|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A somewhat different position on abortion
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
subvert the idea that the state can compel women to be pregnant. I suppose many people find that normal, but it's actually quite bizarre.
Stating things this way strikes me as begging the question. I don’t see how the state compels women to be pregnant in any meaningful sense. It may compel them to remain pregnant once they become so, but that is a rather different thing, ISTM.
Apart from a small minority of women who are raped, most women who become pregnant have chosen of their own free will to have unprotected sex. They are generally aware that becoming pregnant is one possible consequence of this. We can argue the rights and wrongs of the state forcing them to continue the pregnancy, but to say the state compelled them to be pregnant doesn’t seem helpful to me.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
la vie en rouge - This statement is inaccurately sweeping:
quote:
most women who become pregnant have chosen of their own free will to have unprotected sex
This story, linked here stated that 2/3 of women seeking an abortion had been using contraception, which really gives a lie to "women who become pregnant have chosen of their free will to have unprotected sex".
I was surprised it was so high. Anecdotally most women I know who have had an abortion have done so following contraceptive failure, so I was expecting some statistics showing a failure rate, but not 66%
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
subvert the idea that the state can compel women to be pregnant. I suppose many people find that normal, but it's actually quite bizarre.
Stating things this way strikes me as begging the question. I don’t see how the state compels women to be pregnant in any meaningful sense. It may compel them to remain pregnant once they become so, but that is a rather different thing, ISTM.
Apart from a small minority of women who are raped, most women who become pregnant have chosen of their own free will to have unprotected sex. They are generally aware that becoming pregnant is one possible consequence of this. We can argue the rights and wrongs of the state forcing them to continue the pregnancy, but to say the state compelled them to be pregnant doesn’t seem helpful to me.
Well, OK, the state might not compel them to become pregnant, but the pro-life position is that it should compel them to remain pregnant. This is the big state gone mad.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm not saying nothing should be illegal. But morality is a slippery reason for banning things.
How about practicality then? I got pregnant during my 1st marriage, during one of the recurrent US recessions. Both my husband and I were out of work, had been for some time with no prospects on the horizon, nor had we any health insurance.
We could barely keep a roof overhead and a meal on the table. We couldn't afford medical care or hospital bills nor provide an extra room or the equipment normally needed to care for a baby.
Further, ours would have been a biracial baby with, notoriously at that time, little chance of getting adopted.
It was a simple decision to make, and I'm with Jade Constable: I took it lightly, aside from the fact that scraping together the money for the procedure meant basically living on bread and water for a month, even with borrowing part of this money from his parents.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious then how you construe adoption as 'unilaterally walking away from your child'?
It's not, but adoption is not at all the right parallel.
Your claim was "the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to". In the case of abortion, this is exactly what happens - you (unilaterally) choose to have an abortion, there is no more child, you move on.
Once the child is born, then apart from some states with safe haven laws for unwanted newborns, you can't just walk away. You can't just call the state and say "I've changed my mind, I don't want the 5-year-old any more", and have the state say "OK then" and take him off your hands.
You can agree to transfer parental responsibility to someone else, which is adoption, and if you have a baby, especially a white baby, this will be easy. Older kids with special needs? Not so much.
If you really can't cope with parenting your child, the state might take him into care, but this doesn't remove your financial responsibility for him.
Once a child is born, you have responsibility for that child, and the state will make you take responsibility for him, and prosecute you if you don't do an adequate job. The only way you get off the hook is by transferring parental responsibility to someone that the state deems suitable.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
This is a story from last year, I found it while looking up a piece on the radio yesterday when a woman from El Salvador was interviewed who had been found guilty of murder after suffering a miscarriage. She was given a very long sentence, but released after four years, and now lives without appropriate documents in the States. The programme did not say what happened to her son, and I can't remember the name of the woman concerned. Having read this article, I don't think it matters. She is one of many.
The name of the country needs changing. Women's care in El Salvador
[ 25. August 2014, 15:10: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious then how you construe adoption as 'unilaterally walking away from your child'?
It's not, but adoption is not at all the right parallel.
Your claim was "the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to". In the case of abortion, this is exactly what happens - you (unilaterally) choose to have an abortion, there is no more child, you move on.
Once the child is born, then apart from some states with safe haven laws for unwanted newborns, you can't just walk away. You can't just call the state and say "I've changed my mind, I don't want the 5-year-old any more", and have the state say "OK then" and take him off your hands.
You can agree to transfer parental responsibility to someone else, which is adoption, and if you have a baby, especially a white baby, this will be easy. Older kids with special needs? Not so much.
If you really can't cope with parenting your child, the state might take him into care, but this doesn't remove your financial responsibility for him.
Once a child is born, you have responsibility for that child, and the state will make you take responsibility for him, and prosecute you if you don't do an adequate job. The only way you get off the hook is by transferring parental responsibility to someone that the state deems suitable.
I find it regrettable that you quote-mined me. I didn't say "the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to", I said, "The same argument applies - the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to, but why would you kill it? You can have it adopted."
I find that rather dishonest.
--------------------
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 Curiosity killed ...:
lilBuddha - it's a counter argument to those pro-life people who insist that life begins at fertilisation and should be preserved at that point, completely disregarding any rights of the mother.
I do understand this, I am not thick. Well, not that thick. At some point, we all agree, the cells become life and at some point that life has rights. We do not all agree when.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
OK, you find the arguments weird or whatever. They have been influential amongst feminists, and it strikes me, they are difficult to refute.
Not difficult to refute at all. Open a basic biology text.
The main problem I have with the analogy is that analogies do influence thought patterns. I do not find the position this analogy encourages to be any more reasonable than God implanting a soul the moment sperm touches egg.
The best way to not to have a child is to not conceive and the best way to reduce the unwanted conception is education and support. We do this inadequately.
--------------------
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
lilBuddha
I just opened a basic biology book, and out fell, one, a pressed rose, and two, a dead moth. I conclude from this that biology can be both a divine flowering, or on the other hand, something dusty and no longer in flight. Hmm.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I find it regrettable that you quote-mined me. I didn't say "the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to", I said, "The same argument applies - the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to, but why would you kill it? You can have it adopted."
I find that rather dishonest.
On the point of logic I am discussing, there is no difference at all between the trimmed version that I quoted, and your preferred quote with extra context.
I am not trying to paint you as a supporter of infanticde, by any means. Rather, my point is that abortion and adoption do not make good paralells. Abortion is a unilateral decision - you decide not to have your child, and there is no more child. By contrast, you can't just decide to have the child adopted - you have to find adoptive parents who meet whatever criteria the state has set out, and you can transfer parental authority to them. You can't just decide that you've changed your mind about kids, and give your children to the state. even if your children are placed in state care, you are still financially responsible for them.
In fact, my contention is that the state does force you to raise your child, unless you can find an acceptable replacement, and has a raft of child abandomnent / child cruelty / child support legislation at its disposal to help it do that.
You could certainly make the case that being forced to carry a child in your uterus is a rather greater and more personal imposition than being forced to pay for the child's upkeep, house, clean and educate it and so on, and so draw a dividing line which has carrying a child, blood / bone marrow / organ donation and the like on one side, and the proper financial and emotional care of your post-birth child on the other (in which case whether or not you can give your child up for adoption is irrelevant).
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I haven't studied the matter in any depth, but a guess would be "because West Virginia's prison system is an intentionally dehumanizing hellhole with only superficial respect for the rights of prisoners".
Hmm. Curious. So why do you suppose cops and prison guards in West Virginia tell me to stay out of the northeast because the people up there just like smacking the populace around for no good reason, but just because they feel like it and they can get away with it?
Why, since PREA is just making their problems worse are they supposed to accept more federal legislation dictating how they can and can't run their prisons and schools and healthcare systems etc.?
Why, given the history of eugenics in this country and the rumours of its persistence are we supposed to just take it on trust that the government has our best interests at heart?
Which is possibly getting a bit too far off the abortion topic, but the OP has been asked and answered.
--------------------
"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:
Hmm. Curious. So why do you suppose cops and prison guards in West Virginia tell me to stay out of the northeast because the people up there just like smacking the populace around for no good reason, but just because they feel like it and they can get away with it?
Because cops know how cops behave and it doesn't really matter if you're in New York or Georgia or anywhere else? Did we stray into "easy answers to off-topic questions" now?
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Why, since PREA is just making their problems worse are they supposed to accept more federal legislation dictating how they can and can't run their prisons and schools and healthcare systems etc.?
If you really feel like discussing the systematic abuses of the American prison-industrial complex and why the best solution (in your estimation) is less accountability and oversight, perhaps a new thread would be a good idea?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because cops know how cops behave and it doesn't really matter if you're in New York or Georgia or anywhere else? Did we stray into "easy answers to off-topic questions" now?
And I thought it was because they know that up there rich white women will have you arrested for looking at them funny or hurting their feelings.
But maybe a new thread is a good idea.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Why, given the history of eugenics in this country and the rumours of its persistence are we supposed to just take it on trust that the government has our best interests at heart?
Who else would you suggest to oversee the prisons and justice system to reduce its racist offenses? Private industry? The Red Cross? The UN?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Does anyone hold the position that abortion is morally wrong but that making it illegal will do more harm than good, and that reducing the number of abortions by focusing on things like the social safety net, education, the adoption process, and new medical techniques would be the best way to approach the matter?
Opponents of abortion have tended to restrict the availability of abortion rather than banning it outright - in the states because of Roe vs. Wade, in the UK because the possibility of achieving a parliamentary majority for banning abortion is fairly negligible. Now if you want to reduce the number of abortions and outright criminalisation is not an option then the way to go is Social Democracy plus Cheap And Reliable Contraception. However social conservatives tend to deplore the former and the Vatican has a somewhat unreasonable animus against the latter. If you chuck into the mix the insistence in framing the anti-abortion discourse in the language of rights it is possible to wonder if the anti-abortion movement is entirely serious.
My own view is that there are circumstances in which recourse to the termination of a pregnancy is morally licit and other circumstances where it is not. However, given the impracticality and paternalism of having each pregnant woman referring the details of her case to a committee of suitably qualified ethicists, I think that the decision must rest with the women concerned. I think, btw, that this implicitly concedes that abortion is not murder. But I think that it is possible to hold that abortion is always morally wrong but that in the current political climate the prudential approach is to lobby for better support for mothers and children and for cheap and reliable contraception.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If you chuck into the mix the insistence in framing the anti-abortion discourse in the language of rights it is possible to wonder if the anti-abortion movement is entirely serious.
Funny, IMO, pro can replace anti in that statement and be no less accurate.
--------------------
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 Leorning Cniht:
Your claim was "the state does not force you to raise your child, if you don't want to". In the case of abortion, this is exactly what happens - you (unilaterally) choose to have an abortion, there is no more child, you move on.
Once the child is born, then apart from some states with safe haven laws for unwanted newborns, you can't just walk away. You can't just call the state and say "I've changed my mind, I don't want the 5-year-old any more", and have the state say "OK then" and take him off your hands.
You can agree to transfer parental responsibility to someone else, which is adoption, and if you have a baby, especially a white baby, this will be easy. Older kids with special needs? Not so much.
If you really can't cope with parenting your child, the state might take him into care, but this doesn't remove your financial responsibility for him.
Once a child is born, you have responsibility for that child, and the state will make you take responsibility for him, and prosecute you if you don't do an adequate job. The only way you get off the hook is by transferring parental responsibility to someone that the state deems suitable.
I had no idea about any of this; though it definitely fits with my position that, for those of us who believe abortion is morally wrong, our time and focus would be better spent on making adoption easier--and I would add "without placing any more burden on the mother/parents" to the mix.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
Also focus on affordable medical care. I'm not sure how much Obamacare is going to help with the problem, but for most of my adult life I wouldn't have been able to afford to go through pregnancy and a hospital childbirth.
--------------------
"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 saysay:
Also focus on affordable medical care. I'm not sure how much Obamacare is going to help with the problem, but for most of my adult life I wouldn't have been able to afford to go through pregnancy and a hospital childbirth.
Amen. Absolutely.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If you chuck into the mix the insistence in framing the anti-abortion discourse in the language of rights it is possible to wonder if the anti-abortion movement is entirely serious.
Funny, IMO, pro can replace anti in that statement and be no less accurate.
Except for the little problem that there is no pro-abortion movement.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Oy. Point is that there is rhetoric on both sides which is ridiculous. Such as the parasite rubbish.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
