RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

The Real Rick Warren

By Amie Newman, Managing Editor

December 17, 2008 - 6:09pm

Published under: | | | | | | | | | |
Amie Newman's blog | Printer-friendly version |
Amie Newman's picture

Rick Warren understands politics.

It was announced today that Warren would be giving the invocation at President Elect Obama's inauguration. It's shocking, to say the least, but a little less surprising considering Warren's Saddleback Forum, a campaign season event in which Warren questioned Senator Obama and Senator McCain about faith and politics - two issues Warren feels very comfortable merging. The Saddleback Forum, however, was no more an opportunity to discuss faith than it was an opportunity to discuss science. It was an opportunity for Rick Warren to "catch" the candidates in what he deemed inappropriate positions.

WARREN: That was a freebie. That was a gimme. That was a gimme, OK? Now, let’s deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

It is beyond me how Warren feels that a perspective that so few Americans hold (reflected this election by the sound defeat of three anti-choice measures, the victory of pro-choice Democrats in Congress and, well, Obama's win), is a viable basis for a question for our presidential candidates? Luckily, Obama understands what most Americans do - it's about prevention and education, not religious extremism, and he responded:

OBAMA: But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.

Rick Warren is also the man behind these (recent) statements on abortion:

“But to me it is kind of a charade in that people say ‘We believe abortions should be safe and rare,’” he added.

“Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,’” Warren said. “I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.”

Now we unveil the story of a religious leader who is adamantly against prevention; in favor of reducing abortion by stripping women of their rights; a leader who compares embryos in utero and mothers who make the best, most loving choices they can when faced with an unintended pregnancy or medical condition, to a murderous movement of anti-Semites who brutally slaughtered Jewish women, men and children. 

We do not have a religious leader here who agrees, in any way shape or form, with what Obama and the emerging common ground movement members believe - that to ensure women's optimal health and lives, elevate women's status in society and safeguard public health, we need to focus on comprehensive sex education and prevention measures like family planning and contraception access -- not more of the same extremist elements of the anti-choice movement.

There are so many religious and spiritual leaders who understand the above. They understand that justice in the form of equal access to health care and respect for women's health, decisions and privacy are critical components of any health measure - including one to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and ensure women have the tools to plan for the families they want now or in the future. In The American Prospect, Sarah Posner discusses the Religious Declaration on Sexuality Morality, Justice and Healing,

...which advocates comprehensive sex education and "a faith-based commitment to sexual and reproductive rights, including access to voluntary contraception, abortion, and HIV/STD prevention and treatment." The Religious Institute on Sexuality, Justice, and Healing, which authored the declaration, has also called on Obama to adopt an approach focused on preventing unintended pregnancies.

RH Reality Check has featured the voices of Rev. Debra Haffner, Rev. Carlton Veazy and so many others who advocate for a faith-based approach to sexual and reproductive health and rights, one that aligns so well with President Elect Obama's vision.

And, yet, it's Pastor Rick Warren who will join President Elect Obama on stage when he is inaugurated. Warren who advocates strongly for the abstinence-only based ideological restrictions in our Global AIDS Plan - PEPFAR. It's Warren who has advocated to retain these restrictions which clash wholeheartedly with Obama's plan to strip them away. 

Warren awarded President Bush the first ever "Medal of P.E.A.C.E." for his work on HIV/AIDS, as Lindsay Beyerstein reported for RH Reality Check. However, as Beyerstein writes, 

For all the mutual good will on display, Warren's agenda may well clash with Obama's plans to reshape American AIDS policy.  

It is hard to imagine Obama and Warren's agendas for any sexual or reproductive health issues aligning at this point, making it all the more puzzling why Obama chose Warren for this role. In an expose on Religion Dispatches, Tom Davis writes of Warren's die-hard positions on social issues all while taking more "moderate" stances on issues of global warming, poverty, war and AIDS (though, as I note above, supporting the imposition of religious restrictions on global AIDS policy is not moderate). Davis writes of Warren,

On the eve of the 2004 presidential election, he sent a letter to his congregation telling them that there were five non-negotiable issues that should determine their vote—abortion, stem-cell research, cloning, homosexual marriage, and euthanasia. In fact, these five issues are barely mentioned in the Bible; Jesus never spoke about them, nor did the prophets.

Curiously, however, Warren made no mention of those issus that he had claimed to care deeply about as a "new evangelical" - global warming, poverty, and war. Warren seems to have empathy for some and not for others - and this is where Davis identified Warren's weakness:

As far as empathy is concerned, there seems to be scant evidence that Rick Warren and many other evangelical writers have tried to put themselves in the woman’s position, or that they can imagine what it would be like to have to make that decision.  

Rick Warren is not a man that symbolizes common ground. Warren has positioned himself as a key player in what in words has been called a new evangelism but in practice is nothing more than shining up some old shoes. As soon as the announcement was made that Warren would provide the invocation, protests sprung up on Facebook and elsewhere. We'll see if Warren really does have such a front and center role at the inauguration after all. As a religious leader, he is a brilliant politician. 


Amie Newman's blog | Printer-friendly version |
. . . . .
402 comments
Please login or register to post comments...
Invocation of H8

I wrote both Rick Warren and Obama transition blog
As an openly gay donor to Obama campaign the news of Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inaugeral ,is election night deja vu, all over again. Gays and Lesbians were celebrationg with all the rest of America the Obama victory, then at 11pm we get a shiv shoved in our back with prop 8. Rick Warren and the LDS elders were the MAIN SUPPORTERS which attacked LGBT families in CA, making us the ONE minority not covered by the equal protection clause.
I hope EVERY queer and our friends attending the Inaugeral, TURNS THEIR BACK to Rick Warren, a salute of a single finger wouldn't hurt ...either.
I am so disappointed the president to Bring America TOGETHER, chooses to tear us apart at his FIRST oppurtunity

Submitted by Qbear on December 17, 2008 - 8:13pm.
Quit your crowing

Ok, Rick Warren may not be the perfect example of common ground if he does indeed oppose safe sex measures in the AIDS crisis, but making abortion "safe, legal, and rare" is no common ground either, because the pro-life movement's goal is not just to stop abortion, it's to stop our society from condoning it. But what really drew my ire about this article was you claims of victory of the pro-choice movement as evidenced by various measures going down and Obama's victory. Do your research, please. First, polls repeatedly show a fairly even split on this issue among Americans, often with a slight majority coming up on the pro-life side. Obama's election had NOTHING to do with abortion. That issue came up ONE other time beyond that Saddleback Forum. People weren't thinking about it when they went to the polls--they were panicking that we were headed for another Great Depression. And another thing, those "anti-choice" measures that went down didn't go down for the reasons you think they did. Actually, I don't know what the third one was, but the first two were Colorado and South Dakota. The South Dakota one failed because its rape exception was considered too ambiguous and thought to put too high of a burden on rape victims that included DNA testing and identification of the rapist. The last time that bill came up in South Dakota, it was rejected for lack of the rape exception, and if it had included one without so much red tape for the victims, it would have passed by a 60-40 margin. And the Colorado one went down because its language allowed for the possibility of also banning birth control. So don't count your chickens here, you do NOT have a safe pro-choice majority here, and you never will, because it's the pro-lifers who are ahead of their time and eventually others will catch up. It took a while with slavery too.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 17, 2008 - 9:07pm.
How dare you?

You do realize that the only alternative to legal abortion is forced pregnancy and childbirth, right? It gives a whole new meaning to "forced labor". How can you not call that slavery? How dare you tell half the population that we don't own our bodies? And how dare you trivialize the suffering of millions of sentient human beings like that?

You speak of rape exceptions, and I'd be interested to hear your justification for that. How is a fetus conceived by rape any less important than one conceived by consensual sex? If you believe abortion truly is murder, how do you say that it should be allowed for rape victims? I'd like to know how much time you think awoman should spend in jail if she attempts to self-induce an abortion.

http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2005/polls.asp
The majority of Americans are pro-choice. While we all wish that all pregnancies can be planned, wanted, and the joyful addition of new life, that's just not how it works. The world is not a perfect place, and most people understand that. Most people have sympathy and understanding towards women who have abortions. Most of us understand that a gift coerced is not a gift. And many of us remember that in the days when abortion was illegal it was nowhere near gone, it was just unsafe.

Quality of life counts more than quantity. It's irresponsible to bring a child into the world that you cannot care for. It's nothing short of cruelty to force a woman to have a child when she knows it's not right for her.

Submitted by Sayna on December 18, 2008 - 12:26am.
The pro-life position is

The pro-life position is not ahead of its time, at all. It is a blindly pursued obsession, which completely disregards the consequences of its dictates. If you force every single fertilized egg to be incubated by a female host body (because surely at this point, she's no longer a woman who has a right to make decisions about how her body is used), think about what you'll end up with. Have you even thought about that?

A) How in the world will we ever feed all these people, or ensure them adequate health care?
B) How will you ensure all these people will receive responsible parenting?
C) Since you can't ensure A or B, then you will end up with multiple generations of lost souls, degenerates, criminals, people with chronic physical and mental ailments and the total disintegration of society as we know it.

Happy now?

Submitted by AZsunpower on January 5, 2009 - 2:27am.
Rick Warren

Thanks, Annie, for the support. I, frankly, am still speechless. There are thousands of religious leaders that could have been invited to do this; I can't decide if it's a signal to the evangelical Christian community that he is seeking to involve everyone, or a signal to the progressives that we shouldn't take anything for granted. I have just read that Rev. Joseph Lowery will do the benediction. At least, he didn't bookend with another person who opposes sexual justice issues. I blogged about this earlier as well.

Rev. Debra W. Haffner

Submitted by Rev. Debra W. Haffner on December 17, 2008 - 9:26pm.
Ok, starting from the top,

Ok, starting from the top, no I do not realize that the only alternative to legal abortion is "forced pregnancy and childbirth." No one is "forcing" a woman to get pregnant. There are numerous way of avoiding it. Yes, abstinence is one, but so are birth control, condom use, planning of sexual encounters during times of the month when one cannot get pregnant, the list goes on and on. Pregnancies are avoidable and sex is a responsibility. If one isn't ready to accept consequences of an action, they aren't ready for the action. Period. And that goes for men AND women. I would have no problem, for example, with making a law that says when a woman gets pregnant unplanned, the man becomes responsible for all her medical expenses related to her pregnancy. But once again, nobody is "forcing" anyone to get pregnant. And the pro-life movement including myself are not telling anyone that they "don't own their bodies" we're telling them that the don't own the unique human being inside their bodies once that being is formed. I fail to see how I am trivializing anyone's suffering.

As to the rape question, I personally don't take a position on that exception, I was merely pointing out that many people who consider themselves strongly pro-life are still in favor of rape exceptions, and the reason this could be justifiable is that the arguments against abortion are based on a series of facts, not just one, and one of those facts is that pregnancy is preventable. Rape is the one case where this is not necessarily the case. As to jail time, that's not up to me, but I would say any penalty for the women seeking abortions would need to be phased in over a long period of time to allow social norms to catch up. At first it should only be doctors performing them who are prosecuted.

You can cite one poll, I'll cite another--my point was it's a pretty even split for every one you cite that says the majority are pro-choice, I'll cite one that says the majority are pro-life. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/01/20030701-115636-9509r/ There are several other too, but I didn't even cite these because some of them are mentioned on sites that you could argue have biased sources. (Even though your poll has a biased source as well.)

Believing abortion should be outlawed doesn't mean we don't have any sympathy for these women. I also have sympathy for a woman who gives birth, panics, and leaves the baby in a dumpster or a mall bathroom, but that doesn't mean that what she did wasn't wrong. We're not trying to force anyone to take care of that baby, we're only trying to mandate that it be allowed to live. If its biological mother can't take care of it, there are plenty of people who can and will. That's what adoption is for. Once again, no one is forcing anyone to get pregnant, just once she is the baby has a right to its life.

Finally, before abortion was legal, yes, it still existed, but far less than it does now, and more importantly it was not sanctioned by this society. The unsafe part is not the government's problem. Name me one other area in which the government is charged with protecting people from the natural consequences of their own actions. (I'll give you a hint, there are none. If this were the government's role, cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food would not be available, and extreme sports would be outlawed.)

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 18, 2008 - 2:34am.
Alex A-L, you seem to be

Alex A-L, you seem to be suggesting that forcing women with unwanted pregnancies isn't forced pregnancy and forced birth. I'm with Sayna; how dare you suggest that women who are pregnant should be forced to stay pregnant, and then try to claim that's not coercion. At least be honest; you believe that women's bodies should be the property of the state. Are you aware that women can become pregnant if they miss one contraceptive pill at the wrong time of the month? Are you seriously suggesting that missing ONE PILL is a sign that a woman is dreadfully, horribly irresponsible and should be punished? No one is so perfect that they never, ever, ever forget to take a pill once every now and then. Some of us can't use IUDs without extreme, ongoing pain. No contraceptive method is foolproof. Presumably, if a woman experiences contraceptive failure, it's her fault for being 'irresponsible'.

 

You're also deluding yourself if you believe that illegalising abortion prevents or even reduces abortion. There is no evidence that countries in which abortion is illegal have lower abortion rates. Do you know why the number of reported abortions were lower prior to decriminalisation? Because women knew they could be punished for having them, so they didn't report having them illegally.

 

The policies you're advocating won't reduce abortion; they'll just kill more women. But apparently, you consider that perfectly acceptable; it's more important to make a political point that women's lives are worth less than foetal lives. Who cares if women die, right? We're just irresponsible sl*ts who brought it on ourselves. Are you really unable to comprehend why some of us find that objectionable?

 

Oh, and you guys lost regarding your propositions in the recent elections. The majority of people voted against said propositions because they don't agree with them. Stop making excuses. You failed, the majority of people disagree with you, and you lost. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

Submitted by Emma on December 18, 2008 - 10:44pm.
You are becoming quite

You are becoming quite tedious. No, it is not "forced pregnancy" or "forced childbirth" because IT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IN ONE OF SEVERAL WAYS, a couple of which are not fool-proof, but a couple of others of which are. THIS is where women have every choice in the world--BEFORE there is a living human being inside them. And so, yes, it's the state's job to protect that living human being. This does NOT make a woman's body "property of the state"--THIS IS NOT ABOUT JUST HER BODY, IT'S ABOUT WHAT'S INSIDE THAT BODY!

Furthermore, you will not acknowledge that there is a difference between a "punishment" and a natural biological consequence. I'm not making a value judgement on a person's level of responsibility, nor am I calling ANYONE a "slut"--I'm saying that where a human life is involved, the government is not obliged to provide a way out of a natural, biological consequence of an action over which, yes, indeed the woman DID have a choice about.

And you, ma'am are deluding YOURSELF if you claim that not ONE person who would get an abortion as long as it's legal might think twice about it if it were illegal. If it prevents ANY abortions it's worth it, more importantly, it would take the blood off this society's hands from condoning the practice. And you can't compare our abortion rates to rates in countries where it's illegal--you're comparing apples to tuna--totally different cultural environments that have much larger impacts on these rates than its legality or illegality.

Again, this is not about who's lives are worth--women's lives or fetal lives. When this situation is truly the case, it is the woman's life--I'm not opposed to abortions performed to save the life of the mother, nor are most of the pro-life movement. But in cases where a woman dies from an illegal abortion, she could have avoided this by not having the abortion. The baby killed in an abortion did not have any means of avoidance. I challenge you again to name one other situation in which it is the government's job to protect a person from the consequences of their own actions. Because this is what you claim its role is when you advocate for legal abortion out of concern for women who would die from illegal ones. By the way, you might want to look up the name Dr. Bernard Nathanson--he's the Planned Parenthood source of a lot of those stats on deaths from illegal abortions. He later admitted that those numbers were complete and utter fabrications.

Finally, I'm not making "excuses" I'm reading the poll numbers. The South Dakota ban went down because of the ambiguity of its rape exception, and the Colorado one went down because its language could easily have allowed for the banning of birth control. Even I would have voted against that one. You're the one pretending here, because for every poll you can point to showing a pro-choice majority in this country, I can point to one showing the opposite. Check the link in my above post. It's from an unbiased source, unlike the link I was refuting.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 19, 2008 - 12:13am.
Death of a woman from

Death of a woman from pregnancy is a natural consequence of pregnancy. Women can't kill their children in order to save themselves from natural death. The woman was in the position to prevent this pregnancy according to your own arguments and therefore, any perceived need to kill an innocent baby to save herself from natural death could have been prevented entirely by her but she chose not too.

If Patient A and Patient B are both dying, we don't kill Patient A to save Patient B. Add to it that Patient A is dying to no fault of their own but Patient B could have prevented their condition.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 19, 2008 - 7:06am.
Here I'll defend the other

Here I'll defend the other side though. For one thing, the argument of preventing the situation doesn't apply here, because in many cases where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, she was not diagnosed with whatever condition is causing the situation until after she was already pregnant. Additionally, the exception for the life of the mother is justified along the lines of self-defense. If B will kill A if A does not kill B, then the killing of B is justified. This legal standard is as old as time. (As long as it's adhered to literally and the standard is strictly held to one's very bodily life being at stake--you can't say "this person is driving me crazy, so I'll kill them" or even "this person is costing me money and plans, so I'll kill them" in any other life situation, and so shouldn't anyone be allow to do this here)

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 19, 2008 - 11:14am.
Agreed that the right to

Agreed that the right to self defense applies.... but to the fetus to prevent the woman from killing it. According to your own definition of force, consent and natural consequences the woman is not being forced – therefore she has no right to claim self defense against the fetus as its not forcing her to die anymore than its forcing her to a minor health consequence. No pregnancy can be accurately predicted and diagnosed for a specific woman fully at the time of conception, this is true whether the woman can die, have major health consequences or minor health consequences...and lack of absolute prediction does not automatically turn something into a positive self defense claim and you don't make exceptions for the other cases of non-predicted health issues in pregnancy that are diagnosed later. However if she attempts to kill the fetus to save herself from dying naturally then yes she is killing and the fetuses right to self defense would necessitate protecting it from being attacked.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 19, 2008 - 12:01pm.
What about a case where the

What about a case where the woman is diagnosed with cancer during her pregnancy, and the treatment, particularly any chemotherapy, would kill the unborn child? I know someone who this was the case with his wife. She actually chose to delay her treatment until after the baby was born, and it cost her her own life. When it actually is a question of life versus life, the woman's life must take precedent. This is one case where we probably can use the consciousness argument. If one or the other will definitely die, then the one to die should be the one that isn't fully cognisant of what's happening to them.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 19, 2008 - 6:29pm.
You can’t kill an

You can’t kill an unconscious patient to save another conscious patients life. If both are going to die then its not better to kill one to save the other. A woman can not give a deadly medicine to her child without the child having the medical need for it - in the absence of medical need its called homicide – and chemotherapy in this case is an induced killer. Cancer is natural. And once again you’ve offered nothing that overturns the fetus right to self defense to prevent itself from being killed.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 19, 2008 - 7:05pm.
Except the woman's right to

Except the woman's right to self defense to prevent herself from being killed. This isn't a case of both are going to die, it's a case of one or the other will die. By any legal code, a person has the right to take any action necessary to preserve their own life. Ok, so if the unborn child could physically defend itself, fine, you've got a case. It can defend itself, and so can the woman. I suppose you could say in this case the stronger one prevails, but I don't quite see the point of the natural vs. unnatural part of this debate. This is not made an issue of in courts. (I love it, I'm lighting both ends of the candle here, and at least you're making me look like the moderate I truly am on this issue--fighting people like you on one end, and radical, blind feminism (the key point here being BLIND, not feminism, for all you others on here, before you tell me I'm using the F word as a perjorative) on the other. LOL!

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 19, 2008 - 7:50pm.
  • flagged
The woman can't kill

The woman can't kill another to save herself from natural death. I've never heard of a court giving any leniency to a conscious patient attacking an unconscious one, the latter of whom is wholly innocent and can never be said by any stretch of the imagination to have done anything to provoke the attack or have caused any sort of 'killing'. Yet the woman is simply dying a natural death. Instead as soon as the woman starts to attack or hires someone to attack she is guilty of killing.

I don't know why you fail to understand the natural bit as you brought up natural biological consequences in your own arguments...and death is no less a consequence of pregnancy as other complications.

You're not a moderate on the overall issue of abortion.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 19, 2008 - 8:16pm.
You are hardly in a

You are hardly in a position to judge the feminists on this thread as blind...at least they are consistent in applying their arguments.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 20, 2008 - 1:22am.
If they refuse to

If they refuse to acknowledge that what it is about for us is protecting innocent life, then yes, they are blind. Disagree with our characterization that what's inside the womb IS an innocent life, but no, they don't have any ground to stand on there, so all they can do is tell us what we're thinking and that what we "really want is to control women." They back off on that talk, an I'll stop referring to them as blind.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 20, 2008 - 1:53am.
They don't need to back off

They don't need to back off on the talk as long as they are consistent while you are not. You don't stand for innocent human life - you've demonstrated it already.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 20, 2008 - 1:54am.
Then as long as they

Then as long as they continue to insist on it "really being about" anything other than protecting innocent life, at least for this particular pro-lifer, they remain extremely worthy of the label "blind."

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 20, 2008 - 2:17am.
  • flagged
Until you consistently

Until you consistently stand up for innocent human life its not about innocent human life. You have contradicted so many of your own arguments.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 20, 2008 - 2:22am.
How have I contradicted any

How have I contradicted any of my own arguments? By not standing up for anyone's convenience or financial stability over someone else's life? I've already said I'm not opposed to abortion in cases where the woman's life is in danger. My not happening to believe that killing a human being is a within the realm of acceptable choice does not prevent me from consistently standing up for innocent human life, it promotes it.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 20, 2008 - 2:30am.
Just A Minor Inconvenience

You speak here of pregnancy as an inconvenience. I wonder what mothers would say to you trvializing their experience like that. Some possible "inconveniences" that pregnant women endure are:

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
heartburn and indigestion
constipation
weight gain
dizziness and light-headedness
bloating, swelling, fluid retention
hemmorhoids
abdominal cramps
yeast infections
congested, bloody nose
acne and mild skin disorders
skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
mild to severe backache and strain
increased headaches
difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
increased urination and incontinence
bleeding gums
pica
breast pain and discharge
swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
inability to take regular medications
shortness of breath
higher blood pressure
hair loss
tendency to anemia
curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
extreme pain on delivery
hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
stretch marks (worse in younger women)
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
changes to breasts
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

Occasional complications and side effects:
spousal/partner abuse
hyperemesis gravidarum
temporary and permanent injury to back
severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
gestational diabetes
placenta previa
anemia (which can be life-threatening)
thrombocytopenic purpura
severe cramping
embolism (blood clots)
medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
hormonal imbalance
ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
hemorrhage and
numerous other complications of delivery
refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
severe post-partum depression and psychosis
research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:
peripartum cardiomyopathy
cardiopulmonary arrest
magnesium toxicity
severe hypoxemia/acidosis
massive embolism
increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
malignant arrhythmia
circulatory collapse
placental abruption
obstetric fistula

More permanent side effects:
future infertility
permanent disability
death.

[Source]

Keep in mind that this list includes only physical side effects. The possible emotional side effects are a different story altogether, and one could argue that they hold less weight because they're not quite tangible or observable. Granted, some of these things would just be considered inconveniences by most people. But many of them are serious, life threatening or otherwise deeply traumatic and painful.

I understand that you make some exceptions for the life and health of the woman, but what would you do in the case of a pregnancy where life was not at risk, but the woman's body would be permanently altered and disfigured? Keep in mind: You HAVE said that the only time killing is justified is when life is threatened. This doesn't include liberty, bodily integrity, health, happiness, safety or comfort.

If you absolutely refuse to allow women to terminate their pregnancies, you are forcing them to remain pregnant, and thus risk their lives, health, and well-being. I suppose this list won't change your mind, but I think that you should still be aware of what will happen if you get your way. I understand that some women are at higher risk than others and that not all women face complications, but the fact of the matter is that the risk is always there. And you advocate subjecting women to these risks against their will just because they had sex you don't approve of.

Consent to sex does not mean consent to pregnancy any more than consent to kissing means consent to sex. As I have said before (and you have neglected to respond to) pregnancy is not a voluntary action. A woman may consent knowing that she is exposing herself to the risk of pregnancy, but this is not the same as consenting to impregnation, carrying a pregnancy, or giving birth.

Submitted by Sayna on December 20, 2008 - 3:21pm.
Guaranteed side effect of

Guaranteed side effect of abortion on unborn child:

DEATH

Once again, life trumps all other rights. Not about whose rights are more important, about WHICH rights, yet again. Again, I do indeed make exceptions for the life threatening complications and side effects you list here, and no the legal right to self defense does not encompass any of these other areas--only the threatening of one's very life.

And the comment about "had sex you don't approve of" is ridiculous. I'm not making a value judgement about sex. I just said it comes with natural consequences that include the presence of a human life inside one's body, and we're not obliged to provide a way out of those natural consequences once the exercising of this right begins to infringe on the very right to life of another. It's not making a moral statement to say that if a person has sex, they should be prepared to accept biological consequences, it's a scientific one. And you fail to acknowledge my repeated statement that I would say these same things if men could get pregnant. I would not be asking for the right to take a human life, no matter how valid some may claim the reasons for it to be.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 20, 2008 - 3:44pm.
Questions

It's not making a moral statement to say that if a person has sex, they should be prepared to accept biological consequences, it's a scientific one.

Again, you seem to be either making intentionally dishonest statements or distorting and misrepresenting science. What makes this statement unscientific is that it is an opinion, not a fact. The word "should" automatically makes this a personal judgement, and I don't see how you can claim that it's not a moral one.

What's more, you haven't been able to justify this "should" to us. In order for a claim to be taken seriously in debate, one must back it up with empirical evidence or at least a logical argument.

You keep insisting that life trumps liberty. Tell us why you think so. One reason why I think that ending a life is justified in this case is that the fetus will not suffer, but the woman will. If the fetus dies before it develops the ability to feel pain it will go from feeling nothing to feeling nothing. If the woman is forced to sacrifice all rights to her body for the sake of this fetus, she will undeniably be forced to risk her life and health, she will be forced to endure an involuntary invasion of her body for nine months, and she will be treated like a second-class citizen.

No human being has the right to use another person's body without their consent. In any other case killing to defend one's bodily domain is considered self defense. I can kill a rapist who wants to use my body against my will for nine minutes, why not a fetus that would use my body against my will for nine months? Especially when the rapist is a sentient human being and I might have been able to stop him without lethal force? And don't forget that anything short of death is just an "inconvenience", so by your logic I can't kill him.

Before you start: Yes, a fetus does need a female to continue living and being born. But there is no legal precedence stating that someone is obligated to relinquish their liberty to save the life of another, even when that person is family and will die without my help. Citizens cannot legally be forced to donate organs (even after their death) or blood. The case of McFall vs. Shimp ruled that a man could not legally compel his cousin to give him a life-saving organ donation.

And while we're at it: What makes fetal life special and not any other life? A fetus is alive and biologically human. So is a tumor. A fetus is exactly as alive as a tree and a cow, so why aren't lumberjacks and farmers considered to be engaging in genocide? It's also "innocent" in the same way as a tree and a cow: it is incapable of conscious action. Why is it that the police and soldiers can kill and not be called murderers? Oh, and if you support rape exceptions: What makes "murder" acceptable in some cases but not others? What are the scientific differences between a fetus conceived through sex and one conceived through rape?

You dodged this one before, but I think that women deserve an answer: Exactly what should the punishment be for a woman who (a)induces an abortion herself or (b)hires a doctor or someone else to induce the abortion? It makes no sense to say that something should be illegal and yet have no definite legal consequence. It also doesn't make sense to say that something is/is as bad as murder and not give it an equally severe punishment.

Submitted by Sayna on December 20, 2008 - 4:16pm.
Because not every judgement

Because not every judgement is a "moral" one. Morality refers to what a person should do for the sake of decency, and is often interchanged with religious values. This is a scientific judgement, and I am not making a statement that I "don't approve" of sex, just that it has physical consequences that if avoiding them involves taking a human life, we're not obliged to make it possible to avoid them. That's not saying sex is bad.

Life trumps liberty because it is the most basic right. Needs are hierarchical, and if you don't have life, you can't use any of your other rights. That's why in our declaration of independence the most basic human rights were listed in this order: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your ability to feel pain argument is another red herring. There's a disorder that prevents people from feeling pain--do we have a right to kill people who suffer from this disorder because they "won't suffer?" And how many times do I have to explain that I support abortions when necessary to save the woman's life, so no, my position would not force any woman to risk her life.

You killing the rapist analogy fails under the microscope too, because in general courts would not recognize the right to kill a rapist if he were not threatening your very life in addition. If it were a date rape case, he tries to force himself on you and you have the option of escaping from him and he were not using a weapon to prevent any other form of escape, I don't think the courts would legally recognize the right to kill. In order to prove self-defense, legally one must show that escape was not possible, and this would not have been the case if the rapist were not threatening to kill you if you did not consent.

The organ donation point doesn't work either, because in that case the person refusing to donate their organs is not doing anything active to cause the death of the other. It is a disease killing that person. But an abortion is an active action that physically ends the life of another human being.

I don't think you'll find anyone else anywhere who will classify a tumor as being human. But even beyond this, the reasons tumors are removed is that they will cause death if they are not, unlike the unborn child (and if it will due to another condition, then it is permissible to remove it.) Trees and cows are not human, the unborn child is. Police and soldiers can kill because they are trying to prevent other deaths.

There are no scientific differences between rape pregnancies and others, but what there is is the distinction that the other pregnancies were preventable, the rape ones were not.

As to the punishment, again I would advocate for it being phased in over a long period of time in order to allow society to adapt, but I'd put the punishment as being similar to that of a woman who panics when a baby is born and leaves it in a dumpster. I've heard of cases like this where the woman gets a rather light sentence because it's hard not to have some sympathy for her in this case. But sympathy does not absolve someone of responsibility, though circumstances can be considered as mitigating factors.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 20, 2008 - 5:00pm.
There are plenty of rights

There are plenty of rights documents with commas separating different rights or creeds in them but that doesn't mean that a list is a hierarchy of rights or creeds.

The Declaration of Independence was written as a result of the Revolutionary War. The history of the Revolutionary war is fairly consistent in that the colonist’s liberty was at stake, not their lives. They voluntarily decided to put their lives at risk to obtain their liberty, many of them dying for it. They used such phrases as “Give me liberty or give me death” and “Live Free or Die”. They wrote the Declaration of Independence as a direct result of fighting a war which was caused by the belief that life without liberty was not worth living. I don't see how you can even extrapolate the opposite with any level of assurance.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 20, 2008 - 5:08pm.
It's a recognition that if

It's a recognition that if you don't have the first, you can't have the second, and if you don't have the second, you can't have the third. Maybe their lists was not meant as a hierarchy, but the fact that you can't have liberty without life makes life the most basic of the human rights, which is why it must be put ahead of anyone else's right to anything other than their very life.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 20, 2008 - 5:22pm.
You can't reference the

You can't reference the document as the reason behind your hierarchy as they recognized that life isn't worth it without liberty.

As far as the hierarchy, the right to life has never been held in any hierarchy to be more important than another another persons bodily domain. Its not just fetuses...all would need to be equally protected.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 20, 2008 - 5:42pm.
You do understand, do you

You do understand, do you not, that the revolutionaries did not take any other people's lives just to protect their liberty? They didn't attack the British to gain their independence. They DECLARED their independence. Remember, it was a declaration of INDEPENDENCE, not at declaration of WAR. It took on the same effect of a declaration of war only when the British responding by attacking. The British could have accepted the declaration. But only when they decided that depriving the revolutionaries of their liberties was more important than the Brits' own lives did the revolutionaries begin fighting.

You don't get that it's the reverse. A person's bodily domain does not allow them to ACTIVELY take another's life.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 20, 2008 - 6:01pm.
The call "Give Me Liberty

The call "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" is attributed to 1775, preceding The Declaration of Independence of 1776.

Please name a legal standard that says my bodily domain does not include the right to stop someone from using my body for their life. There is none.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 20, 2008 - 6:15pm.
Key point there being that

Key point there being that the line was indeed "Give me liberty or give ME death"--not "give me liberty or give SOMEONE ELSE death." I'm all for self-determination regarding your own life, just not power over the life of another. I'm not giving you any legal standard of yours until you show me one that says anyone's right to determination of their body allows them to directly take the life of another individual.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 20, 2008 - 7:41pm.
It doesn't say "Give me of

It doesn't say "Give me of liberty, unless another persons life depends on my body, then I value life more". You're the one that made the claim there was a hierarchy here that they valued life first. They valued their liberty and considered it important enough to give up their lives for.

I need no law to specifically granting me the right to an action when the action does not deprive anyone of a legal rights or violate other laws. You have no law upholding the right to life over anothers body and you have no law stating that anyone is forbidden from stopping another from using their body to maintain their life. So yes I well within legals standards of not violating any law nor anyones rights by terminating a pregnancy.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 20, 2008 - 8:02pm.
It would have said that if

It would have said that if the person who's life depends on your body was there because of a physical action that you CHOSE to take. And yet again, they valued their liberty enough to give up their OWN lives for it, not insist that OTHERS give up THEIR lives for it. And now I can only repeat again that you DO need this law granting you any right that infringes on another's right to life. Any time one takes another's life, they need the justification of self defense, especially since there were ways of avoiding your body being "used to maintain their life. You are violating the child's right to life by terminating a pregnancy.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 21, 2008 - 4:16am.
There is nothing that you

There is nothing that you are saying that is salvaging your take on the hierarchy thing you brought up.

No I do not need a law to take an action that DOES NOT infringe on anothers rights. I am not violating the right to life of anyone as long as the right to life does not extend over my body. I can't possibly violate a right that doesn't exist.

You've already been told a ton on the prevention thing and your lack of knowledge even about rhythm method. I can prevent a car wreck by not driving but it doesn't change a thing.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 21, 2008 - 11:12am.
Yes, there is--the fact

Yes, there is--the fact without life it is impossible to exercise any other rights. Whether it's worth it or not is another matter, but you still must have your life in order to be able to reap the benefits of any other rights. The right doesn't currently exists because this society hasn't progressed to that point yet. The slave owners made that same argument--they weren't violating any rights because the slaves didn't have any rights. But eventually our society woke up, and I am confident that we will on this point too. And that car analogy is ridiculous, because it would not be permissible to take another innocent life even if it reduced or eliminated the likelihood or getting into a car wreck.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 21, 2008 - 3:52pm.
  • flagged
No, if I need another

No, if I need another persons body to maintain my life and I don't get that persons body I have no life and no liberty beyond that point. I get that part but thats the way it is for all of us. The right to life doesn't overcome anothers body so that the fetus can selectively have life and liberty at the expense of another persons liberty while the womans life and liberty terminate when she needs anothers body.

If you're going to pull the slavery thing into this type of context then denying the woman the right to life over another persons body when she needs it is the same as denying a slaves rights. (Hint: When no one has the right to use another persons body to maintain their life, then its not just one segment of the population being denied its rights....the right doesn't exist AT ALL - thats my argument).

The car wreck analogy is not ridiculous - its about CONSENT . You keep claiming that consent to sex includes the consent to some of its outcomes. Consent itself doesn't go this far.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 21, 2008 - 5:21pm.
I don't understand your

I don't understand your first statement at all. But you keep making the statement that the right to life doesn't overcome another's body, but neglect the fact that the woman doesn't lose her body when she's pregnant. The very reason one's own body is so sacred is that it is the source of their very life. But if the unborn child is not depriving her of her very life, the sacredness of her body does not extend to the point where she can ACTIVELY end another life. If it were possibly to simply remove the supply of nutrition to the unborn child, then it would die of its condition of being dependent on another's body to survive, and that might be one thing, but the act of abortion is the active taking of that life, which is what makes it unaccepable. And I didn't say consent goes as far as consenting to ALL possible outcomes, for example I certainly don't oppose condom use--or birth control for example--but I use the condom issue to illustrate for example that I don't say that having sex consents to possibly getting an STD, but the point is that in avoiding an STD, you're not taking a life. The reason consenting to sex consents to the possible creation of a human life is THIS VERY FACT that it IS a human life that's being created. So again, the car analogy does NOT work because it doesn't involve a matter of life being created, but I remind you again, for example, that the right to prevention of car accident injuries would not extend to the point of plowing over pedestrians by driving on the sidewalks instead of exposing oneself to the hazards of the road.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 23, 2008 - 4:03am.
I understand that the woman

I understand that the woman doesn't 'loose' her body completely. No ones claimed that. Its being used for anothers benefit. Again, the right to life doesn't include the right to use anothers body. PERIOD.

By the way there are possibilities like the one you propose (removing the placenta from the maternal portion vs. fetal portion). But it doesn't make a difference that the fetus has no right to use the womans body to maintain its life so no ones depriving it of a right. PERIOD.

Yes, the car analogy does work!!!! Its about the CONSENT part. We are not held as if we CONSENTED to the outcomes so consented to injuries. You can't string non-rights together to obtain a right. As long as the right to life doesn't include the right to anothers body they woman is not violating a right by terminating her pregnancy.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 23, 2008 - 8:19am.
But in order to enforce the

But in order to enforce the right to life not including the right to another's body requires taking that life, and the right one's bodily autonomy does not include the right to delibertately end a life, so at best these are conflicting facts, and that being the case, since life is the most basic right, the one of these rights that protects life takes precedent. Otherwise you're arguing that life is not the basic right, and that's a dangerous road to go down because of other implications that has. And how many times do i have to say that it's not about the sheer concept of consent, it's WHAT that consent is for. Yet again, by driving in a car you do consent to any injury thats only available method of avoidance is the deliberate taking of another life.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 23, 2008 - 2:10pm.
As long as the right to

As long as the right to life doesn't include the right to my body they are not conflicting. I don't need a law permitting me to take an action that does not deprive someone of their rights. You're being completely rediculous.

No matter what you want to call life ("basic right") it doesn't mean it extends over anothers body. SO ALL ARE HELD TO THE SAME.

The car analogy stands for us not being held to the outcomes of the risks we take. IT STILL STANDS.

Stop being such a misogynist in trying to deny women their equal rights.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 23, 2008 - 2:32pm.
Yes, they are conflicting,

Yes, they are conflicting, because even if it's true that the right to life doesn't include the right to another's body, the right to one's body also does not include the right to actively take another life. SO they do indeed remain conflicting, and then we are into a value judgement, but it's perfectly fair to say in the case of conflicting facts, the one that must take precedence is the one that protects the more basic right, meaning the right that without which, one cannot exercise any other right.
Keep capitalizing, fine, but that doesn't make the car analogy the equivalent because outcomes that deal with life are in a completely different category as other outcomes.

And stop making this about "misogyny" or men vs. women!! This is not about "equality." I'm not asking for men to have the right to end another human life either, nor would I be asking for it if men could get pregnant. It has nothing to do with that, it has to do with protecting life.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 24, 2008 - 2:22pm.
Fail again

No, the latter (right to not be stopped from using anothers body to maintain your life) is derived from the first (right to life extends over anothers body). You need the right to life overcoming anothers body in order to protect it as such.

I only started capitalizing when you started capitalizing at me in another post on this thread.

You can't claim anything about 'if men could get pregnant' with any level of credibility.

You fail again.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 24, 2008 - 2:56pm.
One doesn't derive from the

One doesn't derive from the other, they're completely seperate, possibly conflicting concepts. You haven't shown that the right to bodily autonomy extends to the point of directly taking another's life, and I haven't shown that the right to life doesn't extend over another's body. They are in direct conflict. You say bodily autonomy takes precedence because, I don't know, just because it does--you say so. I say life takes precedence because without life no other right can be exercised. You can claim without bodily autonomy no other right is worth exercising, but at least it can be, unlike with life.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 24, 2008 - 3:04pm.
Fail again

Yes one does derive from the other. Thats what makes it wrong to kill someone that they have the right to life. But when your rights don't extend in a certain area, you have no right to be protected in that area if they intrude on anothers rights. The person with the counter right has the right to defend their rights. Thats exactly why the right to life would need to be extended.

No I didn't just say that bodily autonomy takes precedent. Sayna gave you a case, so I have no idea why you are claiming I'm just saying it.

The right to anyones liberties cannot be exercised if they don't have the right to life. But they too are excluded from using anothers body to maintain their life. Its this way for all people. No ones right to life includes the right to anothers body, even if they need it so they can continue their life and liberties both. We've covered this part already. Its the same for all.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 24, 2008 - 3:15pm.
I can't do something with

I can't do something with my car that deprives a bystander/pedestrian of their right to life. Its illegal for me to consent to taking away this other persons life. But when no right exists to begin with yet mine are being violated I have the right to act to protect mine.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 23, 2008 - 4:14pm.
So you are stuck having to

So you are stuck having to prove that the right to live extends over anothers body in order to prove that I've done something wrong by terminating a pregnancy.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 23, 2008 - 4:16pm.
No, because you have still

No, because you have still yet to prove that your right to your body extends to the point of taking another life. Yet again, conflicting statements even if they're both true, so again, the one protecting life takes precedent.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 24, 2008 - 2:27pm.
No I don't have to have a

No I don't have to have a law state that I can take an action if that action doesn't infringe on any rights. There are lots of things I do every day that no law specifically tells me I can do.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 24, 2008 - 2:42pm.
None of which involve

None of which involve taking another's life.

Submitted by Alex A-L on December 24, 2008 - 3:06pm.
Fail again

You have to show that the right to life includes the right to to anothers body in order to show that its wrong.

Submitted by Anonymous on December 24, 2008 - 3:19pm.
  • flagged
123456789next ›last »