A Western, a Pop Hit, and the EPA: How I Came To View Abortion

 

With the Supreme Court about to weigh in on abortion, I wanted to share with my fellow Ricochetti how I came around on this subject.  I’m curious if anyone else had a similar journey.

I was a default leftist in my 20’s.  I remember making pro-abortion arguments to a friend who was a Lutheran seminary student. I don’t recall what my arguments were.  I expect I was repeating what I heard on NPR that week.

About that same time I visited my dad and he told me about a legal matter he was handling for a friend.  The friend owned some wooded acreage in Northern California, and he wanted to take out some dead trees.  Problem was, a bald eagle had established a nest on the top of one of those trees, and all the neighbors (and maybe the Fish & Game Department) knew it.  He was worried about what kind of liability he might face if he took down that tree.  A lot, it turned out.

Under the Endangered Species Act, destroying the nest of a bald eagle is a crime.  In fact, destroying the egg of a bald eagle is a criminal act that carries a five-year prison term.

So the tree stayed up, which seemed right.

So let’s put a pin in this, and we’ll come back to it.

Flash forward about five years and I’m in Chicago attending a sneak preview of Clint Eastwood’s newest Western:  Unforgiven.

If you know the movie, you know the scene where the young, wanna-be gunfighter has just made his first kill.  He’s deeply shaken and confesses his anxiety to the old, retired gunfighter, played by Eastwood.  Then Eastwood delivers a line that hit me like a punch the moment I heard it:  “It’s a helluva thing, killing a man. You take away everything he’s got, and everything he’s ever gonna have.”

That description of murder seemed right to me.

Let’s put a pin in that one, too.

Years later I’m listening to the radio and I hear Five For Fighting’s hit song 100 Years. If you know the lyrics, the song describes the stages of our lives:  “I’m fifteen for a moment; I’m thirty-five for a moment; You’ve only got 100 years to live.” Nice song.

Then this happened: I’m listening to NPR and some legal analyst is describing a case about how many weeks is too late to perform an abortion.  10 weeks? 15? 20?

That talk about weeks got me thinking about the eagle’s nest.  My dad’s friend’s criminal liability for destroying an eagle’s egg would not depend on how many weeks the eaglet had been gestating inside its egg.  His criminal liability would attach as soon as it was laid.  Indeed, his criminal liability would attach if he had destroyed the eagle’s nest even if had no eggs in it.  Why?

Isn’t it obvious?  We hold people criminally liable for destroying eagle’s eggs because we know that inside the eggs are gestating eaglets who will grow to be fully fledged eagles someday.  Gestating eaglets are not nothing, and we don’t throw people into federal prison for destroying nothing.  We throw people in prison for destroying gestating specimens of the species Haliaeetus leucocephalus.

But why do we throw people in prison for destroying gestating specimens of Haliaeetus leucocephalus?  Because the destruction of a gestating specimen deprives the world of a specimen that will become an eaglet, then an adolescent, then an adult Bald Eagle who flies, and fishes, and nests, and makes little eagles.  We know that’s what happens.  Of course that’s what happens.  All creatures exist over spans of time.  That’s why we throw people into prison for destroying gestating specimens of Haliaeetus leucocephalus, and every other species on the Endangered Species list. If someone kills it while gestating, he is depriving it, and us, of its existence for its entire lifespan.  That’s a crime.

Then my mind went to that line from Unforgiven: “It’s a helluva thing, killing a man. You take away everything he’s got, and everything he’s ever gonna have.”

So thinking back to the gestating eaglet, destroying it takes away everything that eaglet has (which isn’t much), AND takes away everything it is ever going to have—which is the full life of an American Bald Eagle–a life of value.  That’s why we throw people in prison for destroying it while it is gestating. Yes, the destroyer is acting in a moment when it is not a fully grown Bald Eagle, but he is taking away all the moments that make up the life of a fully grown Bald Eagle.  He is cutting a lifespan short.  That’s a crime.  And that’s why we put him in prison when he does it.

So what about our species?  What is the abortion procedure but an act of killing a gestating specimen of our species that takes away everything he has (which isn’t much), AND takes away everything he is ever going to have?  How is it different, in principle, from destroying a gestating eaglet, which is a crime?  What is it but cutting short the lifespan of a fellow human?

And what is our gestating fellow human going to have over his lifespan?  The same things we all get.  That made me think of the Five For Fighting song:

We all start as kids.

I’m fifteen for a moment Caught in between ten and twenty; And I’m just dreaming Counting the ways to where you are.”

We fall in love:

“I’m twenty two for a moment; She feels better than ever; And we’re on fire; Making our way back from Mars.”

We become parents:

“I’m thirty three for a moment; Still the man, but you see I’m of age; A kid on the way; A family on my mind.”

We struggle:

“I’m forty five for a moment; The sea is high; And I’m heading into a crisis; Chasing the years of my life”

And we pass on:

“I’m ninety nine for a moment; Dying for just another moment; And I’m just dreaming; Counting the ways to where you are”

There is a lot to life.  The song is right about that.  Which is why the movie is right about this:  “It’s a helluva thing, killing a man.”

And killing could not be more serious when the killing is at the start, because the timing of that killing takes away every one of the 100 years our gestating fellow human being has out there waiting for him.  Abortion truly is “a helluva thing.”  How can any of us, any of us, presume the authority to take away the 100 years of life that is out there waiting for another one of our fellow human beings to live?   How is it not a crime to intentionally take away everything our fellow human being has, AND everything he is going to have over his 100 years?

Looking back, I don’t know how I ever convinced myself abortion was not a crime.  When I think of it in terms of eaglets, and Unforgiven, and 100 Years, I don’t know how it could be anything else.

Published in Law
Tags:
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 31 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Quietpi Member
    Quietpi
    @Quietpi

    @raygunner, thank you.

    • #1
  2. Vance Richards Member
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    Ray Gunner: I remember making pro-abortion arguments to friend who was a Lutheran seminary student. I don’t recall what my arguments were.  I expect I was repeating what I heard on NPR that week.

    “Clump of cells” was big argument back then, but then ultrasound let people see that the clump had hands, fingers, toes, etc. 

    • #2
  3. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    A very good way to explain the facts of life. Thanks, @raygunner!

    • #3
  4. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Thanks, RG.

    • #4
  5. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    In EVERY other situation, under the laws of the USA, if there is ANY question of whether Constitutional rights attach to ANYONE at all,  the answer is YES!

    EXCEPT Unborn children.

    Unborn children are the ONLY parties to any US legal action to whom no Constitutional rights attach.

    That is just wrong.

    • #5
  6. Nohaaj Coolidge
    Nohaaj
    @Nohaaj

    I had a similar path, when in college in the late 70’s, I was a member of Nader’s Raiders and worked with a team of equally deluded youth to petition the University to include abortion in the student health plan… we succeeded.

    The NPR’s of the world are insidious with their single minded expert opinions and innuendo about lefty rights, and policies.  The young brains of mush are filled with this evil.  In my day, at least this pablum was mostly fed to the college crowd.  Today the groomers start in Pre-K.  

    Your analogies and logic seem to be without flaw.  Thank for sharing.  Hopefully some will be saved by it. And a few more may experience 100 years of life. 

    • #6
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    A beautiful, touching post, Ray. Thank you.

    • #7
  8. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    Ever heard this:

    • #8
  9. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    • #9
  10. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Ray Gunner: Looking back, I don’t know how I ever convinced myself abortion was not a crime.  When I think of it in terms of eaglets, and Unforgiven, and 100 Years, I don’t know how it could be anything else.

    Not that I agree, but the argument is actually quite easy:

    Eagles are rare/endangered/whatever.

    People aren’t.

     

    Remember, you’re talking about people who think “overpopulation” of PEOPLE is a Serious Problem.

    • #10
  11. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Ray Gunner: Looking back, I don’t know how I ever convinced myself abortion was not a crime. When I think of it in terms of eaglets, and Unforgiven, and 100 Years, I don’t know how it could be anything else.

    Not that I agree, but the argument is actually quite easy:

    Eagles are rare/endangered/whatever.

    People aren’t.

     

    Remember, you’re talking about people who think “overpopulation” of PEOPLE is a Serious Problem.

    Babies in the womb technically are endangered.

    Ray, this is a very moving and poignant way of explaining it.  Thanks, again.

    • #11
  12. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Ray Gunner: Looking back, I don’t know how I ever convinced myself abortion was not a crime. When I think of it in terms of eaglets, and Unforgiven, and 100 Years, I don’t know how it could be anything else.

    Not that I agree, but the argument is actually quite easy:

    Eagles are rare/endangered/whatever.

    People aren’t.

    Remember, you’re talking about people who think “overpopulation” of PEOPLE is a Serious Problem.

    Babies in the womb technically are endangered.

    Ray, this is a very moving and poignant way of explaining it. Thanks, again.

    They would say that ~7 billion people on the planet proves they’re not endangered.  As a species.

    • #12
  13. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Very thoughtful rendering of your change of mind, Ray. I appreciate how you pulled it all together and I agree wholeheartedly, although I also was a braindead liberal in my 20’s. I shamed myself in front of my Catholic parents (of seven children) more than once. 

    There’s a Catholic pro-lifer who puts it this way: 1. If it’s growing, it’s alive. 2. If its parents are human, it’s human. 3. If it’s a living human, we shouldn’t kill, should we?

    Not as elegant as your essay, but it gets to the point.

    • #13
  14. jmelvin Member
    jmelvin
    @jmelvin

    Thank you for sharing the path that led you to the light here.

    • #14
  15. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Unforgiven is one of my favorite movies for many reasons but the story/screenplay is first among them. And you make a fine argument for life. But I’m with @Kedavis  on the analogy.

    At the same time, I think the argument that Elon Musk has made (as if he’s not in the news enough lately) is a good one for pro-lifers to pursue: We don’t have enough people and the planet can sustain billions more. 

     

    But the best argument (IMO) is that each human life is unique, and who are we to decide a life is worthless? 

     

    • #15
  16. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    There are lots of legal angles for anti-abortion advocates to pursue, and one I’ve always liked was medical drama.

    The hero is hurt badly, and a friend tries to feel for a pulse, before starting CPR.  Or doctors work frantically around patient, while his significant other watches the EKG.   We know if they show a heartbeat, the patient is still alive.   These are very clear concepts that pretty much everyone learns even as kids, and they are generally based in medical science.

    The fetus has a pulse from fairly early on in pregnancy.  Doctors can clearly hear a fetal heartbeat with just a stethoscope.    At that point, the fetus is alive – just as alive as a person on a ventilator is alive.  If you know the person on the ventilator will make a full recovery in less than a year, even people who support assisted suicide would think that is murder.

    So abortionists are like someone running through pediatric intensive care, pulling the plug on all the kids there.

    The scary part is that abortion advocates do not care.  They are trying to pass laws that go after babies were actually born but were supposed to be aborted.  It’s seriously like a religious sacrament.

    • #16
  17. Ray Gunner Coolidge
    Ray Gunner
    @RayGunner

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Ray Gunner: Looking back, I don’t know how I ever convinced myself abortion was not a crime. When I think of it in terms of eaglets, and Unforgiven, and 100 Years, I don’t know how it could be anything else.

    Not that I agree, but the argument is actually quite easy:

    Eagles are rare/endangered/whatever.

    People aren’t.

     

    Remember, you’re talking about people who think “overpopulation” of PEOPLE is a Serious Problem.

    True enough.  But to me, the lesson of the eagle story is that a gestating creature cannot be nothing.  Otherwise, it would be lawful to kill even an endangered species while it is gestating.  That was the light bulb moment for me–the one that puts the kibosh on the argument that a gestating human specimen can be lawfully killed because he/she is nothing.  That cannot be true.

    And to take on eagles=rare/humans=not rare idea, if gestating humans can be lawfully killed (as opposed to gestating eagles) because humans are not an endangered species, then there is no reason it should not be lawful to kill an infant human (as opposed to an eaglet) for the same reason. No? 

    • #17
  18. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    This is an excellent post and it explains why abortion is and should be considered homicide. But the argument is incomplete. Yes, the human fetus is equivalent to an Eagles egg and people who think that should be protected should have no problem providing protection to a human fetus.

    But there are some differences which also need to addressed:(1) we extend protection to endangered species based on the population of that species, so frogs eggs do not get the same protection as eagles eggs, and (2) post “birth” care for eagles is fleeting — the cost to the eagle mother is low from a human perspective and should an eagle push an egg from the nest we would regard that event differently than a human destroying the egg.

    This is why I have always argued that the abortion debate should accept that abortion is a homicide. But we do have something called “justifiable homicide”, i.e., killings we do not punish — self-defense, protection of others. So the better question (IMO) is: can abortion be a justifiable homicide and, if so, when? I don’t think that there will ever be an answer that everyone agrees with. But I do think that laws that give an unmarried/unpartnered woman an opportunity to become aware and terminate quickly in her discretion are acceptable; married women terminating without agreement of her husband is problematic because of the implied terms of the marriage contract; termination to save the life of the mother seems sensible (even if some religions give preference to the child over the mother). At some point I think the rights of the fetus grow with it and outweigh the preferences of a healthy mother, but I am unsure of when exactly that should be. I think we can develop a consensus that most people can live with.

    • #18
  19. Suspira Member
    Suspira
    @Suspira

    I, too, went through stages of progress toward the light. One stage was when I had my first child. Huh. A pregnancy, if left to develop, ends in a beautiful, cooing baby. How about that?

    Another was a few years later when I imagined trying to explain abortion to my young child. Nope. There was no way I could do that. No way to make abortion sound like a good thing.

    Yet another was hearing the testimony of some physician in a legislative hearing. This was in a report on NPR, so, of course, the physician was “pro-choice.” The anti-abortion advocates had found a new weapon and were going for broke against something they called “partial birth abortion.” This physician/witness was emphatic. There was no such procedure. It did not exist. I thought, “At last. Here’s something concrete to make a judgment on.” See, either this horrifying-sounding procedure was being done or it wasn’t. It was a thing or it wasn’t. One side or other is lying.

    I did some research. It turns out the physician was too clever by half. No, there was no such thing in the medical literature called “partial birth abortion.” But that was the extent of his truth-telling. The procedure did exist. It was being performed in this country. It was just called something much blander—intact dilatation and extraction. 

    I ended up being horrified by the barbaric procedure AND the smooth, smug mendacity of the abortion advocates. 

    • #19
  20. Ray Gunner Coolidge
    Ray Gunner
    @RayGunner

    Rodin (View Comment):
    At some point I think the rights of the fetus grow with it and outweigh the preferences of a healthy mother, but I am unsure of when exactly that should be.

    To me, this kind of calculus is starts with a presumption that seems deeply wrong –the presumption that a fellow human being’s right not to be killed is contingent on something other the fact he/she is alive. 

    But to you point, obviously, despite all precautions, women become pregnant unwillingly all the time.  Pregnancy and delivery are extremely stressful on the body and the psyche.  It is perfectly understandable for a woman to want to avoid those stresses.

    So where does that leave us?  It seems to me it leaves us with the proposition that woman’s right to avoid 9 months of stress from pregnancy and delivery is more precious than our fellow human being’s right to live his 100 years of life on Earth.  I think that’s just wrong.  Anyone who presumes to exercise the right to deny her fellow human being his 100 years of life better have an exceptionally good reason.  To me, preferring to avoid 9 months of stress from pregnancy and delivery is not even close to a good enough reason to take 100 years of life from someone else.

    • #20
  21. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Ray Gunner (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):
    At some point I think the rights of the fetus grow with it and outweigh the preferences of a healthy mother, but I am unsure of when exactly that should be.

    To me, this kind of calculus is starts with a presumption that seems deeply wrong –the presumption that a fellow human being’s right not to be killed is contingent on something other the fact he/she is alive.

    But to you point, obviously, despite all precautions, women become pregnant unwillingly all the time. Pregnancy and delivery are extremely stressful on the body and the psyche. It is perfectly understandable for a woman to want to avoid those stresses.

    So where does that leave us? It seems to me it leaves us with the proposition that woman’s right to avoid 9 months of stress from pregnancy and delivery is more precious than our fellow human being’s right to live his 100 years of life on Earth. I think that’s just wrong. Anyone who presumes to exercise the right to deny her fellow human being his 100 years of life better have an exceptionally good reason. To me, preferring to avoid 9 months of stress from pregnancy and delivery is not even close to a good enough reason to take 100 years of life from someone else.

    I think the fallacy in the argument is that it assumes a woman is an incubator and not a mother. Thus the attendant obligations of a pregnancy extend well beyond birth and even childhood. So it’s not a simple calculus of 9 months versus 100 years. If it were so I don’t think anyone would argue your point. The counter-argument is that women can choose to simply be incubators by giving up a child for adoption. But not every adopted child leads a good life and some children are never adopted. I don’t think there is any logic that does not involve making a hard choice along the way. We need to approach the discussion with humility and acceptance that unwanted pregnancy is a significant event, fraught with ethical dilemmas of various sorts depending on the circumstances of the pregnancy.

    • #21
  22. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Ray Gunner (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):
    At some point I think the rights of the fetus grow with it and outweigh the preferences of a healthy mother, but I am unsure of when exactly that should be.

    To me, this kind of calculus is starts with a presumption that seems deeply wrong –the presumption that a fellow human being’s right not to be killed is contingent on something other the fact he/she is alive.

    But to you point, obviously, despite all precautions, women become pregnant unwillingly all the time. Pregnancy and delivery are extremely stressful on the body and the psyche. It is perfectly understandable for a woman to want to avoid those stresses.

    So where does that leave us? It seems to me it leaves us with the proposition that woman’s right to avoid 9 months of stress from pregnancy and delivery is more precious than our fellow human being’s right to live his 100 years of life on Earth. I think that’s just wrong. Anyone who presumes to exercise the right to deny her fellow human being his 100 years of life better have an exceptionally good reason. To me, preferring to avoid 9 months of stress from pregnancy and delivery is not even close to a good enough reason to take 100 years of life from someone else.

    I think the fallacy in the argument is that it assumes a woman is an incubator and not a mother. Thus the attendant obligations of a pregnancy extend well beyond birth and even childhood. So it’s not a simple calculus of 9 months versus 100 years. If it were so I don’t think anyone would argue your point. The counter-argument is that women can choose to simply be incubators by giving up a child for adoption. But not every adopted child leads a good life and some children are never adopted. I don’t think there is any logic that does not involve making a hard choice along the way. We need to approach the discussion with humility and acceptance that unwanted pregnancy is a significant event, fraught with ethical dilemmas of various sorts depending on the circumstances of the pregnancy.

    Perhaps 90% or more of such “unwanted” pregnancies would be avoided by competent use of birth control.  After that, I would argue that the legal principle of (however they word it in law books) “assumption of risk” takes over.

    • #22
  23. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Rodin (View Comment):
    At some point I think the rights of the fetus grow with it and outweigh the preferences of a healthy mother, but I am unsure of when exactly that should be. I think we can develop a consensus that most people can live with.

    The ethics of what you’ve laid out here militate against your position. Since we’re “unsure,” we should just kill it? How does that work? As one of our religious says, if you’re a hunter and you see something in the underbrush, but you’re not sure if it’s a human (human enough?) or a deer, should you just shoot it and then find out? Obviously not.

    Human life begins at conception. It’s science. A woman making bad choices that end in an unwanted pregnancy (and that’s by far the case with abortion) should not get to solve her problems by killing an innocent person. Sorry. Oops. Learn to deal with the natural consequences of your actions. The struggles might make you a better person in the long run.

    *Let’s not even start on the rape and incest argument until we’ve resolved the former, which I think will be much harder to reach a consensus than you claim. I’m an anti-abortion absolutist, so I’m pretty sure you can count me out of any consensus you can imagine.

    **And I think way more women are coerced into getting abortions than abortion advocates would like us to know. They’re pressured by the sperm donor or their own families or their “life situation.” This is a terrible thing to have to live with the rest of your life because someone else doesn’t want to bear any responsibility for helping to raise a child or because you have such a bright future in graduate school. . . The what ifs of shortened lives cause great suffering. Just ask any parent who’s lost a child. I know several.

    • #23
  24. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    I’ve never even considered the possibility of having sex with anyone that I wouldn’t consider acceptable as a spouse and co-parent.  Not that they would necessarily be my first choice, but they sure as hell wouldn’t be disqualified because of…  whatever, pretty much.

    • #24
  25. Ray Gunner Coolidge
    Ray Gunner
    @RayGunner

    Rodin (View Comment):
    I think the fallacy in the argument is that it assumes a woman is an incubator and not a mother. Thus the attendant obligations of a pregnancy extend well beyond birth and even childhood. So it’s not a simple calculus of 9 months versus 100 years.

    With respect, I think the argument that it is wrong to kill a specimen of our species during gestation holds up regardless of whether the woman carrying it wants to raise the child up herself or not. 

    If she does not want to raise the human being she is carrying herself, she can give it up for adoption once it is born.  That’s that “9 months of stress” vs. “100 years of life” argument.  

    If she wants to take on “the attendant obligations of a pregnancy extend well beyond birth and even childhood,” she will not abort him.  So the issue does not even come up. 

    So yes, I think the debate over abortion does come down weighing “9 months of stress” vs. “100 years of life.”  

    As for this:

    Rodin (View Comment):
    I don’t think there is any logic that does not involve making a hard choice along the way. We need to approach the discussion with humility and acceptance that unwanted pregnancy is a significant event, fraught with ethical dilemmas of various sorts depending on the circumstances of the pregnancy.

    I agree with every syllable. 

    • #25
  26. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Ray Gunner (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):
    I think the fallacy in the argument is that it assumes a woman is an incubator and not a mother. Thus the attendant obligations of a pregnancy extend well beyond birth and even childhood. So it’s not a simple calculus of 9 months versus 100 years.

    With respect, I think the argument that it is wrong to kill a specimen of our species during gestation holds up regardless of whether the woman carrying it wants to raise the child up herself or not.

    If she does not want to raise the human being she is carrying herself, she can give it up for adoption once it is born. That’s that “9 months of stress” vs. “100 years of life” argument.

    If she wants to take on “the attendant obligations of a pregnancy extend well beyond birth and even childhood,” she will not abort him. So the issue does not even come up.

    So yes, I think the debate over abortion does come down weighing “9 months of stress” vs. “100 years of life.”

    As for this:

    Rodin (View Comment):
    I don’t think there is any logic that does not involve making a hard choice along the way. We need to approach the discussion with humility and acceptance that unwanted pregnancy is a significant event, fraught with ethical dilemmas of various sorts depending on the circumstances of the pregnancy.

    I agree with every syllable.

    Except in perhaps 99% or more of actual cases, there’s not really much if any “fraught-ness” at all.

    • #26
  27. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Ray Gunner (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):
    At some point I think the rights of the fetus grow with it and outweigh the preferences of a healthy mother, but I am unsure of when exactly that should be.

    To me, this kind of calculus is starts with a presumption that seems deeply wrong –the presumption that a fellow human being’s right not to be killed is contingent on something other the fact he/she is alive.

    But to you point, obviously, despite all precautions, women become pregnant unwillingly all the time. Pregnancy and delivery are extremely stressful on the body and the psyche. It is perfectly understandable for a woman to want to avoid those stresses.

    So where does that leave us? It seems to me it leaves us with the proposition that woman’s right to avoid 9 months of stress from pregnancy and delivery is more precious than our fellow human being’s right to live his 100 years of life on Earth. I think that’s just wrong. Anyone who presumes to exercise the right to deny her fellow human being his 100 years of life better have an exceptionally good reason. To me, preferring to avoid 9 months of stress from pregnancy and delivery is not even close to a good enough reason to take 100 years of life from someone else.

    I’ve advocated that it’s the job of older women to explain how fleeting that 9 months is in hindsight, vs how interminable it seems to someone much younger in foresight.

    I spent most of my 30s pregnant or breastfeeding. Can barely remember a damn minute.

     

    • #27
  28. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Annefy (View Comment):
    I spent most of my 30s pregnant or breastfeeding. Can barely remember a damn blessed minute.

    FIFY

     

    • #28
  29. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):
    I spent most of my 30s pregnant or breastfeeding. Can barely remember a damn blessed minute.

    FIFY

     

    Thank you WC. A fine edit. xo 

    • #29
  30. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Suspira (View Comment):

    Another was a few years later when I imagined trying to explain abortion to my young child. Nope. There was no way I could do that. No way to make abortion sound like a good thing.

    Good point.  How does one explain abortion to his or her own child without the explicit understanding that it would have been okay to kill the little child who’s listening, and the without extending the implicit understanding that it’s okay to kill others for one’s own convenience?

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.