Tuesday, June 28, 2011

The Pro-Choice Pledge

Okay, folks. Here it is: the crowd-sourced, collaborative pro-choice pledge that will no doubt soon be sweeping the nation. Y'all had a hand in this, so I hope that you'll correspondingly do your part to support it. If you need the back story, it started here, was on the wrong end of a shit-storm here, and was re-worked here.

Without further delay, the pledge:
I pledge the following to the members of the Susan B. Anthony List and the citizens of the United States of America:

1. If I become pregnant and decide that ending the pregnancy is the best course of action, I will have an abortion.

2. I respect the right to obtain a safe and legal abortion, even in situations where I would not abort.

3. If I become pregnant and opt not to have an abortion, I will remember that my choice would have been meaningless without the right to choose, and will continue to defend that right.

4. I will support universal access to affordable contraception and accurate sex education, with the full knowledge that it is easier and safer to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to end one.

5. If I am able, I will donate to Planned Parenthood and/or other organizations that defend my right to choose.
If you feel so inclined, please sign it. And since you were inclined to sign it, you should probably share it with others so that they might do the same. Let's show Santorum and the other Republican presidential hopefuls that pledging to deny people their rights is not the way to win votes.

34 comments:

  1. I just...love the idea that they would choose Susan B Anthony, a Unitarian, as their historical champion. Especially when her objections to abortion are so clearly framed in a context of men choosing to terminate the pregnancy. It's just obvious when you read her works that what she's concerned about is the woman's right to her body.

    That, yes, at that time in history, the most important step was to keep men from forcing abortions onto the women if they didn't want to deal with a baby. And the most sympathetic way to approach that fight would be to tout the role of the nurturing mother as one who would never want their unborn baby killed. If that's the fight we were having today, that'd be my argument too. It's a matter of how nuanced the argument is being framed.

    I wonder what views Xenophon or Adam Smith have on Keynesian economics?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey-- so I know you've already re-written this pledge a bunch of times, but this is really important and I would have brought it up earlier if I had seen the thread. I know sometimes we use the word "citizen" unthinkingly, meaning, basically, "person who cares about community affairs." But, among immigrants, the word "citizen" is prickly and fraught with politics. So can you change the word to "people"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nope. Once it's live it can't be changed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. how is abortion a "right"?? where is it in the constitution?? You do know what the constitution is, right?

    ReplyDelete
  5. hey, and immigrant, "citizen" means (precisely) someone who was born here or LEGALLY immigrated here...don't demean the English language please

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cruzajock:

    The right to abortion was upheld under the 13th, 14th and 9th amendments to the Constitution. You do know how to read the Constitution, right?

    ReplyDelete
  7. explain to me where in those amendments it explicitly says that

    ReplyDelete
  8. the ninth says that there are rights held by the people not explicitly stated in the constitution. the 13th abolishes slavery....the 14th is about representation in congress and citizenship...i didnt catch the part where it said there was a right to kill your own children

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ Cruzajock

    Cool story bro!

    ReplyDelete
  10. ikr you've probably never heard of those amendments

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just one person on this blog explain to me where the right to kill innocent children comes from...It shouldn't be that hard..

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cruzajock-

    I wasn't going to join this argument, but "right to kill innocent children" got me. Calling them "babies" is one thing, but "children?" To glorify the life of a fetus to the point where you actively deny rights and safety to the mother is not noble, and you are not on the side of good. It's offensive that you choose to use rhetoric that would indicate otherwise.

    Look, the Supreme Court cited both the 9th and 14th amendments in their rationale for the decision on Roe v. Wade. Where Smallprimate's argument about the 13th came from, I can't say, but it's naive to argue that abortion has no constitutional support when the right to it was secured through the Supreme Court. You know, because the Supreme Court's job is to uphold the constitution.

    I don't want to be condescending, because I think people have a right to their opinions at any age, but it's pretty clear to me that you're young. The more life experience you get, the more you'll (hopefully) begin to realize that life is complicated. The world isn't black and white; there are no moral absolutes. While abortion might seem obviously wrong to you, all that means is that you shouldn't get one.

    And since you can't (because you're a dude), perhaps you should think about taking the actual moral high ground in this argument, which is, of course, shutting the fuck up.

    ReplyDelete
  13. well, if they're "babies", then they're "human", which makes them "children". In case you haven't noticed every human is a child. So, you're saying that we can say some human life is more important than other?? Because the mom is older her life is more important? And I might be 18 but I bet I'm smarter than you. I know so much about politics and I go to Notre Dame, so ya. And since I'm a guy that means I can't say anything?? So, then I can say since you're a girl you can't say rape is wrong because you can't rape someone?? That's your logic. Since the time of FDR the Supreme Court (and the president) has abused the constitution an alarming amount. I think you only pay attention to the court cases and not the constitution itself-typical lib. I want YOU to tell me how 9th and 14th amendments uphold the "right" to kill those things that mothers have...ummm??...oh ya: children..

    ReplyDelete
  14. You just said: "there are no moral absolutes." wow, are you sure about that? So, then what are we arguing about if there are no absolutes. But ya, destroying innocent life is always wrong

    ReplyDelete
  15. You know, I went to Catholic school until my junior year of high school, and some of the things that they really hammered into our heads were grammar, spelling, and syntax. Just sayin'.

    I don't think that fetuses are babies, at least not before viability. Whether or not you believe that they are is a matter of personal morality and should not be regulated by the government. My father, for example, hates abortion. He's also vehemently pro-choice. Just because he would never get one (even if he could) doesn't mean that he believes that he should make that decision for others.

    I don't believe that you're smarter than I am, but I'm not going to argue the point. Let's just leave that between us and God.

    I didn't say that you can't have an opinion. What I said was that since you want to deny a right that you could never exercise anyway to a group of people whom you do not represent, the moral thing to do would be to remove yourself from the debate. It is absolutely mind-boggling to me that you would choose to compare that suggestion to the idea that I should have no opinion on rape. Rape is not a right; it is not a moral grey area. It is, in fact, an illegal act of violence. And, to be fair, women can rape. It surprises me that with all your fine education you haven't yet figured that out.

    The 9th and 14th amendments protect the right to privacy. Since abortion is a decision a woman makes regarding her own body, it falls under that right. Again, fetuses are not legally considered human beings. Whether or not a person chooses to view them as such is a matter for their own conscience, not for the government to decide. Thankfully, America is not a Christian nation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Women can rape-about 2% of rapes happen that way. Where do you get a "right to privacy" from? Yes, the courts decided that there is one somewhere in the 9th amendment. But where is it? Murder is a matter of personal morality.I mean, some people think it's ok to eat other people. America is a christian nation-in the sense that 85% of it's people are christian. But the issue of abortion has nothing to do with church or religion. It has nothing to do with "personal preference". By logic (I think you might know what that is), it is wrong. Because a baby in the womb is obviously a human being. What is it then? Just because it can't survive without the mother doesn't make it not a human. Are you saying that if there is someone who depends on me to stay alive, I can kill them? Are you saying they're not human? Unborn babies aren't considered human beings by the govt. Ummm derp..The govt used to disallow women to vote. So, how does it make sense to go by what the abusive justices have said? You're basing your opinion on the opinions of five justices in the past. Owning slaves used to be considered a right. Why does your father hate abortion? Probably because he realizes deep down inside that it is murder. He knows it's wrong as I'm sure you do. And a man should care about abortion, I don't know, maybe because every baby has a father? Maybe because every human was unborn at some point? You say "fetus"..what kind of fetus? A human one. It has it's own DNA. What do you think it is? As a conservative I don't think there is much the government should be forcing upon us. But every human has a right (notice the lack of quotations) to life. Unborn babies are human. They're not horse babies or monkey babies. They're dependent on their mothers. Is that a disqualifying quality for being human? And since I view them (correctly) as humans, I'm not apt to sit back and watch them die by the tens of millions. Prove to me (logically) how they're not human. And my spelling is off because I'm not a good typer and I'm furious while I'm writing. Plus, I'm not paying that much attention to my grammar. I'm sure you're smart, you're just a liberal. I just thought it was funny you should question my intelligence, seeing that I go to Notre Dame. But, I know that I won't be able to change your views. I just felt like this sight needed a voice of reason. All you people do is say gross things about Santorum. I know him. He's a great guy. Anyway, let's keep this logical. Prove to me that I wasn't a human until I became viable. I'll continue to fight for my unborn brothers and sisters. You continue to slaughter them-or at least cheer on the sidelines while a million innocent children a year are killed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. btw...did you know that Norma McCorvey (Roe) is now pro-life???

    ReplyDelete
  18. so, i let's pretend that the child "becomes" human at viability...is it ok to kill it then?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anyway, religion is irrelevant here and court cases are irrelevant here. If that child is a human, which he/she obviously is, you can't kill it no matter what. The fact that it is dependent on the mother doesnt make the baby not human. That doesn't make logical sense. Since the baby is human, it doesn't matter what the woman wants, she can just choose to kill another human being. I'm not a woman, but we were all unborn once, so I can speak out for what I used to be. Since the baby is human, it is protected under the constitution like every other human.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yeah, I don't think I can argue with you anymore because I'm quite certain you're actually insane. Go here:

    http://ucc.nd.edu/self-help/mental-health-screenings/

    I'm not even saying that to make fun of you. Am totally serious. Go there.

    ReplyDelete
  21. typical lib...dodge the question and the argument, attack the person's credibility. Even if I were insane you can't deny my irrefutable logic.

    ReplyDelete
  22. No, dude. Again, I'm being completely serious. Your argument is irrefutable because it's so nonsensical that I don't even know how to argue with it. That's not a good sign.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The baby in the womb is human. It has its own unique DNA. The fact that it's dependent on the mother couldn't logically negate the fact that it's human. We can't kill innocent humans. What about that doesn't make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Parasidic twins have their own DNA too. Should we keep them alive at the cost of their siblings?

    The baby in the womb is arguably a person, not definitively. The argument against abortion is almost exclusively a religious one and therefore has no place in politics. No woman (or girl) should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term just because some religious people think ending it is murder.

    Sorry if it offends you, but those who are definitely people are more important to me than the rights of fetuses whose personhood can be argued.

    Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It has nothing to do with religion, though. It definitely is a person, logically. That's so stupid to say that if you don't like them then don't have one. What if I liked slavery? What if I liked other immoral things? You can't prove it's not a human. And yes, since the baby is a person, the government should force them not to kill their own child. And yes, the twin is a person, it doesn't matter what it's doing to the other twin. If it's a person, you can't kill it in cold blood. And since many people know it's wrong, how could they possibly sit back while people are being killed? And I'm not offended. Your choice to applause the murder of babies is offensive and a disgrace. It's truly disgusting and perverted.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If it's not a person, then what is it?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Don't pretend that there is logic in your argument. Do you actually think that, or are you just posturing? Your argument has nothing to do with logic. Honestly.

    People can feel pain; a fetus can't until the third trimester (http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.full). People can eat and breath; a fetus cannot do those things. People communicate; fetuses don't. There is much more than DNA in what makes us human.

    And even if you don't buy that argument, the idea that because something is "innocent" it deserves more rights than a woman or girl who is unintentionally pregnant (or who requires an abortion in order to save her life) is not only fallacious in nature, but also misogynistic. Surely you can see that.

    It's a fucking fetus.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It doesn't have more rights. But you can't take innocent life. Don't you agree that it is never justified to take innocent life, regardless of the circumstances? You can't take an innocent life regardless of whether it's good for another. The unborn don't eat through their mouths. They can't speak. They can't feel pain til the third trimester. There are people who get fed through tubes (like a baby). People who breath artificially with tubes (like a baby). Some people can't feel pain because they are paralyzed. Are they any less human? What kind of fetus? a human one. Fetus comes from latin and means child.

    ReplyDelete
  29. They both have equal rights because they're both equally human. Just because a mother is selfish and doesn't want to have to deal with a kid doesn't justify killing it. See, you don't care about whether or not it's human. You just don't want any mothers to be inconvenienced by a child if they don't want it. You care about making things easy for people. You don't even care about what's just. I'm not saying this from a religious standpoint. I'm saying you don't even care about basic human dignity. Typical lib. You don't want to offend people. You don't care about what's right. You know the unborn don't have a voice. You will let the innocent die just so you don't step on anyone's toes. Sick stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  30. and saying it's a fetus is like saying im a teenager...it just describes the level of development. So I don't see why you keep reiterating that...It would be like me saying "I'm human" and you saying "you're a fucking teenager".

    ReplyDelete
  31. And why do you call yourselves "pro-choice". That would be like me saying I'm in favor of people's choice to have slaves or not and calling myself "pro-choice". You're Pro(for)-abortion. You're ok with it. You're for it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Yeah, I'm done having this conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  33. For people who read this blog: know that the pro-abortion side does not have a valid argument. They have a long list of excuses that they throw at you. They're not interested in a logical debate. They just don't want to be offensive to those mothers who want abortions. It's sad and petty. QED

    ReplyDelete