ann arbor is overrated.

A2 Job Market

Ann Arbor’s techie and crunchy sides meet: Certified Colon Hydrotherapist will trade for web development. All right, the poster is in Livonia, but we doubt it’s an accident that s/he chose A2’s Craigslist as the most promising potential market for these services.

116 Responses to “A2 Job Market”

Just wondering what organization “certifies” that profession. Also wondering why precisely one needs to become certified to shoot water up someone else’s behind.
posted by trusty getto on October 6th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Perhaps the coffee enema guy could get together with the colon hydrotherapist to deliver a stimulating cafe americano. If only I had some extra money and web development skills…
posted by toxic avenger on October 6th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
snerk! That’s clearly the joke I was searching for this morning.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 6th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Wow, is it that boring in Ann Arbor right now that you have to resort to trolling Craigslist for blog material? No offense, AAIO; I luv ya but these haven’t been the most scintillating posts lately.
posted by Nick on October 7th, 2006 at 12:03 am
Well, this one was sent to me by a reader, and I think it’s pretty representative of the kind of thing I usually post here.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 7th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Colon hydrotherapy is overr…..

You know the drill.
posted by David Boyle on October 7th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Here’s something exciting…was anyone else assaulted by the huge partial abortion images on Washtenaw today? Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, that had to have been the most inappropriate instance of freedom of speech i’ve ever seen.

DCB
posted by DCBass on October 7th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
aaioio
posted by peter honeyman on October 8th, 2006 at 2:16 am
Nonsense — not over by any stretch of the imagination. We upper Midwestern cheese eaters need a little help.
posted by wannabe asspump on October 8th, 2006 at 5:13 am
I was also… assaulted that is. I happened by this demonstration of freedom of speech with my two kids in the car and had no time to react.

I inquired with the AAPD about permits etc. and was told that they did not need one as they were on public property and the pictures are not offensive enough, as interpreted by the courts, to be banned. They police would like to have them gone but currently have no means to do so. They suggested that I contact the City Council.

DCB you are right, I called a few people I know are solidly for abortion rights and a some who are adamant against them; they were all appalled. I think the surrounding businesses, which will not see my money anytime soon as I can find alternative routes, should be watering their lawn strips with fire hoses.
posted by abc on October 8th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Big, full color aborted fetuses? That’s been going on for some time. I remember having to do a quick ‘hide your eyes’ shout to the kids in the car as I was taking them home from kindercare. Yuppity yup.

I considered pulling over and asking them about adoption. Surely they must each have 10 or 12 adopted children, right?
posted by LittleB on October 8th, 2006 at 9:22 am
During the week they work in adoption and counseling agencies for pregnant teens as well as rape and incest victims. But it isn’t about their day jobs.

Profanity can get you arrested, nudity and pornography has checks so that parents can talk to their kids as it is appropriate. Why? Because we want to ensure some level of civility in our society and while I may use profanity at times I expect adults to check their language against the audience. I don’t care if the images are available to adults and shown to other adults to demonstrate someone’s viewpoint. Abortion is gruesome, as is child birth in my opinion, and I think graphic photos of either should not be lining the public streets. We should not allow a shock and awe campaign like this that reduces our children to collateral damage on their way home from soccer.

These people should take their images to the politicians and show them there. I have not yet voted on an abortion issue, nor have my children. These images should be limited to adult forums.

LittleB, yes the AAPD said they have been doing this for some time, I guess I was just ‘lucky’ yesterday. Maybe it was discussed in the snews when it started and I missed it.
posted by abc on October 8th, 2006 at 10:19 am
My question is, do they really think they are furthering their cause using this tactic? To me, it’s just evidence of people’s stupidity. It doesn’t make me want to stop and listen to their arguements….it makes me want to smack them.

DCB
posted by DCBass on October 8th, 2006 at 10:26 am
I suggest you create signs showing bagels being cut apart by knives and stand around outside Cafe Royale shouting, “They’re killing bagels in there!”
posted by Anna on October 8th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
How about we all donate 5 bucks to a pro choice group like Family Planning with every sighting? Then we could let them know what the plan is, and keep a tally. It would be cool for them to know how much money they could bring in for the pro-choice camp.
posted by LittleB on October 8th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
I have an idea…..lets find out what organization they work for and make some signs that say “These people subject innocent children to violent and graphic images. Please consider using another agency for pregnancy counseling” and stand in front of their place of business. I’ll foot the bill for the sign if someone will do it with me.

DCB
posted by DCBass on October 8th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
It’s really a brilliant tactic, though, because as soon as you complain about how horrible the images are, they can turn it right around and say that you’re actually horrified by abortion. As someone who’s undecided about the morality of abortion, anyway, I find it very hard to argue that they shouldn’t be holding those signs.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 8th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
My arguement isn’t with their position on abortion, it’s about my right to drive down the street with my children without seeing disturbing, violent images. My children aren’t allowed in movies that show less gore than that.

Frankly, I’m pretty sure the pictures are photoshopped to look as horrid as possible. The pics I saw were of a half-chopped off baby head. There isn’t any chopping involved in late-term abortions. Your cervix gets dialated, you get pitocin and birth the fetus.
posted by DCBass on October 8th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
They have taken to demonstrating with those pictures in front of random Democratic Party events. For example, they were at the city party’s Labor Day picnic at Island Park. My eight year old daughter saw the pictures and got very upset.

They don’t demonstrate at Republican events, even though obviously some Republican politicos are pro-choice on abortion. Just exactly as those right-wing Catholic bishops who threaten to excommunicate pro-choice Catholic Democrats like Mario Cuomo, but never suggest the same for pro-choice Catholic Republicans like George Pataki.

In other words, these demonstrations are masterminded by pure partisans.

I suppose the hardball partisan response would be to make gruesome full-color photos of bloody war casualties in Iraq, and demonstrate just as aggressively at Republican events.

But that would be a race to the bottom in civility and taste, like turning up the volume on your amplifiers to drown out the band across the room.

Michigan law, still on the books, makes all abortions illegal. When the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, right after this fall’s election, that prohibitory law will spring back into effect. This is likely to engender some controversy.

So, starting in just a few months, all Michigan politics will be about abortion, even more than today, and we will see those bloody pictures EVERYWHERE.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 9th, 2006 at 3:16 am
Gack, as though politics weren’t depressing enough already.
posted by OFWinsurgent on October 9th, 2006 at 11:14 am
I totally nailed one of those signs with a coathanger last week.

Well, not really. Actually, I just gave them the finger. I thought it was an eloquent response, comparatively.
posted by Nitro on October 9th, 2006 at 11:29 am
“When the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, right after this fall’s election, that prohibitory law will spring back into effect. ”

Do you honestly think this will happen? Don’t get me wrong, Roe v. Wade is terrible “law” from almost any perspective and deserves to be, er, aborted. But I just don’t see it happening.
posted by Dave on October 9th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Wow, of all the places I expected to see a thread turn into an abortion discussion, this wasn’t it. I guess there’s enough unnatural violence in colon hydrotherapy to warrant such a topic creep.

If the near future does present Michigan politics with an abortion law crisis, make a point of visiting www.dflm.org, the site of Democrats for Life of Michigan. We don’t wave nasty pictures, but we do think those pictures are nasty.
posted by Patrick Hunt on October 9th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Dave: yup, it will happen, and soon.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 9th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
AAIO — I’m not against open heart surgery, but I’m pretty sure I don’t want to see graphic images of it on posters on the sidewalk.
posted by Anna on October 10th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Thanks to Ann Arbor’s Zone of Reproductive Freedom, if abortion again becomes illegal in Michigan, in Ann Arbor the maximum penalty will be a $5 fine.

Check out the City Charter, Chapter 20 or 21, I think.
posted by Dave Cahill on October 10th, 2006 at 8:55 am
“…Ann Arbor’s Zone of Reproductive Freedom…”

I actually had to look that one up; such a quintessentially Ann Arbor way to brand a complex moral issue. Perhaps the Charter could be expanded to declare the city a Zone of Orwellian Taxonomy.
posted by ryan on October 10th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Larry: I’ll bet you a beer that Roe v. Wade isn’t going anywhere. It’s a wager I’d love to lose, but I still have very strong doubts of ever seeing such a thing come to pass.

re: “Ann Arbor’s Zone of Reproductive Freedom” … give me a break. That is indeed pure AA.
posted by Dave on October 10th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
So, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the fine for having an abortion in Ann Arbor will be lower than the fine for possession of anything less than an ounce of pot? (Sorry, I had to ask…) I mean, isn’t that $25 now?

I guess I find those signs disgusting, but I don’t have kids, so I don’t really get riled up about them either … but if you’re opposed to your kids viewing violent and graphic images and scenes, don’t you think you should undertake a more systematic assault on what even network TV is putting out now (let alone basic cable), rather than worrying about a few oddballs holding up signs by the side of the road every now and then? Or is the sentiment that you can control your TV, but you can’t use the remote to turn of these signs as you drive by?

Perhaps it’s just me, but I have a hard time seeing how a society which gives us Jackass 2 and South Park is going to give us anything other than at least *some* people like those sign-holders. Why would you expect anything else?
posted by Daniel on October 10th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Yeah, Daniel, exactly. I can avoid TV ( we don’t subscribe to cable, and don’t watch network TV at all ) but it’s a little difficult to avoid the corner of Washenaw & Huron from where I live.
posted by LittleB on October 10th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Anyone out there undecided about this topic? (ha-ha)

What a better thread to discuss it on.
posted by OFWinsurgent on October 10th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Is this an example of an issue that cannot be debated? How do you get the other side to entertain your point?

It seems that we’ve segregated ourselves along ideological lines to the extent that standing on a corner with graphic images is the only way to spark the dialog.

Actually, it is nice to see this discussion taking shape in the comments here at AAIO. It is civil because we are all acquainted. It seems that we are the middle ground over which the two sides fight.
posted by Alan Gutierrez on October 10th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Hummm… middle ground; I was thinking that this is defined by the extremes. Is not the extreme right position that there should be no abortion under any circumstance, including rape and incest *regardless of the age of the victim*? I believe the extreme right is also against birth control, as they are against any research and use of stem cells. I believe the only method of birth control supported by the most extreme right is the rhythm method, but I have also read that there are some who believe that it is our destiny to ‘go out and multiply’ and do not support any birth control at all. It seems to me that for the extreme left’s pendulum to swing as far out as the right’s, they would have to be out in the public schools encouraging kids to have sex, simply to be able to practice their craft of performing abortions. If the most extreme right is encouraging parenthood then the most extreme left must be encouraging abortions, but I don’t see that. I see those involved with abortions also involved with family planning, which has alternatives that are offered to prevent abortions (like distribution of condoms) which are argued against by the extreme right.

It’s a tough issue but when I consider ‘the middle ground’ on this issue, I think it is left of center. I think the extreme right wing is a few loud, and naive, zealots who have time on their hand (and god on their side). I know many very religious people who strongly disagree with their tactics and rigidity. If Larry’s prediction is true, it will be a shame, as I do not think it is representative of what the majority think.
posted by abc on October 11th, 2006 at 8:09 am
As for middle ground, Democrats for Life of America has the 95-10 Initiative, a plan to reduce the national abortion rate by 95% over 10 years, largely by reducing the demand for abortion, as opposed to its supply. It has been shaped into legislation by Congressman Lincoln Davis (TN) and cosponsored by Michigan’s Dale Kildee.

I agree that this topic is defined by its extremes, but it doesn’t have to be that way. I think the majority of Americans want a reasonable policy defining constitutionaly protected humanity and agree that the line is somewhere before the cutting of the umbilical cord. What if the government made the 9th month off limits for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother? Throw out the health exception for that last month and make the maximum penalty 1 month in prison. It would affect very few women, and those cases that did arise would help the country understand whether it wants to be jailing women for abortion.

By all means, tell me why I’m wrong.
posted by Patrick Hunt on October 11th, 2006 at 8:50 am
you are wrong.

in balancing the interests of mother and fetus, roe prohibits abortion of a viable fetus and defines viability as the third trimester, i.e., the ninth month, and the eighth, and the seventh.
posted by peter honeyman on October 11th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Two points:

1. Prior to Roe, the states made law in this area, as they do in many other areas. If Roe is merely overturned, this presumably would be the situation again. It’s possible there would be a state that became the “abortion state” the way Nevada became the “divorce state” back in the day. What a grisly idea, but there it is.

2. Lots of time is spent imagining political compromises, but none of them really make any moral sense. If it’s a baby and killing it is categorically wrong, how it was conceived is morally irrelevant.

But then there’s a lot about politics that makes no moral sense.
posted by Dave on October 11th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Peter, the supreme court (I don’t know if it was in Roe or some other case) left open an exception for a mother’s health. The mother’s health has since been interpreted as the mother’s preference, since giving birth is a dangerous, traumatic experience. My understanding is that Roe and its successor cases protect all abortions. Has anyone heard of a woman or doctor being prosecuted recently for abortion?
posted by Patrick Hunt on October 11th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
dave, it is moral absolutism that got us into this mess. “if it’s a baby [person] …” can be debated, but the fact that a pregnant woman is a person is incontrovertible; her rights don’t vanish upon the moment of conception. (my understanding is that roe decided that a fetus is not a person at the moment of conception, for whatever that is worth.)

patrick, my understanding is that roe permits states to prohibit third trimester abortion altogether.
posted by peter honeyman on October 11th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
I reject any formulation which posits that a one-cell fertilized egg is a citizen. And this is not just academic: birth control methods which might interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg have been fought as “abortifacients”.

In the development from single cell to blastocyst to embryo to fetus to baby, human features come gradually; the process does not lend itself to finding an easily defensible or consensus building bright line.

Given this uncertainty, I think the wisest legal course is to generally leave the decision to the person in whose body all this is happening.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 11th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
A common misperception on this topic is that Roe stood up for 3rd trimester fetuses. It did not. As Jennifer Granholm said in the first debate last week, she vetoed the partial birth abortion ban because it did not leave open an exception for the health of the mother and so the bill was unconstitutional. Where else in our law is the quality of one person’s life more important than the quantity of another’s? The current line of citizenship is the full extraction of the child. Can’t we agree that’s absurd? I’m not talking about an 8-cell organism.

As for birth control, if we had real data on it, we’d probably find that woman on birth control contributes to the death of fewer fertilized eggs than would naturally occur were she not on birth control. The same probably goes for the morning after pill.
posted by Patrick Hunt on October 12th, 2006 at 6:45 am
patrick, i don’t understand … what does “stood up for” mean?

also, to whom does “one person” refer?

and what do you mean by “current line”? and “full extraction”?

finally, in your last paragraph, are you indirectly referring to the rate of spontaneous abortion?

i’m not trying to be obtuse, and i’m sure you’re not trying to be opaque … nonetheless, i don’t understand the points you are trying to make … can you clarify?

thanks.
posted by peter honeyman on October 12th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Patrick, may I also ask that you clarify your comparison of ‘quality’ and ‘quantity’. What does ‘quantity of another’s [life]’ mean anyway?
posted by abc on October 12th, 2006 at 10:51 am
“The current line of citizenship is the full extraction of the child. Can’t we agree that’s absurd?”

It’s equally absurd to suppose that everyone becomes instantly capable of voting responsibly on their 18th birthday, or drinking responsibly on their 21st.

Sometimes the law has to draw arbitrary lines. If anything, this one seems less arbitrary than either of those–if you’re going to choose a point to start giving a child rights independent of its mother’s, the point when a child isn’t physically attached to its mother strikes me as a pretty reasonable point to choose.
posted by Bruce Fields on October 12th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Just a question for people who say a fetus before birth is a life, then does that mean it should be legal to start drinking when you are 20 years and about 3 months? Can I also shave nine months off the time I have to wait until I get a seniors discount?
posted by anon on October 12th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Now THAT is an excellent basis to debate this topic! Absurd, yet original. I love it.
posted by OFWinsurgent on October 12th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Sorry for being unclear.

I said that some people think the Supreme Court “stood up” for third trimester fetuses. Maybe I should have used “defended.” There seems to be a national sense that Roe was a compromise. My point is that Roe wasn’t a compromise. Every abortion is legal, and if a state outlawed third trimester abortions, they would have to include a health exception, which would practically nullify the ban anyway.

I said that we seem to be favoring one person’s quality of life over another person’s quantity of life. By “one person” I mean the fetus. Of course, that’s the point of contention here, but I hope we can agree that past the fetus’s point of exterior viability it’s a living person. The mother’s health involves her quality of life. The fetus’s existence involves its quantity of life. I argue that the life of one living person should be more valuable than the health of another living person.

My argument on birth control’s merit as an abortifacient is that we should weight the number of fertilized eggs lost due to birth control against the number lost to spontaneous abortion. Since birth control reduces the likelihood of ovulation and fertilization, and since spontaneous abortion is believed to be a fairly common occurence, birth control doesn’t strike me as much of a culprit.
posted by Patrick Hunt on October 12th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
I also said “The current line of citizenship is the full extraction of the child.” I mean that a child can be alive and have 75% of it’s body hanging out of a woman’s body, but to kill it isn’t punishable by law (as long as you have the mother’s consent). Once the child has fully exited the woman’s body, it doesn’t matter whether she’s given her consent or not. That’s an american citizen and to kill it brings a penalty.
posted by Patrick Hunt on October 12th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
patrick, you don’t have a clue. here is what justice blackmun said:

A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

patrick, do you understand the meaning of the word “proscribe”? i suppose not, so lemme help you with that, too:

proscribe |prōˈskrīb| verb [ trans. ] forbid, esp. by law.

you seem to think that “the health of the mother” is some sort of loophole that renders the proscription meaningless. let me quote blackmun a little more:

The State may define the term “physician,” as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

unless you are a physician, your “health == quality of life” argument is nothing but rhetoric.

bottom line: third trimeseter abortions are entirely in the hands of the state.

as for your “fetus is a person” argument, the point is addressed directly by blackmun (part ix), which is too long to include here, but lemme grab a couple sentences to help you out:

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. … If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. … The Constitution does not define “person” in so many words. … All this … persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

i urge you to read the opinion for yourself, lest someone call you a fucking liar.

your “weigh the egg” suggestion sounds like you’ve been taking too many bong hits. you should lay off that stuff, it clouds the mind.

finally, the followup note you posted is based on your flagrant ignorance of the actual law of the land. you should fix that.

thanks, btw, for clarifying your earlier note.
posted by peter honeyman on October 13th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Peter, your tone is unnecessary. I’ve been humble in my arguments and invited criticism. No one is impressed by your vulgarity.

I admit I have not read any abortion-related Supreme Court decisions. Your having read them does not automatically imply that you understand them. From a Priests for Life website:

*In the companion case of Doe vs. Bolton, the Court defined the scope of the “health” exception as follows: “The medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.” (Doe, 410 U.S. at 192).*

Now let’s assume that you saw the word Priest and immediately disbelieved the entire next paragraph. The question still comes down to how you balance one person’s health over another person’s life. Of course Blackman didn’t think an 8th month fetus was a legal person, that’s how we got here. But does that make sense to you? That’s what I’m trying to get at. Inside or outside, doen’t that fetus have the necessary elements of humanity?

I’d love to be wrong about my follow up note, but when partial-birth abortion is legal, it seems to me that we have just such a strange set of laws.
posted by Patrick Hunt on October 13th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
patrick, your humility does not excuse your ignorance.

go read doe v. bolton. you will find that it concerns a first trimester pregnancy.

the rest of your note is nonsensical. roe cedes to the state the opportunity to proscribe abortion in the third trimester. you may not have known that yesterday, but you know it today, so stop pretending otherwise lest you be branded as a fucking liar.
posted by peter honeyman on October 13th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
you go, peter honeyman!
posted by LittleB on October 13th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Peter,

Perhaps you shouldn’t have stopped at the Roe and Doe cases. If you had read the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, which introduces the “loophole” of mother’s health in third trimester pregnancy that is used in Stenberg v. Carhart, you would know that third trimester abortions are not entirely in the hands of the state, as you previously said.

Your being a jackass does not excuse your ignorance.
posted by toxic avenger on October 14th, 2006 at 1:27 am
toxic, are you also getting your “facts” from a priest’s web site?

the plurality opinion in planned parenthood v. casey extends state control of late term abortions by applying a viability test instead of a trimester test.

at the time the case was decided, viability was considered to arise at 22-23 weeks. the third trimester begins at week 25.
posted by peter honeyman on October 14th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Just in case anyone is still wondering about colonics. I had a friend once who performed high irrigation colonics. She was a licensed napropath. She was always a little “different”.
posted by 1whonos on October 14th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
I know I’ve posted this before, but it seems to be coming up again… These three results came from the same election:

* the $5 pot fine was increased to $25

* abortion would still be legal in Ann Arbor if Roe were overturned and abortion was illegal elsewhere in MI

* it is illegal to transport nuclear arms through Ann Arbor
posted by A Different Jon on October 15th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Legal vs. Moral vs. Life vs. Man vs. Woman vs. “Rights” vs. the baby vs. Death

Could an issue be more difficult?

While we all will argue for middle ground from various points and scream that our own priorities are the most important, - at the end of the day, there really is no real middle ground in the Life vs. Death areas of the abortion argument. That is why I tend to defend the life of the unborn. If I was an “unborn” (and I was once), I would want mom and dad to fight for my life. You don’t have to agree with me and I am not trying to turn everyone here into a pro-lifer, it is just how I see the priorities. Just about everything else in the argument is malleable

Lastly, if we must prioritize opinions for me the “Human LIFE Cycle” begins at conception - One little zygote - with totally unique DNA and a rather clear path (given some time) to voting and ordering a beer. Biologically, it is human DNA and would normally develop to a beer guzzling voter - I just can’t interfere.
posted by neocon435667 on October 16th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
it’s nice to know that i don’t have to agree with you, but …

will you jail me if my choice is one you don’t agree with?
posted by peter honeyman on October 16th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
All together now! “Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good…”
posted by OFWinsurgent on October 16th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
It’s a hugely tough choice to make, I would imagine. Thank goodness that it still is a choice.
posted by LittleB on October 16th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
…and luckily, at least for the moment, the peanut gallery of “baby” worshipping moralists can’t chime in with their opinion of what a person should do with their personal circumstances.
posted by OFWinsurgent on October 16th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
With regard to ADifferentJohn’s comment about the pot fine being raised to $25 at the same time the fine for having an abortion in AA was set at $5, there is an amusing political footnote.

There was actually a ballot question committee set up to campaign in favor of the $5 abortion fine and against the $25 pot fine. I think its name was the Five Dollars Is Fine Committee. Its immortal slogan was “No on B, Yes on C - Five Dollars Is Fine With Me”.
posted by Dave Cahill on October 17th, 2006 at 8:49 am
How does the law work such that cities can reduce the penalties for crimes defined by the state? This goes for marijuana and abortion. I’m done with the right/wrong debate. How do a city’s policies trump the state’s policies?
posted by Patrick Hunt on October 17th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Short answer: they don’t. It’s pretty much symbolic.

Longer answer: depending on the law and the circumstances, sometimes the city police have discretion.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 17th, 2006 at 9:54 am
“Jailing if I don’t agree with you . . .”

That is a tough question and a good question: Let me frame it this way and I am no philosopher so give me a break.

From the standpoint that if someone murders your 12 year old daughter - I would support jailing them or worse as justice, and I think you would too - although I could see where you might not want to jail them if your 12 year old daughter was somehow defined as not having human rights, per your definition, (perhaps she is in the hospital on life support and you decide not to feed her so she starves to death).

So if your 12 year old is actually only 12 months old or even perhaps 12 days old - the exact same outcome arises: I support jailing the murderer.

But what if your girl is 12 days “pre-birth” (or 12 weeks or whatever) and she is “murdered” during some crime? I am not a lawyer but I would support a penalty identical to the above situation and I think you might too. . . . BUT HERE IS THE CATCH - I don’t support the penalty because YOU desire justice or revenge because YOU lost a daughter (born or not), I support the penalty because the ACTION of the murderer (taking a life) demands justice. So if I were your daughter I would want society to defend me personally. We all want society to enforce justice. If I had my life taken from me intentionally, I would demand justice for the person who took my life and as I mentioned before MY lifecycle began with 46 chromosomes (not just a sperm OFW, but the egg too, you do need them both to start the life cycle, no conception - no life - no beer - no voting). I would hope that if you were murdered (or some other crime - say raped) you would expect justice as well.

So your “Choice” at this time in society, does not equate to murder because your daughter has not “been born” (even 12 seconds from birth) so she has no rights and can be “evacuated” on a whim.
Perhaps you can make that “Choice”. But your daughter would not want you to make that “Choice”. And if the evacuation target were YOU, instead of your daughter, you would not want that “Choice” made either. - - If I was your daughter and you evacuated me - I would want justice - I would want you in jail or worse.

We define Life/Rights/Justice/and even Privacy differently. And that is just a part of this tough argument. If the “Choice” were not somehow permanent - I suppose I would be less hardlined, but there is too much doubt and confusion on both sides for such a permanent outcome (aborting a fetus). For me, the benefit of the doubt goes to your “pre-born” daughter - once she has a lifecycle, I would ask for justice.

Let me ask you, from the Abortion side of the argument, when would you not ask for justice in this case? The first heartbeat? Active Brain waves? At the delivery table but before the final push? While your daughter is half in the womb and half out? Could you still abort her while her toe is in the womb and hence not “fully born” When ‘exactly’ does your fetus get the Rights and Justice you yourself have????????????????????
posted by neocon435667 on October 17th, 2006 at 11:01 am
when you said “you don’t have to agree with me” earlier, you left out the “at your peril” part.

for answers to your questions, blackmun’s decision in roe v. wade addresses the balance between the rights of a pregnant woman and the rights of a fetus. you may read it at your leisure.

you don’t have to agree with blackmun’s articulation of the rights of a pregnant woman — you won’t go to jail if you carry your unwanted pregnancy to term.
posted by peter honeyman on October 17th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Neocon, I can’t accept your claim of citizenship for zygotes. Since you can’t distinguish in your mind between a single cell and a 12 year old child, it would be insane to negotiate with you.

(Not that anyone here, let alone me or you, has any authority to fine-tune constitutional law.)
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 17th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Amen. Well stated Larry.
posted by OFWinsurgent on October 17th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Well the real difference between a zygote and a child is 9 months. That is a pretty short time.

As for Roe v Wade, most legal folks agree (on both sides) from a legal standpoint, it is just terrible law. While it stands, I certainly cannot improve on Justice White’s dissent . . .

“The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Regardless of whether I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. . . ”

We could go on and on. Again, if it were not a baby, born in a few short months - I am sure none of us would care, but it is, and I have to give that fetus the benefit of the doubt because that is what I would want.

So when ‘exactly’ does your fetus get the Rights and Justice you yourself have?
posted by neocon435667 on October 17th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
INterestingly, Peter Singer at Princeton believes that parents should be able to kill newborns who have disabilities that are deemed drastic. That’s sort of one extreme.

On the other, having seen my own children in a sonogram in utero, I have to tell you that I’m much less comfortable with “abortion on demand.”
posted by AAMom on October 17th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Having seen one of my own children in a sonogram in utero with apparently severe problems made me grateful we had the opportunity to discuss whether we wanted to assume the costs and responsibilities a severely disabled child would place on us and our other children.
posted by Another AA Mom on October 17th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
I cherish my children and count three blessings every day.

There was to be a fourth blessing, but dire genetic abnormalities suggested by the CVS procedure and confirmed by amniocentesis presented hard facts: such cases occasionally survived to successful delivery, but in no case on record did a live birth survive for one month.

And the photographs from those case could only be described as monstrous.

The “rights of the fetus” did not factor into the decision for immediate termination. There was no threat to maternal health. Yet, the choice was obvious.

Who would argue that a decision so grave, personal, and affecting belongs to anyone outside the circle of the parents and the attending physicians?
posted by AA parent of three on October 17th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
In case anyone missed it, this discussion did not start out as an abortion debate. It started out as a discussion on whether or not pro-life activists have the right to expose large, graphic photographs to innocent passersby.

In cases of misalignment of values, there is no resolution. Everyone firmly believes that they are right so why bother debating it? Chill, already. Go smoke a joint. I’ll pay your $25 fine.

dcb
posted by DCBass on October 17th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
of course they have the right to make their visceral point. (ha! a double entendre!)

i’m inclined to go stand by them holding a giant photograph of open heart surgery.

eeeeeeuuuuwwww!!!!!! banish it!
posted by peter honeyman on October 17th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
I guess I’ll make one more point and then let it be. It was much easier for me support abortion at any time, for any reason before I saw my kids in utero and went through a pregnancy.

Now, I understand completely how and why parents make difficult choices when amnio shows some drastic birth defects five months into gestation. And I understand why women who are unprepared to be mothers terminate pregnancies early on.

But I’m less certain about those who want to terminate heathly pregnancies in the 8th month. I have a harder time with that one. It does happen, sadly. A friend at a NJ newspaper (who is very pro-choice) won the Polk award for reporting that late-term abortion is vastly underreported.

I think activists on both sides like to paint this as an either/or debate. Either for it or against it. Yet I think that most people are like me–struggling with the details.
posted by AAMom on October 18th, 2006 at 8:56 am
Everyone struggles with the details, but the point is - it must be the CHOICE of the pregnant woman, and is not anyone else’s business.
posted by just me on October 18th, 2006 at 9:34 am
i could not find your NJ friend’s story. searching for abortion or pregnancy on www.brooklyn.liu.edu/polk gave no hits. searching there for jersey or NJ showed one recent award for reporting on racial profiling and a couple of unspecified awards from 1973 and 1960.

according to the center for disease control’s 2002 report, 1.4% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later.

similarly, the alan guttmacher institute estimates that in 2001, 1.2% of abortions occur past 21 weeks. on the other hand, 88.6% occur in the first 12 weeks.

framing the debate around late-term abortions, which are extremely rare and already under state control, is a rhetorical tactic.
posted by peter honeyman on October 18th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Her name is Ruth Padawer and she wrote it while working at the Bergen Record in the 1990s. Can’t remember the exact year.
posted by AAMom on October 18th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Pretending that prohibiting safe medical abortion is equivalent to ending abortion is also a rhetorical tactic.

You can still get a horrific abortion. If you’re wealthy, you can always get an abortion, just by going to some progressive place where they’re smart enough to understand that it’s not an enforcable law.
posted by Nitro on October 18th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Late term or early, really makes no difference to the debate we have here - I think we are including all abortions, all reasons, all ‘persons’ involved.

” . . . according to the center for disease control’s 2002 report, 1.4% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later. . . ”

And that means that of the app. 1.2 MILLION abortions in 2002, about 17,000 “fetuses” were “evacuated” after 21 weeks (who can know the true age +/-). Probably using a drill to drain the brain so the fetus would pass easier, I think they use a vacuum too - wouldn’t want anyone to be uncomfortable during a procedure. Luckily, they are using sedatives for fetuses so it won’t hurt so much. (Seem appropriate for America?) —I think the procedures are “Mengelian” I don’t hold those ugly signs up, but everyone should know exactly what the truth of the matter is - how else can you make an educated decision. Why run and hide from it.

The link provided shows another photo, in this case the in-utero operation corrects a serious spina bifida condition in the fetus. The photo is quite amazing - cute fingers.

As for why abortions are completed, I have seen that less then 10% of abortions are “hard case” cases - rape, incest, medical etc. Bad things happen - how I wish they wouldn’t - it is not a pretty world regardless of what we all want. But I do know this, if I am a fetus (and I was once) - I want to be born, go vote and order a beer someday, I don’t care how I got to where I am.

As for Peter Singer - “he has been instrumental in the formation of the The Great Ape Project, which seeks to extend personhood and legal rights to the Geat Apes.” Good for him. I believe human fetuses (the preborn) should have personhood and legal rights.

Still waiting for an answer as to when a fetus gets the same Rights and Justice you have? I ask it in all honesty. Anyone - your opinion is fine - doesn’t have to be from a law book or some institute.
posted by neocon435667 on October 18th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Neocon, relax. This was a discussion. Don’t turn it into a rant.
posted by AAMom on October 18th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
neocon, Are you advocating that if an abortion is neccessary to save the life of the mother she should sacrifice her life to give birth to the baby?
posted by CMS on October 18th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
neocon, justice blackmun’s opinion on the answer to your question is mere clicks away.
posted by peter honeyman on October 18th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
obtw, neocon, i clicked on the link attached to your signature and found numerous articles opposing homosexual rights and liberties.

i take it that you support “rights and justice” from conception to birth, but not afterwards.
posted by peter honeyman on October 18th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
peter honeyman - ever noticed how many anti-choice people are all for the death penalty? Is that odd or what???
posted by LittleB on October 18th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
littleb, i hear you. worse, though, is their opposition to sex education and birth control for teens, the group most at risk for unwanted pregnancies.
posted by peter honeyman on October 19th, 2006 at 6:54 am
neo, I had an abortion at 22 weeks and there was no drilling involved. In fact, the only time I’ve ever heard of any gruesomeness like that was from protestors. My cervix was dialated and I was given pitocin. Simple as that. No cutting, chopping, drilling or other use of sharp objects. Suction was used as well, but suction is also very frequently used in live births as well.

To me, your post is another example of misinformation being used to create fear and disgust in support of someone’s misguided position.

dcb

ps, yes I know I said everyone needed to chill out, but couldn’t resist that one.
posted by DCBass on October 19th, 2006 at 8:11 am
Probably shouldn’t even bother to post, but…
I’m 30 weeks pregnant with my very much wanted first child, and I have to say that NO WAY would I ever support forcing this experience on someone who didn’t want it, was too young for it, or was otherwise not in a position to handle it. And I haven’t even gone through labor and delivery yet!

For those who say, just have the baby and then give it up for adoption, I have to point out that it’s not as though you just go about your business for nine months and then pop out a baby and then go back to whatever you were doing. Being pregnant has a huge physical impact on your body (not to mention the emotional rollercoaster). I’ll spare you the whiny details but I haven’t felt completely comfortable or normal for the last six months or so, and have often, over the course of that time, been in pain. After the birth my body will never be quite the same as it was before, since my organs will have all been moved around and put back and many of ligaments will have stretched out of place.

Yes, seeing my baby in utero and feeling him kick made me realize it’s all worth it, but that’s because my husband and I did this on purpose! I was always pro-choice, but feel even more strongly that way now. I do agree that you shouldn’t be an idiot and get pregnant when you can’t handle it (that’s why we need good access to low-cost contraceptives for all women who want them), but if an accident happens no way should you be forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy.

Person, not a person, whatever. Growing a baby is amazing and giving birth is beautiful, but it is only something a woman should do on purpose and because she wants to. Thank goodness it is still a choice.
posted by Carolyn on October 19th, 2006 at 10:21 am
I can’t tell from the asinine website if he’s an absolutely perfect neocon, but after birth neocons typically can persecute people however they like. For being gay, or poor, or a weird color, or incorrectly religious, or chubby or whatever.

Now they can even legally secretly arrest us without charges, torture us and hold us indefinitely without legal representation, thanks to our Terrorist-in-Chief. Even torture us to death. Whee!

However, as our government has not yet developed a way to effectively waterboad a fetus, it’s appropriate that they should take steps to make sure that no potential person, no matter how severely disabled or unwanted, should miss the chance to be judged worthy of
torture. It all makes perfect sense.
posted by Nitro on October 19th, 2006 at 10:30 am
I’ve re-written this post so many times in an effort to not offend and I’m sure it still won’t go over worth a shit with many of you but the tone of the posts here has been disturbing and not just because I disagree with many of them. I’d hope all people of good will would agree that abortion is not a light subject for flippant comments and finger pointing.

Could you pro-choice folks just please possibly open your minds and hearts a little bit and go surf a site you wouldn’t agree with like

http://www.notdeadyet.org/

or

http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

and look at the pro-life argument? I’m coming from a place most of you, I’m guessing, won’t agree with (I’m a dreaded white male, conservative, Catholic) but even before I was a conservative or a Catholic (sorry can’t/won’t change the other parts) I looked into the pro-life side of the debate. Intellectual honesty demands that you explore the other side and try to engage the argument from the “enemy’s” side. I’m not saying you gotta think and vote and worship like me I’m just saying that I know in my own life I have a tendency to hold my opinions as facts and dearer than life sometimes and that’s not a good way to live. I’ve been on the pro-choice side and know all the arguments but if all you ever do is demonize the other side and never explore what they think and why they think it then you’re no better, no matter how good you feel about being confirmed in your opinion. Again, mea culpa, I’m no better than any of you but I do recommend exploring the other side of the divide. At worst you’ll be better armed to defend your own position.
posted by Thomas Cook on October 19th, 2006 at 11:27 am
the last sentence of the not dead yet page sums it up:

“In these days of cost cutting and managed care, we don’t trust the health care system, and neither should you.”

in other words, these guys don’t trust me and my physician to make the decision that they would make, so they want to make it for me.

the silent no more page is sponsored by a pair of religious organizations and reflects their dogma. not my religion? tough luck for me!

try again, thomas, you’re not getting much traction.
posted by peter honeyman on October 19th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Thomas, thanks for writing thoughtfully.

I thoroughly understand why any woman who discovers she is pregnant and doesn’t want to be should be able to terminate the pregnancy at four, eight, sixteen, twent-four weeks.

What disturbs me is the idea that a women could be 32 weeks pregnant and decide to abort a healthy fetus. The reason that disturbs me is because in a nearby hospital, parents have just given birth to the same age baby and it is being cared for in a neo-natal unit.

I guess if the question is, when does life begin, one way to answer it is when the fetus is viable outside the womb. And that’s where I start to have trouble with abortion. Not with drastically ill fetuses, but with healthy ones who are aborted but could live.

That’s the one area I wish a pro-choice person would explain to me because I really struggle with it. The rest, no problem.
posted by Another person on October 19th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
So what if it some of the arguments come from a religious stand point? I know atheists who are pro-life. Go to

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

if that’ll help.

Are you that scared of religion or is it just other people’s opinions that differ from yours? You cannot accept anything from someone who may have deeply held religious beliefs? Why should I listen to a word you say and not just dismiss you as someone whose opinion can be of no value since you don’t believe like I do? Did you not see the part about opening your mind and exploring the issue from the other side? You seem to track down other people’s agenda’s like neocon’s or looking up whether someone’s friend really wrote an article in the paper. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and take some of that energy and honestly explore what someone who disagrees with you thinks? We all got agenda’s and preconceptions and a mindset we work from - expand it for a quick second and give the other side the benefit of thinking they may be operating from goodwill and reason and not just from dogma, as if dogma is bad.
posted by Thomas Cook on October 19th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Well said, Thomas.
posted by Dave on October 19th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
“another person” — late-term abortions are a red herring — see earlier posts.

almost 90% of all voluntary abortions are in the first term. the opponents of voluntary abortion want to take that choice away.

thomas, i agree in the importance of being open to another’s points of view.

for example, if you believe that you and yours should never have an abortion, then no one should force one on you.

are you open to other points of view? if a woman believes abortion is a personal choice, can you accept her point of view?

religious organizations promote their religious beliefs. they are free to adhere to those beliefs. do those who worship differently have the same freedom?

i asked about the post award claim because i wanted to read the article but couldn’t find it. is that so bad?
posted by peter honeyman on October 19th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
thomas, i read some of the articles on the godless page and those to which it links. unsurprisingly, the point of view expressed there is that a fetus is a human being with the right to be born.

justice blackmun’s opinion in roe v. wade examines the legal and historical roots of that claim and finds scant support for it in common law and practice. accordingly, his opinion balances the rights and interests of a pregnant woman and a developing fetus.

i’m guessing you know all this, but choose to adhere to your point of view. like i said earlier, i have no problem with that — freedom of choice is good.
posted by peter honeyman on October 19th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Peter, telling me it’s a red herring doesn’t exactly help me understand what to think about it. That’s kind of a brush off, rather than an answer.
posted by Another person on October 19th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Sorry if I didn’t give you the benefit of the doubt on the searching people out issue Peter. You’re not bad for doing deep research; this is the internet after all. I could be a 50 year old Black socialist Mormon for all y’all know.

Here’s the crux, as I see it, of the problem. The “I’m ok you’re ok we can all choose to do want we want with our lives” argument. We’re not talking about picking one car over another or eating Wendy’s vs Blimpy’s (no contest there, I hope). It’s about the “right” of someone to take innocent human life. That’s why we pro-lifers get so riled up. I cannot ever believe that one person has the right to take another person’s innocent life.

Within my faith (or other people’s faith or lack of faith too) you can debate the just-ness of war or self defense or capital punishment. Those are important arguments and decisions to make. We can discuss hard cases like rape or incest or birth defects. I’m not saying this is easy but for each argument in favor of abortion or choice in those cases I can give examples for choosing life. I know that my faith colors my opinion, there’s no way around it and it’d be a pretty useless faith if it didn’t affect my outlook on things like abortion or gay rights or high colonics (which I think wayyyy back is what this poor thread was about!). It may be a cell, it may be 10 million cells but it ain’t gonna be a pear or a turnip at birth, it’s a human life. Now I and many smarter people can argue why a human zygote or fetus or 10 month old kid (thanks Peter Singer, can we mostly agree he’s nuttier than a shithouse bat?) is worthy of respect and protection and that life is a continuum from conception to death. I don’t have to bring up souls or religion for that. What really riles us up is the debasement of human life, that people are considered so much less than what they really are. I’d add on morality and souls and all the God stuff as reasons but they aren’t the only reasons. Taking innocent human life is not good and I don’t think a right to privacy or choice trumps that. Shouldn’t we err on the side of protecting human life?

Late term abortions may be rare, thank God/whoever, but it’s all part of a mindset that sees us as just material. You don’t need God to make the argument that human life is to be respected and the Supreme Court decisions put us down a path where we’ve made people into things. Porn does that, greed does that, pride does that. We’re not things. A rat is not a stone is not a tomato is not a baby. Something as important as human life deserves more debate than a bare Supreme Court majority. Can anyone argue that we have gotten better as a society since 1973 about caring for each other – for women in a crisis pregnancy, for people with terminal illnesses, for children, for families, for women as people in their own right? I’m with Feminists for Life, I think women deserve better than abortion.

Forgive me Peter but you mentioned carrying a sign with pictures of open heart surgery as a counter to the protestors with sign of aborted children? Please don’t tell me you think they’re equal just because they’re both gory? Can you see how that kind of comment doesn’t help the debate? Again, mea culpa from me because I bait the hell out of Blaine over on ArborUpdate so I’m not immune to throwing brickbats but gory surgery to save a life is not the same as gory surgery to take a life.
posted by Thomas Cook on October 19th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Thomas

If you notice from above I helped to get this discussion started (by diverting it from the Certified Colon Hydrotherapist). But the discussion was not about abortion per se, but about being assaulted by horrific photographs with my small children in the car. Since you seem to be a thoughtful individual, where do you stand on this part of the argument? Is it acceptable to you that these images line Main Street? Is this the proper forum for these images?
posted by abc on October 19th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Thoughtful, but still engaged in the wholesale abridgement of civil liberties.

If, for instance, you’re JUST opposed to legal late-term abortions, and want to allow legal abortion unconditionally otherwise, that’s a proposed compromise.

If you’re just trying to talk nice-nice while you work to prohibit legal abortion altogether, no-one’s impressed by your sensitivity, and you’re not offering middle ground.

And the heart surgery picture thing was a joke, of course. An appropriate counter would be pictures of women killed and mutilated in botched back-street abortions, but Peter was too polite to say so.

.
posted by Nitro on October 19th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
I’m with Feminists for Life, I think women deserve better than abortion

Do you incorrectly think that abortion causes breast cancer or that birth control doesn’t work for teenagers, then? Also, are you objectively pro-rape?

It may be a cell, it may be 10 million cells but it ain’t gonna be a pear or a turnip at birth, it’s a human life.

Why settle for defining human life as just one cell? What about the incredible numbers of half-cells killed each day? In Ann Arbor alone I’d imagine there are thousands of women literally flushing a half-cell down the toilet or discarding it with the day’s trash. The men are even worse with their millions of half-cells swimming down the shower drain to certain doom or being left for dead in a Kleenex©. That’s more dead half-cells in a single day in Ann Arbor than all aborted fetuses in all of the US in a whole year.

It is time someone stood up for the half-cells.

Peter Honeyman, if you’ll be behind the protesters with open heart surgery pics, I’ll be behind you with graphic photographic evidence of exactly how these half-cells are perishing day in and day out.
posted by FAA on October 19th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
P.S.

“Can anyone argue that we have gotten better as a society since 1973 about caring for each other – for women in a crisis pregnancy, for people with terminal illnesses, for children, for families, for women as people in their own right?”

Yes.
posted by Nitro on October 19th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
The proper forum, that’s a good question. It’d make more sense outside an abortion clinic; outside Gratzi, not so much. You could argue that if the point is to show people what abortion is then any place is fair game thanks to the First Amendment. I know I had to force myself to look at the pics on the Priests for Life website. Their argument is people won’t know what abortion really is and does till they see it. Forgive a quote stolen from their website apropos first trimester abortions:

It is time to attack directly the persistent myth that the first trimester baby is not a baby, and that the first trimester abortion is not really an act of violence that kills a baby.

I do agree with that, and I think non religious pro-lifers would too. Pussyfooting around the 800lb gorilla won’t help. It is the one of the more common surgeries in the US. Why won’t they show it on Discovery Health or PBS? I find images from Darfur or Treblinka or lynchings in the South disturbing too. That was actually a driving force back in the days in the anti-lynching campaign - show people what the strange fruit really is. Look at a picture of a first trimester abortion and compare that with the words “first trimester abortion’. Pictures are powerful and if they change hearts and minds then I’m for it. It’s been 30+ years and 40+ million abortions - let’s show it for what it is. Maybe if we showed what a lethal injection or gas chamber execution looked like we could change the debate on that too. I know the scenario I’ve worked out in my head if my kids will come in contact with the protestors.

I wholeheartedly understand that it is disturbing and why anyone would like to protect their kids or themselves from seeing it. I ask, why don’t people want to see it? Good willed people on both sides are divided on the issue - why not show it for what it is if there’s nothing wrong with it?
posted by Thomas Cook on October 19th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Nitro, why do I have to offer middle ground? Killing innocent people is ok as long as they’re small, really small? I will not call that a civil liberty. Freedom is the ability to choose and do what’s good. You’re confusing freedom with license. How are women better off being allowed to kill their children? I’m sorry, I just don’t see death as a great option or freedom.

Thanks FAA, didn’t know my own mind I guess. Now I’m someone who’s pro rape and want women to die in coathanger abortions? Please tell me more about myself and what I believe. You’re channeling Blaine there. Way to bring the level of discussion down. I’ll lay off the sensitivity and tell ya I’m giving you the response you deserve: thhpt!

If I’m being an overly sensitive pro-lifer it’s because the topic deserves sensitivity. Do I agree with people making the choice for abortion - no, but I don’t treat them like they’re scum and tell them what horrible people they are, nor do I believe that. I’m not judging a soul, that said, I’m not condoning people’s choices either. If middle ground is saying it’s ok to kill innocent life under certain circumstances then no, I offer none and make no appologies. It’s a non-negotiable with me. We tried the abortion on demand experiment for 30+ years and got 40+ million dead kids. I don’t agree with Nitro that society is better off for it.
posted by Thomas Cook on October 19th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Another person; viability is a great answer to the question. If a fetus could exist on its own, that would be a good ‘point in time’ to grant personhood to it. But the next question really is why? Why does viability make the key difference in getting rights? (PS Glad you didn’t say “birth”).

Honeyman; do you subscribe to Blackmun because his decision favors abortion rights or do you support Blackmun because it is the law? You are allowed to have your own viewpoint. His Court, literally with a pen stroke, overturned perhaps 100s of laws all over the country - most of which existed for decades and were legislatively passed. So back then, nobody’s opinion even mattered (read vote) I bet if Roe v. Wade gets overturned - you would have a viewpoint then.

Glad to read you Thomas.
posted by neocon435667 on October 19th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Thomas, the thing is, many of us do not agree that your “innocent people” are indeed people. Potential people, to be sure. But not people yet. At least as far as I am concerned.

The fiancees of men killed in the World Trade Center were not accorded the same legal status with regard to insurance as wives, to stretch wildly for an equivalency here, although they were potential wives.

If you do not believe that the position of women and children in society is better now than it was in 1973, you are either not paying attention or you weren’t around in 1973.
posted by Chris on October 19th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Still, I think we can all agree that a colon hydrotherapist seeking web-design help is SO stereotypically Ann Arbor. Not to bring up a subject that no one feels comfortable talking about.
posted by Nick on October 19th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Chris, I’m not poo-pooing the viability argument or personhood argument. I’ll grant you that seems a reasonable line of argument but it’s not end of the line. Potential people you say: we agree it ain’t a blob of undifferentiated stuff - if left alone and the river don’t rise it’ll come out a human being. Rare though they may be the law of the land says you can kill it right up to full delivery.

Most abortions, some will say thankfully, take place in the first trimester. The heart begins to beat at 18 to 21 days after fertilization. At six weeks the whatever you want to call it has detectable brain waves. By eight weeks all body systems are present. These are natural scientific facts, google will get ya there in two hits. When do we give it personhood? Is it human life? Would you (not you directly, the global you) be really unhappy if you wanted it to survive to birth and it didn’t? Is it just wanting it that makes it a person? Folks like Peter Singer (who is a boogieman/strawman I’d say because I just can’t believe even hardcore pro choice people would agree with all of his arguments) say consciousness or personhood doesn’t really come for months/years after birth. Can we all agree it’s somewhere between high school graduation and conception at least? Why not err on the side of life to start with? Why is abortion the solution?

I apologize for the flippancy saying things haven’t gotten better since 1973. Many things have but increased abortion is not one of those things.
.
posted by Thomas Cook on October 19th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Thank God for Nick! Nice! Hands up all who think I’m full of shit and need a colon blow. No cheating and rasing two hands.
posted by Thomas Cook on October 19th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Thomas, please read again. Those were questions. I’m not saying anything about what you believe - I’m seriously asking if you agreed with the other stances of the Feminists for Life (FFL). FFL constantly repeats mistruths about birth control and women’s health issues…which is as despicable as their use and portrayal of Susan B. Anthony who actually was against anti-abortion laws. I can’t help but be curious as to how inline with their underhanded tactics and lies you happen to be, since you did quote them.

You’re channeling Blaine there.

Why not just go all the way and invoke Godwin’s law?

Way to bring the level of discussion down.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
posted by FAA on October 19th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
another person: i can’t tell you what to think about voluntary late-term abortions.

i can tell you that comprehensive statistics on gestational age are scarce. e.g., CDC does not seem to have any finer granularity than “over 21 weeks.”

nor, does the guttmacher institute. i did find an article on their web site that estimated the number of induced abortions in the USA in 1992 with a gestational age over 26 weeks to be 320, or 0.021%. (they point out the unreliability of their estimate, and suggest it could be off by a factor of two. some people claim it is off by a factor of ten … i’m trying to find some sources for those claims.)

you asked specifically about induced abortions with a gestational age of 32 weeks. again, i can’t tell you what to think about that, but if you are thinking that a 32-week fetus is viable and should not be terminated, but should be born live if possible, i’m thinking most people would agree with you, including most pro-choice people.

at the risk of sounding like a broken record, though, i’ll say once again that roe v. wade permits states to enact laws proscribing late-term abortions.

every year in america, over a million women choose to terminate their pregnancies in the first trimester. almost 60% of voluntary abortions occur in the first two months. you said earlier that you support protecting the right of these women — of all women — to seek counseling from family, pastors, doctors, books, even blogs … and then to choose.

so, sorry if my earlier reply seemed to be a brush-off … i just don’t have any answers for you when you ask me to tell you what to think.
posted by peter honeyman on October 19th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
What I continue to find disturbing is how the pro ‘life’ folk seem to assume that if you are pro choice, that would translate to pro abortion. I’m as anti abortion as I am anti stab-my-eye-out-with-an-ice-pick. I just don’t see how I can rationalize forcing my moral choices/values/opinions upon others. THAT is what makes me ( and probably most people ) pro choice.

I read the linked websites, and definitely think that they totally have the right to think and do what they believe. Now give me the same respect.
posted by LittleB on October 19th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
FAA, sorry, tagging anyone with the Blaine tag is mean but you did go off on the “every sperm is sacred” thing there. That’s what I meant by bringing the discussion down.

I’m not a big fan of birth control (there goes what little support I may have had). I don’t think that’s been a boon to society or relations (not even sexual) between men and women. All the pleasure with none of the commitment and meaning. Great, what a joy. Oh, and if something happens, go get it taken care of. That’s where I agree with FFL - women, shit, men, deserve better than that. I don’t need to whip out religion to show what a farce contraception is.

For every “FFL lies about the abortion-breast cancer” link or “they lie about birth control” you could dig up stats and studies that say the opposite. I don’t get my marching orders from them; I threw them up as an example of a group that can argue from a non-religious perspective that abortion is not doing anyone any good.

How to rationalize forcing my moral choices/values on others? Well, here come the brickbats, there’s always right and wrong to start with. Sorry, I stand with the Pope there - relativism is a lousy, lazy way to approach the hard choices in this life. There are things we generally hold in common throughout humanity as good things and bad things. We make laws to limit valid rights all the time. The common example is my right to extend my arm ends at your nose. Or my right to free speech ends when it’s libelous. My right to my privacy ends at another’s right to life.

Preferential treatment for those most in need is a nice thing to consider too. Call it by a catchy name like affirmative action - we’ll decide to help those who may have a greater need than others in society. We can promote the general welfare of society even when it’s a pain in the ass personally, like paying for a bus service I don’t use. We could also promote some things that are good and condone some things that are bad and maybe tie benefits and punishments to those actions. Buy a house, get a tax break. Steal a car go to jail.

I’m sorry LittleB but what are you pro-choosing? Finish the thought to its conclusion. “I’m pro-choice, the choice here being the woman’s right to have an abortion”. I don’t see a big difference. Be hot or cold don’t be lukewarm. Say it proudly, all of it. “I think it’s ok for women to abort their children if they want to”. Then take a look at a kid in the park, look at your own baby pics, and then look at the pics the protestors are holding. That’s where the choice ends. Is that good? Is killing/removing/d and c’ing a baby/blob/potential person a good thing? Is that the best we can do for women and children in this country?
posted by Thomas Cook on October 19th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Thomas, your comments are spot on, but it is going to take a big heart and a logic stream of consciousness to get any buy in. Sadly, many - many people don’t have that. Convenience in a pressure cooker situation and “keep your laws off of my body” (fetuses don’t have bodies) is about the level of Heart that exists in so many pro-abortion minds. Sad.

I am certain children are not better off since 73′. Child abuse is up - (whether it is better reporting, stricter standards or more reporting, I can’t say - many professionals are now required by law to report even suspected abuse) Ex-Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala declared back in the 1990’s that ‘between 1986 and 1993, the number of children who were physically abused nearly doubled. - So much for “every child a wanted child.” But I don’t like stats that much . . .

(Also see Best, J. (2001). Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists. - - This book has extremely clear and concise explanations of how activists, the media, experts and other key players like politicians and the staff of government agencies create good and bad statistics.)

While I quote numbers - my basis of argument revolves around the self, no need for stats, - the “rights” I want and demand for myself are the same rights that everyone else should have. We don’t have a “choice” to evacuate a 6 month old or a 6 year old. Why would any age matter?

And of course, that increase in abuse does not include those children who did not make it to “birth”. Now that is abuse of the worst kind.

CMS; in those cases where mom would die if she carried a baby (and in modern medicine those cases are so very rare) I would have to choose the mom over the baby - and I would do it because I would want to “save a life” not because abortion was convenient. But that is a different discussion, as is homosexuality. Does anyone know how many pregnant moms died last year due to the pgrenancy?
posted by neocon435667 on October 20th, 2006 at 8:59 am
Thanks all. I appreciate the thoughts. And I sense that there is some common ground here. Maybe. It would be nice….
posted by Another person on October 20th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
this just in . . . from FLA

“A lead investigator into reports that a baby was born alive at a Hialeah, Fla., abortion business, then killed, has told WND he believes charges will be filed in the case, and that announcement could come as early as a mid-November.

“My goal is to see that charges are filed,” said Hialeah Deputy Chief Mark Overton yesterday. “The evidence reflects that this was a homicide. We’re moving forward with that mindset. I believe our evidence has indicated (and) I think we have probable cause to bring charges.”

The investigation was launched in July after investigators, on a tip, went to the “A Gynecologists Diagnostic Center” abortion business and discovered the remains of a baby in a red biohazard bag. . . “
posted by neocon435667 on October 29th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
It’s not a “baby”, but a 23 week old fetus. Not viable. Get your facts straight, “neocon”. Oh wait, that’s right, you took the moniker for people who sold “facts” about WMD’s in Iraq and all the other “truths” that’s cost us close to a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives.
posted by Klong on December 1st, 2006 at 10:05 pm

A2 Job Market

116 Responses to “A2 Job Market”

Leave a Reply