|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The general abortion thread
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would highlight the following words:
ongoing relationship with the father,
supported by medical opinion,
no considered medical reason for the termination.
if the parents are together and the relationship is healthy, the unborn child is healthy, the decision to terminate on choice grounds alone , must always be a joint one.
Some questions.
1. What happens if man & woman are at loggerheads? Who gets the casting vote? And what counselling? BPAS? Church?
[Dunno if you've seen the film Suffragette, this brought to mind the rich woman trying to use her own money to provide bail money for the other imprisoned suffragettes. Her husband refused.]
2. I think your approach is overly simplistic. I find it difficult to conceive (ho ho) a situation in which it is "just" choice. What about a situation (hey, like mine) in which a woman has been healthy so far. Might not always be the case. Relationship might be ok so far. Etc etc etc....
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Leorning Cniht, you can interpret what I say however you like - and I can of course disagree with your interpretation.
That is not OK.
It's actually deceitful.
Well, I'm sorry you feel like that. That was not my intent. The quote marks were intended to encapsulate words that described your position, not to indicate a verbatim quote (for which I would have used the quote function).
Actually, according to the grammatical rules of the English language putting "" "" around words does mean they are a verbatim quote.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Actually, according to the grammatical rules of the English language putting "" "" around words does mean they are a verbatim quote.
In English, quotation marks are used in several ways. One of those ways is to identify technical terms, terms of art and the like which are defined elsewhere. So I might refer to the "West Lothian Question" and you'd know that that was a specific thing, rather than some random question about parts of Scotland. In this context, the quotation marks do not indicate a direct quote from anyone.
If you had spent several paragraphs expressing concern about Scottish MPs voting on purely English matters, I might have referred to Mudfrog's "West Lothian Question" without intending to imply that you had ever used those specific words.
This is the same construction, albeit used in a slightly looser way. Consider "scare quotes" as another example of quotation marks that aren't used to indicate an actual verbatim quote.
Be that as it may, it was not my intent to misrepresent you. It still seems to me that "Mudfrog wants to force women to consult their husbands/boyfriends" is a fair and accurate characterization of the position you have expressed.
You say I'm interpreting you wrong. That's OK - that's what conversation is for. If I'm not understanding what you meant, you can tell me where I've gone wrong and we can achieve a common understanding of what you mean. This doesn't mean that we will agree on the subject under discussion, but we should always be able to agree on what each other's position is.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It still seems to me that "Mudfrog wants to force women to consult their husbands/boyfriends" is a fair and accurate characterization of the position you have expressed.
Personally, I try to indicate when paraphrasing inside quotes, but your version seems very fair to me.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Gotta go with LC on this one.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
In the U.S. a parent cannot be compelled to donate an organ to their child even if they are a perfect match and the child would die without it since the courts ruled that the father in question had a right to bodily autonomy. If a woman can be denied bodily autonomy and be compelled against her will continue with a pregnancy, should fathers be compelled to risk health and life as well to preserve an offspring's life?
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
In any decision between two people, clearly it is ideal if they agree. If they don't agree, then at some point somebody's will must prevail. You can wiggle it all you want, but at some point one or the other person must have the final say.
For many many years this final decision always defaulted to the husband, on all subjects and at all times. Gradually over time this has changed (for instance it is now actually possible to rape your wife; there was a point in the past where no husband could be prosecuted for such a thing).
Since it is the woman who must bear the child and labor to deliver it, and who is very often the person who must raise and support it, she risks a very great deal. It is not unreasonable for her to have the final word. And that is the essence of the pro-choice position. Who, at the final decision, gets the choice?
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
I think this is worth a read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38722929
This is what happens when access to abortion is limited. One of the placards from the march which has really stuck with me was decorated with drawings of coathangers and the phrase, "Have we learned nothing?"
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
It was a whispered topic when I was growing up. I knew there were "women who helped", but there was a lot of secrecy about. There was shame about getting pregnant when not married; equally there was shame in seeking a "back street abortion" when married because another pregnancy was "just too much to stand".
My mum's observation was that "there is a lot more of that going on than people think." Estimates of "how much" varied a lot; how could you rely on any figures because of the law and the secrecy?
What surfaced were the occasional court cases, which people used to "tut tut" about. My mum's tut-tutting was mostly about how unsafe back street abortions were, how desperate women must be to go there. But she would also throw in comments about "laws made by men, no understanding of what it's like."
I really don't want those times to return.
[ 27. January 2017, 09:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The difference between then and now is surely that there's much more contraception available. What we need to do is make it even more easy to access, or to find out why some people aren't using if it they need to.
What happens in the case of women who are raped or who are pregnant with severely disabled foetuses probably represents only a minority of abortion cases.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Barrier contraceptives were freely available when I was growing up, oral contraceptives became available in the early 1960s I think. So far as a woman's control over her fertility was concerned, the pill took the place of the cap. Social attitudes were different, of course. Single men could buy 'something for the weekend' at the local barbers, but single women had to be braver than that in obtaining the cap from the local chemist. Pre-marital sex was frowned on publicly, but there was a good deal of advice about 'being careful'. Looking back on it, there was a good deal of sexism, coupled with mixed messages. Times were changing during my growing up.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
One day at college (early 60s), the other science student did not turn up to a lab session. We waited for her. I went round to her flat (she wasn't in college accomodation) and could raise no answer. A man passing could not help, had not seen her.
The lab technician called the art technician, as her close friend was on the art course, and she went round. My fellow student was in the bath, bleeding heavily from the use of a self administered knitting needle. She did survive, thank God.
She had been involved with a coach driver, met while being ferried to teaching practice placement, and who had told her, so originally, that his wife did not understand him, and he was going to divorce her so he could marry the student. (I wonder how often he had spun that pick up yarn to students, and got away with it.) Naturally, when my fellow student told him she was pregnant, all the tale fell away to nothing and he dumped her. (Back then contraception was only available to married women. No excuse for him, though.)
Advice was not easy to get. Shame and the potential loss of her career, the inability to bring up a child as a single mother must have made it seem the only way out.
I don't know the rest, things were very private in those days, but she never came back to the lab while I was there.
[ 27. January 2017, 12:42: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The difference between then and now is surely that there's much more contraception available. What we need to do is make it even more easy to access, or to find out why some people aren't using if it they need to.
And yet those clambering most actively against abortion are also working hard to restrict contraceptive access. "Fun" fact: no major anti-abortion organization endorses or promotes contraceptive use.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What happens in the case of women who are raped or who are pregnant with severely disabled foetuses probably represents only a minority of abortion cases.
So those are acceptable losses or don't count or what? I'm not clear what point you're trying to make here.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The difference between then and now is surely that there's much more contraception available. What we need to do is make it even more easy to access, or to find out why some people aren't using if it they need to.
Which is why the terminology and thinking needs to change. It is all about control over fertility. Yes promote good sexual choices and behaviour. Yes have low cost or free contraception. And yes have abortion available fully within a health understanding, not a control of women, or legal, understanding. This approach has resulted in lower abortion rates and healthier sexual behaviour here.
Banning or prohibiting abortions does not actually mean banning or prohibiting abortion. It means banning and prohibiting safe abortions.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Crœsos
I was responding to someone who said he didn't want go back to the bad old days of the past. My point is that there's no chance of that, because contraception is far more easily available today.
I'm not sure that anti-abortion groups should be giving contraceptive advice. That information is better coming from qualified medical staff. (Having said that, I don't know if American women have easy access to such information, being as they don't benefit from a national health service.)
Anti-abortion groups would do better to offer financial support or advice to poor women to help them look after their children - if poverty is the problem.
As for my last point, it was inspired by the worst case scenario implication in the previous post. But I don't think worst case scenarios are necessary to justify abortion. IMO abortion in most modern, democratic, secular countries is simply a necessary evil, and not much more than that. The more interesting question to me is what abortion says about the role of men in Western culture. I mean, it would be very interesting to know what Trump sees as the responsibility of biological fathers in this context.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I was responding to someone who said he didn't want go back to the bad old days of the past. My point is that there's no chance of that, because contraception is far more easily available today.
If people properly availed themselves of the available contraceptive alternatives, abortion would be a very rare procedure.
--------------------
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
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The more interesting question to me is what abortion says about the role of men in Western culture. I mean, it would be very interesting to know what Trump sees as the responsibility of biological fathers in this context.
The typical Republican view that they should man up and take responsibility for their actions. Trump is atypical, and heaven knows what he thinks - it probably changes from day to day, depending who he's talking to.
My guess is that the more traditional and anti-abortion a state is, the more harshly fathers are treated.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
He certainly procured an abortion for one of his mistresses. I forget whether this was when he was married to Ivana or to Marla. But the basic rule here is 'For me, not for you.' So he is allowed to procure abortions, because his squeeze needed it. You, you get bupkis.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I was responding to someone who said he didn't want go back to the bad old days of the past. My point is that there's no chance of that, because contraception is far more easily available today.
If people properly availed themselves of the available contraceptive alternatives, abortion would be a very rare procedure.
And if we all ate the way we know we should, there would be a whole lot less obesity. So what? This is the world we have, and thus the world we have to make decisions in, enact legislation in, council and comfort people in.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If people properly availed themselves of the available contraceptive alternatives, abortion would be a very rare procedure.
Which is correct as far as it goes. We could also suggest abortion would be rarer if people availed themselves of oral sex in place of intercourse. "Pro-life for Blowjobs", sounds like a great campaign. Who's up for it?
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If we all ate the way we know we should, there would be a whole lot less obesity. So what? This is the world we have, and thus the world we have to make decisions in, enact legislation in, council and comfort people in.
The interesting thing is that not every nation is likely to have the same abortion rate, nor the same rate of obesity. These things are culturally determined to a certain degree.
I must add that to an outsider the USA seems like a very conflicted place. It sells the world both sexual abandon and sexual restraint, religious fervour and utter worldliness. How does that work? How can you even think of banning abortions when your 4 year olds are singing along to songs about getting horny, and people are happy to produce and consume food that makes them enter puberty at the age of 10?
I don't want to derail the thread, but abortion just seems like the wrong place to start. Unless the Republicans are worried about running out of cannon fodder, or something.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
This is because "Americans" are not some homogeneous group of clones, but a collection of very different subgroups with very different morals, ethics, likes, wants, fears, etc.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Yes, but wouldn't it be nicer if you didn't have to get so angry about unpleasant things like abortions?? Especially when you've just inaugurated a new president, and you should be willing to pull together?
But as you say, this is the world we (or you) have. It's also a world where things are not quite as they seem, and I find it hard to believe that someone like Trump is all that distressed about, say, the high abortion rate among African Americans. Maybe we'll understand it better by and by.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It would drop me to the floor with astonishment if the Ogler in Chief had any genuine interest in pro-life issues. He has displayed a consistent misogyny, and laddish behavior that most men outgrow before they are twenty. Any support he has mouthed has been purely opportunistic, to gull the credulous into supporting him. That people will get into bed with him simply because he is 'pro-life' shows they have no concern whatever for anyone else except the pre-born; the moment you're actually out of the birth canal you're trash.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And yet those clambering most actively against abortion are also working hard to restrict contraceptive access.
Well, the biggest anti-abortion group have to be the Catholics, and we all know what the official line on contraception is.
Then you have the Evo Bible-belt gang (Baptists and Megachurches). An example might be the Green family, who own Hobby Lobby, and think that contraceptives that prevent implantation are the same as abortion.
But they're not going to promote even the kinds of contraception that they think is OK, because it looks too much like promoting fornication.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
But it really makes no sense to expect conservative religious groups to promote the use of contraception for unmarried people. Some groups might do so out of pragmatism, but on the whole they're not the best people to provide that information or service, are they?
Maybe the problem in the USA is that the state has inadequate provision for family planning, leaving religious groups to do a lot of the work for disadvantaged people. The more liberal mainstream religious groups presumably don't have enough resources or manpower in the right communities to do this kind of thing to the extent that it's needed.
I suppose is that the most liberal religious groups j
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...
Maybe the problem in the USA is that the state has inadequate provision for family planning, leaving religious groups to do a lot of the work for disadvantaged people. ...
Yes to the first, no to the second. Planned Parenthood is doing the work of serving disadvantaged people. Which puts them squarely in Jesus' camp. OTOH, the USA has its own weird version of Christianity. They're more interested in slut-shaming and the prosperity gospel. Which, of course, fits in nicely with denying birth control and health care to poor women.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But it really makes no sense to expect conservative religious groups to promote the use of contraception for unmarried people. Some groups might do so out of pragmatism, but on the whole they're not the best people to provide that information or service, are they?
You mean the people who are explicitly told by their founder, "Judge not, or you'll be judged" -- those people? Also I think they should be very interested in harm reduction. Oh wait, THEY don't want to be seen to promote "sin"? It's all about them. Got it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Well, who's to say what sin is? Who's to say what causes the most harm, whether moral or otherwise? We all seem to disagree. This is why leaving these things to religious groups in pluralistic societies is problematic.
I'm also inclined to think we all get the churches we deserve, so if a 'weird version of Christianity' has taken a grip in the USA then someone's been rather slack somewhere. The so-called mainline churches should be kicking themselves for leaving a gap that Christian anti-abortionists and anti-contraception folk can leap into. But maybe that's an different issue.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
From the 'Why do the poor keep voting for poverty' thread in Purg.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
You're predicating your comments on your assumption that they know that their vote is against their interests but still vote that way.
I am saying they should know and that it isn't rocket surgery to do the maths.
Some people do actually knowingly vote against their own overall interest. An easy example of that would be American anti-abortion voters.
Like Ian Climacus, I can't understand your last paragraph. Perhaps it's because pro/anti-abortion stances really don't form part of the political landscape here, but why is it that voting against abortion is against the interests sof those voting?
It's not rocket surgery.
The three things that have been shown to reduce the incidence of abortion are: widespread availability of cheap, reliable contraception; explicit and early sex education in schools; promoting women's rights.
Those three things are what most conservative anti-abortion voters hate most, apart from abortion, and will consistently vote against them, thereby ensuring that the abortion rate will remain high.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
But what you don't do is relate that to the thread of the poor voting against their interests. How many of those who cannot afford cheap contraception etc end up having abortions vote for politicians from those conservative religious groups?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But what you don't do is relate that to the thread of the poor voting against their interests. How many of those who cannot afford cheap contraception etc end up having abortions vote for politicians from those conservative religious groups?
What's even odder is a conversation that Josephine had recently with some ultra-Republican conservative women who had had abortions. They had redefined "abortion" so that what THEY had wasn't REALLY an abortion. "Abortion" to them only means "what other women have when they should have not had sex in the first place." Abortions of anecephalic children, or ectopic pregnancies, weren't REAL abortions, so they were okay for good Christian women to have. But for women who just forgot to take the pill and are using abortion as a contraceptive, it's abortion.
A most amazing display of doublethink and personal exceptionalism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The famous and all too common "For me, not you" philosophy. Also applies to guns, Supreme Court nominations, even racism.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But what you don't do is relate that to the thread of the poor voting against their interests. How many of those who cannot afford cheap contraception etc end up having abortions vote for politicians from those conservative religious groups?
I'm not sure anyone did. They merely used it as an example of people voting against their interests.
You asked:
quote:
why is it that voting against abortion is against the interests of those voting?
I answered. If these people really wanted fewer abortions, they'd be voting for women's rights, sex ed and cheap/free condoms, not against them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But what you don't do is relate that to the thread of the poor voting against their interests. How many of those who cannot afford cheap contraception etc end up having abortions vote for politicians from those conservative religious groups?
The thread itself has moved beyond strictly addressing poor people, so this objection is irrelevant.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I answered. If these people really wanted fewer abortions, they'd be voting for women's rights, sex ed and cheap/free condoms, not against them.
They wish to prohibit an action using a principle they conveniently ignore applying to the resultant consequence of that action.
Hello, children; can we spell hypocrite?
I hate the idea of abortion. However, I support its legality because it is part of better supporting women and, as Doc Tor mentions, actually valuing life and all that entails reduces occurrence.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
It came straight from that thread, where the discussion has been pretty much on topic. I can't agree that it's now irrelevant when an assertion was made and you can't answer a call.
Abortion law reform has never really been a part of the political landscape here. In the late 1960s, it emerged as a side question in the state of Victoria, but the main topic was police corruption. The then Premier was a nasty conservative piece of work, who backed the police against the allegations. In NSW, the change was overnight, not as the result of a political campaign, but flowing from a judge's directions to the jury as to the law to be applied in an abortion case against a doctor. Basically the direction was that there was no offence if the abortion was carried out in the honest belief that it was necessary for the mother's health. I can't speak of teh smaller states, but there was never any large political campaign.
There are now some extremely small groups who campaign against it. I suspect that most of those lose their deposits at electioo after election.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's even odder is a conversation that Josephine had recently with some ultra-Republican conservative women who had had abortions. They had redefined "abortion" so that what THEY had wasn't REALLY an abortion. "Abortion" to them only means "what other women have when they should have not had sex in the first place." Abortions of anecephalic children, or ectopic pregnancies, weren't REAL abortions, so they were okay for good Christian women to have. But for women who just forgot to take the pill and are using abortion as a contraceptive, it's abortion.
A most amazing display of doublethink and personal exceptionalism.
Sounds like another case of "The Only Moral Abortion".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
They had redefined "abortion" so that what THEY had wasn't REALLY an abortion. "Abortion" to them only means "what other women have when they should have not had sex in the first place." Abortions of anecephalic children, or ectopic pregnancies, weren't REAL abortions, so they were okay for good Christian women to have.
So I'm going to assume that most of the conservative women Josephine was talking to are con-Evo types rather than Catholics.
But as I understand it, the Catholic position on ectopic pregnancies is that one may not directly procure an abortion. So the simple, minimally invasive treatments (either inducing abortion with a drug, or surgically removing the implanted embryo) are direct abortions, and so immoral and verboten. On the other hand, surgical removal of the whole fallopian tube is an intervention to remove a part of the mother's body that is going to kill her, and merely has the unfortunate side-effect of killing her baby. So that's OK.
And that argument is complete bollocks. If the ectopic pregnancy continues, the mother and baby will both die. The appropriate treatment is to terminate the pregnancy, and one should do that in the safest and minimally invasive fashion. Being more invasive so that you can pretend that you're not really doing what you're doing is absurd.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So I'm going to assume that most of the conservative women Josephine was talking to are con-Evo types rather than Catholics.
Converts to Orthodoxy from Con-Evo land, yes.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's even odder is a conversation that Josephine had recently with some ultra-Republican conservative women who had had abortions. They had redefined "abortion" so that what THEY had wasn't REALLY an abortion. "Abortion" to them only means "what other women have when they should have not had sex in the first place." Abortions of anecephalic children, or ectopic pregnancies, weren't REAL abortions, so they were okay for good Christian women to have. But for women who just forgot to take the pill and are using abortion as a contraceptive, it's abortion.
A most amazing display of doublethink and personal exceptionalism.
Sounds like another case of "The Only Moral Abortion".
If I were the doctor to that German woman who after her abortion cheerily said that he was still a murderer, I would reply that in the legal realm of murders, the person who hires the hit man is also a murderer.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This is pure gold.
quote:
State Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, filed a bill Friday that would penalize men for "unregulated masturbatory emissions." House Bill 4260 would encourage men to remain "fully abstinent" and only allow the "occasional masturbatory emissions inside health care and medical facilities," which are described in the legislation as the best way to ensure men's health. Such an emission would be considered "an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life," according to the legislation.
Men could be fined $100 for ejaculating outside of a vagina or medical facility. The bill requires men to have a safe and healthy environment for vasectomies, being prescribed Viagra, Doctors would have to do digital rectal exam and magnetic resonance imagining of the rectum before prescribing Viagra and doing a vasectomy.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
