Steven Waldman

Steven Waldman

My Abortion Approach Would Lead to “Nightmare of Moral Crudity” (Safe, Legal, Early, cont’d)

posted by swaldman | 2:35pm Thursday May 14, 2009

Will Saletan at Slate responded to my latest “Safe, Legal, Early” defense:

“Morally, my feelings differ from Steve’s. I’m more uncomfortable with early abortions than he is. At the same time, I’m more uncomfortable with government interference in late abortions than he is. Steve is right that earlier is better. But pointing out that truth, or even preaching it, is very different from criminalizing, investigating, and prosecuting abortions. My wager is that such laws would create a nightmare of moral crudity, hypocrisy, deceit, interrogations, and amateur surgery. Women make these decisions better than cops, judges, and lawmakers do.”

Yes, one logical conclusion from my original “Safe, Legal, Early” essay is the possible criminalization of more third trimester abortions.
But when we evoke that scary scenario let’s at least acknowledge that Roe v. Wade said regulating third trimester abotions was fine.
More important, we’re accustomed to looking at abortion only in terms of sticks. But the key to “safe, legal, early” would be a proper set of carrots. To wit…
Instead of requiring parental notification for all pregnant teens, you’d say notification wouldn’t be required if the abortion took place in the first few weeks but would be later on. That would give the pregnant teen an incentive to decide quickly.
Instead of providing government funding for all abortion, provide it just for those in the first trimester. That would prod a pregnant woman to decide quickly.
And at the end the pregnancy, offer a different set of incentives. If the woman is eight months pregnant and doesn’t want the baby, provide her financial support to give birth and put the baby up for adoption.



Previous Posts

Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety. But mostly deep, deep gratitude. How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create

posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 | read full post »

"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o

posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 | read full post »

My Big News
Dear Readers, This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999. In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the

posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »

"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009 BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re

posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »

Secularizing the Cross (Christian Activists: Be Careful What You Wish For)
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week, in Buono v. Salazar, about whether a white 6 1/2 foot cross can be displayed in a national park as a tribute to World War I soldiers. Though it's depicted as a classic clash of the secular and the religious, it actually illustrates why Christian act

posted 1:15:51pm Oct. 08, 2009 | read full post »

Advertisement
Comments read comments(8)
post a comment
Herman Wok

posted May 14, 2009 at 4:25 pm


How about we just let women decide what to do with their bodies?
That’s pretty radical, huh?



report abuse
 

Weaselkin

posted May 14, 2009 at 7:19 pm


In earlier years I felt it more important to judge the circumstances surrounding pregnancy. Now I have gone through my own life’s experiences and have to deal with my change in values.
I was always under the impression that the Bible didn’t specifically address God’s stand on abortion. I now now diffrently. I was looking for the specific verse but didn’t have it at my fingertips. While trying to locate it, I found other references but I didn’t find them as strong.
In any event we shouldn’t try to fool ourselves. If God has granted life, he meant for it to be. Who are we to terminate it to make our life’s journey easier, thus changing the path that God has mapped out for us. No matter which way we shake the stick it is murder unless terminated by God himself.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted May 14, 2009 at 7:47 pm


Herman Wok, are you the writer? A voice of sanity.
Weaselkin, suppose we map our own lives out in spirit before we come to earth like many people believe? Why should your belief or mine determine what all women in America should do?



report abuse
 

Robert R.

posted May 15, 2009 at 1:49 am


“Why should your belief or mine determine what all women in America should do?”
Because God has appointed me Her divine representative on earth to instruct everybody else from the Bible as I read it.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted May 15, 2009 at 9:59 am


Goodness, what a novel idea – letting a woman decide for herself what she does with her own body.
Next thing you know, we’ll be putting shoes on ‘em, teaching them how to read and giving them passive franchise.
Seriously, abortion will go on whether I like it or not (I don’t). The only question under discussion should be, how do I as 1) a man and 2) a gay man who is baby proof (safe conclusion after all these years) help a young woman in trouble? Do I drive her into a dark alley and a coat-hanger? Do I provide her with the resources to prevent the pregnancy in the first place (including a sense of self-worth)? Or, once that has occurred which nobody wanted, a pregnancy, do I give her the resources to end it before quickening – after which time the woman should be given the resources to bring the baby to term without penalty.
Any other questions are outside my standing.
And, yes, ultimately, even if I am unhappy about it – it’s her body, not mine, her life, not mine, her exclusive right to decide, not mine.
When and if the time comes that men can carry babies to term, then, perhaps, we can discuss whether the male half of this pregnancy should not be forced to bring the pregnancy he cause to term. Otherwise, nope, her decision and her’s alone.
What is so hard about that?



report abuse
 

K.

posted May 15, 2009 at 1:47 pm


But is it her body? Genetically speaking, the feotus is a different individual from the mother. I think the woman’s right over her body lies in her choice of having sex, protectet sex and sex in a convinient time of her life. The moment the woman had sex, she tecnically opened her self to the possibility of a pregnancy. And the law also imposes some restricition on a person’s body. To the best of my knowledge, no one can go to a doctor an ask to have a limb removed because the owner of the body wishes to have only one arm instead of two.
If a feoutus is not a person, why is so much money and time being invested in trying to save it? You can have in the same hospital a doctor trying to save an unborn baby and another extrating an unborn baby from the womb. Is there any difference between the babies? Not physically. The only difference is the opinion about them that a woma has.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted May 15, 2009 at 4:39 pm


K.
So are you in your glorious determination to tell the rest of us what to do with our bodies in the position to assume all pregnancies for every woman?
No?
Than keep your hateful desire to impose your will on other human’s bodies to yourself.
It is none of your business what a woman chooses to do with her body. Her body, mind you. Until quickening it is just as absurd to refer to the cluster of cells growing in her as human as it is to be bothered about the number of haploid cells you as a woman or I as a man lose every month.
Honestly, where do you conservative Christians get off thinking you have the right to impose your will on our lives? You want to dissolve my marriage to my husband, you want to torture the innocent just because you can and you claim dominion over the sovereign bodies of other women.
What a horrible, grasping, nasty fascist person you and your ilk are. Get it through your head for once and for all: A woman is a human. She is not subject to sick whims of your perverted desires.
And all, of course, in the name of “God.”
Yeah, right.



report abuse
 

oem hanger

posted August 17, 2010 at 11:55 pm


nice post,I like the post thank you



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.

Share this story


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Help

Media Kit

Subscribe

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.