Chicagoist: Schmashmortion In Schmacago

goldenshfinkter

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:38:05 -0600

I just avoid the hassle, I find that swallowing puts the issue to rest. Get my drift? Tomatoes Tomotoes it's all the same to me.

Theruggedone

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:36:18 -0600

This is simply an issue of basic rights (with a complex myriad of arguments on both sides). Does the state have the right to decide what you do with your body? Well, if you believe in the fundamental right to self-determination you probably -- in keeping with your principles -- support the freedom to choose. If you don't support this basic right, you don't unconditionally support self-determination. There really shouldn't be a debate in a free society over the legality of a person's choice if it doesn't have implications on another person. Huckeyes: the regulation of a human right (understood as a choice that affects no one but the person deciding) vs. the regulation (administration, rather) of something like health care, or what SUV you want pollute everyone's air with are so distant that you should have figured it out by thinking about it for a few seconds. You need to learn something about rights, and positive v. negative liberty. Then again, I don't see that happening.

spookhatespuppies

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:13:53 -0600

Abortions for all! (Crowd Boos) Very well, no abortions for anyone. (Crowd Boos) Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others. (Crowd cheers and waves miniature flags)

simplecreature

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:07:38 -0600

Huckeyes: Ok, you're circling the drain now, flailing about and just accusing everyone. You're not offering any kind of cogent argument. Here, I'll help. -Every Life Deserves a Chance: This is a totally valid anti-choice argument. Ideally, yes they do. But we're weighing the rights of an actual person versus teh rights of the potential person. Add in the possibility that the pregnancy is the product of a rape, incest or other abuse and you are talking about female servitude. -The procedure is cruel, Fetus' feel pain: Again, a completely valid argument. This is why there are no "pro-abortion" groups. Wave a poster of a dead fetus in my face, of course it's sad, sickening even. But rather than turn that feeling against women and against their rights of self-determination, I support planned parenthood, sensible sex education, condom distribution. I'd rather there is never another abortion ever performed, but my personal revilement is not nearly as paramount as the rights of a woman to choose. There are ways to have this argument sanely. Really.

huckeyes

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:40:30 -0600

I've seriously never imagined such a large group of people could have such a small sense of simple logic. There are simple steps to making an argument; when I tell somebody their arguments don't make any logical sense and then use an example to prove it, it doesn't mean that my hypothetical is what I am arguing, or my stance. So when somebody like Navin thinks my previous hypothetical example used to show the idiocy of an argument from a previous poster, is in fact my main point, it truly leaves me nothing to say other than to walk away shaking my head. And at this point, what used to resemble a discussion posting, is a completely pointless argument- logically at least.

Navin

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:16:41 -0600

Huckeyes himself provides a good case for being "Pro-Death". Since anyone who's for choice is according to him "Pro-Death" and thus obviously hoping that as many women get pregnant and have abortions as possible I suggest we do a seriously late term abortion of him. I mean he's got the brain of a fetus anyway...

huckeyes

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:37:44 -0600

"Huckeyes: There are no "abortion advocates" and "pro-death tribe", stop playing with the language of the discussion and talk like a grown-up." Yeah, kind of like how Margaret starts here phenomenal posting with 'anti-choice' rhetoric?! Since when does Chicagoist have discussions anyway? Grow some balls, turn down your nose, and take your hand off your back.

simplecreature

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:30:44 -0600

Ward Up: I completely agree, I hate that abortion has been a litmus test for so many candidates. With the economy, the war, health care, schools, infrastructure...so many issues that impact people so much more directly. Especially the poor, deeply religious base in the south. Like Gay Marriage, it's a wedge issue that serves only to divide.

Ward Up

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:44:21 -0600

I agree with simplecreatures point about Republicans never really working to ban abortion. The bible thumpers will never take over the whole Republican Party. Also, note that Republican Presidents don't only pick pro-lifers to be Supreme Court judges. For these reasons, I hope that people will not use abortion as their main issue in this years election. Republicans use the issue to rally Christians to vote, but pro-choicers simply do not have much to fear from Republicans. Remember that a lot of us Republicans are pro-choice, too!

simplecreature

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:53:24 -0600

Irishman1: I think life begins at birth. It's when we acknowledge a person as a legal entity (regardless of the rights attempts to make the murder of a pregnant woman a double homicide) and is culturally acknowledged to be "alive". Do I think that a woman who miscarries suffers a grievous loss? Of course, because her intent, her choice, was to carry the child to term. But legislating intention is dicey. The anti-choice lobby likes to use extremes (late third trimester abortions and partial birth abortions) to scare people and make their case. These procedures are exceedingly rare and are often only carried out in the most dire of circumstances. The overwhelming majority of abortions are chemically induced early in the pregnancy or simple outpatient early in the 2nd trimester. The anti-choice crowd's ghoulish obsession with partial birth abortion is just a sign of their ignorance. Huckeyes: There are no "abortion advocates" and "pro-death tribe", stop playing with the language of the discussion and talk like a grown-up. I'm not an apologist for the left by any means and if you knew me you'd be surprised at my libertarian streak, which in many ways is the foundation of my pro-choice position. The assumption that anyone who is pro-choice is liberal is one of the most basic falsehoods of the whole argument. It's a game the the republicans have played very well. Roe V. Wade isn't a law, it's a supreme court case. I'm not just picking at you here to be petty, but you're shooting off your mouth without regards to facts. Roe V. Wade allowed abortions to be performed. Because it was a supreme court case it left the doors open for alot of states to pass any number of laws on the issue (parental notification, age limits, waiting periods), so the vaguaries of the law have been more exploited by the anti-choice lobby than anyone! I don't believe abortion will be overturned in our lifetime. Simply put, it's too divisive an issue. You'd see the modern political parties fracture. Frankly, they like the status quo. Bush can flirt with "National Life Day" and such, but outlawing abortion flat on the line? That's dangerous ground. That's the real callous aspect of the republican party at work. They whip up church crowd with "save the babies!" but they know it would detonate their party to go too far with that rhetoric. The democrats have nonsense all their own, to be sure, but we're not talking about that right now.

huckeyes

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:29:16 -0600

Shame- So female servitude is a potential downside to making abortion illegal?!?! This is a new argument in my book, and I would love the pro death tribe to take it up; it would provide a lot of ground to their cause.

shameshameboy

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:09:01 -0600

huckeyes, I believe simplecreature is making the point that banning abortion has potential consequences (e.g. more unwanted pregnancies) that responsible and humane individuals would seek to mitigate. In the absence of the abortion option -- which, by its nature, is a next-to-last resort -- the civilized and practical alternative is to shift the burden to prevention. Legalized lynchings, on the other hand, don't address any problem created by pro-choice policies. (Though I suppose the two could work in tandem if one is seeking negative population growth.) Apologies to simplecreature if I've misunderstood your argument.

smussy

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:05:49 -0600

couple of things ... why the weird cutsiness with the title of the post? is it too bold/inflammatory to actually use the word abortion? secondarily ... i was in a bar the other day and the sex and the city came on where miranda (?) is pregnant and is going to get an abortion. and then she doesn't. and then to sort of still make themselves be pro-choice, they reveal at the end of the show that carrie had an abortion when she was 22 due to irresponsible sex and didn't tell the dude. (insert sarcastic clapping family here.) i don't know. i don't take my reproductive health lightly, and i've done everything i can to avoid having to make that choice. but i hate that there never seems to be any mainstream characters who get pregnant and make a choice to have an abortion and know that it's the right choice for them at the time. maybe they have a lot of mixed feelings. maybe they grieve. maybe it's really hard. but they do it and they know they still wouldn't have it any other way. i think that's a reality for a lot of women. and i wish someone would show that in mainstream media.

huckeyes

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:05:15 -0600

Ok, fetuses, big deal. And then you can also go on and say how ironic it is the left wants free choice to make a decision about abortion, but desperately wants the government to regulate the rest of your healthcare entirely, regulate what type of car I can buy, regulate how to run my business, tell me who i can and cant hire, regulate the shit out of decent energy initiative, tell me i can't buy a gun, etc... Therefore, stick with abortion and we won't have to get into how big of hypocrites political parties are. Also, roe v wade is one of the poorest written laws on the books; even abortion advocates announce their fear of it being overturned. They should have gone the route of legislation over the supreme court. Whether its becuase of a new case that comes up, or through legislation, it WILL be overturned in our lifetime. Then we can watch how the Left "whips up poor voters" for the next 30 years.

irishman1

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:51:43 -0600

Simplecreature...good post. If I could ask this question to you: When do you think life begins? Before you go bashing me, I am Pro-Choice (or I guess Anti-Life after reading this article)...and I have always wondered what other people's definition are of when life begins. What's your take?

JoeM500

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:44:31 -0600

I have always considered Roe vs Wade one of the decisions that I would side with if there were to be any future "civil war" in the United States.

simplecreature

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:40:31 -0600

Taking a life? A fetus is not a life. It's a fetus. You start rolling back the definition of "a life" from birth to what? Sperm? Ova? That's ridiculous right? Yes, and one of the leading candidates for the white house thinks the earth is 6000 years old and wants to amend the constitution to reflect the "will of the living god". You're not dealing with rational people here. President Huckabee talking about the sin of Onan...I can see that sadly. Being pro-choice is about ensuring that women have the right to self-determination over their bodies and their lives. It's not about making those choices for them. It's about keeping government out of people's most private decisions. Isn't it odd that the right wants you to be free to spend your money anyway you like, own as many high-caliber guns as you want and yet they have not problem legislating whom you can marry and what goes on in the womb? It's a medical procedure. You don't have to agree with it or disagree with it. It's been politicized by the right to whip up poor voters for over 30 years, in part because race-baiting and communism weren't working as well anymore.

fed up

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:38:54 -0600

Wouldnt it be great if the goverment stayed out of everything. No safety standards, no laws. I am pro choice but there do need to be regulations.

Slaphappy

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:27:03 -0600

Simple Creature: I agree with you completely. Above all, abortion is a medical procedure, a decision to be made by a woman and her doctor. There are good faith arguments to be made on both sides of the debate, but ultimately the government needs to stay out of it. I feel the same way about euthanasia.

xlprq

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:54:44 -0600

Fetus's? Fetus's what? Or do you mean fetuses? Oh, you must mean that.

huckeyes

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:32:04 -0600

"Anyone who opposes abortion and isn't out there also supporting sex-positive sexual education, adoption and birth-control education is simply wishing for the days of female servitude to return."- Simple So, by that logic, anybody who is pro choice and isnt' out there promoting the death penalty and common lynchings, is simply longing for the days of slavery. Completely illogical right? Your argument about being comfortable with mascectomies etc... is also illogical, you oversimplify and try to set up a straw man argument. Mascectomies are done to rid death causing cancers and aren't too often optional, nor does breast tissue carry fetus's. Nor do the other surgeries you cite actually carry the controversy of taking a life...

morydd

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:18:34 -0600

Why do I suspect there would be many more than 3 comments if this article had substituted "pro-life" for "anti-choice" and "anti-life" for "pro-choice"?

whymustiregister

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:50:51 -0600

Simplecreature, That's satire.... right? Chapman says that most pro choicers aren't thrilled with abortion but want the government to stay out of it. (I suspect that he is right.) The next thing we know your handmaid's tale fantsasies are in full swing.

simplecreature

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:36:29 -0600

Steve Chapman wrote: But maybe the chief reason is that the great majority of Americans, even many who see themselves as pro-choice, are deeply uncomfortable with it. Nonsense. How many people are comfortable with mastectomies? How many people are comfortable with gender reassignment surgery? How many people are comfortable with gastric bypass? Those are all medical procedures where the only people involved should be the patient and his/her doctor. That's what the abortion debate boils down to for me. It's about the right of a woman to consult with a physician and seeks the treatment she chooses. It's self-determination at it's most basic. It doesn't have to make anyone comfortable or please anyone or even make people have happy endings, it's a matter of personal choice between a woman and her caregivers. Outlawing abortion wouldn't prevent it. You'd simply go back to women committing suicide, obtaining unsafe and medically unsound abortions or bringing children to term in abusive/dangerous homes. Anyone who opposes abortion and isn't out there also supporting sex-positive sexual education, adoption and birth-control education is simply wishing for the days of female servitude to return. Thank you to every man and woman who have suffered and given their lives so American women can be free to choose!

mss2400

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:29:28 -0600

Well, I guess we know where Margaret stands on the abortion issue....