Or depending on your perspective, Professional Baseball does not want you to kill your baby.

zing

it's not as if it's and anti-infanticide/child abuse campaign

i guess then, rich, that a bunch of rich white old men should always be able to tell women what to do with their bodies and how to think and what morals to live by. Because women are incapable of making any form of decision without the wise counsel of men. right?

Or depending on your perspective, Professional Baseball does not want you to kill your baby.

When someone wants medical advice, they should go to a doctor. Baseball players and execs shouldn't enter into it.

Tyson wants to EAT your baby. Heh, that still cracks me up.

but really, i don't want to be reactionary about this (even though that is the easiest thing to do). The main reason that this really burns me is that of all the issues for which money could be raised, a group of mainly men choose an issue that effects mainly women. It would have been just as easy for a bunch of baseball players and execs. to raise money for a great organization that addresses issues which effect mainly men, or better yet choose an organization that is anti-crimes which are usually perpetrated by men. what about a campaign advocating that fathers pay their child support? what about a campaign that supports an rape recovery org? or a group which works with those who have experienced/are experiencing domestic violence? why not advocate safe sex education so that we don't even have to get to the issue of abortion?

Instead they choose a finger-pointing campaign: "Don't YOU kill YOUR baby." "Don't YOU have an abortion." "Don't YOU use the morning after pill." etc.

It's a reaction (don't kill your baby) to a reaction (i'm pregnant, what am i going to do?), and it's weak.

i go to dr. nick for medical advice.

on another note... who should hold marches about going to war?

It is quite simple really. I believe life begins at conception. I don't want to kill life, especially a baby. To me abortion is murder. I am sorry that in the life of a child is more important then the reproductive, socio-economic, opinions, et. certera et. cetera. of nearly any man or woman.
This is not a men vs. women thing for me. This is an anti-murder thing.

I do acknowledge that this is an argument that two good people can disagree on. It all comes down to when you think life begins. Please do not bring race, age or gender in on this. Yes you can map out different demographics on which way people fall on this issue, but I do not think it is helpful to the debate. It is all about were a person belives life begins.
So some baseball people don't want other people to kill their babies? I would assume that many other groups (I don't know this for a fact) like maybe teacher unions struggle for "reproductive rights." People have a right to associate at however they want and for what ever they want. Who are you to tell them how to best direct their energies?

And more food for thought sarah, I have a mother who sometimes didn't pay child support.

no social issues can be discussed in this society WITHOUT also discussing race, gender, class, etc. To even begin to do so is to ignore the ways in which those power structure work to define peole and their rights.

If you are so anti-murder, why are you so pro-war??

I am not so pro-war... I just think that currently it is the best way for us to get out of a pickle jar. I arrived at this conclusion in the last few days. See my comment under my "pro-war" post.

Yes I agree to a small extent that race, gender, class has to some degree formed our opinions. But in this case, who cares what classification that you belong to that formed your opinion? You have view on where life begins. I am talking about and to YOU, in the micro view. Not the macro view what 85% of purple skinned, dog catchers think. I care about YOUR opinion as an individual. This way I might be able to add to my own opinions via your views and maybe you might be able to add to your opinion via my views.

rich, i completly respect your opinion. however until men can birth babies, the issue of gender is implicit to the topic of abortion. i'm not trying to be flippant, i am being realistic. separating gender from this argument ignores the individual who would be forced to carry the child to term - always a woman. who goes through morning sickness which may affect her job? her studies? her care of her other children? who has to deal with the medical bills? who has to take time off from whatever it is that she is doing to give birth? a man or a partner can empathize, but if they choose their life can continue on in a normal fashion - not so for the woman who is pregnant.

abortion is the only political issue where i feel that gender makes an absolute difference and where one gender's opinion (that of men) must take a backseat to the other (women) by virtue of the effects of the decision.

furthermore i recognize and address the fact that men are not the only ones who fail to financially support their child/children and abuse their SOs, however statistically men do so disproportionately.

ok, i'll bite. I do not believe that an individuals opinions are formed 'outside' of the psychical realm of race class gender. What i mean is that ones place within society and the ideoligies that form the individual from birth are powerful forces in the individual's perosnal ideology. Not that there arent variations within each group, but that the micro never can be detached from the macro.

Being pro-choice to me is not about a personal belief, in that i do not care what i think about abortion myself. I believe that the fight to keep abortions safe and legal is against systemic sexism and how (white, middle class and up) men have historically curtailed the rights of women and racial minorities. That is why i cannot speak about the issue on a micro level because it doesnt matter on the micro level. Whatever ones own views are on the issue clouds the more important battle over control of our bodies and minds against a patriarchal system that wants power over women and minorities

Sure it matters on a micro level! Would you want your wife or daughter to have an abortion? Of course your opinion matters. This is your child or grandchild we are talking about here.
Are you going to let your macro idiology cloud the more important battle over your family?

if one's wife/daughter/granddaugher wanted an abortion, how might that be resolved?

it is up to my wife/daughter/grandaughter to make that CHOICE. and i will stand by them no matter what CHOICE they make. And, btw, my wife and i have already been through this! And she made HER CHOICE, but i would have stood by her no matter what CHOICE she had made.

IIt doesnt matter to me what a person wants to do with their body. You can cut it up, inject drugs into it, kill it, I dont care. Just dont hurt someone else, and a bunch of cells aint a someone to me. Until that fetus is outside the body of the woman carrying it, it is a part of HER body and she can do whatever she wants.

And i agree that is is a micro issue which is why i dont want macro legislation telling me and mine how to live our lives.

Well in our current legal framework I do not know exactly how I would handle such a situation. But if nothing else as a man you could encourage a woman to the best of your ability to carry the child. Try to assure her that you will do everything in your power to assist and alleviate what ever her concern is. As a man I concede that I will never be able to fully appreciate what it is to carry a child to birth. What I am saying is that when you belive that life starts at conception, killing that life is unacceptable. This (99.5% of the time) plain old trumps any other concern of pain and suffering on the woman's part. Now the sticky situations (life of the mother, super-extremely messed up kid) I am not so sure were I come down. I would not want to out-law that. And yes that line is a hard one to draw.
All I am trying to point out to spike is that I think he would have an opinion in such a situation, and that opinion would be a personal one, a micro one. I don't know what that opinion would be exactly, but it would be an opinion based more the current situation, family, spiritual convictions, and plain old gut sense, rather then politics, race, gender and class.

If life begins at conception you should know that measn the pill is out too. The pill acts to prevent retention of a post-conception, fertilized blastula, such that it is ejected with the menses.

Gettign into arguements about when life began is like asking asking what blue smells like. Life never actually stopped. Sperm cells and eggs cells are just as alive as any somatic human adult. There is just as much potential in the wasted wet-dream sperm cell as there is in a post-conception blastula. I've often found it crazy the way people apply moral principles to a biological technicality.

As far as I am concerned, the only part of biology that morality has an applicability to whatsoever is self-awareness. In which case, infanticide up to an age of about 9 months ought to be legal as well. The same should apply the euthanization of the severly mentally retarded or brain damaged under the same criteria.

This (99.5% of the time) plain old trumps any other concern of pain and suffering on the woman's part.

Oh! THAT'S a good one... Look, on a moral level I am opposed to abortion. I think of it as killing and think that it should be avoided at all costs... but I also recognize that I simply don't have the capacity to have a child and, as an extension of that, don't have to deal with the issues that surround that capacity. Further, given that these aspects of daily life are totally outside of my experience, I can't make a good faith decision to oppose the practice of abortion even though I personally find it morally distatseful. Such arguments fail to recognize that an abortion isn't something that you "la-lala-la-la" bop down to the clinic and have done on a lark. Every sigle woman who has had an abortion that I have spoken with agonized over it and was incredibly upset about it, but they ultimately felt that it was for the best because of the specific circumstances in which they lived.

It's a huge decision, an important decision, a decision that profoundly impacts the life of the woman making it... so the decision should be theirs and theirs alone. Given my above stated lack of omnisience, to say "I know what's best in all circumstances" would be extremely, indeed willfully, disingenuous.

As a man I concede that I will never be able to fully appreciate what it is to carry a child to birth. What I am saying is that when you belive that life starts at conception, killing that life is unacceptable. This (99.5% of the time) plain old trumps any other concern of pain and suffering on the woman's part.

In this brief statement you have just told me that not only does my emotional, spiritual, physical, and mental well being not matter 99.5% of the time when it comes to the issue of childbearing, but that you will never have to experience it and that doesn't bother you.

I take serious issue when i am directly affected by a situation and another individual who is far less affected tells me that my opinion and potential experience regarding said issue doesn't matter.

It is legally dangerous to legislate that one does not have control over one's own body or what happens to one's own body. While it is biologically natural that under certain circumstances i might become pregnant, legislating that i must remain in said state against my will, will always be psychologically damaging to the woman directly involved. You are legislating that a woman is nothing but, has no value other than to serve as host to the life that is living from hers and could not exist upon her death.

As a woman, who believes she has value and purpose other than that of an incubator i take serious offense to your line of thinking. Legally women in the US have only had real agency over their own bodies, let alone their own property for a very short period of time, and i am not comfortable with turning back the clock and giving up my most basic and most inherent right - that over my own body.

first, what sarah said rocks.

i'd like to add my opinion here, as the only person on the thread (and indeed, the board) who has actually carried and born children, since the "micro" reaction and "micro" voice and "micro" opinions seem to matter so much here.

no one on this board has any idea what it is like to get accidentally pregnant and carry the baby to full-term as a choice. no one here has any idea what that does to your life, your possibilities, your self-conception, your place in this society. even my partner doesn't fully know all the ramifications, and he never can.

i find it incredibly insulting for you to talk about women who get pregnant as if they don't matter and have no voice. i find it incredibly condescending for you to assume to know anything about that woman's life and what her choices mean to her. none of you will ever know. i will never know. i just read a zine today by a woman who is a single mother pregnant with a second child, choosing to carry and raise it, who is so agonized and isolated right now by the ramifications of her choice. you have no idea what pain and suffering she is going through. you have no concept of the pain and suffering i went through.

don't you dare tell me that you have any idea what a choice like abortion or carrying a child means. you don't and you never will.

the day men carry children is the day they are allowed to have a say in how it's done.

Game. Set. Match.

Next at bat: the death penalty.

actually duhma has had 3 kids... but doesn't post much more than chuck

rich sayz - "All I am trying to point out to spike is that I think he would have an opinion in such a situation, and that opinion would be a personal one, a micro one. I don't know what that opinion would be exactly, but it would be an opinion based more the current situation, family, spiritual convictions, and plain old gut sense, rather then politics, race, gender and class."

my rebutal is, 'The Personal is Political'

is "duhma" female? if not, that was a totally irrelevant response.

even if duhma is female, that was a pretty pathetic way to avoid making intelligent commentary on the issues raised by myself and sarah. way to respect female voices.

and rich, if you don't want to have an abortion, then hey, just don't have one. oh wait, it's a choice that you will never be faced with.

"way to avoid making intelligent commentary on the issues raised by myself and sarah."

pardon the tone... but a) it's my site, i can say whatever i want, and b) your text is being read by a grand total of 33 unique visitors a month.... my statement and a half had nothing to do with respect or lack their of, cf. my post yestereve about CHECK YOUR FACTS BEFORE YOU POST THEM

that was all i was trying to say... respecting female voices indeed...

and what facts exactly should jackie be checking, 1) that she is female? 2) that women are the only ones capable of haivng children among humans? 3) that the choices women make with and for their bodies should be left to women? 4) that she had children, gave birth to them, they came out of her body? 5) that this is sexist soceity?

are these facts at all contestable in that she should be checking them beore posting them. Because if so, then we have about 20 months, plus her entire life before that, of evidence that all the above is true.

I do not wish argue the case against abortion any more. I have my view; you all have your view. What I am going to argue though is for respect of male opinion on the subject, what ever that opinion may be. Men, it is not bad to have a view and do your best to not only state that view, but to see that view come to fruition, because in your heart you feel it is right and just.

To quote Jackie ”the day men carry children is the day they are allowed to have a say in how it's done.”. This sediment was also expressed by several others here.

I concede more men then women disagree with abortion. But for sure a sizable portion of women do also identify with the pro-life side of the argument, even to the point of demanding legislation. Therefore I would hope the pro-life side of this argument could be respected as people that hold such a view, not men or women. To try to suggest that a pro-life position is some sort continuance of previous century’s reasoning to keep women barefoot, pregnant and at home baking cookies is insulting. A pro life position is about defending the lives of the most vulnerable section of our population.

So if we extend the logic expressed in the latest posts to another subject lets see how this holds up. For the sake of argument let us try not to go into the issue of whether it is fair for women to banned from combat positions.

In this country women are not permitted to serve in combat positions in the military. Women are also not registered for selective service. So we can conclude that the majority of the pain, suffering, psychological trauma, career interruption, and indeed death will be experienced by men. So, in this case why should women have any say in war, for or against? Without the risk of participating in combat how can women truly appreciate the choice that is being made?

Of course the previous paragraph is totally ridiculous! You don’t have to be a man to hate a war. You don’t have to be a man to think that war man be the right thing to do in a situation. Even if you can in no way participate, for what ever the reason, you still have a stake in if your nation goes to war. Mother’s sons will die, much government money will be spent, and, depending on the situation, your own neighborhood may become a battleground, either directly with armies and such or via terror. So yes, everyone has an opinion about war; an opinion that even matters if one is in no way able to directly participate in said war.

To spike - my rebuttal is, 'The Personal is Political' - Please correct me if I am not interpreting that correctly, but I read that; your personal decisions are based on your political views and ideals?
This may be the root of the major disconnect that you and I seem to have. To me things are 100% opposite. My politics are based upon my personal observations and convictions. As I see more in life and become more mature my politics may change. I am ok with this, and actually desire it.

This message was brought to you by the right wing nutballs.

i also have the choice to kill people when they're already born... this way is just less messy, and i don't have to deal with those pesky judges

Existing American Anarchy, eh Ben? ;-)

great... this thread again...

hehehe, i was waiting for you to say something, hehe

*grabs hammer & nails*

Um... yeah. If you don't believe in abortion, then don't get one.

You can try to raise a child that you can't feed or educate, a child that you're not prepared for or don't want, you can potentially DENY this living creature a fruitful future by bringing it up in an environment wholly unsuited for it. OR you can burden society by putting it up for adoption where it MIGHT get adopted by a wholesome, loving family. Brought up healthy & happy & all those Lifetime TV for Women things. Or it could be adopted by an alcoholic, abusive ex-military & shuffled from home to home & mother to mother (like my father was). OR it can not get adopted & spend it's entire childhood being fostered by people who pity it.

Like I said. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. If gravidity will never be a problem your body will face, then I'm sorry it's not your CHOICE.

OK...can someone help me off this cross please?

wow, i haven't heard "gravidity" since my etymology class, like 15 years ago

Yeah, I actually haven't used that word in several years. I like it though.