homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Texas but not Virginia (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Texas but not Virginia
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I see that Texas, under the governorship of Rick Perry, has passed into law a measure to force women seeking abortion to have a vaginal ultrasound, but Virginia, under the governorship of Bob McDonnell, has balked at the fence and given up for the moment on a similar law. Speculation was that McDonnell was anxious about his national profile, and refused to accept the harsher form of the bill, pushing for a change towards requiring an abdominal ultrasound, but only "offering" a vaginal one.

In "Virginia's vagina-violating ultrasound law", Lizz Winstead points out the obvious illegality of such a law, equating it to making the doctor a rapist, as well as violating her rights against search and seizure.

Of course, the woman in question is clearly someone who should have a Scarlet A branded on her forehead for even suggesting an abortion. That's the joy of living in a place where theocracy is just below the surface.

But is there no relief from the "drum-beat of war" against women? What is it about the US that so many males (and females for that matter) have to spend all their political capital on making life worse for women?

And how did that bill become law in Texas, if the Fourth Amendment is such an obvious legal challenge to that law's intent?

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Do you ever get tired of harping on Americans?

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The economy has started to improve. The unemployment rate is falling. Obama has been a squeaky clean president so far - no real scandals. The only thing left are social issues.

Bob McDonnell may have Vice President ambitions (paired with Romney) and can't be too extreme since they are usually chosen when the Prez candidate needs to be pivot to moderation to attract independents. OTOH Perry has nothing to lose. He ran as an extremist.

[ 26. February 2012, 03:25: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
SPK: Frankly, no. I can see the Harper importation of stuff I don't like from south of the border.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Of course, the woman in question is clearly someone who should have a Scarlet A branded on her forehead for even suggesting an abortion. That's the joy of living in a place where theocracy is just below the surface.

Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so. That this is disdained as 'theocracy' is merely name calling, as our values have got to have some basis; it was 'obvious' to previous generations that blacks and Jews didn't deserve equal treatment with other humans but unborn babies did - now we've reversed that position. And they call it progress. [Waterworks]

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And this subject clearly falls within the Dead Horses guideline i.e. it is about the regulation of abortion.

Off you go.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host


--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690

 - Posted      Profile for hilaryg   Email hilaryg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

You can believe whatever you like, free country and all of that. But elected officials have no business making laws that force a doctor to perform a procedure that is not medically necessary, in order for the patient to obtain another (legal) medical procedure. I'm sorry that it went through in Texas. One of the difficulties for the law in Virginia is that State law has a clear definition of rape to include vaginal penetration with an object against the will of the woman. There were legal opinions saying that could lead doctors to being prosecuted for rape.

The other controversial bill that was passing through the Virginia Senate at the same time was the Personhood bill, that would have defined "personhood" at the point of fertilisation. This Bill was also, thankfully, placed on hold for the moment.

In both cases, it appears that reason and science briefly prevailed, in Virginia's case because McDonnell didn't like the attention from Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show. It appears the Vagina Republic party will have to find another way of legislating for their social agenda for now.

And now we've been moved to Dead Horses I can add - why do people who hold such strong anti-abortion views try such badly thought through laws in order to try and restrict it?

I mean, defining a fertilised egg as a person? Roughly 50% of fertilised eggs never implant anyway, does that make many women guilty of murder by neglect? What of women who sadly miscarry? And a nightmare for IVF clinics. If parents die during the treatment process, who looks after the "orphans"? Would the IVF clinic have to manage the parent's estate on behalf of the "children"? And of course, the stonking great elephant in the room - abortion could then be legally defined in murder, in the many messy court cases that would follow such a personhood bill becoming law. [Disappointed]

Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Speaking of which, I came across an interesting article which tracks the evolving view on abortion amongst evangelicals:

The Biblical View that's younger than a Happy Meal

Needless to say most Christians in this country didn't consider a foetus a full human being until the 1980s. When Roe v. Wade was ruled , the Southern Baptist Convention issued a statement stating they would "work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother".

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

The problem with this assessment is that the Commonwealth of Virginia does not consider abortion to be murder.

I'd like to think that this kind of legally mandatory medical rape (which serves no actual medical necessity) would qualify as exactly the kind of "undue burden" mentioned in Carhart II [PDF], but you never know which way Anthony Kennedy is going to jump on something like this.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ToujoursDan

You may be interested in this. I appreciate that it is a Catholic comment on the opinion of Bishop Richard Harries - and therefore a fair way removed from what we might consider mainstream evangelical thought, but it does provide some kind of historical information about what Richard Harries suggests is "an alternative Western tradition". Apart from a book I read in the early 1970s by an evangelical who was also a practising medical man (title and author escape me), all the books written to reflect evangelical views which I've ever read are uniformly conservative on the matter.

Look at Chapter 2 in the Didache. The Didache would not be authoritative for Evangelicals but it generally gets a "good press" in Evangelical writings. The "speculative" considerations of the early Church Fathers re soul infusion? Not so much, of course, particularly if they are seen as "adding" to the scriptures, rather than interpreting them.

But I'm sure you know that already.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What's the stated purpose of this law? I'm assuming that the ultrasound scan is to 'inform' women seeking abortion of the full facts before they make the decision (with the message "this is your baby, are you sure you want to kill it?"), but is there more to it than that?

Is there are purportedly good reason for a vaginal ultrasound to be specified? That's not usual (over here at least) even for pregnancies which the woman intends to result in birth. I assume the polititians didn't sell this idea as something intended purely to make the whole process as awkward and humiliating as possible (maybe they did, but the little I about US constitutional law is enough for me to be aware that this would be a very bad strategy) - but if that isn't the official reason for it, I am struggling to think of any other plausible one.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On the wider historic context, it's worth remembering that the Hippocratic Oath has an explicit element promising not to aim at an abortion. In that context the church was pushing at an open door when it united with 'the world' to enforce a ban on abortions in the classical period, a ban that was largely uncontroversial for 1500 years or so.

The issue of abortions on the grounds of gender has caused feminists to struggle: they have the challenge of defending a woman's right to choose for any reason except the sex of the child. You couldn't make it up: either the right is absolute, or it's not.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

Fine.

And when every vocal group who is against abortion is putting their money towards things that work like contraception and opposing things that objectively don't like "abstinance only sex education" then I will start to take the idea that you genuinely believe what you claim to seriously.

As it is, those most vocally claiming that abortion is murder seem to be doing everything they can both socially and economically to put people in a position where they need abortions. Good healthcare prevents abortions. A social safety net prevents abortions as having a child ceases to be catasrophic. Contraception prevents abortions by preventing pregnancy.

Trying to ban abortions, and the research is extremely strong on this, doesn't prevent abortions. It merely increases the use of coat hangers.

quote:
That this is disdained as 'theocracy' is merely name calling, as our values have got to have some basis; it was 'obvious' to previous generations that blacks and Jews didn't deserve equal treatment with other humans but unborn babies did - now we've reversed that position. And they call it progress. [Waterworks]
Cry me a fucking river. If you want to prevent abortions, do things that lower the demand for abortions. Don't simply sit round posturing while trying to undermine the mechanisms to prevent people needing abortions.

And certainly don't try to "prevent" abortions by mandating the sticking a large piece of plastic up a woman's vagina. There is no purpose to this enforced penetration. If someone actually needs an abortion, forcible sexual penetration isn't going to be worse than the alternatives. It's merely gratuitous sexual humiliation. Now I don't care what your kinks are as long as all parties consent, but there's a difference between dressing up as a kinky nurse and changing genuine medical care to something that better suits your kinks.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
On the wider historic context, it's worth remembering that the Hippocratic Oath has an explicit element promising not to aim at an abortion.

No. It mentions a specific method of abortion. Pessaries (which would be the approximate equivalent of a coathanger abortion). It says nothing about e.g. Pennyroyal or other medical methods of abortion. In context it might mean no abortions - but then it is highly unlikely that it would mention the one specific method unless the Greeks knew no others.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690

 - Posted      Profile for hilaryg   Email hilaryg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What's the stated purpose of this law? I'm assuming that the ultrasound scan is to 'inform' women seeking abortion of the full facts before they make the decision (with the message "this is your baby, are you sure you want to kill it?"), but is there more to it than that?

Is there are purportedly good reason for a vaginal ultrasound to be specified?

Yes, it was to image the foetus, although it was not mandatory for the woman to view the image, but it would remain on her medical file for 7 years.

As I understand it, to get a good image of the foetus in the first trimester, a vaginal ultrasound is required as an abdominal ultrasound doesn't return a satisfactory image as the foetus is so small. Hence the bill specifically required a vaginal ultrasound. The bill was modified to remove this aspect in an attempt at compromise, ie abdominal ultrasound was still mandatory if after 12 weeks, but vaginal ultrasound not mandatory up to 12 weeks.

Badly thought through law making again - what would happen in the event of new advances in medical imaging? Would they still be forcing women to undergo outdated, intrusive procedures because they hadn't got round to updating the law yet?

I spend a lot of my time at work writing standard operating procedures, and at some point you always try and "break" it with a load of "what if" situations. Don't law writers also do this? Orfeo?

Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The issue of abortions on the grounds of gender has caused feminists to struggle: they have the challenge of defending a woman's right to choose for any reason except the sex of the child. You couldn't make it up: either the right is absolute, or it's not.

Why? It is perfectly possible to think that some abortions - or all abortions - are very wrong, or chosen for wrong reasons, without thinking that they are murders. Only those people who think a fertilised egg is morally a human being are forced by their position to be absolutists. Everyone else can consistently say that the ethics of an abortion may well depend on circumstances.


It is also possible to think that individuals should be absolutely free to decide to abort or not, AND to think them immoral if they do (either at all, or for bad reasons). Someone could consistently think that personal autonomy is so important that we should permit wrong decisions to be made rather than restrict the decision maker's freedom. We do this for other legal rights readily enough - the example you give is no more problematic than someone who believes in the legal freedom of the press deploring the content of a popular newspaper.

Sex selection abortions* are wrong because they are motivated by the belief that people of one sex (usually male) are worth more than people of the other. Since that is an immoral belief, it is immoral to act on it, whether or not abortion is murder. Saying so in a way that does not detract from a legally pro-choice position is a presentational difficulty, nothing more than that.


* I'm excluding from the definition, as I think you are, abortions where one sex is at risk of a serious medical condition and the other isn't.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yellowroom:
Yes, it was to image the foetus, although it was not mandatory for the woman to view the image, but it would remain on her medical file for 7 years.

As I understand it, to get a good image of the foetus in the first trimester, a vaginal ultrasound is required as an abdominal ultrasound doesn't return a satisfactory image as the foetus is so small. Hence the bill specifically required a vaginal ultrasound. The bill was modified to remove this aspect in an attempt at compromise, ie abdominal ultrasound was still mandatory if after 12 weeks, but vaginal ultrasound not mandatory up to 12 weeks.

Thanks.

quote:
I spend a lot of my time at work writing standard operating procedures, and at some point you always try and "break" it with a load of "what if" situations. Don't law writers also do this?
They'd better, because lawyers in private practice certainly do.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What's the stated purpose of this law? I'm assuming that the ultrasound scan is to 'inform' women seeking abortion of the full facts before they make the decision (with the message "this is your baby, are you sure you want to kill it?"), but is there more to it than that?

This is what I mean when I talk about the level of contempt most anti-abortion activists have for women's intelligence and decision making powers. The idea seems to be that unless someone actually shows a woman a picture she'll have no idea what's going on inside her. As near as I can tell, the stated purpose is to inform women who want to get abortions that they're pregnant which, given the fact that they're seeking abortions, I'm pretty sure they already know.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
On the wider historic context, it's worth remembering that the Hippocratic Oath has an explicit element promising not to aim at an abortion.

No. It mentions a specific method of abortion. Pessaries (which would be the approximate equivalent of a coathanger abortion). It says nothing about e.g. Pennyroyal or other medical methods of abortion. In context it might mean no abortions - but then it is highly unlikely that it would mention the one specific method unless the Greeks knew no others.
It should be noted that under ES's interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath, all forms of surgery are also prohibited.

quote:
Originally posted by yellowroom:
As I understand it, to get a good image of the foetus in the first trimester, a vaginal ultrasound is required as an abdominal ultrasound doesn't return a satisfactory image as the foetus is so small. Hence the bill specifically required a vaginal ultrasound. The bill was modified to remove this aspect in an attempt at compromise, ie abdominal ultrasound was still mandatory if after 12 weeks, but vaginal ultrasound not mandatory up to 12 weeks.

Can't speak to the Texas statute, but the Virginia bill didn't specifically require a transvaginal ultrasound, it just specified an ultrasound reading that, prior to at least twelve weeks pregnancy, could only be made transvaginally. It seems more like a case of a legislator trying to be "tough" on an issue he had no medical understanding of. I heard an interview with the original sponsor of Virginia's bill, and he couldn't even bring himself to say the word "vagina" when asked about this.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
ToujoursDan

You may be interested in this. I appreciate that it is a Catholic comment on the opinion of Bishop Richard Harries - and therefore a fair way removed from what we might consider mainstream evangelical thought, but it does provide some kind of historical information about what Richard Harries suggests is "an alternative Western tradition". Apart from a book I read in the early 1970s by an evangelical who was also a practising medical man (title and author escape me), all the books written to reflect evangelical views which I've ever read are uniformly conservative on the matter.

Look at Chapter 2 in the Didache. The Didache would not be authoritative for Evangelicals but it generally gets a "good press" in Evangelical writings. The "speculative" considerations of the early Church Fathers re soul infusion? Not so much, of course, particularly if they are seen as "adding" to the scriptures, rather than interpreting them.

But I'm sure you know that already.

When I attended an evangelical university, there was a consensus that abortion was a very serious procedure and shouldn't be undertaken for frivolous reasons, but they hadn't yet arrived at the belief that a zygote was a full human being whose right to life was equal (or superior) to that of the mother.

They had a position that was fairly similar to most mainline denominations today and one that fairly closely matched the modern mainstream Jewish position whereby abortion was serious but not murder (Exodus 21:22-25).

It seems to have evolved to their current position and activism later.

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
ToujoursDan

You may be interested in this. I appreciate that it is a Catholic comment on the opinion of Bishop Richard Harries - and therefore a fair way removed from what we might consider mainstream evangelical thought, but it does provide some kind of historical information about what Richard Harries suggests is "an alternative Western tradition". Apart from a book I read in the early 1970s by an evangelical who was also a practising medical man (title and author escape me), all the books written to reflect evangelical views which I've ever read are uniformly conservative on the matter.

Look at Chapter 2 in the Didache. The Didache would not be authoritative for Evangelicals but it generally gets a "good press" in Evangelical writings. The "speculative" considerations of the early Church Fathers re soul infusion? Not so much, of course, particularly if they are seen as "adding" to the scriptures, rather than interpreting them.

But I'm sure you know that already.

One more problem with using these sources in an evangelical context is that they assert beliefs that are still denied/ignored by modern evangelicals.

The Church Fathers also strongly preached against contraception. Some translations of the Didache do the same.

According to the National Catholic Register:

quote:
The earliest reference to contraception and abortion is in the Didache, a document from the second half of the first century or early second century. Didache reads: “You shall not practice birth control, you shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill what is begotten” (2).

Many translations read “practice sorcery” because the Greek word sometimes has that meaning (see Wisdom 12:4, Galatians 5:20, Revelation 18:23). However, it also means practice medicine or use poison, and the term may refer to contraceptive measures, as is the case in a number of the following texts...

Until about three weeks ago evangelicals had no problem with contraception. It was considered a matter of personal conscience despite what (arguably) the Didache and Church Fathers had to say about it. So I'd be careful about using sources like this in an American evangelical context. They are simply off the radar for most.

I'd agree that evangelical Christians always asserted that abortion is a procedure of grave moral consequence (as I do BTW), but that is very different than the more recent assertion that it is equal to murder and that a zygote is a human being equal (or superior) to the mother. As mentioned, it was closer to the Jewish position than the Catholic one.

[ 27. February 2012, 21:11: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
TD

Quite right.

I sometimes think that someone with my personal "nuanced" views (a compliment from Gamaliel - at least I think it was a compliment) would be seen in many evangelical settings in the US as in grave need of correction - if not a "real" conversion. My penchant for nonconformist nonconformity would be stretched to the limit.

[I fit in fine in the UK, partly because of my advanced years (the 'gaga' defence) and also general sociability. Plus my wife and I do good food for guests.]

The Didache translation point is very interesting - hadn't come across that before. "Witchcraft" or "sorcery" is the translation I was used to.

[ 28. February 2012, 00:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690

 - Posted      Profile for hilaryg   Email hilaryg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Can't speak to the Texas statute, but the Virginia bill didn't specifically require a transvaginal ultrasound, it just specified an ultrasound reading that, prior to at least twelve weeks pregnancy, could only be made transvaginally. It seems more like a case of a legislator trying to be "tough" on an issue he had no medical understanding of.

You are right, my bad for not paying attention to the detail and relying on newspaper reports! But the amended bill does graciously offer the option for the woman to decline a vaginal ultrasound.

Anyway, the bill has not gone away. It was due to be voted on again today, but was put off for a day. Virginia may yet join Texas and other states in mandating an ultrasound before abortion.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I heard an interview with the original sponsor of Virginia's bill, and he couldn't even bring himself to say the word "vagina" when asked about this.

Heh, let not discuss lady parts. Difficult to distinguish between satire and real life at the moment.

But seriously, how can a grown man not bring himself to say vagina? Is it the word that's so horrible or the part of the body itself? Because I'm are wondering! How can you have any debate, let alone constructive, if people can't even bring themselves to use standard anatomical terms? [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690

 - Posted      Profile for hilaryg   Email hilaryg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by yellowroom:
I spend a lot of my time at work writing standard operating procedures, and at some point you always try and "break" it with a load of "what if" situations. Don't law writers also do this?

They'd better, because lawyers in private practice certainly do.
Hmm, seems the Virginia legislators haven't been doing it very rigorously then.
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Liopleurodon

Mighty sea creature
# 4836

 - Posted      Profile for Liopleurodon   Email Liopleurodon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does anyone else have the feeling that this legislation is not so much about preventing abortions as about making sure that women who have them are punished for their decision? If you've thought through your options and decided that abortion is the way you're going to go, I very much doubt that having said ultrasound is going to make you change your mind. It is, however, invasive, unnecessary, probably expensive and designed to make you feel bad. It's like the pro-life brigade are trotting out their usual line of "Don't have an abortion because you'll be traumatised and crushed with guilt!" with the added clause "because we're going to make damn sure that that happens!"

I think it's a dangerous move because medical ethics generally avoids going along the path of adding in compulsory medical procedures with no medical benefit. There are other options they could try in order to have the same psychological effect without wasting the time of skilled medical personnel.

Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Does anyone else have the feeling that this legislation is not so much about preventing abortions as about making sure that women who have them are punished for their decision?

Of course. For example:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

The whole reason for writing object rape into law as a punishment for abortion is deterrent. ES might just as well have said "this'll teach those uppity bitches a lesson".

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok - I stand corrected on my interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath; I can claim to be quoting a Christian in making that interpretation, but I need to learn to be more sceptical about what Christians say about non-biblical texts in the same way as I am about biblical ones. [Hot and Hormonal]

And similarly, the way that the legislatures concerned have chosen a highly invasive procedure as the way to obtain the ultra-sound photo is problematic. Again I reacted positively to the idea of their being required to get an ultrasound, without realising the extremities this involved. The core problem of course is that there is a severe disconnect between the views of the local people and those being imposed from Washington. The inevitable result of this is that the local legislature will try to impose its view, with the result there will be ructions as the two forces face off, and people will get ground down in the middle.

There will always be victims in these sorts of issues; the question is who is the most appropriate person to suffer. In the abortion debate, that comes down to a fight between the mother and the unborn child; if you believe the unborn child is worthy of being treated as a human, it's entirely rational to argue that a child has a greater claim to protection than an adult.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258

 - Posted      Profile for art dunce     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Who has the greater claim to protection if the mother is also a child?

--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.

Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And similarly, the way that the legislatures concerned have chosen a highly invasive procedure as the way to obtain the ultra-sound photo is problematic. Again I reacted positively to the idea of their being required to get an ultrasound, without realising the extremities this involved. The core problem of course is that there is a severe disconnect between the views of the local people and those being imposed from Washington. The inevitable result of this is that the local legislature will try to impose its view, with the result there will be ructions as the two forces face off, and people will get ground down in the middle.

As noted above, the state legislatures in question didn't choose a highly invasive procedure. They were, like you, just completely indifferent to any suffering their ignorance would cause. Even now you can't seem to bring yourself to describe the issue in honest terms, inventing a conflict between "Washington" (by which I assume you mean the U.S. federal government) and the state government. "Washington" was never involved, and this wasn't a conflict between state and federal governments. This was a conflict between the state government and individual liberty. You seem to be under the impression that there was a conspiracy by some federal agency somewhere to convince women that they didn't like being raped with a large medical wand, apparently on the premise that they're either too stupid to realize this for themselves or not really citizens in the sense of being able to complain about unfair treatment by their local government. Once again, the idea that women are people who have rights and opinions seems alien to abortion opponents.

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
There will always be victims in these sorts of issues; the question is who is the most appropriate person to suffer. In the abortion debate, that comes down to a fight between the mother and the unborn child; if you believe the unborn child is worthy of being treated as a human, it's entirely rational to argue that a child has a greater claim to protection than an adult.

Once again, how does raping women before they can get an abortion protect children? The rationality of that position escapes me.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The economy has started to improve. The unemployment rate is falling. Obama has been a squeaky clean president so far - no real scandals. The only thing left are social issues.

As per a jpg making the rounds currently in FB:

Republicans: JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!
Obama: 3.7 million jobs have been created on my watch.
Republicans: VAGINAS! VAGINAS! VAGINAS!

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

"Let us do evil that good may result?" Really? Well, all I can say about such a position is that, per St. Paul, it is antichristian.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And similarly, the way that the legislatures concerned have chosen a highly invasive procedure as the way to obtain the ultra-sound photo is problematic. Again I reacted positively to the idea of their being required to get an ultrasound, without realising the extremities this involved. The core problem of course is that there is a severe disconnect between the views of the local people and those being imposed from Washington. The inevitable result of this is that the local legislature will try to impose its view, with the result there will be ructions as the two forces face off, and people will get ground down in the middle.

As noted above, the state legislatures in question didn't choose a highly invasive procedure. They were, like you, just completely indifferent to any suffering their ignorance would cause. Even now you can't seem to bring yourself to describe the issue in honest terms, inventing a conflict between "Washington" (by which I assume you mean the U.S. federal government) and the state government. "Washington" was never involved, and this wasn't a conflict between state and federal governments. This was a conflict between the state government and individual liberty. You seem to be under the impression that there was a conspiracy by some federal agency somewhere to convince women that they didn't like being raped with a large medical wand, apparently on the premise that they're either too stupid to realize this for themselves or not really citizens in the sense of being able to complain about unfair treatment by their local government. Once again, the idea that women are people who have rights and opinions seems alien to abortion opponents.

Please make some attempt to interpret my posts sympathetically: the reference to Washington is, of course, to the Supreme Court that decided abortion should be a right, thereby defining as a matter of 'liberty' what was not previously a matter of 'liberty'.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
There will always be victims in these sorts of issues; the question is who is the most appropriate person to suffer. In the abortion debate, that comes down to a fight between the mother and the unborn child; if you believe the unborn child is worthy of being treated as a human, it's entirely rational to argue that a child has a greater claim to protection than an adult.

Once again, how does raping women before they can get an abortion protect children? The rationality of that position escapes me.
It's not rape on the strict definition as there will be consent - even if that consent is coerced as a means to obtain the end result of having permission to murder her child (we can both stretch language to make our points here...). If as a result of seeing the ultrascan result the woman chooses not to have an abortion, then that would be a legitimate result.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

"Let us do evil that good may result?" Really? Well, all I can say about such a position is that, per St. Paul, it is antichristian.
Whoops - anyone would think I'm a newbie given the number of simplistic statements I'm letting slip through [Hot and Hormonal] Fair response MT. What I was suggesting was any legitimate measure; the debate comes down to what is legitimate. For example, given that it is legitimate to use force to protect my own family, why is it illegitimate to fire bomb abortion clinics, if in doing so there is a good chance I would save the life of a baby. But that's a different debate.

My own understanding is that when sex occurs, both partners can be expected to accept the consequences of their action (let's ignore rape for the moment). If you argue that teenagers can't be held to account for their action, then they should never be charged with a criminal offence. And if they are adults, then it's a an entirely reasonable expectation they should be deemed responsible. If that is so, then it is reasonable that the state (in the political science definition, not component of the USA sense) should take measures to enforce that responsibility on those who have voluntarily chosen to enter into that action with its consequences. We enforce the requirement to have insurance to drive. We punish people who act irresponsibly by drinking and driving. We enforce a requirement on parents to feed and educate children. It is a philosophically consistent model to impose a requirement on a woman to accept that the consequence of her having sex is that she may have to carry the baby to term, and that if she chooses not to put the child up for adoption, the man will be responsible for the child for until they reach adulthood.

Now that is a consistent model, based on the assumption that unborn children have human rights, and that men and women are capable of rational choices. So the debate becomes all about whether the baby IS eligible for human rights before birth, and whether men and women can be held responsible for their actions.

[Let's see if I'm doing better at being precise enough]

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Liopleurodon

Mighty sea creature
# 4836

 - Posted      Profile for Liopleurodon   Email Liopleurodon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's not rape on the strict definition as there will be consent - even if that consent is coerced as a means to obtain the end result of having permission to murder her child (we can both stretch language to make our points here...). If as a result of seeing the ultrascan result the woman chooses not to have an abortion, then that would be a legitimate result.

It's not consent if there is coercion. A woman may say "yes, get it over with" to sex if a rapist holds a knife to her and threatens to hurt her if she says no. That's not consent. Likewise a woman may allow the ultrasound to take place if the only other option is to continue with a pregnancy which could have dire personal consequences for her for the rest of her life.

There are, of course, medical procedures which are invasive, unpleasant and painful, but can be necessary. That's why it's such an important principle of medical ethics that you don't do these things when they're *not* necessary. To take an example: Andrew Wakefield got into as much trouble with the medical establishment as he did not for starting the shitstorm of misinformation about vaccines and autism, but for subjecting children to invasive and unnecessary medical procedures such as colonoscopy.

I've said this before, but the only argument that it makes sense to have about abortion is about the personhood of the foetus. I don't believe that the foetus in early pregnancy is a human person with rights. But even if I did, I wouldn't be in favour of this legislation, because it makes absolutely no sense from that point of view either. If a foetus *does* have a right not to be aborted, it doesn't make any sense to show the mother the foetus and then still give her the option. It would be like a man walking into a police station and saying he wants to murder a stranger, and the police saying "Okay, but we're going to follow you and make sure you get a really good look at the stranger's face first. Then if you can handle it, you go ahead." If the foetus has rights and needs to be protected, it doesn't matter a damn what the woman's views are and moves like this to manipulate her are pointless and actually a bit bizarre.

I'd also like to add that the perception that a woman might see an image of a tiny mass in her uterus and go gooey and admit that she hasn't really thought it through and does actually want a baby after all reflects a patronising attitude to women. Give the woman some credit: she's walked into an abortion clinic. She's given it some thought. She knows what she's doing. She's heard the arguments and in many parts of the US she's probably had to walk past protesting mobs with blown up images of late stage foetuses on placards. If anything it may be a relief to see that her first trimester foetus doesn't look anything like as human as the misleading images on said placards.

Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.
Really? WHATEVER measures necessary?

If you sincerely believe that women who seek abortions are conspiring to commit murder, why aren't you campaigning to have them locked up? That's the standard punishment for conspiracy to murder. Getting enough proof to obtain a conviction shouldn't be a problem.

If you believe abortions should be prevented by ANY means necessary, you should be in favour of:

- Free access to contraception, to prevent unwanted pregnancies
- Sex education that requires students to consider the possible consequences of having sex, for boys as well as girls
- Generous welfare provision for parents of small children, so that having a baby need not be catastrophic
- Free childcare for everyone
- Universally available healthcare (the medical expenses and health risks associated with having a baby are considerably higher than those for having an abortion, which is probably a consideration for many women in the US)
- Funding research into artificial wombs and transplanting foetuses

When it becomes technically possible to remove the unwanted foetus from the mother's body and transfer it to someone else's for the remainder of the pregnancy I shall expect to see a long queue of anti-abortion activists offering themselves as human incubators. After all, they are only interested in the rights of the unborn child, not in humiliating the mother and attempting to control her behaviour.

Oh, and what Liopleurodon said.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690

 - Posted      Profile for hilaryg   Email hilaryg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hear hear Jane!

Depressingly, the bill passed in Virginia's Senate.

Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055

 - Posted      Profile for Pre-cambrian   Email Pre-cambrian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
My own understanding is that when sex occurs, both partners can be expected to accept the consequences of their action (let's ignore rape for the moment). If you argue that teenagers can't be held to account for their action, then they should never be charged with a criminal offence. And if they are adults, then it's a an entirely reasonable expectation they should be deemed responsible.

The logical conclusion of this is that the age of consent should be fixed at the same level as the age of criminal responsibility. In the UK that would mean at 10 years. Good news for paedophiles but not too welcome otherwise, I would have thought.

--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."

Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't believe that the foetus in early pregnancy is a human person with rights. But even if I did, I wouldn't be in favour of this legislation, because it makes absolutely no sense from that point of view either. If a foetus *does* have a right not to be aborted, it doesn't make any sense to show the mother the foetus and then still give her the option. It would be like a man walking into a police station and saying he wants to murder a stranger, and the police saying "Okay, but we're going to follow you and make sure you get a really good look at the stranger's face first. Then if you can handle it, you go ahead."

[Overused]

That's exactly why it's a bad law. There's no possible principled defence for it. No one thinks it's OK to kill someone but only if you first allow an image to be made of them using a camera poked into your genitals. The State of Texas is not going to acquit you of murdering Rick Perry if you plead that you took a picture of him with your cockcam, and satisfied yourself that although he may well have had a physical resemblence to a human being, you were quite sure that he had not been endowed with a soul.

I think an argument could be made that some decisions, while ultimately a matter of individual choice, are so grave that there is a public interest to be served in ensuring that they are made well. A law which mandates a cooling-off period before finalising a divorce, or allows a person to contract out of certain legal rights only if they have taken advice from a lawyer, or allows for the legal consumption of a rcreational drug only after a certain age, could sensibly be defended. What would mark them out as reasonable conditions for the exercise of freedom would be a principled commitment to the welfare and autonomy of the person making the decision. The law cannot force people to decide things after careful and conscientious deliberation, but it can (and possibly sometimes should) promote conditions favourable to careful and conscientious deliberation. A law which says (as this one does) "we don't think you should be doing X, but constitutionally we have no power to prevent you, so we are going to make X as difficult and traumatic as possible so as to deter you" does not respect the welfare and autonomy of the decision maker. It is not about ensuring that controversial decisions are made well. It is using the law to bully people.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
My own understanding is that when sex occurs, both partners can be expected to accept the consequences of their action (let's ignore rape for the moment). If you argue that teenagers can't be held to account for their action, then they should never be charged with a criminal offence. And if they are adults, then it's a an entirely reasonable expectation they should be deemed responsible.

The logical conclusion of this is that the age of consent should be fixed at the same level as the age of criminal responsibility. In the UK that would mean at 10 years. Good news for paedophiles but not too welcome otherwise, I would have thought.
Interesting argument, and some Scandinavian countries the age of criminal responsibility is higher. However the missing element is that the reality and consequences of SEX are far more unknowable to the young person than that of criminal activity.
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

Really? WHATEVER measures necessary?

If you sincerely believe that women who seek abortions are conspiring to commit murder, why aren't you campaigning to have them locked up? That's the standard punishment for conspiracy to murder. Getting enough proof to obtain a conviction shouldn't be a problem.

Oh come on, the whole point of the abortion legislation is that it blocks such prosecutions.
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

If you believe abortions should be prevented by ANY means necessary, you should be in favour of:

- Free access to contraception, to prevent unwanted pregnancies
- Sex education that requires students to consider the possible consequences of having sex, for boys as well as girls
- Generous welfare provision for parents of small children, so that having a baby need not be catastrophic
- Free childcare for everyone
- Universally available healthcare (the medical expenses and health risks associated with having a baby are considerably higher than those for having an abortion, which is probably a consideration for many women in the US)
- Funding research into artificial wombs and transplanting foetuses

When it becomes technically possible to remove the unwanted foetus from the mother's body and transfer it to someone else's for the remainder of the pregnancy I shall expect to see a long queue of anti-abortion activists offering themselves as human incubators. After all, they are only interested in the rights of the unborn child, not in humiliating the mother and attempting to control her behaviour.

No - you are making the assumption that someone other than the participants in the sexual act have responsibility for those people's behaviour. Apart possibly from the parents - who should be responsible enough for the sex education of their children - it's the individuals who are responsible for their own actions. Or is sex a special case? Do people have a right to sex, and taxpayers have a duty to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong? Bringing up children is hard. So you shouldn't act in a way that means you might have to accept that responsibility if you aren't able to.

[Yes I know there are hard cases - but I'm talking about the ordinary straight forward cases here.]

What's so difficult about this concept? We don't generally regard it as a good thing that people don't have to accept the consequences of their action. Or is it actually that you are arguing that women are too stupid to think about it properly? Or can't be bothered? Or do we just blame the parents... [Disappointed]

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[Yes I know there are hard cases - but I'm talking about the ordinary straight forward cases here.]

[Killing me] Which ones are those?

Also, Eliab, part of your previous post is noted in the Quotes File.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690

 - Posted      Profile for hilaryg   Email hilaryg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Or is sex a special case?

Yes, sex is a special case. When you talk about being responsible for your actions, we're not talking about driving while drunk. We're talking about an activity driven by fundamental urges and feelings that most adults will experience, an essential part of a relationship for many people. For some it's as essential as eating and drinking. And the consequences we are talking about involve 9 months of high risk change to body culminating in a dangerous labour for the woman, and a major emotional and financial commitment for both participants for at least 18 years and emotionally for life. I can't think of any other every day common activity with such a disproportionate potential after-effect.

If you follow the logic of "you did it, you deal with it", and don't offer any alternative then if that couple's way of dealing with it is to terminate the pregancy then you have to accept that and have no say in that decision.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Do people have a right to sex, and taxpayers have a duty to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong?

I'm pretty sure Jane's point was that if we get it right as a taxpayer, then we drastically reduce the number of times it goes wrong, because either the pregnancy never happens, or there is a realistic alternative for the woman/couple to consider. And it can go wrong even for "responsible married couples" - very few methods of contraception are 100 % reliable.

Currently, abortion is the least worst choice in more situations that necessary. Being in the UK, you may not realise, for example, that the cost for a straightforward, vaginal delivery in hospital is typically in the range of $5 - 6,000 in the US. That doesn't include any checkups during pregnancy or ante-natal care. The sky is the limit if you need a caesarean, or baby needs time in hospital afterwards. By your logic, we'd be saying that you can only have sex if you have good insurance and don't lose your job in the next nine months, because otherwise you can't afford the consequences of your actions.

Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The Didache translation point is very interesting - hadn't come across that before. "Witchcraft" or "sorcery" is the translation I was used to.

That translation seems like a stretch, but who knows?

On the other hand, Mosaic law commands a woman suspected of infidelity to drink poison. If she miscarries her child, she's guilty. If she doesn't she's innocent:

quote:
If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
---Numbers 5

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yellowroom:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Or is sex a special case?

Yes, sex is a special case. ... I can't think of any other every day common activity with such a disproportionate potential after-effect. ...
Yes, sex is a special case, because the huge potential after-effect is a human being. And while parents can and do walk away from their responsibilities, society cannot, and may end up with a duty of care to that child. If you believe the fetus is a person, society has a duty to protect it. If you believe a woman is the best judge of her capability to bear and raise a child, society should trust her choice. Either way, society does have an interest in the results of sex.

And what Jane R said. If someone really opposes abortion s/he should support measures which reduce the need for abortions - with accessible and affordable education, contraception, medical care, child care, and maternity leave benefits. OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the taxpayer has some say in this because the taxpayer is footing the bill for the pregnancy/abortion. Even in the US, the government spends as much on health care as any other government in the industrial world, with the added burden that the private payer in that country picks up almost that much again.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yellowroom:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Or is sex a special case?

Yes, sex is a special case. When you talk about being responsible for your actions, we're not talking about driving while drunk. We're talking about an activity driven by fundamental urges and feelings that most adults will experience, an essential part of a relationship for many people. For some it's as essential as eating and drinking.
Excuse me. Let me see if I read that right:
quote:

For some it's as essential as eating and drinking.

Yes, YR did say that. WTF. So if they can't get it - what are they supposed to do? A spot of rape? Or just indulge in the local prostitute?

If you are seriously that sex driven and male - get a vasectomy. You're obviously out of control and would make a dreadful father. And if you're female, make sure he gets one.

Sex is not as necessary as eating and drinking, and surely masturbation is an adequate solution otherwise. And certainly this is no basis for a serious argument...

quote:
Originally posted by yellowroom:

And the consequences we are talking about involve 9 months of high risk change to body culminating in a dangerous labour for the woman, and a major emotional and financial commitment for both participants for at least 18 years and emotionally for life. I can't think of any other every day common activity with such a disproportionate potential after-effect.

If you follow the logic of "you did it, you deal with it", and don't offer any alternative then if that couple's way of dealing with it is to terminate the pregancy then you have to accept that and have no say in that decision.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Do people have a right to sex, and taxpayers have a duty to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong?

I'm pretty sure Jane's point was that if we get it right as a taxpayer, then we drastically reduce the number of times it goes wrong, because either the pregnancy never happens, or there is a realistic alternative for the woman/couple to consider. And it can go wrong even for "responsible married couples" - very few methods of contraception are 100 % reliable.

Currently, abortion is the least worst choice in more situations that necessary. Being in the UK, you may not realise, for example, that the cost for a straightforward, vaginal delivery in hospital is typically in the range of $5 - 6,000 in the US. That doesn't include any checkups during pregnancy or ante-natal care. The sky is the limit if you need a caesarean, or baby needs time in hospital afterwards. By your logic, we'd be saying that you can only have sex if you have good insurance and don't lose your job in the next nine months, because otherwise you can't afford the consequences of your actions.

Yes, of course there's got to be a balance - though given the shortage of healthy babies to adopt, I would be prepared to suggest that someone who's responsible but unlucky with contraception should go down that road. I'm primarily pointing to an alternative, internally consistent, if wildly unfashionable, view, that should inform the debate and put it into perspective. Most of the abortion debate is about hard cases, but most of the abortions seem to be the result of carelessness; to return to the traditional moral perspective for a moment - why should a baby be killed because his mother was careless?

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

If you believe abortions should be prevented by ANY means necessary, you should be in favour of:

- Free access to contraception, to prevent unwanted pregnancies
- Sex education that requires students to consider the possible consequences of having sex, for boys as well as girls
- Generous welfare provision for parents of small children, so that having a baby need not be catastrophic
- Free childcare for everyone
- Universally available healthcare (the medical expenses and health risks associated with having a baby are considerably higher than those for having an abortion, which is probably a consideration for many women in the US)
- Funding research into artificial wombs and transplanting foetuses

When it becomes technically possible to remove the unwanted foetus from the mother's body and transfer it to someone else's for the remainder of the pregnancy I shall expect to see a long queue of anti-abortion activists offering themselves as human incubators. After all, they are only interested in the rights of the unborn child, not in humiliating the mother and attempting to control her behaviour.

No - you are making the assumption that someone other than the participants in the sexual act have responsibility for those people's behaviour. Apart possibly from the parents - who should be responsible enough for the sex education of their children - it's the individuals who are responsible for their own actions. Or is sex a special case? Do people have a right to sex, and taxpayers have a duty to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong? Bringing up children is hard. So you shouldn't act in a way that means you might have to accept that responsibility if you aren't able to.
I'm sorry. You seem to be arguing in favour of cutting away the safety nets to prevent people doing things wrong? You are arguing that just because something might go wrong people should be prevented from (a) learning what the genuine risks are and (b) being able to minimise those risks.

This is is to me utterly callous and amoral. And I do not believe it is an attitude that has any place in a civilised society.

Nature is harsh and brutal, and the purpose of civilisation is to make it less brutal. You seem to want things to be as harsh and brutal as possible.

Furthermore you have just illustrated Creosus' claim that pro-life means "pro-life (offer expires at birth)". You are explicitely arguing against providing the mother with the means to actually look after the baby if she doesn't have it - for instance the welfare mentioned. It is not the baby's fault that the parents fucked up. But the problems are going to impact the baby, and welfare provision would minimise these problems. Rather than make sure that parents (or a single parent) struggling by would have enough money to feed, clothe, and provide medical care for their baby. The hardship is going to fall on the baby - and you don't appear to give a damn about this.

quote:
Yes I know there are hard cases - but I'm talking about the ordinary straight forward cases here.]
Most sex likely to result in a pregnancy involves a hard case somehow.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
. . . but most of the abortions seem to be the result of carelessness . . .

Do you have a citation for that statistic?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
To return to a traditional patriarchal perspective for a moment - why should a foetus be removed because its progenitors may be ill-equipped or abusive or victimized or unwilling to be parents?

Fixed that for you.

The previous version was so sweet, like the colourful children's books I had when I was a kid, showing all the mommies in sunshiny yellow dresses with big puffy skirts and the daddies in brown suits and brown hats carrying briefcases and smoking pipes.

I found that life really wasn't like that, for me or anyone else in the real world. In fact, life is so far removed from that picture-book version that I have trouble identifying the picture-book version as having been anyone's reality.

But when I find sentences like the previous version, full of "the traditional moral perspective" and "baby" and "careless mother", it's like picking up one of those picture books again and paging through it nostalgically, except with someone else who thinks it depicts reality.

How do you even begin to have a conversation with that person? They will insist that the picture-book version is real, because they can see it, and they can see that Daddy has a nice job and Mommy has a nice dress and they have a nice house and car and puppies.

Does one admire the simplicity of that delusion? rage against it? suggest that the other person open a door and talk to some real people, maybe even some real pregnant women? Maybe even some real pregnant women in complicated circumstances who can't face the 24/7, eighteen-plus year cost of motherhood for a few minutes of sex?

The picture-book version was charming. But it wasn't real. And it is a shitty lie to pretend that it is The Model, and enforce that delusion on complicated real lives.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
My own understanding is that when sex occurs, both partners can be expected to accept the consequences of their action (let's ignore rape for the moment).

Depends on what you mean by that. "If I get pregnant I'm having an abortion" is also accepting the consequences. You seem to have a very punitive view of sex. If someone contracts an STD is it okay to have it treated, or do they have to "accept the consequences" there, too?

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
If that is so, then it is reasonable that the state (in the political science definition, not component of the USA sense) should take measures to enforce that responsibility on those who have voluntarily chosen to enter into that action with its consequences. We enforce the requirement to have insurance to drive. We punish people who act irresponsibly by drinking and driving. We enforce a requirement on parents to feed and educate children.

See, this is where we part company. I don't see the states proper role as being some kind of "vengeance fairy", making sure that everyone receives the proper "consequences" for their actions. States are mostly set up to mitigate or relieve negative consequences in ways beyond the power of individual actors to achieve. To take your example of drunk driving, most states don't go around making sure that the consequences are sufficiently gruesome if a drunk driver runs down several pedestrians. To the contrary, we see the state's job as preventing such consequences in the first place and mitigating them in cases where prevention fails. It's not regarded as a failure that a prompt EMS response saved everyone's life, despite that being the proper "consequence" of a driver drunkenly swerving into the crosswalk. It's only when sex is involved (and usually only sex for women) that this ultra-punitive attitude is considered acceptable (at least by some people.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's only when sex is involved (and usually only sex for women) that this ultra-punitive attitude is considered acceptable

Yes; you will have noted that only the mothers were careless. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's frustrating that the complexity of my position is being ignored to make cheap debating points - some of which are wholly irrelevant anyway.

Let's try again: IF we accept the concept that the unborn baby has the status of a human being, with the human rights associated with that status, a number of things start to fall into place. Specifically the role of the governing authority is to ensure the rights of that unborn baby in the same way as it does any other citizen. If you reject that position, then of course you are free to argue any utilitarian logic that you feel like.

The strange idea that:
quote:

You are arguing that just because something might go wrong people should be prevented from (a) learning what the genuine risks are and (b) being able to minimise those risks.

of course derives from the idea that the person at whose expense this minimisation of risks is being achieved doesn't have any rights. Once those are granted, we are in a different place. Similarly the idea that abortion should be there in case it goes wrong is morally equivalent to the argument that I have the right to go and kill and eat my next door neighbour if I run out of money this month to pay for food.

The existence of a post birth safety net is irrelevant given the option of adoption. There's probably a good case for state provision of pre-natal healthcare and medical care at the birth on the grounds that that is ensuring the rights of the unborn child.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Do people have a right to sex, and taxpayers have a duty to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong? Bringing up children is hard. So you shouldn't act in a way that means you might have to accept that responsibility if you aren't able to.

I think you are being inconsistent here.

Yes, I agree that parents have the primary responsibility to care for their own children. But society (certainly a Christian society, which is what I suppose we are talking about) also has a responsibility to look after vulnerable members.

If you are going to maintain that the unborn child is a full member of society, a human being with rights, and with needs which, through no fault of its own, it's own family cannot or will not provide for, then it is (I think) wrong to endorse a political 'Fuck you' to that member of your society because its parents are irresponsible.


I agree with you that it is strictly irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of abortion whether we have a society which steps in to take responsibility when parents fail, or one that does not, but which of these you personally choose to endorse is certainly very relevant to the way in which you expressed concern for the welfare of the unborn child will be assessed.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690

 - Posted      Profile for hilaryg   Email hilaryg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Excuse me. Let me see if I read that right:
quote:
For some it's as essential as eating and drinking.

Yes, YR did say that. WTF. So if they can't get it - what are they supposed to do? A spot of rape? Or just indulge in the local prostitute?

...

Sex is not as necessary as eating and drinking, and surely masturbation is an adequate solution otherwise. And certainly this is no basis for a serious argument...

It is absolutely the basis for a serious argument! If sex = babies, and we are debating the consequences of that, then why can't we talk about why people have sex in the first place?

Sexuality is complicated. So when I said sex was an essential part of many people's lives, I wasn't meaning that they are going round permanently horny ready to shag anything that moves. I mean for many people, it is about their physical expression of the intimacy of that relationship. So for someone to say "just don't do it" would be as hard as for them to restrict their eating or drinking. It's not about quantity, but quality. You can crave a quiet intimate moment with your husband as much as you can be hungry for your dinner.

You say you are frustrated that the complexity of your points are being missed, but I'm equally frustrated by some of your assumptions in this debate. For example, you seem to assume that it's the man who would be the one that would be the "sex driven" one - well women like sex too you know.

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
If you are seriously that sex driven and male - get a vasectomy. You're obviously out of control and would make a dreadful father. And if you're female, make sure he gets one.

If you like sex you'll be a bad father? Really?

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
given the shortage of healthy babies to adopt, I would be prepared to suggest that someone who's responsible but unlucky with contraception should go down that road.

Putting aside the considerable emotional and medical consequences for one moment, who is going to pay? Did you see how much the delivery costs over here?

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
why should a baby be killed because his mother was careless?

Why do you assume it's the woman that was careless? There were two people present in the moments leading to conception.

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Let's try again: IF we accept the concept that the unborn baby has the status of a human being, with the human rights associated with that status, a number of things start to fall into place. Specifically the role of the governing authority is to ensure the rights of that unborn baby in the same way as it does any other citizen. If you reject that position, then of course you are free to argue any utilitarian logic that you feel like.

This may be where we are talking at cross purposes - because (in the UK and the US at least), the unborn baby does not have the status of a human being. So if that is your position, surely your first logical step is to convince the governing authority of your position and get the law changed to recognise that? All the punitive steps you want to take can only follow once "foetus = human being" is law.
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools