I would wear Joanna Rytel's pro-abortion jewelry!

Via the often annoying Michelle Malkin, The Daily Bork provides a translation of a Swedish article about pro-abortion activist Joanna Rytel's new jewelry collection.

Many have told of the guilt they have felt after having an abortion. "I wondered about why this was and I believe that it is society that induces the guilt, particularly for girls. I want to do something about it."

Ms. Rytel is absolutely correct, the anti-abortion Christians have managed to convice nearly everyone that abortion is wrong and people should feel horribly guilty over it. The problem for the pro-abortion movement is that hardly anyone is taking a stand to reverse this societal brainwashing. Even by calling the movement "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion," it gives credence to the Christian loonies.

It is a little sad to have an abortion. But one does it for the child's sake. It would not have been good to have a child half-heartedly.

I couldn't agree more. In the United States we have welfare mothers and crack addicts having children who will never amount to anything given the environment they are being brought into. We would be much better off if mothers unable to give their children the upbringing they deserve were encouraged to abort their pregnancies.

So Ms. Rytel has designed a jewelry collection that takes a stand for abortion, which is a great idea. I would gladly wear her jewelry if they were available in the United States.

Comments

[dadahead]

Way to go LG!

I have always said that abortion should be viewed as a legitimate reproductive choice, and not some badge of shame that we reluctantly allow.

Being pro-choice should not only mean being against the criminalization of abortion; it should also mean being against those who would make a woman feel bad about what is, in the vast majority of cases, a wise decision that is much better for the common good than the alternative--i.e., creating yet another human being, and one who will not be raised in the best of circumstances at that.

Abortion on demand & without apology!

[chad]

I am not an active christian and I can't even really say that I am anti-abortion, but the pro-choice crowd just gets my dander up. Except in extreme cases such as incest, rape, or virgin birth, pregnancy is completely preventable. Don't have sex. If you do engage in sex use protection. If that fails or if you think it may have use the morning after protocol (High Dose BCPs not RU486). Its pretty simple. Once the fetus is implanted however in my opinion it becomes an entirely different matter, now you are dealing with a living entity and it deserves a little thought before you flush it down the toliet, and once it can sustain life outside the womb, well then it is a person and I say you missed your window. Basically like many things in life you pay your money and you take your chances. There are of course exceptions to every rule. Non viable outside the womb, Severely handicapped, although I personally have problems with that one, Life of the mother etc.

My perceptions may be a little warped on this issue however. I was born in the mid 60's long before Roe v. Wade. My mother who was single at the time is now rabidly pro-choice, so I always kind of wonder would I be here today if abortion had been legal. Of course maybe that is why she is pro-choice.

[chad]

Dadahead posted while I was writing my post. This line caught my attention - "Being pro-choice should not only mean being against the criminalization of abortion; it should also mean being against those who would make a woman feel bad about what is, in the vast majority of cases, a wise decision that is much better for the common good than the alternative -" What you are basically saying is that because I may disagree with you I should be denied my right to an opinion. Does that apply to everything or only the abortion debate?

[David]

Abortions for the "child's sake?" Give me a fricken break.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the vast majority of women getting abortions are thinking "oh, this wouldn't be good for the child if he or she were born now."

They are thinking "I can't be pregnant now I am just a teen, or I can't be pregnant now I am trying to establish/continue my career, or I can't be pregnant now I have too many children already, or I can't be pregnant at all because I was raped, or this pregnancy is going to harm me or the baby physically, or as in some cases we know, this was a one-night stand with a guy I didn't even like so I sure as hell ain't gonna have his baby."

While the "sake of the child" can figure into all of those, it is an afterthought at best for most women.

If you want to champion the cause of abortion, be intellectually honest enough to cite the most common reasons why.

[Apesnake]

I have always had a problem with the idea that a blob of tissue should be seen as a human being.

There has been at least one case recently discovered where a woman gave birth to a child that was later determined not to be genetically her own but her sister's. It turns out that an embryonic stem cell had survived in the woman's mother between her sister's birth and her own conception. The cell seemed to have merged with the second embryo so that as she developed and grew she was a composite of her own and her sister's cells. When she got pregnant it was an egg with her sister's genes that was released because her ovaries descended from the sisters cell but when she was tested her blood was her own. Hence the confusion. If life and a "soul" begin at conception, who's life is this woman living? If you divide an early embryo and implant it you get two identical twins but if you change your mind first and squish them back together and it is implanted in the womb it can develop into one individual. Two potential human souls are now one but you have not killed a single cell. How can a human being be dead?

If something has the brain of a tadpole it does not deserve the rights of anything else.

[David]

Oh yes, and another thing.

How can a woman entertaining the idea of an abortion be thinking it is for the "child's sake" when the main argument of the abortion rights folks is that the thing inside her body is NOT a child. It is not even life. So it is very strange logic indeed to justify an abortion because one is worried about the child while at the same time justifying the abortion because it's not a child at all.

Frankly, if the "child's sake" was the big worry, then having the child and insuring it was adopted out to a good, loving family would be the obvious choice. But since the sake of the child or fetus as the case may be is not the primary reason, aborting it serves the purpose of the woman.

[Brandon Berg]

My mother who was single at the time is now rabidly pro-choice, so I always kind of wonder would I be here today if abortion had been legal.

I hear that argument a lot, and I'm not very impressed by it. Most people know how many children they want to have, and contraceptives make it possible to control this even without abortion. If your mother had had an abortion when pregnant with you, then she probably would have had another child later.

Because she didn't, that child will never have a chance to live. For that matter, think of all the millions of potential lives that are annihilated every time a woman ovulates without becoming pregnant. The "I [or you] wouldn't be here if abortion were legal back then" argument is just silly.

There's only one valid way to argue against abortion on ethical grounds: You have to explain why we should recognize in a fetus the right to life. I've never heard a good argument for this.

While the "sake of the child" can figure into all of those, it is an afterthought at best for most women.

The point of the pragmatic argument is that the best interests of a free society, and of children, are not served by forcing women who have become pregnant out of wedlock to give birth to those children. Their personal motivations in that decision are irrelevant.

[Brandon Berg]

How can a woman entertaining the idea of an abortion be thinking it is for the "child's sake" when the main argument of the abortion rights folks is that the thing inside her body is NOT a child.

But that's precisely the point. If a fetus is not a child, then no child is harmed by abortion. The concern is not for the child that the fetus is, but for the child that the fetus might become. All else being equal, a child born to a married, adult couple is better off than a child born to an unwed girl.

So if a fetus is not a child, then abortion is good for some children and bad for none. On the other hand, if a fetus is a child, abortion is bad for some children and good for some

It is not even life.

A fetus is alive; it's just not human in any ethically meaningful sense.

[Chad]

Actually at the time I was born contraception was not generally available, so controlling child birth in that manner was not an option. Your other point about people knowing how many children they want is specious at best, at the age of 17 how many women have thought that far ahead? Even if the woman does know how many children she wants that doesnt mean she wants them at that moment. As for me denying another child life that doesnt fly either, because I was born does not mean that other child can not be born, conversely if I had not been born and my mother proceeded to have another child it would not be me, those unique circumstance are gone. Same with ovulation, the fact that a woman doesn't become pregnant with every egg is irrelevant, it is incomplete genetically. The unique combination does not exist. The rest of your argument buts up against some other dogmatic problems, specifically it is true that a child raised by an adult married couple is much better off than a child raised by a single parent. Studies also show that children raised by married heterosexual couples are better off than children raised by monogamous gay couples. Similarily children raised by non-divorced parents, even in non loving (non-abusive) marriages, are better off than children of divorce. Those directly correlate to your sake of the child it might become.

[David]

Brandon,

You should read some of the abortion rights literature. They do not consider a fetus HUMAN life - and while I may not have made that clear in my comment - if it is not human life then exactly what kind of life is it? Plant? Martian?

Ethically meaningful life? Whose ethics? Obviously the ethics of an pro-abortion advocate differ from a pro-life person.

And, did I not just say that if the woman was really interested in the sake of the child they would give the baby up for adoption to a loving family. So, you see, there IS a better choice than abortion. Some women just don't want to go through the trouble.

Oh, and while you may think the personal motivations of the woman are irrelevant to the subject of abortion, they ARE relevant to this thread because LG, in her great wisdom, tossed them in for discussion.

Finally, I must point out that it is still very much in debate as to what is more in the best interest of society - a woman's right to choose or stopping the abortion of millions of babies.

[Scott Scheule]

"We would be much better off if mothers unable to give their children the upbringing they deserve were encouraged to abort their pregnancies."

I take it "we" does not include unborn children.

[Jacqueline]

Hear, hear. I'm not pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion -- I think the world would be a better place if more people had them.

[austroblogger]

seems to me that the moral and ethical arguements revolve around the wrong theme. In a Liberal (and HERE I mean liberal in the sense of respecting the individual) society we may not legislate against everything that may be seen by particular groups as being wrong. We may agree that the particular action SHOULD be avoided, but the right of the individual takes precedence. No interest grouping can dictate that a woman MUST give life to a foetus (even if in their view not to do so is murder) until such time as that foetus can live independently of the mother.

Personally I believe that the right of the unborn child to life exists. I do not believe that the right of the mother is secondary. I do however believe that it is a matter of individual conscience and everyone else has no say in the matter. It is very dangerous when interest groups dictate over private ethical choice.

As such I think much of the debate is of its self unethical.

This time Ma'am I agree with you.

[David]

"Hear, hear. I'm not pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion -- I think the world would be a better place if more people had them."

Well, that is a very interesting statement. Would the world have been a better place if your mom had had one? Who knows? But considering that lunacy of the comment I would say there is a pretty good chance of it. I mean, I don't even think abortion rights folks want MORE abortions - they simply want the right to have them.

But I am all for the abortion rights folks saying they are "pro-abortion." At least it is the honest, if not politically viable, answer.

[dadahead]

What you are basically saying is that because I may disagree with you I should be denied my right to an opinion. Does that apply to everything or only the abortion debate?

My comment was, I concede, unclear. What I meant was that pro-choicers should oppose both the criminalization of abortion and the attempt to shame women who have abortions. I did not in any way mean to imply that those attempts to shame should in any way be prohibited, just that the idea behind them (i.e., that abortion is wrong) should be combatted.

"Hear, hear. I'm not pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion -- I think the world would be a better place if more people had them."

Well, that is a very interesting statement. Would the world have been a better place if your mom had had one? Who knows? But considering that lunacy of the comment I would say there is a pretty good chance of it. I mean, I don't even think abortion rights folks want MORE abortions - they simply want the right to have them.

Jackie is absolutely right (even though she keeps deleting my comments from her blog for no reason whatsoever). We do need to have MORE abortions, not fewer, unless by "fewer abortions" you really mean "fewer pregnancies", which obviously everyone could get behind.

But given that there are -- and realistically, always will be-- a large number of unplanned & unwanted pregnancies, abortion should be encouraged. This is really a no-brainer, especially for you GOPers who don't want to have to support the poor via welfare etc. Who do you think is going to end up on the public dole?

There is really no value in increasing the number of human beings currently in existence. We have plenty o' humans. There's no sense in creating more. What's the point?

So Jackie's comment was not in any way a "lunacy", but rather a rational evaluation of the best course of action given the unhappy fact of unwanted pregnancy.

[Scott Scheule]

"There is really no value in increasing the number of human beings currently in existence. We have plenty o' humans. There's no sense in creating more. What's the point?"

An assertion with no support. See anything by Julian Simon for an opposing view.

[David]

The best course of action of an unwanted pregnancy is adoption to a loving family. Abortion is a lousy alternative.

Why should abortion be encouraged as an answer to unwanted or unplanned pregnancies? What social good does that serve? Yes, it is a relatively easy way out (as opposed to taking a baby to term and having to either raise the child or put it up for adoption), but that only benefits the woman, not society.

No sense in creating more humans? Maybe that makes sense when you think of humanity in terms of a total number of people, but when you think of individuals who can contribute to humanity that is simply nonsense.

No one knows what contributions any individual human is going to make to society and you think we should just stop making them?

Saying that a woman should have the right to an abortion is very different from advocating more abortions to solve any social problem. There are plenty of families that want babies, having these unwanted and unplanned children placed with them seems to me to be of greater social benefit than "ridding" the world of them through abortion.

[dadahead]

An assertion with no support. See anything by Julian Simon for an opposing view.

Well, I can't very well support every single thing I say, now can I? Otherwise my posts would be extraordinarily long, and each one would end up with my citing the law of the excluded middle or something.

As for Julian Simon, I admit that my knowledge with respect to his work is scant at best. But if I am not incorrect (and I may be), he was arguing against the inevitability of a "Malthusian catastrophe" if the population kept increasing. I didn't mean to imply any endorsement for such a view (i.e., the Malthusian view).

My point was simply that IMO there is no compelling reason for producing more humans, any more than there is a compelling reason to produce loads more hamsters.

No one knows what contributions any individual human is going to make to society and you think we should just stop making them?

Oh no -- the "possible contribution to society" argument!

By this rationale, we should all be having as many children as possible, in order to increase the liklihood of producing a person who makes some kind of contribution to society.

Let me tell you something: the vast, vast majority of humans live their lives without making a single contribution to anything.

Furthermore, I can't think of a single person whose nonexistence would have made the world a much more wretched place. Maybe without Einstein we wouldn't have relativity theory. The Americas would have been discovered later had Columbus not existed (that seems like a good thing to me).

Come to think of it, the chances of aborted fetus X having grown up to be someone who contributed something positive to the world pale in comparison to the chances that fetus X would have grown up to commit great evil -- i.e., that he would have been the next Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. So really, we should be encouraging women to abort in order to prevent such a child from being born!

DO you see how silly this line of reasoning is?

[David]

Funny you should ask, I see just how silly your line of reasoning is, as I imagine most people do.

For every big time evil-doer you can name, there are thousands of known and unknown individuals who make a positive contribution to humanity. Artists, healers, scientists, teachers, philosophers, spiritual leaders - all of these and more have contributed to good in our world. Have some of them contributed to the bad? Of course. But what a dreadfully cynical point of view that we should stop having babies because some people turn out badly.

But this is useless. Let's boil it down to the purpose of reproduction. The most compelling reason to produce more humans is to continue the species.

Considering your view of humanity, however, I can see how you would want the species to die out.

Hell, if I looked at life like you do, I would too.

[dadahead]

But what a dreadfully cynical point of view that we should stop having babies because some people turn out badly.

I wasn't really offering that as an argument. My point was that if you're going to base the decision whether or not to reproduce on the possible contribution that the potential human might make, you have to take into account the possible bad contributions they might make. Given that the ratio of people who have a significant and positive contribution to those who hava a significant and negative contribution is fairly low, a betting man would say that the average fetus was much more likely to do a world of harm as opposed to a world of good, if allowed to grow into a full human.

But this is useless. Let's boil it down to the purpose of reproduction. The most compelling reason to produce more humans is to continue the species.

Well, okay, but as I pointed out above, the same thing could be said for hamsters, a species which, like humans, is not in any danger of dying out anytime soon.

I assume you don't think we should be doing everything we can to facilitate more hamster births. Why should we with humans?

[Dan Schneider]

I've always thought 'pro-choice' was cowardly and tacitly ceded the debate. I've known many women who had abortions and not a one w guilt- an occasional what if moment, but that's all. I always say what does pro-choice mean? Free congoleum for all? No, it mean's you're pro-abortion. Be proud of it. DAN

[David]

"Given that the ratio of people who have a significant and positive contribution to those who hava a significant and negative contribution is fairly low, a betting man would say that the average fetus was much more likely to do a world of harm as opposed to a world of good, if allowed to grow into a full human."

Have they done some study that documents the ratio of bad people to good people or the contributions of bad people to good people that I missed? Is this ratio published somewhere? Because I sure would like to see it.

You named four or five mass-murdering thugs as proof there is a chance you are gonna get a "bad" baby. Are you saying there are fewer examples of good ones out there?

And I do think the human species is more important than the "hamster" species. Aside from the occasional chuckle at one running in a spinning wheel, I don't think they contribute much to humanity. Hamsters, that is.

[Naaman]

There is really no value in increasing the number of human beings currently in existence. We have plenty o' humans. There's no sense in creating more. What's the point?

Well, the problem is that the human has already been created, and then the abortion kills him/her. Women who have abortions don't magically reverse their pregnancies. They simply become mothers of dead children.

All of you "rah-rah abortion!" cheerleaders need to check out the post-abortion">http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/">post-abortion movement. Many, many women who have abortions face serious psychological problems down the road. Increased rates of suicide, substance abuse, and more. Abortion kills children, hurts women terribly, and chips away at our most important right: the right to live.

Even from a libertarian perspective, it makes no sense. Death is the ultimate assault on a person's liberties.

[dadahead]

Have they done some study that documents the ratio of bad people to good people or the contributions of bad people to good people that I missed? Is this ratio published somewhere? Because I sure would like to see it.

No, of course not. Such a thing would clearly not lend itself to a scientific enquiry, not least of all because it would necessarily invoke certain evaluative notions which science cannot really support.

Just my observations based on the humans I've known and known about. Armchair sociology. The majority of them are such that we could do perfectly well without them. For every Einstein there is probably 1 or 2 Stalins and 5,000,000,000 Joe Sixpacks, people whose existence is, on the whole, a neutral affair, neither significantly harming nor helping the world, not making a difference in anyway.

So when you abort a fetus, the odds are overwhelming that you are simply depriving the world of one of the nobodies, and not one of the handful of geniuses.

And most members of other species I've known have been much more agreeable than humans.

[David]

The obvious answer is you are hanging around the wrong people, dada.

I am not even gonna touch the gift you gave me and tell you that you are hanging around to many liberals - that would be cruel, indeed.