New Stanek column on WND: "Coming to America: forensic vagina inspections?"
First, the Illinois connection: I quote and link to Zorn and quote Yellow Dog Democrat and link to Illinoize.
My WND column today focuses on a recent article in the New York Times, which attempted to connect the U.S. trend toward criminalizing various aspects of abortion to a Salvadorian ban on all abortions that includes prosecuting aborting mothers.
The reason for the NYTimes piece was clear: to frighten U.S. women that "forensic vagina inspectors," as they are called in El Salvador, may soon come pounding on their doors.
But is there any correlation whatsoever? If not, how can American pro-lifers say abortion is murder but not wish to prosecute aborting women?
Read "Coming to America: forensic vagina inspections" at WorldNetDaily.com.
[Photo courtesy of the NY Times.]
19 comments:
WorldNetDaily is a fringe publication. It routinely publishes crazy stuff.
Jill,
We are excited that you will be at UIS tonight at 7:00pm in Brooken's Auditorium.
Great Article!
Your position has been consistent - but consistently philosophically dishonest.
Pro-lifers do not, in general, favor prosecuting women who seek and obtain abortions. We all get that.
But a contract killer does not kill without being paid to do so. The medical assistant who inserts the IV into the executed does not do so merely under his/her own volition - they do so at the order of the people. The soldier does not pull a trigger without an order to do so. And the doctor performing the abortion does not do so without the consent of the mother.
If indeed it is murder, then it is murder. Period. If it is illegal, then it is illegal.
No need to restate your position. I've read it multiple times. But if you care to explain your philosophically dishonest position, by all means, please do.
I read your WND column - you needn't repeat your dodge.
The idea that pro-choice activists (a tag I'd hardly attach to myself) should pursue prosecution is fundamentally flawed, in that pro-choice activists aren't hot to jail anyone.
But you continue to fail to address the question. If abortion is murder, how, by extension, is the woman choosing to have an abortion not at least an accessory to murder?
And, by the by, isn't the title of Crutcher's book, "On Message" telling in and of itself?
It isn't "On Philosophy." Or "On Morality."
It goes without saying that an extreme position like "let's jail women who have abortions" is not "on message."
Of course people are charged all the time with crimes explicitly to compel their testimony against co-conspirators, an avenue that would give the government many more opportunities to prosecute abortion providors if we ever made the horrible mistake of criminalizing the practice.
So yes, even from a practical legal sense it would make sense to charge the women who choose to have an abortion.
Problem is, for the "pro-life until they're born, then they're someone elses problem" crowd it really is about "message" and has not thing one to do with morality or philosophy.
If Stanek and her ilk weren't all moral relativists they would stand by the belief that if abortion is murder, everyone connected to the "murder" should be the subject of prosecution.
They can defend people who kill abortion providers, but they know how the tide will turn against them if they suggest locking up women who make a choice.
How do I become an inspector?
Does anyone except the right-wing fringe actually read the tripe in WND anymore?
Ms. Stanek, isn't your opposition to women's privacy really all about sex? Let's be honest, if there was no sex (esp pre-marital sex) there would be no need for abortion, right?
Why is it that those who call themselves "pro-life" continue to vote for Republicans despite the fact the Republican party is clearly pro-death: death in war, death as punishment, death by lack of insurance, death by malnutrition.... Everywhere you turn the GOP supports death either directly or indirectly.
Ms. Stanek, how many babies, and children, and mothers, and fathers have the Republicans killed and allowed to die today?
Pro-life and Pro-privacy have nothing to do with your argument, you are against the sex which leads to pregnancy, whether that pregnancy is desired or not.
At least be genuine and honest with your readers.
Wow, this is totally not connected to Illinois. I'm gonna speak for the silent majority here and say that I really could care less about abortions in El Salvador.
NW Burbs,
I can't speak for Jill Stanek, but I am anti-abortion and I am not at all anti-sex. I frankly don't care how much or what kind of sex consenting individuals have. In fact, I support full contraception education in schools and would like to see the government make birth control free and easily available to everybody, no questions asked. And to boot, I also 100% support gay marriage and think that drugs, prostitution, and gambling should be totally legal for adults. I personally believe that the right to liberty is as important as the right to life and I am anti-abortion not because I am anti-sex, but because I believe that fetuses in their mother are human beings who deserve protection from killing. Not all people who are pro-life are anti-sex (and therefore anti-libery). The Problem is that the anti-liberty pro-lifers are the ones who speak the loudest. Perhaps it is the fault of people like myself who are pro-life, pro-liberty, and pro-pursuit of happiness that we have not spoken louder to make it known that all pro-lifers aren't crazy right-wing fundamentalist lunatics (e.g. James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, etc.)
Jill -
Thanks for quoting me. You're On Message citation was a delightful idea. I'll be looking for a Democrat to bring legislation to the floor of the House that defines abortion as murder for both the doctor and the patient just to make every Republican squirm.
Back to "On Message" though, is it really "on message" to say that the way you're going to stop abortions is to turn back the clock to the era when only rich people could afford to have a safe abortion, and poor people were drinking drain cleaner?
Were there really fewer abortions then, or just fewer safe abortions?
"To answer your question on a logical legal basis, if women are the principles, they can't testify against their abortionists. "
So, the testimony against the docs is the stick. What then, is the carrot?
The logical extension would be that avoiding prosecution is the carrot.
If there is no prosecution to be avoided - why should a woman who willingly chooses to have an abortion then turn around and testify against the person whom she has chosen to conduct the procedure?
Now that City Hall is protecting ducks, maybe they can go one step further toward protecting humans.
"The carrot for American women would have to be justice, retribution, and/or wanting to keep the low-lifes from hurting other women."
But what if...and this may seem an outrageous concept to some...the woman HAS CHOSEN TO HAVE THE PROCEDURE?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a woman were subject to an abortion without legal consent today, the doc would be legally liable.
"American women already report abortionists to authorities for sex crimes or injury."
One of many red herrings in this post. American women sue dentists for the same things.
"Families file charges for wrongful deaths as well."
Well, not if your friends in the US Chamber get their way.
Jill-
Abortionists aren't the same as dentists, btw. Abortionists are the scum of the medical earth. They couldn't cut it in the big leagues. They're failures. Many if not most aren't even ob/gyns.
Do you have quantitative evidence of this? I'd be interested in seeing it because your statements other than the first and last sentences appear to have a bias that shouldn't really appear in a rational argument.
I don't recall knowing anyone who wants to grow up to be an abortionist, another indication of the inherent understanding that abortion is wrong, no matter what the law says.
I also don't recall anyone wanting to grow up to be a proctologist. Does that mean there is something inherently wrong in proctology. No, it doesn't. It just means that someone for whatever reason chose to go into that niche.
The abortion debate has plenty of facts to discuss without delving into areas like these.
Post a Comment