The Persistent Petitioner

By Taylor Hirth, University of Missouri Kansas City

June 24, 2009 - 8:00am

Taylor Hirth's picture

I recently spent a few hours gathering petitions on behalf of Planned Parenthood at a local Gay Pride Festival. Having never been to a pride festival in Kansas City, I'd have to say it was a little less flamboyant than I had expected, or maybe even had hoped. But I also have to point out that I'm totally cool with people expressing themselves by more casual means than dancing through in minimalist attire, if that's what they want. I'm not picky. I love gay people no matter how they dress, but leather makes things more fun. I'm just saying.

I was there gathering petitions for the Prevention First Act, which asks legislators to take a break from abortion and spend some time focusing on preventative measures like increasing access to birth control, STI testing, and comprehensive sex education. These are all things that can help reduce the occurrence of unintended pregnancies, thereby significantly lowering the instances of abortion. I would explain it like that to the people I approached, and the reactions I received were somewhat surprising.

Occasionally, I would approach somebody who turned out to be pro-choice and after I would explain what the petition was about, they would look at me blankly and say, "Sorry, I'm pro-choice" or, "I thought you said you were with Planned Parenthood?" and I'd have to explain that our goals were to not to make abortions illegal, but to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, which would curtail the need for abortion.

There were other times I would approach a group of people who turned out to be very strongly pro-life. I'd stand there with my little clipboard and watch their smiles fade at the mention of Planned Parenthood. "We're not interested," one would say. "We don't support killing babies."

They expected me to turn and walk away with my tail between my legs, but instead I politely informed them that the petition I was asking them to sign would reduce abortions. They were skeptical, as one might expect, and they read over the petition carefully, making sure my claim was truthful. After finally hearing my intentions, they were usually happy to sign.

In general, the response was overwhelmingly positive as long as I could make it seem like I was on their side. Many people even thanked me, citing occasions when Planned Parenthood had provided them with cancer screenings or contraceptives or even directions on how to put on a condom. What astounded me most was, in the end, we all seemed to be very much on the same side without realizing it.

I feel like there is a valuable lesson to be learned from this. We all have our own convictions when it comes to the topic of abortion. And in a rush to declare our alliances and opinions to those we deem a threat, it seems we stop listening. For a long time now, the arguments have remained the same. We enter our dialogues with certain expectations of what will be said and new approaches either get overlooked or approached with outright criticism.  By measuring the reactions from people after they finally heard and understood the message of the petition, Prevention First is a great piece of real common ground legislation. But had I not been persistent in my attempt to break through the political palisade that went up as soon as the word ‘abortion' was spoken, people on both sides of this debate might have dismissed the proposal without a second thought. For those who are interested in finding common ground, I hope they find encouragement in my experience petitioning. First we need to break away from the broken-record of our dialogue so that people will start listening again; because this is a message worth hearing, worth spreading. And it's one that doesn't require taking sides.


. . . . .
120 comments
Please login or register to post comments...
You are correct. Prevention First is without question common ground legislation *if* we define "common ground" as providing all people with the skills, information and tools necessary to lead healthy, safe and consensual reproductive and sexual lives, and reducing the need for abortion by preventing unintended pregnancies, not to mention the many other potential adverse outcomes of unprotected sex. And to me it is no surprise that you found this level of support among real people, because 85 percent of the US public unequivocally supports comprehensive sex ed. That is a longstanding fact. Organizations who lobby on legislation however do not reflect these or other facts. They represent their ideological positions. Those organizations including many in this discussion have as yet no common definition of a goal of reducing unintended pregnancies, providing comprehensive sex ed, or ensuring universal access to primary sexual and reproductive health care as primary goals, and because that does not exist among the institutions that lobby Congress, Prevention First does not move forward. Making Prevention First real will require organizations like the USCCB to step away from lobbying against it, and organizations like Catholics United, evangelical groups, rank and file groups who oppose a woman's right to choose abortion to either support comprehensive sex ed, access to services and contraception and so on, or step away from lobbying against Prevention First and other similar legislation. Prevention First is common ground to the vast majority of Americans. Their interests are not represented by the powerful groups who lobby against it directly or indirectly. Thanks for your piece. Jodi Jacobson
Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Senior Political Editor on June 24, 2009 - 12:31pm.

You speak of reducing the number of abortions. I think we all need to be honest with ourselves on what abortion is. When two people have sex and the woman's egg (oocyte) is fertilized by the man's sperm, a new human being's life begins. Doing anything to end that life before he or she is born is an abortion. Now, the concern with your petition is that what it is recommending as ways to prevent abortion actually causes an abortion. If we read the manufacturer's full prescribing information (found on any of their websites)on any of the birth control pills, patches, inserts or injectables, one of the mechanisms of action is to inhibit implantation. This is a mechanism for abortion. So the question becomes, how do you reduce the need for abortion if your solution is to actually abort the human being earlier?

Submitted by Jim Sedlak on June 24, 2009 - 2:47pm.

sigh...

Jim, breastfeeding is a documented abortifacient. As your concern for Team Zygote appears to outweigh all other considerations...rationally, you would object to the practice of breastfeeding. Yes, no, maybe?

Submitted by ahunt on June 24, 2009 - 4:19pm.

When a woman's body is returning to fertility there will be a few months where the ovaries are releasing ovum and the lining of the womb is not prepared to receive embryo's.  This period is prolonged if the woman is breastfeeding, but this is not a problem as this situation is something that can be avoided by abstaining during the period surrounding ovulation.

Submitted by BrianH on June 24, 2009 - 4:56pm.

This period is prolonged if the woman is breastfeeding, but this is not a problem as this situation is something that can be avoided by abstaining during the period surrounding ovulation.

So can I take this as the answer to whether you believe breastfeeding women have a moral obligation to abstain during the ovulation period? If so, Why? Nature (or in your view, God)has apparently established this bodily mechanism as a form of "natural" BC. If it is not nature's (God's) plan that women be able to enjoy intimate relations without conceiving, then whyfore the natural mechanism?

Submitted by ahunt on June 24, 2009 - 5:18pm.
I hope that Taylor answers your question as well. For now I would say the following: first, the medical definition of pregnancy is *after* implantation. second, these methods work to prevent fertilization in the vast majority of cases. some *may* also act to prevent implantation. third, you are expressing a religious belief about contraception, pregnancy, abortion and the beginning of life that is not shared by all here, never mind in the rest of the country You have every right to live by your belief; I honor your right and respect that you hold these beliefs. What I fail to understand, and would love to get your answer on this, is why you feel it is appropriate or necessary to impose this belief on others? If over 90 percent of women who engage in sexual intercourse use some form of modern contraception, it is clear that they feel otherwise. I will take it that you are not among those who sees increased access to contraceptive methods and comprehensive sex ed as a legitimate means of addressing unintended pregnancies, despite the evidence. There is no reason to go around and around on this as the deep division between one set of religious beliefs held by those against even contraception, and other religious beliefs, medical science and public health are not conducive to learning from and building on evidence either of what women (and men) need for safe healthy consensual sexual lives, nor what the evidence says will help us reduce the number of unintended pregnancies or save lives and improve health through reducing the number of sexually transmitted infections and other adverse outcomes of unprotected sex. Jodi
Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Senior Political Editor on June 24, 2009 - 3:37pm.

the medical definition of pregnancy is *after* implantation

 

"From the moment the ovum has been fertilized or fecundated by the
spermatozoön, the woman is said to be pregnant ... Pregnancy, or the period of gestation, lasts from the
moment of conception to the moment that the fetus or child is expelled
from the uterus."
Woman - William Robinson - 1929

 

"If, however, a contraceptive is not used and the sperm meets the ovule
and development begins, any attempt at removing it or stopping its
further growth is called abortion."
Woman and the New Race - Margaret Sanger - 1920

 

The definitions of pregnancy and abortion changed after abortion became legal.  These new definitions make it possible to call a pill that can cause an abortion a contraceptive since by the new definition coneption doesn't finish until implantation of the embryo in the womb. How convenient.  Newspeak at its best.

Submitted by BrianH on June 24, 2009 - 5:15pm.

(This is for Brian...everyone else just scroll.)

Brian, I am so tired of saying this....because it has never failed to end the conversation, and send anti-choicers into intellectually dishonest silence. IF the blastocyst/zygote/embryo/ fetus is a person, there is virtually no realm of human endeavor that which can negatively impact a pregnancy that women of childbearing age cannot be excluded from, no activity that women may not be restricted from, no aspect of a woman's life that may not be circumscribed by law. IF the b/z/e/f is a person entitled to equal rights under the law, then equality under the law applies to men, postmenopausal/infertile women, and blastocysts, embryos, zygotes and fetuses but NOT TO FERTILE WOMEN of childbearing age.

Fro example:

Kaiser Permanente researcher De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, found that women who used hot tubs or Jacuzzis after conception were twice as likely to have a miscarriage as women who did not.

"Based on our findings I would say that women in the early stages of pregnancy -- and those who may have conceived but aren't sure -- might want to play it safe for the first few months and avoid hot tubs or any exposure to hot water that will significantly increase body temperature," says Dr Li. "Although the finding is still preliminary, it is prudent for women to take such precautionary measures to reduce unnecessary risk of miscarriage."

The study, "Hot Tub Use during Pregnancy and the Risk of Miscarriage," found that the miscarriage risk went up with more frequent hot tub or Jacuzzi use and with use in the early stages of a pregnancy. Furthermore, among women who remembered the temperature settings of their hot tubs or Jacuzzis, the study found some indications that the risk of having a miscarriage may increase with higher water temperature settings.

Brian, by your lights, avid hot-tubbing can be considered a contraceptive.

Submitted by ahunt on June 24, 2009 - 5:30pm.
but no cigar. The medical definition of pregnancy (which emphatically does not address the question of "when life begins") is one held by both domestic and international organizations including the World Health Organization. There is no pregnancy before implantation. Jodi
Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Senior Political Editor on June 24, 2009 - 7:25pm.

If you have indeed read about the birth control pill, patch, injection, etc, you would also know that the main mechanism of this form of birth control is to prevent ovulation. This means that no egg is released from the ovaries, and that means there would be nothing to be fertilized. That the pill also prevents implantation is a secondary and mainly back-up mechanism to hormonal birth control.

Submitted by Amanda on June 24, 2009 - 3:56pm.

Actually, I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever that the pill does prevent implantation. The whole theory of "inadequate uterine lining" is refuted pretty clearly by the fact that missing one or two pills can result in a pregnancy. If the previous pills had made the lining "inadequate" how does that pregnancy implant?

If you research this claim, I think you will find that its origin lies in a pharmaceutical rep saying to a ProLife advocate that they weren't able to prove that it was NOT true.

Submitted by crowepps on June 24, 2009 - 9:59pm.

A sexually-active woman who is NOT using any form of contraception actually "aborts" more "brand new human beings" than a woman on the pill, who doesn't ovulate. Mainly because human reproduction is not perfect, and it is estimated that as many as 80% of fertilized do not implant and are flushed out with the menstrual cycle.

It's not evil when Nature/God does it. It's only evil when we control it, which to me points to a deep fear of women's sexual autonomy. The concern for zygotes is just a smoke screen. Keeping us busy breeding knocks out our ability to compete in a lot of life's arenas, a perfect set-up for those who want power and control.

Submitted by Princess Rot on June 24, 2009 - 5:59pm.

human reproduction is not perfect, and it is estimated that as many as 80% of fertilized do not implant and are flushed out with the menstrual cycle. It's not evil when Nature/God does it. It's only evil when we control it 

 

Life for the young has always been perilous, but human intervention can drastically reduce the peril. In 1910 the mortality rate for infants aged 0-1 was 114.62 per 1000.  In other words, 11.46% of all the children who were born in the US would die before their first birthday. In 2005  the mortality rate for infants was 6.86 per 1000.  That means, these days, 0.67% of the children in the US die before their first birthday.

 

Big difference, huh?  

 

Would you say, commenting on the 1910 data, that "it's not evil" that more than 11% of infants died in their first year because "God/Nature did it"?  Do you think we're opposing God/Nature's will by driving that rate below 1%?

 

Right now, as you point out, 80% of us die within the first two weeks of pre-natal development (mortality rate of 800.0).  You say "it's not evil"; but what would you say to my suggestion that we could drive that mortality rate down substantially (just as we did with the pediatric mortality rate) if we directed our efforts to doing just that.

 

It's a big mistake to say that just because something is the way it is that it's necessarily the way God/Nature wants it to be.  My belief is that human beings should always be on the side of health and always on the side of life.  I'm not sure I would choose the word 'evil', but the fact that 80% of the human beings in this world die before they reach the embryonic phase is not 'good'.  I'm all for bringing that mortality rate down and I don't see any reason for blaming God/Nature for the fact that, currently, the rate is high. 

 

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on June 24, 2009 - 9:28pm.

My belief is that human beings should always be on the side of health and always on the side of life. I'm not sure I would choose the word 'evil', but the fact that 80% of the human beings in this world die before they reach the embryonic phase is not 'good'. I'm all for bringing that mortality rate down and I don't see any reason for blaming God/Nature for the fact that, currently, the rate is high.

This is the way Nature works. This is apparently part of the design. It's possible that the reason those zygotes fail to implant is due to failures of miosis - without the correct DNA 'set' they cannot develop. The assumption that this is 'unhealthy' isn't grounded in reality, but instead in a perhaps unrealistic expectation that every single one of those zygotes are capable of developing into healthy live born infants. Consider that after implantation there is a miscarriage rate of over 15% before 10 weeks, and the fact that tests show 50 - 70% of miscarriages happen because the fetus is not developing properly. Then there's the fact that 1 out of 115 fetuses dies in utero and is stillborn. And that 3 to 4% of live births have one or more birth defects.

It isn't about 'blaming God/Nature', it's about accepting that reproduction is complicated and even with all modern medicine can do, there is a very high failure rate apparently built right into the process in order to prevent women from continuing to use their own bodies to support and develop something that will never be viable.

Submitted by crowepps on June 24, 2009 - 10:18pm.

it's about accepting that reproduction is complicated and even with all modern medicine can do, there is a very high failure rate apparently built right into the process in order to prevent women from continuing to use their own bodies to support and develop something that will never be viable. 

 

Built right into the process????  By whom?  We don't have to agree about whether there's a god, but I hope we can agree to evolutionary science.  If there's anything that's being 'built' it's being built by natural selection and people have a lot of funny ideas about that -- chief of which is that every last characteristic of a species is adaptive.

 

From my perspective, it is as foolish to assume that it's adaptive that there's an 80% failure rate for blastocysts to implant as it would have been in 1910 for someone to say that an 11% infant mortality rate was adaptive.  If you'd lived a hundred years ago you'd have been the one telling me that the infant deaths of millions of children were actually blessings because those children wouldn't have been 'viable'.  You'd have tossed out some half-understood expression like 'survival of the fittest' to bolster your argument.

 

If we could lower the mortality rate of blastocysts from 80% to 79% we would be saving as many lives as we would if we could eliminate procured abortion.  But if people have fatalistic attitudes it will never happen.

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on June 25, 2009 - 6:14pm.

but what would you say to my suggestion that we could drive that mortality rate down substantially (just as we did with the pediatric mortality rate) if we directed our efforts to doing just that.

By doing what, Paul? I'm not clear on how this would work. If, as you suggest...medical science progresses to a point where all fertilized ova could implant if say...women ingest certain drugs...would you make such "ingestion" mandatory? I really do not get it.

Submitted by ahunt on June 25, 2009 - 5:55am.

It's kind of redundant anyway, since that's exactly what research into infertility is about. It seems a little unrealistic to me to ignore the fact that removing the natural safeguards already built into reproduction would result in an increase in the number of births that result in malformed and handicapped infants. The assumption that Nature doesn't know what its doing seems a little -- arrogant? Idealistic? I'm not sure exactly what word it is I'm groping for, but for sure an unrealistic adherence to the idea that all sex should be for the sake of reproduction even though that's obviously NOT what Nature intends. If humans were only supposed to have sex for reproduction, women would go into estrus a couple times a year and men would only be interested in sex when the women were fertile.

Submitted by crowepps on June 25, 2009 - 2:31pm.

... that's what I'm getting at. Born children generally survive past infant hood these days because we have better medical care, immunizations, better sanitation and social care. I honestly do not know how you extrapolate this to zygotes not implanting, as that isn't caused by a lack of any of the above, but by the body deciding that the conceptus is not viable. I'm not saying that no research should be done into infertility, but the natural death rate of zygotes is part of the natural cycle of human reproduction. Infertility is a different thing, a repetitive failure. I find it somewhat bizarre that you think every conception should end in a live infant. Why is that so absolutely necessary?

I still stand by my opinion that Jim is a dominionist, who has a false concern for zygotes, and cares more about that women are fucking without permission. You, on the other hand, I believe does care for zygotes, though I think it's poorly thought through and odd, but it's your opinion and you are welcome to it.

Submitted by Princess Rot on June 25, 2009 - 6:23pm.

I find it somewhat bizarre that you think every conception should end in a live infant. 

 

What's so bizarre about it?  Do you think it's bizarre that I should want every live infant to end up as a healthy old man or woman? 

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on June 25, 2009 - 6:52pm.

the idea that all sex should be for the sake of reproduction even though that's obviously NOT what Nature intends

 

In Fairy Tales, Nature 'intends' this or 'intends' that.  In reality, nature just is.  Organisms, on the other hand, actually do have intentions, and human beings have the intention of having sex AND of reproducing children -- sometimes those intentions coincide, sometimes they conflict.

 

Most of the human beings I'm acquainted with have the intention of seeing their children survive.  I honestly don't see the logic in asserting that in order for your children to survive you have to restrict sex to reproduction -- or haven't you heard that it's possible to have sex without conceiving?

 

It seems a little unrealistic to me to ignore the fact that removing the natural safeguards already built into reproduction would result in an increase in the number of births that result in malformed and handicapped infants.

 

Until somebody studies the DNA of failed blastocysts and demonstrates that they have higher rates of congenital defects than blastocysts that DO survive, I'm going to consider that idea ridiculous.  Do you honestly believe that the uterus has a mechanism for evaluating the fitness of a blastocyst? 

 

I suspect that you're going to hold on to your notion that all traits are adaptive to the bitter end. They're not, but even if they were, we're not slaves to the desires of our genes.  I want my children to survive and if my genes don't like it they can just jump in the lake!  (I wish I'd come up with that comment on my own but I swiped it from Steven Pinker.) 

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on June 25, 2009 - 6:48pm.

haven't you heard that it's possible to have sex without conceiving?

I had heard that, but I almost hate to say so since then I'd be part of the 'contraceptive culture' that's anti-life.

Until somebody studies the DNA of failed blastocysts and demonstrates that they have higher rates of congenital defects than blastocysts that DO survive, I'm going to consider that idea ridiculous.

Infertility researchers are doing exactly that. The research shows that there is a high proportion of genetic abnormalities in fetuses lost to early miscarriage.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8kvI4t47hV8C&pg=PA353&lpg=PA353&dq=spontaneous+abortion+genetic+defect&source=bl&ots=dmkkP4sJj0&sig=WeP-fptdO11wEvn6pcN8PnLerog&hl=en&ei=KQ5ESpTWF4iMtAPz9bjSDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Do you honestly believe that the uterus has a mechanism for evaluating the fitness of a blastocyst?

I don't believe I said anything about 'the uterus' evaluating anything. I said the PROCESS, including the internal development of the blastocyst, results in failures. If that blastocyst can't develop whatever it needs to attach to the uterus, it's discarded. That doesn't mean the UTERUS rejects it - it means its internal development is inadequate to allow it to continue to develop. A fertile chicken egg can simply decay instead of developing a chicken - that doesn't mean the eggshell has 'evaluated' the yolk.

Submitted by crowepps on June 25, 2009 - 7:05pm.


haven't you heard that it's possible to have sex without conceiving?

I had heard that, but I almost hate to say so since then I'd be part of the 'contraceptive culture' that's anti-life.

 

According to me, and according to Catholic doctrine, not every sex act has to be for the purpose of reproduction.

 

According to me, and according to Catholic doctrine, couples may take pains to AVOID conceiving when they do not wish to reproduce.

 

According to me, and according to Catholic doctrine, couples can and should exercise 'responsible parenthood' and take care not to reproduce if to do so would make it difficult to meet their other responsibilities.

 

What is anti-life, according to me and according to Catholic doctrine, is for a couple to engage in sexual activity that might potentially result in the conception of a child without being willing to take on the responsibilities of parenthood if such a conception should occur.  That, as far as I understand it, is what people mean when they talk about 'contraceptive culture'.

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on June 25, 2009 - 9:17pm.

about Catholic doctrine and your own beliefs.

The operative phrase here being "according to me," and "according to Catholic doctrine."  That doctrine applies to those who freely choose to follow it.  It does not apply to me.

The ways in which you define "responsibility" or responsible parenthood are not the same ways others might define these things in their own lives.  That does not make them any less responsible.  Yours are beliefs.  There are other beliefs.  And then there is the weighing of real circumstances in real life.

Just as my beliefs are not necessarily "universally right" or "universally moral" for all people, neither are yours.  I understand that the Catholic Church does not see it that way.  But that is how I see it and that is the basic premise of separation of church and state as I understand it.

Though I don't see you saying this, it is inherent in all of this that in fact sex has to be for reproduction only, and not for pleasure, because extrapolating from your beliefs about a fertilized egg or blastocyst as being a "child" or having equal weight with the woman in whose body it resides, or from the idea that we should "save all the blastocysts" and count miscarried blastocysts as "deaths" only leads down one road: control of women; indeed total control.  You state that is not your intent and i will take you at face value, but that is in fact the effect of the kind of theorizing going on here.

The degree of distance between us in fact and thinking is to me evident in the whole discussion of blastocysts.  

I had understood you to say once that you were not opposed to contraception and birth control, but i am not sure how you square that with your views on the fertilized egg.

 respect your beliefs as your own.  I wish I could feel respect for my own beliefs as being moral and right for me without the interference of religious leaders (and particularly male religious leaders) from whatever faith--Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Methodist, Muslim.   It is this disjuncture--the imposition of belief onto and into areas of public health and human rights (not just by you)--that keeps us from achieving mutually supported goals, such as assisting couples in avoiding unintended pregnancies and ensuring people have the skills and tools necessary to avoid infection through evidence-based strategies.

I appreciate your posts and your sincerity but there is a very large disjuncture here and I don't see a bridge between the two positions because they differ profoundly in their views of life and freedom.

 

Best wishes, Jodi

Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Senior Political Editor on June 26, 2009 - 12:02am.

Just as my beliefs are not necessarily "universally right" or "universally moral" for all people, neither are yours.

 

Jodi,

 

Crowepps was taking a swipe at Catholic doctrine by suggesting that the Church does not permit couples to have sex unless they're intending to reproduce.  He claimed that this is what is meant by the phrase 'contraceptive culture' (which, by the way, isn't a phrase that was coined by the Vatican).  I have no problem with the idea that not everyone shares my beliefs, but I do have a problem with someone misrepresenting my beliefs or the doctrines of the Catholic Church.  I wrote that post in order to set him straight.

 

inherent in all of this that in fact sex has to be for reproduction only, and not for pleasure, because extrapolating from your beliefs about a fertilized egg or blastocyst as being a "child" or having equal weight with the woman in whose body it resides, or from the idea that we should "save all the blastocysts" and count miscarried blastocysts as "deaths" only leads down one road: control of women; indeed total control. 

 

First of all, I contend that it is a very bad thing indeed when a couple conceives a child if they aren't ready, willing and able to do a good job of raising that child.  Obviously, it's particularly bad for the woman.  I realize that for some couples an unintended pregnancy or conception is a minor nuisance, for some it is a major headache and for others it is a genuine tragedy.  The 'control' I'm interested in is in people taking control of their reproductive power and reproducing only when they intend to reproduce.

 

My belief that the life of a zygote or a blastocyst is as important as my life or yours is not rooted in Catholic teaching -- it is rooted in the realization that I myself was once a conceptus and that, in the very early phases of my life, my entire body consisted of a few cells inside my mother's fallopian tubes.  I didn't learn this fact in Church.  I learned it in science class.  My life is the same life it was when I was a blastocyst, even though I'm older; and my body is the same body it was then even though it has developed and aged considerably. 

 

I do believe that, were there a developing blastocyst inside your uterus right now, that blastocyst would 'count' as much as you do (or as much as I do.)  I assure you I do not say that in order to control or denigrate women because, as I said earlier, I would want very much for you to be in control of whether or not you conceived a child.  You won't read that in the catechism, but I think that we should all master our reproductive powers -- we owe as much to ourselves, our children and the rest of society.

 

I can envision a future society where unintended conceptions are exceedingly rare, and that will be a better and happier society than ours is -- but while we're working our way toward that society we shouldn't try to 'correct' our current mistakes by exterminating human beings.  It's simply not fair to the people who are being exterminated! 

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on June 26, 2009 - 7:34pm.

The 'control' I'm interested in is in people taking control of their reproductive power and reproducing only when they intend to reproduce.

Considering that "it's particularly bad for the woman", which methods for 'taking control' of her fertility do you believe it is morally acceptable for women to use? Unilaterally?

And by the way, I am a woman.

Submitted by crowepps on June 27, 2009 - 4:05pm.

"CatholicReference.net
CONTRACEPTIVE CULTURE
A society in which contraception is the accepted way of preventing the conception of unwanted offspring."
I understand that the Church makes a moral distinction between Nature Family Planning and other kinds of contraception, however the difference, as near as I can figure it out, is that NFP is morally superior because it is more likely to fail.

Submitted by crowepps on June 26, 2009 - 4:23pm.

According to me, and according to Catholic doctrine, not every sex act has to be for the purpose of reproduction.

According to me, and according to Catholic doctrine, couples may take pains to AVOID conceiving when they do not wish to reproduce.

According to me, and according to Catholic doctrine, couples can and should exercise 'responsible parenthood' and take care not to reproduce if to do so would make it difficult to meet their other responsibilities.

While your second two points are absolutely correct, according to Catholic doctrine every sex act has to include the POSSIBILITY of reproduction which is why the only method acceptable to Catholic doctrine to avoid reproduction is periodic abstinence. I certainly don't argue with Catholic doctrine - it has nothing to do with me. I do not, however, think Catholic doctrine should be imposed on others by passing laws restricting or discouraging condom use, refusing sterlization procedures to people who request it, or by banning or restricting hormonal birth control and the MAP(which prevent ovulation). I do understand that you think preventing unwanted pregnancies is key. It would certainly help me understand your position if you would clarify your position on each of those specific methods of birth control.

Submitted by crowepps on June 27, 2009 - 4:28pm.

It would certainly help me understand your position if you would clarify your position on each of those specific methods of birth control.

 

Crowepps (how did you get that name, anyway??),

 

First of all, I'd like you to read the blog entry I wrote on Mar 26 entitled, "The Pope's Comments On Condom Use."  I make the point there that we Catholics would do well to distinguish actions that are bad in themselves with actions we think may encourage bad actions.

 

Abortion is something that is bad in itself.  Contraception, according to some, may encourage bad behavior but (at least according to me) isn't bad in and of itself.  Bishops generally argue that the good that certain interventions can do in preventing unwanted conception and STD's is outweighed by the evil it does in encouraging people to have sex when they ought not to.  I won't endorse or dispute that notion; but I will say that it's a notion about human psychology, not moral theology.

 

<Sigh> 

 

If the leaders in my Church got it into their heads that they wanted to listen to my advice I'd say, "Don't sweat the small stuff because it distracts from the big stuff."  Contraception is an issue of personal conduct.  Abortion is an issue of social justice.  People are so mad at us for micro-managing people's contraceptive use that they don't give us a hearing about respect for life.  We've brought some of our problems onto our own heads.

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on June 28, 2009 - 2:18pm.

Infertility researchers are doing exactly that. The research shows that there is a high proportion of genetic abnormalities in fetuses lost to early miscarriage.

 

I read the piece.  It discusses the miscarriage of embryos and fetuses that have, obviously, already implanted.  I agree that abnormalities make spontaneous abortion more likely.  What I'm expressing doubts about is the idea that blastocysts fail to implant because of genetic abnormality.

 

Moving away from my point and on to yours: Do I think it would be a good idea to take pains to lower the rate of spontaneous abortion if that could be done -- even if it should turn out that the fetus 'saved' from spontaneous abortion had a disability?  Yes, I do -- just as I think that disabled persons who have already been born and who have a disability that increases their mortality rate ought to be given care to improve their likelihood of survival.

 

Paul Bradford Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on June 25, 2009 - 9:38pm.

A lot of Reality Check's articles have "disabled = worthless" comments in them, and include hate speech about infanticide of infants with disabilities. I can't tell you how appalling it is, especially to a successful person who was born with a disability like me.

It's nice to hear that somebody cares.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 25, 2009 - 9:53pm.

Since my mother was crippled by polio back in the '40s and my sister was born with cerebral palsy and my son-in-law also has cerebral palsy, I'd like to be clear that I don't feel any of them were worthless or didn't deserve to live. I will tell you, though, that every single one of them if given the choice would have preferred to be NOT disabled. I am also old enough to remember the days pre-test when instead of aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome after they were born they were put into homes where their life expectancy was measuring in months instead of years. The moral difference between aborting them and neglecting them to death escapes me.

Submitted by crowepps on June 26, 2009 - 6:24pm.

that include hate speech and calls for infanticide of disabled infants.

 

RHRC does not tolerate any comments calling for violence against any person(s) and the editors remove all such comments we see. If such comments have not been deleted please point me to them. Thanks much, Jodi Jacobson

Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Senior Political Editor on June 26, 2009 - 6:27pm.

Jodi-an "anonymous" person posted a comment on Amanda Marcott's "the Pro life movement's hot rhetoric and all out lies" reading, "I support infanticide. Why should I have to raise an infant with down syndrome or autism?" So, next time, please read more carefully.  

 

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on June 26, 2009 - 7:00pm.

We do as much policing of comments as possible, but as I am sure you are aware an online community such as this one is based on the input and participation of all posters to help in that regard.

I realize this will not make you happy, but I searched through the 200 comments on Amanda's piece and that post does not represent a direct threat of violence to a person or persons. It is one among the many comments on the site I abhor, including many we get from the anti-choice community calling people murderers, killers, etc.

We will delete comments, as we have consistently done, calling for violence or harm to specific persons as we did with several posts regarding leaders of the anti-choice community. We also delete spam, unrelated content, content that is incoherent, and content directed at specific persons.

Otherwise it is for better or worse a rough and tumble free speech arena.

 

Best wishes, Jodi

Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Senior Political Editor on June 26, 2009 - 7:25pm.

"We will delete comments, as we have consistently done, calling for violence or harm to specific persons..."

Jodi: thank you for clarifying that advocating the killing of disabled infants doesn't constitute advocating violence against anyone. Until now, I had thought that killing someone, regardless of his or her age, constituted violence, and that advocating for the infanticide of disabled infants constituted advocating violence against a specific people group. Reading your response to the concerns raised about Anon's comment has truly enlightened me. I feel confident that the continued leadership of people like you will advance the cause of disability rights in our socity.

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on June 26, 2009 - 9:12pm.

Wasn't the comment "why should I have to raise"? That doesn't advocate killing anybody - it's a recognition of the fact that the way things are set up now, all of the 'payment' in time and money caused by a disabled infant falls squarely on the shoulders of the parents, and is delivered at the expense of any children they may already have. Perhaps if there was more social and financial support for those parents, they wouldn't be so reluctant.

Submitted by crowepps on June 27, 2009 - 3:39pm.

LOL!!! I didn't know that saying "I support infanticide" "doesn't advocate killing anybody." That is an amazing interpretation, crowepps.  

 

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on June 27, 2009 - 4:26pm.

You're absolutely right. I didn't read it carefully enough so thanks for the correction.

Submitted by crowepps on June 27, 2009 - 4:36pm.

Jodi--I was so thrilled the other day when you posted your promise to remove hate speach against people with disabilities on this realitycheck.org website.  I am the person who complained that the infanticide comments on this site are appalling (and the one comment listed by progo35 isn't the only one) --you agreed to take them down IN WRITING to me. <p> <p>

As a response, I created a account here and intended to write a public thank you to you--right here--a "prolife person" thanking you for recognizing an important piece of common ground--that people like me who are born disabled but already born have the right to existence, and should not be singled out for hate speech. <p> <p>

But as I can see, I acted on my thank you too soon.  I am so upset I am trying not to cry as I write this--evidently, I am not as "rough and tumble" as you would like me to be.  I got this way from having to explain my right to exist over and over again--something you may not have experienced.<p> <p>

My real name is Susan, and I have cerebral palsy, Jodi.  Are you saying you will only remove comments that say, "I wish Susan was killed at birth!"--but you would keep comments similar to the one mentioned that say, "I believe in infanticide, so that I don't have to raise a infant with cerebral palsy!" <p> <p>

I fail to see your distiction between the two--In fact, you MUST know that the second comment is worse.  The person making the first comment doesn't know where I live or my last name and so can't harm me.  But the person making the second comment is advocating public policy change, and attempting to persuade people to deny the rights on millions of people with disabilities which are supposed to be protected by the Constitiution, the Rehabilitation Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act and (ironically enough) Roe vs. Wade.  This type of  persuasion was used against the German Jews, in Dafur and in many other situations. <p> <p>

It's worse when against people with disabilities because in the situation of the Jews in WWII, Jewish mothers were raising Jewish Babies, and at least one knew the Jewish mothers wouldn't be in favor of infanticide, even if the others in Germany were.  <p> <p>

But in the case of infants with disabilities, they usually are born to healthy mothers who may have no experience with people with disabilities in general.  They are frightened, worried, and shocked and imagine the worst case scenario.  They often get past this phase to go on to be wonderful mother who cherish their disabled child and see the situation as a opportunity, not a curse, especially if their child starts to suceed in life.  <p> <p> 

But it has quite an impact on mothers when people promote these infanticide comments during the initial vunerable period. <p> <p>

 

BTW, are you saying that if someone posted a comment saying, "I think all <fill in ethic group> infants should be killed because the state will probably havbe to raise them"  you would leave THAT comment up because it didn't single out a particular individual?   <p> <p>

 

Pardon me, but that is just weird.

 

 

 

 

 

Submitted by Snowflake on June 27, 2009 - 4:45pm.

Thank you!  Thank you!  Thank you!  

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

 

P.S.  Thank you! 

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on June 28, 2009 - 2:24pm.

... infants--you said to post examples here--so I am.

 

This was originally posted in "Late term Abortions ....ways you can help":

"Why should choice stop at birth?

It seems to me that a completed birth is an arbitrary line. Why should
a woman's choice stop then? Why not leave the umbilical cord attached
and give the doctors an opportunity to examine the baby carefully and
make sure there are no medical conditions that escaped notice in the
extensive prenatal testing? Virtually every story linked from this site
has to do with quality of life issues for the child, rather than a
threat to the life or health of the mother. If the goal is terminating
an unhealthy child, I just don't understand why women's choices need to
be restricted to when some part of the child is still in the womb. A
much more thorough examination could be done once the child was born. Submitted by Anonymous on June 3, 2009 - 6:07pm."   Still waiting for you to do someting about this.

 

Submitted by Snowflake on June 27, 2009 - 5:58pm.

Do I think it would be a good idea to take pains to lower the rate of spontaneous abortion if that could be done -- even if it should turn out that the fetus 'saved' from spontaneous abortion had a disability?

Doesn't this depend at least a little bit on what is mean by 'disabilities'? About 1% of live born children have some type of birth defect anywhere on the spectrum from having a harmless birthmark or an easily correctable hypospadius all the way up through increasing levels of severity to the extreme incapatibilies with life such as not having a heart, or lungs, or a brain.

While certainly advantances in fetal surgery and research are increasing the chances for infants to be healthy, there are simply some defects that cannot be treated, and there are risks even in treatment. Just as an example, fetal surgery for spinal bifida has demonstrated some benefit for the live-born infant later, but there is a 6% risk that the surgery itself will lead to fetal death. Does a neutral or positive result for 94% of the fetuses justify the known risk that intervention will kill 6%? I would say it does, but I am afraid some people might assert that the 6% shouldn't be interferred with because it's immoral to risk them. Does that mean I don't care about the 6% or that I don't feel the disabled have value? No, it really doesn't. It means that I assume they themselves if able to make a choice would prefer being whole to being disabled.
http://www.fetalcarecenter.org/fetal-surgery/spina-bifida/

Submitted by crowepps on June 26, 2009 - 6:20pm.

Crowepps,

 

You do realize that I'm Pro-Life for Choice, don't you?  That means that even though I believe the unborn count as much as we do, I also acknowledge that the person who has to make medical decisions regarding their care is the mother. 

 

The scenarios you've proposed would have to be considered by the mother of the child and by her doctors.  That's the way it is and that's the way it should be.  My gripe, as someone who speaks up for the rights of the unborn, is with the ridiculous notion that someone with disabilities is better off being aborted than s/he is living with the disability.  I think that's a positively crazy-making way to think.

 

We all would prefer being whole to being disabled, and we all support medical interventions to make people whole, but that's not always the option.  Sometimes the choice you make, or make for your child, is between life with a disability and death. Death should not be the better option.

 

I'm not saying you said this, but there is a fairy tale notion that floats around this 'site that a little fetus's little soul slips out of his/her little body when there's an abortion and that soul gets another chance later on to link up with a different little body and to be born -- maybe as a beautiful princess!  If you believe that, then you might convince yourself that aborting a disabled person gives him/her a chance to live with a healthy body later on.  I consider that notion foolish and dangerous.  You get one shot at life and, if that shot isn't perfect, you don't get a do-over.

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on June 26, 2009 - 8:02pm.

Souls? Not all faiths actually believe ensoulment occurs at conception to begin with.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 27, 2009 - 2:25pm.

Thank you, Paul. You said a lot of what I'm thinking about this issue. I am SO frustrated that this idea of being disabled as something horrible has so gripped our culture.  If only people understood that disability is part of human diversity. It doesn't matter if someone beliefs in God/Jesus or not: the fact that disability is part of human diversity and that believing that abortion is better than a disabled life is prejudice is inescapable. 

 

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on June 27, 2009 - 4:44pm.

I'm sorry to hear that you're taking this whole issue very personally, as though the decisions of strangers about their own reproduction are a referendum on whether YOU have value. That certainly isn't true, and reflects their own and society's failures instead of anything about you.

The social prejudice is absolutely there regarding disability. Discomfort, distaste and avoidance are very obvious both to the disabled AND to those who are told they will have a disabled child whom they believe will suffer life-long misery from those prejudices.

However, forcing a woman to deliver a disabled infant she doesn't want and doesn't want to take care of doesn't seem to me to be the most effective way of curing the problem.

The solution may necessarily be to FIRST work on lessening the prejudice so that people of all abilities can have a decent life, after which mothers won't feel their child is doomed to a lonely life. I sure don't have any terrific suggestions about how to accomplish that, however. Prejudice and xenophobia seem to be endemic in humans.

Submitted by crowepps on June 27, 2009 - 5:32pm.

Oh yes, croweps. This issue isn't about prejudice toward the handicapped, it's about me "taking it personally." Personally, I don't give a rats ass whether or not you, personally or society at large "likes" me or disabled people in general. I do, however, care about social prejudice toward the handicapped that is rampant in our society, and the fact that RH reality check has chosen to enable it by having a double standard for disabled people when it comes to hate speech. 

 

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on June 27, 2009 - 8:45pm.

I care about alleviating social prejudice toward the handicapped myself, but I'm old enough to be aware that it used to be MUCH WORSE. Historically, people who were disabled in any way had darn short lives because the various support systems we take for granted now just weren't available and people who were born or became disabled found the only available support was 'begger'.

When I was a kid, the 'retarded', the 'feebleminded' and the mentally ill were shipped off to asylums where the mortality rate was staggering, the disabled/handicapped were kept hidden away at home and you rarely saw a wheelchair in public because the assumption was that 'they' didn't 'need' to shop, get into public buildings or attend public functions.

My mom corresponded with friends she made in the hospital during the polio epidemic who spent the next 15 or 20 years basically trapped in their homes.

I realize progress is slow, but it's a positive sign that people finally actually RECOGNIZE the prejudice.

That said, it's going to be pretty hard to have discussions here and run the website if every time someone is offended the offending post is censored. If somebody says something you find offensive, reply to their post and tell THEM why it's offensive. That gives you an opportunity to do remedial education for everyone who reads their post and your reply.

Submitted by crowepps on June 27, 2009 - 10:00pm.

on any type of speech.

As you look around this site, you will see remarkably divergent comments, from intelligent, well-thought out arguments or comments (irrespective of whether you or I agree with them) to  comments about, for example, people who choose abortion as being "murderers," facetious suggestions comparing the killing of a 3-year old with an abortion at 8 weeks and so forth.

We have a policy of eliminating spam, irrelevant comments, comments in other languages, and any comments that call for violence against or identify specific persons, as we did with what we believed to be both false but also abhorrent comments calling for the deaths of specific persons by name or linking to websites doing the same. We do not erase any and all distasteful comments per se.

And as someone whose had lots of distasteful comments directed at me on this site, I don't take them personally.

Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Senior Political Editor on June 27, 2009 - 10:05pm.

Progo....

Time to stand down, Soldier. Aside from a couple of kooks, there isn't anyone on this board who does not respect your commitment to the fight, your advocacy on behalf of the disabled. The fact is, you are taking things personally, with all the reason in the world.

I must have blown by the kookspeak...was it Singer-related? One line of nonsense? A Troll? Can you link so everyone here can eviscerate the posts? We're good at that, you know.

Submitted by ahunt on June 27, 2009 - 10:08pm.