides remain adamant, then the debate will never end and one side might get their way entirely. possibly leaving women without their rights being represented at all.
IP hash: f151ec33
If you concede the “right” of anti-abortionists to not have their feelings infringed upon, then you’ve lost the battle, even if you win a concession here or there.
Once you concede the principle that any irrational, rights-violating demand put forth by some religious group should be appeased, then why shouldn’t they demand more and more concessions?
The reason the debate seems to never end is because neither side understands the issue. Neither side understands what rights are and what the proper role of government is.
The way to ensure “pro-lifers” don’t have their way is to argue for a proper government - one that respects the separation of church and state and protects the rights of its citizens.
IP hash: d3a931a3
but do you feel a fetus has no rights? is it moral for a mother to drink during a pregnancy?
i think that not just the women would be making concessions here but the pro-lifers, as well. it’s tough to just consider their point totally moot; religious or not.
IP hash: f151ec33
Humans have rights, fetuses don’t.
Whether it is moral for a pregnant mother to drink depends; how much, for example? But this is a different issue from whether she has the right to drink while pregnant. (Just because something is immoral doesn’t mean it violates someone’s rights.)
Why is it hard to consider the religious “argument” (which is not an argument at all - it a belief based on faith) moot? If a theft wants a woman’s purse, would it be good to advocate that the woman give up some of her money for not wanting to consider the theft’s desires “moot?”
IP hash: 85265cac
“like limiting abortions to contraceptive failure, rape, those in dire financial straits, or the like might appease both sides.” That’s like 90% of all abortions. 54% of women who have abortions used birth control in the month they got pregnant and 3/4ths say they can’t afford a(nother) child. In fact, the abortion rate skyrockets as personal income approaches poverty levels.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fbinducedabortion.html
IP hash: f151ec33
“With religion out of the abortion debate, maybe real progress can be made.”
But religion is the essence of the abortion debate. You don’t see any atheists referring to a couple of cells as a “baby” or standing on street corners holding signs of bloody fetuses. We have a separation of church and state for a reason; we need to uphold this.
Instead of a compromise between two groups, one that wants to sacrifice an actual human life to a couple of cells because God said so (“pro-life”) and one that upholds “choice” regardless of the legal and moral status of a fetus (“pro-choice”), we need a rational approach.
We need an approach that recognizes that rights only apply to actual humans, not potential ones, and that a fetus is not a human, but part of a woman’s body. We can then begin to have a rational discussion.
IP hash: d7123afb
Until the scientists and the religious and ethical leaders can tell us definitively when human life begins then we are left with only personal opinion and belief to guide our personal choices. That is the crux of the issue right there — When does human life begin? As I understand it, many religious, including the Jewish faith, believe that human life only begins when the newborn first breathes air. Some, Mormans, teach that human lives actual exist before conception. Others, Catholics, believe that human life begins at conception. Personally, as simpathetic as I can be to those dealing with rape or incest, I just can’t get past my belief that life begins at conception. For me, I’m not willing to gamble that it might be later since no one can prove otherwise. Where does this leave us? We must all have the legal freedom to make our own choices. Abortion should not be a common means of birth control but only the final choice in a truly principled decision based on deeply held personal beliefs about when life begins. Just as none of us has any right to force our religious beliefs on anyone else, we also don’t have the right to force this decision on anyone else. We can only pray that those who choose aborthion do so from that principled position and not from the situation of the moment.
IP hash: d3a931a3
well said
IP hash: 85265cac
Of course it’s alive. Who said it’s not alive?
More important: Is it a person? When does it become a person? Does this person have the right to infringe your bodily autonomy without your consent, flying in the face of common law’s theme of “your rights end where my rights begin”?
IP hash: d7123afb
“We need an approach that recognizes that rights only apply to actual humans, not potential ones, and that a fetus is not a human, but part of a woman�s body. We can then begin to have a rational discussion.”
Sorry but this is completely irrational and only points to the crux of the issue. This commentor believes that the cells are not human. It is exactly the opposite of what the pro-lifers believe! Why should the pro-lifers surrender their fundamental beliefs in the interest of compromise? How despicable is that? Are the pro-choicers willing to surrender their belief (and that is all it is — belief) that the cells are only tissue?
There will never be rational discussion until both sides are willing to actually listen to the other side with respect. Using language such as “actual humans” and “potential” humans is every bit as inflamatory as the protesters’ lurid signs.
IP hash: f151ec33
There can be no rational discussion if biological facts, such as the distinction between an “actual human” and a “potential human” is banned as “inflammatory.”
IP hash: 85265cac
Nobody said it’s not human, of course it’s human. Better questions: 1) Is it a person? 2) Person or not, does the fetus have the right to use the woman’s body without her consent?
Most of the pro-choice advocates I know would grant a fetus personhood once it becomes bodily autonomous and has the potential for complex thought, say 22-24 weeks. The interesting thing about abortion law? You can’t get an abortion at this point anyway unless the woman’s health is in grave danger (with the sole exception of Pennsylvania).
More telling: Even if the fetus was objectively a person with Constitutional rights, it wouldn’t have the right to infringe on another’s bodily autonomy without consent. Laws against murder, rape, assault, etc., demonstrate the common law concept of “your rights end where my rights begin.” See McFall v. Shimp, for example.
IP hash: c100a0b6
At 14 week gestation, a developing baby has eyes and eyelids, nose and nostrils, mouth and lips, arms, legs, toes and toe nails, fingers and fingernails. Ultrasound images show motor control of arms and legs. Even thumb sucking begins at 14 weeks gestation, for some in utero babies.
That should be enough basic information to make a “rational” and “truly prinicipled decision”, without reference to any further belief systems or legal pretenses.
IP hash: f151ec33
But the issue is not 14 weeks. The anti-abortion argument is that “life begins at conception because God said so.”
The religious argument cannot be made “scientific” by enumerating the developmental stages of a fetus. There is no way to form a principled decision by counting arms, legs and toes - it’s a continuum from a couple of cells to a baby.
The issue is whether it is an actual human possessing rights. To be a human requires being a separate entity, not part of another entity. Being born is essential to being a human.
IP hash: d7123afb
Who said that the basis of the pro life is “because God said so”? or even that it is religious? There are many of us who are not religious at all and may not even believe in God but who do believe that life begins at conception for very well reasoned rational reasons. It is possible to come to that belief/conclusion without a belief in God or adherence to any religion.
We save premature babies every day of the week at birth weights that wouldn’t have been survivable 30 years ago. It is currently legal to abort these very same babies. How can a rational person justify that?
“Sure, anti-abortionists believe that women don�t have the right - that it�s some supernatural power�s right - people believe a lot of irrational things. The question is: what is true?”
Are other moral decisions of a civilized society irrational too? And if it is only God or irrational religious beliefs that form the basis of the pro-life position, how does a rational civilized society make any other moral decisions — for example that murder of a walking human being is wrong?
Rights do not have anything whatsoever to do with “what is true”. Rights in any society are formed by the totality of the mores and culture of that society. Our Constitution has codified some of those rights but even those were formed by the moral, religious, ethical and cultural context of the time in which the words were written.
IP hash: f151ec33
“Rights do not have anything whatsoever to do with �what is true�. Rights in any society are formed by the totality of the mores and culture of that society.”
Is it possible that your view of rights is not true, but instead formed by the totality of the mores and culture you live in?
I prefer to go by what is true.
IP hash: d7123afb
Obviously what is “true” to you is not “true” to everyone on the planet. Your “truth” is only your belief. This debate is way too complex and with way too many nuiances. Some believe with all their hearts that life begins at conception. Others, like you, believe it begins at birth. Neither can be proven or the debate would have been over long ago. You surely know don’t you that many Asian societies count a child as one year old at birth? The only “truth” in this debate is that there are many, many different opinions. If there were black and white truth as you contend there would be no debate.
IP hash: f151ec33
But that’s only true for you. For me there is absolute truth.
I’d love to continue to debate, but debate is a myth - it doesn’t exist. It might exist for you, but not for me.
IP hash: d7123afb
“But that�s only true for you. For me there is absolute truth.
I�d love to continue to debate, but debate is a myth - it doesn�t exist. It might exist for you, but not for me.”
Wow. That is a really breath taking comment. There is also absolute truth for fundamentalists. On the other hand, I thought this was supposed to be a forum for rational discourse amongst thoughtful people. One can only wonder why you entered the discussion at all — unless you are the author of the original piece.
You object to pro-lifers trying to take away other’s rights and essentially accuse them of irrational fundamentalism because of their belief in God and yet you believe in absolute truth? Astounding. Do you not see the fundamentalism in your own position? It must be very difficult for you to find your way with other people when you are so certain of your own position, so unwilling to LISTEN to others and so sure that life holds no ambiguities. Good luck in your life — you’ll need it.
IP hash: f151ec33
“There is also absolute truth for fundamentalists.”
This is only true for you. For fundamentalists, it’s not true.
IP hash: d7123afb
Whose belief is it that “To be a human requires being a separate entity, not part of another entity. Being born is essential to being a human”? Where does science say that? Neither science nor religion agrees on that point. And if “it�s a continuum from a couple of cells to a baby” how do you KNOW when and what the cross over point on that continuum is? I personally believe that life begins at conception because that is what I believe — not because God said so. To me that is a logical belief. To you being born equates to being human. That is your belief. Neither can be proven. There are no “biological facts, such as the distinction between an �actual human� and a �potential human�.
If being born is what is required to be human why do courts in this country put people in jail for double murders when one of the victims in in-utero?
Back to my original point. Let’s listen to each other and hear what we are saying. Let’s stop trying to enforce what can only be beliefs — and not fact — down each other’s throats.
IP hash: d4f190cd
“Back to my original point. Let�s listen to each other and hear what we are saying. Let�s stop trying to enforce what can only be beliefs � and not fact � down each other�s throats.”
couldn’t agree more.
IP hash: 85e0e0dc
There are many people who reject abortion not because it is a religious position, but because it is a Civil Rights issue. If you affirm that the infant in its mother’s womb is indeed a human person, then the very political question immediately arises of why that citizen should not have his or her civil liberties protected - particularly the most basic right, the right to live. People of religious belief are simply confirmed by both secular science and revelation that the infant in its mother’s womb is a person. Many people of purely secular opinions completely agree with them.
The question also arises of whether or not the woman’s civil liberties are being protected. Does pressure to have an abortion deny her her own right to give birth to and raise her child? Perhaps society should worry more about helping mother’s in a difficult situation rather than defending the availability of abortion, which has been proven to threaten their health and emotionally stability.
IP hash: f151ec33
There are a few facts that need to be considered.
1) A few cells is not an person. 2) A fetus is not an infant. 3) Only humans have rights.
Politics is a field that applies to humans, not to cells or parts of one’s body.
Also, revelation is not a method of cognition - it cannot “confirm” anything.
IP hash: d7123afb
“But that�s only true for you. For me there is absolute truth.
I�d love to continue to debate, but debate is a myth - it doesn�t exist. It might exist for you, but not for me.”
Wow. That is a really breath taking comment. There is also absolute truth for fundamentalists. On the other hand, I thought this was supposed to be a forum for rational discourse amongst thoughtful people. One can only wonder why you entered the discussion at all — unless you are the author of the original piece.
You object to pro-lifers trying to take away other’s rights and essentially accuse them of irrational fundamentalism because of their belief in God and yet you believe in absolute truth? Astounding. Do you not see the fundamentalism in your own position? It must be very difficult for you to find your way with other people when you are so certain of your own position, so unwilling to LISTEN to others and so sure that life holds no ambiguities. Good luck in your life — you’ll need it.
IP hash: d7123afb
1) What is a few cells and who will do the counting? If a child is born prematurely at 5 months who could legally have been aborted but doesn’t have the requisite number of cells at birth is that child not human and it’s OK to kill her? 2) Agreed. But this doesn’t prove the point that a fetus isn’t human. 3) Wrong. Corporations are legal non-human entities with legal rights. Even animals are protected by law from abuse. Think about the dog-fighting rings.
And politics sure does apply also to cells and body parts. Politicians and lobbyists are heavily involved in issues like NIH budgets, FDA regulations, health care reform and many others.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no limits on corporate donations to political campaigns because that would infringe on freedom of speach, it’s pretty clear that the guy or issue with the most money is going to win in any show down. All the more reason to maintain our humanity and principles while we continue to engage in well reasoned, thoughtful, listening discourse sadly knowing that the money is going to win anyway.
IP hash: 85265cac
“If you affirm that the infant in its mother�s womb is indeed a human person, then the very political question immediately arises of why that citizen should not have his or her civil liberties protected” << Rights of citizenship granted by the Fourteenth Amendment apply to persons “born or naturalized” - a fetus is neither.
“Does pressure to have an abortion deny her her own right to give birth to and raise her child?” << Nobody’s forcing women to have abortions. Abortion advocates grant equal credence to raising the child, adoption, or abortion. Forced abortion is just as bad as forced pregnancy.
“Perhaps society should worry more about helping mother�s in a difficult situation” << What, like welfare or healthcare reform? Oh, wait, the Republicans are fighting those two every step of the way. So they won’t let a woman abort a pregnancy she knows she can’t afford, and then they won’t help her raise the child they all but forced her to have. Lovely.
“rather than defending the availability of abortion, which has been proven to threaten their health and emotionally stability.” << Cite.
IP hash: 9dc45a99
I think that, and the law will back me up, that one person’s rights end when they infringe upon another’s rights.
I am also not a religious person. I am a “Creastor” (Christmas and Easter church goer) with my family, who doesn’t frequently go either. The will of God was never seen as absolute laws when I grew up and therefor, I have a hard time accepting biblical truths as applicable law. I mean, where are the laws condemning those who eat shellfish?
Considering my faith, or lack thereof, I still believe that life begins at conception (the moment the egg attaches to the uteran wall, not at insemination). My personal convictions instill this into me and I can’t explain it in the conventional biblical sense because I never experienced any proper biblical exposure.
Therefore, the growing baby, as a life, has rights. The mother possesses all the rights she normally does, except that she cannot harm the child without infringing upon the child’s rights. It’s pretty simple. No drinking, smoking, or aborting, and you’re just fine, with no one’s rights abused.
But that’s just my thoughts. Take it if you want, or leave it. I don’t expect people to budge on their positions.
IP hash: 9717cbbf
fuck you guys