by Eric Martin
Anti-abortion activists often claim that exemptions from abortion bans for life/health of the mother provide too-wide a loophole and allow for de facto legal abortion. However, this is what abortion bans without such exemptions look like:
The cruelty of Nicaragua's extreme abortion ban is undeniable in the case of Amelia (an alias), a 27-year-old woman with cancer. Passed in 2006, the law criminalizes abortion, even if the woman's life or health is at risk. Amelia, who has a 10-year-old daughter, needs to have an abortion so she can undergo treatment for the cancer, which may have metastasized in her brain, lungs and breasts. […]
From a statement from…organizations [advocating on behalf of Amelia]:
Even though the treating physicians concluded that the patient requires an abortion to initiate chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment, the young woman has been hospitalized since January 29th without being able to receive an abortion and therefore, without receiving any kind of treatment to stop the cancer.
Under these circumstances, Amelia is in imminent danger of losing her life, given the impossibility of accessing an abortion. Under current Nicaraguan law, women in need of therapeutic abortions to save their life or protect their health are in fact, sentenced to death. Additionally, in this case, her minor daughter would be orphaned.
Because every life is sacred. Or something.
Forced pregnancy = torture.
Forced pregnancy = torture.
Torture = also very popular with the party of life. Just sayin’.
Torture = also very popular with the party of life. Just sayin’.
Torture = also very popular with the party of life. Just sayin’.
Heh.
More accurately, the above should be:
Forced pregnancy & childbirth = torture.
End of story.
Torture = also very popular with the party of life. Just sayin’.
Heh.
More accurately, the above should be:
Forced pregnancy & childbirth = torture.
End of story.
OT – someone still needs to put Charles Bird as an alum on the sidebar.
OT – someone still needs to put Charles Bird as an alum on the sidebar.
Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored. If a nine-year-old girl repeatedly raped by her stepfather is not an innocent, how can anyone suppose that a 27-year-old woman who has a 10-year-old daughter already could possibly be regarded as most definitely innocent and therefore her life is worthy to be saved? May the Lord bless you for your efforts to defend the unborn. Amalia’s 10-year-old daughter is probably not an innocent either.
Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored. If a nine-year-old girl repeatedly raped by her stepfather is not an innocent, how can anyone suppose that a 27-year-old woman who has a 10-year-old daughter already could possibly be regarded as most definitely innocent and therefore her life is worthy to be saved? May the Lord bless you for your efforts to defend the unborn. Amalia’s 10-year-old daughter is probably not an innocent either.
Very funny Jesurgislac,
Nicaragua used to allow therapeutic abortions to save a woman’s life; the law was changed after the case of “Rosita”, another 9-yr-old pregnancy case. Rosita was a Nicaraguan living in Costa Rica when she was allegedly raped by a neighbor. After it became apparent that Costa Rica would not allow a therapeutic abortion, women’s health activists spirited her and her parents over the border into Nicaragua, where the abortion was performed. This case was the subject of a documentary film (http://rositathemovie.com) Disclosure: I did the animation for this film.
As a sad footnote to rosita’s story, several years later she became pregnant again, apparently by her stapfather, and carried the child to term. Even sadder is that in some circles this was held up as reason for not allowing her first abortion.
Very funny Jesurgislac,
Nicaragua used to allow therapeutic abortions to save a woman’s life; the law was changed after the case of “Rosita”, another 9-yr-old pregnancy case. Rosita was a Nicaraguan living in Costa Rica when she was allegedly raped by a neighbor. After it became apparent that Costa Rica would not allow a therapeutic abortion, women’s health activists spirited her and her parents over the border into Nicaragua, where the abortion was performed. This case was the subject of a documentary film (http://rositathemovie.com) Disclosure: I did the animation for this film.
As a sad footnote to rosita’s story, several years later she became pregnant again, apparently by her stapfather, and carried the child to term. Even sadder is that in some circles this was held up as reason for not allowing her first abortion.
Jesurgislac may not be aware of it but both Catholic and original Lutheran doctrine (both coming from St.Augustine in this case) states that the unborn is not innocent. That’s the very reason why abortions are evil from their point of view. An aborted child goes straight to hell (or at least to limbo but even that thought was heretical most of the time). Up to very recently the RCC demanded that a pregnant woman had to sacrifice her life for the baptism (not the life!!!) of her unborn if there was no other way to get that done (instruments were also developed for emergency pre-natal baptism). In the past there were even laws that women that died during pregnancy could not be buried in hallowed earth unless the (naturally unbaptized) fetus was cut out and buried outside the churchyard.
Personally I think that people coming up with such doctrines should be tortured.
Jesurgislac may not be aware of it but both Catholic and original Lutheran doctrine (both coming from St.Augustine in this case) states that the unborn is not innocent. That’s the very reason why abortions are evil from their point of view. An aborted child goes straight to hell (or at least to limbo but even that thought was heretical most of the time). Up to very recently the RCC demanded that a pregnant woman had to sacrifice her life for the baptism (not the life!!!) of her unborn if there was no other way to get that done (instruments were also developed for emergency pre-natal baptism). In the past there were even laws that women that died during pregnancy could not be buried in hallowed earth unless the (naturally unbaptized) fetus was cut out and buried outside the churchyard.
Personally I think that people coming up with such doctrines should be tortured.
Jesurgislac may not be aware of it but both Catholic and original Lutheran doctrine (both coming from St.Augustine in this case) states that the unborn is not innocent.
No, I did know that. (But you did get that I was quoting the Catholic Archbishop? He’s the one who claimed that a fetus is an innocent and a nine-year-old girl “may or may not be”.) That’s why for many years, infanticide was more common than abortion in Ireland (I don’t know about other Catholic countries) – because a woman who was pregnant and couldn’t have the baby, preferred to deliver alone, baptize the infant so that baby could go to heaven, then kill it. The baby would go to Heaven, and the mother could always confess/repent/be absolved.
Abortion is still not legal in any part of Ireland, but these days Irish women just go to Belgium or the UK to have abortions (and bloody well should get to have them on the NHS!), since it’s become doctrine that unbaptised fetuses are innocent and can go to heaven.
Personally I think that people coming up with such doctrines should be tortured.
Most of them are dead, so it’s a bit late for that. Personally I think the best recourse is to make it unacceptable for religious doctrine justifying the denial of human rights to women to have the force of law.
Jesurgislac may not be aware of it but both Catholic and original Lutheran doctrine (both coming from St.Augustine in this case) states that the unborn is not innocent.
No, I did know that. (But you did get that I was quoting the Catholic Archbishop? He’s the one who claimed that a fetus is an innocent and a nine-year-old girl “may or may not be”.) That’s why for many years, infanticide was more common than abortion in Ireland (I don’t know about other Catholic countries) – because a woman who was pregnant and couldn’t have the baby, preferred to deliver alone, baptize the infant so that baby could go to heaven, then kill it. The baby would go to Heaven, and the mother could always confess/repent/be absolved.
Abortion is still not legal in any part of Ireland, but these days Irish women just go to Belgium or the UK to have abortions (and bloody well should get to have them on the NHS!), since it’s become doctrine that unbaptised fetuses are innocent and can go to heaven.
Personally I think that people coming up with such doctrines should be tortured.
Most of them are dead, so it’s a bit late for that. Personally I think the best recourse is to make it unacceptable for religious doctrine justifying the denial of human rights to women to have the force of law.
Oops.
Oops.
FWIW, not everyone who opposes elective abortion as a means of birth control also opposes exceptions, including an exception for the mother’s life or serious impairment of her health. I’ve argued this point before on this site. Eric paints with too broad a brush, to say the least.
FWIW, not everyone who opposes elective abortion as a means of birth control also opposes exceptions, including an exception for the mother’s life or serious impairment of her health. I’ve argued this point before on this site. Eric paints with too broad a brush, to say the least.
McTex,
True that this is a generalization.
McTex,
True that this is a generalization.
FWIW, not everyone who opposes elective abortion as a means of birth control also opposes exceptions
True, but why does that matter? You’re really on board with forcing a woman to go through a full pregnancy and childbirth so long as her health is not seriously impaired?
FWIW, not everyone who opposes elective abortion as a means of birth control also opposes exceptions
True, but why does that matter? You’re really on board with forcing a woman to go through a full pregnancy and childbirth so long as her health is not seriously impaired?
Why should there be any exception at all? Either it’s murder, or it isn’t.
If you allow exceptions, then you’re in the business of making a judgment on a specific set of circumstances.
And since you’re allowing this judgment, please tell me in the name of all that’s fucking sacred how YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE MOTHER AND HER DOCTOR what’s best for her?
Either you’re against all abortions, no exceptions, or you allow the mother and her doctor to decide what an exception would be.
The rest is just sexism and wanking (the bad kind).
Why should there be any exception at all? Either it’s murder, or it isn’t.
If you allow exceptions, then you’re in the business of making a judgment on a specific set of circumstances.
And since you’re allowing this judgment, please tell me in the name of all that’s fucking sacred how YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE MOTHER AND HER DOCTOR what’s best for her?
Either you’re against all abortions, no exceptions, or you allow the mother and her doctor to decide what an exception would be.
The rest is just sexism and wanking (the bad kind).
McKinneyTexas: Eric paints with too broad a brush, to say the least.
If you don’t like being identified with other forced-pregnancy advocates, why not just quit advocating for forced pregnancy? That you’re willing to treat women with the respect of a good farmer for a useful breeding animal, rather than simply use-till-broken throwaway incubators, makes you fractionally better than them, but it’s not really a difference to be proud of…
McKinneyTexas: Eric paints with too broad a brush, to say the least.
If you don’t like being identified with other forced-pregnancy advocates, why not just quit advocating for forced pregnancy? That you’re willing to treat women with the respect of a good farmer for a useful breeding animal, rather than simply use-till-broken throwaway incubators, makes you fractionally better than them, but it’s not really a difference to be proud of…
What Prattlehorn said.
What Prattlehorn said.
In other misogyny news:
In other misogyny news:
“Anti-abortion activists often claim that exemptions [in US law] from abortion bans for
life/health of the mother provide too-wide a loophole and allow for de facto legal abortion.”This statement would have been accurate and non strawmanning.
And of course has little to do with Nicaragua.
“Anti-abortion activists often claim that exemptions [in US law] from abortion bans for
life/health of the mother provide too-wide a loophole and allow for de facto legal abortion.”This statement would have been accurate and non strawmanning.
And of course has little to do with Nicaragua.
With accuracy and without the strawman, what degree of health sacrifices are we to expect from pregnant women and what should the government’s role be in deciding that on a case-by-case or blanket basis? (I’m thinking small government here.)
With accuracy and without the strawman, what degree of health sacrifices are we to expect from pregnant women and what should the government’s role be in deciding that on a case-by-case or blanket basis? (I’m thinking small government here.)
“And since you’re allowing this judgment, please tell me in the name of all that’s fucking sacred how YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE MOTHER AND HER DOCTOR what’s best for her”
I believe that our laws are pretty clear.
Killing a child in the womb is a crime. It is murder. If anyone does that they are considered the most heinous of criminals, with two exceptions. We have exempted the mother and her doctor (and various support staff) from prosecution under these laws, specifically.
There is a rational discussion as to whether there are instances, just as specific, where we don’t exempt them from these laws.
Not really, it is a discussion of the rights of two people who are both recognized by law as having rights.
“And since you’re allowing this judgment, please tell me in the name of all that’s fucking sacred how YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE MOTHER AND HER DOCTOR what’s best for her”
I believe that our laws are pretty clear.
Killing a child in the womb is a crime. It is murder. If anyone does that they are considered the most heinous of criminals, with two exceptions. We have exempted the mother and her doctor (and various support staff) from prosecution under these laws, specifically.
There is a rational discussion as to whether there are instances, just as specific, where we don’t exempt them from these laws.
Not really, it is a discussion of the rights of two people who are both recognized by law as having rights.
The language employed by my fellow abortion rights supporters unfortunately illustrates George Orwell’s observation that when there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as if instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Abortion rights–the right to avoid reproduction–means “reproductive rights”
The horrid phrase, “forced pregnancy”, should properly be reserved for pregnancy resulting from rape. Force ordinarily indicates the application of power or compulsion–most often in the sense of overcoming resistance or inertia. Where sex, resulting in conception, is unforced, the development of the fetus to term results naturally from the absence of force. The termination of a pregnancy by abortion necessarily involves some measure of force.
Let’s be honest in our use of language. There is no need to be squeamish about calling abortion by its name. Let’s leave twisting the Queen’s English into the shape of a pretzel to those who glibly call themselves “pro-life” but don’t give a damn about post-natal life.
The language employed by my fellow abortion rights supporters unfortunately illustrates George Orwell’s observation that when there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as if instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Abortion rights–the right to avoid reproduction–means “reproductive rights”
The horrid phrase, “forced pregnancy”, should properly be reserved for pregnancy resulting from rape. Force ordinarily indicates the application of power or compulsion–most often in the sense of overcoming resistance or inertia. Where sex, resulting in conception, is unforced, the development of the fetus to term results naturally from the absence of force. The termination of a pregnancy by abortion necessarily involves some measure of force.
Let’s be honest in our use of language. There is no need to be squeamish about calling abortion by its name. Let’s leave twisting the Queen’s English into the shape of a pretzel to those who glibly call themselves “pro-life” but don’t give a damn about post-natal life.
Abortion rights–the right to avoid reproduction–means “reproductive rights”
This isn’t Newspeak. The right to avoid reproduction is as much a reproductive right as the right not to go to church on Sunday is a religious right.
I don’t mind calling abortion abortion, and I am not a fan of the “forced pregnancy” phrase either. But “reproductive rights” is a good label for the idea that the state should not tell us what to do with our own bodies. Reproductive rights cut both ways: the state cannot compel me and my wife to bear children, nor can it prevent me from doing so. It’s none of the state’s goddamn business what happens inside our own bodies. If there is one realm in which we ought to be sovereign, it is that.
Abortion rights–the right to avoid reproduction–means “reproductive rights”
This isn’t Newspeak. The right to avoid reproduction is as much a reproductive right as the right not to go to church on Sunday is a religious right.
I don’t mind calling abortion abortion, and I am not a fan of the “forced pregnancy” phrase either. But “reproductive rights” is a good label for the idea that the state should not tell us what to do with our own bodies. Reproductive rights cut both ways: the state cannot compel me and my wife to bear children, nor can it prevent me from doing so. It’s none of the state’s goddamn business what happens inside our own bodies. If there is one realm in which we ought to be sovereign, it is that.
John: . Force ordinarily indicates the application of power or compulsion–most often in the sense of overcoming resistance or inertia.
Yes: that would include the legislation – and the terrorist activity – intended to force a woman away from having an abortion, into continuing her pregnancy against her will.
Where sex, resulting in conception, is unforced, the development of the fetus to term results naturally from the absence of force.
Unless the woman has decided to have an abortion. Abortion is – in early-stage pregnancy – a simple and cheap operation. It can be performed as an out-patient procedure: a chemical abortion can even be carried out largely at home, providing the woman has quick access to medical services if anything goes wrong. To prevent doctors and nurses from feeling able to perform abortions, the application of force – as we see with the terrorist wing of the pro-life movement, or the jail sentences handed down by pro-life governments – is very much required.
The termination of a pregnancy by abortion necessarily involves some measure of force.
Not unless the woman is being forced to have an abortion, which I oppose as strongly as I would if she were being forced to have the baby. Women who want abortions don’t have to be “forced” into having an abortion, and no woman who doesn’t want to have an abortion should be forced. The same is true for continuing the pregnancy.
Where sex, resulting in conception, is unforced
The notion that the decision to have sex is completely equivalent to the decision to have a baby is ludicrously false.
John: . Force ordinarily indicates the application of power or compulsion–most often in the sense of overcoming resistance or inertia.
Yes: that would include the legislation – and the terrorist activity – intended to force a woman away from having an abortion, into continuing her pregnancy against her will.
Where sex, resulting in conception, is unforced, the development of the fetus to term results naturally from the absence of force.
Unless the woman has decided to have an abortion. Abortion is – in early-stage pregnancy – a simple and cheap operation. It can be performed as an out-patient procedure: a chemical abortion can even be carried out largely at home, providing the woman has quick access to medical services if anything goes wrong. To prevent doctors and nurses from feeling able to perform abortions, the application of force – as we see with the terrorist wing of the pro-life movement, or the jail sentences handed down by pro-life governments – is very much required.
The termination of a pregnancy by abortion necessarily involves some measure of force.
Not unless the woman is being forced to have an abortion, which I oppose as strongly as I would if she were being forced to have the baby. Women who want abortions don’t have to be “forced” into having an abortion, and no woman who doesn’t want to have an abortion should be forced. The same is true for continuing the pregnancy.
Where sex, resulting in conception, is unforced
The notion that the decision to have sex is completely equivalent to the decision to have a baby is ludicrously false.
Marty: Killing a child in the womb is a crime. It is murder
Huh? Marty, if you attempt to stuff a child back into a woman’s uterus, no matter how young the child is – even a newborn baby – the child will die. So will the woman, probably. You can’t “kill a child in the womb”, because children don’t fit into wombs – the image is as absurd as the idea John was proposing that for a woman the decision to have sex is exactly the same as the decision to have a baby.
We have exempted the mother and her doctor (and various support staff) from prosecution under these laws, specifically.
No, it’s still illegal fro a mother or her doctor or any support staff to kill a child, whether by stuffing the child into the mother’s womb or by any other horror movie or saner method.
What is not illegal is performing an abortion, which will either kill or result indirectly in the death of the fetus the woman is carrying. But as anyone who knows anything about human development knows – a fetus is not a baby…
Marty: Killing a child in the womb is a crime. It is murder
Huh? Marty, if you attempt to stuff a child back into a woman’s uterus, no matter how young the child is – even a newborn baby – the child will die. So will the woman, probably. You can’t “kill a child in the womb”, because children don’t fit into wombs – the image is as absurd as the idea John was proposing that for a woman the decision to have sex is exactly the same as the decision to have a baby.
We have exempted the mother and her doctor (and various support staff) from prosecution under these laws, specifically.
No, it’s still illegal fro a mother or her doctor or any support staff to kill a child, whether by stuffing the child into the mother’s womb or by any other horror movie or saner method.
What is not illegal is performing an abortion, which will either kill or result indirectly in the death of the fetus the woman is carrying. But as anyone who knows anything about human development knows – a fetus is not a baby…
An addendum to the ‘infanticide (of baptized child) better than abortion (of unbaptized fetus)’: Since contraception is equaled by the church to abortion, Polish women preferred the latter (at least during the pontificate of John Paul II who stated the doctrine explicitly) because contraception has to be done (and confessed) on a regular base while abortions are far more rare. The sum of sin would therefore be smaller.
It’s just another example of insane outcomes by logical conclusions from mad axioms (like making suicide a crime punishable by death).
But what if Mary had aborted Christ? No joke, that argument has been made and is still used by some though most now talk about all the potential geniuses that could fall victim to abortion (but never about the potential Hitlers).
An addendum to the ‘infanticide (of baptized child) better than abortion (of unbaptized fetus)’: Since contraception is equaled by the church to abortion, Polish women preferred the latter (at least during the pontificate of John Paul II who stated the doctrine explicitly) because contraception has to be done (and confessed) on a regular base while abortions are far more rare. The sum of sin would therefore be smaller.
It’s just another example of insane outcomes by logical conclusions from mad axioms (like making suicide a crime punishable by death).
But what if Mary had aborted Christ? No joke, that argument has been made and is still used by some though most now talk about all the potential geniuses that could fall victim to abortion (but never about the potential Hitlers).
But what if Mary had aborted Christ? No joke, that argument has been made and is still used by some
The version I used to be told by pro-life educators is “but then you would have murdered Beethoven”… since in the UK, I guess, even pro-lifers realized there’s just too much temptation for blasphemous jokes if you suggest that Mary could have responded to Gabriel’s “You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus” with anything other than “May it be to me as you have said”.
Actually, if you’re a Catholic and believe Mary was specially blessed and chosen from conception, it’s equally blasphemous to suppose that Mary’s mother could have decided to have an abortion… though possibly, like Slayerness, God had a bunch of teenage girls all ready to be the Divine Mom, and it just happened that Mary was the only one who reacted with “Okay, if you say so God” rather than “Where is the local wise woman, I’m getting this thing OUT of me before I get stoned to death for having sex before I got married!”
Now suppose there had been two of them, would they both have been named Jesus? Or would one of them have been JesusSpare? Or Neville?
But what if Mary had aborted Christ? No joke, that argument has been made and is still used by some
The version I used to be told by pro-life educators is “but then you would have murdered Beethoven”… since in the UK, I guess, even pro-lifers realized there’s just too much temptation for blasphemous jokes if you suggest that Mary could have responded to Gabriel’s “You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus” with anything other than “May it be to me as you have said”.
Actually, if you’re a Catholic and believe Mary was specially blessed and chosen from conception, it’s equally blasphemous to suppose that Mary’s mother could have decided to have an abortion… though possibly, like Slayerness, God had a bunch of teenage girls all ready to be the Divine Mom, and it just happened that Mary was the only one who reacted with “Okay, if you say so God” rather than “Where is the local wise woman, I’m getting this thing OUT of me before I get stoned to death for having sex before I got married!”
Now suppose there had been two of them, would they both have been named Jesus? Or would one of them have been JesusSpare? Or Neville?
Jesurgislac: “Huh? Marty, if you attempt to stuff a child back into a woman’s uterus, no matter how young the child is – even a newborn baby – the child will die. So will the woman, probably. You can’t “kill a child in the womb”, because children don’t fit into wombs – the image is as absurd as the idea John was proposing that for a woman the decision to have sex is exactly the same as the decision to have a baby.?”
You know what he’s talking about, don’t be an idiot.
Jesurgislac: But as anyone who knows anything about human development knows – a fetus is not a baby…
A fetus is a human being with a unique DNA code, who, just like a baby, an eight year old, or a sixteen year old, will grow up and develop into a member of a society. Which is why killing a pregnant woman usually results in a double murder charge, and is why abortion should be considered the same, regardless of the initial intent of the parents. What kind of society kills people they don’t want.
Jesurgislac: “Huh? Marty, if you attempt to stuff a child back into a woman’s uterus, no matter how young the child is – even a newborn baby – the child will die. So will the woman, probably. You can’t “kill a child in the womb”, because children don’t fit into wombs – the image is as absurd as the idea John was proposing that for a woman the decision to have sex is exactly the same as the decision to have a baby.?”
You know what he’s talking about, don’t be an idiot.
Jesurgislac: But as anyone who knows anything about human development knows – a fetus is not a baby…
A fetus is a human being with a unique DNA code, who, just like a baby, an eight year old, or a sixteen year old, will grow up and develop into a member of a society. Which is why killing a pregnant woman usually results in a double murder charge, and is why abortion should be considered the same, regardless of the initial intent of the parents. What kind of society kills people they don’t want.
don’t kill people. simple rule: You know what he’s talking about
Yes, I understand that Marty is trying to use the language of the pro-lifer movement that justifies forced pregnancy, by pretending that fetuses are children. That language is both evilly intended and scientifically inaccurate, and I challenge it wherever it’s used.
A fetus is a human being with a unique DNA code, who, just like a baby, an eight year old, or a sixteen year old, will grow up and develop into a member of a society.
Unlike a baby, however, a fetus can only “grow up” if a woman is willing and able to provide the necessary life-support – the use of her uterus.
In every country in the world, it is understood that a person has sovereign right over their own body, and may decide for themselves whether to provide the use of one or more of their organs – even to save another person’s life. Even exceptions such as in China where the bodies of condemned criminals are used for organ “donation” are condemned, and rightly so. Only the uterus – an organ which no man can be required to “donate” the use of against his will – is regarded as even arguable – and invariably by people who do not regard women as meriting the same degree of human or civil rights as men.
Which is why pro-choice is the only moral option.
What kind of society kills people they don’t want.
Nicaragua – an example of which is in this post. The pro-life movement in the US, for which eight murders haven’t been enough. Worldwide, about 70,000 women a year die because the pro-life movement doesn’t really regard them as “people” at all – mere objects to be disposed of in the pro-life cause.
don’t kill people. simple rule: You know what he’s talking about
Yes, I understand that Marty is trying to use the language of the pro-lifer movement that justifies forced pregnancy, by pretending that fetuses are children. That language is both evilly intended and scientifically inaccurate, and I challenge it wherever it’s used.
A fetus is a human being with a unique DNA code, who, just like a baby, an eight year old, or a sixteen year old, will grow up and develop into a member of a society.
Unlike a baby, however, a fetus can only “grow up” if a woman is willing and able to provide the necessary life-support – the use of her uterus.
In every country in the world, it is understood that a person has sovereign right over their own body, and may decide for themselves whether to provide the use of one or more of their organs – even to save another person’s life. Even exceptions such as in China where the bodies of condemned criminals are used for organ “donation” are condemned, and rightly so. Only the uterus – an organ which no man can be required to “donate” the use of against his will – is regarded as even arguable – and invariably by people who do not regard women as meriting the same degree of human or civil rights as men.
Which is why pro-choice is the only moral option.
What kind of society kills people they don’t want.
Nicaragua – an example of which is in this post. The pro-life movement in the US, for which eight murders haven’t been enough. Worldwide, about 70,000 women a year die because the pro-life movement doesn’t really regard them as “people” at all – mere objects to be disposed of in the pro-life cause.
There are not many threads where, Jes having turned it up to 11, I can still say I am 100% onboard, but this would be one of them.
Things inside my body belong to me. Unless I am incapable, I reserve the right to control what goes on inside my body. End of story. The state does not get to dictate what goes into it or comes out of it. That is the most fundamental right any human being has.
This pretense that there is citizen A on the outside and citizen B on the inside is garbage. If & when a fetus makes it to independent existence not inside some other person, with the assistance of its mother, it is citizen B. Until then, it ain’t people.
You want to reduce abortions? Condoms. The pill. The morning-after pill. They work. When they are freely available to every kid in America who could possibly make use of them, then we can talk about about abortion.
There are not many threads where, Jes having turned it up to 11, I can still say I am 100% onboard, but this would be one of them.
Things inside my body belong to me. Unless I am incapable, I reserve the right to control what goes on inside my body. End of story. The state does not get to dictate what goes into it or comes out of it. That is the most fundamental right any human being has.
This pretense that there is citizen A on the outside and citizen B on the inside is garbage. If & when a fetus makes it to independent existence not inside some other person, with the assistance of its mother, it is citizen B. Until then, it ain’t people.
You want to reduce abortions? Condoms. The pill. The morning-after pill. They work. When they are freely available to every kid in America who could possibly make use of them, then we can talk about about abortion.
Jesurgislac: Unlike a baby, however, a fetus can only “grow up” if a woman is willing and able to provide the necessary life-support – the use of her uterus.
This is ridiculous. Unlike a baby? Right, because babies everywhere survive outside the uterus without assistance from their parents. If a mother neglects a newborn, they go to jail. No one challenges this. Our lives are full of examples where we are dependent on others, or others on us, for existence. But in no other case does anyone excuse the provider for killing their dependent.
This entire argument always boils down to how one defines a human being. How about you try a little harder. Use your self-righteous crap to explain why someone with human DNA who, given time will develop into you, isn’t human and doesn’t have rights.
Jesurgislac: “(me) What kind of society kills people they don’t want.”
“Nicaragua – an example of which is in this post. The pro-life movement in the US, for which eight murders haven’t been enough. Worldwide, about 70,000 women a year die because the pro-life movement doesn’t really regard them as “people” at all – mere objects to be disposed of in the pro-life cause.”
?? Nicaragua isn’t an example of this. I don’t recall anyone saying they don’t “want” cancer patients. And please, you think I’m advocating the murder of pro-choice supporters? I thought you were responsible enough to have a rational discussion. I expected better of this readership. I am not the “pro-life” movement. Respond to the statements I make; don’t randomly ascribe positions to me that I do not advocate.
Jacob Davies: This pretense that there is citizen A on the outside and citizen B on the inside is garbage. If & when a fetus makes it to independent existence not inside some other person, with the assistance of its mother, it is citizen B. Until then, it ain’t people.
Again, so, born babies aren’t people? See above.
Jacob Davies “You want to reduce abortions? Condoms. The pill. The morning-after pill. They work. When they are freely available to every kid in America who could possibly make use of them, then we can talk about about abortion.”
So…let me get this straight — your moral definition of life is dependent on the availability of some consumer good? No free condoms? unborns aren’t people. Free condoms? Oh, I guess they count as people now!
I have no problem with birth control, but how about we think more carefully about the consequence of our actions before changing the definition of humanity when it’s convenient for us.
Jesurgislac: Unlike a baby, however, a fetus can only “grow up” if a woman is willing and able to provide the necessary life-support – the use of her uterus.
This is ridiculous. Unlike a baby? Right, because babies everywhere survive outside the uterus without assistance from their parents. If a mother neglects a newborn, they go to jail. No one challenges this. Our lives are full of examples where we are dependent on others, or others on us, for existence. But in no other case does anyone excuse the provider for killing their dependent.
This entire argument always boils down to how one defines a human being. How about you try a little harder. Use your self-righteous crap to explain why someone with human DNA who, given time will develop into you, isn’t human and doesn’t have rights.
Jesurgislac: “(me) What kind of society kills people they don’t want.”
“Nicaragua – an example of which is in this post. The pro-life movement in the US, for which eight murders haven’t been enough. Worldwide, about 70,000 women a year die because the pro-life movement doesn’t really regard them as “people” at all – mere objects to be disposed of in the pro-life cause.”
?? Nicaragua isn’t an example of this. I don’t recall anyone saying they don’t “want” cancer patients. And please, you think I’m advocating the murder of pro-choice supporters? I thought you were responsible enough to have a rational discussion. I expected better of this readership. I am not the “pro-life” movement. Respond to the statements I make; don’t randomly ascribe positions to me that I do not advocate.
Jacob Davies: This pretense that there is citizen A on the outside and citizen B on the inside is garbage. If & when a fetus makes it to independent existence not inside some other person, with the assistance of its mother, it is citizen B. Until then, it ain’t people.
Again, so, born babies aren’t people? See above.
Jacob Davies “You want to reduce abortions? Condoms. The pill. The morning-after pill. They work. When they are freely available to every kid in America who could possibly make use of them, then we can talk about about abortion.”
So…let me get this straight — your moral definition of life is dependent on the availability of some consumer good? No free condoms? unborns aren’t people. Free condoms? Oh, I guess they count as people now!
I have no problem with birth control, but how about we think more carefully about the consequence of our actions before changing the definition of humanity when it’s convenient for us.
The anonymous idiot above: Right, because babies everywhere survive outside the uterus without assistance from their parents.
Um.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphanage
I think awareness of the existence of external reality ought to be a precondition for posting comments on blogs. It’s not a very high bar.
The anonymous idiot above: Right, because babies everywhere survive outside the uterus without assistance from their parents.
Um.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphanage
I think awareness of the existence of external reality ought to be a precondition for posting comments on blogs. It’s not a very high bar.
“Killing a child in the womb is a crime. It is murder. If anyone does that they are considered the most heinous of criminals, with two exceptions. We have exempted the mother and her doctor (and various support staff) from prosecution under these laws, specifically.”
So, Marty, do you favor the death penalty for women who obtain abortions?
“Killing a child in the womb is a crime. It is murder. If anyone does that they are considered the most heinous of criminals, with two exceptions. We have exempted the mother and her doctor (and various support staff) from prosecution under these laws, specifically.”
So, Marty, do you favor the death penalty for women who obtain abortions?
Right, because babies everywhere survive outside the uterus without assistance from their parents.
Yes, they do. Otherwise, adoption would be a non-starter. Babies need to be cared for and fed – but babies everywhere survive without that care coming from their mother.
Whereas if a pregnant woman dies, the fetus dies with her.
I don’t recall anyone saying they don’t “want” cancer patients.
They are letting a woman who has cancer die slowly without treatment, in a hospital where treatment to save her life is immediately available. The pro-life government is killing this woman.
And please, you think I’m advocating the murder of pro-choice supporters?
Yes, I do. Why else would you go around claiming you think that doctors who perform abortions are “killing babies”? That is the language of the pro-lifer terrorists who advocate the murder of doctors who perform abortions. If you don’t want to be associated with murder and terrorism, stop using their language.
Right, because babies everywhere survive outside the uterus without assistance from their parents.
Yes, they do. Otherwise, adoption would be a non-starter. Babies need to be cared for and fed – but babies everywhere survive without that care coming from their mother.
Whereas if a pregnant woman dies, the fetus dies with her.
I don’t recall anyone saying they don’t “want” cancer patients.
They are letting a woman who has cancer die slowly without treatment, in a hospital where treatment to save her life is immediately available. The pro-life government is killing this woman.
And please, you think I’m advocating the murder of pro-choice supporters?
Yes, I do. Why else would you go around claiming you think that doctors who perform abortions are “killing babies”? That is the language of the pro-lifer terrorists who advocate the murder of doctors who perform abortions. If you don’t want to be associated with murder and terrorism, stop using their language.
Jacob Davies: Christ on a pogo stick, the existence of orphanages doesn’t disprove my point — orphanages TAKE CARE OF BABIES. babies are not independent.
Let me try this again, maybe I can think of smaller words for you. Trying to say it’s ok to kill unborn babies because they are still dependent on their mothers is stupid, because babies, children, hell, college students, are all dependent on a mother/orphanage/terminator-style caretaker for their existence. If “ability to exist without assistance” was a prerequisite for the right to live, like you say, then we should be allowed to kill anyone under the age of 16 and over the age of 80. This is how foolish your chain of logic is.
Jacob Davies: Christ on a pogo stick, the existence of orphanages doesn’t disprove my point — orphanages TAKE CARE OF BABIES. babies are not independent.
Let me try this again, maybe I can think of smaller words for you. Trying to say it’s ok to kill unborn babies because they are still dependent on their mothers is stupid, because babies, children, hell, college students, are all dependent on a mother/orphanage/terminator-style caretaker for their existence. If “ability to exist without assistance” was a prerequisite for the right to live, like you say, then we should be allowed to kill anyone under the age of 16 and over the age of 80. This is how foolish your chain of logic is.
Jes: “Yes, they do. Otherwise, adoption would be a non-starter. Babies need to be cared for and fed – but babies everywhere survive without that care coming from their mother.”
No-they don’t. I can’t believe I even have to argue this. newborn humans cannot survive without some form of care, and it is pretty much universally agreed that if the responsible agent fails to provide that care, it is called murder.
Jes: “(me) I don’t recall anyone saying they don’t “want” cancer patients.”
“They are letting a woman who has cancer die slowly without treatment, in a hospital where treatment to save her life is immediately available. The pro-life government is killing this woman.”
You’re not reading clearly. the Nicaraguan government isn’t advocating the death of cancer patients, they’re advocating a policy that will kill this woman. I have, and most rational pro-life individuals, have no problem with abortions in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. That is an entirely separate issue than what we are discussing between us.
Jes: And please, you think I’m advocating the murder of pro-choice supporters?”
“Yes, I do. Why else would you go around claiming you think that doctors who perform abortions are “killing babies”? That is the language of the pro-lifer terrorists who advocate the murder of doctors who perform abortions. If you don’t want to be associated with murder and terrorism, stop using their language.”
Then you are really, really, dense. Pol Pot used the words “communism” and “proletariat.” Does that mean everyone who now uses those words is a Pol Pot-style communist?
If I think unborn humans are human, then I’m not going to apologize for calling their deliberate death by someone else “murder.” That’s what it is, by definition.
I’m always hearing pro-choice liberals disparage pro-life supporters as being stupid, ideologically-blinded hicks. I was expecting better responses from the so called “enlightened” pro-choicers here. I’ve now been called an idiot, and a terrorist, for trying to have a rational discussion. Way to go.
Jes: “Yes, they do. Otherwise, adoption would be a non-starter. Babies need to be cared for and fed – but babies everywhere survive without that care coming from their mother.”
No-they don’t. I can’t believe I even have to argue this. newborn humans cannot survive without some form of care, and it is pretty much universally agreed that if the responsible agent fails to provide that care, it is called murder.
Jes: “(me) I don’t recall anyone saying they don’t “want” cancer patients.”
“They are letting a woman who has cancer die slowly without treatment, in a hospital where treatment to save her life is immediately available. The pro-life government is killing this woman.”
You’re not reading clearly. the Nicaraguan government isn’t advocating the death of cancer patients, they’re advocating a policy that will kill this woman. I have, and most rational pro-life individuals, have no problem with abortions in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. That is an entirely separate issue than what we are discussing between us.
Jes: And please, you think I’m advocating the murder of pro-choice supporters?”
“Yes, I do. Why else would you go around claiming you think that doctors who perform abortions are “killing babies”? That is the language of the pro-lifer terrorists who advocate the murder of doctors who perform abortions. If you don’t want to be associated with murder and terrorism, stop using their language.”
Then you are really, really, dense. Pol Pot used the words “communism” and “proletariat.” Does that mean everyone who now uses those words is a Pol Pot-style communist?
If I think unborn humans are human, then I’m not going to apologize for calling their deliberate death by someone else “murder.” That’s what it is, by definition.
I’m always hearing pro-choice liberals disparage pro-life supporters as being stupid, ideologically-blinded hicks. I was expecting better responses from the so called “enlightened” pro-choicers here. I’ve now been called an idiot, and a terrorist, for trying to have a rational discussion. Way to go.
Oooh, FORCIBLY excluded middle! Well done!
Oooh, FORCIBLY excluded middle! Well done!
dkpsr: I’ve now been called an idiot, and a terrorist, for trying to have a rational discussion.
Samples illustrating dkpsr’s idea of rational discussion:
You know what he’s talking about, don’t be an idiot.
How about you try a little harder. Use your self-righteous crap to explain why someone with human DNA who, given time will develop into you, isn’t human and doesn’t have rights.
Christ on a pogo stick, the existence of orphanages doesn’t disprove my point
Let me try this again, maybe I can think of smaller words for you.
Then you are really, really, dense.
SoV was banned for (I assume) a persistent attitude problem that was far less inflammatory, on average, than this.
Are there not posting rules?
Or: DNFTT.
dkpsr: I’ve now been called an idiot, and a terrorist, for trying to have a rational discussion.
Samples illustrating dkpsr’s idea of rational discussion:
You know what he’s talking about, don’t be an idiot.
How about you try a little harder. Use your self-righteous crap to explain why someone with human DNA who, given time will develop into you, isn’t human and doesn’t have rights.
Christ on a pogo stick, the existence of orphanages doesn’t disprove my point
Let me try this again, maybe I can think of smaller words for you.
Then you are really, really, dense.
SoV was banned for (I assume) a persistent attitude problem that was far less inflammatory, on average, than this.
Are there not posting rules?
Or: DNFTT.
Duly noted. Please adhere peeps.
Duly noted. Please adhere peeps.
i don’t think abortion is the solution, even she made abortion, the cancer are yet still there, in the philippines, we do not tolerate abortion.
i don’t think abortion is the solution, even she made abortion, the cancer are yet still there, in the philippines, we do not tolerate abortion.
Having a bad morning for wild reactions. Sorry.
Let’s see: Right, because babies everywhere survive outside the uterus without assistance from their parents.
That would mean that, since babies do OK without any parents, there is no problem (for children) if they do not have a family consisting of a mother and a father, e.g. if they are raised by a homosexual couple. Got it.
Now, a thought experiment. Suppose our growing understanding of genetics reaches the point where we know which gene (or genes) results in homosexuality. And, in addition to determining the gender of an unborn child, we can determine if the child will be homosexual. Now is is acceptable to get an abortion, to avoid another “embodiment of evil” from coming into the world? And if now, how do we justify allowing more evil???
As I say, my mind is running amok this morning.
Having a bad morning for wild reactions. Sorry.
Let’s see: Right, because babies everywhere survive outside the uterus without assistance from their parents.
That would mean that, since babies do OK without any parents, there is no problem (for children) if they do not have a family consisting of a mother and a father, e.g. if they are raised by a homosexual couple. Got it.
Now, a thought experiment. Suppose our growing understanding of genetics reaches the point where we know which gene (or genes) results in homosexuality. And, in addition to determining the gender of an unborn child, we can determine if the child will be homosexual. Now is is acceptable to get an abortion, to avoid another “embodiment of evil” from coming into the world? And if now, how do we justify allowing more evil???
As I say, my mind is running amok this morning.
So the basic question that everyone has avoided so far is: If someone kills a fetus and a mother are there two murders comitted? That is certainly my understanding of the law in many places.
If you believe that then see my previous comment. If not we should be railing to change the law so it would not be a second murder.
So the basic question that everyone has avoided so far is: If someone kills a fetus and a mother are there two murders comitted? That is certainly my understanding of the law in many places.
If you believe that then see my previous comment. If not we should be railing to change the law so it would not be a second murder.
So the basic question that everyone has avoided so far is: If someone kills a fetus and a mother are there two murders comitted? That is certainly my understanding of the law in many places.
It is not the law in many places. That is a state law question. And where it is, the passage of said laws were highly controversial because people recognized them as a way of pushing anti-abortion policies in an indirect way, using the law itself as proof in a circular way that begs the question. As you did on this very thread.
Personally, I do not believe it is two murders.
So the basic question that everyone has avoided so far is: If someone kills a fetus and a mother are there two murders comitted? That is certainly my understanding of the law in many places.
It is not the law in many places. That is a state law question. And where it is, the passage of said laws were highly controversial because people recognized them as a way of pushing anti-abortion policies in an indirect way, using the law itself as proof in a circular way that begs the question. As you did on this very thread.
Personally, I do not believe it is two murders.
If someone kills a fetus and a mother are there two murders comitted?
I don’t know, depnding on the facts and the law, there might not be even a single murder.
If someone kills a fetus and a mother are there two murders comitted?
I don’t know, depnding on the facts and the law, there might not be even a single murder.
wj, of course not. Homosexuality shouldn’t be selectively weeded out. It sounds like you think pro-life supporters are exclusively religious conservatives, and are trying to catch them in a trap. Many pro-life supporters, like myself, are not religious, have no problem with homosexuality, and have no problem with standard contraceptives either, for that matter.
wj: “(me:) Let’s see: Right, because babies everywhere survive outside the uterus without assistance from their parents.”
“That would mean that, since babies do OK without any parents, there is no problem (for children) if they do not have a family consisting of a mother and a father, e.g. if they are raised by a homosexual couple. Got it.”
I think you misunderstood me here. I said that statement as sarcasm. Given the responses from several people, I guess there needs to be better explanation of what is meant by “parents.” I am simply saying, uncontroversially, that babies, or children, are dependents. they depend on someone — their natural parents, a guardian, an orphanage, someone, to keep living. Exposed to the elements, without a keeper, children die. Thus, if you argue that unborn babies don’t count as alive because they can’t live on their own, then you, by definition, have to believe the same thing regarding born children.
wj, of course not. Homosexuality shouldn’t be selectively weeded out. It sounds like you think pro-life supporters are exclusively religious conservatives, and are trying to catch them in a trap. Many pro-life supporters, like myself, are not religious, have no problem with homosexuality, and have no problem with standard contraceptives either, for that matter.
wj: “(me:) Let’s see: Right, because babies everywhere survive outside the uterus without assistance from their parents.”
“That would mean that, since babies do OK without any parents, there is no problem (for children) if they do not have a family consisting of a mother and a father, e.g. if they are raised by a homosexual couple. Got it.”
I think you misunderstood me here. I said that statement as sarcasm. Given the responses from several people, I guess there needs to be better explanation of what is meant by “parents.” I am simply saying, uncontroversially, that babies, or children, are dependents. they depend on someone — their natural parents, a guardian, an orphanage, someone, to keep living. Exposed to the elements, without a keeper, children die. Thus, if you argue that unborn babies don’t count as alive because they can’t live on their own, then you, by definition, have to believe the same thing regarding born children.
Thus, if you argue that unborn babies don’t count as alive because they can’t live on their own, then you, by definition, have to believe the same thing regarding born children.
So you can’t see a distinction between 1: needing the constant use of a specific person’s internal organs to survive and 2: needing some amount of assistance from just about anyone some of the time to survive?
Thus, if you argue that unborn babies don’t count as alive because they can’t live on their own, then you, by definition, have to believe the same thing regarding born children.
So you can’t see a distinction between 1: needing the constant use of a specific person’s internal organs to survive and 2: needing some amount of assistance from just about anyone some of the time to survive?
dkpsr: If I have two kidneys and my brother needs a kidney transplant, and I’m the only person who can supply that kidney to him or he’ll die, should I have a legal duty to give up my kidney? If not, please explain the difference.
dkpsr: If I have two kidneys and my brother needs a kidney transplant, and I’m the only person who can supply that kidney to him or he’ll die, should I have a legal duty to give up my kidney? If not, please explain the difference.
Things inside my body belong to me.
Right. So if you hit me with a shrink ray and then put me in your body then you have the right to kill me? If a small sapient being is put into my mouth then I have the right to eat it alive? Fascinating. (And for the record, I’m in favour of making e.g. the MMR vaccine legally mandatory – or would be but for the backlash and precident; I don’t believe people should have the right to incubate diseases that would later infect others if there is an easy and practical alternative.)
And for the record, anyone who claims to oppose abortion and at the same time opposes trivial access to contraception (including the morning after pill) is contemptable scum. And I don’t consider a ball of cells without a functional brain to be a person anyway.
Things inside my body belong to me.
Right. So if you hit me with a shrink ray and then put me in your body then you have the right to kill me? If a small sapient being is put into my mouth then I have the right to eat it alive? Fascinating. (And for the record, I’m in favour of making e.g. the MMR vaccine legally mandatory – or would be but for the backlash and precident; I don’t believe people should have the right to incubate diseases that would later infect others if there is an easy and practical alternative.)
And for the record, anyone who claims to oppose abortion and at the same time opposes trivial access to contraception (including the morning after pill) is contemptable scum. And I don’t consider a ball of cells without a functional brain to be a person anyway.
online doctor: Given the Philippines bans government-funded clinics from distributing contraception, I wouldn’t appeal to their social policies on women’s health or rights.
Additionally, in this case, doctors presumably would be able to treat the cancer if she were not pregnant.
Nobody suggests that an abortion would cure her cancer, but if they performed an abortion, they would be able to try.
online doctor: Given the Philippines bans government-funded clinics from distributing contraception, I wouldn’t appeal to their social policies on women’s health or rights.
Additionally, in this case, doctors presumably would be able to treat the cancer if she were not pregnant.
Nobody suggests that an abortion would cure her cancer, but if they performed an abortion, they would be able to try.
So if you hit me with a shrink ray and then put me in your body then you have the right to kill me?
What if someone else hits you with a shrink ray and puts you into my body?
What if after someone hit you with a shrink ray and put you into my body, you run amok with a weeny light saber?
What if you hit yourself with a shrink ray and put yourself into my body?
What if I get hit by a shrink ray when you’re in my body and you get shrunk down to subatomic size and you can either know who you are or where you are but not both?
What if I get hit by a cloning ray and there are suddenly two of me and we have identical but mirror-image organs, which one of us is the real Jesurgislac and which one is the mirror, and is the real Jesurgislac entitled to make use of the clone-Jes’s organs against her will?
If a small sapient being is put into my mouth then I have the right to eat it alive?
UGH! No. Kill it, dip it in batter, deep-fry it, and serve. That’s what civilised people do with small sapient beings. Nothing with the sapience level above an oyster should be served alive.
So if you hit me with a shrink ray and then put me in your body then you have the right to kill me?
What if someone else hits you with a shrink ray and puts you into my body?
What if after someone hit you with a shrink ray and put you into my body, you run amok with a weeny light saber?
What if you hit yourself with a shrink ray and put yourself into my body?
What if I get hit by a shrink ray when you’re in my body and you get shrunk down to subatomic size and you can either know who you are or where you are but not both?
What if I get hit by a cloning ray and there are suddenly two of me and we have identical but mirror-image organs, which one of us is the real Jesurgislac and which one is the mirror, and is the real Jesurgislac entitled to make use of the clone-Jes’s organs against her will?
If a small sapient being is put into my mouth then I have the right to eat it alive?
UGH! No. Kill it, dip it in batter, deep-fry it, and serve. That’s what civilised people do with small sapient beings. Nothing with the sapience level above an oyster should be served alive.
Jes has a point.
Jes has a point.
hairshirthedonist: no, why should there be a distinction? dependence is dependence if the situation is such that without regular care, the individual dies. What does it matter if it’s constant care, or just several times a day? Why should the definition of a human be dependent on the relative amount of help you need from others to live? Are you comfortable with saying that newborn babies are less human than one-year olds, because one-year olds can at least chew food?
hairshirthedonist: no, why should there be a distinction? dependence is dependence if the situation is such that without regular care, the individual dies. What does it matter if it’s constant care, or just several times a day? Why should the definition of a human be dependent on the relative amount of help you need from others to live? Are you comfortable with saying that newborn babies are less human than one-year olds, because one-year olds can at least chew food?
francis d: And I don’t consider a ball of cells without a functional brain to be a person anyway.
why is a functional brain a requirement to be considered human? Are you going to classify the mentally retarded, newborns, or patients in comas as non-humans, because their brains are relatively less functional than an adult brain?
Also, to be clear, I don’t think anyone ever aborts a zygote. we aren’t discussing “bunches of cells.”
francis d: And I don’t consider a ball of cells without a functional brain to be a person anyway.
why is a functional brain a requirement to be considered human? Are you going to classify the mentally retarded, newborns, or patients in comas as non-humans, because their brains are relatively less functional than an adult brain?
Also, to be clear, I don’t think anyone ever aborts a zygote. we aren’t discussing “bunches of cells.”
sapient: the scenario with the kidney is similar to the scenario of the pregnant woman with cancer: no one is saying that a person should be compelled to risk their own death to save another person’s life. Morally, should they? Maybe. But certainly not compelled to.
I have no problem with abortion in cases where the mother’s life is endangered. I’m taking issue with the commenters on this thread who 1) support abortion in non-life threatening situations or 2) broadly label pro-life supporters as religious zealots who are against abortion no matter the case or have no logical basis for their beliefs.
sapient: the scenario with the kidney is similar to the scenario of the pregnant woman with cancer: no one is saying that a person should be compelled to risk their own death to save another person’s life. Morally, should they? Maybe. But certainly not compelled to.
I have no problem with abortion in cases where the mother’s life is endangered. I’m taking issue with the commenters on this thread who 1) support abortion in non-life threatening situations or 2) broadly label pro-life supporters as religious zealots who are against abortion no matter the case or have no logical basis for their beliefs.
Also, to be clear, I don’t think anyone ever aborts a zygote. we aren’t discussing “bunches of cells.”
What do you mean by this?
Some birth control pills and devices do, in fact, “abort” zygotes (prevent implantation of fertilized eggs and slightly more developed cell clusters). These methods include, but are not limited to, the morning after pill (which I believe can work even after implantation).
Which raises a good question for you: should we outlaw such forms of birth control? Are those humans? Why not?
Otherwise, are you arguing that medical procedure abortions are only performed at such late states that the fetus is past the cluster of cell stage? Do you have links to back that up (not that such an suggestion is outrageous, I just want to see the evidence)?
Also, to be clear, I don’t think anyone ever aborts a zygote. we aren’t discussing “bunches of cells.”
What do you mean by this?
Some birth control pills and devices do, in fact, “abort” zygotes (prevent implantation of fertilized eggs and slightly more developed cell clusters). These methods include, but are not limited to, the morning after pill (which I believe can work even after implantation).
Which raises a good question for you: should we outlaw such forms of birth control? Are those humans? Why not?
Otherwise, are you arguing that medical procedure abortions are only performed at such late states that the fetus is past the cluster of cell stage? Do you have links to back that up (not that such an suggestion is outrageous, I just want to see the evidence)?
I don’t think anyone ever aborts a zygote.
Have you heard of the so-called “morning after” pill? Roundly denounced by anti-abortion folks exactly because it is intended to abort a zygote.
I don’t think anyone ever aborts a zygote.
Have you heard of the so-called “morning after” pill? Roundly denounced by anti-abortion folks exactly because it is intended to abort a zygote.
in the philippines, we do not tolerate abortion.
That’s not what Tim Tebow’s mother said. She claims that she was urged to abort.
What, you mean a pro-lifer lied about something? Quelle surprise.
I have no problem with abortion in cases where the mother’s life is endangered.
That’s mighty white of ya!
in the philippines, we do not tolerate abortion.
That’s not what Tim Tebow’s mother said. She claims that she was urged to abort.
What, you mean a pro-lifer lied about something? Quelle surprise.
I have no problem with abortion in cases where the mother’s life is endangered.
That’s mighty white of ya!
I have no problem with abortion in cases where the mother’s life is endangered.
What if it’s not endangered, but her health will be seriously compromised? Where is the line to be drawn?
Perhaps we can turn to the torture memos for guidance on an acceptable level of pain…(ok, that was a cheap shot)
I have no problem with abortion in cases where the mother’s life is endangered.
What if it’s not endangered, but her health will be seriously compromised? Where is the line to be drawn?
Perhaps we can turn to the torture memos for guidance on an acceptable level of pain…(ok, that was a cheap shot)
Actually Janie, “You know what he is talking about, don’t be an idiot” (and the other comments with respect to Jes completely going off the rails) *is* the rational response to Jes’s rant about stuffing already born infants into the womb as if that was being proposed by anyone. She doing her intentional misrepresentation shtick.
From conservatives, on this particular blog, Jes’s level of willful point-missing wouldn’t go un-noted by her own side. At the very least, Slarti would point out that the conservative comment missed the point. And rebuking responses to it certainly wouldn’t be characterized as beyond the pale non-rational discussion.
As for the actual topic: “With accuracy and without the strawman, what degree of health sacrifices are we to expect from pregnant women and what should the government’s role be in deciding that on a case-by-case or blanket basis?”
That is kind of tough as the straw is already so thick in this thread, but as a tentative guideline if an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, it should of course be permitted. And that isn’t even slightly confusing under the ‘pro-life’ rubric–as actual self defense protecting your own life from imminent extinguishment is allowable in even the most liberal of criminal punishment statutes in the US.
And in my view your thoughts in that area really should guide your thought in this one. If you are the kind of person who believes that killing a burglar in one’s house is almost never permissible unless it can be shown that the burglar was just about to murder the occupant, you should probably also believe that a very strict showing of immediate medical necessity should be documented for a late term abortion. If you believe that pretty much any burglar in your house can be shot to death with impunity, the showing of immediate medical necessity should probably track along that scale. Interestingly enough, I strongly suspect that most liberals on self-defense are also permissive on medical necessity, and that most conservatives on self-defense are more stringent on it. Which is counter-intuitive to me.
(I know that is true of me, which has caused me to re-evaluate downward somewhat the level medical necessity I think is needed.)
In any case, I’m certain that the above formulation on self defense would be accepted by at least 3/4 (and if forced to put a significant amount of money on a guess, I would guess at least 90%) of pro-lifers.
So starting the conversation with “Anti-abortion activists often claim that exemptions from abortion bans for life/health of the mother provide too-wide a loophole and allow for de facto legal abortion. However, this is what abortion bans without such exemptions look like” is either not about US pro-lifers at all, or blatantly strawmanning in the linkage.
So if you want to just talk about Nicaragua, fine. But as a springboard into a discussion about US pro-life views, it sucked.
Actually Janie, “You know what he is talking about, don’t be an idiot” (and the other comments with respect to Jes completely going off the rails) *is* the rational response to Jes’s rant about stuffing already born infants into the womb as if that was being proposed by anyone. She doing her intentional misrepresentation shtick.
From conservatives, on this particular blog, Jes’s level of willful point-missing wouldn’t go un-noted by her own side. At the very least, Slarti would point out that the conservative comment missed the point. And rebuking responses to it certainly wouldn’t be characterized as beyond the pale non-rational discussion.
As for the actual topic: “With accuracy and without the strawman, what degree of health sacrifices are we to expect from pregnant women and what should the government’s role be in deciding that on a case-by-case or blanket basis?”
That is kind of tough as the straw is already so thick in this thread, but as a tentative guideline if an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, it should of course be permitted. And that isn’t even slightly confusing under the ‘pro-life’ rubric–as actual self defense protecting your own life from imminent extinguishment is allowable in even the most liberal of criminal punishment statutes in the US.
And in my view your thoughts in that area really should guide your thought in this one. If you are the kind of person who believes that killing a burglar in one’s house is almost never permissible unless it can be shown that the burglar was just about to murder the occupant, you should probably also believe that a very strict showing of immediate medical necessity should be documented for a late term abortion. If you believe that pretty much any burglar in your house can be shot to death with impunity, the showing of immediate medical necessity should probably track along that scale. Interestingly enough, I strongly suspect that most liberals on self-defense are also permissive on medical necessity, and that most conservatives on self-defense are more stringent on it. Which is counter-intuitive to me.
(I know that is true of me, which has caused me to re-evaluate downward somewhat the level medical necessity I think is needed.)
In any case, I’m certain that the above formulation on self defense would be accepted by at least 3/4 (and if forced to put a significant amount of money on a guess, I would guess at least 90%) of pro-lifers.
So starting the conversation with “Anti-abortion activists often claim that exemptions from abortion bans for life/health of the mother provide too-wide a loophole and allow for de facto legal abortion. However, this is what abortion bans without such exemptions look like” is either not about US pro-lifers at all, or blatantly strawmanning in the linkage.
So if you want to just talk about Nicaragua, fine. But as a springboard into a discussion about US pro-life views, it sucked.
Eric: These methods include, but are not limited to, the morning after pill (which I believe can work even after implantation).
There’s no evidence whatsoever for that, aside from pro-life claims that it COULD HAPPEN.
The morning-after pill works by preventing ovulation and by thickening the mucus at the neck of the cervix to reduce the likelihood of sperm getting in. It is arguable that, as it also tends to thin the lining of the womb, it may prevent implantation – assuming that the woman’s already ovulated (bad luck) and an energetic sperm cluster gets past the thickened mucus and manages to fertilise the egg.
There’s no scientific reason whatsoever to suppose that if a woman takes the morning-after pill after the zygote has implanted on the lining, it will somehow shake the zygote loose. But it is hugely convenient to pro-lifers who want to prevent women having access to contraception, to claim they believe that it will.
dkp.sr: why is a functional brain a requirement to be considered human? Are you going to classify the mentally retarded, newborns, or patients in comas as non-humans, because their brains are relatively less functional than an adult brain?
No, of course not. But we’re not going to force women to provide them with parts of their bodies to save their lives, either. Just because a human is in a coma doesn’t give coma-human a special right to a lobe of your liver, not even if coma-human is going to die without a functional liver and you’re the only possible donor.
Eric: These methods include, but are not limited to, the morning after pill (which I believe can work even after implantation).
There’s no evidence whatsoever for that, aside from pro-life claims that it COULD HAPPEN.
The morning-after pill works by preventing ovulation and by thickening the mucus at the neck of the cervix to reduce the likelihood of sperm getting in. It is arguable that, as it also tends to thin the lining of the womb, it may prevent implantation – assuming that the woman’s already ovulated (bad luck) and an energetic sperm cluster gets past the thickened mucus and manages to fertilise the egg.
There’s no scientific reason whatsoever to suppose that if a woman takes the morning-after pill after the zygote has implanted on the lining, it will somehow shake the zygote loose. But it is hugely convenient to pro-lifers who want to prevent women having access to contraception, to claim they believe that it will.
dkp.sr: why is a functional brain a requirement to be considered human? Are you going to classify the mentally retarded, newborns, or patients in comas as non-humans, because their brains are relatively less functional than an adult brain?
No, of course not. But we’re not going to force women to provide them with parts of their bodies to save their lives, either. Just because a human is in a coma doesn’t give coma-human a special right to a lobe of your liver, not even if coma-human is going to die without a functional liver and you’re the only possible donor.
I’m taking issue with the commenters on this thread who 1) support abortion in non-life threatening situations…
One needn’t support abortion in non-life threatening situations to oppose government restrictions on it. I don’t support beauty pageants for little girls. I think their strange and wrong, but I wouldn’t support a legal ban on them.
I’m taking issue with the commenters on this thread who 1) support abortion in non-life threatening situations…
One needn’t support abortion in non-life threatening situations to oppose government restrictions on it. I don’t support beauty pageants for little girls. I think their strange and wrong, but I wouldn’t support a legal ban on them.
or “they’re” (stupid fingers)
or “they’re” (stupid fingers)
Eric Martin: What if it’s not endangered, but her health will be seriously compromised? Where is the line to be drawn?
Um, how are you defining “endangered” vs. “seriously compromised.” How am I supposed to tell you where the line is when your alternative term is so ambigious. To me, those phrases mean the same thing.
Perhaps we can turn to the torture memos for guidance on an acceptable level of pain…(ok, that was a cheap shot)
Sigh. I know you meant this in jest, but it highlights my point about liberal commentators misidentifying and libeling individuals who are against abortion rather than muscling the strength to debate them honestly.
So I’m pro-life. Clearly that means I support torturing alleged terrorists, and blow up abortion clinics on weekends for fun. Oh, and I forgot, according to earlier I hate gays too. 😛
Eric Martin: What if it’s not endangered, but her health will be seriously compromised? Where is the line to be drawn?
Um, how are you defining “endangered” vs. “seriously compromised.” How am I supposed to tell you where the line is when your alternative term is so ambigious. To me, those phrases mean the same thing.
Perhaps we can turn to the torture memos for guidance on an acceptable level of pain…(ok, that was a cheap shot)
Sigh. I know you meant this in jest, but it highlights my point about liberal commentators misidentifying and libeling individuals who are against abortion rather than muscling the strength to debate them honestly.
So I’m pro-life. Clearly that means I support torturing alleged terrorists, and blow up abortion clinics on weekends for fun. Oh, and I forgot, according to earlier I hate gays too. 😛
In any case, I’m certain that the above formulation on self defense would be accepted by at least 3/4 (and if forced to put a significant amount of money on a guess, I would guess at least 90%) of pro-lifers.
That may, indeed, be the case. Do you have any evidence to back it up?
So if you want to just talk about Nicaragua, fine. But as a springboard into a discussion about US pro-life views, it sucked.
Seb, last time I checked, you had posting privileges. Build your own springboards.
In any case, I’m certain that the above formulation on self defense would be accepted by at least 3/4 (and if forced to put a significant amount of money on a guess, I would guess at least 90%) of pro-lifers.
That may, indeed, be the case. Do you have any evidence to back it up?
So if you want to just talk about Nicaragua, fine. But as a springboard into a discussion about US pro-life views, it sucked.
Seb, last time I checked, you had posting privileges. Build your own springboards.
Well, I will just weigh in that when my first child died, due to someone else physically assaulting my wife who was 4 months pregnant, I considered it murder.
Hands, feet, pretty much fully formed body, a name…..
It is the strangest of all discussions that women, and their spouses, who would be absolutely devastated with a second term miscarriage would be violently opposed to discussions that discuss the fetus as being a person. Although I have had the discussion many times, never with acrimony, it just seeems odd to me.
It is the very essence of the abortion debate to be able to use those two terms fetus/baby to differentiate.
But, I have never had a conversation with someone who asked “How’s the fetus doing?” about any of my five (four who were born) children or four grandchildren in the womb.
I actually believe in abortion rights under a number of scenarios, but I don’t think it is wrong to discuss if there are scenarios where it isn’t right.
Well, I will just weigh in that when my first child died, due to someone else physically assaulting my wife who was 4 months pregnant, I considered it murder.
Hands, feet, pretty much fully formed body, a name…..
It is the strangest of all discussions that women, and their spouses, who would be absolutely devastated with a second term miscarriage would be violently opposed to discussions that discuss the fetus as being a person. Although I have had the discussion many times, never with acrimony, it just seeems odd to me.
It is the very essence of the abortion debate to be able to use those two terms fetus/baby to differentiate.
But, I have never had a conversation with someone who asked “How’s the fetus doing?” about any of my five (four who were born) children or four grandchildren in the womb.
I actually believe in abortion rights under a number of scenarios, but I don’t think it is wrong to discuss if there are scenarios where it isn’t right.
Sigh. I know you meant this in jest, but it highlights my point about liberal commentators misidentifying and libeling individuals who are against abortion rather than muscling the strength to debate them honestly.
Wow. Great. So a joke obviously identified as such is evidence of insinuations about which weren’t even suggested by the joke. Awesome.
Um, how are you defining “endangered” vs. “seriously compromised.” How am I supposed to tell you where the line is when your alternative term is so ambigious. To me, those phrases mean the same thing.
Ambiguous? Welcome to the real world. You’re the one proposing outlawing abortion but in certain rare exceptions, so maybe you should try thinking of the bright line test for health of the mother short of life threatening.
If you really can’t think of any on your own, let’s start with anemia. Or an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition like epilepsy.
What would you do?
Sigh. I know you meant this in jest, but it highlights my point about liberal commentators misidentifying and libeling individuals who are against abortion rather than muscling the strength to debate them honestly.
Wow. Great. So a joke obviously identified as such is evidence of insinuations about which weren’t even suggested by the joke. Awesome.
Um, how are you defining “endangered” vs. “seriously compromised.” How am I supposed to tell you where the line is when your alternative term is so ambigious. To me, those phrases mean the same thing.
Ambiguous? Welcome to the real world. You’re the one proposing outlawing abortion but in certain rare exceptions, so maybe you should try thinking of the bright line test for health of the mother short of life threatening.
If you really can’t think of any on your own, let’s start with anemia. Or an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition like epilepsy.
What would you do?
It is the strangest of all discussions that women, and their spouses, who would be absolutely devastated with a second term miscarriage would be violently opposed to discussions that discuss the fetus as being a person. Although I have had the discussion many times, never with acrimony, it just seeems odd to me.[…]
I actually believe in abortion rights under a number of scenarios, but I don’t think it is wrong to discuss if there are scenarios where it isn’t right.
Marty, I’m with you: I believe in abortion rights, but can conceive of scenarios where it wouldn’t be right.
And I’m more than willing to discuss those.
However, your question begging reference to certain state laws that were passed with cynical intentions was not a great way to start that conversation.
It is the strangest of all discussions that women, and their spouses, who would be absolutely devastated with a second term miscarriage would be violently opposed to discussions that discuss the fetus as being a person. Although I have had the discussion many times, never with acrimony, it just seeems odd to me.[…]
I actually believe in abortion rights under a number of scenarios, but I don’t think it is wrong to discuss if there are scenarios where it isn’t right.
Marty, I’m with you: I believe in abortion rights, but can conceive of scenarios where it wouldn’t be right.
And I’m more than willing to discuss those.
However, your question begging reference to certain state laws that were passed with cynical intentions was not a great way to start that conversation.
Marty: Well, I will just weigh in that when my first child died, due to someone else physically assaulting my wife who was 4 months pregnant, I considered it murder.
Jesus Christ: I am not surprised, and I am so, so sorry. That is an appalling thing to happen.
Bringing the personal level in: while scientifically and legally speaking, a fetus is not a baby or a child, on a personal level of course anyone has a right to speak of their loss as they themselves feel about it: I oppose the equation of “child” with “fetus” in general terms, and if your initial comment on this thread was a reference to this horrific loss, I apologize for any personal hurt my response caused you. It was unintended.
I actually believe in abortion rights under a number of scenarios, but I don’t think it is wrong to discuss if there are scenarios where it isn’t right.
So, which scenarios are you willing to discuss when it would be right to force your wife through pregnancy and childbirth against her will?
Who gets to decide, on behalf of your wife, whether she will or will not terminate or continue a pregnancy, if you are willing to discuss scenarios in which your wife has no legal right to decide that?
Who gets to decide, overriding both your wife and her doctor, what health risks she ought to have to put herself through, to carry a fetus to term?
What scenarios are you willing to discuss where you feel it’s right to take away your wife’s right to make decisions about her own body?
Marty: Well, I will just weigh in that when my first child died, due to someone else physically assaulting my wife who was 4 months pregnant, I considered it murder.
Jesus Christ: I am not surprised, and I am so, so sorry. That is an appalling thing to happen.
Bringing the personal level in: while scientifically and legally speaking, a fetus is not a baby or a child, on a personal level of course anyone has a right to speak of their loss as they themselves feel about it: I oppose the equation of “child” with “fetus” in general terms, and if your initial comment on this thread was a reference to this horrific loss, I apologize for any personal hurt my response caused you. It was unintended.
I actually believe in abortion rights under a number of scenarios, but I don’t think it is wrong to discuss if there are scenarios where it isn’t right.
So, which scenarios are you willing to discuss when it would be right to force your wife through pregnancy and childbirth against her will?
Who gets to decide, on behalf of your wife, whether she will or will not terminate or continue a pregnancy, if you are willing to discuss scenarios in which your wife has no legal right to decide that?
Who gets to decide, overriding both your wife and her doctor, what health risks she ought to have to put herself through, to carry a fetus to term?
What scenarios are you willing to discuss where you feel it’s right to take away your wife’s right to make decisions about her own body?
“However, your question begging reference to certain state laws that were passed with cynical intentions was not a great way to start that conversation.”
IANAL but I am pretty sure that not all of these laws postdated Roe v Wade and I think many people of good conscience would disagree with your characterization of the cynicism involved.
Mostly, I think the question as an example of how it is reasonable for people to have a moral conflict here is legitimate.
“However, your question begging reference to certain state laws that were passed with cynical intentions was not a great way to start that conversation.”
IANAL but I am pretty sure that not all of these laws postdated Roe v Wade and I think many people of good conscience would disagree with your characterization of the cynicism involved.
Mostly, I think the question as an example of how it is reasonable for people to have a moral conflict here is legitimate.
dkpr,sr: if you hit me with a shrink ray and then put me in your body then you have the right to kill me?
I dunno, are you Teriyaki-style?
Sebastian: in my view…If you are the kind of person who believes that killing a burglar in one’s house is almost never permissible unless it can be shown that the burglar was just about to murder the occupant, you should probably also believe that a very strict showing of immediate medical necessity should be documented for a late term abortion.
Small but important difference, unless you are a cannibal armed with a shrink ray: the burglar is unlikely to be inside anyone’s body at the time of the burglary.
For the record, I think late-term purely-elective abortions would be abhorrent, although it is far from clear that they ever actually happen. Not everything that is abhorrent should actually be illegal. Lots of things that are disgusting or immoral are legal.
dkpr,sr: if you hit me with a shrink ray and then put me in your body then you have the right to kill me?
I dunno, are you Teriyaki-style?
Sebastian: in my view…If you are the kind of person who believes that killing a burglar in one’s house is almost never permissible unless it can be shown that the burglar was just about to murder the occupant, you should probably also believe that a very strict showing of immediate medical necessity should be documented for a late term abortion.
Small but important difference, unless you are a cannibal armed with a shrink ray: the burglar is unlikely to be inside anyone’s body at the time of the burglary.
For the record, I think late-term purely-elective abortions would be abhorrent, although it is far from clear that they ever actually happen. Not everything that is abhorrent should actually be illegal. Lots of things that are disgusting or immoral are legal.
Lots of things that are disgusting or immoral are legal.
I imagine I partake in a few myself 😉
Lots of things that are disgusting or immoral are legal.
I imagine I partake in a few myself 😉
Eric Martin and everyone else: “””Some birth control pills and devices do, in fact, “abort” zygotes (prevent implantation of fertilized eggs and slightly more developed cell clusters). These methods include, but are not limited to, the morning after pill (which I believe can work even after implantation).
Which raises a good question for you: should we outlaw such forms of birth control? Are those humans? Why not?
Otherwise, are you arguing that medical procedure abortions are only performed at such late states that the fetus is past the cluster of cell stage? Do you have links to back that up (not that such an suggestion is outrageous, I just want to see the evidence)?”””
I don’t know how prevalent the use of the morning-after pill is relative to other contraceptives, but my point was that most women, I would assume, don’t have an abortion during the first two weeks of pregnancy. That seems pretty fast to 1) find out, 2) make a decision and schedule an appointment and then 3) have the operation. I don’t actually know, but given that according to census records here, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces/family_planning_abortions.html , a little less than half of abortions occur after 9 weeks (the % after week 5, when heart, brain, and spine appear, is unknown), I feel that talking about “bunches of cells with no brains” is a gross mischaracterization of what actually happens.
All that though doesn’t really matter, because yes, I would consider zygotes humans. If you don’t consider them humans, then you have to define human as something beyond unique human DNA, and in my discussions with pro-choicers, most people say that extra something is “life experience,” or brain function. But both of these ideas are deeply flawed, because both concepts exist at a variable range among people that pro-choice advocates would never hesitate to consider human. You can’t use continuous-variable concepts to define a binary idea: human, not human.
If you argue that life experience + human DNA = human, where is the line? Are 3 year olds more human than 1 year olds because they’ve been alive longer? I don’t remember my life before 4 years old – do those first years not count?
If you argue the formula is brain function + human DNA = human, then what about individuals who no one questions their humanity, that have lower levels of brain function than you: mentally retarded patients, coma patients, brain dead patients, really old guys, really young (newborn) guys. Why should they count as humans when fetuses don’t, particularly since healthy normal fetuses have the near guaranteed likelihood of higher brain function than many of the other categories, if you just give them a few weeks time.
These are problems that pro-choice advocates never seem to address. I always argue my stance on abortion from the definition of human life. Pro-choice advocates, at least as demonstrated here, never seem to care.
Eric Martin and everyone else: “””Some birth control pills and devices do, in fact, “abort” zygotes (prevent implantation of fertilized eggs and slightly more developed cell clusters). These methods include, but are not limited to, the morning after pill (which I believe can work even after implantation).
Which raises a good question for you: should we outlaw such forms of birth control? Are those humans? Why not?
Otherwise, are you arguing that medical procedure abortions are only performed at such late states that the fetus is past the cluster of cell stage? Do you have links to back that up (not that such an suggestion is outrageous, I just want to see the evidence)?”””
I don’t know how prevalent the use of the morning-after pill is relative to other contraceptives, but my point was that most women, I would assume, don’t have an abortion during the first two weeks of pregnancy. That seems pretty fast to 1) find out, 2) make a decision and schedule an appointment and then 3) have the operation. I don’t actually know, but given that according to census records here, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces/family_planning_abortions.html , a little less than half of abortions occur after 9 weeks (the % after week 5, when heart, brain, and spine appear, is unknown), I feel that talking about “bunches of cells with no brains” is a gross mischaracterization of what actually happens.
All that though doesn’t really matter, because yes, I would consider zygotes humans. If you don’t consider them humans, then you have to define human as something beyond unique human DNA, and in my discussions with pro-choicers, most people say that extra something is “life experience,” or brain function. But both of these ideas are deeply flawed, because both concepts exist at a variable range among people that pro-choice advocates would never hesitate to consider human. You can’t use continuous-variable concepts to define a binary idea: human, not human.
If you argue that life experience + human DNA = human, where is the line? Are 3 year olds more human than 1 year olds because they’ve been alive longer? I don’t remember my life before 4 years old – do those first years not count?
If you argue the formula is brain function + human DNA = human, then what about individuals who no one questions their humanity, that have lower levels of brain function than you: mentally retarded patients, coma patients, brain dead patients, really old guys, really young (newborn) guys. Why should they count as humans when fetuses don’t, particularly since healthy normal fetuses have the near guaranteed likelihood of higher brain function than many of the other categories, if you just give them a few weeks time.
These are problems that pro-choice advocates never seem to address. I always argue my stance on abortion from the definition of human life. Pro-choice advocates, at least as demonstrated here, never seem to care.
Jes,
I believe it is a reasonable discussion to have that a healthy, adult woman who conceives a child because she simply did not take the proper precaution to prevent that bears significantly more responsibility to weigh the rights of the child.
There can be a million what ifs, and I am not sure if we can “legally” ever sort through language that would be abused.
So, in practice, I try to change the discussion in personal conversations to how we can change the cultural sense of responsibility to go with abortion rights. Perhaps it is not legitimately a legal question.
If that is not enough waffling, bear in mind I believe the solution to many of our problems is to stop talking about them legally, where everyone has to take a firm side. I think we have long stopped having discussions about how we want to define ourselves culturally, where acceptance and support goes along with disagreement more readily.
Jes,
I believe it is a reasonable discussion to have that a healthy, adult woman who conceives a child because she simply did not take the proper precaution to prevent that bears significantly more responsibility to weigh the rights of the child.
There can be a million what ifs, and I am not sure if we can “legally” ever sort through language that would be abused.
So, in practice, I try to change the discussion in personal conversations to how we can change the cultural sense of responsibility to go with abortion rights. Perhaps it is not legitimately a legal question.
If that is not enough waffling, bear in mind I believe the solution to many of our problems is to stop talking about them legally, where everyone has to take a firm side. I think we have long stopped having discussions about how we want to define ourselves culturally, where acceptance and support goes along with disagreement more readily.
So, dkpsr, you are then in favor of outlawing all birth control pills that affect zygotes or fertilized eggs?
Also, out of curiosity, do you think that murder sentences would be appropriate in all such settings?
IE: If abortion is outlawed, as well as birth control that prevents zygotes from implanting, that a woman taking such birth control would be charged with murder if taking that pill ended up in the destruction of a zygote?
So, dkpsr, you are then in favor of outlawing all birth control pills that affect zygotes or fertilized eggs?
Also, out of curiosity, do you think that murder sentences would be appropriate in all such settings?
IE: If abortion is outlawed, as well as birth control that prevents zygotes from implanting, that a woman taking such birth control would be charged with murder if taking that pill ended up in the destruction of a zygote?
Marty: Mostly, I think the question as an example of how it is reasonable for people to have a moral conflict here is legitimate.
The moral conflict for me here:
Suppose that there were an actual genetic test for “being gay”. (I consider this highly improbable, but just suppose it for the sake of argument.) Suppose that it could be carried out in utero, within the time limits for an elective abortion. (Effectively 20 weeks in the UK: after 20 weeks abortions will only be carried out for medical necessity.)
Suppose that some women start getting tested for “gay fetuses”, and aborting the fetus.
Do I support their reasons for having an abortion? No, of course not.
Do I support their right to have an abortion for reasons I consider to be appallingly bigoted?
Yes, of course. It would be morally wrong to force them to have a baby they don’t want, whatever I think of their reasons for not wanting. Just as it would be morally wrong to override the woman and her doctor, at any stage in pregnancy, if the doctor says it would be unsafe to continue the pregnancy and the woman agrees that she wants to terminate.
Not only would it be morally wrong, the known result from so overriding women’s decisions is simply, directly: dead women.
Women dying because because their pregnancy has become hazardous to their health and their doctor is not allowed to provide or even recommend an abortion. Women dying because if access to safe legal abortion is denied, women who have decided against having a baby will go for a less-safe illegal abortion.
You cannot prevent abortions by making them illegal or otherwise inaccessible: you can only ensure that more women die.
You cannot ethically take the decision for someone else whether she will terminate or continue the pregnancy: it’s her right to do so for her own reasons, regardless of what your personal view is of her reasons.
When you live in a country where terrorists try to prevent women having safe legal access to abortion, and politicians pass laws to decrease access to abortion, trying to place your right to have an abstract argument about whether you agree with the reasons why women decide to have abortions, above the right of women to stay alive. Life and health are more important than your abstract thinking about whether women can really be trusted with important decisions.
Marty: Mostly, I think the question as an example of how it is reasonable for people to have a moral conflict here is legitimate.
The moral conflict for me here:
Suppose that there were an actual genetic test for “being gay”. (I consider this highly improbable, but just suppose it for the sake of argument.) Suppose that it could be carried out in utero, within the time limits for an elective abortion. (Effectively 20 weeks in the UK: after 20 weeks abortions will only be carried out for medical necessity.)
Suppose that some women start getting tested for “gay fetuses”, and aborting the fetus.
Do I support their reasons for having an abortion? No, of course not.
Do I support their right to have an abortion for reasons I consider to be appallingly bigoted?
Yes, of course. It would be morally wrong to force them to have a baby they don’t want, whatever I think of their reasons for not wanting. Just as it would be morally wrong to override the woman and her doctor, at any stage in pregnancy, if the doctor says it would be unsafe to continue the pregnancy and the woman agrees that she wants to terminate.
Not only would it be morally wrong, the known result from so overriding women’s decisions is simply, directly: dead women.
Women dying because because their pregnancy has become hazardous to their health and their doctor is not allowed to provide or even recommend an abortion. Women dying because if access to safe legal abortion is denied, women who have decided against having a baby will go for a less-safe illegal abortion.
You cannot prevent abortions by making them illegal or otherwise inaccessible: you can only ensure that more women die.
You cannot ethically take the decision for someone else whether she will terminate or continue the pregnancy: it’s her right to do so for her own reasons, regardless of what your personal view is of her reasons.
When you live in a country where terrorists try to prevent women having safe legal access to abortion, and politicians pass laws to decrease access to abortion, trying to place your right to have an abstract argument about whether you agree with the reasons why women decide to have abortions, above the right of women to stay alive. Life and health are more important than your abstract thinking about whether women can really be trusted with important decisions.
Um, how are you defining “endangered” vs. “seriously compromised.”
Here’s a radical idea: How about individual women, in consultation with their doctors, make that determination, rather than you and Eric?
I believe it is a reasonable discussion to have that a healthy, adult woman who conceives a child because she simply did not take the proper precaution to prevent that bears significantly more responsibility to weigh the rights of the child.
Men, of course, bear no responsibility whatsoever in preventing the conception of children.
Um, how are you defining “endangered” vs. “seriously compromised.”
Here’s a radical idea: How about individual women, in consultation with their doctors, make that determination, rather than you and Eric?
I believe it is a reasonable discussion to have that a healthy, adult woman who conceives a child because she simply did not take the proper precaution to prevent that bears significantly more responsibility to weigh the rights of the child.
Men, of course, bear no responsibility whatsoever in preventing the conception of children.
I mean, of course you think it’s a reasonable discussion to have. What fun is being a male conservative if you can’t engage in a little slut-blaming and -shaming, amirite guys?
I mean, of course you think it’s a reasonable discussion to have. What fun is being a male conservative if you can’t engage in a little slut-blaming and -shaming, amirite guys?
Marty & subsequent discussion happened while I was composing. Marty, I’m very sorry about what happened to your wife. That’s terrible.
Marty & subsequent discussion happened while I was composing. Marty, I’m very sorry about what happened to your wife. That’s terrible.
Allow me to also offer my deepest sympathies. Although it shouldn’t take being a parent to feel that pain, it only helps to empathize. And I do.
Allow me to also offer my deepest sympathies. Although it shouldn’t take being a parent to feel that pain, it only helps to empathize. And I do.
Eric: are you asking if I’m consistent in my beliefs? Of course I am. If we’ve defined it as human, and you’ve just done something deliberate to willfully kill the person, then yes, that would be murder, and murder charges are probably relevant.
I understand the gravity of that, but to say otherwise would imply that killing some humans is “more ok” than killing others. And where’s the logic in that?
regarding birth control “jesglghjghkfgjh” suggests the morning-after pill doesn’t harm zygotes. I have no idea. If it doesn’t than it’s fine, and I don’t know of any birth control pills that would (affect fertilized eggs).
Eric: are you asking if I’m consistent in my beliefs? Of course I am. If we’ve defined it as human, and you’ve just done something deliberate to willfully kill the person, then yes, that would be murder, and murder charges are probably relevant.
I understand the gravity of that, but to say otherwise would imply that killing some humans is “more ok” than killing others. And where’s the logic in that?
regarding birth control “jesglghjghkfgjh” suggests the morning-after pill doesn’t harm zygotes. I have no idea. If it doesn’t than it’s fine, and I don’t know of any birth control pills that would (affect fertilized eggs).
I would argue that “worker’s rights” include the right to quit your job, that is, to cease being a worker, even though the natural consequence of taking a job is to continue to work there. Thus I can’t see that reproductive rights wouldn’t include the right not to reproduce.
I would argue that “worker’s rights” include the right to quit your job, that is, to cease being a worker, even though the natural consequence of taking a job is to continue to work there. Thus I can’t see that reproductive rights wouldn’t include the right not to reproduce.
regarding birth control “jesglghjghkfgjh” suggests the morning-after pill doesn’t harm zygotes.
You know, if you’re too lazy to type her name, you can copy and paste. Nothing about this discussion — one in which you have asked for “rational discussion” — requires you to be an asshole.
regarding birth control “jesglghjghkfgjh” suggests the morning-after pill doesn’t harm zygotes.
You know, if you’re too lazy to type her name, you can copy and paste. Nothing about this discussion — one in which you have asked for “rational discussion” — requires you to be an asshole.
I understand the gravity of that, but to say otherwise would imply that killing some humans is “more ok” than killing others.
I’m not so sure you do understand the gravity of that or what it implies about what power governments should have over people’s lives in free societies. As a practical matter, rather than an abstract philosophical one, you’re advocating a rather hellish existence for us all.
I understand the gravity of that, but to say otherwise would imply that killing some humans is “more ok” than killing others.
I’m not so sure you do understand the gravity of that or what it implies about what power governments should have over people’s lives in free societies. As a practical matter, rather than an abstract philosophical one, you’re advocating a rather hellish existence for us all.
Marty: I believe it is a reasonable discussion to have that a healthy, adult woman who conceives a child because she simply did not take the proper precaution to prevent that bears significantly more responsibility to weigh the rights of the child.
So you are willing to discuss taking away your wife’s legal right to decide if she does or doesn’t want to have another child, if she conceives because she forgot to take her pill one night.
But, you feel it would be wrong to take away your wife’s legal right to decide if you used a condom and it broke.
So, in practice, I try to change the discussion in personal conversations to how we can change the cultural sense of responsibility to go with abortion rights.
Fair enough. Feel free to ignore the questions about when you’re willing to take away your wife’s legal rights.
Well, the major seachange in cultural responsibility happened back about forty years ago, in your country and in mine, when it began to be perceived as a legitimate choice for an unmarried woman to decide to keep her baby. This went along with abortion rights because (I think) once it explicitly became a woman’s legal right to decide whether or not to have a baby, as opposed to an illegal necessity surreptitiously claimed, it was culturally acceptable for a woman to take responsibility for the baby she had decided to have.
A responsible woman, discovering that she’s pregnant, decides whether or not she wants a baby – and if not, the responsible decision is to have an abortion. Deliberately having an unwanted baby would be extremely irresponsible.
Perhaps it is not legitimately a legal question.
No, it never is. No more than it could be a legal question whether anyone else has a right to take one of your kidneys against your will.
If that is not enough waffling, bear in mind I believe the solution to many of our problems is to stop talking about them legally, where everyone has to take a firm side.
I think it would be great if the pro-lifers would just drop the idea that they can take legal control over a woman’s body, and drop the idea that if they harass and terrorize enough clinic staff and patients they can discourage doctors from practicing.
If all pro-lifers ever wanted to do was argue abstractly about whether they agree with the justification for a woman’s decisions, that would be a great step forward. (It would still be intolerably arrogant, but it would be an improvement.)
Marty: I believe it is a reasonable discussion to have that a healthy, adult woman who conceives a child because she simply did not take the proper precaution to prevent that bears significantly more responsibility to weigh the rights of the child.
So you are willing to discuss taking away your wife’s legal right to decide if she does or doesn’t want to have another child, if she conceives because she forgot to take her pill one night.
But, you feel it would be wrong to take away your wife’s legal right to decide if you used a condom and it broke.
So, in practice, I try to change the discussion in personal conversations to how we can change the cultural sense of responsibility to go with abortion rights.
Fair enough. Feel free to ignore the questions about when you’re willing to take away your wife’s legal rights.
Well, the major seachange in cultural responsibility happened back about forty years ago, in your country and in mine, when it began to be perceived as a legitimate choice for an unmarried woman to decide to keep her baby. This went along with abortion rights because (I think) once it explicitly became a woman’s legal right to decide whether or not to have a baby, as opposed to an illegal necessity surreptitiously claimed, it was culturally acceptable for a woman to take responsibility for the baby she had decided to have.
A responsible woman, discovering that she’s pregnant, decides whether or not she wants a baby – and if not, the responsible decision is to have an abortion. Deliberately having an unwanted baby would be extremely irresponsible.
Perhaps it is not legitimately a legal question.
No, it never is. No more than it could be a legal question whether anyone else has a right to take one of your kidneys against your will.
If that is not enough waffling, bear in mind I believe the solution to many of our problems is to stop talking about them legally, where everyone has to take a firm side.
I think it would be great if the pro-lifers would just drop the idea that they can take legal control over a woman’s body, and drop the idea that if they harass and terrorize enough clinic staff and patients they can discourage doctors from practicing.
If all pro-lifers ever wanted to do was argue abstractly about whether they agree with the justification for a woman’s decisions, that would be a great step forward. (It would still be intolerably arrogant, but it would be an improvement.)
Thus I can’t see that reproductive rights wouldn’t include the right not to reproduce.
This reminds me something that my con law professor (in the con law course I didn’t take from John Yoo) said about Griswold and the right to contraceptives, in that the case wasn’t really about you’re right to reproduce, but your right to NOT to reproduce, and, more specifically, the method by which you exercise that right. In that vein he said “Suppose I choose not to reproduce by playing flag football, do I have a constitutional right to flag football?” Obviously not quite the same but I thought it was an interesting point nonetheless.
Thus I can’t see that reproductive rights wouldn’t include the right not to reproduce.
This reminds me something that my con law professor (in the con law course I didn’t take from John Yoo) said about Griswold and the right to contraceptives, in that the case wasn’t really about you’re right to reproduce, but your right to NOT to reproduce, and, more specifically, the method by which you exercise that right. In that vein he said “Suppose I choose not to reproduce by playing flag football, do I have a constitutional right to flag football?” Obviously not quite the same but I thought it was an interesting point nonetheless.
Marty: I believe the solution to many of our problems is to stop talking about them legally
Me too. The legislature is a terrible place to figure out what cultural norms should be. I do not have a particular problem with a cultural norm that says that purely elective late term abortion is abhorrent, as long as we don’t drag the law into it. I don’t have a problem with the cultural norm that says walking down a city street naked is weird and kind of gross, which is separate from my belief that it should be legal.
The problem is that while you may be willing to avoid talking about things legally, the wider anti-abortion movement is not.
Marty: I believe the solution to many of our problems is to stop talking about them legally
Me too. The legislature is a terrible place to figure out what cultural norms should be. I do not have a particular problem with a cultural norm that says that purely elective late term abortion is abhorrent, as long as we don’t drag the law into it. I don’t have a problem with the cultural norm that says walking down a city street naked is weird and kind of gross, which is separate from my belief that it should be legal.
The problem is that while you may be willing to avoid talking about things legally, the wider anti-abortion movement is not.
Phil: You know, if you’re too lazy to type her name, you can copy and paste. Nothing about this discussion — one in which you have asked for “rational discussion” — requires you to be an asshole.
In all fairness, Phil, I decided back when I picked my long and unspellable handle, that under no circumstances would I take offense at how anyone happened to mispell or mistype it. You don’t have to be an asshole to mistype “jesurgislac” – just not very good at spelling: so I’m willing to assume honest mistake until proven malice.
Phil: You know, if you’re too lazy to type her name, you can copy and paste. Nothing about this discussion — one in which you have asked for “rational discussion” — requires you to be an asshole.
In all fairness, Phil, I decided back when I picked my long and unspellable handle, that under no circumstances would I take offense at how anyone happened to mispell or mistype it. You don’t have to be an asshole to mistype “jesurgislac” – just not very good at spelling: so I’m willing to assume honest mistake until proven malice.
“The problem is that while you may be willing to avoid talking about things legally, the wider anti-abortion movement is not.”
I think that an even broader set of people would be willing to have these kinds of cultural discussions if they weren’t constantly asked by politicians and the media to take sides.
On a different note, I am not sure that any major political race has ever been lost on the issue of abortion. Perhaps a Republican primary or two. We have elected a few anti-abortion Presidents since Roe v wade and i suspect that nowhere near a majoeity would be for overturning it.
I am wondering why either side keeps using this as a key issue, since I think it is not productive for either side. I admit that I might be missing something here.
“The problem is that while you may be willing to avoid talking about things legally, the wider anti-abortion movement is not.”
I think that an even broader set of people would be willing to have these kinds of cultural discussions if they weren’t constantly asked by politicians and the media to take sides.
On a different note, I am not sure that any major political race has ever been lost on the issue of abortion. Perhaps a Republican primary or two. We have elected a few anti-abortion Presidents since Roe v wade and i suspect that nowhere near a majoeity would be for overturning it.
I am wondering why either side keeps using this as a key issue, since I think it is not productive for either side. I admit that I might be missing something here.
Jesurgislac: Just as it would be morally wrong to override the woman and her doctor, at any stage in pregnancy, if the doctor says it would be unsafe to continue the pregnancy and the woman agrees that she wants to terminate.
Eric: Ambiguous? Welcome to the real world. You’re the one proposing outlawing abortion but in certain rare exceptions, so maybe you should try thinking of the bright line test for health of the mother short of life threatening.
Name one person here who is arguing that abortions in life-threatening situations should be illegal. Or one person who thinks doctors shouldn’t determine what a life-threatening situation is.
A line short of life threatening? Fine. Life threatening or permanent-harm causing. You’re talking about scenarios in which it should be ok to kill a person to prevent harm to yourself.
Jesurgislac: Just as it would be morally wrong to override the woman and her doctor, at any stage in pregnancy, if the doctor says it would be unsafe to continue the pregnancy and the woman agrees that she wants to terminate.
Eric: Ambiguous? Welcome to the real world. You’re the one proposing outlawing abortion but in certain rare exceptions, so maybe you should try thinking of the bright line test for health of the mother short of life threatening.
Name one person here who is arguing that abortions in life-threatening situations should be illegal. Or one person who thinks doctors shouldn’t determine what a life-threatening situation is.
A line short of life threatening? Fine. Life threatening or permanent-harm causing. You’re talking about scenarios in which it should be ok to kill a person to prevent harm to yourself.
What JD said.
regarding birth control “jesglghjghkfgjh” suggests the morning-after pill doesn’t harm zygotes. I have no idea. If it doesn’t than it’s fine, and I don’t know of any birth control pills that would (affect fertilized eggs).
From Wikipedia:
Birth control methods usually prevent fertilization. This cannot be seen as abortifacient because, by any of the above definitions, pregnancy has not started. However, some methods might have a secondary effect of preventing implantation, thus allowing the zygote to die. Those who define pregnancy from fertilization subsequently may conclude that the agents should be considered abortifacients.
Speculation about post-fertilization mechanisms is widespread, even appearing on patient information inserts for hormonal contraception, but there is no clinical support. One small study, using fourteen women, might be considered as providing evidence of such an effect for IUDs[17] and a study of the combined oral contraceptive pill has been proposed.[18]
Possibly affected methods:
-Hormonal contraception, including emergency contraception, are known to be effective at preventing ovulation. Some scientists believe hormonal methods may have a secondary effect of interfering with implantation of embryos.
-Intrauterine devices have been proven to have strong spermicidal and ovicidal effects;[19][20] the current medical consensus is that this is the only way in which they work.[21] Still, a few physicians have suggested they may have a secondary effect of interfering with the development of pre-implanted embryos;[22] this secondary effect is considered more plausible when the IUD is used as emergency contraception.[23]
-The lactational amenorrhea method works primarily by preventing ovulation, but is also known to cause luteal phase defect (LPD). LPD is believed to interfere with the implantation of embryos.[24]
-Fertility awareness methods are known to work by preventing fertilization. It has been speculated they have a secondary effect of creating embryos incapable of implanting (due to aged gametes at the time of fertilization),[25] although age of gametes at the time of fertilization has been shown to have no effect on miscarriage rates,[26] low birth weight, or preterm delivery.[27]
ME: That last one raise an interesting dilemma don’t it. If you’re using the rhythm method, can you be charged with murder if it’s proven that aged gametes are less likely to implant?
What JD said.
regarding birth control “jesglghjghkfgjh” suggests the morning-after pill doesn’t harm zygotes. I have no idea. If it doesn’t than it’s fine, and I don’t know of any birth control pills that would (affect fertilized eggs).
From Wikipedia:
Birth control methods usually prevent fertilization. This cannot be seen as abortifacient because, by any of the above definitions, pregnancy has not started. However, some methods might have a secondary effect of preventing implantation, thus allowing the zygote to die. Those who define pregnancy from fertilization subsequently may conclude that the agents should be considered abortifacients.
Speculation about post-fertilization mechanisms is widespread, even appearing on patient information inserts for hormonal contraception, but there is no clinical support. One small study, using fourteen women, might be considered as providing evidence of such an effect for IUDs[17] and a study of the combined oral contraceptive pill has been proposed.[18]
Possibly affected methods:
-Hormonal contraception, including emergency contraception, are known to be effective at preventing ovulation. Some scientists believe hormonal methods may have a secondary effect of interfering with implantation of embryos.
-Intrauterine devices have been proven to have strong spermicidal and ovicidal effects;[19][20] the current medical consensus is that this is the only way in which they work.[21] Still, a few physicians have suggested they may have a secondary effect of interfering with the development of pre-implanted embryos;[22] this secondary effect is considered more plausible when the IUD is used as emergency contraception.[23]
-The lactational amenorrhea method works primarily by preventing ovulation, but is also known to cause luteal phase defect (LPD). LPD is believed to interfere with the implantation of embryos.[24]
-Fertility awareness methods are known to work by preventing fertilization. It has been speculated they have a secondary effect of creating embryos incapable of implanting (due to aged gametes at the time of fertilization),[25] although age of gametes at the time of fertilization has been shown to have no effect on miscarriage rates,[26] low birth weight, or preterm delivery.[27]
ME: That last one raise an interesting dilemma don’t it. If you’re using the rhythm method, can you be charged with murder if it’s proven that aged gametes are less likely to implant?
Jesurgislac: In all fairness, Phil, I decided back when I picked my long and unspellable handle, that under no circumstances would I take offense at how anyone happened to mispell or mistype it. You don’t have to be an asshole to mistype “jesurgislac” – just not very good at spelling: so I’m willing to assume honest mistake until proven malice.
I was just trying to be funny. It’s hard to memorize, its 4am, and I’m the primary poster in a 2 vs. 1,000 debate here. I get tired of spending time going back and forth while keeping up with five other people.
And you already think I’m an idiot so I figured you wouldn’t really care. 😛
Jesurgislac: In all fairness, Phil, I decided back when I picked my long and unspellable handle, that under no circumstances would I take offense at how anyone happened to mispell or mistype it. You don’t have to be an asshole to mistype “jesurgislac” – just not very good at spelling: so I’m willing to assume honest mistake until proven malice.
I was just trying to be funny. It’s hard to memorize, its 4am, and I’m the primary poster in a 2 vs. 1,000 debate here. I get tired of spending time going back and forth while keeping up with five other people.
And you already think I’m an idiot so I figured you wouldn’t really care. 😛
Name one person here who is arguing that abortions in life-threatening situations should be illegal.
Um, I specifically said the opposite. Please double check before accusing me. I said, and I bold:
“You’re the one proposing outlawing abortion but in certain rare exceptions…”
A line short of life threatening? Fine. Life threatening or permanent-harm causing. You’re talking about scenarios in which it should be ok to kill a person to prevent harm to yourself.
I asked you about a pregnancy likely to cause anemia, and one that would exacerbate epilepsy. Would that qualify for an exemption?
Name one person here who is arguing that abortions in life-threatening situations should be illegal.
Um, I specifically said the opposite. Please double check before accusing me. I said, and I bold:
“You’re the one proposing outlawing abortion but in certain rare exceptions…”
A line short of life threatening? Fine. Life threatening or permanent-harm causing. You’re talking about scenarios in which it should be ok to kill a person to prevent harm to yourself.
I asked you about a pregnancy likely to cause anemia, and one that would exacerbate epilepsy. Would that qualify for an exemption?
Er… this strikes me as something of a failure of imagination. Or at least empathy.
For “one side”, it is the difference between having the right to make medical decisions concerning your own body for yourself on the one hand, or on the other hand having that right taken from you and being forced to endure a life-altering and potentially life-threatening medical condition as a result.
Moreover, the medical procedures and conditions in question exclusively affect women, but the people fighting to outlaw abortions are vastly disproportionately men who are unaffected by the laws they propose.
Is it really that difficult to understand why one of these “sides” might fight tooth and nail against the other? Truly?
Er… this strikes me as something of a failure of imagination. Or at least empathy.
For “one side”, it is the difference between having the right to make medical decisions concerning your own body for yourself on the one hand, or on the other hand having that right taken from you and being forced to endure a life-altering and potentially life-threatening medical condition as a result.
Moreover, the medical procedures and conditions in question exclusively affect women, but the people fighting to outlaw abortions are vastly disproportionately men who are unaffected by the laws they propose.
Is it really that difficult to understand why one of these “sides” might fight tooth and nail against the other? Truly?
Eric: ME: That last one raise an interesting dilemma don’t it. If you’re using the rhythm method, can you be charged with murder if it’s proven that aged gametes are less likely to implant?
what? Of course not. you can’t murder something that doesn’t exist yet. a gamete is not an embryo. conception hasn’t even occurred.
Eric: ME: That last one raise an interesting dilemma don’t it. If you’re using the rhythm method, can you be charged with murder if it’s proven that aged gametes are less likely to implant?
what? Of course not. you can’t murder something that doesn’t exist yet. a gamete is not an embryo. conception hasn’t even occurred.
Name one person here who is arguing that abortions in life-threatening situations should be illegal. Or one person who thinks doctors shouldn’t determine what a life-threatening situation is.
You’re absolutely arguing for that. If you believe that a woman and her doctor should get to make the decision about whether or not she terminates the pregnancy, why would you be arguing so hard that it’s wrong for women to have abortions if you think that the situation is not sufficiently threatening to their life or wellbeing?
Marty: I am wondering why either side keeps using this as a key issue, since I think it is not productive for either side. I admit that I might be missing something here.
You might want to read Fred Clark at Slacktivist. In a number of posts, he argues (as an evangelical Christian) that Republicans keep bringing abortion (and gay marriage) to the table, because they can get people to vote against their own self-interest by making them feel that voting for a “Pro-life” or a “pro-marriage” politician is just the right thing to do.
Regardless of whether you believe that Republican politicians do this cynically in order to get voters to support them against their own best interests, it’s a fact that whipping up “moral values” is campaign tactic that right-wing politicians are known for.
Name one person here who is arguing that abortions in life-threatening situations should be illegal. Or one person who thinks doctors shouldn’t determine what a life-threatening situation is.
You’re absolutely arguing for that. If you believe that a woman and her doctor should get to make the decision about whether or not she terminates the pregnancy, why would you be arguing so hard that it’s wrong for women to have abortions if you think that the situation is not sufficiently threatening to their life or wellbeing?
Marty: I am wondering why either side keeps using this as a key issue, since I think it is not productive for either side. I admit that I might be missing something here.
You might want to read Fred Clark at Slacktivist. In a number of posts, he argues (as an evangelical Christian) that Republicans keep bringing abortion (and gay marriage) to the table, because they can get people to vote against their own self-interest by making them feel that voting for a “Pro-life” or a “pro-marriage” politician is just the right thing to do.
Regardless of whether you believe that Republican politicians do this cynically in order to get voters to support them against their own best interests, it’s a fact that whipping up “moral values” is campaign tactic that right-wing politicians are known for.
Jes: You’re absolutely arguing for that. If you believe that a woman and her doctor should get to make the decision about whether or not she terminates the pregnancy, why would you be arguing so hard that it’s wrong for women to have abortions if you think that the situation is not sufficiently threatening to their life or wellbeing?
And why do you assume automatically that what I think a “not sufficiently threatening” scenario is, isn’t just whatever the doctor thinks?? I have no medical background, or presume to know what a life-threatening or non-lt situation is. Why do commenters here consistently attribute positions to me that I haven’t advocated for?
Name one place in my comments where I’ve argued abortions should be illegal even in cases of permanent physical harm to mothers and I will immediately retract it, because I don’t believe that at all.
Jes: You’re absolutely arguing for that. If you believe that a woman and her doctor should get to make the decision about whether or not she terminates the pregnancy, why would you be arguing so hard that it’s wrong for women to have abortions if you think that the situation is not sufficiently threatening to their life or wellbeing?
And why do you assume automatically that what I think a “not sufficiently threatening” scenario is, isn’t just whatever the doctor thinks?? I have no medical background, or presume to know what a life-threatening or non-lt situation is. Why do commenters here consistently attribute positions to me that I haven’t advocated for?
Name one place in my comments where I’ve argued abortions should be illegal even in cases of permanent physical harm to mothers and I will immediately retract it, because I don’t believe that at all.
Jes: (marty)Perhaps it is not legitimately a legal question.
No, it never is. No more than it could be a legal question whether anyone else has a right to take one of your kidneys against your will.
If it involves killing someone, then it’s a legal question. If you contend that fetuses are not humans, then provide a definition of human that isn’t tautological. If your definition relies on “brain activity” or “life experiences,” then respond to my earlier critique of those criteria. That is where the real debate lies.
Jes: (marty)Perhaps it is not legitimately a legal question.
No, it never is. No more than it could be a legal question whether anyone else has a right to take one of your kidneys against your will.
If it involves killing someone, then it’s a legal question. If you contend that fetuses are not humans, then provide a definition of human that isn’t tautological. If your definition relies on “brain activity” or “life experiences,” then respond to my earlier critique of those criteria. That is where the real debate lies.
what? Of course not. you can’t murder something that doesn’t exist yet. a gamete is not an embryo. conception hasn’t even occurred.
dkpsr,
I know it’s late where you are, and I don’t envy your position against the tide here, but, please, try to read closer. At least, if you can’t, think twice before the snark.
The work I cited said this:
Fertility awareness methods are known to work by preventing fertilization. It has been speculated they have a secondary effect of creating embryos incapable of implanting (due to aged gametes at the time of fertilization)
To repeat: “An embryo incapable of implanting.”
In that scenario, we’re talking about more than a gamete.
what? Of course not. you can’t murder something that doesn’t exist yet. a gamete is not an embryo. conception hasn’t even occurred.
dkpsr,
I know it’s late where you are, and I don’t envy your position against the tide here, but, please, try to read closer. At least, if you can’t, think twice before the snark.
The work I cited said this:
Fertility awareness methods are known to work by preventing fertilization. It has been speculated they have a secondary effect of creating embryos incapable of implanting (due to aged gametes at the time of fertilization)
To repeat: “An embryo incapable of implanting.”
In that scenario, we’re talking about more than a gamete.
When I read your passage I saw a the scenario that involves doing something to a gamete before the embryo is created. So it’s doing something to an unfertilized egg. If it’s not already an emybro, then I don’t see the problem.
I’m sorry. I get snarky because I don’t understand why you’re asking these things. If it’s to try and point out a loophole in my logic, or if you genuinely think there’s merit to my position. I cynically assumed the former, but I apologize, sincerely, if I am wrong.
When I read your passage I saw a the scenario that involves doing something to a gamete before the embryo is created. So it’s doing something to an unfertilized egg. If it’s not already an emybro, then I don’t see the problem.
I’m sorry. I get snarky because I don’t understand why you’re asking these things. If it’s to try and point out a loophole in my logic, or if you genuinely think there’s merit to my position. I cynically assumed the former, but I apologize, sincerely, if I am wrong.
My point is to take your argument to its logical conclusion, which I feel results in some pretty extreme outcomes.
In the example of the rhythm method, aged gametes may produce embryos incapable of implanting. If that’s the case, would practicing said method be tantamount to murder if the parents knew about the likelihood (and maybe even if they didn’t as, ignorantia juris non excusat)?
My point is to take your argument to its logical conclusion, which I feel results in some pretty extreme outcomes.
In the example of the rhythm method, aged gametes may produce embryos incapable of implanting. If that’s the case, would practicing said method be tantamount to murder if the parents knew about the likelihood (and maybe even if they didn’t as, ignorantia juris non excusat)?
dkp.sr: And why do you assume automatically that what I think a “not sufficiently threatening” scenario is, isn’t just whatever the doctor thinks??
Because why on earth are you trying to argue this point if in fact you’re in total agreement with me that the woman and her doctor should get to decide if a late-term abortion is required for the sake of her continued good health?
If it involves killing someone, then it’s a legal question
So it’s okay to pass laws requiring forced kidney, liver, or blood “donation”, against the will of the person whose body is thus being used, providing these forced “donations” are being used to save the life of someone who would die if they did not receive them? There is no reason to allow a person who has healthy organs the legal right to decide for herself whether or not to use them to keep another person alive?
dkp.sr: And why do you assume automatically that what I think a “not sufficiently threatening” scenario is, isn’t just whatever the doctor thinks??
Because why on earth are you trying to argue this point if in fact you’re in total agreement with me that the woman and her doctor should get to decide if a late-term abortion is required for the sake of her continued good health?
If it involves killing someone, then it’s a legal question
So it’s okay to pass laws requiring forced kidney, liver, or blood “donation”, against the will of the person whose body is thus being used, providing these forced “donations” are being used to save the life of someone who would die if they did not receive them? There is no reason to allow a person who has healthy organs the legal right to decide for herself whether or not to use them to keep another person alive?
If you contend that fetuses are not humans, then provide a definition of human that isn’t tautological.
I’ve never tried to contend that a human fetus isn’t human – that would be a tautological absurdity.
My contention is simply that women are human, and entitled to full human rights, and pro-lifers arguing that women’s human rights should be removed from women when pregnant are making an argument that is either evil or stupid.
If you contend that fetuses are not humans, then provide a definition of human that isn’t tautological.
I’ve never tried to contend that a human fetus isn’t human – that would be a tautological absurdity.
My contention is simply that women are human, and entitled to full human rights, and pro-lifers arguing that women’s human rights should be removed from women when pregnant are making an argument that is either evil or stupid.
Eric: My point is to take your argument to its logical conclusion, which I feel results in some pretty extreme outcomes.
Define life, Eric, bearing in mind what I said previously about brains and experiences. If an embyro is human, then it deserves protection, no matter how extreme it sounds.
Eric: In the example of the rhythm method, aged gametes may produce embryos incapable of implanting. If that’s the case, would practicing said method be tantamount to murder if the parents knew
Well, I’ve said no twice, and giving a reason that is consistent with what I state previously. If you think there should be a reason to call it murder, then say why.
Eric: My point is to take your argument to its logical conclusion, which I feel results in some pretty extreme outcomes.
Define life, Eric, bearing in mind what I said previously about brains and experiences. If an embyro is human, then it deserves protection, no matter how extreme it sounds.
Eric: In the example of the rhythm method, aged gametes may produce embryos incapable of implanting. If that’s the case, would practicing said method be tantamount to murder if the parents knew
Well, I’ve said no twice, and giving a reason that is consistent with what I state previously. If you think there should be a reason to call it murder, then say why.
Jes: Because why on earth are you trying to argue this point
I never have! ever!! go look back if you have to. I’m arguing about the definition of life, and the morality/legality of non-life threatening abortions. I have never said anything to suggest otherwise.
Jes: So it’s okay to pass laws requiring forced kidney, liver, or blood “donation”, against the will of the person whose body is thus being used, providing these forced “donations” are being used to save the life of someone who would die if they did not receive them? There is no reason to allow a person who has healthy organs the legal right to decide for herself whether or not to use them to keep another person alive?
I’ve already responded to this. Obviously there is no basis for this, under the same reasoning there’s no basis to force a woman to have a baby when it might kill her. You can’t force someone to risk their life to save someone elses. This has nothing to do with what I’ve been talking about.
Jes: Because why on earth are you trying to argue this point
I never have! ever!! go look back if you have to. I’m arguing about the definition of life, and the morality/legality of non-life threatening abortions. I have never said anything to suggest otherwise.
Jes: So it’s okay to pass laws requiring forced kidney, liver, or blood “donation”, against the will of the person whose body is thus being used, providing these forced “donations” are being used to save the life of someone who would die if they did not receive them? There is no reason to allow a person who has healthy organs the legal right to decide for herself whether or not to use them to keep another person alive?
I’ve already responded to this. Obviously there is no basis for this, under the same reasoning there’s no basis to force a woman to have a baby when it might kill her. You can’t force someone to risk their life to save someone elses. This has nothing to do with what I’ve been talking about.
DKPSR:
According to you, an embryo is a human life.
The rhythm method is likely to result in embryos that can’t implant, and thus will die.
Since, according to you, and embryo is a human life, and given that engaging in an act likely to result in the destruction of human life is murder or some close approximate thereof, other than in the case of extenuating circumstances, this raises an interesting question.
Is the rhythm method murder (if the science backs up the aged gamete leads to embryo implantation inability)
Your responses have thus far relied on misreading the material and, in connection with that misreading, describing an embryo as a gamete, and thus avoiding the question.
That is why I’m not satisfied.
DKPSR:
According to you, an embryo is a human life.
The rhythm method is likely to result in embryos that can’t implant, and thus will die.
Since, according to you, and embryo is a human life, and given that engaging in an act likely to result in the destruction of human life is murder or some close approximate thereof, other than in the case of extenuating circumstances, this raises an interesting question.
Is the rhythm method murder (if the science backs up the aged gamete leads to embryo implantation inability)
Your responses have thus far relied on misreading the material and, in connection with that misreading, describing an embryo as a gamete, and thus avoiding the question.
That is why I’m not satisfied.
Jes: I’ve never tried to contend that a human fetus isn’t human – that would be a tautological absurdity.
If you think fetuses are human, then why would you support inalienable human rights for one human (life, women) and not another (life, fetuses)? And don’t bring up the life-threatening situation again. I am not talking about those scenarios. Why can a mother kill a fetus but not a baby, if fetuses are humans with the same rights as babies.
Jes: I’ve never tried to contend that a human fetus isn’t human – that would be a tautological absurdity.
If you think fetuses are human, then why would you support inalienable human rights for one human (life, women) and not another (life, fetuses)? And don’t bring up the life-threatening situation again. I am not talking about those scenarios. Why can a mother kill a fetus but not a baby, if fetuses are humans with the same rights as babies.
Obviously there is no basis for this
So what makes it okay to force women to “donate” her uterus against her will, when you agree there is no basis for forcing the use of any other organs of her body?
. You can’t force someone to risk their life to save someone elses.
But you’re arguing that it is okay to do that. Any pregnancy carries with it the risk of death and the certainty of permanent physical change to the woman’s body. You’ve been arguing all the way down this thread that it’s perfectly morally justifiable to force a woman to risk her life by pregancy because if she doesn’t, the fetus she is carrying will die.
Giving blood is far, far less risky than being pregnant. You think it’s okay to force a woman to stay pregnant, but not okay to force her to give blood? Why do you make this distinction?
Obviously there is no basis for this
So what makes it okay to force women to “donate” her uterus against her will, when you agree there is no basis for forcing the use of any other organs of her body?
. You can’t force someone to risk their life to save someone elses.
But you’re arguing that it is okay to do that. Any pregnancy carries with it the risk of death and the certainty of permanent physical change to the woman’s body. You’ve been arguing all the way down this thread that it’s perfectly morally justifiable to force a woman to risk her life by pregancy because if she doesn’t, the fetus she is carrying will die.
Giving blood is far, far less risky than being pregnant. You think it’s okay to force a woman to stay pregnant, but not okay to force her to give blood? Why do you make this distinction?
If you think fetuses are human, then why would you support inalienable human rights for one human (life, women) and not another (life, fetuses)
Because I hold that inalienable human rights include the right not to have your body used against your will.
You don’t have the right to stay alive by taking half a liver or even a pint of blood from another human being unless that human being has consented to let you have that part of their body to save your life.
A fetus doesn’t have the right to stay alive by using a human being’s uterus – and indeed all her bodily resources, unless that human being has consented to let that fetus have the use of her body to save its life.
And don’t bring up the life-threatening situation again. I am not talking about those scenarios.
Yes, you are. Women don’t stop dying for want of access to safe legal abortion just because you don’t want to talk about their deaths.
If you think fetuses are human, then why would you support inalienable human rights for one human (life, women) and not another (life, fetuses)
Because I hold that inalienable human rights include the right not to have your body used against your will.
You don’t have the right to stay alive by taking half a liver or even a pint of blood from another human being unless that human being has consented to let you have that part of their body to save your life.
A fetus doesn’t have the right to stay alive by using a human being’s uterus – and indeed all her bodily resources, unless that human being has consented to let that fetus have the use of her body to save its life.
And don’t bring up the life-threatening situation again. I am not talking about those scenarios.
Yes, you are. Women don’t stop dying for want of access to safe legal abortion just because you don’t want to talk about their deaths.
Eric, I’m not describing an embryo as a gamete. The process you describe is occurring before there is an embryo. the action is being done to unfertilized eggs. We don’t even know if conception will yet occur to the damaged egg or not.
That’s like bringing someone up for double murder because they killed a fertile twenty year old woman, who “might” one day have had a kid. Or, it’s like the “pre-crime” from minority report.
Eric, I’m not describing an embryo as a gamete. The process you describe is occurring before there is an embryo. the action is being done to unfertilized eggs. We don’t even know if conception will yet occur to the damaged egg or not.
That’s like bringing someone up for double murder because they killed a fertile twenty year old woman, who “might” one day have had a kid. Or, it’s like the “pre-crime” from minority report.
Jes: what’s the death rate among women giving birth in the United States today? I bet more people die from choking on food nowadays.
body used against your will? Well then maybe that person and their coupler should have thought a bit more deeply about their consequences. “Will” was surrendered when they decided to engage in an act purely designed to produce other humans.
avoiding 9 months of admittedly strenuous pregnancy to kill someone who could live to be 80. That’s not unselfish, no sir.
I’m going to bed. This was a waste of a night.
Jes: what’s the death rate among women giving birth in the United States today? I bet more people die from choking on food nowadays.
body used against your will? Well then maybe that person and their coupler should have thought a bit more deeply about their consequences. “Will” was surrendered when they decided to engage in an act purely designed to produce other humans.
avoiding 9 months of admittedly strenuous pregnancy to kill someone who could live to be 80. That’s not unselfish, no sir.
I’m going to bed. This was a waste of a night.
According to thisarticle the death rate from child birth in the United States in 2004 was 13 in every 100,000, or a 0.013% chance of dying. Not large, but not zero either. Further, the article also notes that 29% of such births are by C-section (which I think is actually higher now), which is major surgery and most assuredly results in “permanent physical damage” to the mother.
So, a pregnant woman has a better than 1 in 10,000 chance of dying in childbirth, and an almost 1 in 3 chance of undergoing major surgery (and not to mention that vaginal birth is none too pleasant and also can result in permanent damage).
According to thisarticle the death rate from child birth in the United States in 2004 was 13 in every 100,000, or a 0.013% chance of dying. Not large, but not zero either. Further, the article also notes that 29% of such births are by C-section (which I think is actually higher now), which is major surgery and most assuredly results in “permanent physical damage” to the mother.
So, a pregnant woman has a better than 1 in 10,000 chance of dying in childbirth, and an almost 1 in 3 chance of undergoing major surgery (and not to mention that vaginal birth is none too pleasant and also can result in permanent damage).
Eric, I’m not describing an embryo as a gamete. The process you describe is occurring before there is an embryo. the action is being done to unfertilized eggs. We don’t even know if conception will yet occur to the damaged egg or not.
I guess I need to re-post this again:
Fertility awareness…[may] have a secondary effect of creating embryos incapable of implanting (due to aged gametes at the time of fertilization)
To repeat: “An embryo incapable of implanting.”
The question remains, if a person engages in such a practice, and (as was expected) the practice leads to the creation of embryos that then fail to implant, is that murder or some variation thereof?
Your answers, thus far, don’t seem to match the question.
That’s like bringing someone up for double murder because they killed a fertile twenty year old woman, who “might” one day have had a kid. Or, it’s like the “pre-crime” from minority report.
No, it’s more like negligent homicide: engaging in conduct likely to bring about loss of human life without specific mens rea.
Eric, I’m not describing an embryo as a gamete. The process you describe is occurring before there is an embryo. the action is being done to unfertilized eggs. We don’t even know if conception will yet occur to the damaged egg or not.
I guess I need to re-post this again:
Fertility awareness…[may] have a secondary effect of creating embryos incapable of implanting (due to aged gametes at the time of fertilization)
To repeat: “An embryo incapable of implanting.”
The question remains, if a person engages in such a practice, and (as was expected) the practice leads to the creation of embryos that then fail to implant, is that murder or some variation thereof?
Your answers, thus far, don’t seem to match the question.
That’s like bringing someone up for double murder because they killed a fertile twenty year old woman, who “might” one day have had a kid. Or, it’s like the “pre-crime” from minority report.
No, it’s more like negligent homicide: engaging in conduct likely to bring about loss of human life without specific mens rea.
don’t kill people. simple rule
The funny thing that I don’t think anyone has commented on so far: the case in point shows that “don’t kill people” is not a “simple rule”. Preventing someone from receiving chemotherapy when they have cancer is, in fact, killing them.
maybe that person and their coupler should have thought a bit more deeply about their consequences.
Again, as the case in point demonstrates, “thinking about consequences” is not a cure-all. Unexpected things happen.
“Will” was surrendered when they decided to engage in an act purely designed to produce other humans.
I’ve had sex, I guess, er, at least a few thousand times, and only once produced another human. Maybe I am doing it wrong?
don’t kill people. simple rule
The funny thing that I don’t think anyone has commented on so far: the case in point shows that “don’t kill people” is not a “simple rule”. Preventing someone from receiving chemotherapy when they have cancer is, in fact, killing them.
maybe that person and their coupler should have thought a bit more deeply about their consequences.
Again, as the case in point demonstrates, “thinking about consequences” is not a cure-all. Unexpected things happen.
“Will” was surrendered when they decided to engage in an act purely designed to produce other humans.
I’ve had sex, I guess, er, at least a few thousand times, and only once produced another human. Maybe I am doing it wrong?
dkp.sr: body used against your will? Well then maybe that person and their coupler should have thought a bit more deeply about their consequences. “Will” was surrendered when they decided to engage in an act purely designed to produce other humans.
As many others have already noted, over and over again: eventually, pro-lifers always turn out to be anti-sex, anti-women, and regard having children as a punishment for having sex rather than a joyous choice.
You yourself, dkp.sr, may never in your life have sex except when you intend to engender children. If that’s how you feel about sex, that’s OK. But most people, most of the time, have sex when they want to give themselves and their sexual partner pleasure. That’s how we evolved. To presume having sex is exactly equivalent to deciding to have a child is ludicrously false.
avoiding 9 months of admittedly strenuous pregnancy to kill someone who could live to be 80
As someone else already said upthread: “You can’t force someone to risk their life to save someone else’s.”
dkp.sr: body used against your will? Well then maybe that person and their coupler should have thought a bit more deeply about their consequences. “Will” was surrendered when they decided to engage in an act purely designed to produce other humans.
As many others have already noted, over and over again: eventually, pro-lifers always turn out to be anti-sex, anti-women, and regard having children as a punishment for having sex rather than a joyous choice.
You yourself, dkp.sr, may never in your life have sex except when you intend to engender children. If that’s how you feel about sex, that’s OK. But most people, most of the time, have sex when they want to give themselves and their sexual partner pleasure. That’s how we evolved. To presume having sex is exactly equivalent to deciding to have a child is ludicrously false.
avoiding 9 months of admittedly strenuous pregnancy to kill someone who could live to be 80
As someone else already said upthread: “You can’t force someone to risk their life to save someone else’s.”
“Designed”?
“Designed purely“?
I’m not really sure what to make of this.
“Designed”?
“Designed purely“?
I’m not really sure what to make of this.
DKP…,
You seem determined to ignore that the interests of the fetus do not exist in a vacuum. The problem is that in a pregnancy there are competing interests: those of the mother and those of the fetus. You can’t accord rights to the fetus without taking them away from the mother. If a fetus has an absolute right to life, then the mother has no right to control her own body – she must carry the baby to term whether she wants to or not, regardless of whether it endangers her life or harms her health. This is why the distinction between unborn and born that you tried to wave away earlier is important – after birth the baby needs support, but it needn’t come from a specific individual. Prior to birth, only the specific woman in whose womb it resides can supply that support. Given those competing interests, I’m inclined to favor the interests of the one who is actually sentient, rather than one who’s only potentially sentient.
Hooo-boy. Ummm, hmmm. There seem to be some rather dubious assumptions buried in this little bit of slut-blaming. First off, “designed”? Unless you’re a creationist (which is certainly a possibility) that’s hardly an appropriate term. The evolutionary origin of a structure or behavior has no necessary implications as to morality. I use my brain to do crossword puzzles, even though it wasn’t “designed” for that. Sex may have evolved for reproduction, but I see no logical reason why it should be restricted to that purpose. Maybe you could explain your reasoning?
BTW, do you mind my asking if you’re a man or a woman?
DKP…,
You seem determined to ignore that the interests of the fetus do not exist in a vacuum. The problem is that in a pregnancy there are competing interests: those of the mother and those of the fetus. You can’t accord rights to the fetus without taking them away from the mother. If a fetus has an absolute right to life, then the mother has no right to control her own body – she must carry the baby to term whether she wants to or not, regardless of whether it endangers her life or harms her health. This is why the distinction between unborn and born that you tried to wave away earlier is important – after birth the baby needs support, but it needn’t come from a specific individual. Prior to birth, only the specific woman in whose womb it resides can supply that support. Given those competing interests, I’m inclined to favor the interests of the one who is actually sentient, rather than one who’s only potentially sentient.
Hooo-boy. Ummm, hmmm. There seem to be some rather dubious assumptions buried in this little bit of slut-blaming. First off, “designed”? Unless you’re a creationist (which is certainly a possibility) that’s hardly an appropriate term. The evolutionary origin of a structure or behavior has no necessary implications as to morality. I use my brain to do crossword puzzles, even though it wasn’t “designed” for that. Sex may have evolved for reproduction, but I see no logical reason why it should be restricted to that purpose. Maybe you could explain your reasoning?
BTW, do you mind my asking if you’re a man or a woman?
I’ve had sex, I guess, er, at least a few thousand times, and only once produced another human. Maybe I am doing it wrong?
Were you with someone else, other than that one time?
I’ve had sex, I guess, er, at least a few thousand times, and only once produced another human. Maybe I am doing it wrong?
Were you with someone else, other than that one time?
“Will” was surrendered when they decided to engage in an act purely designed to produce other humans.
what is this I don’t even
“Will” was surrendered when they decided to engage in an act purely designed to produce other humans.
what is this I don’t even
What about all the Walt Disneys and Han Solos at the fertility clinics?
What about all the Walt Disneys and Han Solos at the fertility clinics?
Were you with someone else, other than that one time?
Well, I thought so, but now I’m very confused about the whole thing. I might have just been playing canasta or something.
But the real point is that no matter how well you understand the potential consequences of sex, and even if you had a conscious intent to produce another human being, you do not have control over what happens next. The mother might get cancer, the fetus might develop in such a way that it could never survive and threatens the life of the mother. These aren’t angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin theoreticals. We were lucky enough that none of them occurred, but no amount of “knowing the consequences” would have had anything to do with it.
Were you with someone else, other than that one time?
Well, I thought so, but now I’m very confused about the whole thing. I might have just been playing canasta or something.
But the real point is that no matter how well you understand the potential consequences of sex, and even if you had a conscious intent to produce another human being, you do not have control over what happens next. The mother might get cancer, the fetus might develop in such a way that it could never survive and threatens the life of the mother. These aren’t angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin theoreticals. We were lucky enough that none of them occurred, but no amount of “knowing the consequences” would have had anything to do with it.
I know I’m late to this game, but I must address Marty’s insistence on calling a fetus…”the child.”
My wife and I also experienced a miscarriage, 5 months into the pregnancy. During those 5 months my wife always called the life within her “the fetus” for 2 reasons. First, she’s a nurse and all of her colleagues (nurses and doctors) refer to the fetus as “the fetus.” And secondly, it was consciously political, because of the vast amount of anti-abortion folks in both our families. I don’t mean to sound cold; it was hard not to refer to the fetus as “the child.”
I was going to be a father, for the first time, and the excitement was overwhelming. So when she miscarried, it was devastating…clothing was purchased, rooms were painted, and the vast amounts of dream scenarios that I entertained were shattered. And during the grief period; my wife and I stopped calling it “the fetus” and started calling her “our child, Lilith.” At the same time, the emotional devastation we felt did not change the fact that it was a fetus. Words are important, so while our grief was helped by fashioning the fetus into child, I am careful not to confuse my grief state with reality. If my grief state could have been assisted by my wife and I referring to the fetus as “woman” or “elderly lady” or “toddler” or “young lady” or “teenager” we would have done it, but it doesn’t change the fact that a fetus died.
My mother is always reminding me that I am her baby, (I am 39) and as much as I love her, and would never dream of correcting her, there is good reason why I am glad the State and hospitals do not take her at her word.
There is a scientific reason as well as a political reason to use the proper labels.
I know I’m late to this game, but I must address Marty’s insistence on calling a fetus…”the child.”
My wife and I also experienced a miscarriage, 5 months into the pregnancy. During those 5 months my wife always called the life within her “the fetus” for 2 reasons. First, she’s a nurse and all of her colleagues (nurses and doctors) refer to the fetus as “the fetus.” And secondly, it was consciously political, because of the vast amount of anti-abortion folks in both our families. I don’t mean to sound cold; it was hard not to refer to the fetus as “the child.”
I was going to be a father, for the first time, and the excitement was overwhelming. So when she miscarried, it was devastating…clothing was purchased, rooms were painted, and the vast amounts of dream scenarios that I entertained were shattered. And during the grief period; my wife and I stopped calling it “the fetus” and started calling her “our child, Lilith.” At the same time, the emotional devastation we felt did not change the fact that it was a fetus. Words are important, so while our grief was helped by fashioning the fetus into child, I am careful not to confuse my grief state with reality. If my grief state could have been assisted by my wife and I referring to the fetus as “woman” or “elderly lady” or “toddler” or “young lady” or “teenager” we would have done it, but it doesn’t change the fact that a fetus died.
My mother is always reminding me that I am her baby, (I am 39) and as much as I love her, and would never dream of correcting her, there is good reason why I am glad the State and hospitals do not take her at her word.
There is a scientific reason as well as a political reason to use the proper labels.
What about all the Walt Disneys and Han Solos at the fertility clinics?
This is a very good question.
All the unused frozen embryos in fertility clinics are, ex arguendo, people. So are the clinics permitted to destroy them? Must they keep them on ice indefinitely then?
Also, since fertility treatments inevitably result in many excess embryos that are never implanted, should we outlaw fertility treatments as a form of murder?
What about all the Walt Disneys and Han Solos at the fertility clinics?
This is a very good question.
All the unused frozen embryos in fertility clinics are, ex arguendo, people. So are the clinics permitted to destroy them? Must they keep them on ice indefinitely then?
Also, since fertility treatments inevitably result in many excess embryos that are never implanted, should we outlaw fertility treatments as a form of murder?
That’s not unselfish, no sir.
Wait, we’re passing laws against selfishness now? What country am I living in?
I knew this would happen when the Democrats got back into the White House.
That’s not unselfish, no sir.
Wait, we’re passing laws against selfishness now? What country am I living in?
I knew this would happen when the Democrats got back into the White House.
Well, I think Prattlehorn’s comment from way back should have obviated the vast majority of subsequent discussion, but let me try to restate the point. If fetuses (and even zygotes) are fully human, then there no abortions can be justified, not even to save the life of the mother. I don’t get to kill an innocent human to save my own life, under any circumstances. This would also preclude abortion of pregnancies resulting from rape (a point I’m surprised hasn’t been raised yet). As a society we don’t think rape justifies the taking of the life of even the rapist, so how could it possibly justify the taking of the life of an innocent third party? As pretty much everyone (even the most strident pro-lifers on this thread) agree that abortion is justified in order to save the mother’s life and in cases of rape, it follows that there is a consensus that a fetus (at least before a certain stage of pregnancy) is that a fetus is not fully human.
And of course, it would abhorrent to put the burden of proof of rape or endangerment of life upon a woman seeking abortion. Therefore, the only sensible course is to leave the ultimate decision up to the woman.
Well, I think Prattlehorn’s comment from way back should have obviated the vast majority of subsequent discussion, but let me try to restate the point. If fetuses (and even zygotes) are fully human, then there no abortions can be justified, not even to save the life of the mother. I don’t get to kill an innocent human to save my own life, under any circumstances. This would also preclude abortion of pregnancies resulting from rape (a point I’m surprised hasn’t been raised yet). As a society we don’t think rape justifies the taking of the life of even the rapist, so how could it possibly justify the taking of the life of an innocent third party? As pretty much everyone (even the most strident pro-lifers on this thread) agree that abortion is justified in order to save the mother’s life and in cases of rape, it follows that there is a consensus that a fetus (at least before a certain stage of pregnancy) is that a fetus is not fully human.
And of course, it would abhorrent to put the burden of proof of rape or endangerment of life upon a woman seeking abortion. Therefore, the only sensible course is to leave the ultimate decision up to the woman.
Grrr, stupid parenthetical comment causing me to lose track my sentence structure. Oh, well.
Grrr, stupid parenthetical comment causing me to lose track my sentence structure. Oh, well.
BooThisMan: As pretty much everyone (even the most strident pro-lifers on this thread) agree that abortion is justified in order to save the mother’s life and in cases of rape, it follows that there is a consensus that a fetus (at least before a certain stage of pregnancy) is that a fetus is not fully human.
Not at all. I have no problem acknowledging that the fetus is a human fetus.
My argument is that the woman is fully human, and thus perfectly entitled to decide for herself whether she’s going to have an abortion: forced use of someone else’s body is abhorrent.
BooThisMan: As pretty much everyone (even the most strident pro-lifers on this thread) agree that abortion is justified in order to save the mother’s life and in cases of rape, it follows that there is a consensus that a fetus (at least before a certain stage of pregnancy) is that a fetus is not fully human.
Not at all. I have no problem acknowledging that the fetus is a human fetus.
My argument is that the woman is fully human, and thus perfectly entitled to decide for herself whether she’s going to have an abortion: forced use of someone else’s body is abhorrent.
Catsy:
“Moreover, the medical procedures and conditions in question exclusively affect women, but the people fighting to outlaw abortions are vastly disproportionately men who are unaffected by the laws they propose.”
The section of your statement in bold is wrong. Women are statistically no less likely to be pro-life than men, and in many studies end up being slightly more likely to be pro-life than men. See for example this utterly typical CBS News poll.
It shows that 40% of men and 37% of women think abortion should be generally available. 40% of men and 37% of women think abortion should be available but with stricter limits than now. 20% of men and 24% of women think it should be unavailable.
So it appears that women are slightly LESS supportive of abortion than men in general, and among the more hardcore pro-lifers are actually more represented than men.
I don’t know if it is important to your argument that women be more pro-choice than men. But if it is, you should rethink it, because the underlying facts aren’t what you think.
Catsy:
“Moreover, the medical procedures and conditions in question exclusively affect women, but the people fighting to outlaw abortions are vastly disproportionately men who are unaffected by the laws they propose.”
The section of your statement in bold is wrong. Women are statistically no less likely to be pro-life than men, and in many studies end up being slightly more likely to be pro-life than men. See for example this utterly typical CBS News poll.
It shows that 40% of men and 37% of women think abortion should be generally available. 40% of men and 37% of women think abortion should be available but with stricter limits than now. 20% of men and 24% of women think it should be unavailable.
So it appears that women are slightly LESS supportive of abortion than men in general, and among the more hardcore pro-lifers are actually more represented than men.
I don’t know if it is important to your argument that women be more pro-choice than men. But if it is, you should rethink it, because the underlying facts aren’t what you think.
” As pretty much everyone (even the most strident pro-lifers on this thread) agree that abortion is justified in order to save the mother’s life and in cases of rape, it follows that there is a consensus that a fetus (at least before a certain stage of pregnancy) is that a fetus is not fully human.”
This doesn’t follow at all. If someone else is causing a substantial danger to your life, you can take steps to save yourself *even if doing so causes them to die*. That is what self defense is all about.
” As pretty much everyone (even the most strident pro-lifers on this thread) agree that abortion is justified in order to save the mother’s life and in cases of rape, it follows that there is a consensus that a fetus (at least before a certain stage of pregnancy) is that a fetus is not fully human.”
This doesn’t follow at all. If someone else is causing a substantial danger to your life, you can take steps to save yourself *even if doing so causes them to die*. That is what self defense is all about.
This doesn’t follow at all. If someone else is causing a substantial danger to your life, you can take steps to save yourself *even if doing so causes them to die*. That is what self defense is all about.
This presumes that there’s another course of action available to the individual against whom you are defending yourself. Yes, you can shoot and kill an intruder to your home, but the intruder could have avoided being killed by not invading your home. This is decidedly not the case for a fetus. You seem to have missed the word “innocent” in my post.
And the self-defense argument doesn’t apply to cases of pregnancy induced by rape.
This doesn’t follow at all. If someone else is causing a substantial danger to your life, you can take steps to save yourself *even if doing so causes them to die*. That is what self defense is all about.
This presumes that there’s another course of action available to the individual against whom you are defending yourself. Yes, you can shoot and kill an intruder to your home, but the intruder could have avoided being killed by not invading your home. This is decidedly not the case for a fetus. You seem to have missed the word “innocent” in my post.
And the self-defense argument doesn’t apply to cases of pregnancy induced by rape.
Hey, here’s a crazy, radical idea: How about MEN start taking some responsibility, instead of engaging in slut-blaming all the time? You’ve got two choices, men:
1. Have a vasectomy. If you think you might want children later, bank some sperm for future fertilization treatments with a willing partner.
2. Wear a condom EVERY SINGLE TIME you have sex, absolutely, no matter what, unless you have agreed IN ADVANCE with your partner that you are attempting with that particular sex act to conceive a child.
If every man in America agrees to do that, then we’ll be able to take it as given that, when a woman gets pregnant, it’s either by agreed-upon choice or because some man didn’t keep up his end of the bargain.
And then we can end all this talk about women “giving up their free will” and “not taking responsibility” and all the other attendant misogyny that pops up again and again in these discussions. Everyone on board with that?
I used to believe that there were principled anti-abortion stances. Now I really do think that it basically comes down to misogyny.
Hey, here’s a crazy, radical idea: How about MEN start taking some responsibility, instead of engaging in slut-blaming all the time? You’ve got two choices, men:
1. Have a vasectomy. If you think you might want children later, bank some sperm for future fertilization treatments with a willing partner.
2. Wear a condom EVERY SINGLE TIME you have sex, absolutely, no matter what, unless you have agreed IN ADVANCE with your partner that you are attempting with that particular sex act to conceive a child.
If every man in America agrees to do that, then we’ll be able to take it as given that, when a woman gets pregnant, it’s either by agreed-upon choice or because some man didn’t keep up his end of the bargain.
And then we can end all this talk about women “giving up their free will” and “not taking responsibility” and all the other attendant misogyny that pops up again and again in these discussions. Everyone on board with that?
I used to believe that there were principled anti-abortion stances. Now I really do think that it basically comes down to misogyny.
Sebastian; So it appears that women are slightly LESS supportive of abortion than men in general, and among the more hardcore pro-lifers are actually more represented than men.
But it also appears that, regardless of whether women feel other women should be denied the right to choose abortion – pro-life women are just as likely to choose abortion for themselves as women who publicly identify as pro-choice.
So the polls demonstrate, if anything, that women are slightly more likely to have double standards than men – or possibly, that women are more frequently shamed into claiming they believe women ought not to be allowed to choose abortion than men are.
But the statistics on the ground say – no woman believes she should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. No woman chooses to be enslaved, forced, and broken – regardless of what she says she wants for other women.
Sebastian; So it appears that women are slightly LESS supportive of abortion than men in general, and among the more hardcore pro-lifers are actually more represented than men.
But it also appears that, regardless of whether women feel other women should be denied the right to choose abortion – pro-life women are just as likely to choose abortion for themselves as women who publicly identify as pro-choice.
So the polls demonstrate, if anything, that women are slightly more likely to have double standards than men – or possibly, that women are more frequently shamed into claiming they believe women ought not to be allowed to choose abortion than men are.
But the statistics on the ground say – no woman believes she should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. No woman chooses to be enslaved, forced, and broken – regardless of what she says she wants for other women.
Indeed, if you read through any of the heartbreaking stories that patients at Doctor Tiller’s clinic shared about their experiences, you often find that they had always believed they would never have an abortion – and would likely have identified themselves as pro-life – until they were faced with the plain fact that if they didn’t have an abortion at Doctor Tiller’s clinic, they were likely going to die or be permanently damaged, and the fetus they were carrying wasn’t going to live.
So what can a poll of women who claim to be “pro-life” possibly mean, when it’s demonstrable that women actually are overwhelmingly pro-choice?
Indeed, if you read through any of the heartbreaking stories that patients at Doctor Tiller’s clinic shared about their experiences, you often find that they had always believed they would never have an abortion – and would likely have identified themselves as pro-life – until they were faced with the plain fact that if they didn’t have an abortion at Doctor Tiller’s clinic, they were likely going to die or be permanently damaged, and the fetus they were carrying wasn’t going to live.
So what can a poll of women who claim to be “pro-life” possibly mean, when it’s demonstrable that women actually are overwhelmingly pro-choice?
“This is decidedly not the case for a fetus. You seem to have missed the word “innocent” in my post.”
No I didn’t. Self defense isn’t only in the case of intruders. If two people are drowning in a choppy ocean and climbing up a slippery rock, you can climb up the rock even if it ends up causing the other person to fall back in the water and drown. If two people are shipwrecked and there is only one life-jacket, you can wear it and let the other person drown. In fact, if you wear the life jacket, and them holding on to you is causing you both to go underwater, you can kick them away.
Your generalization about self defense doesn’t accurately track how it operates, so you end up misstating the pro-life view.
“This is decidedly not the case for a fetus. You seem to have missed the word “innocent” in my post.”
No I didn’t. Self defense isn’t only in the case of intruders. If two people are drowning in a choppy ocean and climbing up a slippery rock, you can climb up the rock even if it ends up causing the other person to fall back in the water and drown. If two people are shipwrecked and there is only one life-jacket, you can wear it and let the other person drown. In fact, if you wear the life jacket, and them holding on to you is causing you both to go underwater, you can kick them away.
Your generalization about self defense doesn’t accurately track how it operates, so you end up misstating the pro-life view.
I tried to keep up with this thread, but I don’t have time to read all. Did anyone answer the question: what’s the dif between insisting that a sole identified donor donate an organ to save someone’s life versus insisting that a woman lend her wombout? Let’s assume that the potential donor is the parent of the potential donee.
If anyone would be so kind to point out whether there was a coherent distinction argued, thank you.
I tried to keep up with this thread, but I don’t have time to read all. Did anyone answer the question: what’s the dif between insisting that a sole identified donor donate an organ to save someone’s life versus insisting that a woman lend her wombout? Let’s assume that the potential donor is the parent of the potential donee.
If anyone would be so kind to point out whether there was a coherent distinction argued, thank you.
Perhaps this discussion would work better if we stepped back and recognized that what we are really discussing is: At what point to we have a human being? Possible answers include (but obviously are not limited to):
— Conception
— when the fetus is able to survive outside the womb without mechanical assistance. I.e., will survive with food (given orally) and temperature control, but does not require oxygen, IV nourishment, etc.
— Birth
Until you have a human being, abortion is fine. Once you have a human being, it isn’t.
Anyone can play. But you have to provide a rationalization why your choice of a threshold is correct (and other proposed thresholds are not). Rationales based on religion, ethics, biology, or anything else are fine — provided you identify them clearly. Fun!
Perhaps this discussion would work better if we stepped back and recognized that what we are really discussing is: At what point to we have a human being? Possible answers include (but obviously are not limited to):
— Conception
— when the fetus is able to survive outside the womb without mechanical assistance. I.e., will survive with food (given orally) and temperature control, but does not require oxygen, IV nourishment, etc.
— Birth
Until you have a human being, abortion is fine. Once you have a human being, it isn’t.
Anyone can play. But you have to provide a rationalization why your choice of a threshold is correct (and other proposed thresholds are not). Rationales based on religion, ethics, biology, or anything else are fine — provided you identify them clearly. Fun!
Actually, wj, whether the fetus is human is NOT the standard to use. The standard to use is what is one human’s duty to another? If the standard is that we, as humans, have a legal obligation to rent our organs to other humans, then we should apply that across the board. In other words, give me your kidney, brother!
Actually, wj, whether the fetus is human is NOT the standard to use. The standard to use is what is one human’s duty to another? If the standard is that we, as humans, have a legal obligation to rent our organs to other humans, then we should apply that across the board. In other words, give me your kidney, brother!
Your generalization about self defense doesn’t accurately track how it operates, so you end up misstating the pro-life view.
I think “using force against one who intends to cause you harm” is a pretty reasonable layman’s definition of self-defense. But even using the broader definition, you still haven’t produced an example that’s analogous to abortion. The actions in your examples don’t inevitably lead to the death of the other party, as abortion by definition does. Is it legal for Alice to shoot Bob multiple times in the head in the struggle for the last life jacket? Maybe a more pertinent example can be concocted, but even if the legal issues are clear-cut, we’re already dealing with moral gray areas and far-fetched scenarios in your examples.
And you continue to ignore the case of pregnancy induced by rape.
Your generalization about self defense doesn’t accurately track how it operates, so you end up misstating the pro-life view.
I think “using force against one who intends to cause you harm” is a pretty reasonable layman’s definition of self-defense. But even using the broader definition, you still haven’t produced an example that’s analogous to abortion. The actions in your examples don’t inevitably lead to the death of the other party, as abortion by definition does. Is it legal for Alice to shoot Bob multiple times in the head in the struggle for the last life jacket? Maybe a more pertinent example can be concocted, but even if the legal issues are clear-cut, we’re already dealing with moral gray areas and far-fetched scenarios in your examples.
And you continue to ignore the case of pregnancy induced by rape.
wj: Until you have a human being, abortion is fine. Once you have a human being, it isn’t.
Other way round. You always have a human being: the woman’s always human, and that’s why abortion is always … well, if not “fine”, at least “none of your business”. Trying to argue that at some point a fetus is or is not human is irrelevant.
But you have to provide a rationalization why your choice of a threshold is correct
My rationalization why I believe women are human… er, biology?
What’s your rationalization for ignoring the fact that women are human?
wj: Until you have a human being, abortion is fine. Once you have a human being, it isn’t.
Other way round. You always have a human being: the woman’s always human, and that’s why abortion is always … well, if not “fine”, at least “none of your business”. Trying to argue that at some point a fetus is or is not human is irrelevant.
But you have to provide a rationalization why your choice of a threshold is correct
My rationalization why I believe women are human… er, biology?
What’s your rationalization for ignoring the fact that women are human?
“But even using the broader definition, you still haven’t produced an example that’s analogous to abortion.”
Sure I did. Kicking away the person who is holding on to you and dragging you underwater. And it isn’t a hypothetical, it has been part of the law of the sea for thousands of years.
“But even using the broader definition, you still haven’t produced an example that’s analogous to abortion.”
Sure I did. Kicking away the person who is holding on to you and dragging you underwater. And it isn’t a hypothetical, it has been part of the law of the sea for thousands of years.
Sure I did. Kicking away the person who is holding on to you and dragging you underwater.
This is not even close. The kicked off sailor could possibly be picked up by boat or helicopter, or swim to shore. Or, if we assume that the waters are so choppy that no one could possibly survive, then this is only analogous to an abortion where neither the mother nor fetus would have any chance of survival without the procedure.
On this thread, we even have someone going by “don’t kill people. simple rule” claiming that (s)he is fine with abortions where the mother’s life is merely in danger (not where she’s guaranteed to die, and with no assumption that the fetus is guaranteed to die anyway). So I don’t think an abortion where both mother and fetus have, say, a 50% chance of survival without the procedure is exactly controversial. But it is also in no way analogous to your scenario. There’s also the difference between a premeditated action and a heat of the moment decision.
Sure I did. Kicking away the person who is holding on to you and dragging you underwater.
This is not even close. The kicked off sailor could possibly be picked up by boat or helicopter, or swim to shore. Or, if we assume that the waters are so choppy that no one could possibly survive, then this is only analogous to an abortion where neither the mother nor fetus would have any chance of survival without the procedure.
On this thread, we even have someone going by “don’t kill people. simple rule” claiming that (s)he is fine with abortions where the mother’s life is merely in danger (not where she’s guaranteed to die, and with no assumption that the fetus is guaranteed to die anyway). So I don’t think an abortion where both mother and fetus have, say, a 50% chance of survival without the procedure is exactly controversial. But it is also in no way analogous to your scenario. There’s also the difference between a premeditated action and a heat of the moment decision.
“So I don’t think an abortion where both mother and fetus have, say, a 50% chance of survival without the procedure is exactly controversial.”
That isn’t really the problem question. 50% is clearly in the self defense zone. We have people on the pro-abortion side here who would suggest that even the most trivial chance of any injury whatsoever is enough. Which isn’t self defense.
“So I don’t think an abortion where both mother and fetus have, say, a 50% chance of survival without the procedure is exactly controversial.”
That isn’t really the problem question. 50% is clearly in the self defense zone. We have people on the pro-abortion side here who would suggest that even the most trivial chance of any injury whatsoever is enough. Which isn’t self defense.
Seb what about in cases of rape and fertility clinics?
Seb what about in cases of rape and fertility clinics?
That isn’t really the problem question. 50% is clearly in the self defense zone.
My point seems to have been lost somewhere, so let me walk it back a bit. DKPSI was claiming even zygotes are full human beings, and also that abortion is justified when the mother’s life is in danger. I find those statements to be completely inconsistent.
Given that we agree abortion is acceptable in the “50% case”, in order to reconcile the statements, we would have to find an analogous case involving two human beings (not counting fetuses) that we would consider self-defense. That is, we would have to find a case where Person A and Person B each have a roughly 50% chance of living, A kills B (with no chance of B surviving), and thereby increases A’s own chance of survival. Furthermore, the action by A would have to be premeditated (as most abortions are), and not the immediate reaction to an emergency.
Now maybe there is a case that fits the above description, and also your legal definition of self-defense, but I think most people would be morally appalled by A’s actions as described. I also think the level of disgust would rise as the survival percentage in the scenario is raised. On the other hand, I don’t think many people would have a problem with the abortion, even if you crank the percentage up to the 80 or 90% range.
The conclusion I draw is that we don’t really view fetuses (at least before a certain stage of pregnancy) as full human beings. Or at least no more than a very small fringe do.
The argument becomes even more clear to me if one accepts that rape victims can justifiably have abortions. There’s no way that fits into the self-defense paradigm.
That isn’t really the problem question. 50% is clearly in the self defense zone.
My point seems to have been lost somewhere, so let me walk it back a bit. DKPSI was claiming even zygotes are full human beings, and also that abortion is justified when the mother’s life is in danger. I find those statements to be completely inconsistent.
Given that we agree abortion is acceptable in the “50% case”, in order to reconcile the statements, we would have to find an analogous case involving two human beings (not counting fetuses) that we would consider self-defense. That is, we would have to find a case where Person A and Person B each have a roughly 50% chance of living, A kills B (with no chance of B surviving), and thereby increases A’s own chance of survival. Furthermore, the action by A would have to be premeditated (as most abortions are), and not the immediate reaction to an emergency.
Now maybe there is a case that fits the above description, and also your legal definition of self-defense, but I think most people would be morally appalled by A’s actions as described. I also think the level of disgust would rise as the survival percentage in the scenario is raised. On the other hand, I don’t think many people would have a problem with the abortion, even if you crank the percentage up to the 80 or 90% range.
The conclusion I draw is that we don’t really view fetuses (at least before a certain stage of pregnancy) as full human beings. Or at least no more than a very small fringe do.
The argument becomes even more clear to me if one accepts that rape victims can justifiably have abortions. There’s no way that fits into the self-defense paradigm.
Boo, your problem is that you are trying to impute all of the most extreme arguments to everyone who doesn’t agree with you. And you are trying to do them all simultaneously.
The self defense question really doesn’t intersect with the rape question at all. There isn’t much of a reason to try to look at them simultaneously because *even an innocent full grown human being can be killed in self defense*. So “how much personhood” isn’t a useful question in the self defense (which is to say in the REAL medical endangerment cases).
Boo, your problem is that you are trying to impute all of the most extreme arguments to everyone who doesn’t agree with you. And you are trying to do them all simultaneously.
The self defense question really doesn’t intersect with the rape question at all. There isn’t much of a reason to try to look at them simultaneously because *even an innocent full grown human being can be killed in self defense*. So “how much personhood” isn’t a useful question in the self defense (which is to say in the REAL medical endangerment cases).
” I also think the level of disgust would rise as the survival percentage in the scenario is raised. On the other hand, I don’t think many people would have a problem with the abortion, even if you crank the percentage up to the 80 or 90% range.”
I don’t know why you think that. A clear majority think that abortions should be more limited than they are now. And in my view the non-endangerment mid-term cases are pretty much the gimmee cases for almost anyone who thinks they should be more limited than now.
” I also think the level of disgust would rise as the survival percentage in the scenario is raised. On the other hand, I don’t think many people would have a problem with the abortion, even if you crank the percentage up to the 80 or 90% range.”
I don’t know why you think that. A clear majority think that abortions should be more limited than they are now. And in my view the non-endangerment mid-term cases are pretty much the gimmee cases for almost anyone who thinks they should be more limited than now.
Sebastian: We have people on the pro-abortion side here who would suggest that even the most trivial chance of any injury whatsoever is enough
Nobody’s on the pro-abortion side, apart from the pro-lifer who attack family planning and a few MRAs.
People who believe women are human beings believe that it’s up to the pregnant woman to decide about abortion, with medical advice from her doctor in later pregnancy. It’s as simple as that: do you think women are human, or don’t you?
A clear majority think that abortions should be more limited than they are now.
Except when a woman actually wants an abortion. At that point, we know for a fact she doesn’t want her access to abortion limited: she wants the healthcare she needs.
Sebastian: We have people on the pro-abortion side here who would suggest that even the most trivial chance of any injury whatsoever is enough
Nobody’s on the pro-abortion side, apart from the pro-lifer who attack family planning and a few MRAs.
People who believe women are human beings believe that it’s up to the pregnant woman to decide about abortion, with medical advice from her doctor in later pregnancy. It’s as simple as that: do you think women are human, or don’t you?
A clear majority think that abortions should be more limited than they are now.
Except when a woman actually wants an abortion. At that point, we know for a fact she doesn’t want her access to abortion limited: she wants the healthcare she needs.
If every man in America agrees to do that [using methods of contraceptive purpose, HB], then we’ll be able to take it as given that, when a woman gets pregnant, it’s either by agreed-upon choice or because some man didn’t keep up his end of the bargain.
This leaves out the natural failure rate of all contraceptive methods. Even vasectomies are not 100% foolproof (although close).
If every man in America agrees to do that [using methods of contraceptive purpose, HB], then we’ll be able to take it as given that, when a woman gets pregnant, it’s either by agreed-upon choice or because some man didn’t keep up his end of the bargain.
This leaves out the natural failure rate of all contraceptive methods. Even vasectomies are not 100% foolproof (although close).
This leaves out the natural failure rate of all contraceptive methods. Even vasectomies are not 100% foolproof (although close).
Everyone could quit having p-in-v sex, I suppose. Especially those people who regard p-in-v sex as “purely designed” for having children.
Or the people who regard women as non-human could just … quit thinking their bigotry against women entitles them to deny women the right to make important decisions?
Persistently trying to argue that the issue is when the fetus becomes human is a sidetrack: the issue is when and if you regard the woman is human. If you do, abortion is always her choice.
This leaves out the natural failure rate of all contraceptive methods. Even vasectomies are not 100% foolproof (although close).
Everyone could quit having p-in-v sex, I suppose. Especially those people who regard p-in-v sex as “purely designed” for having children.
Or the people who regard women as non-human could just … quit thinking their bigotry against women entitles them to deny women the right to make important decisions?
Persistently trying to argue that the issue is when the fetus becomes human is a sidetrack: the issue is when and if you regard the woman is human. If you do, abortion is always her choice.
Nonpenetrative sex has led to pregnancies too (although there is no proof that any woman has ever become pregnant in a public swimming pool because someone ejaculated in the water, something many young girls fear*).
—
What discussions will we have when fetus transfer becomes possible?
*this seems to be a regular question to gynecologists and the ‘pink pages’ of teenager magazines.
Nonpenetrative sex has led to pregnancies too (although there is no proof that any woman has ever become pregnant in a public swimming pool because someone ejaculated in the water, something many young girls fear*).
—
What discussions will we have when fetus transfer becomes possible?
*this seems to be a regular question to gynecologists and the ‘pink pages’ of teenager magazines.
What discussions will we have when fetus transfer becomes possible?
What discussions will we have when fetus transfer to men becomes possible?
Will all those men out there claiming that it would be completely wrong for a woman to have an abortion stand up and declare they’re up for having the unwanted fetus implanted in their body, to be removed by c-section at the end of pregnancy?
How many pro-life men will be willing to risk their lives to bring a fetus to term?
Sebastian? How about you? Would you be willing to volunteer as a fetus host, so that a woman who wants an abortion can transfer her fetus to your body and you take all the health risks and all the responsibility? How many fetuses are you willing to consider hosting in your life? Will you feel responsible for all the fetuses you could host and refuse and they die because you were unwilling to provide the use of their body to save your life? Will you support laws making it illegal for a man to refuse a fetal implant – especially any man who has publicly identified himself as “pro-life” or campaigned/voted against women’s access to abortion?
Any of the other guys here? Anyone?
The uterus remains the only organ in the body that people argue ought to be made use of unwilling, and justify it by claiming it’s okay because it saves a life. No one argues that men ought to be forced to be blood “donors” against their will, or that anyone ought to be forced into giving up a kidney or a lobe of their liver, no matter that the recipient needs it to stay alive.
For men and for most women, arguing that a women’s uterus can be made use of against her will to save another person’s life, is something abstract (as I noted to Sebastian, when it becomes reality, women invariably discover they’re pro-choice). But demanding the forced use of liver or kidney or blood, is something that could happen to anyone, at any time, if a person your match needed it to stay alive.
Amalia, who began this discussion, really is waiting in a hospital for a bunch of people to decide if she’s human enough that they will let her live, or if she is just an incubator, to be used till broken.
What discussions will we have when fetus transfer becomes possible?
What discussions will we have when fetus transfer to men becomes possible?
Will all those men out there claiming that it would be completely wrong for a woman to have an abortion stand up and declare they’re up for having the unwanted fetus implanted in their body, to be removed by c-section at the end of pregnancy?
How many pro-life men will be willing to risk their lives to bring a fetus to term?
Sebastian? How about you? Would you be willing to volunteer as a fetus host, so that a woman who wants an abortion can transfer her fetus to your body and you take all the health risks and all the responsibility? How many fetuses are you willing to consider hosting in your life? Will you feel responsible for all the fetuses you could host and refuse and they die because you were unwilling to provide the use of their body to save your life? Will you support laws making it illegal for a man to refuse a fetal implant – especially any man who has publicly identified himself as “pro-life” or campaigned/voted against women’s access to abortion?
Any of the other guys here? Anyone?
The uterus remains the only organ in the body that people argue ought to be made use of unwilling, and justify it by claiming it’s okay because it saves a life. No one argues that men ought to be forced to be blood “donors” against their will, or that anyone ought to be forced into giving up a kidney or a lobe of their liver, no matter that the recipient needs it to stay alive.
For men and for most women, arguing that a women’s uterus can be made use of against her will to save another person’s life, is something abstract (as I noted to Sebastian, when it becomes reality, women invariably discover they’re pro-choice). But demanding the forced use of liver or kidney or blood, is something that could happen to anyone, at any time, if a person your match needed it to stay alive.
Amalia, who began this discussion, really is waiting in a hospital for a bunch of people to decide if she’s human enough that they will let her live, or if she is just an incubator, to be used till broken.
1. Have a vasectomy. If you think you might want children later, bank some sperm for future fertilization treatments with a willing partner.
2. Wear a condom EVERY SINGLE TIME you have sex, absolutely, no matter what, unless you have agreed IN ADVANCE with your partner that you are attempting with that particular sex act to conceive a child.
3: If you are going out with a devout Roman Catholic (as I was for five years), avoid p-in-v sex.
The reason I used the analogy I did with the shrink ray is that the sex was ultimately the woman’s choice (unless rape). And sure, that wasn’t the intent. But when you go driving it’s not your intent to hit someone. Despite that, if you do hit someone and leave them needing medical attention, yes you are responsible. (Yes, it was the woman driving and the man aiding and abetting.) Yes, if the foetus is human, the woman does have the choice to abort. But the driver has a choice to reverse over the person they drove into so they can’t be sued.
And as for personhood and functional brains, Terry Schiavo was already dead for all practical purposes. Developmentally disabled children do have functional brains – just not very good ones.
1. Have a vasectomy. If you think you might want children later, bank some sperm for future fertilization treatments with a willing partner.
2. Wear a condom EVERY SINGLE TIME you have sex, absolutely, no matter what, unless you have agreed IN ADVANCE with your partner that you are attempting with that particular sex act to conceive a child.
3: If you are going out with a devout Roman Catholic (as I was for five years), avoid p-in-v sex.
The reason I used the analogy I did with the shrink ray is that the sex was ultimately the woman’s choice (unless rape). And sure, that wasn’t the intent. But when you go driving it’s not your intent to hit someone. Despite that, if you do hit someone and leave them needing medical attention, yes you are responsible. (Yes, it was the woman driving and the man aiding and abetting.) Yes, if the foetus is human, the woman does have the choice to abort. But the driver has a choice to reverse over the person they drove into so they can’t be sued.
And as for personhood and functional brains, Terry Schiavo was already dead for all practical purposes. Developmentally disabled children do have functional brains – just not very good ones.
The decision to have sex is not equivalent to the decision to have a baby.
And the idea that babies ought to be considered the equivalent of road accidents? Bizarre.
Pro-lifers do seem to talk up the idea of saving fetuses, without actually understanding that having children can be regarded as something other than a road accident or a punishment.
The decision to have sex is not equivalent to the decision to have a baby.
And the idea that babies ought to be considered the equivalent of road accidents? Bizarre.
Pro-lifers do seem to talk up the idea of saving fetuses, without actually understanding that having children can be regarded as something other than a road accident or a punishment.
Boo is not the only one. It’s a tactic that’s shared by lots of people who positively delight in murdering their children.
Also used quite frequently by misogynist men who take fiendish glee in forcing women to gestate, when doing so will almost certainly kill them.
Boo is not the only one. It’s a tactic that’s shared by lots of people who positively delight in murdering their children.
Also used quite frequently by misogynist men who take fiendish glee in forcing women to gestate, when doing so will almost certainly kill them.
I can have all sorts of opinions and judgments about when an abortion is or is not acceptable given any number of varying circumstances. The problem I have is that, in the real world, I’m not privy to those circumstances, that is, the circumstances of other people’s lives. Really, no one is, aside from the people, themselves, and certainly not the government.
What I see is a practical problem that far outweighs the philosophical, moral and ethical ones that inform my personal opinions about abortion. That problem being that the law is not equipped for this in any but the most extreme of circumstances, circumstances so unlikely that they may not be worth considering until they surface, and that murder charges under existing law would likely apply to, anyway, without much controversy. There are situations that almost everyone can agree should not be allowed, and there is no evidence I know of that leads me to think they happen with any regularity (or at all, but people might get away with things in secret, making the law not so relevant, anyway).
So, while it’s engaging to go back and forth over where to draw the lines on abortion, there is no reason to think that the world will benefit from governments doing the same. Yes, people will decide to do things we don’t like. It’s an imperfect world, but I don’t think that there’s a better way to handle abortion than to let people decide for themselves, imperfect as that may be.
I can have all sorts of opinions and judgments about when an abortion is or is not acceptable given any number of varying circumstances. The problem I have is that, in the real world, I’m not privy to those circumstances, that is, the circumstances of other people’s lives. Really, no one is, aside from the people, themselves, and certainly not the government.
What I see is a practical problem that far outweighs the philosophical, moral and ethical ones that inform my personal opinions about abortion. That problem being that the law is not equipped for this in any but the most extreme of circumstances, circumstances so unlikely that they may not be worth considering until they surface, and that murder charges under existing law would likely apply to, anyway, without much controversy. There are situations that almost everyone can agree should not be allowed, and there is no evidence I know of that leads me to think they happen with any regularity (or at all, but people might get away with things in secret, making the law not so relevant, anyway).
So, while it’s engaging to go back and forth over where to draw the lines on abortion, there is no reason to think that the world will benefit from governments doing the same. Yes, people will decide to do things we don’t like. It’s an imperfect world, but I don’t think that there’s a better way to handle abortion than to let people decide for themselves, imperfect as that may be.
The decision to have sex is not equivalent to the decision to have a baby.
I never said it was. The decision to drive a car is not equivalent to the decision to drive into someone. The baby did, however, follow as a consequence from the decision and a mix of bad luck and carelessness.
And the idea that babies ought to be considered the equivalent of road accidents? Bizarre.
The idea that in your analogies about how sacrosanct the body of the woman is, the foetus should be considered a third party who is only utterly dependent on the woman because of the willing acts of both parents, and entirely innocent of having chosen this state itself should not be a novel one. And that in order to rid herself of serious inconvenience the mother promptly kills the person she has forced into a state of dependence is the inevitable consequence of framing abortion this way.
Pro-lifers do seem to talk up the idea of saving fetuses, without actually understanding that having children can be regarded as something other than a road accident or a punishment.
You confuse me with a pro-lifer. Rather than someone who is only slightly more repulsed by the pro-life camp than the extreme pro-choice camp but comes down on the side of “Let there not be one single accidental or unwanted pregnancy. Then we can start to talk about banning abortion. Until then if you so-called pro-lifers actually were interested in practicing what you preached you’d be handing out condoms and running adoption agencies (to be fair, a few do do the latter). Even if my condition held, abortion would remain a necessary medical procedure that should no more be banned than limb amputation how ever much I may wish that was unnecessary.”
The decision to have sex is not equivalent to the decision to have a baby.
I never said it was. The decision to drive a car is not equivalent to the decision to drive into someone. The baby did, however, follow as a consequence from the decision and a mix of bad luck and carelessness.
And the idea that babies ought to be considered the equivalent of road accidents? Bizarre.
The idea that in your analogies about how sacrosanct the body of the woman is, the foetus should be considered a third party who is only utterly dependent on the woman because of the willing acts of both parents, and entirely innocent of having chosen this state itself should not be a novel one. And that in order to rid herself of serious inconvenience the mother promptly kills the person she has forced into a state of dependence is the inevitable consequence of framing abortion this way.
Pro-lifers do seem to talk up the idea of saving fetuses, without actually understanding that having children can be regarded as something other than a road accident or a punishment.
You confuse me with a pro-lifer. Rather than someone who is only slightly more repulsed by the pro-life camp than the extreme pro-choice camp but comes down on the side of “Let there not be one single accidental or unwanted pregnancy. Then we can start to talk about banning abortion. Until then if you so-called pro-lifers actually were interested in practicing what you preached you’d be handing out condoms and running adoption agencies (to be fair, a few do do the latter). Even if my condition held, abortion would remain a necessary medical procedure that should no more be banned than limb amputation how ever much I may wish that was unnecessary.”
The baby did, however, follow as a consequence from the decision and a mix of bad luck and carelessness.
Only if the pregnant woman decides not to have an abortion. Having a baby follows as a consequence from the decision not to abort, not from the decision to have sex.
is the inevitable consequence of framing abortion this way.
Nope. Women have abortions because they get pregnant and they decide not to have the baby. Having an abortion is a necessary consequence of deciding not to have a baby.
That you believe that a woman’s body is not “sacrosanct” and that she has no right to decide for herself whether or not she should have a baby, somehow does not surprise me.
You confuse me with a pro-lifer.
That’s because you’re talking like a pro-lifer.
“Let there not be one single accidental or unwanted pregnancy.”
And let everyone have a pony, too!
and running adoption agencies (to be fair, a few do do the latter).
Adoption is big business. The more I find out about how profitable the adoption business is, the more convinced I am that this is a source of the pro-lifer conviction that women’s bodies are not sacrosanct but ought to be used to produce babies that can then be snatched up by adoption agencies.
The baby did, however, follow as a consequence from the decision and a mix of bad luck and carelessness.
Only if the pregnant woman decides not to have an abortion. Having a baby follows as a consequence from the decision not to abort, not from the decision to have sex.
is the inevitable consequence of framing abortion this way.
Nope. Women have abortions because they get pregnant and they decide not to have the baby. Having an abortion is a necessary consequence of deciding not to have a baby.
That you believe that a woman’s body is not “sacrosanct” and that she has no right to decide for herself whether or not she should have a baby, somehow does not surprise me.
You confuse me with a pro-lifer.
That’s because you’re talking like a pro-lifer.
“Let there not be one single accidental or unwanted pregnancy.”
And let everyone have a pony, too!
and running adoption agencies (to be fair, a few do do the latter).
Adoption is big business. The more I find out about how profitable the adoption business is, the more convinced I am that this is a source of the pro-lifer conviction that women’s bodies are not sacrosanct but ought to be used to produce babies that can then be snatched up by adoption agencies.
And for those who think Jes is exaggerating when she talks about forced pregnancy and women being used as incubators and suchlike:
And for those who think Jes is exaggerating when she talks about forced pregnancy and women being used as incubators and suchlike:
“The more I find out about how profitable the adoption business is, the more convinced I am that this is a source of the pro-lifer conviction that women’s bodies are not sacrosanct but ought to be used to produce babies that can then be snatched up by adoption agencies.”
Oh good heavens. Seriously? Did you really write that? Do you *really* think that? If you really do think that, do you really want to admit it?
I mean if you really wanted to stretch, I suppose you could cast an eye on the actual owners and operators of adoption agencies, and suggest that for them, pro-life views are awfully convenient. So now that you covered a couple hundred people, how exactly are you going to extend that to the other 60 million people in the US who suggest that abortion should almost never be allowed (more than half of those are women remember) and the additional 115 million or so people who think that abortion shoud be more restricted than now.
I could probably find a couple hundred people willing to suggest that abortions for fun would be ok. (Based on the principle that you can find nearly anything in a group of 300 million people–in fact I seem to remember a recent op-ed that made it all seem super trivial)
Do you have specific bills or laws in mind?
“The more I find out about how profitable the adoption business is, the more convinced I am that this is a source of the pro-lifer conviction that women’s bodies are not sacrosanct but ought to be used to produce babies that can then be snatched up by adoption agencies.”
Oh good heavens. Seriously? Did you really write that? Do you *really* think that? If you really do think that, do you really want to admit it?
I mean if you really wanted to stretch, I suppose you could cast an eye on the actual owners and operators of adoption agencies, and suggest that for them, pro-life views are awfully convenient. So now that you covered a couple hundred people, how exactly are you going to extend that to the other 60 million people in the US who suggest that abortion should almost never be allowed (more than half of those are women remember) and the additional 115 million or so people who think that abortion shoud be more restricted than now.
I could probably find a couple hundred people willing to suggest that abortions for fun would be ok. (Based on the principle that you can find nearly anything in a group of 300 million people–in fact I seem to remember a recent op-ed that made it all seem super trivial)
Do you have specific bills or laws in mind?
I was under the impression, that women aborted fetuses, so that they would not give birth to babies–a human…they don’t have abortions so that they can kill babies.
I still find the use of the word baby, instead of zygote or fetus radically manipulative.
So the next time we discuss torture, should we call it “the torture of babies”? I mean, since each torture victim is somebody’s baby.
I was under the impression, that women aborted fetuses, so that they would not give birth to babies–a human…they don’t have abortions so that they can kill babies.
I still find the use of the word baby, instead of zygote or fetus radically manipulative.
So the next time we discuss torture, should we call it “the torture of babies”? I mean, since each torture victim is somebody’s baby.
Boo, your problem is that you are trying to impute all of the most extreme arguments to everyone who doesn’t agree with you. And you are trying to do them all simultaneously.
What a bizarre claim. I’ve imputed exactly one extreme argument – “A zygote is a human being” – to exactly one person, who explicitly made that claim on the thread. I’m arguing against the more common claim that a fetus is a human being, but I haven’t imputed that claim to anyone, much less “everyone who doesn’t agree with (me).”
The self defense question really doesn’t intersect with the rape question at all.
That’s precisely my point: we generally accept that abortion is justifiable in a case that clearly doesn’t involve self-defense of the mother.
There isn’t much of a reason to try to look at them simultaneously because *even an innocent full grown human being can be killed in self defense*.
Exactly. If your only justification for abortion is self-defense, you have to disallow abortions in case of rape.
So “how much personhood” isn’t a useful question in the self defense (which is to say in the REAL medical endangerment cases).
If you presume that medical endangerment cases qualify as self-defense. It’s certainly a grayer area than rape cases, but I argued above why I don’t think the situations are morally equivalent. You didn’t respond to that argument, so forgive me for not taking it as granted that the two are equivalent.
Boo, your problem is that you are trying to impute all of the most extreme arguments to everyone who doesn’t agree with you. And you are trying to do them all simultaneously.
What a bizarre claim. I’ve imputed exactly one extreme argument – “A zygote is a human being” – to exactly one person, who explicitly made that claim on the thread. I’m arguing against the more common claim that a fetus is a human being, but I haven’t imputed that claim to anyone, much less “everyone who doesn’t agree with (me).”
The self defense question really doesn’t intersect with the rape question at all.
That’s precisely my point: we generally accept that abortion is justifiable in a case that clearly doesn’t involve self-defense of the mother.
There isn’t much of a reason to try to look at them simultaneously because *even an innocent full grown human being can be killed in self defense*.
Exactly. If your only justification for abortion is self-defense, you have to disallow abortions in case of rape.
So “how much personhood” isn’t a useful question in the self defense (which is to say in the REAL medical endangerment cases).
If you presume that medical endangerment cases qualify as self-defense. It’s certainly a grayer area than rape cases, but I argued above why I don’t think the situations are morally equivalent. You didn’t respond to that argument, so forgive me for not taking it as granted that the two are equivalent.
“If you presume that medical endangerment cases qualify as self-defense. It’s certainly a grayer area than rape cases, but I argued above why I don’t think the situations are morally equivalent. You didn’t respond to that argument, so forgive me for not taking it as granted that the two are equivalent.”
I have no idea what you think I’m trying to get you to grant is equivalent. You think I’m trying to get you to grant that medical endangerment abortions are equivalent to what? Rape cases? Self defense?
You seemed to suggest that there was some sort of contradiction in the pro-life position because almost all of them allow for true self defence medical abortions.
Earlier you seemed to suggest that medical endangerment cases were nothing like self defense because they didn’t involve an innocent. I showed that self defense cases can easily involve an innocent (and in fact they do in real life). Now the person who lives isn’t often charged with homicide, because the principle is pretty clear.
You seemed to think that the whole thing turned on ‘innocent’. But it doesn’t.
You also seemed to want to conflate the rape issue with the self defense issue, but I don’t see why you want to do that.
The rape issue I think speaks to very different moral intuitions than the self defense issue. The rape issue is why the sick violinist hypothetical which is so often invoked doesn’t track well with actual abortion beliefs. We tend to believe that parents, for various reasons, have heightened responsibilities and duties toward their offspring. Those aren’t as clear for the victim of rape.
“If you presume that medical endangerment cases qualify as self-defense. It’s certainly a grayer area than rape cases, but I argued above why I don’t think the situations are morally equivalent. You didn’t respond to that argument, so forgive me for not taking it as granted that the two are equivalent.”
I have no idea what you think I’m trying to get you to grant is equivalent. You think I’m trying to get you to grant that medical endangerment abortions are equivalent to what? Rape cases? Self defense?
You seemed to suggest that there was some sort of contradiction in the pro-life position because almost all of them allow for true self defence medical abortions.
Earlier you seemed to suggest that medical endangerment cases were nothing like self defense because they didn’t involve an innocent. I showed that self defense cases can easily involve an innocent (and in fact they do in real life). Now the person who lives isn’t often charged with homicide, because the principle is pretty clear.
You seemed to think that the whole thing turned on ‘innocent’. But it doesn’t.
You also seemed to want to conflate the rape issue with the self defense issue, but I don’t see why you want to do that.
The rape issue I think speaks to very different moral intuitions than the self defense issue. The rape issue is why the sick violinist hypothetical which is so often invoked doesn’t track well with actual abortion beliefs. We tend to believe that parents, for various reasons, have heightened responsibilities and duties toward their offspring. Those aren’t as clear for the victim of rape.
The two I had in mind are medical endangerment and self-defense. Apologies if that wasn’t clear. I argued why I don’t think the “50% case” qualifies as self-defense, you didn’t respond to that argument, and continue to refer to such cases as self-defense.
I did initially misunderstand what you meant by self-defense, but I’ve accepted the broader definition, and agree that they can involve the killing of a innocent. However, you still haven’t proved that all cases of justifiable abortion fit the broader definition.
Finally, I’m not conflating rape and endangerment. I said that if we consider fetuses to be human beings, then we can’t justify abortions in (many) cases of endangerment or rape. You said that we could under the self-defense doctrine. I see the argument for the endangerment cases (although I’m not convinced by it), but the argument doesn’t apply to rape cases. How is pointing out that the argument doesn’t apply “conflating” the two cases?
Anyway, I think I’m at the “agree to disagree” point here.
Cheers.
The two I had in mind are medical endangerment and self-defense. Apologies if that wasn’t clear. I argued why I don’t think the “50% case” qualifies as self-defense, you didn’t respond to that argument, and continue to refer to such cases as self-defense.
I did initially misunderstand what you meant by self-defense, but I’ve accepted the broader definition, and agree that they can involve the killing of a innocent. However, you still haven’t proved that all cases of justifiable abortion fit the broader definition.
Finally, I’m not conflating rape and endangerment. I said that if we consider fetuses to be human beings, then we can’t justify abortions in (many) cases of endangerment or rape. You said that we could under the self-defense doctrine. I see the argument for the endangerment cases (although I’m not convinced by it), but the argument doesn’t apply to rape cases. How is pointing out that the argument doesn’t apply “conflating” the two cases?
Anyway, I think I’m at the “agree to disagree” point here.
Cheers.
Sebastian: Oh good heavens. Seriously? Did you really write that? Do you *really* think that? If you really do think that, do you really want to admit it?
Parents who want to adopt a baby, in the United States, especially if they want to adopt a healthy white (or at least very light) baby, are looking to pay big fees. (There are plenty of older children needing adoptive parents, but babies are a hot commodity.)
Pro-lifers routinely claim that after all, if a woman who is pregnant genuinely can’t afford to have a baby, she can always just give the baby up for adoption. The so-called crisis pregnancy support centers are, as far as I can tell, almost invariably linked to adoption agencies, and (while I have no statistics) according to all anecdote from women who have experienced the “care” of the CPCs, their “support” is primarily confined to advocating to the pregnant woman that she give the baby up for adoption.
This is not to say that every adoption agency in the US is hooked up to the pro-life movement. Nor that every pro-lifer who mindlessly bleats that a woman who doesn’t want to have a baby should have the baby and abandon it to the care of strangers, is actually thinking in terms of the money this will bring people in the adoption business, any more than they are thinking of the acute and lifelong pain of losing a newborn baby.
But yeah, Sebastian: I’m just that cynical. Where there are large sums of money passing, I think it not unreasonable to suppose that the people who are receiving the money are motivated by the money rather than by the hifalutin ideals about human life that they claim.
Sebastian: Oh good heavens. Seriously? Did you really write that? Do you *really* think that? If you really do think that, do you really want to admit it?
Parents who want to adopt a baby, in the United States, especially if they want to adopt a healthy white (or at least very light) baby, are looking to pay big fees. (There are plenty of older children needing adoptive parents, but babies are a hot commodity.)
Pro-lifers routinely claim that after all, if a woman who is pregnant genuinely can’t afford to have a baby, she can always just give the baby up for adoption. The so-called crisis pregnancy support centers are, as far as I can tell, almost invariably linked to adoption agencies, and (while I have no statistics) according to all anecdote from women who have experienced the “care” of the CPCs, their “support” is primarily confined to advocating to the pregnant woman that she give the baby up for adoption.
This is not to say that every adoption agency in the US is hooked up to the pro-life movement. Nor that every pro-lifer who mindlessly bleats that a woman who doesn’t want to have a baby should have the baby and abandon it to the care of strangers, is actually thinking in terms of the money this will bring people in the adoption business, any more than they are thinking of the acute and lifelong pain of losing a newborn baby.
But yeah, Sebastian: I’m just that cynical. Where there are large sums of money passing, I think it not unreasonable to suppose that the people who are receiving the money are motivated by the money rather than by the hifalutin ideals about human life that they claim.
We tend to believe that parents, for various reasons, have heightened responsibilities and duties toward their offspring.
We do. But pro-lifers don’t.
We tend to believe that parents, for various reasons, have heightened responsibilities and duties toward their offspring.
We do. But pro-lifers don’t.
“But yeah, Sebastian: I’m just that cynical. Where there are large sums of money passing, I think it not unreasonable to suppose that the people who are receiving the money are motivated by the money rather than by the hifalutin ideals about human life that they claim.”
You know that people who perform abortions are doctors who tend to get paid rather well, right? 😉
“But yeah, Sebastian: I’m just that cynical. Where there are large sums of money passing, I think it not unreasonable to suppose that the people who are receiving the money are motivated by the money rather than by the hifalutin ideals about human life that they claim.”
You know that people who perform abortions are doctors who tend to get paid rather well, right? 😉
Here’s a specific example of a an anti-abortion activist involved in coercing young women into improper adoptions.
Ultimately the people of South Dakota voted against the abortion ban mentioned in that article. It would have criminalized abortion (a felony) except in cases where the woman’s life was in danger. It was never clear exactly how the danger of death was to be determined. A zealous prosecutor could/would have brought charges after every abortion. It would have been a de-facto total ban.
They also rejected a 2008 measure which:
(emphasis mine)
The campaign for this stressed how reasonable those exceptions were.
Here’s a specific example of a an anti-abortion activist involved in coercing young women into improper adoptions.
Ultimately the people of South Dakota voted against the abortion ban mentioned in that article. It would have criminalized abortion (a felony) except in cases where the woman’s life was in danger. It was never clear exactly how the danger of death was to be determined. A zealous prosecutor could/would have brought charges after every abortion. It would have been a de-facto total ban.
They also rejected a 2008 measure which:
(emphasis mine)
The campaign for this stressed how reasonable those exceptions were.
You know that people who perform abortions are doctors who tend to get paid rather well, right?
Yes.
And in the US, doctors who perform abortions do so in the full awareness that they’re targets of a terrorist movement that may kill them.
Regardless of how much they get paid, that makes them heroes.
The same does not apply to anyone working in the adoption industry.
You know that people who perform abortions are doctors who tend to get paid rather well, right?
Yes.
And in the US, doctors who perform abortions do so in the full awareness that they’re targets of a terrorist movement that may kill them.
Regardless of how much they get paid, that makes them heroes.
The same does not apply to anyone working in the adoption industry.
You know that people who perform abortions are doctors who tend to get paid rather well, right? 😉
The one and only doctor who performs abortions in South Dakota (a state of 77k square miles) lives out of state and flies in one day per week. She ain’t doing it to get rich.
You know that people who perform abortions are doctors who tend to get paid rather well, right? 😉
The one and only doctor who performs abortions in South Dakota (a state of 77k square miles) lives out of state and flies in one day per week. She ain’t doing it to get rich.
You know that people who perform abortions are doctors who tend to get paid rather well, right?
I recall reading about the director of a women’s health clinic – one which offered abortions as one of its services. She opened all of the clinic’s mail. Because the board of trustees had decided that they could afford to insure only one member of the clinic staff against the risk that they’d be sent a letter-bomb, or real anthrax, and the director had decided that that one person had better be her.
I don’t know what she gets paid, Sebastian: but I doubt very much if salary is her motivation for coming to work every day and opening the clinic’s mail.
You know that people who perform abortions are doctors who tend to get paid rather well, right?
I recall reading about the director of a women’s health clinic – one which offered abortions as one of its services. She opened all of the clinic’s mail. Because the board of trustees had decided that they could afford to insure only one member of the clinic staff against the risk that they’d be sent a letter-bomb, or real anthrax, and the director had decided that that one person had better be her.
I don’t know what she gets paid, Sebastian: but I doubt very much if salary is her motivation for coming to work every day and opening the clinic’s mail.
Boo: Finally, I’m not conflating rape and endangerment. I said that if we consider fetuses to be human beings, then we can’t justify abortions in (many) cases of endangerment or rape.
You’re still not dealing with the point: women are human, and therefore are fully entitled to choose whether or not they’re going to save another human’s life by providing the use of one or more of their organs.
For an example of what I meant by pro-lifers opposing the belief that parents
have heightened responsibilities and duties toward their offspring: Amalia was the example I was thinking of, since pro-lifers apparently believe she has no responsibilities or duties towards her 10-year-old daughter: and the pro-life argument that a mother has no responsibility or duty towards her newborn baby, but ought to simply abandon that baby to the care of strangers: but also Angie Jackson, who recently live-tweeted her medical abortion, and the reaction from pro-lifers was that she owed no responsibility or duty towards her son, a special-needs child, but ought to have hazarded her life in a second, unwilled pregnancy caused by contraception failure.
Pro-lifers are self-evidently not believers in parental responsibility.
Boo: Finally, I’m not conflating rape and endangerment. I said that if we consider fetuses to be human beings, then we can’t justify abortions in (many) cases of endangerment or rape.
You’re still not dealing with the point: women are human, and therefore are fully entitled to choose whether or not they’re going to save another human’s life by providing the use of one or more of their organs.
For an example of what I meant by pro-lifers opposing the belief that parents
have heightened responsibilities and duties toward their offspring: Amalia was the example I was thinking of, since pro-lifers apparently believe she has no responsibilities or duties towards her 10-year-old daughter: and the pro-life argument that a mother has no responsibility or duty towards her newborn baby, but ought to simply abandon that baby to the care of strangers: but also Angie Jackson, who recently live-tweeted her medical abortion, and the reaction from pro-lifers was that she owed no responsibility or duty towards her son, a special-needs child, but ought to have hazarded her life in a second, unwilled pregnancy caused by contraception failure.
Pro-lifers are self-evidently not believers in parental responsibility.
“The one and only doctor who performs abortions in South Dakota (a state of 77k square miles) lives out of state and flies in one day per week. She ain’t doing it to get rich.”
And we can find at leas a few adoption agencies that aren’t doing it to get rich either. Jes’s analysis is so broad as to certainly not be refuted by a mere single charitable example. You would have to show that in general, abortionists don’t make good money.
“And in the US, doctors who perform abortions do so in the full awareness that they’re targets of a terrorist movement that may kill them. Regardless of how much they get paid, that makes them heroes.”
Oh good freaking heavens. About as many university professors and workers were attacked by Unabomber, but that doesn’t make university workers all heros.
There have been similar numbers of arsons against university animal and genetics research labs as against abortion centers, especially in the last ten years (in which abortion violence has been on a steep decline while environmentalist/animal rights violence has been on the upswing. But I doubt you think of them as the same kind of heroes.
“The one and only doctor who performs abortions in South Dakota (a state of 77k square miles) lives out of state and flies in one day per week. She ain’t doing it to get rich.”
And we can find at leas a few adoption agencies that aren’t doing it to get rich either. Jes’s analysis is so broad as to certainly not be refuted by a mere single charitable example. You would have to show that in general, abortionists don’t make good money.
“And in the US, doctors who perform abortions do so in the full awareness that they’re targets of a terrorist movement that may kill them. Regardless of how much they get paid, that makes them heroes.”
Oh good freaking heavens. About as many university professors and workers were attacked by Unabomber, but that doesn’t make university workers all heros.
There have been similar numbers of arsons against university animal and genetics research labs as against abortion centers, especially in the last ten years (in which abortion violence has been on a steep decline while environmentalist/animal rights violence has been on the upswing. But I doubt you think of them as the same kind of heroes.
Jes’s analysis is so broad
Pay attention to what I wrote, and respond to what I wrote, if you can. The financial/business link between Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which urge pregnant woman to have the baby in order to give it up for adoption: the adoption agencies which take the babies so produced. Discuss.
About as many university professors and workers were attacked by Unabomber
Not even close. Between 1978 and 1995, the Unabomber was responsible for a grand total of 16 bombings, which in three instances resulted in people being killed, and injured 23 people.
Between 1977 (when NAF first began recording pro-lifer terrorist actions) and 2009, the pro-lifer terrorist movement has been responsible for 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 175 acts of arson, 96 recorded acts of attempted arson (undoubtedly an underreporting), 100 butyric acid attacks (to make clinic personnel and patients vomit uncontrollably), 659 anthrax threats, 179 recorded acts of assault and battery, 406 recorded death threats, 4 kidnappings, and 525 recorded stalkings (“as the persistent following, threatening, and harassing of an abortion provider, staff member, or patient away from the clinic”) Tabulation of stalking incidents began only in 1993.
Abortion in the United States is generally performed at separate health clinics from mainstream hospitals not because there’s any medical reason, but because the pro-life movement has ensured that wherever abortions are performed must be regarded as a target for terrorist action. Pro-life terrorism has been hideously successful in the United States in restricting access to abortion and ensuring many doctors and many hospitals simply do not feel safe in providing it.
Jes’s analysis is so broad
Pay attention to what I wrote, and respond to what I wrote, if you can. The financial/business link between Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which urge pregnant woman to have the baby in order to give it up for adoption: the adoption agencies which take the babies so produced. Discuss.
About as many university professors and workers were attacked by Unabomber
Not even close. Between 1978 and 1995, the Unabomber was responsible for a grand total of 16 bombings, which in three instances resulted in people being killed, and injured 23 people.
Between 1977 (when NAF first began recording pro-lifer terrorist actions) and 2009, the pro-lifer terrorist movement has been responsible for 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 175 acts of arson, 96 recorded acts of attempted arson (undoubtedly an underreporting), 100 butyric acid attacks (to make clinic personnel and patients vomit uncontrollably), 659 anthrax threats, 179 recorded acts of assault and battery, 406 recorded death threats, 4 kidnappings, and 525 recorded stalkings (“as the persistent following, threatening, and harassing of an abortion provider, staff member, or patient away from the clinic”) Tabulation of stalking incidents began only in 1993.
Abortion in the United States is generally performed at separate health clinics from mainstream hospitals not because there’s any medical reason, but because the pro-life movement has ensured that wherever abortions are performed must be regarded as a target for terrorist action. Pro-life terrorism has been hideously successful in the United States in restricting access to abortion and ensuring many doctors and many hospitals simply do not feel safe in providing it.
> The baby did, however, follow as a consequence from the decision and a mix of bad luck and carelessness.
Nope. Women have abortions because they get pregnant and they decide not to have the baby. Having an abortion is a necessary consequence of deciding not to have a baby.
Having an abortion is a necessary consequence of deciding not to have a baby after the baby has already been put into a position of dependence.
Shooting the victim is a necessary consequence of deciding not to get sued after you have already hit the car crash victim. It is not something you wanted to happen. But it is something that happened. And it is something where killing the person left crippled by the event in which you were at least nominally in control can save a lot because of limitations on damages.
That you believe that a woman’s body is not “sacrosanct” and that she has no right to decide for herself whether or not she should have a baby, somehow does not surprise me.
I have pointed out another case where I believe peoples bodies aren’t sacrosanct. You should not have the right to turn your body into an incubator of infectious diseases thereby actively endangering others by refusing vaccinations.
You should not be able to destroy the lives of others on a whim simply because you have put them in a position where their continued survival is dependent on your loss of bodily integrity. It’s wrong vs wrong here. And in such cases
>You confuse me with a pro-lifer.
That’s because you’re talking like a pro-lifer.
I’m talking like someone who finds your mafia morality repellant. That you should shoot the victim and witness to prevent them sueing.
> “Let there not be one single accidental or unwanted pregnancy.”
And let everyone have a pony, too!
That was my point exactly! If we lived in a world where things were perfect I’d come to some very different conclusions.
It’s right but repulsive (your side) vs wrong but romantic (the lifers with their seductive but spurious ideological clarity). I’ll act on the side of the right. But this won’t stop me arguing against the repulsive.
Sebastian:
Oh good freaking heavens. About as many university professors and workers were attacked by Unabomber, but that doesn’t make university workers all heros.
1: What is your source for this?
2: How many university workers are there? How many doctors in the whole of the US doing third trimester abortions? Do the math.
> The baby did, however, follow as a consequence from the decision and a mix of bad luck and carelessness.
Nope. Women have abortions because they get pregnant and they decide not to have the baby. Having an abortion is a necessary consequence of deciding not to have a baby.
Having an abortion is a necessary consequence of deciding not to have a baby after the baby has already been put into a position of dependence.
Shooting the victim is a necessary consequence of deciding not to get sued after you have already hit the car crash victim. It is not something you wanted to happen. But it is something that happened. And it is something where killing the person left crippled by the event in which you were at least nominally in control can save a lot because of limitations on damages.
That you believe that a woman’s body is not “sacrosanct” and that she has no right to decide for herself whether or not she should have a baby, somehow does not surprise me.
I have pointed out another case where I believe peoples bodies aren’t sacrosanct. You should not have the right to turn your body into an incubator of infectious diseases thereby actively endangering others by refusing vaccinations.
You should not be able to destroy the lives of others on a whim simply because you have put them in a position where their continued survival is dependent on your loss of bodily integrity. It’s wrong vs wrong here. And in such cases
>You confuse me with a pro-lifer.
That’s because you’re talking like a pro-lifer.
I’m talking like someone who finds your mafia morality repellant. That you should shoot the victim and witness to prevent them sueing.
> “Let there not be one single accidental or unwanted pregnancy.”
And let everyone have a pony, too!
That was my point exactly! If we lived in a world where things were perfect I’d come to some very different conclusions.
It’s right but repulsive (your side) vs wrong but romantic (the lifers with their seductive but spurious ideological clarity). I’ll act on the side of the right. But this won’t stop me arguing against the repulsive.
Sebastian:
Oh good freaking heavens. About as many university professors and workers were attacked by Unabomber, but that doesn’t make university workers all heros.
1: What is your source for this?
2: How many university workers are there? How many doctors in the whole of the US doing third trimester abortions? Do the math.
Sebastian, I was trying to find an equivalent site for ALF / ELF actions in the United States, and couldn’t. The record of their actions – while reprehensible – does suggest that they do not, as pro-lifers do, go as far as direct violence against people, including murder: they target property. Their worst crimes against people appear to be the harassment of employees of a company that deals with HLS (a UK company guilty of cruelty in live animal testing).
Other people have already noted that the FBI’s assumption that ALF/ELF are the most dangerous homegrown domestic terrorism group in America really kind of ignores the terrorist actions of the pro-life movement, which continue to be a real threat not only to clinic staff, but to patients. The pro-life movement has committed murder and attempted murder. Individual pro-lifers picketing a clinic may as individuals have no real intention of doing anything other than put the patients and staff in fear: but collectively, they are part of the terrorist movement that has killed. That’s why they’re a threat.
Sebastian, I was trying to find an equivalent site for ALF / ELF actions in the United States, and couldn’t. The record of their actions – while reprehensible – does suggest that they do not, as pro-lifers do, go as far as direct violence against people, including murder: they target property. Their worst crimes against people appear to be the harassment of employees of a company that deals with HLS (a UK company guilty of cruelty in live animal testing).
Other people have already noted that the FBI’s assumption that ALF/ELF are the most dangerous homegrown domestic terrorism group in America really kind of ignores the terrorist actions of the pro-life movement, which continue to be a real threat not only to clinic staff, but to patients. The pro-life movement has committed murder and attempted murder. Individual pro-lifers picketing a clinic may as individuals have no real intention of doing anything other than put the patients and staff in fear: but collectively, they are part of the terrorist movement that has killed. That’s why they’re a threat.
wwww, smbd sd ctl fcts t rft Sbstn’s t qq nd md hm ll ngw.
[Ed: comment adherence to posting rules has been enhanced. You can take this as a long-overdue warning.]
wwww, smbd sd ctl fcts t rft Sbstn’s t qq nd md hm ll ngw.
[Ed: comment adherence to posting rules has been enhanced. You can take this as a long-overdue warning.]
FrancisD: Having an abortion is a necessary consequence of deciding not to have a baby after the [fetus] has already been put into a position of dependence.
The baby doesn’t exist at the time the abortion takes place: the whole point of having an abortion is that there never will be a baby.
Shooting the victim is a necessary consequence of deciding not to get sued after you have already hit the car crash victim.
That’s not quite the most impossibly stupid analogy I’ve heard a pro-lifer make against women being able to have abortions, but it’s… close.
I’ll act on the side of the right. But this won’t stop me arguing against the repulsive.
I don’t see anything repulsive about women being able to live and women being able to decide for themselves whether and how many children to have. That you find that repulsive, if right, says more about you than it does about abortion.
FrancisD: Having an abortion is a necessary consequence of deciding not to have a baby after the [fetus] has already been put into a position of dependence.
The baby doesn’t exist at the time the abortion takes place: the whole point of having an abortion is that there never will be a baby.
Shooting the victim is a necessary consequence of deciding not to get sued after you have already hit the car crash victim.
That’s not quite the most impossibly stupid analogy I’ve heard a pro-lifer make against women being able to have abortions, but it’s… close.
I’ll act on the side of the right. But this won’t stop me arguing against the repulsive.
I don’t see anything repulsive about women being able to live and women being able to decide for themselves whether and how many children to have. That you find that repulsive, if right, says more about you than it does about abortion.
The baby doesn’t exist at the time the abortion takes place: the whole point of having an abortion is that there never will be a baby.
That depends on what you consider the status of the foetus to be. I am entirely in the pro-choice camp because I do not consider the foetus to be a person as it is just a ball of cells. (I would be in clear opposition to the pro-life camp, which is a different matter, even if I didn’t believe this simply because abortion is sometimes a medically necessary procedure and therefore banning it is stupid even before you get to the anti-contraception lobby). Your arguments have made it perfectly clear that this is irrelevant to you. And if a foetus is a person then objecting to the term baby is just playing with the overton window.
I don’t see anything repulsive about women being able to live and women being able to decide for themselves whether and how many children to have.
Neither do I. Unless they retroactively get to decide by killing already existing children. Which is what your position appears to be for as long as the child is taking the mother’s bodily resources.
Change the premises to the debate and I change my conclusions.
The baby doesn’t exist at the time the abortion takes place: the whole point of having an abortion is that there never will be a baby.
That depends on what you consider the status of the foetus to be. I am entirely in the pro-choice camp because I do not consider the foetus to be a person as it is just a ball of cells. (I would be in clear opposition to the pro-life camp, which is a different matter, even if I didn’t believe this simply because abortion is sometimes a medically necessary procedure and therefore banning it is stupid even before you get to the anti-contraception lobby). Your arguments have made it perfectly clear that this is irrelevant to you. And if a foetus is a person then objecting to the term baby is just playing with the overton window.
I don’t see anything repulsive about women being able to live and women being able to decide for themselves whether and how many children to have.
Neither do I. Unless they retroactively get to decide by killing already existing children. Which is what your position appears to be for as long as the child is taking the mother’s bodily resources.
Change the premises to the debate and I change my conclusions.
That depends on what you consider the status of the foetus to be.
For individuals – as both Marty and someotherdude have made poignantly clear – the status of their fetus may be individually different. As someotherdude says, and I concur completely, you use the word that helps with your grief.
But on a general, medical, legislative, and scientific level, a fetus is not a baby: a baby is not a fetus. I can completely understand and sympathise with an individual experiencing and talking of her loss as a lost baby, not a lost fetus. I’m pro-choice, remember? respecting the rights and wishes of the individual woman with regard to her own pregnancy, that’s what being pro-choice is all about.
Pro-lifers wanting to use “baby” or “child” for all fetuses from the moment of conception is something different and far uglier.
And if a foetus is a person then objecting to the term baby is just playing with the overton window.
Not. A fetus is not a baby is not a toddler is not a teenager is not a geriatric. There’s nothing “overton window” about saying you should, generally, use the correct terminology.
The pro-lifers who insist on using incorrect terminology are playing with the overton window.
Unless they retroactively get to decide by killing already existing children.
Nobody’s arguing for the right to kill already-existing children (well, aside from those righteous pro-lifers who feel pregnant children should die): abortion terminates the life of a fetus, not a child.
Cardinal Giovanni Batista Re argued for the killing of an already-existing child: you argue that the doctors who saved her life by aborting the twin fetuses were “right but repulsive”?
That depends on what you consider the status of the foetus to be.
For individuals – as both Marty and someotherdude have made poignantly clear – the status of their fetus may be individually different. As someotherdude says, and I concur completely, you use the word that helps with your grief.
But on a general, medical, legislative, and scientific level, a fetus is not a baby: a baby is not a fetus. I can completely understand and sympathise with an individual experiencing and talking of her loss as a lost baby, not a lost fetus. I’m pro-choice, remember? respecting the rights and wishes of the individual woman with regard to her own pregnancy, that’s what being pro-choice is all about.
Pro-lifers wanting to use “baby” or “child” for all fetuses from the moment of conception is something different and far uglier.
And if a foetus is a person then objecting to the term baby is just playing with the overton window.
Not. A fetus is not a baby is not a toddler is not a teenager is not a geriatric. There’s nothing “overton window” about saying you should, generally, use the correct terminology.
The pro-lifers who insist on using incorrect terminology are playing with the overton window.
Unless they retroactively get to decide by killing already existing children.
Nobody’s arguing for the right to kill already-existing children (well, aside from those righteous pro-lifers who feel pregnant children should die): abortion terminates the life of a fetus, not a child.
Cardinal Giovanni Batista Re argued for the killing of an already-existing child: you argue that the doctors who saved her life by aborting the twin fetuses were “right but repulsive”?
Approximately 43% of American women have an abortion at some point during their lifetime. Whether or not some people consider it repulsive, it’s pretty much a reality that most women you meet either have had an abortion, will have an abortion, or would have an abortion if they became pregnant in circumstances that were unfavorable to continuing a pregnancy.
I don’t really understand how just because some people consider it repulsive (many of which have no chance of ever facing the situation themselves), those people feel that they should be able to prohibit a medical procedure that so many women decide to undergo. It’s arrogant in the extreme.
Approximately 43% of American women have an abortion at some point during their lifetime. Whether or not some people consider it repulsive, it’s pretty much a reality that most women you meet either have had an abortion, will have an abortion, or would have an abortion if they became pregnant in circumstances that were unfavorable to continuing a pregnancy.
I don’t really understand how just because some people consider it repulsive (many of which have no chance of ever facing the situation themselves), those people feel that they should be able to prohibit a medical procedure that so many women decide to undergo. It’s arrogant in the extreme.
Approximately 43% of American women have an abortion at some point during their lifetime.
I wonder about statistics like these, is it simply a matter of dividing the # of abortions by the number of women, and then saying 43% of women will have an abortion at some point? Does it take into account the fact that some women will have more than one abortion? I seem to recall statistics such as 1/2 of all marriages will end in divorce being interpreted as 1/2 of all married people will end up having a divorce, which is not the case.
Approximately 43% of American women have an abortion at some point during their lifetime.
I wonder about statistics like these, is it simply a matter of dividing the # of abortions by the number of women, and then saying 43% of women will have an abortion at some point? Does it take into account the fact that some women will have more than one abortion? I seem to recall statistics such as 1/2 of all marriages will end in divorce being interpreted as 1/2 of all married people will end up having a divorce, which is not the case.
Well, I don’t know, Ugh, and don’t have time to find out – it’s a statistic that’s used by both the right and the left. And it means that abortion is pretty darned common, and that a whole lot of women face circumstances which they believe justifies their decision to have one. I would wager that a whole lot more don’t face those circumstances, but if they did, they’d have one too. So for every woman who may have had multiple abortions, there are probably several women who were lucky enough not to have been faced with the issue.
Well, I don’t know, Ugh, and don’t have time to find out – it’s a statistic that’s used by both the right and the left. And it means that abortion is pretty darned common, and that a whole lot of women face circumstances which they believe justifies their decision to have one. I would wager that a whole lot more don’t face those circumstances, but if they did, they’d have one too. So for every woman who may have had multiple abortions, there are probably several women who were lucky enough not to have been faced with the issue.
Nobody’s arguing for the right to kill already-existing children
If you accept that a foetus is a person or human being, then that is exactly what you are arguing for.
And if you are arguing against someone who thinks that the soul enters at conception (a political redefinition) then that is exactly what they will see you as arguing for whether you intend to or not.
To use an analogy, imagine that you meet someone from the Deep South arguing for absolute rights over his property in 1855 or so. That is how what you are arguing will be taken. (Especially as a lot of the pro-Life Evangelical framing quite deliberately mentions Wilberforce).
you argue that the doctors who saved her life by aborting the twin fetuses were “right but repulsive”?
No. The repulsive part is the why you are arguing what you are – predicating it all on the right to bodily integrity. (I do, however, argue that it’s one good illustration of why the Lifers are Wrong).
I don’t really understand how just because some people consider it repulsive (many of which have no chance of ever facing the situation themselves), those people feel that they should be able to prohibit
Because they think that their pretty, idealised world is what matters and unpleasant things shouldn’t be allowed. (If I were to start getting rid of medical procedures I found repulsive we’d probably be down half a hospital).
Nobody’s arguing for the right to kill already-existing children
If you accept that a foetus is a person or human being, then that is exactly what you are arguing for.
And if you are arguing against someone who thinks that the soul enters at conception (a political redefinition) then that is exactly what they will see you as arguing for whether you intend to or not.
To use an analogy, imagine that you meet someone from the Deep South arguing for absolute rights over his property in 1855 or so. That is how what you are arguing will be taken. (Especially as a lot of the pro-Life Evangelical framing quite deliberately mentions Wilberforce).
you argue that the doctors who saved her life by aborting the twin fetuses were “right but repulsive”?
No. The repulsive part is the why you are arguing what you are – predicating it all on the right to bodily integrity. (I do, however, argue that it’s one good illustration of why the Lifers are Wrong).
I don’t really understand how just because some people consider it repulsive (many of which have no chance of ever facing the situation themselves), those people feel that they should be able to prohibit
Because they think that their pretty, idealised world is what matters and unpleasant things shouldn’t be allowed. (If I were to start getting rid of medical procedures I found repulsive we’d probably be down half a hospital).
“The record of their actions – while reprehensible – does suggest that they do not, as pro-lifers do, go as far as direct violence against people, including murder: they target property.”
Which is what a huge proportion of your abortion related violence is–arson. In many cases they are exactly the same crime–firebombing at night.
My argument isn’t that such arsons are anything other than terrorism–they clearly are terrorism. But if you are going to be dismissive of them as ‘property crimes’ in the laboratory cases, I’m going to call you on it in the abortion cases. You don’t get to romanticize the opression value of one while being dismissive of the other for the exact same act.
(As for the ‘most dangerous’ label, I would suggest it is hyperbole at any given press conference. But, it may be related to the fact that fire-bombing in suburban/mixed-use areas in Southern California is drastically more likely to spread into a wholesale wildfire threatening thousands of homes than it is if you fire bomb a clinic in).
Anecdote alert: I had a friend who threw out his half lit cigarette on the ground while I was visiting him in Virginia. I kind of freaked out as it landed on a plant and I went to stamp it out. It fizzled and didn’t go anywhere even before I got there. It led to a discussion where he admitted that throwing the butt was a nasty habit, but didn’t understand why I reacted so strongly. “You Californians react so strongly to fire”. Most of the inhabited part of California is much drier than most places people live in the US. And most other places with similar rainfall end up as fairly barren desert. California on the other hand is dry and brushy–perfect for out of control fires. A thrown butt is most likely to smoulder and maybe destroy one plant in much of the US (and certainly England). If it gets well out of control it might destroy a single house, or maybe most horifically a single block of dwellings. A similar act in Southern California can destroy thousands of homes and subject hundreds of square miles to fire. Similarly firebombing a lab in California is much more generally dangerous (in the sense of having the potential to randomly spread) than bombing a clinic in Virginia. Which may partially explain the ‘most dangerous’ label.
End of anecdote.
“The record of their actions – while reprehensible – does suggest that they do not, as pro-lifers do, go as far as direct violence against people, including murder: they target property.”
Which is what a huge proportion of your abortion related violence is–arson. In many cases they are exactly the same crime–firebombing at night.
My argument isn’t that such arsons are anything other than terrorism–they clearly are terrorism. But if you are going to be dismissive of them as ‘property crimes’ in the laboratory cases, I’m going to call you on it in the abortion cases. You don’t get to romanticize the opression value of one while being dismissive of the other for the exact same act.
(As for the ‘most dangerous’ label, I would suggest it is hyperbole at any given press conference. But, it may be related to the fact that fire-bombing in suburban/mixed-use areas in Southern California is drastically more likely to spread into a wholesale wildfire threatening thousands of homes than it is if you fire bomb a clinic in).
Anecdote alert: I had a friend who threw out his half lit cigarette on the ground while I was visiting him in Virginia. I kind of freaked out as it landed on a plant and I went to stamp it out. It fizzled and didn’t go anywhere even before I got there. It led to a discussion where he admitted that throwing the butt was a nasty habit, but didn’t understand why I reacted so strongly. “You Californians react so strongly to fire”. Most of the inhabited part of California is much drier than most places people live in the US. And most other places with similar rainfall end up as fairly barren desert. California on the other hand is dry and brushy–perfect for out of control fires. A thrown butt is most likely to smoulder and maybe destroy one plant in much of the US (and certainly England). If it gets well out of control it might destroy a single house, or maybe most horifically a single block of dwellings. A similar act in Southern California can destroy thousands of homes and subject hundreds of square miles to fire. Similarly firebombing a lab in California is much more generally dangerous (in the sense of having the potential to randomly spread) than bombing a clinic in Virginia. Which may partially explain the ‘most dangerous’ label.
End of anecdote.
If you accept that a foetus is a person or human being, then that is exactly what you are arguing for.
No. A fetus is not a child. You cannot make a fetus into a child by arguing that people ought to think of fetuses as exactly the same as babies or as children.
The only thing that will make a fetus into a child is pregnancy and childbirth – if a woman chooses to use her body in that way for the required amount of time. Your words won’t do it.
And if you are arguing against someone who thinks that the soul enters at conception (a political redefinition) then that is exactly what they will see you as arguing for whether you intend to or not.
If people believe that the soul enters into a fetus at the moment of conception, how does that stop them using correct scientific terminolgy to refer to the ensouled fetus? *shrug* In any case, people who earnestly believe that twins have only one soul between them and that Heaven (or Hell) is 50% populated by souls that never knew life on Earth outside the uterus are not my problem. (If one twin dies in the uterus, does the remaining twin have only half a soul?)
To use an analogy, imagine that you meet someone from the Deep South arguing for absolute rights over his property in 1855 or so. That is how what you are arguing will be taken.
Which is exactly how I take their arguments that women are breeding animals who ought not to be allowed to decide for themselves how and whether they are to bred: they think women are property, exactly as a white slaveowner in the Deep South regarded his black slaves – his property, to be bred at his will. It’s not even an analogy: it’s a straightforward descendent of the same kind of dehumanization of the other.
No. The repulsive part is the why you are arguing what you are – predicating it all on the right to bodily integrity.
If you find it repulsive that people own their own bodies, why would you object to the thinking of the slaveowner in the Deep South? He thought some people didn’t own their own bodies or have any right to bodily integrity, too.
If you accept that a foetus is a person or human being, then that is exactly what you are arguing for.
No. A fetus is not a child. You cannot make a fetus into a child by arguing that people ought to think of fetuses as exactly the same as babies or as children.
The only thing that will make a fetus into a child is pregnancy and childbirth – if a woman chooses to use her body in that way for the required amount of time. Your words won’t do it.
And if you are arguing against someone who thinks that the soul enters at conception (a political redefinition) then that is exactly what they will see you as arguing for whether you intend to or not.
If people believe that the soul enters into a fetus at the moment of conception, how does that stop them using correct scientific terminolgy to refer to the ensouled fetus? *shrug* In any case, people who earnestly believe that twins have only one soul between them and that Heaven (or Hell) is 50% populated by souls that never knew life on Earth outside the uterus are not my problem. (If one twin dies in the uterus, does the remaining twin have only half a soul?)
To use an analogy, imagine that you meet someone from the Deep South arguing for absolute rights over his property in 1855 or so. That is how what you are arguing will be taken.
Which is exactly how I take their arguments that women are breeding animals who ought not to be allowed to decide for themselves how and whether they are to bred: they think women are property, exactly as a white slaveowner in the Deep South regarded his black slaves – his property, to be bred at his will. It’s not even an analogy: it’s a straightforward descendent of the same kind of dehumanization of the other.
No. The repulsive part is the why you are arguing what you are – predicating it all on the right to bodily integrity.
If you find it repulsive that people own their own bodies, why would you object to the thinking of the slaveowner in the Deep South? He thought some people didn’t own their own bodies or have any right to bodily integrity, too.
Sebastian: My argument isn’t that such arsons are anything other than terrorism–they clearly are terrorism. But if you are going to be dismissive of them as ‘property crimes’ in the laboratory cases, I’m going to call you on it in the abortion cases.
No. Because the pro-lifers do not stop with property damage – and I agree with you completely that arson is a serious crime that can kill. (You haven’t yet linked to any site outlining ALF’s attacks, to justify your claim that these arson attacks are as widespread and consistent a threat to animal researchers as the pro-life movement is to doctors and patients in women’s health clinics. Can you? Or ELF’s?)
But pro-lifers are a jump more threatening, because pro-lifers do not stop at arson.
Pro-lifers commit murder. And justify it by the “killing babies” rhetoric that we’ve seen examples of in this thread. Most of the pro-lifers who use “killing babies” language are manifestly insincere – which is a good thing. But anyone who is really seriously deluded enough to think that a doctor who performs abortions is really truly “killing babies” is a potential deadly danger. Because, as a pro-lifer who dropped past my journal the other day noted: “How many murders is enough for the abortion industry? They’re at about 50 million and counting. OK, so a few abortionists have been shot. That’s like saying the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews, and the Jews murdered a handful of Nazis.”
Doctors who perform abortions – especially late-term, literally life-saving abortions – are at risk every day of their working lives. But even doctors who perform early abortions must run the hazard, every day, that this will be the day a pro-lifer who sincerely believes the deadly rhetoric of “killing babies” is going to step up and kill one of the “baby killers” – doctors, clinic escorts, receptionists.
No one who works in a clinic that performs abortion can be sure this may not happen to them. Pro-lifers who claim they would not kill will nonetheless publish home and work details of clinic staff, names and photographs, to make sure they’re easy targets. Because they help women. How many women’s lives did Doctor Tiller save before a pro-lifer murdered him? Do you even know, or care?
They’re heroes, Sebastian. The pro-life movement have succeeded in driving out everyone who isn’t prepared to be a hero.
Sebastian: My argument isn’t that such arsons are anything other than terrorism–they clearly are terrorism. But if you are going to be dismissive of them as ‘property crimes’ in the laboratory cases, I’m going to call you on it in the abortion cases.
No. Because the pro-lifers do not stop with property damage – and I agree with you completely that arson is a serious crime that can kill. (You haven’t yet linked to any site outlining ALF’s attacks, to justify your claim that these arson attacks are as widespread and consistent a threat to animal researchers as the pro-life movement is to doctors and patients in women’s health clinics. Can you? Or ELF’s?)
But pro-lifers are a jump more threatening, because pro-lifers do not stop at arson.
Pro-lifers commit murder. And justify it by the “killing babies” rhetoric that we’ve seen examples of in this thread. Most of the pro-lifers who use “killing babies” language are manifestly insincere – which is a good thing. But anyone who is really seriously deluded enough to think that a doctor who performs abortions is really truly “killing babies” is a potential deadly danger. Because, as a pro-lifer who dropped past my journal the other day noted: “How many murders is enough for the abortion industry? They’re at about 50 million and counting. OK, so a few abortionists have been shot. That’s like saying the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews, and the Jews murdered a handful of Nazis.”
Doctors who perform abortions – especially late-term, literally life-saving abortions – are at risk every day of their working lives. But even doctors who perform early abortions must run the hazard, every day, that this will be the day a pro-lifer who sincerely believes the deadly rhetoric of “killing babies” is going to step up and kill one of the “baby killers” – doctors, clinic escorts, receptionists.
No one who works in a clinic that performs abortion can be sure this may not happen to them. Pro-lifers who claim they would not kill will nonetheless publish home and work details of clinic staff, names and photographs, to make sure they’re easy targets. Because they help women. How many women’s lives did Doctor Tiller save before a pro-lifer murdered him? Do you even know, or care?
They’re heroes, Sebastian. The pro-life movement have succeeded in driving out everyone who isn’t prepared to be a hero.
Oh, and now – apparently after and because a 17-year-old girl was so desperate to get an abortion and couldn’t access Utah’s legal abortion services, such as they are, that she paid someone $150 to beat her till she miscarried – the pro-lifers of Utah have written and passed a law to make having a miscarriage due to “reckless endangerment” illegal. So that the next desperate teenage girl who’s pregnant and doesn’t want to be can be charged with criminal homicide.
Let’s not have any doubts about this, Francis, Sebastian: people who do this hate women.
Oh, and now – apparently after and because a 17-year-old girl was so desperate to get an abortion and couldn’t access Utah’s legal abortion services, such as they are, that she paid someone $150 to beat her till she miscarried – the pro-lifers of Utah have written and passed a law to make having a miscarriage due to “reckless endangerment” illegal. So that the next desperate teenage girl who’s pregnant and doesn’t want to be can be charged with criminal homicide.
Let’s not have any doubts about this, Francis, Sebastian: people who do this hate women.
You are speaking of the Vernal, Utah case with Aaron Harrison.
The girl couldn’t get an abortion because she was healthy, the baby was healthy, she was well into the third trimester (more than seven months pregnant), and the baby could have survived outside the womb.
She had wanted to have the baby, but in the third trimester, tried to induce a miscarriage because her boyfriend didn’t want a baby and was going to break up with her.
Oh, and now she wants the baby.
Is this really the case you want to use? It doesn’t fit well with your longstanding “3rd trimester abortions only happen for severe medical reasons” claim.
You are speaking of the Vernal, Utah case with Aaron Harrison.
The girl couldn’t get an abortion because she was healthy, the baby was healthy, she was well into the third trimester (more than seven months pregnant), and the baby could have survived outside the womb.
She had wanted to have the baby, but in the third trimester, tried to induce a miscarriage because her boyfriend didn’t want a baby and was going to break up with her.
Oh, and now she wants the baby.
Is this really the case you want to use? It doesn’t fit well with your longstanding “3rd trimester abortions only happen for severe medical reasons” claim.
I don’t think she’s a great poster child for the pro-choice side of things, but then neither should she be the basis for a new, sweeping law that risks criminalizing people who simply suffer a tragic miscarriage but can’t prove it wasn’t because of their own negligence.
Do you think that making what she did illegal will actually prevent a repeat? Do you think she thought what she was doing was legal, or cared? How often does something like this happen anyway?
You can’t make stupidity illegal. Creating laws again ultra-rare occurrences that would only be undertaken by people too stupid and shortsighted to understand the consequences won’t work. Much more likely – given the enormous number of miscarriages that occur for completely unknown reasons – is that such a law will be misapplied.
If a teenager intentionally chops off his own arm with a circular saw, do you think making a law against sawing off your own arm is going be very useful? Do you think the next time some lunatic decides to cut off his own arm he’s going to be deterred by its illegality? Do you think having the police investigate every limb-severing accident just in case it was intentional is going to be very effective? How many people need to go to jail for accidentally cutting off their own arm before you think that this law would be unjust? Do you think that punishing someone for cutting off their own arm is really necessary, given the whole missing-arm thing?
There’s plenty of deterrent already to inducing miscarriage, like the substantial chance that you might die or be seriously injured. What on earth is a law against it going to do?
I don’t think she’s a great poster child for the pro-choice side of things, but then neither should she be the basis for a new, sweeping law that risks criminalizing people who simply suffer a tragic miscarriage but can’t prove it wasn’t because of their own negligence.
Do you think that making what she did illegal will actually prevent a repeat? Do you think she thought what she was doing was legal, or cared? How often does something like this happen anyway?
You can’t make stupidity illegal. Creating laws again ultra-rare occurrences that would only be undertaken by people too stupid and shortsighted to understand the consequences won’t work. Much more likely – given the enormous number of miscarriages that occur for completely unknown reasons – is that such a law will be misapplied.
If a teenager intentionally chops off his own arm with a circular saw, do you think making a law against sawing off your own arm is going be very useful? Do you think the next time some lunatic decides to cut off his own arm he’s going to be deterred by its illegality? Do you think having the police investigate every limb-severing accident just in case it was intentional is going to be very effective? How many people need to go to jail for accidentally cutting off their own arm before you think that this law would be unjust? Do you think that punishing someone for cutting off their own arm is really necessary, given the whole missing-arm thing?
There’s plenty of deterrent already to inducing miscarriage, like the substantial chance that you might die or be seriously injured. What on earth is a law against it going to do?
Jacob: You can’t make stupidity illegal.
I’m not even sure you can say what she did was stupid.
Utah has parental notification laws, so that in order to get an abortion legally, this girl would have had to tell her parents or to convince a judge that she’d be at physical risk if she did tell her parents. Where she lived (according to report) there isn’t a Planned Parenthood clinic within reach. Utah public schools teach abstinence-only sex ed, so it is likely that as far as she knew none of her teachers could or would help her.
With all that against her: I really don’t think her deciding to procure a miscarriage by arranging to have herself beaten was stupid. It was at least thinking-outside-the-box: she needed to induce a miscarriage, and she had no legal or safe way to do it.
I see Sebastian is being his usual compassionate, woman-friendly self with regard to a girl in a horrible situation that Sebastian has never, and will never, have to experience.
Jacob: You can’t make stupidity illegal.
I’m not even sure you can say what she did was stupid.
Utah has parental notification laws, so that in order to get an abortion legally, this girl would have had to tell her parents or to convince a judge that she’d be at physical risk if she did tell her parents. Where she lived (according to report) there isn’t a Planned Parenthood clinic within reach. Utah public schools teach abstinence-only sex ed, so it is likely that as far as she knew none of her teachers could or would help her.
With all that against her: I really don’t think her deciding to procure a miscarriage by arranging to have herself beaten was stupid. It was at least thinking-outside-the-box: she needed to induce a miscarriage, and she had no legal or safe way to do it.
I see Sebastian is being his usual compassionate, woman-friendly self with regard to a girl in a horrible situation that Sebastian has never, and will never, have to experience.
Well, beginning by stipulating that this assumes that the case has been accurately reported, which is not at all a certain thing, but taking that as a given-
It is certainly worth looking at what things could have headed off this situation – better sex education and provision of contraception would certainly be a good place to start. I’m not at all denying that. Nor am I saying that what she did ought to be a crime (at least for her; for it to be a crime to be the person paid to do it is not a problem for me).
But I have no problem saying that if the facts are as-described, that she was aware she was pregnant, and she intended to deliver through the first two trimesters but changed her mind in the third trimester, I’m sorry, that is stupid. Not criminal, no. Just stupid.
And there is nothing special about Utah if we’re talking about ability to obtain a legal third-trimester abortion when the fetus is healthy and poses no special threat to the health of the mother. It’s illegal in many states and for that matter it’s illegal in Britain. I don’t think it needs to be illegal, but I have no problem saying it would be immoral and abhorrent, and in having a cultural norm that says that that specific case is repulsive. The difference between a cultural norm and a law is very significant. Cultural norms do not conduct investigations and prosecutions, they don’t throw people in jail, they are much less likely than a law to deter legitimate use of the procedure.
I believe that the fact that it is abhorrent is sufficient motivation to prevent most cases from occurring, and I trust that most people have the moral sense to keep from doing it. I think that the legal restrictions tend to make it difficult for women to obtain a late-term abortion when there are major fetal abnormalities or when the health of the mother is genuinely in danger, and that in any case the law is the wrong instrument for dealing with it. But I think it’s profoundly unhelpful to act as if there is a moral equivalence between a late-term abortion prompted by medical reasons and a late-term abortion for purely elective reasons. Statements that express a desired cultural norm of accepting late-term elective abortion hurt, not help, the cause of choice. There are very few people who think that we should accept – in a moral sense – that sort of procedure. Acting as if that is an accepted norm on the pro-choice side (rightfully) scares the crap out of people, and is hardly going to prompt them to loosen legal restrictions.
The fact is, those cases are extremely rare, because most people are not stupid, and the existing taboo on late-term elective abortion is extremely strong. As a practical matter, the arguments that apply to early-term abortions apply much less strongly to late-term abortions. By very late in term, with a healthy fetus, abortion carries many of the same kinds of risks as live delivery, and the “use of the mother’s organs” has already run most of its course.
There are still times when it might be legitimate. I don’t think the law should be the one distinguishing between the two cases; the law is a blunt instrument. I trust in people’s moral sense.
But not everyone has much of a moral sense. And if the facts are as reported, this girl did not have much of one, nor much foresight or compassion; she was stupid. You don’t sit around knowing you’re pregnant for six or seven months and then decide, “Gee, I don’t want to have this baby now” unless you are a moral idiot.
Now, making a law against it is even more stupid. You can’t outlaw stupidity. It won’t prevent this from happening again, and by criminalizing certain kinds of miscarriage you are essentially saying that all unexplained miscarriages are potentially a crime scene – which is a revolting idea liable to lead to horrific miscarriages of justice. I’m right with you there.
Well, beginning by stipulating that this assumes that the case has been accurately reported, which is not at all a certain thing, but taking that as a given-
It is certainly worth looking at what things could have headed off this situation – better sex education and provision of contraception would certainly be a good place to start. I’m not at all denying that. Nor am I saying that what she did ought to be a crime (at least for her; for it to be a crime to be the person paid to do it is not a problem for me).
But I have no problem saying that if the facts are as-described, that she was aware she was pregnant, and she intended to deliver through the first two trimesters but changed her mind in the third trimester, I’m sorry, that is stupid. Not criminal, no. Just stupid.
And there is nothing special about Utah if we’re talking about ability to obtain a legal third-trimester abortion when the fetus is healthy and poses no special threat to the health of the mother. It’s illegal in many states and for that matter it’s illegal in Britain. I don’t think it needs to be illegal, but I have no problem saying it would be immoral and abhorrent, and in having a cultural norm that says that that specific case is repulsive. The difference between a cultural norm and a law is very significant. Cultural norms do not conduct investigations and prosecutions, they don’t throw people in jail, they are much less likely than a law to deter legitimate use of the procedure.
I believe that the fact that it is abhorrent is sufficient motivation to prevent most cases from occurring, and I trust that most people have the moral sense to keep from doing it. I think that the legal restrictions tend to make it difficult for women to obtain a late-term abortion when there are major fetal abnormalities or when the health of the mother is genuinely in danger, and that in any case the law is the wrong instrument for dealing with it. But I think it’s profoundly unhelpful to act as if there is a moral equivalence between a late-term abortion prompted by medical reasons and a late-term abortion for purely elective reasons. Statements that express a desired cultural norm of accepting late-term elective abortion hurt, not help, the cause of choice. There are very few people who think that we should accept – in a moral sense – that sort of procedure. Acting as if that is an accepted norm on the pro-choice side (rightfully) scares the crap out of people, and is hardly going to prompt them to loosen legal restrictions.
The fact is, those cases are extremely rare, because most people are not stupid, and the existing taboo on late-term elective abortion is extremely strong. As a practical matter, the arguments that apply to early-term abortions apply much less strongly to late-term abortions. By very late in term, with a healthy fetus, abortion carries many of the same kinds of risks as live delivery, and the “use of the mother’s organs” has already run most of its course.
There are still times when it might be legitimate. I don’t think the law should be the one distinguishing between the two cases; the law is a blunt instrument. I trust in people’s moral sense.
But not everyone has much of a moral sense. And if the facts are as reported, this girl did not have much of one, nor much foresight or compassion; she was stupid. You don’t sit around knowing you’re pregnant for six or seven months and then decide, “Gee, I don’t want to have this baby now” unless you are a moral idiot.
Now, making a law against it is even more stupid. You can’t outlaw stupidity. It won’t prevent this from happening again, and by criminalizing certain kinds of miscarriage you are essentially saying that all unexplained miscarriages are potentially a crime scene – which is a revolting idea liable to lead to horrific miscarriages of justice. I’m right with you there.
Run it through again bearing in mind we are discussing a 17-year-old girl.
One of the reasons why I’d absolutely support her right to have an abortion – beyond my general principle that no woman should have her body used against her will – is that if you turn a teenager away from getting a safe, legal abortion… you have just upped the odds that (a) she will procure a miscarriage in some sufficiently crazy way that it will cause her long-term damage or (b) she will commit infanticide because her mind literally cannot cope with the baby.
I think it’s every woman’s right to have an abortion, even if I find her reasons for it abhorrent.
I think a teenage girl deserves more help and more support than the fetus she is carrying does.
And I think that when the consequences of denying a teenager help are so bloody, the proper reaction is not a smug “oh, she was stupid”, or a disgusting “oh, she’s hardly a poster child”, or a truly abhorrent decision to pass a law so that the next teenager can be jailed …
…it’s to resolve that the next time a teenager in that situation needs help – even if the help they need is an abortion you personally don’t approve of – she should get that help. And let her be the one to decide when and what she’s going to tell her parents.
Run it through again bearing in mind we are discussing a 17-year-old girl.
One of the reasons why I’d absolutely support her right to have an abortion – beyond my general principle that no woman should have her body used against her will – is that if you turn a teenager away from getting a safe, legal abortion… you have just upped the odds that (a) she will procure a miscarriage in some sufficiently crazy way that it will cause her long-term damage or (b) she will commit infanticide because her mind literally cannot cope with the baby.
I think it’s every woman’s right to have an abortion, even if I find her reasons for it abhorrent.
I think a teenage girl deserves more help and more support than the fetus she is carrying does.
And I think that when the consequences of denying a teenager help are so bloody, the proper reaction is not a smug “oh, she was stupid”, or a disgusting “oh, she’s hardly a poster child”, or a truly abhorrent decision to pass a law so that the next teenager can be jailed …
…it’s to resolve that the next time a teenager in that situation needs help – even if the help they need is an abortion you personally don’t approve of – she should get that help. And let her be the one to decide when and what she’s going to tell her parents.
No. A fetus is not a child. You cannot make a fetus into a child by arguing that people ought to think of fetuses as exactly the same as babies or as children.
The problem is that you accept that a fetus is a human. And a person. And it’s human rights that matter. Children are a subset thereof. You have conceded that a fetus is a human but not one with any rights at all. Here is where your approach becomes repulsive.
If you find it repulsive that people own their own bodies, why would you object to the thinking of the slaveowner in the Deep South?
I do not find the concept of owning bodies repulsive. I find repulsive the idea that this gives you an arbitrary right to kill people who you made dependent on your good grace.
They’re heroes, Sebastian. The pro-life movement have succeeded in driving out everyone who isn’t prepared to be a hero.
Agreed. The Pro-life movement deserves to be fucked sideways with a coracle. Before the pro-life movement made Dr. Tiller into a martyr, there were only three doctors in the entire United States of America who were brave enough to perform third term abortions.
Let’s not have any doubts about this, Francis, Sebastian: people who do this hate women.
A subset of the pro-life movement hate women, granted. I have two litmus tests – anyone trying to ban abortion and anyone trying to restrict contraception at all need to be opposed. But I know a number of pro-life (female) feminists. I know a number of highly conflicted Roman Catholics who are pro-life because of the objectively disordered* teachings of the Vatican. Those people do not hate women. Quite the reverse. And on most issues most of them agree with you. (Hell, on many I agree with you). But they do identify as pro-life.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is evil. (Some are. Joseph Ratzinger is lower on my scale of people to be civil about than Dick Cheney, and that takes some doing.) Some simply start from different premises and are trying to do the best they can.
By the concessions you have made about the nature of a fetus, you have staked out a position where if you use words the same way I do, if I held those premises I would be forced over to the pro-life camp. And that is why I argue so strongly against you here.
(Oh, and the car analogy was originally my counter to the too common violinist analogy. The reason the violinist needs the potential donor’s kidneys is because the donor knocked him down with the car meaning that the violinist did not have a working set. And in that case if the donor doesn’t donate then the violinist dies and the donor is tried for manslaughter. If the donor donates the donor isn’t tried for manslaughter because the victim is still alive.)
* If the Vatican can claim that homosexuality is objectively disordered then I can claim that the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic teachings about sex, not limited to Contraception, Abortion, Homophobia, and Pristly Celibacy, and random mysogeny are all objectively disordered. And believe I have far more evidence to back this up.
No. A fetus is not a child. You cannot make a fetus into a child by arguing that people ought to think of fetuses as exactly the same as babies or as children.
The problem is that you accept that a fetus is a human. And a person. And it’s human rights that matter. Children are a subset thereof. You have conceded that a fetus is a human but not one with any rights at all. Here is where your approach becomes repulsive.
If you find it repulsive that people own their own bodies, why would you object to the thinking of the slaveowner in the Deep South?
I do not find the concept of owning bodies repulsive. I find repulsive the idea that this gives you an arbitrary right to kill people who you made dependent on your good grace.
They’re heroes, Sebastian. The pro-life movement have succeeded in driving out everyone who isn’t prepared to be a hero.
Agreed. The Pro-life movement deserves to be fucked sideways with a coracle. Before the pro-life movement made Dr. Tiller into a martyr, there were only three doctors in the entire United States of America who were brave enough to perform third term abortions.
Let’s not have any doubts about this, Francis, Sebastian: people who do this hate women.
A subset of the pro-life movement hate women, granted. I have two litmus tests – anyone trying to ban abortion and anyone trying to restrict contraception at all need to be opposed. But I know a number of pro-life (female) feminists. I know a number of highly conflicted Roman Catholics who are pro-life because of the objectively disordered* teachings of the Vatican. Those people do not hate women. Quite the reverse. And on most issues most of them agree with you. (Hell, on many I agree with you). But they do identify as pro-life.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is evil. (Some are. Joseph Ratzinger is lower on my scale of people to be civil about than Dick Cheney, and that takes some doing.) Some simply start from different premises and are trying to do the best they can.
By the concessions you have made about the nature of a fetus, you have staked out a position where if you use words the same way I do, if I held those premises I would be forced over to the pro-life camp. And that is why I argue so strongly against you here.
(Oh, and the car analogy was originally my counter to the too common violinist analogy. The reason the violinist needs the potential donor’s kidneys is because the donor knocked him down with the car meaning that the violinist did not have a working set. And in that case if the donor doesn’t donate then the violinist dies and the donor is tried for manslaughter. If the donor donates the donor isn’t tried for manslaughter because the victim is still alive.)
* If the Vatican can claim that homosexuality is objectively disordered then I can claim that the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic teachings about sex, not limited to Contraception, Abortion, Homophobia, and Pristly Celibacy, and random mysogeny are all objectively disordered. And believe I have far more evidence to back this up.
“Utah has parental notification laws, so that in order to get an abortion legally, this girl would have had to tell her parents or to convince a judge that she’d be at physical risk if she did tell her parents.”
Parental notification laws have nothing to do with this case.
She couldn’t get an abortion because she was seeking one after the seventh month where the fetus provided no danger to her. She was seeking a medically unnecessary late term abortion. (The kind you have repeatedly said women don’t seek, and which you have repeatedly said are a figment of my imagination).
Her abortion would have been illegal in the UK and pretty much anywhere in Europe. So this isn’t some weird US law.
In fact, the weird thing is that the abortion would have been legal in any state at all, and that in some of the larger states she almost certainly would have found a Planned Parenthood or other abortionist willing to lie and say that it was medically necessary.
The funny thing about you raising this case, is that you are playing into the patriarchy under the pretense of women’s rights. She wanted to keep her baby until her boyfriend said he was going to break up with her over it. Only then did she want to kill her baby. He told her to get rid of it, and she tried to. Abortion as a tool of male power over women. Good show, Jes.
“Utah has parental notification laws, so that in order to get an abortion legally, this girl would have had to tell her parents or to convince a judge that she’d be at physical risk if she did tell her parents.”
Parental notification laws have nothing to do with this case.
She couldn’t get an abortion because she was seeking one after the seventh month where the fetus provided no danger to her. She was seeking a medically unnecessary late term abortion. (The kind you have repeatedly said women don’t seek, and which you have repeatedly said are a figment of my imagination).
Her abortion would have been illegal in the UK and pretty much anywhere in Europe. So this isn’t some weird US law.
In fact, the weird thing is that the abortion would have been legal in any state at all, and that in some of the larger states she almost certainly would have found a Planned Parenthood or other abortionist willing to lie and say that it was medically necessary.
The funny thing about you raising this case, is that you are playing into the patriarchy under the pretense of women’s rights. She wanted to keep her baby until her boyfriend said he was going to break up with her over it. Only then did she want to kill her baby. He told her to get rid of it, and she tried to. Abortion as a tool of male power over women. Good show, Jes.
(Again, all of this assumes that the description of the facts of the case is accurate, and much of my response would be different if the facts were different.)
Jes: I’d absolutely support her right to have an abortion – beyond my general principle that no woman should have her body used against her will
Look, if you know you’re pregnant, make no attempt to obtain an abortion earlier, in fact state that you wish to have the baby, and wait until the third trimester to decide that you want an abortion, I think it’s a real stretch to say that it’s “your body being used against your will”. I’m all for choices, I appreciate that it may take people some time to make up their minds one way or another, and that a lot of the time people don’t realize that they’re pregnant until quite late (occasionally until they actually give birth). But I also think that once you’ve known for a while, and assuming that you do have options available to you – as this girl did, even if those options were unjustly restricted by parental notification – you have to make a decision one way or another. If you decide to have the baby, having had plenty of time to think about it early in the term, as this girl apparently did, the fetus is not “using your body against your will”. It’s using your body with your consent. It’s not a good thing to do that and then decide in the 7th month that you changed your mind. I don’t believe that should be illegal, I think the law is a pretty bad way of drawing lines around these kinds of things, but I sure believe it is wrong. I don’t want to “punish women for sex”, but
is that if you turn a teenager away from getting a safe, legal abortion… you have just upped the odds that (a) she will procure a miscarriage in some sufficiently crazy way that it will cause her long-term damage or (b) she will commit infanticide because her mind literally cannot cope with the baby
I’d really like some statistics on the occurrence of those two things in response to the unavailability of late-term abortions, since late-term elective abortions are illegal almost everywhere, teenagers get pregnant all the time, and yet those kinds of events are extremely rare.
In any case, I don’t think they should be illegal, although in fact they are illegal almost everywhere. The law is the wrong instrument for those kinds of decisions, although for me what is far more important is the chilling effect that legal restrictions have on medically-necessary late-term abortions. What I think is that making a personal moral judgment about them is justified, and that a desirable cultural norm should acknowledge the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy once you learn about it, accept that it may take some people some time to decide, accept that some people may not realize they are pregnant for some time, accept that fetal abnormalities or threats to the health of the mother may necessitate a later abortion, accept that making the decision about those things must in the end be made by the woman and not by a third party or a law, but at the same time acknowledge that once you’ve made an informed decision to continue a pregnancy – which requires actual choices, and I appreciate that the choices available to this girl were limited – it’s not a good thing to decide to abort it in the third trimester.
That cultural norm already exists and is widely held. I think very few people, even people who are strongly pro-choice, think that it is perfectly okay to have a late term elective abortion just because you changed your mind. And while I respect your right to express an opinion and to make your own moral judgments, I think that the way you talk about this is unlikely to convince anyone who has any qualms at all about abortion. Expanded access to early-term elective abortion – and in cases of medical necessity to late-term abortion – is not something to be sacrificed to absolutism. The fact that I don’t think the law should be involved doesn’t change the reality that it is involved now, and that this kind of opinion gets us absolutely nowhere in expanding access to early-term abortion.
(Again, all of this assumes that the description of the facts of the case is accurate, and much of my response would be different if the facts were different.)
Jes: I’d absolutely support her right to have an abortion – beyond my general principle that no woman should have her body used against her will
Look, if you know you’re pregnant, make no attempt to obtain an abortion earlier, in fact state that you wish to have the baby, and wait until the third trimester to decide that you want an abortion, I think it’s a real stretch to say that it’s “your body being used against your will”. I’m all for choices, I appreciate that it may take people some time to make up their minds one way or another, and that a lot of the time people don’t realize that they’re pregnant until quite late (occasionally until they actually give birth). But I also think that once you’ve known for a while, and assuming that you do have options available to you – as this girl did, even if those options were unjustly restricted by parental notification – you have to make a decision one way or another. If you decide to have the baby, having had plenty of time to think about it early in the term, as this girl apparently did, the fetus is not “using your body against your will”. It’s using your body with your consent. It’s not a good thing to do that and then decide in the 7th month that you changed your mind. I don’t believe that should be illegal, I think the law is a pretty bad way of drawing lines around these kinds of things, but I sure believe it is wrong. I don’t want to “punish women for sex”, but
is that if you turn a teenager away from getting a safe, legal abortion… you have just upped the odds that (a) she will procure a miscarriage in some sufficiently crazy way that it will cause her long-term damage or (b) she will commit infanticide because her mind literally cannot cope with the baby
I’d really like some statistics on the occurrence of those two things in response to the unavailability of late-term abortions, since late-term elective abortions are illegal almost everywhere, teenagers get pregnant all the time, and yet those kinds of events are extremely rare.
In any case, I don’t think they should be illegal, although in fact they are illegal almost everywhere. The law is the wrong instrument for those kinds of decisions, although for me what is far more important is the chilling effect that legal restrictions have on medically-necessary late-term abortions. What I think is that making a personal moral judgment about them is justified, and that a desirable cultural norm should acknowledge the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy once you learn about it, accept that it may take some people some time to decide, accept that some people may not realize they are pregnant for some time, accept that fetal abnormalities or threats to the health of the mother may necessitate a later abortion, accept that making the decision about those things must in the end be made by the woman and not by a third party or a law, but at the same time acknowledge that once you’ve made an informed decision to continue a pregnancy – which requires actual choices, and I appreciate that the choices available to this girl were limited – it’s not a good thing to decide to abort it in the third trimester.
That cultural norm already exists and is widely held. I think very few people, even people who are strongly pro-choice, think that it is perfectly okay to have a late term elective abortion just because you changed your mind. And while I respect your right to express an opinion and to make your own moral judgments, I think that the way you talk about this is unlikely to convince anyone who has any qualms at all about abortion. Expanded access to early-term elective abortion – and in cases of medical necessity to late-term abortion – is not something to be sacrificed to absolutism. The fact that I don’t think the law should be involved doesn’t change the reality that it is involved now, and that this kind of opinion gets us absolutely nowhere in expanding access to early-term abortion.
Francis: The problem is that you accept that a fetus is a human. And a person. And it’s human rights that matter.
Absolutely. The problem is that I accept that a woman is a human. And a person. And it’s human rights that matter.
I find repulsive the idea that this gives you an arbitrary right to kill people who you made dependent on your good grace.
So you would support legislation giving people the right to take – without consent – the organs of their matched donors? Have you ever donated a kidney to a dialysis patient? If not, how repelled do you feel about yourself that you have taken the arbitrary right to kill a person who was made dependent on your good grace?
A subset of the pro-life movement hate women, granted. I have two litmus tests – anyone trying to ban abortion and anyone trying to restrict contraception at all need to be opposed. But I know a number of pro-life (female) feminists. I know a number of highly conflicted Roman Catholics who are pro-life because of the objectively disordered* teachings of the Vatican. Those people do not hate women. Quite the reverse. And on most issues most of them agree with you. (Hell, on many I agree with you). But they do identify as pro-life.
I know. But when you pin them down and ask them to face who they think ought to have the right to decide, and really answer honestly – while for some reason they still want to publicly identify with the terrorist movement they claim to hate, they are in fact pro-choice, not pro-life at all.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is evil.
What? That’s crazy talk!
More seriously, Francis, the fact that you sufficiently identify with the pro-life movement that you are aware is a terrorist movement, that you use their rhetoric about “killing children” that justified murdering Doctor Tiller, makes you more on their side than on the side of the women whose lives he saved, and yet you seem to be well aware that’s the evil side to be on. Why choose evil, when you have sufficient self-awareness to know it’s evil?
By the concessions you have made about the nature of a fetus, you have staked out a position where if you use words the same way I do, if I held those premises I would be forced over to the pro-life camp.
Because you do not regard women as having human rights….? Because seriously, Francis, to me it’s a no-brainer: women are human, human rights are paramount, no one has the right to use another human’s body unconsenting, so abortion on demand is the only moral option. You keep going back to arguing that a fetus is human, as if you simply aren’t aware that women are human.
Francis: The problem is that you accept that a fetus is a human. And a person. And it’s human rights that matter.
Absolutely. The problem is that I accept that a woman is a human. And a person. And it’s human rights that matter.
I find repulsive the idea that this gives you an arbitrary right to kill people who you made dependent on your good grace.
So you would support legislation giving people the right to take – without consent – the organs of their matched donors? Have you ever donated a kidney to a dialysis patient? If not, how repelled do you feel about yourself that you have taken the arbitrary right to kill a person who was made dependent on your good grace?
A subset of the pro-life movement hate women, granted. I have two litmus tests – anyone trying to ban abortion and anyone trying to restrict contraception at all need to be opposed. But I know a number of pro-life (female) feminists. I know a number of highly conflicted Roman Catholics who are pro-life because of the objectively disordered* teachings of the Vatican. Those people do not hate women. Quite the reverse. And on most issues most of them agree with you. (Hell, on many I agree with you). But they do identify as pro-life.
I know. But when you pin them down and ask them to face who they think ought to have the right to decide, and really answer honestly – while for some reason they still want to publicly identify with the terrorist movement they claim to hate, they are in fact pro-choice, not pro-life at all.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is evil.
What? That’s crazy talk!
More seriously, Francis, the fact that you sufficiently identify with the pro-life movement that you are aware is a terrorist movement, that you use their rhetoric about “killing children” that justified murdering Doctor Tiller, makes you more on their side than on the side of the women whose lives he saved, and yet you seem to be well aware that’s the evil side to be on. Why choose evil, when you have sufficient self-awareness to know it’s evil?
By the concessions you have made about the nature of a fetus, you have staked out a position where if you use words the same way I do, if I held those premises I would be forced over to the pro-life camp.
Because you do not regard women as having human rights….? Because seriously, Francis, to me it’s a no-brainer: women are human, human rights are paramount, no one has the right to use another human’s body unconsenting, so abortion on demand is the only moral option. You keep going back to arguing that a fetus is human, as if you simply aren’t aware that women are human.
Jacob, Sebastian: again, seventeen-year-old girl. When you can show you have actually put yourself into the position of a teenage pregnant girl, you might have something worthwhile to say – as it stands, you both just come across as smug gits.
(And Jacob: if you want stats on infanticide, I suggest you go look ’em up yourself. Sebastian I know already has neither compassion nor interest for women… you might find research helped you get the point.)
Jacob, Sebastian: again, seventeen-year-old girl. When you can show you have actually put yourself into the position of a teenage pregnant girl, you might have something worthwhile to say – as it stands, you both just come across as smug gits.
(And Jacob: if you want stats on infanticide, I suggest you go look ’em up yourself. Sebastian I know already has neither compassion nor interest for women… you might find research helped you get the point.)
Yes, Jes, a 17 year old girl. You know what? We don’t let 17 year old girls kill people. There’s a reason elective abortions beyond the point of viability are almost universally illegal: It’s murder, with no excuse for it. Once the baby can be delivered alive, the pregnancy can be ended without anybody dying.
Both the pro-life, and pro-choice movements have their extremists, who carry the cause to the point of moral insanity. You’re proof enough of that.
Yes, Jes, a 17 year old girl. You know what? We don’t let 17 year old girls kill people. There’s a reason elective abortions beyond the point of viability are almost universally illegal: It’s murder, with no excuse for it. Once the baby can be delivered alive, the pregnancy can be ended without anybody dying.
Both the pro-life, and pro-choice movements have their extremists, who carry the cause to the point of moral insanity. You’re proof enough of that.
Once the baby can be delivered alive, the pregnancy can be ended without anybody dying.
Sure, so long as you’re willing to violate a living woman’s bodily sovereignty.
And that concludes another lecture on morality, with absolutely ludicrous and contradictory conclusions, from Fake Libertarian Brett Bellmore.
Once the baby can be delivered alive, the pregnancy can be ended without anybody dying.
Sure, so long as you’re willing to violate a living woman’s bodily sovereignty.
And that concludes another lecture on morality, with absolutely ludicrous and contradictory conclusions, from Fake Libertarian Brett Bellmore.
One of the brilliant aspects of the decision in Roe v. Wade was Justice Blackmun’s careful discussion of the rights of a woman being, throughout the pregnancy, paramount, but at the same time acknowledging that as the fetus comes closer to term, its potential becomes a more legitimate subject of societal interest. Ultimately, the woman’s life and health is paramount in all three trimesters of pregnancy, but as the fetus becomes viable, there becomes a greater burden on the mother to justify ending a pregnancy.
I don’t really see a problem with the logic of Roe v. Wade, which accommodates mainstream cultural beliefs (including some historical wisdom) and science, and it gives great latitude for a woman to protect her lifestyle, health and life throughout her pregnancy.
One of the brilliant aspects of the decision in Roe v. Wade was Justice Blackmun’s careful discussion of the rights of a woman being, throughout the pregnancy, paramount, but at the same time acknowledging that as the fetus comes closer to term, its potential becomes a more legitimate subject of societal interest. Ultimately, the woman’s life and health is paramount in all three trimesters of pregnancy, but as the fetus becomes viable, there becomes a greater burden on the mother to justify ending a pregnancy.
I don’t really see a problem with the logic of Roe v. Wade, which accommodates mainstream cultural beliefs (including some historical wisdom) and science, and it gives great latitude for a woman to protect her lifestyle, health and life throughout her pregnancy.
I agree with every word Jacob Davies wrote, and I’m not sure how his clear statement that he does not believe third-trimester abortions should be legally restricted would not be taken as a sufficiently pro-choice statement, regardless of his stated personal opinions on the morality of the the Vernal, Utah case of Aaron Harrison. Isn’t that the essence of “pro-choice,” or does pro-choice mean you cannot think or say anything regarding the morality what other people do, no matter how extreme?
I agree with every word Jacob Davies wrote, and I’m not sure how his clear statement that he does not believe third-trimester abortions should be legally restricted would not be taken as a sufficiently pro-choice statement, regardless of his stated personal opinions on the morality of the the Vernal, Utah case of Aaron Harrison. Isn’t that the essence of “pro-choice,” or does pro-choice mean you cannot think or say anything regarding the morality what other people do, no matter how extreme?
Jes: Jacob: if you want stats on infanticide, I suggest you go look ’em up yourself.
Don’t take this too personally, but if you want your arguments to be seriously considered you’re going to have to do better than this. I didn’t bring up the claim that unavailability of late-term abortion led to high rates of infanticide and induced miscarriage; you did. Unless you want your readers to assume you’re a fabulist, you have to be willing to produce evidence to support factual claims you make. Telling them to find it themselves isn’t going to cut it.
I understand that this was a 17 year old girl, however, 17 year old girls do not get a pass on basic morality. We accept that teenagers make stupid decisions, I don’t think she should be punished, I don’t think we need laws against that kind of stupidity, but (assumingagainthecasehasbeenaccuratelyreported) I think we are justified in making a moral judgment. So are you, and you are welcome to yours, but I’m saying it’s not a very helpful one.
What is really missing from this is a discussion of trust. Trust in cultural norms and in the basic morality of one’s fellow citizens is what prevents us from needing laws governing every damn thing a person can do, and law enforcement that watches every second of our lives to ensure compliance. Trust does not require absolute agreement; it just requires the belief that certain underlying values are shared, even if we differ in implementation. I trust that a bunch of fundamentalist Christians are going to look after their children pretty well even if they homeschool them and don’t teach them about evolution. I trust that people who voted for George W. Bush twice are not in fact menaces to society. We deplore the lack of trust in good intentions that has supported the conspiracy theories about Obama. And a decent, stable compromise on abortion – and it will be a compromise, because as you might have noticed, people don’t agree – requires a trust by opponents of abortion, people who fear that they are licensing all kinds of what-they-consider-immoral behavior beyond “choice” and “medical necessity”. That trust needs to be that people supporting access to abortion do not intend to throw all moral concerns out the window.
In what I have read, and I’ve read a fair amount, this is in fact how those doctors willing to perform late-term abortions where it is legal behaved. I think that trust is justified. I have a very high level of trust in human behavior, especially given all that I have read about the moral thoughtfulness of those doctors.
But you’re not doing them – or women who might very badly need a late-term abortion for medical reasons – any favors by suggesting that the ideal regime of pro-choicers is some zone where conventional morality simply doesn’t apply, where it’s not even okay to say that a 17 year old who changes her mind about delivering her fetus 7 months into pregnancy is stupid. That’s harmful, it undermines the trust that would support a reasonable compromise.
I would give anything for the state of the law in the US to be what it is in Britain – a compromise, one which makes certain kinds of abortion illegal, but one which allows a great many people who have the most pressing need for abortion to obtain them. It is not a political wedge issue, it is not used to imply that anyone supporting the status quo is a baby-murderer (or hates women), it just is, and it’s a lot better than the crazy-quilt system in the US, where abortion access & legality varies wildly from place to place. In my opinion, the difference is trust: in Britain, there is much greater trust that doctors and women will make morally acceptable decisions about abortion, even if that trust is not absolute, given the legal restrictions on late-term abortions.
It’s not my ideal legal framework, because I do trust that doctors and women can make these decisions. But it’s better than what we have in the US. Even in those states where abortion restrictions are extremely lax by comparison, in practical terms access to abortion is much more restricted than it is in Britain.
Jes: Jacob: if you want stats on infanticide, I suggest you go look ’em up yourself.
Don’t take this too personally, but if you want your arguments to be seriously considered you’re going to have to do better than this. I didn’t bring up the claim that unavailability of late-term abortion led to high rates of infanticide and induced miscarriage; you did. Unless you want your readers to assume you’re a fabulist, you have to be willing to produce evidence to support factual claims you make. Telling them to find it themselves isn’t going to cut it.
I understand that this was a 17 year old girl, however, 17 year old girls do not get a pass on basic morality. We accept that teenagers make stupid decisions, I don’t think she should be punished, I don’t think we need laws against that kind of stupidity, but (assumingagainthecasehasbeenaccuratelyreported) I think we are justified in making a moral judgment. So are you, and you are welcome to yours, but I’m saying it’s not a very helpful one.
What is really missing from this is a discussion of trust. Trust in cultural norms and in the basic morality of one’s fellow citizens is what prevents us from needing laws governing every damn thing a person can do, and law enforcement that watches every second of our lives to ensure compliance. Trust does not require absolute agreement; it just requires the belief that certain underlying values are shared, even if we differ in implementation. I trust that a bunch of fundamentalist Christians are going to look after their children pretty well even if they homeschool them and don’t teach them about evolution. I trust that people who voted for George W. Bush twice are not in fact menaces to society. We deplore the lack of trust in good intentions that has supported the conspiracy theories about Obama. And a decent, stable compromise on abortion – and it will be a compromise, because as you might have noticed, people don’t agree – requires a trust by opponents of abortion, people who fear that they are licensing all kinds of what-they-consider-immoral behavior beyond “choice” and “medical necessity”. That trust needs to be that people supporting access to abortion do not intend to throw all moral concerns out the window.
In what I have read, and I’ve read a fair amount, this is in fact how those doctors willing to perform late-term abortions where it is legal behaved. I think that trust is justified. I have a very high level of trust in human behavior, especially given all that I have read about the moral thoughtfulness of those doctors.
But you’re not doing them – or women who might very badly need a late-term abortion for medical reasons – any favors by suggesting that the ideal regime of pro-choicers is some zone where conventional morality simply doesn’t apply, where it’s not even okay to say that a 17 year old who changes her mind about delivering her fetus 7 months into pregnancy is stupid. That’s harmful, it undermines the trust that would support a reasonable compromise.
I would give anything for the state of the law in the US to be what it is in Britain – a compromise, one which makes certain kinds of abortion illegal, but one which allows a great many people who have the most pressing need for abortion to obtain them. It is not a political wedge issue, it is not used to imply that anyone supporting the status quo is a baby-murderer (or hates women), it just is, and it’s a lot better than the crazy-quilt system in the US, where abortion access & legality varies wildly from place to place. In my opinion, the difference is trust: in Britain, there is much greater trust that doctors and women will make morally acceptable decisions about abortion, even if that trust is not absolute, given the legal restrictions on late-term abortions.
It’s not my ideal legal framework, because I do trust that doctors and women can make these decisions. But it’s better than what we have in the US. Even in those states where abortion restrictions are extremely lax by comparison, in practical terms access to abortion is much more restricted than it is in Britain.
“In my opinion, the difference is trust: in Britain, there is much greater trust that doctors and women will make morally acceptable decisions about abortion, even if that trust is not absolute, given the legal restrictions on late-term abortions.”
I think that’s because England didn’t have Roe v Wade, or Doe v Bolton. Having the courts impose by fiat something approximating the most extreme position of pro-choicers has really warped things here. I’m sure that, in England, somebody like Jes can be pretty much ignored, because her views have no chance of being implemented. Here, what with the courts, we can’t count on that.
“In my opinion, the difference is trust: in Britain, there is much greater trust that doctors and women will make morally acceptable decisions about abortion, even if that trust is not absolute, given the legal restrictions on late-term abortions.”
I think that’s because England didn’t have Roe v Wade, or Doe v Bolton. Having the courts impose by fiat something approximating the most extreme position of pro-choicers has really warped things here. I’m sure that, in England, somebody like Jes can be pretty much ignored, because her views have no chance of being implemented. Here, what with the courts, we can’t count on that.
I think that’s because England didn’t have Roe v Wade, or Doe v Bolton. Having the courts impose by fiat something approximating the most extreme position of pro-choicers has really warped things here
Likewise, there was no racism before Brown vs. Board of Education imposed the most extreme position of the integrationists.
I think that’s because England didn’t have Roe v Wade, or Doe v Bolton. Having the courts impose by fiat something approximating the most extreme position of pro-choicers has really warped things here
Likewise, there was no racism before Brown vs. Board of Education imposed the most extreme position of the integrationists.
There have been similar numbers of arsons against university animal and genetics research labs as against abortion centers, especially in the last ten years (in which abortion violence has been on a steep decline
As mentioned, the only doctor who performs abortions in South Dakota flies there once a week. Do you think that that’s because there’s such small demand for abortions in a state of almost a million people, or is it a result of the harassment campaign against abortionists? And do you think that the success of this campaign in reducing the number of abortionists is unrelated to the decline in the number of violent incidents against them?
There have been similar numbers of arsons against university animal and genetics research labs as against abortion centers, especially in the last ten years (in which abortion violence has been on a steep decline
As mentioned, the only doctor who performs abortions in South Dakota flies there once a week. Do you think that that’s because there’s such small demand for abortions in a state of almost a million people, or is it a result of the harassment campaign against abortionists? And do you think that the success of this campaign in reducing the number of abortionists is unrelated to the decline in the number of violent incidents against them?
And in case it’s not perfectly clear, I couldn’t care less about this girl, and in an ideal world I would never have heard about the whole event. It’s not a good case for pro-life activists or pro-choice activists, and if I had my way neither side would be attempting to use it to advance their cause.
It’s just trivial, stupid crap that worked itself out without anyone getting badly hurt, which is about all you can hope for when you’re a kinda dumb 17 year old like pretty much all of us once were. I’m perfectly well aware that passing judgment on the behavior of 17 year olds makes you come off as a “smug git” and I generally don’t waste my time on it, but both sides – Jes here, the Utah legislature elsewhere – were attempting to use this stupid case as proof positive of their own ineluctable rightness. Well, it doesn’t prove either side right. This girl is not a tormented victim of abortion law, nor is she a harbinger of a wave of teenage miscarriage-inducers.
In opposing the use of her case as motivation for a new law making every miscarriage a potential crime scene, I think it is reasonable to point out that this kind of thing is extremely rare because most people are not that stupid. I don’t think some kind of solidarity requires me to pretend that I don’t think it was stupid.
And in case it’s not perfectly clear, I couldn’t care less about this girl, and in an ideal world I would never have heard about the whole event. It’s not a good case for pro-life activists or pro-choice activists, and if I had my way neither side would be attempting to use it to advance their cause.
It’s just trivial, stupid crap that worked itself out without anyone getting badly hurt, which is about all you can hope for when you’re a kinda dumb 17 year old like pretty much all of us once were. I’m perfectly well aware that passing judgment on the behavior of 17 year olds makes you come off as a “smug git” and I generally don’t waste my time on it, but both sides – Jes here, the Utah legislature elsewhere – were attempting to use this stupid case as proof positive of their own ineluctable rightness. Well, it doesn’t prove either side right. This girl is not a tormented victim of abortion law, nor is she a harbinger of a wave of teenage miscarriage-inducers.
In opposing the use of her case as motivation for a new law making every miscarriage a potential crime scene, I think it is reasonable to point out that this kind of thing is extremely rare because most people are not that stupid. I don’t think some kind of solidarity requires me to pretend that I don’t think it was stupid.
I think that’s because England didn’t have Roe v Wade, or Doe v Bolton. Having the courts impose by fiat something approximating the most extreme position of pro-choicers has really warped things here.
The simplest answer to that, Brett, is … no.
The right to have an abortion in the UK was imposed by fiat (a Private Member’s Bill that was made law in 1967, supported by MPs who understood that the issue was that women didn’t deserve to die), and then the feminist movement worked on improving access – which was of course easier with the NHS than with the US’s already substandard healthcare system.
Pro-lifers in the UK (this is anecdotal, I’m just going by what they say when we talk about abortion rights without yelling at each other, which I admit isn’t often) regard the violent and unprincipled terrorism of the pro-life movement in the US as an embarrassment to their cause: they usually want to be quite clear that violence in the name of preventing women having access to abortions is an American thing. Also, the kind of harassment that’s allowed outside US health clinics of patients and staff going in and out would likely not be allowed in the UK: the worst I’ve ever seen a group of pro-lifers outside a hospital do is stand quietly and hand out leaflets. (If they can: they have to be political, as it’s illegal to hand out leaflets on the street unless you have a trading permit or unless they’re directly political.)
I think that’s because England didn’t have Roe v Wade, or Doe v Bolton. Having the courts impose by fiat something approximating the most extreme position of pro-choicers has really warped things here.
The simplest answer to that, Brett, is … no.
The right to have an abortion in the UK was imposed by fiat (a Private Member’s Bill that was made law in 1967, supported by MPs who understood that the issue was that women didn’t deserve to die), and then the feminist movement worked on improving access – which was of course easier with the NHS than with the US’s already substandard healthcare system.
Pro-lifers in the UK (this is anecdotal, I’m just going by what they say when we talk about abortion rights without yelling at each other, which I admit isn’t often) regard the violent and unprincipled terrorism of the pro-life movement in the US as an embarrassment to their cause: they usually want to be quite clear that violence in the name of preventing women having access to abortions is an American thing. Also, the kind of harassment that’s allowed outside US health clinics of patients and staff going in and out would likely not be allowed in the UK: the worst I’ve ever seen a group of pro-lifers outside a hospital do is stand quietly and hand out leaflets. (If they can: they have to be political, as it’s illegal to hand out leaflets on the street unless you have a trading permit or unless they’re directly political.)
Jacob: I’m perfectly well aware that passing judgment on the behavior of 17 year olds makes you come off as a “smug git” and I generally don’t waste my time on it
And I think you should stick to that.
Jacob: I’m perfectly well aware that passing judgment on the behavior of 17 year olds makes you come off as a “smug git” and I generally don’t waste my time on it
And I think you should stick to that.
And I think you should stick to that.
After you, I insist.
And I think you should stick to that.
After you, I insist.
“As mentioned, the only doctor who performs abortions in South Dakota flies there once a week.”
Cite?
My understanding is that the only one who provides THIRD trimester abortions flies in. That would be a rather different proposition, right?
And Jesurgislac, telling someone to not pass judgment is almost humorous coming from you. Are you even aware of non-judgmental as a potential state of mind? 😉
“As mentioned, the only doctor who performs abortions in South Dakota flies there once a week.”
Cite?
My understanding is that the only one who provides THIRD trimester abortions flies in. That would be a rather different proposition, right?
And Jesurgislac, telling someone to not pass judgment is almost humorous coming from you. Are you even aware of non-judgmental as a potential state of mind? 😉
“The right to have an abortion in the UK was imposed by fiat (a Private Member’s Bill that was made law in 1967, supported by MPs who understood that the issue was that women didn’t deserve to die)”
I think we’ve got a different understanding of the meaning of “fiat” in a democracy. Duly enacted legislation doesn’t count.
“The right to have an abortion in the UK was imposed by fiat (a Private Member’s Bill that was made law in 1967, supported by MPs who understood that the issue was that women didn’t deserve to die)”
I think we’ve got a different understanding of the meaning of “fiat” in a democracy. Duly enacted legislation doesn’t count.
So you would support legislation giving people the right to take – without consent – the organs of their matched donors? Have you ever donated a kidney to a dialysis patient? If not, how repelled do you feel about yourself that you have taken the arbitrary right to kill a person who was made dependent on your good grace?
Did you deliberately miss out a critical clause or was it a complete accident? The parents actively made the baby dependent on their good grace. Random matched donors did not make people with destroyed kidneys dependent on their good grace. The problem isn’t the withholding of resources. It is the withholding of resources after ensuring that the person who needs them will die if they are withheld.
More seriously, Francis, the fact that you sufficiently identify with the pro-life movement that you are aware is a terrorist movement, that you use their rhetoric about “killing children” that justified murdering Doctor Tiller, makes you more on their side than on the side of the women whose lives he saved, and yet you seem to be well aware that’s the evil side to be on. Why choose evil, when you have sufficient self-awareness to know it’s evil?
Because you are, as normal, entirely missing my point. There is one advocate in this thread who will get some traction at making people more likely to be pro-life than they already are. It’s not Sebastian. It’s certainly not Brett Bellmore. It’s not me. It’s the lady rising from the lake. And I am trying to demonstrate to you why this is so.
Most people who are pro-life are so because they react emotionally (I’ve managed to flip one on third trimester abortions in the last few months by pointing out that I didn’t care what the video she had seen showed – any crying in the middle of a so-called partial birth abortion is added as a cheap manipulative ploy on behalf of the video makers). And your rhetoric can be only very slightly trimmed (plus stripped of facts and links) and used as an effective straw-liberal.
So you would support legislation giving people the right to take – without consent – the organs of their matched donors? Have you ever donated a kidney to a dialysis patient? If not, how repelled do you feel about yourself that you have taken the arbitrary right to kill a person who was made dependent on your good grace?
Did you deliberately miss out a critical clause or was it a complete accident? The parents actively made the baby dependent on their good grace. Random matched donors did not make people with destroyed kidneys dependent on their good grace. The problem isn’t the withholding of resources. It is the withholding of resources after ensuring that the person who needs them will die if they are withheld.
More seriously, Francis, the fact that you sufficiently identify with the pro-life movement that you are aware is a terrorist movement, that you use their rhetoric about “killing children” that justified murdering Doctor Tiller, makes you more on their side than on the side of the women whose lives he saved, and yet you seem to be well aware that’s the evil side to be on. Why choose evil, when you have sufficient self-awareness to know it’s evil?
Because you are, as normal, entirely missing my point. There is one advocate in this thread who will get some traction at making people more likely to be pro-life than they already are. It’s not Sebastian. It’s certainly not Brett Bellmore. It’s not me. It’s the lady rising from the lake. And I am trying to demonstrate to you why this is so.
Most people who are pro-life are so because they react emotionally (I’ve managed to flip one on third trimester abortions in the last few months by pointing out that I didn’t care what the video she had seen showed – any crying in the middle of a so-called partial birth abortion is added as a cheap manipulative ploy on behalf of the video makers). And your rhetoric can be only very slightly trimmed (plus stripped of facts and links) and used as an effective straw-liberal.
My understanding is that the only one who provides THIRD trimester abortions flies in.
You understanding needs to be updated. From a recent edition of the Washington Post
Unlike Tiller, she does not do late-term abortions, and she has not received threats. But her trips are carefully orchestrated by security officers, and she declined to allow her face to be photographed for this article.
I presume that in your view she gets no credit for bravery, since she’s received no direct threats.
My understanding is that the only one who provides THIRD trimester abortions flies in.
You understanding needs to be updated. From a recent edition of the Washington Post
Unlike Tiller, she does not do late-term abortions, and she has not received threats. But her trips are carefully orchestrated by security officers, and she declined to allow her face to be photographed for this article.
I presume that in your view she gets no credit for bravery, since she’s received no direct threats.
I think we’ve got a different understanding of the meaning of “fiat” in a democracy. Duly enacted legislation doesn’t count.
Neither does voiding legislation that’s clearly unconstitutional.
I think we’ve got a different understanding of the meaning of “fiat” in a democracy. Duly enacted legislation doesn’t count.
Neither does voiding legislation that’s clearly unconstitutional.
Sebastian: “Cite?
My understanding is that the only one who provides THIRD trimester abortions flies in. That would be a rather different proposition, right?”
Cite.
Abortion after the 24th week is simply illegal in SD. Therefore, zero doctors perform third trimester abortions in SD. It would have been a very different proposition, but my statement was almost* accurate as-written.
*According to that CNN story, a total of four out-of-state physicians (not one) perform abortions at one single clinic in SD for a total of one day per week.
Sebastian: “Cite?
My understanding is that the only one who provides THIRD trimester abortions flies in. That would be a rather different proposition, right?”
Cite.
Abortion after the 24th week is simply illegal in SD. Therefore, zero doctors perform third trimester abortions in SD. It would have been a very different proposition, but my statement was almost* accurate as-written.
*According to that CNN story, a total of four out-of-state physicians (not one) perform abortions at one single clinic in SD for a total of one day per week.
I’m against abortion, except when the life of the mother is endangered, or the woman has been raped.
In cases where parents wish to abort, the government should adopt the baby and pay every expense, including four years of undergraduate education and an IRA starter fund.
I’m for fully taxpayer financed, univeral, government-provided healthcare for every citizen.
Raise my taxes now or shut up.
Let’s trade one for the other.
Tomorrow. By noon. In law.
After noon, the deal is off the table and deserving, fully human, unemployed fetuses and post-fetal, non-deserving, unemployed adult fetuses can continue to put up with the status quo in this kiss-my-ass culture.
Regarding the Philippines, two things:
A beautiful, family-centered, child-loving culture.
Also one in which I can enter any bar on Mabini Street in Manila and witness an aquarium full of female children being offered up for wholesale fucking any hour of the day. Blowjobs were birth control.
Also this: the volcano that destroyed the U.S. Army Base on Luzon and the decision to shut down the Subic Bay Naval Base, where fine young Republican males took shore leave, prevented more abortions than Focus On the Family could ever envision.
I’m against abortion, except when the life of the mother is endangered, or the woman has been raped.
In cases where parents wish to abort, the government should adopt the baby and pay every expense, including four years of undergraduate education and an IRA starter fund.
I’m for fully taxpayer financed, univeral, government-provided healthcare for every citizen.
Raise my taxes now or shut up.
Let’s trade one for the other.
Tomorrow. By noon. In law.
After noon, the deal is off the table and deserving, fully human, unemployed fetuses and post-fetal, non-deserving, unemployed adult fetuses can continue to put up with the status quo in this kiss-my-ass culture.
Regarding the Philippines, two things:
A beautiful, family-centered, child-loving culture.
Also one in which I can enter any bar on Mabini Street in Manila and witness an aquarium full of female children being offered up for wholesale fucking any hour of the day. Blowjobs were birth control.
Also this: the volcano that destroyed the U.S. Army Base on Luzon and the decision to shut down the Subic Bay Naval Base, where fine young Republican males took shore leave, prevented more abortions than Focus On the Family could ever envision.
Francis: The parents actively made the baby dependent on their good grace.
Well, yes, they would if the mother opted to give birth.
But we’re discussing fetuses, not babies. How is it so hard for you to remember this?
Did you deliberately miss out a critical clause or was it a complete accident?
Every single person who could stay alive if you were willing to give up the use of one of your organs is actively dependent on your good grace.
Your assertion that denial of good grace is tantamount to killing means you are killing each person to whom you COULD have donated one of your kidneys, or a lobe of your liver, or even a pint or more of your blood – and you didn’t.
(Or did you? Are you a live donor? Or is your talk of how women are killers for not being live donors simply all about what women should do – while men, especially you, are entitled to keep their bodies sacrosanct regardless of who you kill as a result?)
Most people who are pro-life are so because they react emotionally
Most people who are pro-choice are so because they react emotionally to the idea that women ought to be forced.
Most people who are pro-life are so because they lack an emotional dimension – they cannot perceive women as human beings.
The previous discussion in this thread where Jacob and Sebastian both turned out to feel more compassion for a fetus than for a 17-year-old girl was right on the money as an example of pro-lifers just not seeing a 17-year-old girl as human (granted Jacob did acknowledge post-discussion that he’d come across as a smug git) and as more worthy of compassion, care, and help than the fetus she is carrying.
Taking away humanity from women does not save more fetuses. Taking away compassion and care from pregnant woman kills more fetuses than it will ever save – because the only real way of saving a fetus is to care for the woman who is carrying the fetus. Sometimes that care is going to require providing a safe abortion. But denying that care isn’t going to ensure the fetus is carried safely to term.
What makes people pro-choice is understanding that girls and woman are human.
Francis: The parents actively made the baby dependent on their good grace.
Well, yes, they would if the mother opted to give birth.
But we’re discussing fetuses, not babies. How is it so hard for you to remember this?
Did you deliberately miss out a critical clause or was it a complete accident?
Every single person who could stay alive if you were willing to give up the use of one of your organs is actively dependent on your good grace.
Your assertion that denial of good grace is tantamount to killing means you are killing each person to whom you COULD have donated one of your kidneys, or a lobe of your liver, or even a pint or more of your blood – and you didn’t.
(Or did you? Are you a live donor? Or is your talk of how women are killers for not being live donors simply all about what women should do – while men, especially you, are entitled to keep their bodies sacrosanct regardless of who you kill as a result?)
Most people who are pro-life are so because they react emotionally
Most people who are pro-choice are so because they react emotionally to the idea that women ought to be forced.
Most people who are pro-life are so because they lack an emotional dimension – they cannot perceive women as human beings.
The previous discussion in this thread where Jacob and Sebastian both turned out to feel more compassion for a fetus than for a 17-year-old girl was right on the money as an example of pro-lifers just not seeing a 17-year-old girl as human (granted Jacob did acknowledge post-discussion that he’d come across as a smug git) and as more worthy of compassion, care, and help than the fetus she is carrying.
Taking away humanity from women does not save more fetuses. Taking away compassion and care from pregnant woman kills more fetuses than it will ever save – because the only real way of saving a fetus is to care for the woman who is carrying the fetus. Sometimes that care is going to require providing a safe abortion. But denying that care isn’t going to ensure the fetus is carried safely to term.
What makes people pro-choice is understanding that girls and woman are human.
Brett: I think we’ve got a different understanding of the meaning of “fiat”
We do. Evidently. But the only understanding I have is the dictionary definition. “1. official sanction; authoritative permission; 2. an arbitrary order or decree; 3. Chiefly literary any command, decision, or act of will that brings something about” All of which applies to an Act of Parliament, especially a Private Member’s Bill.
The distinction, for your better understanding, is that ordinarily, a party will put forward a manifesto of things they intend to accomplish when they get into power: the voters (well, some of them, anyway) will read the manifestos and decide which party to vote for. That’s the idea anyway. But in the UK and US system of first-past-the-post party elections, obviously plenty of people vote for candidates of their chosen party without ever reading the manifestos – and even those that do won’t agree with all of them before they get in – and a candidate can gain a seat even though a majority of people in their constituency voted for someone else.
But, in the UK Parliament, every parliamentary session MPs can draw for the right to put forward a private Bill, which, if enacted, will become the law of the land though it may never have been in a party manifesto and therefore never, even tenuously, have been voted on by the general public. The Abortion Act 1967 was an example of such legislation.
So while you may have a private definition of “by fiat” I think you should stop using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Brett: I think we’ve got a different understanding of the meaning of “fiat”
We do. Evidently. But the only understanding I have is the dictionary definition. “1. official sanction; authoritative permission; 2. an arbitrary order or decree; 3. Chiefly literary any command, decision, or act of will that brings something about” All of which applies to an Act of Parliament, especially a Private Member’s Bill.
The distinction, for your better understanding, is that ordinarily, a party will put forward a manifesto of things they intend to accomplish when they get into power: the voters (well, some of them, anyway) will read the manifestos and decide which party to vote for. That’s the idea anyway. But in the UK and US system of first-past-the-post party elections, obviously plenty of people vote for candidates of their chosen party without ever reading the manifestos – and even those that do won’t agree with all of them before they get in – and a candidate can gain a seat even though a majority of people in their constituency voted for someone else.
But, in the UK Parliament, every parliamentary session MPs can draw for the right to put forward a private Bill, which, if enacted, will become the law of the land though it may never have been in a party manifesto and therefore never, even tenuously, have been voted on by the general public. The Abortion Act 1967 was an example of such legislation.
So while you may have a private definition of “by fiat” I think you should stop using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It took me a little while to dig this post up from Slacktivist, but if you’re at all interested in the real history of the pro-life terrorist movement, Slacktivist’s post on Francis Schaeffer is a place to start.
The use of the rabid rhetoric comparing abortion to “baby killing” is extremely convenient to the kind of right-wing politics that needs a political issue to undercut the natural support of low-income voters for left-wing politics. Racism used to be a perfect issue for getting white working-class voters to vote against their best interests: abortion is another successful tactic, surprisingly so given that one in three American women will have an abortion at some point before they turn 40.
It took me a little while to dig this post up from Slacktivist, but if you’re at all interested in the real history of the pro-life terrorist movement, Slacktivist’s post on Francis Schaeffer is a place to start.
The use of the rabid rhetoric comparing abortion to “baby killing” is extremely convenient to the kind of right-wing politics that needs a political issue to undercut the natural support of low-income voters for left-wing politics. Racism used to be a perfect issue for getting white working-class voters to vote against their best interests: abortion is another successful tactic, surprisingly so given that one in three American women will have an abortion at some point before they turn 40.
Jes, I take the not uncommon position that writing laws and deciding policy is precisely what legislators are elected to do, and precisely what judges are NOT appointed to do. Whatever degree of “fiatness” you might attribute to a law written, debated, and enacted by a legislature, pales in comparison to that degree possessed by the same policy being imposed out of the blue by a judiciary.
Jes, I take the not uncommon position that writing laws and deciding policy is precisely what legislators are elected to do, and precisely what judges are NOT appointed to do. Whatever degree of “fiatness” you might attribute to a law written, debated, and enacted by a legislature, pales in comparison to that degree possessed by the same policy being imposed out of the blue by a judiciary.
I take the not uncommon position that writing laws and deciding policy is precisely what legislators are elected to do, and precisely what judges are NOT appointed to do.
Not uncommon, as ignorance sadly never is. Let me enlighten your ignorance, since apparently I know more about your country’s constitution and legal system than you do:
The US’s legal system is a clone of the common law system of England/Wales in the 18th century.
In the common law system, judges are appointed for their experience and legal knowledge precisely so that they may decide the correct interpretation of the law. They are not, in most common law systems, elected because their role is not to decide democratically what the law ought to be, but to decide knowledgeably what the law is.
Your ignorance of this is understandable, but now you know better: you can always study up on the finer points in your spare time.
The Supreme Court of the United States was set up for the purpose of deciding the correct interpretation of constitutional law. “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”.
In Roe vs Wade, 1973, SCOTUS decided that the US Constitution mandates that a woman’s consultation with her doctor is private and privileged, and the state is not entitled to intervene: this was based squarely on Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution mandated a right to privacy.
You may fiercely object to the idea that people have a Constitutional right to privacy – that every element of their lives ought to be available for public exposure at the will and regulation of the state, without any protection from the law, is a little weird to me, but if you feel that strongly about it, why don’t you ask to be on Jerry Springer?
I take the not uncommon position that writing laws and deciding policy is precisely what legislators are elected to do, and precisely what judges are NOT appointed to do.
Not uncommon, as ignorance sadly never is. Let me enlighten your ignorance, since apparently I know more about your country’s constitution and legal system than you do:
The US’s legal system is a clone of the common law system of England/Wales in the 18th century.
In the common law system, judges are appointed for their experience and legal knowledge precisely so that they may decide the correct interpretation of the law. They are not, in most common law systems, elected because their role is not to decide democratically what the law ought to be, but to decide knowledgeably what the law is.
Your ignorance of this is understandable, but now you know better: you can always study up on the finer points in your spare time.
The Supreme Court of the United States was set up for the purpose of deciding the correct interpretation of constitutional law. “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”.
In Roe vs Wade, 1973, SCOTUS decided that the US Constitution mandates that a woman’s consultation with her doctor is private and privileged, and the state is not entitled to intervene: this was based squarely on Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution mandated a right to privacy.
You may fiercely object to the idea that people have a Constitutional right to privacy – that every element of their lives ought to be available for public exposure at the will and regulation of the state, without any protection from the law, is a little weird to me, but if you feel that strongly about it, why don’t you ask to be on Jerry Springer?
The previous discussion in this thread where Jacob and Sebastian both turned out to feel more compassion for a fetus than for a 17-year-old girl was right on the money as an example of pro-lifers just not seeing a 17-year-old girl as human (granted Jacob did acknowledge post-discussion that he’d come across as a smug git) and as more worthy of compassion, care, and help than the fetus she is carrying.
I don’t recall reading comparative expressions of compassion. As to compassion, care and help, might that include advising a pregnant 17-year-old girl not to do something stupid and dangerous and that she will likely regret for a very long time, perhaps the rest of her life? What if she had easy access to an abortion doctor who performed third-trimester abortions, and that doctor decided that he would not perform the abortion for his own moral, ethical and professional reasons? Would he be a smug git, too? Does prenancy make 17-year-old girls unquestionable pillars of wisdom?
The previous discussion in this thread where Jacob and Sebastian both turned out to feel more compassion for a fetus than for a 17-year-old girl was right on the money as an example of pro-lifers just not seeing a 17-year-old girl as human (granted Jacob did acknowledge post-discussion that he’d come across as a smug git) and as more worthy of compassion, care, and help than the fetus she is carrying.
I don’t recall reading comparative expressions of compassion. As to compassion, care and help, might that include advising a pregnant 17-year-old girl not to do something stupid and dangerous and that she will likely regret for a very long time, perhaps the rest of her life? What if she had easy access to an abortion doctor who performed third-trimester abortions, and that doctor decided that he would not perform the abortion for his own moral, ethical and professional reasons? Would he be a smug git, too? Does prenancy make 17-year-old girls unquestionable pillars of wisdom?
Jes, I take the not uncommon position that writing laws and deciding policy is precisely what legislators are elected to do, and precisely what judges are NOT appointed to do.
Then you agree with me that the recent decision in which corporations were declared by fiat to be citizens with First Amendment rights is an abomination, or is that different?
Jes, I take the not uncommon position that writing laws and deciding policy is precisely what legislators are elected to do, and precisely what judges are NOT appointed to do.
Then you agree with me that the recent decision in which corporations were declared by fiat to be citizens with First Amendment rights is an abomination, or is that different?
Every single person who could stay alive if you were willing to give up the use of one of your organs is actively dependent on your good grace.
And once again you completely ignore the relevant clause. I’m not going to impute motivation. The fetus in the case of an abortion is only in the position of needing support because the parents had sex and something went wrong. That was not the intent. But that was the result.
I haven’t destroyed someone’s kidneys ever. As far as I know I have never been responsible for actions with the direct result of someone being destroyed. So your analogy doesn’t hold.
And to ward off your next misinterpretation, no this isn’t a claim that “The silly sluts should just keep their legs together”. I support both contraception and child maintainance payments. Do as you will as long as it harms none (is a naive and useless philosophy on its own, but is a good general principle). You should not be able to kill another person just to avoid severe inconvenience from something you have done to them.
Most people who are pro-life are so because they lack an emotional dimension – they cannot perceive women as human beings.
Which is why according to polling data (as opposed to random internet advocates) women make up a substantial proportion of the pro-life movement.
What makes people pro-choice is understanding that girls and woman are human.
And what throws them across to pro-life in the case of all the feminist pro-lifers I know is the belief that fetusses are also human. And that it wasn’t the fetus that was responsible for the problems that lead to an elective abortion seeming desirable.
Every single person who could stay alive if you were willing to give up the use of one of your organs is actively dependent on your good grace.
And once again you completely ignore the relevant clause. I’m not going to impute motivation. The fetus in the case of an abortion is only in the position of needing support because the parents had sex and something went wrong. That was not the intent. But that was the result.
I haven’t destroyed someone’s kidneys ever. As far as I know I have never been responsible for actions with the direct result of someone being destroyed. So your analogy doesn’t hold.
And to ward off your next misinterpretation, no this isn’t a claim that “The silly sluts should just keep their legs together”. I support both contraception and child maintainance payments. Do as you will as long as it harms none (is a naive and useless philosophy on its own, but is a good general principle). You should not be able to kill another person just to avoid severe inconvenience from something you have done to them.
Most people who are pro-life are so because they lack an emotional dimension – they cannot perceive women as human beings.
Which is why according to polling data (as opposed to random internet advocates) women make up a substantial proportion of the pro-life movement.
What makes people pro-choice is understanding that girls and woman are human.
And what throws them across to pro-life in the case of all the feminist pro-lifers I know is the belief that fetusses are also human. And that it wasn’t the fetus that was responsible for the problems that lead to an elective abortion seeming desirable.
As to compassion, care and help, might that include advising a pregnant 17-year-old girl not to do something stupid and dangerous and that she will likely regret for a very long time, perhaps the rest of her life?
Like having a baby? Yeah.
What if she had easy access to an abortion doctor who performed third-trimester abortions, and that doctor decided that he would not perform the abortion for his own moral, ethical and professional reasons? Would he be a smug git, too?
Depends how he reacted after he discovered that when he decided his own moral, ethical, and professional reasons were superior to the girl’s need to have an abortion, she induced a miscarriage illegally and unsafely.
There was a case a few years ago in the UK of a girl who went to her local GP on realizing that she was pregnant, and asked him for an abortion (normal system: GP signs when recommending pregnant woman to the consultant who will perform the abortion, who provides the second doctor’s signature): she was 20 weeks pregnant, so the GP refused her, on the grounds that after 20 weeks a healthy normal fetus shouldn’t be aborted.
She went home, told no one, gave birth alone, and stuffed the baby into a cupboard wrapped in a towel where the baby died: the corpse was discovered by the smell a few days later. Apparently this kind of absolute mental denial of both pregnancy and childbirth leading to infanticide (neonaticide is the term used to mean a woman who kills her newborn baby) is fairly common in young women unable to obtain an abortion who do not want to be pregnant – may actually more common that killing a baby after a few days. A Systematic Investigation of 16 Cases of Neonaticide
Why should it be regarded as a better solution for young women to induce miscarriage by having themselves savagely beaten, or to have the newborn baby die by abandonment?
I could wish that someone had sensibly sat down with the 17-year-old girl as soon as she missed her first period and told her that she really needed to seriously consider having an abortion ASAP because having a baby at her age is a seriously bad idea, and please to ignore all the creepy mad talk claiming that abortion is “killing babies” – her body, her right, her life.
(And it would be really nice if the government of Utah hadn’t decided that the state’s job is to intervene between parent and child and she could just have gone to her local family planning clinic and got an abortion as soon as she decided for it, without anyone having to tell her parents. And that the local family planning clinic actually performed abortions on demand. Oh, and let’s wish that as a minor she could have got the abortion performed for free. None of which is true.)
(Plus of course I could wish that she’d been on the pill and her boyfriend had used condoms and that if the condom broke she was able to go get emergency contraception within 8 hours of having sex – all of which MIGHT be true, but given this was rural Utah, I doubt it…)
Of course it would be better if: In school she AND her boyfriend had been taught explicitly that if you decide to have sex, UNLESS you want a baby you should use contraception, here’s how, here’s where to get it, free of course.
If as soon as she realized she might be pregnant she had been able to go get sensible, confidential advice about what her choices were, including the clear facts that at 17 her BEST choice was to have an abortion as soon as possible.
If as soon as she’d decided to get an abortion, she could have made the appointment for it, in the sure knowledge that no one BUT her would be able to tell her parents and she could decide when she wanted to let them know – or IF.
If the abortion was free. If the aftercare was free. If mad religionists weren’t scaremongering that having an abortion is killing a baby and she has no right to decide she doesn’t want to have a baby now she’s had sex. If. All of the above. None of which are true.
Whatever. The better solution would have been to let her have an abortion.
As to compassion, care and help, might that include advising a pregnant 17-year-old girl not to do something stupid and dangerous and that she will likely regret for a very long time, perhaps the rest of her life?
Like having a baby? Yeah.
What if she had easy access to an abortion doctor who performed third-trimester abortions, and that doctor decided that he would not perform the abortion for his own moral, ethical and professional reasons? Would he be a smug git, too?
Depends how he reacted after he discovered that when he decided his own moral, ethical, and professional reasons were superior to the girl’s need to have an abortion, she induced a miscarriage illegally and unsafely.
There was a case a few years ago in the UK of a girl who went to her local GP on realizing that she was pregnant, and asked him for an abortion (normal system: GP signs when recommending pregnant woman to the consultant who will perform the abortion, who provides the second doctor’s signature): she was 20 weeks pregnant, so the GP refused her, on the grounds that after 20 weeks a healthy normal fetus shouldn’t be aborted.
She went home, told no one, gave birth alone, and stuffed the baby into a cupboard wrapped in a towel where the baby died: the corpse was discovered by the smell a few days later. Apparently this kind of absolute mental denial of both pregnancy and childbirth leading to infanticide (neonaticide is the term used to mean a woman who kills her newborn baby) is fairly common in young women unable to obtain an abortion who do not want to be pregnant – may actually more common that killing a baby after a few days. A Systematic Investigation of 16 Cases of Neonaticide
Why should it be regarded as a better solution for young women to induce miscarriage by having themselves savagely beaten, or to have the newborn baby die by abandonment?
I could wish that someone had sensibly sat down with the 17-year-old girl as soon as she missed her first period and told her that she really needed to seriously consider having an abortion ASAP because having a baby at her age is a seriously bad idea, and please to ignore all the creepy mad talk claiming that abortion is “killing babies” – her body, her right, her life.
(And it would be really nice if the government of Utah hadn’t decided that the state’s job is to intervene between parent and child and she could just have gone to her local family planning clinic and got an abortion as soon as she decided for it, without anyone having to tell her parents. And that the local family planning clinic actually performed abortions on demand. Oh, and let’s wish that as a minor she could have got the abortion performed for free. None of which is true.)
(Plus of course I could wish that she’d been on the pill and her boyfriend had used condoms and that if the condom broke she was able to go get emergency contraception within 8 hours of having sex – all of which MIGHT be true, but given this was rural Utah, I doubt it…)
Of course it would be better if: In school she AND her boyfriend had been taught explicitly that if you decide to have sex, UNLESS you want a baby you should use contraception, here’s how, here’s where to get it, free of course.
If as soon as she realized she might be pregnant she had been able to go get sensible, confidential advice about what her choices were, including the clear facts that at 17 her BEST choice was to have an abortion as soon as possible.
If as soon as she’d decided to get an abortion, she could have made the appointment for it, in the sure knowledge that no one BUT her would be able to tell her parents and she could decide when she wanted to let them know – or IF.
If the abortion was free. If the aftercare was free. If mad religionists weren’t scaremongering that having an abortion is killing a baby and she has no right to decide she doesn’t want to have a baby now she’s had sex. If. All of the above. None of which are true.
Whatever. The better solution would have been to let her have an abortion.
The fetus in the case of an abortion is only in the position of needing support because the parents had sex and something went wrong.
So? Are you claiming that an adult who is dying of liver failure because you would not provide a lobe of your compatible and healthy liver is somehow in that position because they deserved it? Why are the people who are dying because you regard your body as sacrosanct and won’t give up the use of your organs worth less than a fetus dying because a woman regards her body as sacrosanct and won’t give up the use of her organs?
I haven’t destroyed someone’s kidneys ever
Irrelevant. You’re claiming that refusal of the use of your healthy organs to keep someone else alive is killing. People died because there was no legislation to justify their harvesting one of your kidneys against your will. Do you feel guilty about killing them?
You should not be able to kill another person just to avoid severe inconvenience from something you have done to them.
…I always find it interesting, by the way, that pro-lifers invariably regard children not as a joyful choice but as a “severe inconvenience” that women who have sex can’t be permitted to avoid. Odd that you should claim you don’t want to be part of the guys calling women “silly sluts”, when quite evidently that’s where you belong.
Which is why according to polling data (as opposed to random internet advocates) women make up a substantial proportion of the pro-life movement.
And yet… women who claim to identify as pro-life will still choose for themselves to have abortions. The pro-life idea that women don’t own their own bodies, that women can and should be forced to have babies against their will, is something women may subscribe to publicly and even mean it for other women. But the facts gathered at source are straightforward: when it comes down to the choice, women are not so devoid of personal responsibility and self-will as the pro-life movement claims.
And what throws them across to pro-life in the case of all the feminist pro-lifers I know is the belief that fetusses are also human
You don’t know any feminist pro-lifers, Francis: the belief that women are incubators or slaves without human rights is completely incompatible with feminism.
You may know women who prefer to identify as pro-lifers while actually thinking that, when it comes down to the individual pregnant woman, it’s got to be her choice to terminate or continue, no one else’s. I know several closeted pro-choice feminists like that, too.
(I do also know one very young woman who works for a human rights organization who, aged 25, still believes that if a woman chooses to have sex with a man she ought not to be allowed to decide not to have a baby… but she’s a lesbian: it’s not exactly personal for her or for virtually anyone she knows.)
The fetus in the case of an abortion is only in the position of needing support because the parents had sex and something went wrong.
So? Are you claiming that an adult who is dying of liver failure because you would not provide a lobe of your compatible and healthy liver is somehow in that position because they deserved it? Why are the people who are dying because you regard your body as sacrosanct and won’t give up the use of your organs worth less than a fetus dying because a woman regards her body as sacrosanct and won’t give up the use of her organs?
I haven’t destroyed someone’s kidneys ever
Irrelevant. You’re claiming that refusal of the use of your healthy organs to keep someone else alive is killing. People died because there was no legislation to justify their harvesting one of your kidneys against your will. Do you feel guilty about killing them?
You should not be able to kill another person just to avoid severe inconvenience from something you have done to them.
…I always find it interesting, by the way, that pro-lifers invariably regard children not as a joyful choice but as a “severe inconvenience” that women who have sex can’t be permitted to avoid. Odd that you should claim you don’t want to be part of the guys calling women “silly sluts”, when quite evidently that’s where you belong.
Which is why according to polling data (as opposed to random internet advocates) women make up a substantial proportion of the pro-life movement.
And yet… women who claim to identify as pro-life will still choose for themselves to have abortions. The pro-life idea that women don’t own their own bodies, that women can and should be forced to have babies against their will, is something women may subscribe to publicly and even mean it for other women. But the facts gathered at source are straightforward: when it comes down to the choice, women are not so devoid of personal responsibility and self-will as the pro-life movement claims.
And what throws them across to pro-life in the case of all the feminist pro-lifers I know is the belief that fetusses are also human
You don’t know any feminist pro-lifers, Francis: the belief that women are incubators or slaves without human rights is completely incompatible with feminism.
You may know women who prefer to identify as pro-lifers while actually thinking that, when it comes down to the individual pregnant woman, it’s got to be her choice to terminate or continue, no one else’s. I know several closeted pro-choice feminists like that, too.
(I do also know one very young woman who works for a human rights organization who, aged 25, still believes that if a woman chooses to have sex with a man she ought not to be allowed to decide not to have a baby… but she’s a lesbian: it’s not exactly personal for her or for virtually anyone she knows.)
Like having a baby? Yeah.
Please keep in mind that I agree that a 17-year-old girl should have easy access to confidential medical advice and care, including elective abortion, the earlier in the pregnancy the better. I don’t agree with Utah’s laws and think they make cases like the one we’re discussing more likely and common than they should be.
Now, let’s assume for the sake of argument that a pregnant 17-year-old girl had every opportunity to get and early abortion and decided for herself not to get one at any point before her 7th month of pregnancy. Better yet, let’s say she’s 8-1/2 months into it and decides suddenly that she doesn’t want to go through the dangers of a live birth and wants an abortion because she believes it is safer than child birth. What advice would you give her? Would it make someone a smug git to advise her to have the baby? Should a doctor be compelled to provide her with an abortion? If not, would the doctor be a smug git for refusing to perform the abortion? Even if every indication was that the girl would go through child birth after being advised to do so, even if she later decided to have someone beat her in the abdomen to induce a miscarriage? Are there any circumstances under which you would think an abortion was a bad voluntary choice for a woman? I’m not talking about enacting laws here, just your personal opinion.
Like having a baby? Yeah.
Please keep in mind that I agree that a 17-year-old girl should have easy access to confidential medical advice and care, including elective abortion, the earlier in the pregnancy the better. I don’t agree with Utah’s laws and think they make cases like the one we’re discussing more likely and common than they should be.
Now, let’s assume for the sake of argument that a pregnant 17-year-old girl had every opportunity to get and early abortion and decided for herself not to get one at any point before her 7th month of pregnancy. Better yet, let’s say she’s 8-1/2 months into it and decides suddenly that she doesn’t want to go through the dangers of a live birth and wants an abortion because she believes it is safer than child birth. What advice would you give her? Would it make someone a smug git to advise her to have the baby? Should a doctor be compelled to provide her with an abortion? If not, would the doctor be a smug git for refusing to perform the abortion? Even if every indication was that the girl would go through child birth after being advised to do so, even if she later decided to have someone beat her in the abdomen to induce a miscarriage? Are there any circumstances under which you would think an abortion was a bad voluntary choice for a woman? I’m not talking about enacting laws here, just your personal opinion.
Now, let’s assume for the sake of argument that a pregnant 17-year-old girl had every opportunity to get and early abortion and decided for herself not to get one at any point before her 7th month of pregnancy. Better yet, let’s say she’s 8-1/2 months into it and decides suddenly that she doesn’t want to go through the dangers of a live birth and wants an abortion because she believes it is safer than child birth. What advice would you give her?
Why are you asking me to assume “for the sake of argument” something that we can be pretty damn certain was not the case?
That things are different for 17-year-old girls lucky enough to be born in the Netherlands rather than in the US? (Or any country with lower levels of teenage pregnancy because of saner and more helpful public policies?)
Are there any circumstances under which you would think an abortion was a bad voluntary choice for a woman?
When having an abortion was actually going to be more hazardous for the woman than giving birth: that would be a bad choice for her to opt for having an abortion. Her life, though: her choice. Not mine.
When a woman wants the baby and other factors make her feel more strongly that even though she wants the baby, she can’t continue this pregnancy: economic forces in particular. (I still think it’s their business to weigh up the economic factors among others, but I think it’s hellish that a woman may realize she’s pregnant and she wants this baby and know she can’t have one now simply because she has no job, or no health insurance, or nowhere to live, or won’t be able to support the other children she already has…)
I might well disagree with a woman’s reasons for choosing to have an abortion
(I think some people have babies for what I think are bad reasons, too), what I knew of them (not that I think it would be any of my business) but I hate it that some women end up deciding unhappily to have an abortion not because they don’t want a baby but because they know they can’t afford to have a baby.
Now, let’s assume for the sake of argument that a pregnant 17-year-old girl had every opportunity to get and early abortion and decided for herself not to get one at any point before her 7th month of pregnancy. Better yet, let’s say she’s 8-1/2 months into it and decides suddenly that she doesn’t want to go through the dangers of a live birth and wants an abortion because she believes it is safer than child birth. What advice would you give her?
Why are you asking me to assume “for the sake of argument” something that we can be pretty damn certain was not the case?
That things are different for 17-year-old girls lucky enough to be born in the Netherlands rather than in the US? (Or any country with lower levels of teenage pregnancy because of saner and more helpful public policies?)
Are there any circumstances under which you would think an abortion was a bad voluntary choice for a woman?
When having an abortion was actually going to be more hazardous for the woman than giving birth: that would be a bad choice for her to opt for having an abortion. Her life, though: her choice. Not mine.
When a woman wants the baby and other factors make her feel more strongly that even though she wants the baby, she can’t continue this pregnancy: economic forces in particular. (I still think it’s their business to weigh up the economic factors among others, but I think it’s hellish that a woman may realize she’s pregnant and she wants this baby and know she can’t have one now simply because she has no job, or no health insurance, or nowhere to live, or won’t be able to support the other children she already has…)
I might well disagree with a woman’s reasons for choosing to have an abortion
(I think some people have babies for what I think are bad reasons, too), what I knew of them (not that I think it would be any of my business) but I hate it that some women end up deciding unhappily to have an abortion not because they don’t want a baby but because they know they can’t afford to have a baby.
“You don’t know any feminist pro-lifers, Francis: the belief that women are incubators or slaves without human rights is completely incompatible with feminism.
You may know women who prefer to identify as pro-lifers while actually thinking that, when it comes down to the individual pregnant woman, it’s got to be her choice to terminate or continue, no one else’s. I know several closeted pro-choice feminists like that, too.”
After all is said and done, this is always the core of a Jes argument. Anyone who disagrees is not a x or is a y because you can’t disagree and be what you say you are, because Jes gets to define it. Since she is right, anyone who disagrees is wrong, not only wrong but self delusional and often closeted in really agreeing.
Sorry Jes, sometimes you just aren’t right.
“You don’t know any feminist pro-lifers, Francis: the belief that women are incubators or slaves without human rights is completely incompatible with feminism.
You may know women who prefer to identify as pro-lifers while actually thinking that, when it comes down to the individual pregnant woman, it’s got to be her choice to terminate or continue, no one else’s. I know several closeted pro-choice feminists like that, too.”
After all is said and done, this is always the core of a Jes argument. Anyone who disagrees is not a x or is a y because you can’t disagree and be what you say you are, because Jes gets to define it. Since she is right, anyone who disagrees is wrong, not only wrong but self delusional and often closeted in really agreeing.
Sorry Jes, sometimes you just aren’t right.
…I always find it interesting, by the way, that pro-lifers invariably regard children not as a joyful choice but as a “severe inconvenience” that women who have sex can’t be permitted to avoid.
And I find your assertion here to be ridiculous. When abortion is on the table, the baby would clearly not be a wholly joyful choice or abortion wouldn’t be considered. And for that matter there’s a difference between pre and post conception. Anyone who works to block access to contraception is scum. There are plenty of ways for women (and men) to have sex without conceiving.
You’re claiming that refusal of the use of your healthy organs to keep someone else alive is killing.
False. I’m claiming that refusal of the use of your organs after you put them in a position where it is use those organs or die is killing.
Driving away from someone bleeding to death isn’t killing them (even if it is pretty callous). Driving away from someone bleeding to death when they are bleeding because your car hit them is killing them.
You may know women who prefer to identify as pro-lifers while actually thinking that, when it comes down to the individual pregnant woman, it’s got to be her choice to terminate or continue, no one else’s. I know several closeted pro-choice feminists like that, too.
And yet you call me a pro-lifer. (You saw my comment earlier to genuine pro-lifers: When no abortions are needed for medical reasons and we have worked sufficiently hard to ensure that there are no accidental pregnancies then we can talk about banning abortion.)
From memory the metaphor one of them used (I haven’t seen her for a couple of years) to describe abortion was driving a boat a few miles out to sea with a passenger onboard and then leaving the passenger behind.
…I always find it interesting, by the way, that pro-lifers invariably regard children not as a joyful choice but as a “severe inconvenience” that women who have sex can’t be permitted to avoid.
And I find your assertion here to be ridiculous. When abortion is on the table, the baby would clearly not be a wholly joyful choice or abortion wouldn’t be considered. And for that matter there’s a difference between pre and post conception. Anyone who works to block access to contraception is scum. There are plenty of ways for women (and men) to have sex without conceiving.
You’re claiming that refusal of the use of your healthy organs to keep someone else alive is killing.
False. I’m claiming that refusal of the use of your organs after you put them in a position where it is use those organs or die is killing.
Driving away from someone bleeding to death isn’t killing them (even if it is pretty callous). Driving away from someone bleeding to death when they are bleeding because your car hit them is killing them.
You may know women who prefer to identify as pro-lifers while actually thinking that, when it comes down to the individual pregnant woman, it’s got to be her choice to terminate or continue, no one else’s. I know several closeted pro-choice feminists like that, too.
And yet you call me a pro-lifer. (You saw my comment earlier to genuine pro-lifers: When no abortions are needed for medical reasons and we have worked sufficiently hard to ensure that there are no accidental pregnancies then we can talk about banning abortion.)
From memory the metaphor one of them used (I haven’t seen her for a couple of years) to describe abortion was driving a boat a few miles out to sea with a passenger onboard and then leaving the passenger behind.
“Then you agree with me that the recent decision in which corporations were declared by fiat to be citizens with First Amendment rights is an abomination, or is that different?”
Well, aside from your misrepresenting Citizens United, which was about protecting the 1st amendment rights of real people using corporations as a conduit for exercising their rights, there is a difference: It’s called the 1st amendment.
“Then you agree with me that the recent decision in which corporations were declared by fiat to be citizens with First Amendment rights is an abomination, or is that different?”
Well, aside from your misrepresenting Citizens United, which was about protecting the 1st amendment rights of real people using corporations as a conduit for exercising their rights, there is a difference: It’s called the 1st amendment.
real people using corporations as a conduit for exercising their rights
That is, corporate managers using shareholder money to further their political views. Yeah, the investors are there to be fleeced, so why stop at Lear jets and bonuses that exceed profits? And the fact that this decision gives the GOP a brand-new source of money when they’d fallen way behind the Democrats in fund-raising is, I’m sure, purely a coincidence.
But it all amounts to the usual thing. “Legislating from the bench” means making decisions the speaker disagrees with.
real people using corporations as a conduit for exercising their rights
That is, corporate managers using shareholder money to further their political views. Yeah, the investors are there to be fleeced, so why stop at Lear jets and bonuses that exceed profits? And the fact that this decision gives the GOP a brand-new source of money when they’d fallen way behind the Democrats in fund-raising is, I’m sure, purely a coincidence.
But it all amounts to the usual thing. “Legislating from the bench” means making decisions the speaker disagrees with.
Why are you asking me to assume “for the sake of argument” something that we can be pretty damn certain was not the case?
Because I’m trying to better understand your positions generally.
I might well disagree with a woman’s reasons for choosing to have an abortion
(I think some people have babies for what I think are bad reasons, too), what I knew of them (not that I think it would be any of my business) but I hate it that some women end up deciding unhappily to have an abortion not because they don’t want a baby but because they know they can’t afford to have a baby.
I could honestly write the very same words.
Given that you wrote the particular things below, do these sentiments also apply to doctors? Do you think doctors are obligated morally or otherwise to perform abortions voluntarily requested by pregnant women under any and all circumstances? If a woman shouldn’t have to provide the assistance of her internal organs to a fetus, does a doctor have to provide assistance in the form of medically unnecessary abortion services to a pregnant woman?
Her life, though: her choice. Not mine.
and
(not that I think it would be any of my business)
Why are you asking me to assume “for the sake of argument” something that we can be pretty damn certain was not the case?
Because I’m trying to better understand your positions generally.
I might well disagree with a woman’s reasons for choosing to have an abortion
(I think some people have babies for what I think are bad reasons, too), what I knew of them (not that I think it would be any of my business) but I hate it that some women end up deciding unhappily to have an abortion not because they don’t want a baby but because they know they can’t afford to have a baby.
I could honestly write the very same words.
Given that you wrote the particular things below, do these sentiments also apply to doctors? Do you think doctors are obligated morally or otherwise to perform abortions voluntarily requested by pregnant women under any and all circumstances? If a woman shouldn’t have to provide the assistance of her internal organs to a fetus, does a doctor have to provide assistance in the form of medically unnecessary abortion services to a pregnant woman?
Her life, though: her choice. Not mine.
and
(not that I think it would be any of my business)
Jes: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”, then?
You want people to listen to you, to consider that your opinions on the rights of women have merit; you make both consequentialist and deontological arguments for the righteousness of what you think. And yet, you express absolute contempt for the moral opinions of others, even those who agree with you entirely about what the law should be and agree with you substantially about the moral meaning of abortion.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t make moral arguments and then dismiss the moral concerns of others as irrelevant.
Well, you can do that. But we live in a democratic society, and such tactics will never win over the trust of a majority.
I really respect your passion on this subject, and I mostly agree with you. But you’re not helping. By all means have your opinion, but understand, when you express this particular opinion, you hurt, not help, the cause you’re so passionate about.
Jes: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”, then?
You want people to listen to you, to consider that your opinions on the rights of women have merit; you make both consequentialist and deontological arguments for the righteousness of what you think. And yet, you express absolute contempt for the moral opinions of others, even those who agree with you entirely about what the law should be and agree with you substantially about the moral meaning of abortion.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t make moral arguments and then dismiss the moral concerns of others as irrelevant.
Well, you can do that. But we live in a democratic society, and such tactics will never win over the trust of a majority.
I really respect your passion on this subject, and I mostly agree with you. But you’re not helping. By all means have your opinion, but understand, when you express this particular opinion, you hurt, not help, the cause you’re so passionate about.
(Sorry, to be clear, I am not quoting Jes in the first line of the previous comment. That’s something I wrote, I just wanted to note that I was addressing the comment to her.)
(Sorry, to be clear, I am not quoting Jes in the first line of the previous comment. That’s something I wrote, I just wanted to note that I was addressing the comment to her.)
“Why should it be regarded as a better solution for young women to induce miscarriage by having themselves savagely beaten, or to have the newborn baby die by abandonment? ”
That certainly seems like extreme choices. What about the choice to have the perfectly healthy fetus adopted when it becomes born.
The nice thing about that, is that it isn’t a hypothetical. This Utah baby would have already been adopted if it weren’t for the fact that the woman who tried to have it killed by having a man beat her stomach is now fighting for custody. (Which introduces a whole psychological world right there).
“Why are you asking me to assume “for the sake of argument” something that we can be pretty damn certain was not the case?”
You’ve used this dodge before with me for years on the non-medically necessary third trimester abortion issue. You have insisted or years that women couldn’t possibly take things so trivially, and that I was a mysoginist ass for suggesting that third trimester abortions would ever be non-medical abortions.
It really isn’t my fault that you introduced the cas which prove me right.
So I hope you’ll forgive me for not trusting you on the “so hypothetical it could never happen” judgment when hairshirthedonist wants to hypothetically add 3-4 more weeks for the sake of clarifying your position.
“Why should it be regarded as a better solution for young women to induce miscarriage by having themselves savagely beaten, or to have the newborn baby die by abandonment? ”
That certainly seems like extreme choices. What about the choice to have the perfectly healthy fetus adopted when it becomes born.
The nice thing about that, is that it isn’t a hypothetical. This Utah baby would have already been adopted if it weren’t for the fact that the woman who tried to have it killed by having a man beat her stomach is now fighting for custody. (Which introduces a whole psychological world right there).
“Why are you asking me to assume “for the sake of argument” something that we can be pretty damn certain was not the case?”
You’ve used this dodge before with me for years on the non-medically necessary third trimester abortion issue. You have insisted or years that women couldn’t possibly take things so trivially, and that I was a mysoginist ass for suggesting that third trimester abortions would ever be non-medical abortions.
It really isn’t my fault that you introduced the cas which prove me right.
So I hope you’ll forgive me for not trusting you on the “so hypothetical it could never happen” judgment when hairshirthedonist wants to hypothetically add 3-4 more weeks for the sake of clarifying your position.
Jacob: Jes: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”, then?
For blood donation, kidney donation, liver donation, uterus donation, and any other live organ donation – yes. No question.
And yet, you express absolute contempt for the moral opinions of others
When those moral opinions entail forcing others to give birth against their will, yes, I do. Strangely enough. For what it’s worth, I feel exactly the same about involuntary live harvesting of any other organ.
Sebastian: That certainly seems like extreme choices.
Yes, but sadly, this is the US we’re talking about, where pro-life terrorism and pro-life political activism takes the less-extreme choices off the table.
What about the choice to have the perfectly healthy fetus adopted when it becomes born.
Slavery has been illegal in the US since 1865, I believe. So your “choice” is not actually yours.
The nice thing about that, is that it isn’t a hypothetical.
You think it’s nice to take a baby away from the baby’s mother against her will, so that a wealthy couple can buy the baby and pretend that it’s theirs?
You’ve used this dodge before with me for years on the non-medically necessary third trimester abortion issue.
Again: define “non-medically necessary”. You’ve argued that women can be chained up and forced to give birth, or operated on against their will, in order to produce unwanted babies – in order to channel them into the US’s adoption industry.
You have insisted or years that women couldn’t possibly take things so trivially
A girl who is desperate enough to attempt to procure a miscarriage by having herself beaten needed an abortion. You think that desperation on a level of paying to have herself beaten is “trivial”, as you thought (as I recall) that a pregnant woman at risk of suicide was “trivial”.
Infant adoption is absolutely beneficial to people who make a living out of trading babies. It’s pleasurable for couples who want a baby they can pretend is theirs from the start, rather than having to find an older child who desperately needs parents.
It’s not, except in the repellant terms of providing profit and pleasure for others, a valid “solution” to a young girl getting pregnant. Unless, of course, you’re a man who thinks whatever a woman feels is just “trivial”.
Jacob: Jes: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”, then?
For blood donation, kidney donation, liver donation, uterus donation, and any other live organ donation – yes. No question.
And yet, you express absolute contempt for the moral opinions of others
When those moral opinions entail forcing others to give birth against their will, yes, I do. Strangely enough. For what it’s worth, I feel exactly the same about involuntary live harvesting of any other organ.
Sebastian: That certainly seems like extreme choices.
Yes, but sadly, this is the US we’re talking about, where pro-life terrorism and pro-life political activism takes the less-extreme choices off the table.
What about the choice to have the perfectly healthy fetus adopted when it becomes born.
Slavery has been illegal in the US since 1865, I believe. So your “choice” is not actually yours.
The nice thing about that, is that it isn’t a hypothetical.
You think it’s nice to take a baby away from the baby’s mother against her will, so that a wealthy couple can buy the baby and pretend that it’s theirs?
You’ve used this dodge before with me for years on the non-medically necessary third trimester abortion issue.
Again: define “non-medically necessary”. You’ve argued that women can be chained up and forced to give birth, or operated on against their will, in order to produce unwanted babies – in order to channel them into the US’s adoption industry.
You have insisted or years that women couldn’t possibly take things so trivially
A girl who is desperate enough to attempt to procure a miscarriage by having herself beaten needed an abortion. You think that desperation on a level of paying to have herself beaten is “trivial”, as you thought (as I recall) that a pregnant woman at risk of suicide was “trivial”.
Infant adoption is absolutely beneficial to people who make a living out of trading babies. It’s pleasurable for couples who want a baby they can pretend is theirs from the start, rather than having to find an older child who desperately needs parents.
It’s not, except in the repellant terms of providing profit and pleasure for others, a valid “solution” to a young girl getting pregnant. Unless, of course, you’re a man who thinks whatever a woman feels is just “trivial”.