|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How could the Pro-life movement have wider appeal?
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Anyway, my main point in answer to the OP is that the anti-choice movement should stop using the word murder when referring to abortion.
If abortion is deliberately taking the life of an innocent human being, then the word is accurate.
Except the anti-abortion movement is not terribly consistent with that position when it comes to ...
Please note that re-criminalizing abortion is specifically not my position--see above. Indeed, one of the things I argue for is focusing on the social safety net and the like, rather than legal punishment.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Certainly it would be murder to kill the soldier while the soldier was off duty and on leave. Given that killing a soldier in battle might well be deliberately taking the life of an innocent human being. But if it were done in battle it wouldn't be murder.
Though it doesn't apply to abortion either, this is true.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
Safety net makes sense since in the US:
• About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.
• Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level
• The reasons women give for having an abortion; Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents.
With the economy the way it is women cannot afford to lose their jobs, there is little or no parental leave, daycare/preschool is exorbitant, and they are already struggling, often in poverty to support the children they have.
Certainly this doesn't account for all abortion but it does account for a lot.
Interestingly, Fifty-one percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%). More women need access to affordable, reliable contraception and need to be instructed on proper use.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a fallacious argument. Reproduction is in no way analogous to the dying violinist hijacker.
It is a complex issue whose solution isn't bullshit thought experiment or abdication of reality.
Deal with the causes of unwanted pregnancy and you reduce abortion which, frankly should be everyone's goal, regardless.
And yet it isn't. As noted in the OP, no major anti-abortion group advocates in favor of contraception or better sex ed,
And fuck them for that.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, unwanted pregnancies can only be reduced so far. Contraceptives fail. Rape happens. Sometimes there are pregnancies that would otherwise be very much wanted but have the disadvantage of leading to the mother's death if carried to term. A lot of smug finger wagging at how "ridiculous" women facing those situations are for resorting to medication or surgery seems both counterproductive and cruel.
Have you read what I have written on these threads? I've said more than once that I do not support shaming women, that I do support helping women no matter their choice.
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb]
]Surgery, or medication, to retroactively address something that could have been avoided is the basis of many if not most medical practices. It's called remedy.
Yes, and so is removing a tumor caused by smoking. Doesn't mean it is better than not smoking in the first.
--------------------
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
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
]Surgery, or medication, to retroactively address something that could have been avoided is the basis of many if not most medical practices. It's called remedy.
Yes, and so is removing a tumor caused by smoking. Doesn't mean it is better than not smoking in the first.
Yeah both genders smoke away but only one gets tumors and so why bother with remedy?
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The point is it is better to prevent a problem than fix it.
The things that reduce abortion are all positive things for women, so what is the problem?
--------------------
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 ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
@lilBuddha, In the UK figures for women using contraception when they conceived is even higher - 66% according to one survey (which I quoted earlier). And artdunce is quoting 51% for the US.
If two thirds of women seeking a termination of pregnancy in the UK were using contraception of some shape or form, what are you suggesting women should do to avoid pregnancy? Are we back to abstinence as the only effective method?
The UK does have many of your suggested improvements (currently, who knows how much will survive Tory cuts this time around). The numbers of terminations is reducing, slightly and slowly, but we are still seeing 66% of terminations following contraceptive failure of some form. And over 90% of those terminations are in the first trimester.
I think the attitude to sex needs to change, but that's a huge societal change. There is a huge mythology about sex. Sex sells. We are bombarded by sexual imagery and an underlying media message that sex is fun, consequence free, that someone who is without a sex life is losing out or a loser, everyone deserves a sex life where anything goes.
I start teaching sex education with a list of myths about sex I use as a starter with students, asking them to sort them into true and false. One of the biggest myths to bust is that everyone is having sex and they are missing out because they aren't.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I've concerns about your numbers, Ck.
One is of self-reporting.
Another is that they indicate an alarming ignorance of how birth control works.
A third one is, as you've mentioned, the pressure to have sex. And the emphasis on sex as a defining factor of a relationship.
--------------------
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 ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
This is the report summarising the survey on women seeking terminations with the BPAS, and gives the figure of 66% of women seeking a termination had been using contraception. It lists by form of contraception and discusses why the failure rates.
Similar research from Marie Stopes gives a figure of 57%
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I was surprised "normal use" failures were around 10% - I bet most people don't know that.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Nope, it's another urban myth. Young people are notoriously bad at using condoms effectively. That's why the C cards aren't issued until the young person has been trained in their use.
The contraceptive pill does provide leaflets informing users that condoms should be used if certain medications are taken or if the person has an upset stomach. (But think hangovers and being sick - do you really think users realise the effects on the efficacy of the contraceptive pill? One child I knew well was the result of an upset stomach on holiday.) It's another ongoing conversation
The morning after pill isn't 100% effective either. Most effective within 24 hours, least effective within 72 hours. Not worth taking after that.
When you can name a number of pill babies, it becomes a whole lot more obvious.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I was surprised "normal use" failures were around 10% - I bet most people don't know that.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Nope, it's another urban myth. Young people are notoriously bad at using condoms effectively. That's why the C cards aren't issued until the young person has been trained in their use.
Better sex ed is one of the most effective ways to move contraceptive users from "normal use" to "perfect use", which makes the opposition of most* anti-abortion groups to such education all the more contradictory to their stated aims.
--------------------
*No major anti-abortion groups that I know of support better sex education, but there are a few who do not outright oppose it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
quote:
*No major anti-abortion groups that I know of support better sex education, but there are a few who do not outright oppose it.
And that is the answer to the OP's opening question. How could anti-abortion proponents widen their appeal? By eschewing barefaced hypocrisy.
If it's about being pro-life, then sex education should be right up in front and people should be wearing necklaces made out of condom packets, that pop off to be distributed. As long as birth control is ignored, then it is plain to the weakest intelligence that life has zip to do with it; it's all really a ploy to control what's between a woman's legs.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
replying as calmly as I can.
There are loads of people who hate abortion but would not see abortion made illegal and would see education to reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Loads of us who would never shame a girl for becoming pregnant, who offer support, etc.
We don't get coverage by the press. We get lumped in with the nutters by You lot.
We have no control over 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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
replying as calmly as I can.
There are loads of people who hate abortion but would not see abortion made illegal and would see education to reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Loads of us who would never shame a girl for becoming pregnant, who offer support, etc.
We don't get coverage by the press. We get lumped in with the nutters by You lot.
We have no control over them.
Which gets back to the question of why, given the fairly common existence of such views among individuals, these positions do not seem to be held by any major anti-abortion organization.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I am not their apologist. I do not support or associate with them, ask them.
You want to make the point that they don't care about women or babies after they are born? Fine, I agree with you, they don't.
Their mouthpieces don't even necessarily completely represent their own members, but they sure as fuck don't represent those of us outside.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
replying as calmly as I can.
There are loads of people who hate abortion but would not see abortion made illegal and would see education to reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Loads of us who would never shame a girl for becoming pregnant, who offer support, etc.
We don't get coverage by the press. We get lumped in with the nutters by You lot.
We have no control over them.
Which gets back to the question of why, given the fairly common existence of such views among individuals, these positions do not seem to be held by any major anti-abortion organization.
Because moderation doesn't lead to successful fund drives.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
replying as calmly as I can.
There are loads of people who hate abortion but would not see abortion made illegal and would see education to reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Loads of us who would never shame a girl for becoming pregnant, who offer support, etc.
We don't get coverage by the press. We get lumped in with the nutters by You lot.
We have no control over them.
Yes, this. As soon as anyone opens their mouth and says that they are uncomfortable with the whole abortion question, the caricature of Mr Nasty is wheeled out of some religious nut who doesn't care about women but who wants to control them and make them have either no sex at all or as many babies as possible, regardless of whether or not they are raped.
And then they wonder why the moderate voices are not heard.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
In the OP Marcina said quote:
I would consider myself to be a left wing feminist in most regards. The big aberration within my world view is abortion. If I am honest with myself I just can't cope with the view that an nonviable fetus is nothing and has no right to life over that of its mother.
First, I don't see what your position as a supposed left-wing feminist has to do with this - or are you implying that every person of more right-wing views is anti-abortion? IME that isn't true: there are plenty of right-wingers who see being pro-choice as another strand in the "no government is going to tell me what I can and can't think/do" weave.
Second, you are assuming that people who are pro-choice view your 'non-viable foetus' as nothing: again, this isn't my experience, rather they take the view that one life-form which is dependent on another for its very existence and which cannot survive independently must be the subordinate partner in the relationship. The use of the phrase 'right to life' is deliberately emotive - and the attempt to give something that cannot exist independently in any way rights in extraordinary, irrational and obtuse.
quote:
I don't want to deny women healthcare, or contraception or choice over their bodies but I just can't get past my gut reaction that yes this is the murder of a child and I would really like it if it stopped.
Whatever your views on healthcare and contraception, you do want to deny women choice over their body if you aren't prepared to let them choose whether or not to allow what is, in effect, a parasite to remain within their body.
Your gut reaction is intrinsically wrong because a 'non-viable foetus' is not a child - it is, in your own words, a 'non-viable foetus'.
A child is a human being between birth and an age which society sets for its members to be fully and legally responsible for themselves and their actions. An unborn child is a yet to be born human which, if suddenly delivered into the world, would be capable of supported life, sometimes with medical intervention or help.
Below roughly 26 weeks gestation a foetus cannot survive because the body at that stage of development is not designed to breathe.
Your emotive use of the word murder is unnecessary and vile: it is also quite wrong because one cannot murder something that is not an independent sentient being. quote:
So I suppose that makes me pro-life.
No, it doesn't make you 'pro-life' - it makes you someone who thinks that pregnancy means a woman has no human rights and no autonomy; your pro-lifeness is only 'pro' the life of the foetus and unborn child, it is 'anti' the life of the woman carrying the foetus or child.
quote:
But I can't feel comfortable with that label because I simply can't identify with the rhetoric and priorities of the anti-abortion movement. I find the 'getting into bed' with the anti-gay marriage lobby distasteful and offensive, I am frustrated by the blatantly religious tone of the propaganda produced and the vitriol directed at people who are sincerely trying to help women in desperate situations.
Sorry about that, it must be difficult to look into the mirror and not like what you see - but the solution is in your own hands. If you look at history you'll find that the holding of extremist views often makes for strange bedfellows. For example, those members of the French middle class in the 18th century who believed in an egalitarian parliamentary democracy found themselves in bed with a mob of anti-monarchist murderers.
You now find yourself in a situation where you are a co-believer with people who think that bombing and murder are justified by your shared views on abortion: strange bedfellows but you've chosen them, nobody forced you. quote:
I am mystified by the refusal to advocate for contraception and sex education as a means by which the abortion rates can be decreased.
Where's the mystery? If you sincerely believe that for at least some of her life a woman has no rights at all, its only a short hop - no need for the skip and jump - to a belief that enabling her to limit conception is almost as important as ensuring that, as far as possible, every single conception is brought to full term, even if that means criminalising women who have miscarriages. quote:
Most of all I find the failure of the pro life movement to actually care about the life of the baby once it's born to be hypocritical in the extreme.
You just dont get it, do you? These people - your co-believers, may I remind you - aren't interested in what happens after birth, only before. To them (to you?) its completely irrelevant that a conception is the result of incest; that a female child may well also be the victim of incest in her turn; that the family is unable to support another child; that the baby may be motherless because this pregnancy is going to kill her: what matters is that the product of conception is brought to term and delivered into the world.
quote:
Does anyone share my frustration?
Excuse me? What about the frustration of those of us who try to help victims of forced motherhood? No, I don't share your frustration because it is entirely self-inflicted. quote:
Are there movements I could get involved in that don't mean I have to scream at vulnerable women outside clinics? Is there a less violent way for Christians to broaden the pro life movement and and reduce abortion rates in a compassionate and just manner?
Am I dreaming? You sincerely believe you (or anyone) has to 'scream at vulnerable women'? Its called free will so if you or anyone else is out there screaming and employing violent and threatening behaviour it is because they and you choose to do so.
Yes, there is a way for the pro-life movement to be broadened: it is for it to actually be pro-life, all life, not just fertilised ova to the age of 40 weeks. And yes, there is a way to reduce abortion rates in a compassionate manner: that is to ensure that all schools have proper sex education which do more than preach abstinence and that women have access to proper contraceptive services.
And perhaps you could devise an educational programme to ensure that rapists, men who abuse children (especially their own) understand about consent as well as contraception and that women have rights.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There are things you can do and get involved in that don't require the "everyone painted with one brush" approach of the poster immediately above me. We counsel and take in pregnant women who are feeling pressured to have abortions when they don't want to (a large number in our community). We have offered to adopt their babies if they wish--or adopt both of them into the family, if they prefer that. Yes, that includes providing housing in our home and financial support, plus educational opportunity. We will run interference with parents, etc. who are likely to scream at/attack the pregnant woman for her situation, so she doesn't have to knuckle under for fear of violence. In short, we're putting our money (and hands, and spare bedroom) where our mouths are.
And no, in spite of the prejudices of certain other posters here, we neither scream at pregnant women nor treat them as horrible sinners or any of that shit. What we do is offer them a hand to get out of the quicksand that their lives have turned into.
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
God bless you, Lamb Chopped. But there just aren't enough like you out there.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
L'organist's post demonstrates that rigid, uncaring, message before compassion, rhetoric before accuracy are values shared by the pro-choice movement as well.
[ 23. May 2015, 15:33: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
L'organist's post demonstrates that rigid, uncaring, message before compassion, rhetoric before accuracy are values shared by the pro-choice movement as well.
This is just character assassination. You are not responding to L'organist's actual points, just making a sweeping ad hominem.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is just character assassination. You are not responding to L'organist's actual points, just making a sweeping ad hominem.
Actually, it was the least Hellish response I felt I could make when I saw her post. And, given that much of what she says has been addressed in the thread, I didn't feel it necessary to elaborate.
However, an it please m'lud:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
First, I don't see what your position as a supposed left-wing feminist has to do with this -
Old school feminists, and many current, see any question of abortion as a campaign to eliminate it and an attack on the rights of women. Abortion is often portrayed as an non-nuanced stance.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Second, you are assuming that people who are pro-choice view your 'non-viable foetus' as nothing: again, this isn't my experience, rather they take the view that one life-form which is dependent on another for its very existence and which cannot survive independently must be the subordinate partner in the relationship.
Why must? Dependent life-form? Completing the passage through the birth canal doesn't make a child independent. Many children will never be independent, many adults become dependent. Do we allow them to be killed indiscriminately? No. It is not an on/off decision. Any point between conception and age of legal adulthood is arbitrary. Not that certain stages of development do not have stronger argument, but none are inherently perfect.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
to allow what is, in effect, a parasite to remain within their body.
And you accuse others of manipulative argument?
This is not biologically accurate nor sound metaphor. It is rhetoric designed to minimise the position of the opposition without addressing the realities.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If you sincerely believe that for at least some of her life a woman has no rights at all
She didn't say this. This is exactly the problem. The second any dare to say they are uncomfortable with abortion, all nuance is forgotten. And, if we dare say we would not see abortion illegal, the other nutters pounce.
Rationally, reasonably and logically, efforts should be made to reduce abortion.
One, because surgery/chemical intervention to fix something is less preferable to prevention.
Two, for every unwanted pregnancy, loads of STIs occur.
Three, nearly every step initiated to reduce unwanted pregnancy is one beneficial to women.
If we concentrate on those things which truly help women, abortion numbers naturally reduce.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
L'organist's post demonstrates that rigid, uncaring, message before compassion, rhetoric before accuracy are values shared by the pro-choice movement as well.
This is just character assassination. You are not responding to L'organist's actual points, just making a sweeping ad hominem.
And yet lilB is right on the money here - L'organist's post was breathtakingly stupid and vicious. One of the worst I've seen on these boards in ages. The kind of post which if it had come from the other side of the debate would have been mercilessly slammed. I don't think you have to be a snivelling little pape like me to see that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
L'organist's post demonstrates that rigid, uncaring, message before compassion, rhetoric before accuracy are values shared by the pro-choice movement as well.
This is just character assassination. You are not responding to L'organist's actual points, just making a sweeping ad hominem.
And yet lilB is right on the money here - L'organist's post was breathtakingly stupid and vicious. One of the worst I've seen on these boards in ages. The kind of post which if it had come from the other side of the debate would have been mercilessly slammed. I don't think you have to be a snivelling little pape like me to see that.
If it's slammable it can be slammed point by point. I don't think you have to be a snivelling little philosophy major like me to see that.
ETA:
One can be right and still not be in the right.
[ 23. May 2015, 22:36: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I also think that L'organiste is being misinterpreted. When she talked about women having no rights, she wasn't saying that Marcina thinks this, but the people who want to limit contraception, who Marcina was complaining about.
Yes, calling it vicious is not particularly rational. Where's the argument?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... If we concentrate on those things which truly help women, abortion numbers naturally reduce.
Experience in Canada has been that having no laws about abortion has also made the numbers reduce. It's probably generally assumed that the Canadian safety net is a little better than the USA's, but the biggest difference is simply that since 1988, Canadian women and their doctors have been trusted to make their own decisions, one way or the other.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Old school feminists, and many current, see any question of abortion as a campaign to eliminate it and an attack on the rights of women. Abortion is often portrayed as an non-nuanced stance....
Which might have something to do with the fact that in the USA, there has been a tremendous effort to reverse Roe v. Wade from the moment the ink was dry. And as soon as one 'reasonable' restriction is imposed by a state, there's another 'reasonable' restriction in another state, and before you know it, there's one abortion clinic in the entire state of Mississippi. There are TRAP laws all over the USA now, and more every year.
It's great to do good things for women, children, families and communities, but if that's the only response to the anti-choice forces, that's just turning a blind eye to the full-on conservative assault on women's rights happening in the USA right now. And it's not just abortion - even birth control has become controversial since corporations found Jesus.
There's no nuance about the anti-choice movement's end goal, and one doesn't have to be a feminist to see that. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I reside in the state famous for the state-mandated transvaginal probe. Yes, there is steady pressure to cut back on women's rights. It is not at all difficult to find proof of this, every day. We are sensitive about it, because the attacks on women's rights are so frequent.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
There's no nuance about the anti-choice movement's end goal, and one doesn't have to be a feminist to see that. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
They are bastards, I've said this much. I am not them, many many of us are not them.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I reside in the state famous for the state-mandated transvaginal probe. Yes, there is steady pressure to cut back on women's rights. It is not at all difficult to find proof of this, every day. We are sensitive about it, because the attacks on women's rights are so frequent.
All I am saying is do not include everyone in that group.
--------------------
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
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
L'organist
I have been following this discussion with some interest as I was genuinely concerned and wanted to expand my views. I am somewhat surprised by the tone of your post but will attempt to reply point by point. I apologise that I haven't quite mastered the code so for ease of reply I will just try to keep it in order.
In describing myself as a left wing feminist I mean that I by in large take a liberal position on most of the social issues that are current in our societies at present. By this I mean the treatment of the poor, the allocation and access to healthcare, gay rights, trans rights, efforts to stamp out discrimination and racism in all its forms. I am aware that it is unusual though (as you correctly say) not impossible to be pro life and left wing or pro choice and right wing – particularly within the US and so my comment about being left wing was borne from that. As for being feminist I generally believe and advocate for the equality and freedom of women in all areas. Abortion is therefore a difficult area for me. I will respond more fully to this later in the post to save repeating myself.
I am not necessarily assuming that people who are pro choice view non viable foetuses as nothing, that was more my musing than an accusation as I am glad others on this thread have taken it to be. I have yet to see any 'yay abortion' parades or parties for terminations. Abortion is a difficult and emotive proceedure and clearly has more of an impact that most routine medical proceedures. My use of the words 'right to life' were not derived from any slogan they were precisely that words in a sentence. I personally think that as life is unique from the moment of conception and therefore destruction of that life should not be undertaken easily or casually. Others can disagree with me about they whys and wherefores of rights and personhood but the uniqueness of that cell >>zygote>>foetus is a biological fact and hard to dispute.
I find it hard to take seriously your accusation of my using emotive language when you yourself are using the word parasite inaccurately and emotively yourself. As others have said this is very loose language and does not answer my point.
Where you and I disagree is where many disagree on both or sometimes the same side of the spectrum. I have explained my position that I believe unique life begins at the moment of conception as supported by biological fact. If people do not believe this and instead believe (as they are entitled to do) that life should only be considered life from the point of viability then they will disagree with me and there isn't much I can do to change this.
My use of the word murder is accurate and justified for someone who take the position I take in regards to the moment of conception. It is not vile and it is not inaccurate in the context of my position. I realise it might be a difficult word but it is unfortunately the one I hold to be closest to reality. Again if you disagree with me abou t the point at which life becomes life then we will not agree on this but I defend my use of the word.
The dissonance in my previous position became apparent to me in the awful case where a pregant woman was tricked into visiting a woman's apartment allegedly to pick up some clothes and was instead attacked and had her foetus removed from her body. The foetus subsequently died and there was a considerable push from many people for the attacking woman to be charged with murder. I was forced at that point to wonder why I felt that THAT act was murder but abortion wasn't and that was when I began to examine my views on abortion in an effort to bring some consistency to them.
The remainder of your post appears to be a fairly prolonged attack on my character and person to which I strongly object and delivered in a tone which I find unnecessarily aggressive. I am unsure why you felt it appropriate to assume and then mock me for having no regard for the rights of women when the entire point of my post was to identify that the pro life movement has serious flaws within its approach and seeking ways to address those flaws. Others have realised this and given me plenty to think about and helped me to think more deeply about the issues. I hope that I have misinterpreted your tone and am happy to resolve this either on the thread or via PM whichever way you feel most comfortable.
[ 24. May 2015, 13:09: Message edited by: Macrina ]
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Macrina, the point about murder is interesting, as in the UK this carries a mandatory life sentence (don't know about NZ), so a woman having an illegal abortion should get similar? I think this would produce civil unrest.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Others can disagree with me about they whys and wherefores of rights and personhood but the uniqueness of that cell >>zygote>>foetus is a biological fact and hard to dispute.
Well, identical twinning, in which that unique cell becomes two people, and merging (I don't know the technical term) in which two unique cells become one individual called a chimera, take place after fertilization. So, it's not hard at all to dispute.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Macrina, I think your 'unique life begins at the moment of conception', should really read, 'unique human life'. Unique life is all around us, e.g. the bug on my cabbages. Even human life is not all that special, so if I blow my nose, there is tons of human DNA there. So I guess you mean that the foetus is a unique human being?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Both really interesting and relevant points.
I guess the closest I can get to a compassionate position on murder and abortion would be to say that some form of abortion should remain legal because women will have it whether I want them to or not (and I am not in charge so can't make that law - nor should I) because regardless of my view it is a view that is disputed and therefore grey areas will remain. I don't like that they will have it but I know that the alternatives to legal abortion are more death and suffering than legal abortions creates already so I see that allowing some form of legal abortion as the only reasonable position I can hold. I am way more in favour of comprehensive sex education, contraception and proper social supports than I am in making abortion easier and more casual.
And yes I should have been more careful with my language. Unique human life is more precise.
Mousethief: I was having precisely this conversation with my friend the other day to test my position and thinking about ensoulment etc. I suppose what I was saying is that the genetic material is unique (and at that point it is even if it goes on to twin) you're right though it does provoke very interesting questions.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, killing is lawful in some situations. There are some who construe abortion as self-defence, and the bodily autonomy position is adjacent to this. And there is a big difference between how an individual sees it (and feels it), and the law.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
... I am way more in favour of comprehensive sex education, contraception and proper social supports than I am in making abortion easier and more casual. ....
Which, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is the exact opposite of the tactics and goals of the anti-choice movement. Furthermore, an "easier and more casual" policy hasn't resulted in more abortions in Canada. So why would anyone holding these opinions think it a good thing to increase the appeal of this movement?
Perhaps what you're looking for is a movement that wants girls and women to be able to easily access sex education and birth control; that allows women to make their own decisions about sex; that wants society to have good child care, flexible employment practices, maternity benefits and family leave; and that trusts women to make responsible, agonizing, personal, life-and-death moral decisions in a uniquely personal aspect of their lives. Hmmm... what's the word I'm looking for ... I think it starts with an f ... any guesses?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Attacks, even aggressive ones, are allowed on positions and posts, but not direct insults to people. Personal arguments may not take place outside of the Hell board.
If someone mischaracterises/ exaggerates/takes to extremes someone else's position or beliefs that would usually count as an attack on the position not the person. Though if it's kept up and is obviously aimed at one individual, it shades into personal conflict and needs to be taken to Hell.
If someone feels personally attacked by another poster's version of what they said/believe, then they need to take the personal element to the Hell board. If someone thinks I've missed a direct insult to them, rather than an all-out attack on their position/beliefs/people who share a belief with them, then please PM me and let me know what you think I've missed.
Thanks
Louise
Dead Horses host
hosting off
[ 24. May 2015, 22:50: 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
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
... I am way more in favour of comprehensive sex education, contraception and proper social supports than I am in making abortion easier and more casual. ....
Which, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is the exact opposite of the tactics and goals of the anti-choice movement. Furthermore, an "easier and more casual" policy hasn't resulted in more abortions in Canada. So why would anyone holding these opinions think it a good thing to increase the appeal of this movement?
Perhaps what you're looking for is a movement that wants girls and women to be able to easily access sex education and birth control; that allows women to make their own decisions about sex; that wants society to have good child care, flexible employment practices, maternity benefits and family leave; and that trusts women to make responsible, agonizing, personal, life-and-death moral decisions in a uniquely personal aspect of their lives. Hmmm... what's the word I'm looking for ... I think it starts with an f ... any guesses?
But the point of this thread for me was to explore WHY the pro-life movement is so overrun by people who seem to have such a wrong headed view of how to actually achieve their goals and also to see how the movement might change to more properly strive towards those goals.
It wasn't a thread specifically about the rights and wrongs of abortion itself, though this will invariably come into these discussions.
I think it should be possible to call yourself pro-life (yes in every sense) and not have people assume that you are a conservative religiously motivated individual who just wants to control women's sexuality. Men's sexuality comes into this too as well but that's a whole other argument.
I am a person who wants the value of life respected at all points within it. I have explained my position on the majority of social issues in response to L'Organist. The fact that by very virtue of saying I'm not 100% in favour of abortion and that I believe it to be a destruction of life (probably a better term than murder on reflection)leads me to be labelled as such indicates that this thread is a valid one.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This is partly a question of nomenclature, isn't it? The term pro-life tends to indicate conservatives, who seem in fact not to be pro life at all, and who want to control women's bodies. Maybe it would be better to think of another label or description.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Quite possibly yes, but a stubborn part of me wonders why the people that ARE actually pro-life, in the sense they want to support and value human beings at every stage of life, are the ones who should have to choose another label or name when the current pro life movement very much deserves its anti choice label.
After all, the LGBT community managed to reclaim 'gay' and if we can do that then those with opinions similar to mine can perhaps do something meaningful here. I did like the literature about 'consistent life ethic' which IngoB provided.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
'Gay' is a strange analogy here; I would have thought 'queer' is more apt.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Macrina, as I said before, we're largely with you on this. Perhaps what many opposing do not understand is that the religious right movement here carries nowhere near the clout and weight that it does in the US. By and large, there are no Phelps-type groups.
This latter may well flow from the fact that changes in the application of the laws - which still exist in my state, and I suspect the others and the territories - have come about as a result of a decision nearly 45 years by Judge Levine in the NSW District Court (a medium level court) that an abortion would be lawful in the State if there was 'any economic, social or medical ground or reason'. This was an extension of a decision a few years earlier by Menhennit J in Victoria's Supreme Court. In other words, the changes in the law did not follow a political debate, with all the attendant rancour, polarisation and polemic which is occurring in the US and other jurisdictions. Further, AFAIK, abortions are carried out in the general hospital system, rather than specialised clinics.
That does not mean that there is unanimous support on a moral basis for abortions, by any stretch of the imagination. It does mean that there is limited public discussion.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that in the US the change in the law happened 40 years ago, but various right-wing groups set out to make abortion as difficult as possible, certainly in some states. See comments above about vaginal probes, and so on.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
My impression was to the opposite, but shall await a response from someone who knows. Certainly, as here, the laws will be different in different states, as will be the timing of any changes.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was talking about Roe v. Wade, which (I think) ruled that the right to privacy permitted abortion until viability. But to record the to and froing over Roe, and the numerous attempts to restrict abortion would fill several volumes. Didn't Nixon argue that abortion was OK, if there is a mixed race couple?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Whatever your views on healthcare and contraception, you do want to deny women choice over their body if you aren't prepared to let them choose whether or not to allow what is, in effect, a parasite to remain within their body.
FWIW, while I find the language terrible, this is for me exactly the reason why abortion is a topic set apart. While I have to admit to occasionally use the rhetoric, this is the reason why I think we cannot simply subsume abortion into the category "murder", even if we think that this "parasite" is a developing human being already possessing full human rights.
For me, a decent analogy that is "experientially thinkable" to all of us (not just women) is to consider Siamese twins. Imagine you are a Siamese twin but your other half is comatose. The doctors will be able to separate you surgically, but if they do it before the other twin has achieved a more stable mental state, then the other twin will die. The doctors say that it will take close to nine months for the other twin to get out of deep coma. Once separated, the other twin will take many years to become mentally fully functional, but the doctors say there is a decent chance that after a dozen years or so they will become a fully functional person.
However, right here and now, the comatose twin is a serious drag on your health (with some non-negligible chance that complications will kill you) and obviously impedes your normal functioning. Furthermore, society is not particularly supportive of your plight, and largely expects you to function as normal for the next nine months. (The analogy does not really work so well here, since the Siamese twin case in the real world would be swimming in attention and likely money. But just assume that this is "nothing special".) Finally, separating the other twin in its comatose state would (somehow, perhaps because of reduced cardiovascular sharing...) much reduce the health risks of the surgical separation to you.
If I consider this situation, I would still say that ought to keep the other twin alive, even if it costs me dearly and poses a risk to me. But to make the decision to separate the other twin now is understandable to me, and is not really the same as a cold-blooded or indeed passionate murder. It's more tragic weakness than despicable evil, more a failure to be heroic.
The analogy also fails insofar as that a Siamese twin is undeniably there, present, living next to me. This may not make an "intellectual" difference, but it makes a psychological one. If somehow I could barely notice my Siamese twin, the temptation of separating now would be much magnified...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Ingo wrote:
quote:
The analogy also fails insofar as that a Siamese twin is undeniably there, present, living next to me. This may not make an "intellectual" difference, but it makes a psychological one. If somehow I could barely notice my Siamese twin, the temptation of separating now would be much magnified...
On the 1970s American reality-show That's Incredible, there was an instalment about a guy who found himself getting headaches, went to the doctor for x-rays, and found that he had an undeveloped fetus lodged somewhere in his skull, a spontaneous abortion of a twin which had been there since birth. Obviously, he had it removed.
Now, let's suppose that everything else about the story is the same, except that the fetus is still developing, and will be ready to leave his body as a live baby in nine months. But it's gonna be nine months of headaches and reduced mobility for him.
Not saying what I think the morality would be there, but since we're shopping around for a comparison to pregnancy, that's about as close as I can come.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Good grief! We don't need silly analogies.
If a person is unable to process the concepts and realities of procreation without analogy, they are hopeless in constructing or understanding an apt one.
ETA:I've yet to see an apt analogy. Most are an attempt to bludgeon the opposition.
[ 25. May 2015, 16:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
What I have never understood about the pro-life positon in the US is what they wish to do about all the unwanted children. In the US, the dysfunctional foster care system is already bursting with unwanted children, especially children of color and any with special needs. You create a scenario where a woman who lacks the resources for a healthy pregnancy is forced to carry a fetus she feels ambivalent about or even hostile towards, Anyone who has ever been pregnant knows the dedication it takes to create a good outcome and women under duress will not do all that needs to be done. They will not forgo unhealthy habits, may eschew prenatal care (access to which is limited for poor women in the US), suffer mental and emotional angusih (which has been shown to affect the fetus), etc. In the end you have an unwanted child who has not been properly cared for during pregnancy put into an overloaded system rife with neglect and abuse. I just never understand how that is a desirable situation. In the meantime the lack of any support for women in the US means she may lose her job (many women in the US are their family's primary bread winner) and not be adequately able to care for her previously born children and others she is responsible for. Pregnancy is more than a process its a relationship and although you can reduce a woman to the biological function of gestation you cannot force her to create the relationship required for a healthy outcome, physically, mentally or emotionally.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
