I met Lori Harris as I left the Texas Senate. I was listening to Texas District 10 Senator Wendy Davis drill Texas District 18 Senator Glenn Hager on his draconian bill, Senate Bill one that would effectively shut down all but 5 abortion clinics in Texas. I needed to find a restroom and she pointed the way. I saw her look of disapproval as I wore orange, the ‘Stand With Texas Women’ T-shirts that have been dominating the protest in Austin for the last month.
I decided that she was ripe for an interview. It turns out, interviewing Lori was pleasant, amusing, and in some ways frightening. To be clear, Lori seemed to be a very nice person with strong religious convictions. What is frightening is that her religious convictions over the years have been indirectly codified into Texas law.
Lori’s convictions are Bible based which when codified excludes anyone not believing in her Bible or in her interpretation of her Bible. She is unable to understand that pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion or anti-life. She is unable to comprehend that in a free society no one should impose on someone else’s body.
It is rather amazing that most of the women in the anti-choice movement seem so anti-woman. They are prepared to put all penalties and restrictions on the human reproductive process on women. Does anyone believe that if men were forced to have procedures that in effect eliminated unwanted pregnancies, there would be any debate in a male dominated congress to force said procedure. Would men support forcing sexually active men to have reversible vasectomies until they are ready for procreation? Does that sound silly or draconian? That is no different than the restrictions and penalties placed on women by all the draconian anti-woman laws being passed in states run by Republicans throughout the nation.
Women as was demonstrated in Austin from an organic grassroots movement have been mobilized. They are making their voices heard like never before in Texas. Such behavior is likely to be contagious throughout the entire nation. When it coalesces, there will be a new day in the country’s body politic as women assert their power.
LIKE My Facebook Page – Visit My Blog: EgbertoWillies.com
Follow @EgbertoWillies
Viewers are encouraged to subscribe and join the conversation for more insightful commentary and to support progressive messages. Together, we can populate the internet with progressive messages that represent the true aspirations of most Americans.
You write “It is rather amazing that most of the women in the anti-choice movement seem so anti-woman.” It is not that they are anti-women, it is that they recognize that some good things are higher than others. A women’s autonomy does not trump another person’s life. People cannot just choose to kill other people and claim it to be OK because they are using their right to choose. Their autonomy is trumped by another person’s right to live.
You will then say, “Some do not thing the fetus is a human or a person.” But I say that if you are going to make the GREAT distinction between a person and non-person or a human and non-human, that it must be based on science. There must be a correlating biological distinction to match your class distinction. We distinguish animals and plants based on biology. So what is the GREAT biological difference between a newly conceived embryo and a fetus that is at 27 weeks, 34 weeks, etc. Any point you choose in there is going to be BIOLOGICALLY arbitrary. There is no biological difference. It becomes a matter of development and geography (inside the womb or outside the womb). That is so anti-science.
But a fetus that can not survive on its own trumps a woman’s life? THAT is why they are anti-woman. As are you.
The difference is not between an embryo and a fetus, the difference is between a living, breathing adult woman and a life form that meets all definitions of a parasite.
Tell you what Jason, how about we let the state take public ownership of women’s bodies for the purposes of pregnancy, and public ownership of men’s bodies for the purposes of organ transplantation. After all, some things are higher than others and a man’s autonomy does not trump another person’s right to live. We distinguish plants and animals based on biology. So what is the GREAT biological different between you and a person with cardiomyopathy or chronic Hepatitis C or terminal renal failure or destroyed corneas or 3rd degree burns? There is no biological difference. It becomes a matter of development and geography (inside the grave or outside the grave). That is so anti-science.
Mr. Zimmerman in Florida was just found not guilty of killing another walking and talking person who had a place in life. The Florida law as written gave Mr. Zimmerman the right to have his life trump another life just because Mr. Zimmerman says he felt threatened by a boy he did not know who was walking through his neighborhood. More restrictive federal laws recognize the right to have one life trump another when one acts in self-defense. Laws give the right to soldiers to have their life trump that of the enemy. Laws give doctors and hospitals the right to withhold care (in certain cases) that could result in a person’s death. And of course, there is the case of capital punishment. I don’t necessarily agree with all these laws, nor is it my purpose to equate them with abortion. My purpose is to say that we have quite a few examples of times when it is perfectly legal for one life to trump another. You have simplified a horribly complex question and then decided that your brutally simplistic response should be imposed on everyone. Life is not that simple. If you want to live according to views that are that simplistic, then go ahead. But don’t try to impose those views on everyone.
I said that a person’s autonomy does not trump a person’s life. Autonomy is not the same as life. You cannot kill a person just because. They have to be IMMEDIATELY threatening you.
In the case of abortion, the woman is choosing to kill the person for a host of reasons that do not fall under self-defense. If the fetus were outside the womb, and the mother made the same decision based on the reasons, it would be murder.
The definition of life is simple when you base it on objective, scientific facts and not feelings.
Living life is more difficult, I get that, but the definition of life is simple and inviolable.
I did impose anything. I responded in a combox??? Not to mention laws are impositions…
sorry correction: “I did NOT impose anything.”
A person’s autonomy trumps a person’s life all the time. In fact, DEAD people’s autonomy trumps other people’s lives. We don’t have mandatory organ donation because it is a violation of personal autonomy as it pertains to our bodies. What you are saying, Jason, is that corpses have more rights to bodily autonomy than living women do. I concede that a fetus is a human life. Where we disagree is that you place more value on the potential human life and I place more value on the existing independent human life. Why do you value potential life over existing life?
How is a fetus “potential life?” Again, if you are going to distinguish classification, then there must be a corresponding biological difference. Potency and act are always changing. We are always in act, but potentially something else. Because personhood does not change, it must be based on a static fact…biology. Not a changing circumstance like potency.
A fetus is human life just at a different point of development the same way a 1 year old is potentially an adolescent which is potentially an adult…etc. You are making a life and death decision based on arbitrarily biological phase and not on a distinct biological difference.
The whole organ donation does not translate to what we are discussing. Taking someone’s organs is different than violating their autonomy. It violates them as persons. I have 2 kidneys, but I am not obliged to give one up. However, we would all say that it is wrong to take someone’s kidney because you are stealing it. The fetus is not stealing the autonomy of the woman no matter if the woman wants the baby or not. The baby is developing because it was created. The equivalent to that would be giving someone a kidney and then asking for it back.
It is only potential life because it can not survive outside of its host. By your reasoning, eggs and caviar should be banned because they are not potential life, they are fully autonomous chickens and fish who have every right to live as you have when you make an omelette or enjoy some beluga on toast.
Either you are just playing devil’s advocate, or you truly are as dense as any brown dwarf star.
And yes, the fetus IS stealing the autonomy of the woman. She can not eat, drink, move, sleep, dress or take medication as she wants or needs because of the fetus. And don’t even try to argue that she still can – because that only shows 1) you have never known much less been a pregnant woman and 2) that you have completely ignored all of the occasions on which pregnant women have been charged, prosecuted and imprisoned because of what they chose to do while pregnant.
Does someone hooked up to a ventilator cease to be human because it is dependent…or a quadriplegic…that is pretty offensive if you are going to say the dependency determines personhood.
I know that pregnancy is difficult…I am not arguing that.
Animals and therefore their eggs do not share and never have shared the same rights as humans therefore you cannot say that they have the same right to live…not mention most eggs are not fertilized when you make an omelette and so therefore have a different genetic makeup than a fertilized egg.
The fetus is not stealing because you created the fetus. Like the example, you cannot give someone a kidney and then take it back.
You need to understand what potentiality is- it is only potential if it is not actual. The fetus IS ACTUALLY alive. The host is circumstantial. Yes, the host keeps it alive, but it dependency is not the same as its biological makeup. If science were more advanced then we could.
No one on this thread has said what the biological difference is between a fetus and a 28-week old fetus and 1 year old. A fetus is human. Humans have rights. The only 2 times in the history of the United States where the courts have changed the definition and qualifications of a person were to justify slavery in the dread Scott decision and in row v. Wade……..please don’t call me names….have some common decency…I don’t even know what a brown dwarf star is. It sounds shiny.
You can’t get a woman pregnant and take it back, either. And the woman is actually alive. You deeply hate women, you don’t know what a brown dwarf is, you don’t know what the difference between an embryo and a 27 week fetus…you aren’t dense. You are stupid, by the dictionary definition of “stupid”. And unworthy of debate.
I agree with you…you cannot take it back. Men need to man up and take responsibility. I think that the number of abortions would be lesser if men would man up. I am thankful everyday for my father.
How do you say I hate woman. What hateful statement have I made against women. Please argue my points as opposed to insulting me. That is completely unfair in any civilized debate. We disagree.agreed. But that does that mean we cannot discuss even in this very impersonal way via combox.
I am asking you what is the biological difference? If you say that I am stupid, I am giving you a chance to enlighten me on the biological and scientific difference?
Statistically speaking, the number of abortions always goes down when adequate birth control is available. If conservatives/anti-abortion folks were truly interested in reducing the number of abortions, they would support free or reasonably accessed birth control. Since they don’t, one has to ask themselves – what is the real agenda? Here is one, but there are hundreds: http://medschool.wustl.edu/news/patient_care/Contraceptive_Choice
“In a free society no one should impose on someone else’s body.” Egberto, that’s exactly the point. The law should protect the pre-born babies’ bodies from the imposition of scalpels, suction machines, etc.
Suzanne,
I find the notion totally insane that the people who scream the loudest ad longest about freedom feel ( I will not give their utterances the dignity of thought) they have the right to deny freedom to anyone else. We know the cliche, that if men had babies they would think and act differently toward women. I don’t know. All men and All women do not think similarly. Sadly, the ones in control tend to be the perennial Luddites–hold back and never look forward.What I am thinking is that the Greek myth (history) of Athena springing full grown from the head of Zeus tells where the higher functions of males reside–in the brain and body of females.
I am referring to some male/female beings. Everyone wasn’t in Greece to participate in that ancient ritual transfer–but too many were.