Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A somewhat different position on abortion
|
saysay
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/6645.jpg) Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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).
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). IIRC, she didn't think it would catch on because the acronym sucked.
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.
-------------------- "It's been a long day without you, my friend I'll tell you all about it when I see you again" "'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Horseman Bree: Would you care to elucidate homosexual loan interest?
homosexuality and Loan interest.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/10578.jpg) Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
ChastMastr: Your position is very close to the official position of the Episcopal Church USA.
Here is the 1994 General Convention Resolution outlining the Church's moral position.
Acts of Convention: Resolution 1994-A054 [ 18. August 2014, 22:54: 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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Can I remind people that robust and even scathing attacks on arguments, on premises and positions are fine and within the rules for this board. However people should be especially careful about making 'you' statements about other posters because those, if negative, are personal accusations - even when bundled into what is supposedly an argument about a premise you-statements like "you personally find other people's abortions immoral and icky" are basically personal accusations or tinder to start personal conflicts. Please step back from this line, Crœsos. (Or move things to the Hell board.) Thanks
Can I also remind posters who are not hosts on this board or admins that they should not be characterising statements by other posters as 'personal attacks'? Accusing other posters of making personal attacks is in itself an attack - you're accusing them of breaking the rules. If people have broken the rules they will be warned, in due course, by a host. If you think a host has missed something - please feel free to PM us. If you think someone has personally attacked you, you also have the option to take them to the Hell board and hash out any personal conflict there. But please do not call out 'personal attacks' on boards where you are not hosting.
Many thanks! Louise Dead Horses Host
Edited to add due to cross-post - Saysay if you bear animus against Crœsos for behaviour on a previous thread, again it needs to go on the Hell board and not here. Personal conflicts must be taken to Hell or left alone. Thanks.
hosting off [ 18. August 2014, 23:12: Message edited by: Louise ]
-------------------- Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
LeRoc - I'm just puzzled as to how you could guess my reproductive history. Not saying it shouldn't happen.
LeRoc and EM - sure, I may feel differently after an actual abortion (currently the likelihood of me getting pregnant is very slim), but why do I not get given the courtesy of having my own feelings trusted on this matter? 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.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
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?
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."
(Here in the US we've actually had a ... truly bizarre situation in which thousands of people are having their water turned off: "Activists call the move a violation of a basic human need, while city officials call it an economic reality." That's kind of what I was thinking of but I had to postulate something in which an adult human would be dead within minutes, so the "and the ... oxygen machine is in someone's garage! No, that's convoluted. Let's just stick with the oxygen machine full stop..." was what I did. Again, I was not trying to say people (women in this case) are machines or anything like that.)
-------------------- My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote: 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 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.
I feel like a caveman inventing the wheel and showing it off as a bicycle goes by. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
-------------------- My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
-------------------- we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/6645.jpg) Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ChastMastr: quote: 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 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.
I feel like a caveman inventing the wheel and showing it off as a bicycle goes by.
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.
-------------------- "It's been a long day without you, my friend I'll tell you all about it when I see you again" "'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: 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).
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".
quote: 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.
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).
quote: 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?
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."
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.
-------------------- *Offer expires at birth
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/6645.jpg) Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote: 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.
And yet I've heard it most often coming from wealthy white so-called 'liberal' or 'leftist' women.
Without the elision.
And of course they mean "without the economic resources to buy all this stuff and all these experiences that somehow other people around the world manage to survive without but which we view as essential." Including helicopter parenting and the criminalization of those who can't or won't do that.
The "Welfare Queens" trope is so pre-Clinton Welfare Reform that I haven't heard it since I was a small child.
-------------------- "It's been a long day without you, my friend I'll tell you all about it when I see you again" "'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
-------------------- My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mechtilde
Shipmate
# 12563
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- "Once one has seen God, what is the remedy?" Sylvia Plath, "Mystic"
Posts: 517 | From: The cloud of unknowing | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
![](http://ship-of-fools.com/UBB/custom_avatars/3216.gif) Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: Jade Constable: LeRoc - I'm just puzzled as to how you could guess my reproductive history. Not saying it shouldn't happen.
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.
I do believe that there are things in life for which you don't really know how you'll react to them until they happen. Good things and bad things. I've had a few of them myself, where I was sure that I would react in a certain way, but it turned out differently.
I also believe that how you feel about it now is genuine, and I definitely don't want to say "You'd be sorry". I just think that this is one of these things you can't really predict. [ 19. August 2014, 02:25: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
-------------------- Er, this is what I've been up to (book). Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/15560.gif) Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Canada has no abortion laws and about 5% fewer abortions than the USA. Probably more open access to reproductive health services and publically funded health care are factors.
Frankly I don't think there are any moral issues with abortion and dealing with it solely as a health issue - the Canadian situation - is best. No moral judgement should enter the debate at all.
Likewise I don't think drug addictions or alcoholism should be considered other than health issues. No laws. No moral judgement. Access to abortion is a basic human right. Particularly needed in war zones.
We would be much better to consider addressing poverty, early sexual activity and pregnancy, lack of information about sex and reproduction, access to birth control are moral ssues. Some of them seem to me to be much reasonable to consider as moral, but because the reflect community response more than individual perhaps we prefer to apply morality to the woman, alone. Those seeking basic reproductive services including abortion require support and a complete absence of any moral overlay. [ 19. August 2014, 02:32: Message edited by: no prophet ]
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
-------------------- Er, this is what I've been up to (book). Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: 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?
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.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote: 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?
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. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
-------------------- On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Perhaps then, if as many people as seems to be the case do hold this position (that abortion is wrong, but that laws barring it will make things worse, and that other approaches are much better on all levels), the next step would be communicating this better, particularly to people who seem to think that if abortion is wrong, then it must be legally banned (which is at least a big issue in the US right now). 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.
-------------------- My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote: 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.
Alas, persuading my doctor to refer me for it on the NHS is a different matter!
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
-------------------- *Offer expires at birth.
**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.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: quote: 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.
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.
And referring to a pregnancy as parasitic is ridiculous and makes one appear as ignorant of science as YEC's.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
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. And so on.)
-------------------- My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/6645.jpg) Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: quote: 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?
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.
New York's race issues aren't my problem.
quote: 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.
Many of these faith leaders are also pro-life.
I don't recognize your caricature.
quote: Originally posted by ChastMastr: quote: 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.
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.
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. And so on.)
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.
On the abortion front, there's hope:
quote: 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.”
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.
-------------------- "It's been a long day without you, my friend I'll tell you all about it when I see you again" "'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by saysay: quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: quote: 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?
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.
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.
An illustrative point is this assertion by Criag T. Nelson, who says "I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Nelson doesn't consider the food stamps and welfare payments he received to be "help". More importantly, he realizes what most of recipients of American social services do: the American welfare system sucks. And yet there are all these tales presented by supposedly trustworthy and knowledgeable people that some welfare recipients, usually said to be in places like Chicago or New York, are living in the lap of luxury driving free Cadillacs and eating T-bone steaks* for dinner every night. So yes, these stories "played down south" with the intent of angering white, rural recipients of social services (and those who knew them) about how those people were living large while rural white welfare recipients were barely scraping by.
quote: Originally posted by saysay: quote: 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.
Many of these faith leaders are also pro-life.
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.
-------------------- *For some reason the T-bone steak is always the cut of meat referred to when describing the supposedly undeserved affluence of recipients of public aid.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote: 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.
Alas, it certainly seems alive and well down here in my own part of the south.
quote: New York's race issues aren't my problem.
Isn't racism everyone's problem?
quote: I don't recognize your caricature.
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.
quote:
I understand your problem. The Left in this country has adopted so many Rovian tactics
We have?
quote: 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.
Not always, no. Often, yes.
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.
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.
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.
-------------------- My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
-------------------- My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ChastMastr: more adequately than a 4-5 word bumper sticker.
If your philosophy can so be encapsulated, you do not truly have one.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/6645.jpg) Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
-------------------- "It's been a long day without you, my friend I'll tell you all about it when I see you again" "'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: quote: 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.
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.
And referring to a pregnancy as parasitic is ridiculous and makes one appear as ignorant of science as YEC's.
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.
Thus, for example, if a relative of mine needed a transplant or even blood transfusion, the state cannot force me to be the donor.
So the argument on abortion is similar - how can the state force me to support another being?
One of the advantages of this argument (supposedly), is that it takes into account the point that the foetus is a human, since I cannot be forced to support any other kind of human.
I think the argument has a name, but I've forgotten.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's called the bodily autonomy argument.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the argument has a name, but I've forgotten.
Stupid? Asinine? Ludicrous? If that argument has value, then the dividing line at which one can kill the child is not birth, but well after.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post, but that argument represents the worst in our species, IMO. I wish abortions would never occur, though I do not support making them illegal. But making ending a life a convenience issue is not us at our best.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the argument has a name, but I've forgotten.
Stupid? Asinine? Ludicrous? If that argument has value, then the dividing line at which one can kill the child is not birth, but well after.
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.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the argument has a name, but I've forgotten.
Stupid? Asinine? Ludicrous? If that argument has value, then the dividing line at which one can kill the child is not birth, but well after.
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.
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.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the argument has a name, but I've forgotten.
Stupid? Asinine? Ludicrous? If that argument has value, then the dividing line at which one can kill the child is not birth, but well after.
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.
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.
On the other hand, if the argument is that a fœtus is an individual who has a right to the use of someone else's organs, a right that can be enforced by the state, the obvious question is whether or not other organs are subject to similar state-ordered redistribution.
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.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
The parasite/body autonomy arguments ignore biology.
The question is simply who has more right and when. And how much the state should be involved.*
*The same state, by the way, which has many regulations on what you can do with your already born body and when you can do it.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote: 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'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.
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/6645.jpg) Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
-------------------- "It's been a long day without you, my friend I'll tell you all about it when I see you again" "'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: quote: 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.
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.
The parasite/body autonomy arguments ignore biology.
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?
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by saysay: quote: 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.
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.
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".
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Leorning Cniht: quote: 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'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.
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.
I'm curious then how you construe adoption as 'unilaterally walking away from your child'?
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: 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?
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. Now you may hold that, regardless, a woman has the right not to continue with a pregnancy. But to argue as if the child were a bot fly or a tapeworm is bloody ridiculous.
Once again, I am not arguing for the state's right over a woman's own; nor that there can be reasonable arguments for abortion. Just that the parasite rubbish isn't one of them.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: 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.
But they are bloody stupid arguments with no true parallel to reproduction.
quote: 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.
But it is most emphatically not head-on. Head on is the woman has more right than the child. Full stop. These bizarre sophistries will not change opponents minds and serve only to draw ridicule. quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
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.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/11770.jpg) Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
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. The argument of parasitism is trying to say that a fertilised egg is only potential life and that a blastocyte should not be given more rights than a mother. It's an attempt to get the discussion about personhood going, using imagery and hyperbole.
And the argument that life begins at fertilisation is equally ridiculous as over 50%* of all fertilised eggs do not make it to implantation and gestation. There's a slightly better argument about implantation - but that still has a 22% failure rate, which is nearly 1 in 4.
The problem with these arguments are that they are polarised and the arguments on both sides get shrill and hyped up.
* I bothered to look this up for another thread and the figures for fertilised eggs not being implanted varies from 30% to 70% - and the 22% figure comes from a miscarriage group and was given as a 78% birth rate for embryos with a heart beat at 6 weeks gestation. The two together gives over 50% at the lowest figure.
-------------------- Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
lilBuddha - I don't want to copy your whole post, but the bodily autonomy arguments are not meant to parallel reproduction, but 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.
OK, you find the arguments weird or whatever. They have been influential amongst feminists, and it strikes me, they are difficult to refute.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There is an interesting sub-argument to bodily autonomy - which is that even when dead, bodily autonomy is recognized. In other words, the state, or a hospital, cannot just harvest organs from a corpse, without permission. And if this should happen, there is usually a big stink.
I heard recently Irish feminists caricature their state's position - 'don't want to have your baby? Don't worry, we'll make you'.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|