Jade Constable: And how on Earth can you assume anything about my reproductive history??
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
"Safe, legal - and rare" sounds excellent to me. While I have no wish to see abortion made illegal, I am concerned about the number that happen in the UK, 196,000 in 2011.
quote:I found this break down of those figures mildly interesting. I wonder what percentage of the partnered pregnancy terminations are related to issues with people thinking they are not fertile at the time of conception. I had a relative who got pregnant because she thought breastfeeding would prevent conception.
They show, for instance that under half of abortions (49%) were to women with partners while 26% were to single women and 16% of abortions occurred within marriage. The numbers of abortions to girls under 16 are down too, 3,258 in 2011, down from 3,718 the previous year.
quote:Another hand raises here. This is the position of most of the women I know.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
*raises hand*
quote:But why shouldn't it be taken lightly? Why is it morally complex? As I said upthread, to me it is no more negative or morally complex than cataract removal. It's simply a medical procedure to remove some unwanted cells. If I got pregnant it would be rather a bother but I wouldn't feel bad about an abortion or even think about it that much. I would certainly take it fairly lightly.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Once a colleague of mine had an abortion, I think it was a case of contraception failure. She was rather upset about it, in fact she stayed away from work for two weeks. I don't know, I can imagine that the health consequences of an abortion make you bedridden for a couple of days, but in her case it was definitely the psychological consequences also.
I tried to support her in my limited way (like in the Norah Jones song, I tried some tea and sympathy), but I also thought: maybe it is good in some sense that she felt bad about this for some time. This isn't something that should be taken lightly, and feeling bad about it isn't only natural, but also reflects the moral complexity of the situation.
Am I strange in thinking this?
quote:Lactation Amenorrhoea is a real thing, and in most women does indeed prevent ovulation while you're breastfeeding around the clock. If that's not what you're doing - if you're breastfeeding, but supplementing with formula, or if you've started giving your baby solids so he's feeding less, it usually stops working.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I had a relative who got pregnant because she thought breastfeeding would prevent conception.
quote:It's definitely far too difficult to get sterilised while you're still fertile, at least in the UK. I would get sterilised if I could, but the chances of me getting approved for it (25 and single) are nil.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Interesting, given the low percentage failure rates for contraception I wonder how many abortions they think there would be without it. Absolute numbers seem high - but out of how many sexual encounters for how many people.
I do wonder if sterilisation ought to be pushed a bit harder though. As in: have you completed your family ? Consider the benefits of a simple operation ...
quote:I don't know, biology can do strange things sometimes.
Jade Constable: But why shouldn't it be taken lightly? Why is it morally complex?
quote:Can you be sure about this? I'm going to assume that you haven't been in this situation yet. I have the feeling that you can only know how you'll react to this after you've been through it.
Jade Constable: I would certainly take it fairly lightly.
quote:That's a fairly common pro-choice position. I'm a little confused as to how you see yourself as outside what you call the "standard dichotomy" since you regard abortion as "morally acceptable" (insofar as you indicate your willingness to accept it) and oppose criminalizing the procedure.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Thus far I am not sure I know anyone else who holds this position.
At least in the US, it seems to be a standard dichotomy: either one believes that abortion is morally acceptable, and that it should be legal, or one believes that abortion is morally wrong, and that it should be illegal.
Does anyone hold the position that abortion is morally wrong but that making it illegal will do more harm than good, and that reducing the number of abortions by focusing on things like the social safety net, education, the adoption process, and new medical techniques would be the best way to approach the matter?
quote:There were periods during my fertile years when I would certainly have had an abortion if I had gotten pregnant, but there's a big difference between "unwanted cells" that could grow into a human being that would have a whole life of her or her own and fingernail clippings.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But why shouldn't it be taken lightly? Why is it morally complex? As I said upthread, to me it is no more negative or morally complex than cataract removal. It's simply a medical procedure to remove some unwanted cells. If I got pregnant it would be rather a bother but I wouldn't feel bad about an abortion or even think about it that much. I would certainly take it fairly lightly.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's a fairly common pro-choice position. I'm a little confused as to how you see yourself as outside what you call the "standard dichotomy" since you regard abortion as "morally acceptable" (insofar as you indicate your willingness to accept it) and oppose criminalizing the procedure.
I must have not explained myself.quote:Taking my comments on this to the Repub Party thread in Purgatory.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
always remembering that pro-life* indicates "offer expires at birth"
since the pro-lifers have such a high proportion of people who don't actually care about the woman in question in the first place.
quote:First, even from a totally detached POV as you claim, it is ridiculous to consider surgery as a prophylactic.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But why shouldn't it be taken lightly?
quote:This is a strange claim. At some point, that lump of cells becomes a human. I think it safe to say this is generally regarded as true. The argument is when. All legally acceptable times are arbitrary, even those that go as far as birth. The labia are not magical doors which confer a soul and person-hood, there is little real difference between a child 8.5 months in the womb and one 3 minutes out. So, yes, it is a moral dilemma for many.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why is it morally complex? As I said upthread, to me it is no more negative or morally complex than cataract removal.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
May I suggest that as we have other threads on abortion itself, that this one stay focused on this particular "not quite A or B" position (or other similar positions that are not quite A or B)? (he said, hopefully...)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:I have the feeling that I'd rather not be patronised by you, and that I might like to have my own feelings respected as valid.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I don't know, biology can do strange things sometimes.
Jade Constable: But why shouldn't it be taken lightly? Why is it morally complex?
quote:Can you be sure about this? I'm going to assume that you haven't been in this situation yet. I have the feeling that you can only know how you'll react to this after you've been through it.
Jade Constable: I would certainly take it fairly lightly.
quote:But at the stage where I could legally get an abortion here (barring a serious deformity), the foetus could not grow into a human being outside of me. That's the whole point. In any case, fingernail clippings contain human DNA so are perfectly capable of being grown into a human being via cloning! There's not much difference between the two to me.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:There were periods during my fertile years when I would certainly have had an abortion if I had gotten pregnant, but there's a big difference between "unwanted cells" that could grow into a human being that would have a whole life of her or her own and fingernail clippings.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But why shouldn't it be taken lightly? Why is it morally complex? As I said upthread, to me it is no more negative or morally complex than cataract removal. It's simply a medical procedure to remove some unwanted cells. If I got pregnant it would be rather a bother but I wouldn't feel bad about an abortion or even think about it that much. I would certainly take it fairly lightly.
quote:I meant 'why shouldn't it be taken lightly by me'. I'm not suggesting that everyone feel the way I do.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:First, even from a totally detached POV as you claim, it is ridiculous to consider surgery as a prophylactic.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But why shouldn't it be taken lightly?
Second, there are physiological reasons many women who have abortions do not feel as you describe.
quote:This is a strange claim. At some point, that lump of cells becomes a human. I think it safe to say this is generally regarded as true. The argument is when. All legally acceptable times are arbitrary, even those that go as far as birth. The labia are not magical doors which confer a soul and person-hood, there is little real difference between a child 8.5 months in the womb and one 3 minutes out. So, yes, it is a moral dilemma for many.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why is it morally complex? As I said upthread, to me it is no more negative or morally complex than cataract removal.
That you do not see it as such is certainly valid for you, but to not see why it as so for others is a very strange POV.
quote:The fact that I announced it as an assumption is a recognition of the fact that I know nothing about your reproductive history.
Jade Constable: And how on Earth can you assume anything about my reproductive history??
quote:I do respect your feelings and I believe they are valid.
Jade Constable: I have the feeling that I'd rather not be patronised by you, and that I might like to have my own feelings respected as valid.
quote:I've heard that argued, though I think it's more rare than the immoral-but-should-be-legal view.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
It is even a position which can hold that abortion is indeed taking a human life--yes, a kind of infanticide--but that, again, making it illegal causes more harm than good.
quote:You've obviously never come across William Saletan's various droppings on the subject at Slate (some analysis here). I'm guessing that part of the reason that position is rarely stated so boldly is the self-centeredness involved. The basic premise seems to be that the most important factor in discussing abortion is that everyone knows that you personally find other people's abortions immoral and icky (and that the women who have them are irresponsible sluts). While I'm sure it may dismay a few women to know that they've lost your personal stamp of moral approval, I doubt any of them will decide to adopt that as the fixed star of their reproductive choices.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's a fairly common pro-choice position. I'm a little confused as to how you see yourself as outside what you call the "standard dichotomy" since you regard abortion as "morally acceptable" (insofar as you indicate your willingness to accept it) and oppose criminalizing the procedure.
There are two axises (axes?) here.
(1) Is abortion a morally wrong act?
and
(2) Should abortion be legal?
What I have seen exclusively, at least here in the US, is either
(A) Abortion is morally wrong, and therefore it should be illegal
or
(B) Abortion is morally right, and therefore it should be legal.
(I think we can eliminate the position that abortion is morally right but should be illegal; I don't think I've ever encountered that one.)
I'm talking about a position C which would hold that abortion is morally wrong, but that making it illegal will cause more harm than good.
It is even a position which can hold that abortion is indeed taking a human life--yes, a kind of infanticide--but that, again, making it illegal causes more harm than good.
I never, ever, ever heard anyone advocate this position, at least not in the US.
quote:These are, of course, two separate questions. Even if it were conceded that a fœtus is a person with legal rights, it does not necessarily follow that those rights include unrestricted use of someone else's internal organs.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
When people argue that abortion should be legal, they almost always seem to focus on the reason for it being that a fetus is "merely" an array of cells, or part of the woman's body, not a human being, and that it is part of a woman's civil rights to be able to abort the fetus.
quote:That's how you sincerely believe you'd feel .... if it did happen the reality might well be different.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]If I got pregnant it would be rather a bother but I wouldn't feel bad about an abortion or even think about it that much. I would certainly take it fairly lightly.
quote:Arguably the Abortion Act does not legalise Abortion but grants immunity from prosecution under "Offences Against the Person Acts", for those performing such activities.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The Abortion Act in the UK was passed allowing abortion in specific circumstances only - it was not an open doors policy shift. We have had no Roe v Wade moment here.
quote:Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that because the fœtus is parasitic upon the mother it has no capability of an independent existence? The question remaining is whether it has a right to the use of its mother's/host's body to sustain its dependent existence that can be forcibly protected by state action.
Originally posted by Eliab:
There is also the aggressively pro-choice position (occasionally argued for here) that even if abortion is murder it's still up to the mother to do it or not. Sometimes it's said that because the foetus is 'parasitic' upon the mother, it has no right to an independent existence.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'll rephrase it more generally then. I have the feeling that what a person will feel about having an abortion is something she will only really know after she has been through it.
quote:This is, of course, patronizing in multiple senses of the term. The underlying idea is that women are emotionally-driven idiots who need to have (typically male) representatives of the state limit their choices for their own good. What usually goes unacknowledged in these kinds of assertions are other possibilities, such as the idea that some women may sincerely believe they'll regret having an abortion but don't, or that women might sincerely regret not being able to get a much wanted or needed abortion.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:That's how you sincerely believe you'd feel .... if it did happen the reality might well be different.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If I got pregnant it would be rather a bother but I wouldn't feel bad about an abortion or even think about it that much. I would certainly take it fairly lightly.
quote:I still fail to see what's patronizing here. I don't have an underlying idea that women are emotionally-driven idiots, and I haven't tried to argue for limiting their choices. FWIW, I am very much pro-choice. Abortion really isn't a subject that is hotly debated in my country anymore.
Crœsos: This is, of course, patronizing in multiple senses of the term. The underlying idea is that women are emotionally-driven idiots who need to have (typically male) representatives of the state limit their choices for their own good.
quote:This is my view also. When I had a miscarriage, I felt that what I had lost was not a human life, nor a bundle of cells, but some sort of 3rd option. It was the potential for a life. Opportunities for treating such things with respect once you've miscarried them, though, are very slim indeed....
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
My position (and I think this maybe the official Anglican position, if such a thing exists) is that the foetus is a potential human. Therefore it should be treated with the utmost care and respect, but getting rid of it is not the same as murder (it isn't human), and it isn't as important as an existing human life (particularly if continued pregnancy threatened the life of the mother).
quote:Agreed. What basically would happen would be back alleys, coat hangers, drinking bleach, throwing oneself down the stairs, and all of the other horrible things of the past.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Going back to the original question:
I personally consider abortion to be morally wrong in all but exceptional circumstances, but have no desire to see it made illegal.
There are pragmatic reasons, apart from anything else. Making abortion illegal doesn't stop women from aborting. It just makes them do it in more dangerous and unregulated ways.
quote:Never heard of him, but then I don't really read Slate.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You've obviously never come across William Saletan's various droppings on the subject at Slate (some analysis here).
quote:I was going to be all coy and passive-aggressive about it but decided to just cut to the chase--please knock off personally attacking me and my motives for trying to come up with a coherent approach to what is arguably one of the more thorny issues of our present day. I'll assume you hold your positions as a rational and caring person, and I'd appreciate the same. Deal?
I'm guessing that part of the reason that position is rarely stated so boldly is the self-centeredness involved. The basic premise seems to be that the most important factor in discussing abortion is that everyone knows that you personally find other people's abortions immoral and icky (and that the women who have them are irresponsible sluts). While I'm sure it may dismay a few women to know that they've lost your personal stamp of moral approval, I doubt any of them will decide to adopt that as the fixed star of their reproductive choices.
quote:That's technically true, though I don't think we'd generally approve of, say, someone cutting off someone's electrical supply for their oxygen machine on those grounds. (Not to mention that use of the organs isn't quite unrestricted, since we're talking about nine months, max.)
These are, of course, two separate questions. Even if it were conceded that a fœtus is a person with legal rights, it does not necessarily follow that those rights include unrestricted use of someone else's internal organs.
quote:Nhs choices confirms this. My mistake - I should have thought of this. My apologies.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Abortions for congenital defects are already exempted from the 24 week limit in the UK, if memory serves. That presumably wouldn't change if the limit were lowered to 20 weeks.
quote:I have to admit you're right there. No one would argue that the self-determination rights of an oxygen machine should be respected or that it shouldn't be treated like a piece of property with no say in what happens to it. Of course, most people regard oxygen machines as non-sentient, inanimate objects without rights or opinions. Exactly why you think this is an argument that's equally applicable to women is a bit opaque. Clarification, please?
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I was going to be all coy and passive-aggressive about it but decided to just cut to the chase--please knock off personally attacking me and my motives for trying to come up with a coherent approach to what is arguably one of the more thorny issues of our present day. I'll assume you hold your positions as a rational and caring person, and I'd appreciate the same. Deal?
quote:That's technically true, though I don't think we'd generally approve of, say, someone cutting off someone's electrical supply for their oxygen machine on those grounds.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
These are, of course, two separate questions. Even if it were conceded that a fœtus is a person with legal rights, it does not necessarily follow that those rights include unrestricted use of someone else's internal organs.
quote:It's actually an incredibly common position in the US. In fact, I remember a thread - I think it was started by Gordon Cheng - where he was challenging Shipmates to defend why, if they thought abortion was such a good thing, they didn't teach their children about it the way they teach them about chocolate (I had no luck locating the thread in the archives).
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm talking about a position C which would hold that abortion is morally wrong, but that making it illegal will cause more harm than good.
It is even a position which can hold that abortion is indeed taking a human life--yes, a kind of infanticide--but that, again, making it illegal causes more harm than good.
I never, ever, ever heard anyone advocate this position, at least not in the US.
quote:homosexuality and Loan interest.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Would you care to elucidate homosexual loan interest?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, most people regard oxygen machines as non-sentient, inanimate objects without rights or opinions. Exactly why you think this is an argument that's equally applicable to women is a bit opaque. Clarification, please?
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
Oh, crap. That's not the way I meant that at all and I sincerely apologize. I was trying for an analogy involving, say, someone having someone hooked up to an oxygen machine and, say, a company or person turning off the power. I was thinking of "unrestricted use of organs = unrestricted use of electricity," not "body = machine." quote:I had no idea of any of this. Certainly I don't hear it on the news or whatnot--it always seems to be a clean dichotomy between those two groups, the moral/legal and immoral/illegal "sides." I actually thought I'd come up with an alternative position heretofore barely known if not unknown.
Originally posted by saysay:
It's actually an incredibly common position in the US. ... Laura suggested coming up with a third term that more accurately represents the position of the vast majority of women in the US: People in Favor of Limited Legal Access to Abortion (PFLLAA).
quote:What I find interesting is the way in which, just as it's rather hard to be anti-abortion without sounding like a misogynist, it's rather hard to be pro-choice without sounding like Ayn Rand. (Also a misogynist now I think about it.) 'Parasitic' was I believe Rand's favourite term of denunciation for all the people she didn't approve of. But all human beings are radically dependent upon each other - that's what makes us social animals.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that because the fœtus is parasitic upon the mother it has no capability of an independent existence? The question remaining is whether it has a right to the use of its mother's/host's body to sustain its dependent existence that can be forcibly protected by state action.
quote:Don't be embarrassed - it's not your fault. You're right; you don't hear it on the news or whatnot - our media tends to be all about FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! and 'if it bleeds it leads'. Not so much about reasonable people coming to a mutually acceptable compromise.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:I had no idea of any of this. Certainly I don't hear it on the news or whatnot--it always seems to be a clean dichotomy between those two groups, the moral/legal and immoral/illegal "sides." I actually thought I'd come up with an alternative position heretofore barely known if not unknown.
Originally posted by saysay:
It's actually an incredibly common position in the US. ... Laura suggested coming up with a third term that more accurately represents the position of the vast majority of women in the US: People in Favor of Limited Legal Access to Abortion (PFLLAA).
I feel like a caveman inventing the wheel and showing it off as a bicycle goes by.
quote:Do any parents really "teach [their children] about chocolate", as opposed to simply giving them a piece of chocolate and letting them figure out how good it is for themselves? Of course most of the things people actually teach their kids about chocolate, in the sense of verbally providing instructional information, is mostly about how it can cause cavities or hyperactivity or obesity or diabetes and should be eaten in moderation. In other words, things that give the impression they don't think chocolate is "such a good thing".
Originally posted by saysay:
It's actually an incredibly common position in the US. In fact, I remember a thread - I think it was started by Gordon Cheng - where he was challenging Shipmates to defend why, if they thought abortion was such a good thing, they didn't teach their children about it the way they teach them about chocolate (I had no luck locating the thread in the archives).
quote:I'm pretty sure the position that "any woman who has a baby without the economic resources to care for it . . . is just stupid and deserves whatever happens to her" is actually part of the Republican platform (e.g. warnings about "welfare queens" [wink, nudge] deliberately getting pregnant for increased welfare payments, various proposals to cut AFDC, etc.), and they've never really been noted as advocates for abortion rights. Heck, the penchant for American conservatives to adopt this 'you're on your own' attitude towards children is one of the main reasons the pro-life* movement has that asterisk. (The other is the penchant of American pro-lifers* to engage in bombings and assassinations).
Originally posted by saysay:
For a while I tried to get enough people with loud enough voices to talk about how that is in fact their position on abortion, but the croesos' of the world shouted us down with their beliefs that any woman who has a baby without the economic resources to care for it when they could have just had a really simple surgical procedure is just stupid and deserves whatever happens to her.
quote:The thing about those organ is that they're always found inside someone else's body. That's one of the first tricks of the pro-life* movement; to erase the idea that pregnancy and childbirth in any way involves women.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, most people regard oxygen machines as non-sentient, inanimate objects without rights or opinions. Exactly why you think this is an argument that's equally applicable to women is a bit opaque. Clarification, please?
quote:What I find interesting is that Rand's disciples who have actual access to government power (e.g. Rand Paul) all seem to come down on the anti-abortion side. It's almost as if their supposed support of "individual liberty" is little more than excuse-making that doesn't extend to anyone who isn't, like them, wealthy, white, and male.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What I find interesting is the way in which, just as it's rather hard to be anti-abortion without sounding like a misogynist, it's rather hard to be pro-choice without sounding like Ayn Rand.
quote:And yet I've heard it most often coming from wealthy white so-called 'liberal' or 'leftist' women.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure the position that "any woman who has a baby without the economic resources to care for it . . . is just stupid and deserves whatever happens to her" is actually part of the Republican platform (e.g. warnings about "welfare queens" [wink, nudge] deliberately getting pregnant for increased welfare payments, various proposals to cut AFDC, etc.), and they've never really been noted as advocates for abortion rights.
quote:I don't believe that most of the people who believe abortion is wrong use "tricks"--I think they're as sincere as I am. But the politicians who know they can get votes by claiming a "pro-life*" (asterisk agreed with wholeheartedly) position may be in a different category.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The thing about those organ is that they're always found inside someone else's body. That's one of the first tricks of the pro-life* movement; to erase the idea that pregnancy and childbirth in any way involves women.
The second trick, usually employed after the first has failed, is to imply that pregnancy and childbirth is trivially easy, like simply turning a valve to supply water or flipping a switch to provide electricity.
quote:To be honest, it was more of a grammatical thing. It was spurred a bit by the verb tenses you used in this post: got, would ... The subjunctive mood suggested to me that it didn't happen. But I could have gotten it wrong, and I apologize for jumping to conclusions too quickly.
Jade Constable: LeRoc - I'm just puzzled as to how you could guess my reproductive history. Not saying it shouldn't happen.
quote:Heheheheheh. I got something like this. Basically some people delight in telling you you'll be sorry later, whatever choice you make. Particularly when it's too late.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nobody would say to someone looking forward to having a baby that they may feel differently after the birth. It's only ever women who don't want children who get the 'you'll seeeeeee' argument.
quote:Heheheheheh. I got something like this. Basically some people delight in telling you you'll be sorry later, whatever choice you make. Particularly when it's too late.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nobody would say to someone looking forward to having a baby that they may feel differently after the birth. It's only ever women who don't want children who get the 'you'll seeeeeee' argument.
quote:Meaning what? That it's now okay to admit what a shameful bit of race-baiting class warfare it was? (We'd already figured that out, thanks!) Or that if enough time goes by it no longer counts as sincere?
Originally posted by saysay:
The "Welfare Queens" trope is so pre-Clinton Welfare Reform that I haven't heard it since I was a small child.
quote:That's not true anyway. The term may not be current any more but the stereotype is still immensely active to judge by what I see on facebook (mostly I have to admit posted by one one-time friend that I haven't defriended for old times sake) about food stamp recipients.
Originally posted by saysay:
The "Welfare Queens" trope is so pre-Clinton Welfare Reform that I haven't heard it since I was a small child.
Meaning what? That it's now okay to admit what a shameful bit of race-baiting class warfare it was? (We'd already figured that out, thanks!) Or that if enough time goes by it no longer counts as sincere?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Alas, persuading my doctor to refer me for it on the NHS is a different matter!
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
Another raised hand here, but a slightly different rationale, which I don't think is unusual:
We can't say for certain whether a fetus is a human life, or when. I'm inclined to think that as long as it might be, then ending that life is not a moral risk I would be wiling to take. But I come to that position because of my religious beliefs, and in the U.S. religious beliefs are not a proper basis of law. Consensus crimes, like murder, are exceptions to that, but there is no consensus regarding abortion.
Note to Jade Constable: I did have a tubal ligation at age 25 and childless, a decision I never regretted and that I wish you could make! It was a luxury I could afford because 1) I had insurance, and 2) I knew I never wanted children. If I'd wanted them "someday," then I'd have had to take my chances with the various fallible forms of contraception. I can understand a woman's desperation when they fail.
quote:Probably so. But most anti-abortion organizations** aren't interested in that kind of thing. Which is inconsistent if you think the the pro-life* movement is interested in preventing abortions, but is fully consistent with the idea that the pro-life* movement is about controlling women.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If even some of the effort (and money!) put into banning or legally interfering with abortion were put into education and birth control, fixing the social safety net, making adoption easier, providing help (including childcare) to women who find themselves in this situation, etc., then I think that would do a great deal of good.
quote:And referring to a pregnancy as parasitic is ridiculous and makes one appear as ignorant of science as YEC's.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:What I find interesting is the way in which, just as it's rather hard to be anti-abortion without sounding like a misogynist, it's rather hard to be pro-choice without sounding like Ayn Rand. (Also a misogynist now I think about it.) 'Parasitic' was I believe Rand's favourite term of denunciation for all the people she didn't approve of. But all human beings are radically dependent upon each other - that's what makes us social animals.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that because the fœtus is parasitic upon the mother it has no capability of an independent existence? The question remaining is whether it has a right to the use of its mother's/host's body to sustain its dependent existence that can be forcibly protected by state action.
quote:Then maybe there needs to be one. And if one exists I'd be thrilled to join it. Here in the US we have a few groups like Faithful America (religious but not right-wing), small but growing.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, I'm sure someone here will say that, as an individual, they're fully supportive of such things. But no organization billing itself as "pro-life*" does so.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
And so on.)
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Meaning what? That it's now okay to admit what a shameful bit of race-baiting class warfare it was? (We'd already figured that out, thanks!) Or that if enough time goes by it no longer counts as sincere?
Originally posted by saysay:
The "Welfare Queens" trope is so pre-Clinton Welfare Reform that I haven't heard it since I was a small child.
quote:Many of these faith leaders are also pro-life.
If you prefer a more recent example, there's the recent refugee crisis discussed over in Purgatory. It's difficult to take as "principled" the stand that the right to life begins at conception and ends at the Rio Grande.
quote:I understand your problem. The Left in this country has adopted so many Rovian tactics that it's hard to talk about some of the issues that I consider important without being accused of basically being evil. I mean, I know history, so I understand why people think a reference to state's rights is always a dog whistle to a politician's racist constituents. And yet sometimes I want to talk about the feds raiding the marijuana dispensaries in the states that have decided to experiment with legalization. And so on.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Then maybe there needs to be one. And if one exists I'd be thrilled to join it. Here in the US we have a few groups like Faithful America (religious but not right-wing), small but growing.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, I'm sure someone here will say that, as an individual, they're fully supportive of such things. But no organization billing itself as "pro-life*" does so.
Of course the terminology may be so tainted that "pro-life" has become political code for "trying to make abortion illegal," so maybe a better way of putting it needs to happen. (I'm pro-family--all kinds of families--but "pro-family" basically is code for "anti-gay" here.
quote:If even NARAL is finally giving people a middle option instead of forcing them to chose between two extremes, then maybe we can make some progress.
Respondents could choose between the following statements: “I believe having an abortion is morally acceptable and should be legal,” “I am personally against abortion for myself and my family, but I don’t believe government should prevent a woman from making that decision for herself,” or “I believe having an abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal.”
quote:Au contraire! The south was the intended and most receptive audience for this urban legend, as demonstrated by the south's enthusiasm for Republican-led cuts to social programs. The whole intent was to divide welfare recipients into the deserving poor and the undeserving poor, with the latter being portrayed as such a pernicious and deep-rooted problem that the whole system should be gutted.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Meaning what? That it's now okay to admit what a shameful bit of race-baiting class warfare it was? (We'd already figured that out, thanks!) Or that if enough time goes by it no longer counts as sincere?
Originally posted by saysay:
The "Welfare Queens" trope is so pre-Clinton Welfare Reform that I haven't heard it since I was a small child.
Meaning that it never played down south (at least where I was - in spite of what Yankees seemed to think) because the way we ran our social services meant that everyone knew that a lot of the recipients were rural ("trailer trash") white people.
quote:I'll take the fact that your response to my assertion that hostility towards the poor (and particularly mothers having trouble providing for their children) is part of the Republican platform is to cite an event hosted by a prominent Democrat to be a tacit concession of the point.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Many of these faith leaders are also pro-life.
If you prefer a more recent example, there's the recent refugee crisis discussed over in Purgatory. It's difficult to take as "principled" the stand that the right to life begins at conception and ends at the Rio Grande.
quote:Alas, it certainly seems alive and well down here in my own part of the south.
Originally posted by saysay:
Meaning that it never played down south (at least where I was - in spite of what Yankees seemed to think) because the way we ran our social services meant that everyone knew that a lot of the recipients were rural ("trailer trash") white people.
quote:Isn't racism everyone's problem?
New York's race issues aren't my problem.
quote:Sadly, I do, though I am glad that things are not as binary as they might seem. It may be the more visible political leaders (rather than genuine people of faith) on the right who are looking at child refugees as some sort of invaders.
I don't recognize your caricature.
quote:We have?
I understand your problem. The Left in this country has adopted so many Rovian tactics
quote:Not always, no. Often, yes.
I mean, I know history, so I understand why people think a reference to state's rights is always a dog whistle to a politician's racist constituents.
quote:
And yet sometimes I want to talk about the feds raiding the marijuana dispensaries in the states that have decided to experiment with legalization.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:I can agree with this, though I actually find the "for myself and my family" is not quite the same thing as "I believe it is morally wrong." Still, it is a step in the right direction regarding making things clear in our own minds.
If even NARAL is finally giving people a middle option instead of forcing them to chose between two extremes, then maybe we can make some progress.
quote:I do agree with this--which is why this position is one I'd like to see more discussion of. I just don't see it as an effect of people on the liberal side of things adopting the approach of Karl Rove. I think it's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction--on both sides--before someone can get an entire sentence out of their mouth that describes their position more adequately than a 4-5 word bumper sticker.
Originally posted by saysay:
...it's hard to talk about some of the issues that I consider important without being accused of basically being evil.
quote:If your philosophy can so be encapsulated, you do not truly have one.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
more adequately than a 4-5 word bumper sticker.
quote:Well, there's nothing stopping anyone from being wronger than a wrong thing that is mistaken. All politicians are hostile to the poor; we don't donate money. I'd be hard pressed to say which side is worse, but then I've also completely given up on national politics.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'll take the fact that your response to my assertion that hostility towards the poor (and particularly mothers having trouble providing for their children) is part of the Republican platform is to cite an event hosted by a prominent Democrat to be a tacit concession of the point.
quote:Sorry to be late on this, but I've been away. This has been an important argument within feminism recently, and it maintains that the state cannot force me to use my body to support someone else.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:And referring to a pregnancy as parasitic is ridiculous and makes one appear as ignorant of science as YEC's.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:What I find interesting is the way in which, just as it's rather hard to be anti-abortion without sounding like a misogynist, it's rather hard to be pro-choice without sounding like Ayn Rand. (Also a misogynist now I think about it.) 'Parasitic' was I believe Rand's favourite term of denunciation for all the people she didn't approve of. But all human beings are radically dependent upon each other - that's what makes us social animals.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that because the fœtus is parasitic upon the mother it has no capability of an independent existence? The question remaining is whether it has a right to the use of its mother's/host's body to sustain its dependent existence that can be forcibly protected by state action.
quote:Stupid? Asinine? Ludicrous?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the argument has a name, but I've forgotten.
quote:I don't understand that. The same argument applies - the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to, but why would you kill it? You can have it adopted.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Stupid? Asinine? Ludicrous?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the argument has a name, but I've forgotten.
If that argument has value, then the dividing line at which one can kill the child is not birth, but well after.
quote:Unless it's badly deformed or defective in some way and nobody is willing to adopt it. Then you're stuck with it, and good luck paying the doctor bills if you're in the USA.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I don't understand that. The same argument applies - the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to, but why would you kill it? You can have it adopted.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Stupid? Asinine? Ludicrous?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the argument has a name, but I've forgotten.
If that argument has value, then the dividing line at which one can kill the child is not birth, but well after.
quote:More to the point, it's not an argument about the independence (or lack thereof) of the child, but the bodily autonomy of women. After birth, the state is not appropriating your body for the benefit of another individual. The state doesn't care, for example, if you nurse your child yourself, feed it formula, or even hire a wet nurse.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I don't understand that. The same argument applies - the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to, but why would you kill it? You can have it adopted.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Stupid? Asinine? Ludicrous?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the argument has a name, but I've forgotten.
If that argument has value, then the dividing line at which one can kill the child is not birth, but well after.
quote:Of course it is. But to label the child as other than a life is disingenuous. When the lump of cells becomes a life, and indeed, when its rights outweigh the mother's, are the conversation.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
More to the point, it's not an argument about the independence (or lack thereof) of the child, but the bodily autonomy of women.
quote:You're talking nonsense here. Except in very limited safe haven cases where you can abandon newborns, the state does not permit you to unilaterally walk away from your child.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The same argument applies - the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to, but why would you kill it? You can have it adopted.
quote:The prisoners of West Virginia would like to know why they are charged with 'destroying state property' for self-mutilation or prison tattoos if this is in fact the case.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is fairly basic in a free society. Citizens are held to "own" their own bodies, or if ownership is the wrong way of looking at it, at the very least no one else "owns" your body more than you do.
quote:Actually the argument is based on biology. You've posited that once a person reaches a certain age they not only have ordinary individual rights, they also gain "rights" over other people. (That sort of thing could be better referred to as "authority" than "rights".) How far does this "right" to use someone else's body extend? In other words, when does my right to your liver outweigh your right to your liver (for example)? And can I get the state to enforce my right to your liver through legislation and enforcement?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Of course it is. But to label the child as other than a life is disingenuous. When the lump of cells becomes a life, and indeed, when its rights outweigh the mother's, are the conversation.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
More to the point, it's not an argument about the independence (or lack thereof) of the child, but the bodily autonomy of women.
The parasite/body autonomy arguments ignore biology.
quote:I haven't studied the matter in any depth, but a guess would be "because West Virginia's prison system is an intentionally dehumanizing hellhole with only superficial respect for the rights of prisoners".
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:The prisoners of West Virginia would like to know why they are charged with 'destroying state property' for self-mutilation or prison tattoos if this is in fact the case.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is fairly basic in a free society. Citizens are held to "own" their own bodies, or if ownership is the wrong way of looking at it, at the very least no one else "owns" your body more than you do.
quote:I'm curious then how you construe adoption as 'unilaterally walking away from your child'?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:You're talking nonsense here. Except in very limited safe haven cases where you can abandon newborns, the state does not permit you to unilaterally walk away from your child.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The same argument applies - the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to, but why would you kill it? You can have it adopted.
You can certainly find someone to adopt your child, and if the state finds you to be an unfit parent, the state will take custody from you, but this latter action does not absolve you of your responsibility to pay for your child's upbringing.
quote:This is mental. You and my organs are no part of any natural process. Infants do not choose their mothers, burrow into the womb and begin to feed.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other words, when does my right to your liver outweigh your right to your liver (for example)? And can I get the state to enforce my right to your liver through legislation and enforcement?
quote:But they are bloody stupid arguments with no true parallel to reproduction.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the oddity of the arguments about livers, and also the old argument about the violinist, who is plugged into your circulatory system, which is keeping him alive - as I said, the oddity of these arguments is meant to highlight the oddity of asking the state to compel a woman to use her body for another being.
quote:But it is most emphatically not head-on.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose many pro-life people see it as natural or inevitable, or morally compelling, that the state deprives a woman of her bodily autonomy, so the original violinist argument was trying to hit these ideas head-on.
quote:People seeds?! Bloody Hell, how can people make such ridiculous arguments? I've never been for eugenics, but these people should be discouraged from breeding, speaking and kept away from any and every form of communication known or theorised.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
quote:Stating things this way strikes me as begging the question. I don’t see how the state compels women to be pregnant in any meaningful sense. It may compel them to remain pregnant once they become so, but that is a rather different thing, ISTM.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
subvert the idea that the state can compel women to be pregnant. I suppose many people find that normal, but it's actually quite bizarre.
quote:This story, linked here stated that 2/3 of women seeking an abortion had been using contraception, which really gives a lie to "women who become pregnant have chosen of their free will to have unprotected sex".
most women who become pregnant have chosen of their own free will to have unprotected sex
quote:Well, OK, the state might not compel them to become pregnant, but the pro-life position is that it should compel them to remain pregnant. This is the big state gone mad.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:Stating things this way strikes me as begging the question. I don’t see how the state compels women to be pregnant in any meaningful sense. It may compel them to remain pregnant once they become so, but that is a rather different thing, ISTM.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
subvert the idea that the state can compel women to be pregnant. I suppose many people find that normal, but it's actually quite bizarre.
Apart from a small minority of women who are raped, most women who become pregnant have chosen of their own free will to have unprotected sex. They are generally aware that becoming pregnant is one possible consequence of this. We can argue the rights and wrongs of the state forcing them to continue the pregnancy, but to say the state compelled them to be pregnant doesn’t seem helpful to me.
quote:How about practicality then? I got pregnant during my 1st marriage, during one of the recurrent US recessions. Both my husband and I were out of work, had been for some time with no prospects on the horizon, nor had we any health insurance.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm not saying nothing should be illegal. But morality is a slippery reason for banning things.
quote:It's not, but adoption is not at all the right parallel.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious then how you construe adoption as 'unilaterally walking away from your child'?
quote:I find it regrettable that you quote-mined me. I didn't say "the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to", I said, "The same argument applies - the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to, but why would you kill it? You can have it adopted."
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:It's not, but adoption is not at all the right parallel.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious then how you construe adoption as 'unilaterally walking away from your child'?
Your claim was "the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to". In the case of abortion, this is exactly what happens - you (unilaterally) choose to have an abortion, there is no more child, you move on.
Once the child is born, then apart from some states with safe haven laws for unwanted newborns, you can't just walk away. You can't just call the state and say "I've changed my mind, I don't want the 5-year-old any more", and have the state say "OK then" and take him off your hands.
You can agree to transfer parental responsibility to someone else, which is adoption, and if you have a baby, especially a white baby, this will be easy. Older kids with special needs? Not so much.
If you really can't cope with parenting your child, the state might take him into care, but this doesn't remove your financial responsibility for him.
Once a child is born, you have responsibility for that child, and the state will make you take responsibility for him, and prosecute you if you don't do an adequate job. The only way you get off the hook is by transferring parental responsibility to someone that the state deems suitable.
quote:I do understand this, I am not thick. Well, not that thick. At some point, we all agree, the cells become life and at some point that life has rights. We do not all agree when.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
lilBuddha - it's a counter argument to those pro-life people who insist that life begins at fertilisation and should be preserved at that point, completely disregarding any rights of the mother.
quote:Not difficult to refute at all. Open a basic biology text.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
OK, you find the arguments weird or whatever. They have been influential amongst feminists, and it strikes me, they are difficult to refute.
quote:On the point of logic I am discussing, there is no difference at all between the trimmed version that I quoted, and your preferred quote with extra context.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I find it regrettable that you quote-mined me. I didn't say "the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to", I said, "The same argument applies - the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to, but why would you kill it? You can have it adopted."
I find that rather dishonest.
quote:Hmm. Curious. So why do you suppose cops and prison guards in West Virginia tell me to stay out of the northeast because the people up there just like smacking the populace around for no good reason, but just because they feel like it and they can get away with it?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I haven't studied the matter in any depth, but a guess would be "because West Virginia's prison system is an intentionally dehumanizing hellhole with only superficial respect for the rights of prisoners".
quote:Because cops know how cops behave and it doesn't really matter if you're in New York or Georgia or anywhere else? Did we stray into "easy answers to off-topic questions" now?
Originally posted by saysay:
Hmm. Curious. So why do you suppose cops and prison guards in West Virginia tell me to stay out of the northeast because the people up there just like smacking the populace around for no good reason, but just because they feel like it and they can get away with it?
quote:If you really feel like discussing the systematic abuses of the American prison-industrial complex and why the best solution (in your estimation) is less accountability and oversight, perhaps a new thread would be a good idea?
Originally posted by saysay:
Why, since PREA is just making their problems worse are they supposed to accept more federal legislation dictating how they can and can't run their prisons and schools and healthcare systems etc.?
quote:And I thought it was because they know that up there rich white women will have you arrested for looking at them funny or hurting their feelings.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because cops know how cops behave and it doesn't really matter if you're in New York or Georgia or anywhere else? Did we stray into "easy answers to off-topic questions" now?
quote:Who else would you suggest to oversee the prisons and justice system to reduce its racist offenses? Private industry? The Red Cross? The UN?
Originally posted by saysay:
Why, given the history of eugenics in this country and the rumours of its persistence are we supposed to just take it on trust that the government has our best interests at heart?
quote:Opponents of abortion have tended to restrict the availability of abortion rather than banning it outright - in the states because of Roe vs. Wade, in the UK because the possibility of achieving a parliamentary majority for banning abortion is fairly negligible. Now if you want to reduce the number of abortions and outright criminalisation is not an option then the way to go is Social Democracy plus Cheap And Reliable Contraception. However social conservatives tend to deplore the former and the Vatican has a somewhat unreasonable animus against the latter. If you chuck into the mix the insistence in framing the anti-abortion discourse in the language of rights it is possible to wonder if the anti-abortion movement is entirely serious.
Does anyone hold the position that abortion is morally wrong but that making it illegal will do more harm than good, and that reducing the number of abortions by focusing on things like the social safety net, education, the adoption process, and new medical techniques would be the best way to approach the matter?
quote:Funny, IMO, pro can replace anti in that statement and be no less accurate.
Originally posted by Gildas:
If you chuck into the mix the insistence in framing the anti-abortion discourse in the language of rights it is possible to wonder if the anti-abortion movement is entirely serious.
quote:I had no idea about any of this; though it definitely fits with my position that, for those of us who believe abortion is morally wrong, our time and focus would be better spent on making adoption easier--and I would add "without placing any more burden on the mother/parents" to the mix.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Your claim was "the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to". In the case of abortion, this is exactly what happens - you (unilaterally) choose to have an abortion, there is no more child, you move on.
Once the child is born, then apart from some states with safe haven laws for unwanted newborns, you can't just walk away. You can't just call the state and say "I've changed my mind, I don't want the 5-year-old any more", and have the state say "OK then" and take him off your hands.
You can agree to transfer parental responsibility to someone else, which is adoption, and if you have a baby, especially a white baby, this will be easy. Older kids with special needs? Not so much.
If you really can't cope with parenting your child, the state might take him into care, but this doesn't remove your financial responsibility for him.
Once a child is born, you have responsibility for that child, and the state will make you take responsibility for him, and prosecute you if you don't do an adequate job. The only way you get off the hook is by transferring parental responsibility to someone that the state deems suitable.
quote:Amen. Absolutely.
Originally posted by saysay:
Also focus on affordable medical care. I'm not sure how much Obamacare is going to help with the problem, but for most of my adult life I wouldn't have been able to afford to go through pregnancy and a hospital childbirth.
quote:Except for the little problem that there is no pro-abortion movement.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Funny, IMO, pro can replace anti in that statement and be no less accurate.
Originally posted by Gildas:
If you chuck into the mix the insistence in framing the anti-abortion discourse in the language of rights it is possible to wonder if the anti-abortion movement is entirely serious.
