Minister of Science and Chief Protector of the Faith

Thursday, November 12, 2009

I Am Very Disapointed With the Stupak Amendment

 

Although I was very happy that Speaker Pelosi was able to pass the Health Reform Legislation, I am very disapointed with the Stupak amendment. [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

I am against abortion. I don't really think that anybody is actually for abortion, not really. It's like saying that you don't like babies, and nobody really says that. (With the possible exception of W. C. Fields.)

I also feel that any woman that makes the decision to have an abortion should be allowed to do so without interference from any outside person or agency. A decision of this nature is difficult enough for any woman to make, and nobody should be able to inject their own opinion into that woman's life. It's her own decision to make.

Women have abortions for a variety of reasons, and there is much debate about the validity of those reasons. I feel that the main reason to be against legislation that restricts a woman's right to choose is not because you agree or disagree with any of those reasons.

I feel that the main reason to be against legislation that restricts a woman's right to choose is because when women are faced with the brick wall of not being able to have an abortion done professionally, women in desperate situations will be forced to resort to desperate means to get an abortion, often with horrifying and gruesome results.

Also, if we create a situation where women unable to get an abortion done professionally at her choosing, we create a situation where women are treated as second class citizens. This happens in a variety of ways depending on a series of different circumstances, but the results are the same. A situation that creates inequality between the sexes cannot and should not be tolerated.

The only way to stop abortions is to stop unwanted pregnancies, and the only way to stop unwanted pregnancies is through education and birth control. It's as simple as that. Zero tolerance of abortions and "abstinence only education" just doesn't work.

Of the estimated 46 million abortions that are performed worldwide every year, 26 million are said to occur in places where abortion is legal and the other 20 million happen where the procedure is illegal. Abortion will take place no matter what. As a matter of fact, a significant portion of all pregnancies end in miscarriage (or "spontaneous abortion") without any form of human intervention. Abortions will simply happen, natural or otherwise.

To say that you are "pro-abortion" is kind of like saying you are "pro-alcoholism". I don't really think that anybody is actually for alcoholism, not really. It's like saying that you are for the enslavement of a significant portion of mankind's population to an addictive drug, and nobody really says that. (With the possible exception of W. C. Fields.)

In the United States between 1919 to 1933 the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption were banned nationally by the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Despite the lofty aspirations of the temperance movement and the Eighteenth Amendment, this had the effect of creating more social ills than it prevented. Racketeering and organized crime found a huge new market through bootlegging, and caused corruption of all levels of law enforcement agencies. Many people died or became blind during the 1920s after drinking spirits made inexpensively using cheap grain alcohols.

Hard liquor became more popular because it was easier to transport and hide from the authorities. Strangely enough, the taste for alcohol became more widespread among America's youth and drinking became more socially acceptable than it had been prior to 1920. The temperance movement was also adopted to promote the unrelated agendas of various small-minded and petty organizations, including the Ku Klux Klan.

It would be fair to say that my comparison of the effects of the Eighteenth Amendment and Roe v. Wade does not take into account many of the important factors of either of these two sets of circumstances, but I do believe that in making a comparison of both cases it can be shown that historically zero tolerance has had the effect of creating more social ills than were prevented in either situation.

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

16 Comments:

At Thu Nov 12, 07:56:00 AM, Blogger Matty Boy said...

Nice writing, Doc. Well thought out points and good use of a running gag.

 
At Thu Nov 12, 08:01:00 AM, Blogger sunshine said...

I totally agree with everything you wrote here Dr.Zed.
Who "wants" an abortion?? Nobody wants to have to go through that!

When I had my last child I was 35 years old. He was my 5th baby. (I had one stillborn son between baby 2 and 3).. I had an awful time delivering him and after it was over, the Dr sat down with my husband and I and told us not to have anymore children.
My husband had his "tube tied". :P
The Dr. really wanted me to have the procedure done as well but I didn't.
I've been a Mother since I was 23. I don't want to do the baby thing anymore. Would I have an abortion if I found myself pregnant? Even though my health could be threatened..I don't want to do it.. I probably would still have the baby.

I really hope that we don't lose our right to make our own decision about that though...

((Hugs))
Laura

 
At Thu Nov 12, 08:28:00 AM, Blogger Teresita said...

The right to choose has been enshrined in the infrastructure of American law so deeply and for so long that it's a fool's errand to try to roll that back. Many Americans believe that life begins at conception. When they resist measures that will fund abortions with public funds, they aren't thinking about the money, they are thinking about the implied sanction and the consequences in the afterlife. To them, babies are being killed in their name: "You Rape 'Em We Scrape 'Em! No Fetus Can Beat Us!"

 
At Thu Nov 12, 09:08:00 AM, Blogger Übermilf said...

Maybe they're grooming gay marriage to take over from abortion as the issue that drives us all apart.

We need one of those, you know.

 
At Thu Nov 12, 09:12:00 AM, Blogger Kulkuri said...

This is a decision that should be between the woman and her doctor and the father is he is still around. The government has no business interferring with the doctor-patient relationship.

Stupak is a Catholic, but at first he said he wouldn't let his religion interfer with his politics. After his son committed suicide while on acne meds some years back, he has gotten weirder in recent years. I think it is time to replace him and if they can come up with someone to run against him in the primary, I'll vote for that person after I move back to his district next year.

 
At Thu Nov 12, 10:28:00 AM, Blogger Randal Graves said...

I take it you're not pro-W.C. Fields? Go away, ape, ya bother me.

Well, off to a pro-abortion party hosted by alcoholics!

 
At Thu Nov 12, 02:26:00 PM, Blogger Seeing Eye Chick said...

I always find it interesting, that people are all for freedom, as long as their neighbors use that freedom other people approve of...

Whether its the First Freedoms, or the Right to Choose, Birth Control, etc.,

Isn't funny? How inisideous that desire to control others is? Its great that you have free speech as long as you say what I want you to say.
Its great you go to the church of your choice as long as you go to the church I approve of.
Its great that women are free, so long as they sleep with the person I expect them too and under the circumstances I imagine to be appropriate and timely.
They can choose to have a baby if they have that baby in a hospital and using methods I consider appropriate.
And so on and so forth.

Thats not really the gift of freedom.

That is the desire to manipulate in order to maintain a comfort zone.

Great work Dr Z. !

 
At Thu Nov 12, 03:18:00 PM, Blogger la scorchita said...

Dr. Zaius,
This is absolutely a brilliant and well thought out piece. You deserve a lot of kudos. I am going to share it with everyone I know! Thanks for being awesome!

 
At Thu Nov 12, 05:36:00 PM, Blogger zencomix said...

Sorry for feeding the troll. Couldn't help myself. It's been so long since I've seen one, I forgot how to act.

 
At Thu Nov 12, 11:49:00 PM, Blogger BAC said...

Thanks Dr. Z for this thoughtful post ... and for including a photo of one of my favorite movie stars! I love W.C. Fields ... who once said, "I like children, medium well."

I support abortion on demand, without apology. It's not the business of the government or church to make this decision for any woman. And particularly not the Catholic Bishops ... who have their OWN issues with sexuality. They have NO moral authority on this at all.


BAC

 
At Fri Nov 13, 12:38:00 PM, Blogger Jess Wundrun said...

I had never heard that statistic about the number of abortions world wide. Thanks fer tha lernin I got today!

The Stupak amendment is everything the Teabaggers warned us about: government health insurance will bring about a government invasion into our privacy.

Odd though, I haven't heard the Teabaggers screaming to get this amendment removed. Weird.

 
At Fri Nov 13, 12:45:00 PM, Blogger Utah Savage said...

This is the best piece I've read on the possible consequences of the Stupak Amendment. As a woman who had an abortion pre Roe v Wade, desperation and fear can make a person monstrous in her own eyes, and now I realize in the eyes of others 45 years after the fact. Just writing about an abortion 45 years ago can really bring out the best and the very worst on readers you thought you knew very well.

 
At Fri Nov 13, 04:23:00 PM, Blogger JustJoeP said...

Stupak? Should be called the "Stupid" Amendment. Fundamentalism once again raising it's ugly head.

 
At Sat Nov 14, 10:03:00 AM, Blogger Dr. Zaius said...

Matty Boy: Thanks, Matty Boy! My gags are usually pretty tire, so the best that they can usually muster is a brisk trot. ;o)

Nice writing, Doc. Well thought out points and good use of a running gag.

Sunshine: I can't believe that you are 35! You look so much younger. :o)

Teresita: I just hope that the Stupak Amendment isn't used to block the health care bill. :o(

Übermilf: Jeepers! Can't we have both issues to drive us apart? ;o)

Kulkuri: I don't even think the father has any say in the matter, unless he is the one carrying the child! I hope that oyu can vote against Stupak next year! :o)

Randal Graves: Who said that I was against W.C. Fields? A human after my own heart! ;o)

Seeing Eye Chick: Thanks, Seeing Eye Chick! Equal rights between men and women seem to generally result in the men being more equal than the women. ;o)

La Scorchita: Thanks, La Scorchita! :o)

Zencomix: Hey, I am sorry that I didn't get to that that stupid sock puppet earlier. Thanks for the support! ;o)

BAC: I love W.C. Fields as well! Although I would never a cook a child. Except maybe it's brains... ;o)

Jess Wundrun: I found that at Wikipedia, under "Incidence of induced abortion." I don't think that this will slow down the teabaggers. I am sure that they can twist the logic into a forged birth certificate or death panel with little effort. ;o)

Utah Savage: I know what you mean! I had to delete several comments from a sock puppet troll on this post. It's a very "hot button" issue! ;o)

JustJoeP: I saw a T-Shirt: "I'm with Stupak!" ;o)

 
At Sat Nov 14, 12:02:00 PM, Blogger susan said...

Great post Doctor!

 
At Sat Nov 14, 12:20:00 PM, Blogger sunshine said...

Oh Dr.Zed. You know how to butter me up, don't you? :)
You know I'm 40. Silly ape. :)

(((BigHugs))
Laura

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
Newer Posts  |  Older Posts