This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Wichita Doctor Takes Up Fight for Abortions

Wichita Doctor Takes Up Fight for Abortions - Comments

SoHelpMeReason's Avatar Comment 1 by SoHelpMeReason

I'm a woman, and if I refuse to have a child, no local demagogue is telling me otherwise. They can drop dead if they think I'm remotely interested in public opinion when it comes to whether or not I'm enduring nine months of misery, stretch marks, morning sickness, pending financial disaster, and emotional distress.

Female autonomy. Pardon the language, but I don't give a f$%ing sh*t for religion or patriarchies. This article makes me growling furious!

"If men had babies, there'd be abortion services available at Wal Mart."

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:53:04 UTC | #848301

Stevezar's Avatar Comment 2 by Stevezar

In other news, the doctor's life insurance premiums just went up by 200%.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:00:58 UTC | #848304

zengardener's Avatar Comment 3 by zengardener

Self righteous busy bodies.

Isn't there some way to defend against the harassment? How can they get away with making abortion practically illegal? The health care industry is the second largest part of the economy.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:38:12 UTC | #848315

lackofgravitas's Avatar Comment 4 by lackofgravitas

Actually, I think it'd be more like "If men had babies, there's be abortion services at every bar, gas/petrol station, motorway services, cinemas, theatres and workplaces." Just to be on the safe side.

Can someone remind me, what is the count of states where abortion is illegal even if it's a product of rape or incest?

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:44:01 UTC | #848320

SoHelpMeReason's Avatar Comment 5 by SoHelpMeReason

Comment 4 by lackofgravitas :

Actually, I think it'd be more like "If men had babies, there's be abortion services at every bar, gas/petrol station, motorway services, cinemas, theatres and workplaces." Just to be on the safe side.

Can someone remind me, what is the count of states where abortion is illegal even if it's a product of rape or incest?

It's not illegal anywhere. But they lobby to make it so inaccessible, it might as well be.

Don't forget "drive-through abortion" for one of those on-the-go days; because a man's got things to do.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:54:01 UTC | #848326

wisnoskij's Avatar Comment 6 by wisnoskij

Comment 1 by SoHelpMeReason :

I'm a woman, and if I refuse to have a child, no local demagogue is telling me otherwise. They can drop dead if they think I'm remotely interested in public opinion when it comes to whether or not I'm enduring nine months of misery, stretch marks, morning sickness, pending financial disaster, and emotional distress.

Female autonomy. Pardon the language, but I don't give a f$%ing sh*t for religion or patriarchies. This article makes me growling furious! "If men had babies, there'd be abortion services available at Wal Mart."

This really seems like one of those issue that everyone is either on the far right of left of. I would hope most people and even you would agree that abortion should not be used as a alternative to contraceptives but in some cases it is. I have personally talked to people on their 6 abortion that simply use them instead of contraceptives when more convenient.

Rape, etc is one thing but using it how I described is completely another issue. And assuming that the woman had a choice then it is not a issue of removing a right, but instead it is removing a consequence to a choice that was made.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:44:55 UTC | #848337

terri_55's Avatar Comment 7 by terri_55

Do these protesters think that most women choose to have an abortion as if they were deciding between buying the red or the green sofa. Through my own and friends experiences, upon discovering your pregnant there is no choice for most women who go through with an abortion; it is the case you just think, no I can not do this, I can not have this baby. Morality plays no part at that point, you think about moral issues later but if it hits you, you will do anything not to have it.

Above you may have noticed I referred to 'the baby'; I did this on purpose because I am sick and tired of reading papers on the ethical status of the fetus when discussing abortion, and the woman's choice, the use of such terminology makes the ethical discussion in this area a little more palatable. Yet by approaching the moral question in this way they not only in affect push the needs of the woman aside but also morally play right into the hands of those who are morally opposed to abortion. By firstly saying that the woman chooses and by talking about the ethical status of a fetus. Those who publish on the subject are creating a morally rocky landscape; it ignores the fact that a lot of women upon discovering they are pregnant do not choose their is an almost instantaneous reaction of joy or get it out, We do not think, I can not have this fetus, we think I can not have this baby. What follows from this is that there is no discussion about the emotional after care for women or grief counselling offered, you choose it so now you've got to deal with the consequences, and I have actually heard a doctor tell a heartbroken girl to think of it as having an unwanted lump removed.

These thinkers also create an argument for the opposition, because they argue that what is been killed is a baby not a fetus, and abortion is not therefore been recognise for what it is. A lot of women do recognise the action for what it is and would still do anything to go through with it even putting their own lives at risk and in many cases taking their own lives. This is not a moral action but one that is done out of necessity even survival. I wonder how many of those righteous southerns would not hesitate to shot another human if they thought their or their families lives were at risk, even if they could not be sure, I would hazard a quess that it would be most; I'm pretty sure they would say I had no choice, It was either me or them and god will judge me right; and therefore the argument also stands for the women in a similar position, and they would leave well alone,

Thankfully in the UK we have the right to request an abortion; the laws governing abortion are antiquated. Two Doctors have to sign you off, and unless you are getting an abortion due to physical health concerns for you or the baby, it as to go in your records that you are mentally ill, or continuing with the pregnancy will make you mentally ill.

This needs to change as does the attitudes towards women post-abortion. Also I am not claiming to be speaking for all women here but through grief counselling I know this is how a lot of women I have met think and experience.

Sorry to rant but most ethical philosophers who write on this subject are women and their typical approach to this subject area appalls me.

I will look on-line but if anyone as any information on U.S. charity organisations raising funds to open more clinics could they post the information. Thanks

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:55:24 UTC | #848340

wisnoskij's Avatar Comment 8 by wisnoskij

And obviously you have to draw the line somewhere, as we all most likely do not condone murdering people or babies.

It is not like simply because the baby has exited the womb it has suddenly become worry of life, so assuming that most people agree that once a baby has left the womb it should not be aborted the obvious conclusion to me is that sometime before that it is just as worthy of life.

So what does late term actually mean? could the babies in some of these late term abortions been c-sectioned out and survived?

Personally I find it impossible to see were any line could be logically given to life to say here, here is where a unborn babies life becomes worth something.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:57:21 UTC | #848342

user659's Avatar Comment 9 by user659

All those who oppose abortion should be registered.They should then be forced to adopt any children who are without parents. If laws against abortion are ever passed then those people should be forced to adopt the children of women who would otherwise have had an abortion.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:12:16 UTC | #848350

SoHelpMeReason's Avatar Comment 10 by SoHelpMeReason

Comment 6 by wisnoskij

"This really seems like one of those issue that everyone is either on the far right of left of. I would hope most people and even you would agree that abortion should not be used as a alternative to contraceptives but in some cases it is. I have personally talked to people on their 6 abortion that simply use them instead of contraceptives when more convenient. Rape, etc is one thing but using it how I described is completely another issue. And assuming that the woman had a choice then it is not a issue of removing a right, but instead it is removing a consequence to a choice that was made."

I understand it's complicated. (And I'm not sure it could really take off as a contraceptive, given every form of abortion is far more expensive than a drugstore $2 condom.) But these pro-lifers don't understand that a pea-sized blob does not get rights over me. At all. Ever. The day before contractions is one thing, and that's pretty clear and my feminist stubbornness doesn't come out because people want to outlaw third trimester abortions. I get it. I get that. I do. I know there needs to be a compromise because there's a conflict of rights. But doing away with abortion entirely or preventing access to it because Jesus Almighty said we should, or imposing laws that in their very nature insult women by making mandatory waiting periods, sonograms, and federally-ordered emotional manipulation, is getting systematically spat in the face and told to get back in the kitchen.

I have exactly zero tolerance for these people. I once dropped a guy I was dating the split nanosecond it came to my understanding he was an active abortion clinic picketer. If you had asked me what the word "hesitation" meant at that time, I would have had to look it up it was so foreign to me.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:13:53 UTC | #848351

wisnoskij's Avatar Comment 11 by wisnoskij

Comment 1 by SoHelpMeReason :

I'm a woman, and if I refuse to have a child, no local demagogue is telling me otherwise. They can drop dead if they think I'm remotely interested in public opinion when it comes to whether or not I'm enduring nine months of misery, stretch marks, morning sickness, pending financial disaster, and emotional distress.

Female autonomy. Pardon the language, but I don't give a f$%ing sh*t for religion or patriarchies. This article makes me growling furious! "If men had babies, there'd be abortion services available at Wal Mart."

And I would like to tackle at lest some of the sexism argument. Tell me if I am wrong, but I am almost positive that it is this way in Canada and pretty sure that that is mirrored in the rest of the world where abortion is allowed.

Where do the rights of the father come into this? sure the woman has to carry the baby during pregnancy but by far the bigger responsibility to caring for it is afterwards. I would say there is far more sexism against men then women in this situation and cannot see why the Father should not have equal or almost equal right to the decision. And if he is willing to raise the baby alone after its birth then I do not see how morally anyone could ignore that.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:14:02 UTC | #848352

Quine's Avatar Comment 12 by Quine

Those interested in the background for this should watch this video segment from a recent Rachel Maddow show.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:20:37 UTC | #848353

green and dying's Avatar Comment 13 by green and dying

Comment 11 by wisnoskij :

Where do the rights of the father come into this? sure the woman has to carry the baby during pregnancy but by far the bigger responsibility to caring for it is afterwards. I would say there is far more sexism against men then women in this situation and cannot see why the Father should not have equal or almost equal right to the decision. And if he is willing to raise the baby alone after its birth then I do not see how morally anyone could ignore that.

Oh, shush. Can he also tell me I can't prevent pregnancy because it would he his baby too? There is no difference whatsoever in my mind.

What the hell would be an equal decision anyway? Do I have half an abortion and then half a baby? Two people can't actually vote on something if their decisions are opposite. You can't have "almost equal" right to the decision either. What does that mean? He gets 45% of the vote and I get 55%? Surely I automatically win in that case, too.

In conclusion, this isn't about men and never will be.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:30:58 UTC | #848355

SoHelpMeReason's Avatar Comment 14 by SoHelpMeReason

Comment 11 by wisnoskij :

Comment 1 by SoHelpMeReason :

I'm a woman, and if I refuse to have a child, no local demagogue is telling me otherwise. They can drop dead if they think I'm remotely interested in public opinion when it comes to whether or not I'm enduring nine months of misery, stretch marks, morning sickness, pending financial disaster, and emotional distress.

Female autonomy. Pardon the language, but I don't give a f$%ing sh*t for religion or patriarchies. This article makes me growling furious! "If men had babies, there'd be abortion services available at Wal Mart."

And I would like to tackle at lest some of the sexism argument. Tell me if I am wrong, but I am almost positive that it is this way in Canada and pretty sure that that is mirrored in the rest of the world where abortion is allowed.

Where do the rights of the father come into this? sure the woman has to carry the baby during pregnancy but by far the bigger responsibility to caring for it is afterwards. I would say there is far more sexism against men then women in this situation and cannot see why the Father should not have equal or almost equal right to the decision. And if he is willing to raise the baby alone after its birth then I do not see how morally anyone could ignore that.

For women, making a baby requires nine months of being a moody, enormous host with a plethora of new expectations and limitations. Not to mention possible health fluctuations and then nine hours of agonizing pain. Men spend seven seconds of fun and that's about the end of everything they have to do until the kid arrives. You claiming it to be sexism that men get no say is the equivalent of me saying it's sexism only women have babies and have to put forth the real effort in making them. If I plant a whole field of corn crawling on my hands and knees for months, watering it and laboring in the scorching heat, day in and day out, and that field is in my body no less, the guy that handed me the bag of seeds before I did it does not get to make the decisions about what happens with the field. Now when the corn arrives and we start husking, and cleaning, and storing, if you're helping me get through all that, you suddenly have rights. In the meantime, I'm deciding things.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:38:56 UTC | #848358

Naturalist1's Avatar Comment 15 by Naturalist1

Quine...Thank you for the Rachel Maddow link. Really puts into perspective what is going on here.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:50:34 UTC | #848360

mmurray's Avatar Comment 16 by mmurray

Comment 8 by wisnoskij :

Personally I find it impossible to see were any line could be logically given to life to say here, here is where a unborn babies life becomes worth something.

So ? Welcome to the real world where the mother and babies lives are interlinked for nine months. There is no black and white just grey. That is why most sensible countries have settled on differing laws for the three trimesters.

Where do the rights of the father come into this?

As a man I think the rights of the man come in after the baby is born and the man accepts paternity. I don't see a practical alternative. I also think the man's responsibilities start nine months before that. If you want to have some role in the way the child grows up get in and help with the pregnancy.

Michael

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:52:53 UTC | #848362

green and dying's Avatar Comment 17 by green and dying

To be fully on-topic for a minute, it's pretty horrible that in a country where abortion is meant to be legal people are still trying their hardest to prevent access to it and are actually succeeding. There's no point in abortion being legal if women can't find anywhere to do have it done. I also find it a bit disturbing that the decision of opening a clinic would be based on money and not need. I know this is a whole other debate but medical care should be provided on the basis of need. An area shouldn't have to wait for someone to want to make money before they get access to abortion services.

I'm incredibly thankful that things are different here although I've noticed that recently anti-abortion campaigners and MPs here are basically copying techniques from America like trying to pass compulsory waiting periods, compulsory counselling, etc. to limit access to abortion as much as they can while not trying to outright make it illegal (my strong impression is that they are copying American techniques, anyway). I think things are different enough here that it probably won't work and if anything the laws will become more lenient but we could do without that influence. Of course, there is a part of my country where abortion is still illegal so I can't be too smug.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:04:16 UTC | #848365

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 18 by prettygoodformonkeys

The guy at the back of the photo is in the wrong rally; he should be at the "I am Bradley Manning" rally. Which is probably a small rally, so I can see why he tagged on to this one, but still.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:09:21 UTC | #848368

Quine's Avatar Comment 19 by Quine

Comment 15 by Naturalist1 :

Quine...Thank you for the Rachel Maddow link. Really puts into perspective what is going on here.

You are welcome, Rachel has been closely following the issue for some time. Back in February, she interviewed Dr. Means, the subject of the story in this thread.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:36:56 UTC | #848374

houseofcards's Avatar Comment 20 by houseofcards

She has my support.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:02:05 UTC | #848379

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 21 by Nunbeliever

This article just goes to show what an absurd country USA is in many ways. In Europe it would be inconceivable that a physician would have to fear for her life because she provides abortions. I mean, to me this is as absurd as when saudi women get stoned to death for adultery. I really can't comprehend that so many people would support murder of physicians that provide abortions. I can't possibly see that anything else than religion is capable of making a group of people this emotionally detached from the suffering of others. It really show how dangerous religions are even in the western world. It reinforces tribalism to an extreme. I honestly don't understand how atheists or other more sensible people can live in the same country as a bunch of morons threatening people with death merely for doing their jobs. How do you stand it? I mean really! How can you go on with your business as usual when you know that your neighbours or the people you meet everyday might think that physicians that provide abortions deserve death. To me, that would be like living next to Joseph Mengele.

I am really troubled by the direction this country is going. This is not a single incident. You might very well end up with a president who thinks a women should always ask her man for permission before she acts, thinks homosexuality and pornography should be illegal. I mean, this is getting too much. USA is still the most powerful nation in the world. The rest of the world can't just sit and watch while your country is being taking over by lunatics. Let's face it! A great majority of all americans are ignorant fools. And these fools get to seal the fate of the rest of the world. No offence, but I don't want a fucking redneck i Texas to be able to make decisions that influence my life. USA has grown too big and the American people has grown too stupid and ignorant. We can't have a superpower inhabited by morons! We just can't!

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:31:05 UTC | #848383

MAJORPAIN's Avatar Comment 22 by MAJORPAIN

This is a brave woman. I hope nothing happens to her. The people trying to stop abortions will stop at nothing to do so. Sad. So. Sad.

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:40:16 UTC | #848386

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 23 by Nunbeliever

To wisonskij:

I would hope most people and even you would agree that abortion should not be used as a alternative to contraceptives but in some cases it is.

Well, I think few people use abortion as an alternative to contraception. At least among the mentally stable. But yes, I don't think we should encourage people to do abortions. First, for the time being an abortion is usually an invasive procedure and there are some real health risks involved regardless of what method we use. Second, it's much cheaper for the society if people use contraception instead of using abortions as an alternative. Third, many women who do an abortion will probably go through some form of an emotional crisis. And it's impossible for the individual to know how she is going to react.

Nonetheless, this is not usually what people talk about when they criticise abortions. They talk about the rights of the fetus, etc... That is all bullshit. The fetus has no rights no more than your liver or any other organs have rights. It's not a conscious being that can feel pain. One can argue all day about how the fetus has a different DNA than the mother and hence is not a part of her body. Still, the fetus is in the womb and totally dependent on the mother. It is a part of her body! Period (any clever remarks will be ignored)! it's not a human being! It's a fetus for goodness sake!

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:03:44 UTC | #848391

Vicktor's Avatar Comment 24 by Vicktor

Comment 21 by Nunbeliever

USA has grown too big and the American people has grown too stupid and ignorant. We can't have a superpower inhabited by morons! We just can't!

I tend to agree. Certain types of people should be removed or given incentives to leave; then I think the USA will be even greater than it is. If you contrast the USA with Europe, you can see who they are.

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:32:10 UTC | #848397

green and dying's Avatar Comment 25 by green and dying

Comment 23 by Nunbeliever :

Well, I think few people use abortion as an alternative to contraception. At least among the mentally stable. But yes, I don't think we should encourage people to do abortions. First, for the time being an abortion is usually an invasive procedure and there are some real health risks involved regardless of what method we use. Second, it's much cheaper for the society if people use contraception instead of using abortions as an alternative.

We shouldn't encourage women to have abortions instead of using contraception, no, because it is slightly more risky. But if she's already pregnant abortion is the safest course of action.

The only argument I really care about against using abortion instead of contraception is that it would cost the health service more. If someone wants to get loads of abortions privately I really, really don't care. If a woman really likes pain and inconvenience and prefers it to contraceptives and pays for it herself then I think she's mad but I don't care. In fact she'd be saving the health service a very small bit of money. When I say I think abortion isn't wrong I actually mean that I think abortion isn't wrong.

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:39:23 UTC | #848399

SoHelpMeReason's Avatar Comment 26 by SoHelpMeReason

Comment 23 by Nunbeliever :

To wisonskij:

They talk about the rights of the fetus, etc... That is all bullshit. The fetus has no rights no more than your liver or any other organs have rights. It's not a conscious being that can feel pain. One can argue all day about how the fetus has a different DNA than the mother and hence is not a part of her body. Still, the fetus is in the womb and totally dependent on the mother. It is a part of her body! Period (any clever remarks will be ignored)! it's not a human being! It's a fetus for goodness sake!

To add to that, people often say because it's got a full human DNA it should have rights. Which is faulty reasoning. Yes, it has a full DNA, that's true, but as do all the somatic (non-sexual) cells in the body. The obvious differences between all these cells depend on which parts of the genome are "activated". If you justify the anti-abortion position through "full DNA" logic, chemotherapy has just become genocide.

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:15:47 UTC | #848410

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 27 by Nunbeliever

To green and dying:

If a woman really likes pain and inconvenience and prefers it to contraceptives and pays for it herself then I think she's mad but I don't care. In fact she'd be saving the health service a very small bit of money. When I say I think abortion isn't wrong I actually mean that I think abortion isn't wrong.

Well, I did not say abortion during the early stages of the preganancy ought to be considered wrong. I said we should not encourage women to do abortions any more than we should encourage women to have breast implants. Yes, the economical perspective is of course important, but I don't think that is the only problem in this regard. We can't deny the fact that there are serious health risks and that many women go through an emotional crisis after an abortion. Of course women should be free to do whatever they want, but I think it's important that we don't downplay the fact that an abortion is not a trivial procedure. From a medical perspective it's definately not viable to present abortions as an easy way out if you failed or didn't bother to use contraception. I say this beacuse I have experienced that some people seem to have an disturbingly cavalier attitude towards abortions.

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:38:25 UTC | #848412

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 28 by Nunbeliever

To SoHelpMeReason:

I agree...

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:39:46 UTC | #848414

Atheist Mike's Avatar Comment 29 by Atheist Mike

Not surprising this takes place in America, I agree with Nunbeliever on that point. The US is a clear indication that a country based on the rejection of elitism can't properly develop itself intellectually. The rejection of elitism is a superficial idea at best, no society can get away with despising the best, nor in fact even the perceived-best. What the founding fathers of america had in mind isn't very clear, while they declared 'freedom for everyone', slavery went on 90 years or so, even after the 'tyrannical country' they seceded from abolished it. What they wanted seems more to be a nation where no one could be looked down upon as the English aristocrats did with colonial ones at the time.

So in one hand you got a complex of inferiority towards the 'elite', and in the other you have an incomplete willingness to achieve freedom to overcome it. These two things seem to have been at the heart of America ever since its founding 220 years ago. What we've got is a deliberately stupid nation that throws around false ideas of freedom every now and then when they feel their right to stupidity has been threatened. It's too bad for this woman, if she wants to live in an actual free society, I say she better move North to Canada.

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:54:15 UTC | #848418

Czar's Avatar Comment 30 by Czar

Anyone who supports abortion is irrational

Abortion is inherently an initiation of aggression

However, by arguing for abortion, you presuppose a right of self-ownership because without self-ownership, you would entirely lack the capacity to formulate your own judgements and voice them. Additionally, by engaging in debate you tacitly admit that your opponents can disagree with you. But if you presuppose a right of self-ownership and argue against self-ownership on the part of the fetus, you engage in performative contradictions. Therefore, abortion cannot be argued for.

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:59:12 UTC | #848419