A Conversation About Abortion from Facebook

* pulled from a conversation with my friend Umut that we had on Facebook in the aftermath of Dr. George Tiller's murder (words in italics are inserted in this blog for reader clarification).

Umut Newbury

Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism. It's shocking to write, but it's time to start calling it what it is. The "war on terror" needs to include domestic terrorists.

Sam Mann at 9:27pm June 1

Yeah, I'm not even for abortion, and that guy killing the doctor - really, really sad and stupid. I mean, what? Less abortions will happen now because he's dead?!?! These ladies will just go to the next doctor...

Sam Mann at 9:28pm June 1

Oh yeah, and they give Christians (especially the pro-life kind like myself) a really bad name!!!

Umut Newbury at 11:51pm June 1

Thank you, Sammy, for the perspective from the sane right. I'm not that religious at all, but I would think killing someone in a church has to: A. be among the mortal sins, B. absolve the dead guy immediately of all his sins. Am I wrong here? Not to mention, how does a pro-life person become pro-murder...

Sam Mann at 8:27am June 2

I don't know for sure about points A and B, but I do know this: If Jim Fitts (a huge anti-abortionist we both know) thinks what you did is wrong, then you are way too far to the "right" side of the spectrum!!!!

Sam Mann at 8:31am June 2

I will say after doing some research/reading last night, my opinion is only reaffirmed: I think we can all agree that partial-birth abortions are pretty sick. I mean, when the baby is like 85% out of the "birth canal" and then it's killed...pretty sick (still, though - the guy shouldn't have been shot).

Umut Newbury at 11:14am June 2

Sammy, nobody is saying that it is "fun" to have a late term abortion, however, according to the research I have done, all of these cases are either when the baby is about to be stillborn, or with huge deformities, ie: brain growing outside of the skull, conjoined twins, and almost always the birth will result in mother's death or serious health complications (like bringing a child into the world that's going to die within a few days, but then never being able to have a child again.) These are the toughest decisions anyone would have to make, but let's not pretend that late term abortions are performed on some college twat who thought it would be cool to have a baby for 8 months then changed her mind at the last minute. These are very very rare cases. Tiller was an ob/gyn, he provided lots of different types of health care to women. The late term abortion thing was a small percentage of what he did, about 12 cases in 15 years or something like that. Tiller wasn't a "sick" man.

Sam Mann at 11:27pm June 2

I never said that people thought it was fun to have them. And I never said that Tiller was a "sick man" because he preformed late-term abortions (any more so than anyone who performs abortions is "sick"). I said that the act itself is pretty sick. I've done some research as well. At this website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Reasons_for_abortions) you can see that the number of abortions in the US the last decade or so has been pretty consistent - around 850,000 a year. You can also see the results of a study of women who had late term abortions and their reasons for doing so. 1.4% of abortions are late-term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_term_abortion#United_States). That's roughly 11,900 abortions. Of those, only 2% were because of a fetal problem diagnosed late in pregnancy. Which is only 238. Or, 11,662 late-term abortions that weren't for that reason! (you can see the other reasons by viewing that first link - some are real doosies).

So, I'm not too sure about your statement: "according to the research I have done, all of these cases are either when the baby is about to be stillborn, or with huge deformities, ie. brain growing outside of the skull, conjoined twins, and almost always the birth will result in mother's death or serious health complications". It looks like to me like those cases are the minority of late-term abortions. As far as me representing the "sane right" - although I appreciate being called sane - thank you :) - I am NOT "right". I'm just pro-life. And I'm consistent when I say that - I'm anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-Iraq war (I am, however, down with tearing ass through Afghanistan on a search for Bin Laden - we need to find that bastard). So I'm just pro-life: I'm against humans being the takers of human life. Obviously, there are some exceptions (like policemen doing there job, or shooting an intruder whose trying to rape or kill your loved ones).

And I'm not one of those "religious women-hating men" who is trying to have the gov't "control" women’s' bodies, or who doesn't like that there is promiscuous sex going on. My thing is this - people should be responsible for there actions. I would say hat 99% of people who fuck know that getting pregnant is a possibility, no matter how careful they are. And I'm not here to say that the woman should carry and/or care for the baby alone, and therefore be the one who "pays the consequences" for one crazy Friday night. No, not at all. I say if the dad doesn't want to be involved, then have the gov't garnish his wages to help support the child. Make the one with the penis be responsible to! It's a freaking human life, man. It's not just "her" body anymore once that lil' baby is conceived. I don't care how small - that little thing is alive in there. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex.

That's the problem with Roe v. Wade. I mean look at this quote: "When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to 'involuntary servitude' in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment….[E]ven if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant." (quote found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Controversy) How dumb is that: "[E]ven if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy" !!!! That's like saying the state shouldn't punish me if I feel like driving down the street shooting my gun off at road signs and accidentally hit a few people. The quote is now saying the same thing, using an different example. "[E]ven if Sam has stipulated to have consented to the risk of hitting pedestrians, that does not permit the state to press charges against him".

So yeah, I'm pro-life. Do I think that abortions should be allowed in some instances (i.e.-fetal deformities or rape), well - probably so. I do sometimes wrestle with that, but I guess no one's asking me to jot down the particulars of a new abortion law tomorrow, anyways! But thanks for the conversation. It's nice to talk to people on the left (and the right) who aren't completely whacked out!

*Below the conversation is a paper I wrote on the psychological affects of abortion.

Abortion Is Not Psychologically Healthy

“Abortion destroys the psychological health of teenage girls” (D’Agostino, 2006, p.21). While this quote might seem like something you would hear from a group of protesters standing outside an abortion clinic, it is actually the opening line in an article that presents new research on women who have had abortions.

The debate on the morality of abortion has always been of interest to me. I grew up in a Christian home where we viewed abortion as wrong. I have always found it interesting, though, that some people are so staunchly pro-life, while at the same time pro-death penalty. The Fifth Commandment doesn’t distinguish between embryos and murders. Also, one of my very good friends went through the abortion of his child, and to this day has pent up feelings about it. The fact that new research is showing women have an increased risk of mental health problems is an interesting facet to throw into the pro-life/pro-choice debate.

“Abortion Causes Massive Mental Health Problems” was published in the magazine Human Events. It is a report on a research study carried out by Professor David Fergusson of Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences in Christchurch, New Zealand. Prof. Fergusson and his colleges studied the psychological effects on New Zealand women ages 15 thru 25. They found that abortion itself can cause mental health problems, rather than having a previous history of mental illness (D’Agostino, 2006).

Of the women studied, 41 % had become pregnant at least once before reaching 25 years of age. 14.6 % of those women had an abortion. “Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors.” (D’Agostino, 2006, p.21). The researchers also stated the anxiety and depression, among other factors, happened after the abortions. “These are not cases of depressed, drug-addicted or otherwise disturbed women being more likely to abort their children-the abortions preceded the disturbances.” (D’Agostino, 2006, p.21).

The study found that women aged 15 to 18 who had not become pregnant had a 31.2 % chance of experiencing major depression. The girls that did become pregnant, but chose to carry the child to term, had a similar chance at 35.7 %. However, for those who did have an abortion, the risk rose significantly to 78.6 % (D’Agostino, 2006). Results for developing anxiety were comparable. Not pregnant: 37.9 %; pregnant, had the child: 35.7%; those who had an abortion: 64.3 %. (D’Agostino, 2006). The study also found similar results for women who had thoughts of suicide. Not pregnant: 23%; pregnant, had the child: 25%; those who had an abortion: 50% (D’Agostino, 2006).

The fact that the risk for young women to approximately double their chance of any of these three behaviors by having an abortion is troubling. Although not statistically significant, I also found it interesting that the women who had children had less of a risk of developing anxiety than the women who didn’t become pregnant. I feel that more studies like this should be carried out, and the data should not only be used to help pregnant women make decisions when considering abortions, but must also be deemed relevant whenever our government debates the legality of abortion in the future. Research like this should not be lightly discounted by those who are pro-choice. Like the author says: “Pro-abortion activists cite possible psychological harm to women if they give birth to an unwanted child, but the scientific evidence continues to pile up proving the opposite.” (D’Agostino, 2006, p. 21).

References

D’Agostino, J. A. (2006, January 30). Abortion causes massive mental health problems. Human Events, 62(4), 21.

a few good minutes...

Let me start by pointing out a few things. I’m not gay, I don’t smoke pot, and I don’t own a gun...in fact I’ve never even fired one. That said, being a homosexual, using marijuana, and (legally) owning a gun all have something in common. They all three should be legally protected rights in our country. All three of them (long with a host of others) are actually one issue: the issue that grown adults should be allowed the freedom to do what they please as long as it doesn’t interfere or harm another. These are issues that are hardly ever viewed in the same arena because too many people in this country choose to label themselves as left-wing or right-wing and fail to see the common ground among these (and many other) issues.

Let’s start with the right to gay marriage. There seems to be no rational argument for not allowing two grown, consenting adults to marry whomever they choose. The argument for gay marriage is pretty simple. Gay people want to have the same legal rights with their partners as do strait married people. Opponents claim that through wills and power of attorneys and civil unions, that gays can accomplish most, if not all, of these goals. My argument against that is, “Well, if you’re okay with them having all that, then why not just let them get married?!?” The real opposition to gay marriage in this country is obvious: it’s prejudice. Most people who are against gay marriage believe that the definition of marriage is the sanctified union of a man and a woman, under God. They feel that to allow two people of the same sex to get married is to desecrate that sanctity. First off, I believe we have two things called 1) separation of church and state, and 2) freedom of religion (I assume most gays follow a spiritual path in which they do not view their homosexuality in direct opposition to the desired goal(s) of their faith). So, from a standpoint of the state, let ‘em get married! And even if that argument still isn’t good enough for the Christian-right, I say this to them: You can talk all you want to about the sanctity of marriage the moment that heterosexuals stop getting divorced at 50% a clip! I’m sure that when over half the heterosexual couples getting married “under God” break those vows of “until death do us part” long before they’re anywhere near 6 feet under, they view that as destroying the sanctity as well. Are the religious-right actually going to blame gays alone for what they perceive as an assault on the sanctity of marriage when many among them make a covenant to themselves, their lover, and God, and then fail to keep it? To expect gay couples to listen to that argument is laughable. When Bob and Gary are sending out invitations to their 25th “union” anniversary and they can’t remember the name of their friend Mark’s fourth wife, the whole argument that only heterosexual marriages are the sanctified ones falls a little flat! I’m personally not saying that all divorces are such a bad thing – sometimes there are really good reason for the dissolution of a marriage – but I just don’t want to hear that the gays alone are the ones changing our modern-day concepts of what’s acceptable when it comes to marriage. There are SOOOOO many other important issues going on in our country, I can’t believe that politicians (and people in general) are wasting so much time, money, energy, and effort to potentially keep two grown adults out of the same bed! If it doesn’t involve me, and it doesn’t hurt any unwilling participant, what do I care where a grown man wants to put his penis? Is this really at the top of our priority list? And by the way, I’m pretty sure God doesn’t “HATE” gays. Oh, maybe he’s disappointed at the gays and lesbians, but I bet he’s really disappointed when people hold up signs saying that he hates things.

Now stay with me, and hear me out on the whole marijuana issue. I’ve smoked pot before. I had a few-month run with it during 8th grade. It wasn’t really my bag. I haven’t touched it since. Most people think pot is generally a bad thing. Bet let’s look at pot next to it’s glorious big cousin: alcohol. Marijuana is a less destructive drug than alcohol. It kills far less people than alcohol. Pot doesn’t generally drive husbands to beat their wives and children. You add up the number of alcohol-related heart/liver problems, cases of spousal or child abuse, and number of drunk-driving accidents and fatalities, and I’m pretty sure that we’re dealing with a much bigger problem than marijuana has to offer. Yeah, sure, some pot smokers sit on their lazy asses all day, watching reruns and stuffing down soda and cheetohs, but so do a lot of non-pot smokers. Most people who smoke weed use it in the same manner that most people use alcohol; as a once in a while way to relax. The case for making pot legal just makes sense. Think of all the money, man-power, and time that is wasted fighting the “war on marijuana” (a war we’ll never win, by the way). All those resources could be better allocated fighting against drugs that really do ruin lives – drugs far more destructive than pot or even alcohol – like heroin and coke. The case against pot is a pretty weak one. People claim it’s the “gateway” drug. Yeah, well it’s only the gateway drug because when people want to go get some pot, they can’t go down to the local QT and by a carton of doobies. Instead, they have to go get it from someone who is a drug dealer. A dealer who is probably a rather seedy, non-law-abiding individual who lurks in the shadows and deals in other illegal contraband (like hardcore drugs - and even if the dealer’s not so seedy – someone on up the food-chain is). If I could just go down to the store and buy some pot, the drug dealers wouldn’t have a business. We’re creating the black market, and the crime associated with it, by keeping this stuff illegal. How do you thing the mob got so powerful? Prohibition! And once we did put a good portion of the drug dealers out of business, we could slap a (fair) tax on that stuff and generate even more money! And I’m not even going to delve into the moral/religious argument here. The whole “our bodies are temples from our creator and we shouldn’t willingly desecrate them” argument seems a little thin when two-thirds of Americans have done a fine ‘ol job of desecrating their temples with cholesterol, saturated and trans fats, fats food, and 2.8 billion gallons of non-diet soda! Not to mention the alcohol. Once again. If a grown man/woman wants to light up a blunt on a Friday night after a tough week at the office, why the hell should I care? As long as they’re doing it in their own homes, or at some other safe venue, and not blowing the smoke into their kids’ faces, what’s the big deal?

And on to gun control. Now, like I said, I don’t own a gun. But I really don’t understand why a right that’s laid out as the second most important thing on the Bill of Rights in this country is under so much heat! I mean, do rednecks and cowboys buying hunting rifles at Wal-Mart really translate into more gun violence on the streets? Does a grown man carry a handgun (with the proper permits, of course) in his car during his commute through a rough part of town really get that many people upset? It sure as hell shouldn’t. When did looking out for your own safety and survival become such an outrageous act? That’s one of our most basic instincts – survive, avoid danger and death!!! The real problem isn’t the guns, it’s the culture in which people that use guns wrongly are living in. The “prison” culture that so many in our urban areas have come to immolate is destroying this country – and doing a fair job of destroying the reputation of so many hard-working, well-spoken, decent young black, Hispanic, and (gasp - even white!) males. Do we need education about guns? Yes (in fact, I’m sure 80% of the NRA would love the opportunity to teach adolescents the proper do’s and don’ts of handling, and the dangers of, guns) Do we need proper permits and waiting periods when it comes to the sale of guns? Yes. But what we really need are homes in which sons are raised by fathers in such a way that blasting off a gun at a human target is an option that doesn’t even cross the mind. Too many young black men are raised in an environment where it’s seen as acceptable to blast away. Too many white teenagers with social hang-ups are drawing up plans of how to shoot up their entire English class. The guns aren’t the problem. It’s the irresponsibility of people that is the problem. If a grown, responsible man wants to own a gun, he should be able to. It’s a constitutionally protected right to bear arms and I see no reason for it to change. Guys shooting at paper targets, clay pigeons, and deer aren’t the guys handing Uzis over to gang members and drug lords.

But, alas, gay-marriage will continue to be a hot topic, marijuana will probably never be legalized, and the debate over gun control isn’t likely to come to an end any time soon. It’s just funny that grown men and women all across this country want their rights, they just don’t want their fellow American to have a different, but equally fair, right. I just fail too see the logic in thinking you should be protected from those who want to ban the second amendment, but you don’t think a grown man should have the right to marry who he chooses. I fail to see the logic in wanting the right to consume marijuana but not recognizing that a bar owner should be able to allow smoking is his place of business. The rights of freedom in this country are being blurred along party lines. People on the left want one thing while people on the right ask for another, all the while failing to see that the things which they seek to be a protected right share so many similarities. Our freedom is what makes us unique. Both as Americans and as humans. Our free will is a beautiful thing. It is what makes us uniquely human. And if a grown man or woman wants to do something that won’t harm anyone else, the why should anyone else stand in opposition to that? If I want to marry someone of the same sex, or if I want to take a hit off of a bong, or if I want to hunt quail, or (in my case) if I want to allow smoking in my place of business – and place the proper signage to notify all would-be patrons – what in the holy hell is the problem? I think the problem is that people are just too selfish. We live in a culture where people want what they want when they want it and other people be damned. The cry from the right is, “I hate fags! They can get married in hell!”. The cry from the left is “You shouldn’t be smoking! It’s bad for you anyway and I hate smelling like smoke when I get home from willingly choosing to patron your night club!” Both cries are ridiculous, and if you listen closely, they sound exactly the same. We live in a society where people cling to one side of the political spectrum like it’s their faith and they have their minds made up before the negotiating can even begin.

So please, just remember and respect the rights of others. You have rights you want them to respect. I think Nick Hexum said it best: “Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law until you violate the rights of another. Respect the space of your sister and your brother. The war on drugs may be well intended but it falls flat when you start to mention an over-crowded prison where a rapist gets paroled to make room for a dude who was sold a pound of weed. To me that’s a crime. Here’s to good people doing time.”