quote:State health officials on Wednesday shut down a Birmingham abortion clinic after investigating a complaint that a woman was told she was six weeks pregnant and was given an abortion-inducing drug, then delivered a 6-pound, 4-ounce stillborn child at a hospital.
quote:The suspension order said a patient went to Summit on Feb. 20 and received an ultrasound administered by a non-physician, in violation of state rules for such facilities. She was told by a Summit staff member she was six weeks pregnant. "She was almost certainly in the third trimester and near term," Williamson said.
The same day, the clinic gave her a dose of Mifeprex, or RU-486, an abortion-inducing drug, also without a physician administering it as required. "What's clear here is that it wasn't used appropriately," Williamson said.
The patient had a "critical and dangerously high" blood pressure reading of 182/129 at the clinic, the suspension order said. "That in and of itself would have demanded immediate medical attention," Williamson said.
Instead, the staff went ahead with the medical abortion.
quote:On Feb. 26, the patient went to the emergency room at a Birmingham hospital "with the head of a baby protruding" and delivered a "stillborn, macerated, six pound, four ounce baby," according to the suspension order.
quote:Summit has been a licensed abortion provider in Birmingham since 1981.
One of its doctors, Malachy DeHenre, was suspended in 2004 after one of his Summit Medical Center patients died in 2003. The Alabama State Board of Medical Examiners concluded DeHenre practiced medicine in a way to "endanger the health of patients" and committed "repeated malpractice."
I know the details on this DeHenre case - there were more victims of his malpractice than just the woman listed in this article, and DeHenre also lost his license to practice in three other states besides Alabama.
The state health department issued a more detailed report Friday on the closing of Summit Medical Center, saying that other women received abortions without the presence of a doctor, in addition to the woman who delivered a 6-pound, 4-ounce stillborn child.
"Four of 10 sampled patients did not have a physician present," said Dr. Don Williamson, state health officer. "There were multiple violations of rules over multiple days."
Besides the woman who went to a hospital and had a stillborn infant, there were five patients whose records do not show that a determination was made on fetal viability.
"The rules require that viability be determined, and that a notation be made in the medical records," Williamson said. "In five other patients it was not documented."
State law requires that abortion clinics begin testing for fetal viability in the 20th week.
What a tragedy. All I can say is thank goodness this place is shut down now.
Wait - I do have something else to say - how do you miss a term, 6 lb infant on an ultrasound? I've had many ultrasounds in my time, both for pregnancy, and diagnostic ones and I am pretty darn sure that a term baby is fairly easy to see. And with a blood pressure like that, why didn't they send her for treatment of her BP instead of going ahead? There are so many things that went wrong with this case, at least we can be thankful that the woman survived.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
What makes me sadder is the inevitable slanting of this event by pro-life groups to further their cause.
It is a very good thing this place was shut down, though - I bet places this irresponsible narrow the gap between a clinic and a coat hanger in the minds of many.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Disgusting.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: What makes me sadder is the inevitable slanting of this event by pro-life groups to further their cause.
What slanting is needed?
Perhaps you mean exploitation?
You know, the way pro-choice groups always bring up clinic bombings or murdered physicians?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Not only how could the technician miss a 6lb baby on an ultrasound, but how did the woman get to the third trimester without knowing she'd been pregnant for more than six weeks?
I'm guessing there was some deliberate "not knowing" involved. Possibly on both sides.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:What slanting is needed?
Perhaps you mean exploitation?
Yes.
quote:You know, the way pro-choice groups always bring up clinic bombings or murdered physicians?
Yes, and those are sad, too. Please tell me you aren't suggesting that one justifies the other.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
I'm with eros on this one. Of course the murder of (at this point) babies is a horrible thing, but the worst part is that this will be fodder for the myriad of pro-lifers who think all pro-choicers are heartless babykillers. Considering the majority political leaning in Alabama, I'd imagine it was hard enough to find somewhere to get a safe, legal abortion before this. I wonder what will be in store for women not wanting to turn thier bodies/lives over to another being.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:"It's scandalous what's happening to women," said longtime anti-abortion activist Jim Pinto.
My emphasis.
I think it's scandalous what's happening to women, too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I wonder what will be in store for women not wanting to turn thier bodies/lives over to another being.
I wonder what will be in store for all those unborn children who don't want to be chopped up into little pieces in all those clinics that remain open.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
You don't know that they "want" anything.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
This stinks from every possible angle.
Ultimately, it sounds like this place may lose its license permanently. That may be the only way for the state to ensure that repetition of the violations doesn't occur.
That won't stop abortions in the area, assuming this place wasn't the only provider of that service. It's no victory for pro-life movements.
It does give some ammunition to the charge that at least some of these clinics are run not so much as medical facilities and more like a cash cow for their owners & partners.
If it's happening here, why not in other places...right?
Would greater medical/government oversight of abortion clinics be a bad thing?
But, yeah, I sort of have to agree that it's more than a little odd that a woman wouldn't know she's in or approaching her 3rd trimester. If the techs at this place were trained to give a nod & wink to patient's lies and go ahead with procedures even if they're not strictly "by the books" I can sure as heck see this kind of thing happening.
The problem is the staff people involved were undoubtedly not trained or caring enough to look for the contraindications that would've stopped them from doing a medically dangerous thing to this woman. Or, they are under a lot of pressure to hit some numeric target for "productivity..."
And, even if (or though) she was lying about her stage of pregnancy, she probably didn't go in there hoping to have someone do something that might kill her too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You don't know that they "want" anything.
If they don't "'want' anything" then they don't want to be chopped up.
If they do want anything, it's doubtful being chopped up is one of the things they want.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Okay, you're playing word games. Cut the crap.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Cut the crap? You're the one who scare-quoted "want." Why did you do that if you weren't playing word games? We don't know that infants want anything either, but we wouldn't jump over someone saying they don't want to die.
You're the on who said that the fact that some people might use this incident as propoganda is worse than the fact that a baby was murdered. Don't tell me to cut the crap. That's crap that needs to be cut. Not me preventing you from twisting my meaning.
Here's the quote where you said propoganda was worse than murder:
quote:Of course the murder of (at this point) babies is a horrible thing, but the worst part is that this will be fodder for the myriad of pro-lifers who think all pro-choicers are heartless babykillers.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
<flees to go play Elder Scrolls, where the people who die are digital>
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
edit: You know, screw it. I'm not going to do this. Continuing this argument is going to make me angrier, and I'll probably end up getting violent. And I only have one pillow, and it's already lumply enough.
Here it goes: we argue, we disagree, we escalate, we still disagree, others get involved, we still disagree, and I leave and get forgetful-drunk because I have little enough faith left in humanity as it is.
Don't need that now. Sorry, Dag.
[ May 20, 2006, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Princess Leah ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Leah and Dag...please stop.
You are talking past each other and this isn't going to result in anything but more bad feelings.
Edit: Ah...good idea P.L.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There was some talking past going on. But it wasn't mutual, that's for-damn sure.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There was some talking past going on. But it wasn't mutual, that's for-damn sure.
I didn't think so, either.
quote:You are talking past each other and this isn't going to result in anything but more bad feelings.
The very first reply in this thread jumped to the political aspects, and, in doing so, stated that the poster was more saddened by the possible use of this incident by political opponents than by the death of a 6 lb 4 oz. child who, if delivered normally, would almost certainly have survived.
If people want to throw out sloganeering, I'm not going to be shy about responding. When people tell me to "cut the crap," I'm not going to tolerate it. And when someone decides to mediate but doesn't acknowledge the difference in the underlying posts, I'm not going to be too persuaded.
As it is, PL has said she's done, so I'm done. But I am most emphatically not saying I will not respond to future posts that place a greater value on the political outcome than a "murder[ed] bab[y]."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
And with the wave of this magic wand, a simple news story becomes... ABORTION DEBATE!
Ta da!
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I wouldn't call this a simple news story. It's someone's dead baby. Emotions are bound to heat up, no matter whose politics are involved.
It sounds like this clinic was already in the business of making money on other people's fear and desperation. Which is pretty disgusting in and of itself. The fact that they're doing so in a field where the lives of viable human beings are hanging in the balance is frightening.
How did anyone justify running a business this way? Did they just blind themselves to the consequences? They must have ... I can't imagine someone picturing a dead baby as the consequence of their decisions and still moving forward with them.
I hope we see more than just license-losing from this. Jack McCoy would prosecute these people for second-degree murder.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Yeah, I'm still confused on the whole "she didn't realize she was carrying around a 6 pound baby" thing. I'm guessing that fact, in combination with the blood pressure thing, that she must have been quite obese.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
The cynical side of me speculates that the woman in this case decided she didn't want to be pregnant after all, knew she was likely past the legal date to abort and was relieved when the case worker gave her RU486, thinking it would solve her problem safely.
I hope that the cynical side of me is really, REALLY wrong.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't want to just add fuel to the fire, but this clinic is not unknown to me. My husband used to work at the station that made runs to this clinic, he's taken more than one woman from the clinic to the hospital.
He also was one of the people who filed a complaint against Dr. DeHenre, the one mentioned who lost his license after a woman died, and he testified in the license review board hearings. The reason my husband filed the complaint was not because the woman he came to was bleeding to death - after all, every surgical procedure carries some risk. The reason he complained was because the first thing the clinic did when he arrived was tell him to take his patient out through the back door so the newspeople and protestors out front wouldn't see her.
My husband refused, because what they wanted was to lower a woman in critical condition down a small flight of fire escape stairs, instead of safely taking an elevator to the first floor. They were far more concerned about their reputation than they were the life of that woman.
As for women getting abortions elsewhere, to my knowledge there is only one other clinic open in the Birmingham area. If I'm not mistaken, Summit was by far the largest provider of abortions in the state.
And yet despite multiple complaints and more than one dead woman (the one mentioned in the article was not the only one) not to mention several other women who were disfigured (the one Wes complained about had to have an emergency hysterectomy to save her life) it took more than three years before they even suspended DeHenre's license.
What makes me sick is not just what has happened at this clinic, but that it's taken so long for someone to act.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Dagonee: The very first reply in this thread jumped to the political aspects, and, in doing so, stated that the poster was more saddened by the possible use of this incident by political opponents than by the death of a 6 lb 4 oz. child who, if delivered normally, would almost certainly have survived.
...removed middle of post, as it's not what I'm responding to...
As it is, PL has said she's done, so I'm done. But I am most emphatically not saying I will not respond to future posts that place a greater value on the political outcome than a "murder[ed] bab[y]."
Why is it wrong to imagine that the political outcome of this situation, which will affect thousands of lives, is more important than a life (a contentious word, but whatever) that has already been lost?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Jux, I think that statement came across especially badly in this thread because so much of this case already involves people treating an individual's life as though it were a secondary concern. To money, to politics, to reputation ... whatever.
What would it be like to be the guy standing over a dying woman and insisting that she be taken out the back for fear of someone seeing her? Is it that different from the way someone feels when they're trying to hide the body of a dead hooker? Should the person involved be held in much less contempt?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It sometimes doesn't bother me when politics is more of a concern than a single life. So much of politics is crap that I think people forget that it does actually affect the quality of many people's lives, and even those lives themselves.
But, if you're saying it's a wrong time, wrong place kind of thing, that's fine.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Yes, and those are sad, too. Please tell me you aren't suggesting that one justifies the other.
You are the one who suggested it by ignoring one side of it, which was why I made sure both fields were in play. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Like Dagonee, I'm very angered by the fact that one side gets to take free shots, but when the other one jumps in to defend ourselves, we're being contentious and argumentative... and the people who come out with their hair on fire telling people to "cut the crap" get to flee the thread acting all hurt as if they were the ones being attacked. As far as I am concerned they are getting off much easier than they warranted.
Don't poke a sleeping bear if all you have is a popgun, folks.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Yeah, I'm still confused on the whole "she didn't realize she was carrying around a 6 pound baby" thing. I'm guessing that fact, in combination with the blood pressure thing, that she must have been quite obese.
Not necessarily. It's rare, but some women just don't show the way that you would expect. If her cycles are always irregular and/or non-existant and she didn't gain much weight it's possible that she really didn't know. Some women (even though this is very rare) even have their cycles all the way through their pregnancy.
Of course she could also have been lying, I don't know.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm so glad this place has been shut down. I hope the revocation of licenses goes futher than just a few states. Belle, I recall that you mentioned there were things going on that Wes knew through his work but couldn't (and wouldn't) speak about publicly, both for professional and legal reasons.
What a horrid story.
I don't see how this works as ammunition for either side, though. The more reputable OB/Gyns who would never be involved in this state of affairs have -- in many cases -- stopped doing abortions, or they have gotten old enough that they have to retire. One of my professors was in this case -- stayed working much longer than he would have otherwise, well into retirement years, because he knew that when he left, there would not be a good, professional, sane, non-seedy, non-unscrupulous provider left in the area.
That is to say, the current state of affairs is untenable -- however it ends up working out.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Belle,
I agree that this place probably should've been shut down a long time ago. Events like this one in the article don't just happen as a one-shot "oops, we goofed" kind of thing. It takes repetive relaxation of the rules, a fair amount of time for a lax corporate culture to permeate the place, and ultimately a kind of 'look the other way' attitude to take over. Sadly, I suspect this place probably lost a lot of good nurses and techs over the years -- people who could get a job elsewhere and who ultimately probably had concerns for their own professional reputation, or even credentials.
Really NOBODY needs this kind of crap to go on. I mean, really, isn't one of the biggest arguments against making abortion illegal that we'll end up back in the days of back-alley abortions from unlicensed providers? If the level of care in licensed clinics is going to fall to that "back-alley" level, it sure would seem to take away one of the arguments in favor of easily accessible legal abortion; i.e., that it's safer and women are going to have them anyway, so let's make sure they have a good, safe way to have it...
Dag, I meant no disrespect to you. I know this topic tends to polarize Hatrack and bring out the nasty verbiage like few other topics do around here. At any rate, I wasn't trying to BLAME anyone, but to ask people to step away from the fray.
I also wasn't analyzing who said what first, so, again, it wasn't an attempt to afix blame for the thread going in a bad direction.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
quote:because he knew that when he left, there would not be a good, professional, sane, non-seedy, non-unscrupulous provider left in the area.
and I bet he had a lot of compassion for human life, too
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Krankykat, I understand that this is a difficult topic for most people, and I don't think that I can give a response to your comment that is helpful to the discussion.
I do have an appreciation for the sentiment that (I believe) underlies it, and I don't doubt the strength of your beliefs on the matter.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
So, if killing a 6-pound unborn child is so monsterous, how small does an unborn child have to be before killing it can be a good idea rather than monsterous?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(see above response, re: "Krankykat" substitute "Tresopax"
*friendly/rueful)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:You are the one who suggested it by ignoring one side of it, which was why I made sure both fields were in play. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Fair enough. For what it's worth, I'm sorry; I honestly thought what I said was as tame as I could make it.
quote:So, if killing a 6-pound unborn child is so monsterous, how small does an unborn child have to be before killing it can be a good idea rather than monsterous?
This question's been answered ad nauseum already. The answers can't have changed much, on either the pro-life or pro-choice side.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think there has to be some good to come from acknowledging that we hear one another, as well, even if passions are running high and the discussion isn't moving forward smoothly.
My mother felt very strongly about this, as I remember. She worked as a nurse with a local physician who did "appendectomies" sometimes. This was way back when -- she was born in the 1920s. Anyway, although she didn't participate in the procedures, she would go back to get all of the blood and tissue from the trash and bury it out behind the clinic.
I don't think it happened often -- maybe five or six times? but that wasn't made explicit to me , I think -- but the memory stayed with her quite strongly. It was part of the way she defined herself. [both as someone who did not participate and who gave reverence when she believed so strongly in its appropriateness]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Eros, I think that was a really classy reply and I appreciate it. I apologize if I came off as specifically critical of you... I was definitely aiming broader.
I think you know I dig you, so please take this as an attempt to communicate and not to cast aspersions or blame. I'm trying to come up with a comparable statement on another topic so you can see how it sounded. The best I can come up with is:
Imagine someone watching the Rodney King beating video and remarking: "You know, what's even sadder is the people in the pro-affirmative action camp are gonna make political hay outta this..."
It's not a direct parallel, but it's pretty close-- one real life incident, harming one real life person being used to highlight what a certain political group views as a problem... and then having someone identify that as the real tragedy of the situation.
Ooh... thought of another... (Matthew Shepherd, I think the guy's name was, for some reason forgive if I'm off) ... Imagine, in the wake the murder of the young gay man in Wyoming, someone saying "you know, the really sad thing is those gay rights and hate crime activists are gonna use this..."
I'm hoping that explains how shockingly insensitive and dismissive things were getting. and it wasn't just Eros's initial statement, but a couple of people seconding it, and one of them rather nastily.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Eros, I think that was a really classy reply and I appreciate it. I apologize if I came off as specifically critical of you... I was definitely aiming broader.
Thanks. We've been slowly losing class & respect here (and I've been part of the problem, I'll admit); maybe it's time we offered up a good re-injection (in that vein, I appreciate your posts, CT).
quote:Imagine someone watching the Rodney King beating video and remarking: "You know, what's even sadder is the people in the pro-affirmative action camp are gonna make political hay outta this..."
It's not a direct parallel, but it's pretty close-- one real life incident, harming one real life person being used to highlight what a certain political group views as a problem... and then having someone identify that as the real tragedy of the situation.
Ooh... thought of another... (Matthew Shepherd, I think the guy's name was, for some reason forgive if I'm off) ... Imagine, in the wake the murder of the young gay man in Wyoming, someone saying "you know, the really sad thing is those gay rights and hate crime activists are gonna use this..."
I'm hoping that explains how shockingly insensitive and dismissive things were getting. and it wasn't just Eros's initial statement, but a couple of people seconding it, and one of them rather nastily.
I definitely see where you're coming from here, and think those are mostly valid parallels. Here's where I think my views are diverging:
1) Context is everything. This is where I'm seeing my initial comment was a mistake; Hatrack has no small number of very vocally pro-life people. I'd either forgotten that momentarily or subconsciously knew it and, just as subconsciously, felt the need to jab.
2) This issue (and the other two you quoted) feel very far away to me; not being a woman, black or gay, I don't feel these issues are as close to me as someone who is a woman, black and/or gay might. With that in mind, NONE of the "what's even sadder..." statements really bothers me.
3) In all three cases, I don't know any of the people involved, which further distances me. I have a certain amount of empathy but I'm not the kind of person who can take something like this and internalize it to that extent. As a result, the political and social implications are much larger in my mind than the individual incident. Were the individual incident closer in my sphere of everyday life (e.g. if this occured in the town I live in, or someone I knew was involved), I'm sure my reaction would differ to the extent that I'd probably be as upset and defensive as many people here are/were.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Of course the murder of (at this point) babies is a horrible thing, but the worst part is that this will be fodder for the myriad of pro-lifers who think all pro-choicers are heartless babykillers.
"The worst part?"
Do you honestly feel that the way an extreme fringe group of anti-abortion activists will portray pro-choice supporters is WORSE than the death of a child?
Or was this just a slip of phrase?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Do you honestly feel that the way an extreme fringe group of anti-abortion activists will portray pro-choice supporters is WORSE than the death of a child?
Or was this just a slip of phrase?
Check the replies thereafter, Scott - pretty vinegary, but they address this exact point.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:It's not a direct parallel, but it's pretty close-- one real life incident, harming one real life person being used to highlight what a certain political group views as a problem... and then having someone identify that as the real tragedy of the situation.
Ooh... thought of another... (Matthew Shepherd, I think the guy's name was, for some reason forgive if I'm off) ... Imagine, in the wake the murder of the young gay man in Wyoming, someone saying "you know, the really sad thing is those gay rights and hate crime activists are gonna use this
That isn't equivalent at all. It isn't fair to compare pro-choice people to violent bigots.
-pH
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
For what it's worth, I don't think that was the intent.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
As a pro-lifer, my only real reaction to that, politically, was a cynical "and they think it would be safer if it were legal" thought (which has no basis in anything as it's one clinic out of hundreds).
But, really, that is troubling Belle. It is an isolated incident in your area or is it indicative of the medical community in general? I feel like a place like that should have been noticed/shut down earlier.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:That isn't equivalent at all. It isn't fair to compare pro-choice people to violent bigots.
You're severely misrepresenting Jim-Me's analogy. This is the comparison he made:
pro-choice people saying the political ramifications are "worse" than the baby's death = opponents of hate-crimes legislation saying the political ramifications are "worse" than Matthew Shepherd's murder
But I think you knew that. Personally, I'm pretty tired of people taking offense at analogies in these debates. "How dare you mention my cause in the same breath as [insert loathsome thing]! Take that back right now!" etc. Analogies exist to help people understand one another. Taking offense just puts off understanding and makes the argument more contentious.
[ May 21, 2006, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I thought Jim's comparison was a fair one, actually, for what he was comparing it for, which was not to equate bigots with pro-lifers.
At least that isn't what I got out of it.
Ero, I thought that was a good explaination of your views as well.
I was taken aback by the initial post, to be honest, and I am pro-choice myself, so it wasn't all about pro-life people being oversensitive, either. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm not seriously misrepresenting it.
Let's review:
quote:Ooh... thought of another... (Matthew Shepherd, I think the guy's name was, for some reason forgive if I'm off) ... Imagine, in the wake the murder of the young gay man in Wyoming, someone saying "you know, the really sad thing is those gay rights and hate crime activists are gonna use this..."
The way I'm reaading this: In the wake of the murder of a baby, some pro-choicer is saying, "It's really sad that those pro-life activists are going to use this."
Which means that pro-lifers are NOT being equated with the bigots. They are instead being equated with those fighting for equal rights.
And I also wasn't getting all riled up and offended about it. I was just saying that I don't think it's a fair comparison. That's all.
-pH
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:That isn't equivalent at all. It isn't fair to compare pro-choice people to violent bigots.
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah: but the worst part is that this will be fodder for the myriad of pro-lifers who think all pro-choicers are heartless babykillers.
It wasn't fair to say a vast number of anti-abortion people think the pro-abortion people are heartless baby killers, either.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I'm trying to figure out why this thread angers me so much. I think it's the whole "don't poke a sleeping bear" bullshit. The specific line, and the general attitude.
It's really disgusting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah. That's what's disgusting TL. Not someone specifically saying that potential propoganda is worse than the murder of a baby.
And before I have to hear it again from someone else saying the use of "life" is contentious, murder of a baby was how the person comparing it to the potential propoganda put it. So, for the purpose of analyzing that statement, it was a murder.
For that matter, Juxtapose's little parenthetical about the use of the word "life" is flat out ridiculous, considering that it wasn't the anti-abortion people who injected politics and the particular language of their cause into the thread.
And now your "anger[ed] so much" because Jim-Me had the decency to point out the incredible double standard attempting to be imposed here.
I appreciate CT's dedication to rationale discussion and understanding the other side, and respect her choice not to engage in a discussion that she thinks won't be productive.
But that's not the only acceptable way to respond to provocative posts (nor do I think CT in any way implied it to be).
Let's get one thing perfectly clear. As long as people feel entitled to throw out one-line summations of complex issues which ignore the actual point of dispute, I will continue to respond in ways that highlight this behavior when I choose to do so. I will not allow standards of discourse to be imposed (by social pressure or otherwise) only after I have decided to respond. If people have a serious problem with this kind of discourse, then they can say something about it before people holding the targeted beliefs respond.
I have proven time and time again that I am capable of engaging in nuanced discourse on controversial issues in attempts to identify the areas of agreement and precisely define where the disagreement lies. But it takes at least two participants acting in good faith to do so. I am not going to be limited to that kind of discussion when other people feel free to toss off knowingly provocative statements.
So you don't like the "don't poke a sleeping bear" BS, TL? Too damn bad. I'm sick of hearing the whining that results when people don't sit back and take the initiating BS in silence.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Jim's clearly stated objective was to show WHY that statement, phrased the way it originaly was, was offensive to a lot of pewople. The statement was a comment about what happened was horrible, but it implied that the main thing they had a problem with was not the norrible act itself, but the political ramifications of it.
JIm then went on to use several other horrible things that happened to show why that type of statement would have been equally horrible even if the topic had not been abortion at all.
At no point did he attempt to equate pro-choice people with anything. He simply was using well known events to show how callus that phrasing seemed when applied to any sort of event that had gained national noteriety.
Also, just because someone might have felt sickened by all the political opertunistic movement (on BOTH sides of the issue) doesn't mean they are bigoted, nor did Jim say they were. I feel sickened all the time about how people get all caught up in the political games surrounding these types of events. It seems to me that a lot fo the time people din't care about the Mathew Shepards until something happenes to them, and then it isn't because of them as a person, but because they are suddenly worth some policical clout.
Jims stated purpose was the show how that same statement would not ahve been cool even without the abortion issue being involved, and IMO he succeeded. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
On the other hand....Dag, you are the first person in this thread to state that unborn children might "want" anything, so a lot of the comments afterwords was actually in-line with that statement.
I know you make it in response to the line about women not haivng other choices than letting someone else control their bodies, but it is easy to prove that the women who are pregnant want something.
It is almost imposible to prove the fetuses do. That is really one of the main isses in the entire aborthion debate, and you know that full well.
At least we are all in agreement about this clinic. Shutting it down was long overdue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:On the other hand....Dag, you are the first person in this thread to state that unborn children might "want" anything, so a lot of the comments afterwords was actually in-line with that statement.
Yeah, but the response to that was to first play a word game and then to tell me to "cut the crap" when I pointed out the inapplicability of her word game.
quote:It is almost imposible to prove the fetuses do. That is really one of the main isses in the entire aborthion debate, and you know that full well.
As to the word "want," if the word can apply to one-day old infants ("he wants to nurse") then it can apply to third trimester unborn children.
I will absolutely NOT tolerate a double standard that makes it somehow more acceptable to introduce the pro-choice argument into a debate than the pro-life argument. I chose particularly graphic language because, if we are going to reduce an entire debate into one-liners, I want my one-liner to make people unable to shunt aside the grisly reality of abortion - chopping up an unborn child. (Edit: with the exception of RU, of course.)
An unborn child is demonstrably alive, demonstrably has the same genetic code from the completion of fertilization through death, and develops in uninterrupted continuity. "Want" has two meanings, one a conscious desire, and one as a shorthand for expressing motive in general, whether conscious or not. You know that. PL knows that. It was a word game to scare-quote want and use it the way PL did.
For that matter, "wanting to turn thier bodies/lives over to another being" is at least as imprecise as my use of "want." At the point of abortion, the body is "turned over" already. Contraception stops the body from being turned over. Abortion reclaims it. Sure, I know what she meant. That would be why I didn't mention it earlier. But she knew what I meant, too.
So, once again, double standards won't be tolerated by me any more here.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Let me elaborate on the "sleeping bear" line.
Princess Leah, specifically, came into the thread with a chip on her shoulder and then, when responded to firmly, fled and implied Dagonee was making her angry with all his meanness. People responding took a neutral attitude for the most part, as if Princess Leah and Dagonee were equally at fault.
My point there was to say "if you come in guns blazing, don't be surprised when you get a faceful right back."
You might think the line and the attitude are bs, TL. Fine. Don't deal with me and you won't have to deal with it, but my days of fleeing forums because someone else is unhappy with my presence are over. If I violate the terms of the service agreement, report me.
To pH, you really are missing my point. I inverted the tables, not to compare the sides, but to say "how would you as a supporter of these things, feel about some hyper-conservative who said something like this?" I specifically turned things backwards to give empathy, not to draw comparisons between any of the parties involved.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Princess Leah, specifically, came into the thread with a chip on her shoulder
In fairness to PL, it looks like a decent percentage of the people posting on this thread came in here with chips on their respective shoulders. I suspect various groups are making political hay out of this for precisely that reason, in fact.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It is quite possible to have a chip on one's shoulder without thrusting the aggressiveness and venom that results from it outwards.
Princess Leah did not do this. She had a chip on her shoulder, and TS to anyone who didn't think that was a big enough reason to say things like the true tragedy here is that those pro-life scumbags will make political hay out of this...because hey, people die all the time!
In my opinion nothing good ever comes from arguing from the position of, "It happens all the time anyway." I cannot recall ever hearing an argument that had that as one of its cornerstones that I was ever remotely satisfied with, because that's entirely a non-issue for anyone disagreeing with you. If they disagree with you, then they don't WANT it to be happening all the time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:It's not a direct parallel, but it's pretty close-- one real life incident, harming one real life person being used to highlight what a certain political group views as a problem... and then having someone identify that as the real tragedy of the situation.
Ooh... thought of another... (Matthew Shepherd, I think the guy's name was, for some reason forgive if I'm off) ... Imagine, in the wake the murder of the young gay man in Wyoming, someone saying "you know, the really sad thing is those gay rights and hate crime activists are gonna use this
That isn't equivalent at all. It isn't fair to compare pro-choice people to violent bigots.
-pH
It isn't fair of you to equate those who oppose hate crime legislation or changes to marriage laws with "violent bigots."
There are valid reasons for opposing both that don't rely on bigotry.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Princess Leah, specifically, came into the thread with a chip on her shoulder
In fairness to PL, it looks like a decent percentage of the people posting on this thread came in here with chips on their respective shoulders. I suspect various groups are making political hay out of this for precisely that reason, in fact.
Which brings us, again, to the point of my second post. I will not apologize for ripping someone who just ripped me. Especially when they are taking the unique tack of ripping my position, in advance no less, for using a real event to bolster its arguments. God forbid anyone should use an actual occurance to bolster their worldview.
I don't think anyone else needs to apologize, either, regardless of their postion, when they are merely meeting someone's aggression with blunt forcefulness as Dagonee did. A lot of people have commented here and elsewhere on the problems with the level of discourse, both on hatrack, and generally. The only problem I have is with people who are willing to dish it out and, not only can't take their own punishment back, but can't even take the remonstration of being called on their actions (a significant part of Dagonee's response was "you don't get to make semantical arguments and then call me out for doing so").
I was a bit sarcastic to Erosomniac's first post because that is my style. He and I have managed to get past that, largely because he has been gracious in accepting that and met me where I am while outlining further where he has been coming from. That's communicating.
As an aside, I haven't yet gotten to the factual issue involved in PL's first post, so while I'm at it...
From the Alabama Planned Parenthood site:
quote: Abortion Services Planned Parenthood of Alabama's Centers in Birmingham, Huntsville and Mobile offer abortion services. We offer pregnancy tests and ultrasounds as well as pregnancy options counseling. All of Planned Parenthood of Alabama's Health Centers are licensed by the state of Alabama and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and our compassionate medical staff is specially trained to make your visit as pleasant as possible. You can reach our Birmingham Health Center at (205) 322-2121 or our Huntsville Center at (256) 539-2746 or our Mobile Center at (251) 342-6695. All centers offer recorded information 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Appointments can be made during regular business hours.
Finding a safe, legal abortion provider in Birmingham doesn't appear to be too difficult. It took me about 30 seconds. I don't see Planned Parenthood suddenly being shut down as a result of this case, nor is there any indication in the article that Abortion services anywhere but this clinic are being targeted and curtailed.
[ May 21, 2006, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Wow. Couple things just for clarification...
1. Yes, I came into the argument with a chip on my shoulder (or, if you will accept a rephrasing, a strong opinion about the right to abortion that is not likely to be changed). Guilty as charged. Then I left, because I realized that arguing with someone who, like me, had strong opinions on this issue, was not going to do anything but make me angry and upset. I realize that my explanation could be interpreted as though I were condemning Dag and others for jumping in--that was not my intent, and I apologize if I came across that way.
2. Forgive my ignorance, Dag, but what is scare-quoting exactly? I'm not exactly sure why you thought I was playing word games there. I used the word "want" in quotations because it was the word you used. When you returned that not wanting ANYTHING meant that among the things not wanted was being chopped into bits, I felt that you were responding to my word choice, rather than the meaning I was trying to get across. I should not have responded as I did...as I said, I was angry--and when I realized that I was overreacting, I removed myself from the thread.
3. Obviously killing babies is worse than exploiting the aftermath of the killing. But the article wasn't "this doctor murdered a bunch of babies". It was "because of the murders, an abortion clinic was shut down". To paraphrase. A lot. I'm glad that %&#$*(% of a doctor is getting suspended, because he deserves it and more...and now that it's happened, the worst thing I can forsee happening because of the whole mess is members of the pro-life camp exploiting it in order to further thier cause, which, as a staunch pro-choicer, I feel is wrong. If pro-choicers also exploit this situation for thier gain, I feel that's equally sleazy, but honestly, I don't see anything that can be twisted to further that cause. This isn't really inherently an abortion issue, but an issue of horrible, horrible medicine. The quote in the article from the "longtime anti-abortion activist" about how it is "scandalous what's happening to women" really ticked me off, and is an example of what I was--am--afraid of happening as an end result of the clinic's closure, namely, anti-abortionists exploiting the fact that it was an abortion clinic where these atrocities took place.
I don't want to go back anything I said (except "cut the crap", because there I was WAY out of line, and I'm sorry). But I did post while too angry to be responsible and respectful of a contentious issue, and I apologize.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You guys are getting way, way too pissy for me. I can't say anything without three people jumping all over me in a frenzy.
...it's kind of like being a freshman at a frat party.
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: You guys are getting way, way too pissy for me. I can't say anything without three people jumping all over me in a frenzy.
...it's kind of like being a freshman at a frat party.
-pH
See, pH, this is precisely what I have a problem with. You made a comment. People defend themselves and others from it, one of them by applying your specific tack right back at you, and *we're* the ones who are being pissy and acting like college freshmen at a frat party?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Princess Leah, I appreciate your return to the thread. Well done.
I did, indeed take your departing post as a stab at Dagonee, and I'm glad to have you take the time to clear that up.
[ May 21, 2006, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:See, pH, this is precisely what I have a problem with. You made a comment. People defend themselves and others from it, one of them by applying your specific tack right back at you, and *we're* the ones who are being pissy and acting like college freshmen at a frat party?
This isn't pissy?
quote:But I think you knew that. Personally, I'm pretty tired of people taking offense at analogies in these debates. "How dare you mention my cause in the same breath as [insert loathsome thing]! Take that back right now!" etc.
Sounds pretty pissy to me.
And I didn't say YOU were acting like college freshman at a frat party. I said that I felt like a college freshman at a frat party.
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
ah... well I didn't get invited to those parties... forgive my ignorance Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I don't think Jim has been acting "pissy". He's indignant, certainly, but he is also presenting a good and rational case, and deserves more respect than you're giving him, pH.
quote:I can't say anything without three people jumping all over me in a frenzy.
You haven't quite tested the "I can't say ANYTHING" part of that yet So far, you're really only said one thing, and it wasn't very defensible.
It's like if I were to come into a room full of senior citizens and shout, "I hate all you ****ing geriatrics!" ... and then when they get mad, walk out saying, "Man, I can't say ANYTHING without people jumping all over me!"
That last statement would not be accurate, would it? I didn't say just ANYTHING, I said something stupid and rude. It's not that other people have a problem. I created the problem by saying what I said.
So take responsibility. You totally misstated Jim-Me and criticized his post when you had no apparent cause to. He's now indignant because of something YOU DID. If you want him to stop being indignant, I'm betting a correction of your original statement would do the trick. It might even get us back on track here, and out of emotional territory.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, to be completely honest it seemed that the word want in this type of discussion was a word game I had heard before, on Hatrack and other places.
A lot of people on the pro-life side will say if it can want it is "obviously" alive, and anyone who says otherwise is evil and ignorant....blah blah blah....
It isn't a human being yet, legally or in the mind of many, many people, and even if it was it doesn't have the same rights that the human mother already has, plain and simple.
It seemed to me that your "want" was implying a lot more than an automatic, insatiable hunger, but more of a value judgment, and I don't think I was reading too much into it. I know my personal views on abortion area mixed bag, but yours are very clear cut, and even if you didn't realize it that came across in your post.
THIS is what the original comment was about. We have now spent more time in this thread discussing (indirectly) abortion views than we did on the original topic. Once again it is all too easy to lose the individual tragedy in the large principles and arguments about abortion, and that is just a shame.
Rhetoric on both sides of this issue have been vented here already, despite the fact that everyone in this thread has condemned the actions of this dirt bag doctor and his dirty, unethical clinic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Forgive my ignorance, Dag, but what is scare-quoting exactly?
quote:... I felt that you were responding to my word choice, rather than the meaning I was trying to get across.
This is exactly how I felt when you responded to my initial post.
Thank you for the rest of your explanation.
quote:A lot of people on the pro-life side will say if it can want it is "obviously" alive, and anyone who says otherwise is evil and ignorant....blah blah blah....
Actually, I know few people pro-lifers who would make that argument (and as you might imagine, I know a LOT of pro-lifers). For one, the "personhood begins at conception crowd" makes a point of NOT basing their argument on brain activity or consciousness. We are not ignorant of embryonic and fetal development. Even suggesting that possessing wants is at all related to the reason we oppose abortion seriously undercuts our central point - that human personhood is not based on ability in any way, shape, or form.
Many arguments against late-term abortion depend on the little difference between the abilities of an infant and the abilities of viable fetus. But late-term abortions are a small percentage of the activity we (again, referring to the "human personhood begins at conception" crowd) want to stop.
I parallelled the construction for rhetorical effect, but the effect was not related to the conscious choice definition of "want." It was tailored toward the contrasting of "turning one's body over to another" with being "chopped up."
quote:It seemed to me that your "want" was implying a lot more than an automatic, insatiable hunger, but more of a value judgment, and I don't think I was reading too much into it.
It might not be too much, but it is inaccurate. The value judgment was attached to "unborn children" and "chopped up." What you described as coming across in my post is something I don't believe.
quote:It isn't a human being yet, legally or in the mind of many, many people, and even if it was it doesn't have the same rights that the human mother already has, plain and simple.
You've identified the heart of the dispute. In the minds of many, many people an unborn child is a human being, and, while it doesn't have the same rights as the mother, it should have the right not to be killed. OK. How does that relate to my being able to post one-line summations of the issue in response to other one-line summations of the issue?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:It's like if I were to come into a room full of senior citizens and shout, "I hate all you ****ing geriatrics!" ... and then when they get mad, walk out saying, "Man, I can't say ANYTHING without people jumping all over me!"
That last statement would not be accurate, would it? [Smile] I didn't say just ANYTHING, I said something stupid and rude. It's not that other people have a problem. I created the problem by saying what I said.
So take responsibility. You totally misstated Jim-Me and criticized his post when you had no apparent cause to.
First of all, I didn't do anything close to saying, "I hate all these ***ing people." What I said was that I didn't think it was a valid comparison. And I still don't think it's a valid comparison. It wasn't stupid, and it wasn't rude. I was stating the way that I read what Jim-Me said. So no, I have nothing to take responsibility for beyond stating my own opinion. I didn't insult anyone in my initial post, and what I said in the post after that was an attempt to clarify my previous post.
Lay off.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
pH, Geoff didn't say that you did "anything close to saying, 'I hate all these ***ing people.'" He was presenting a clear example - which, by necessity, would involve behavior worse than that which he thinks you committed - to illustrate the difference between not be able to say anything without getting jumped on and not being able to say some specific things for specific reasons.
I still think you've done a terrible injustice to people who oppose hate crime legislation by equating them with violent bigots.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by me: Why is it wrong to imagine that the political outcome of this situation, which will affect thousands of lives, is more important than a life (a contentious word, but whatever) that has already been lost?
quote:posted by Dagonee: For that matter, Juxtapose's little parenthetical about the use of the word "life" is flat out ridiculous, considering that it wasn't the anti-abortion people who injected politics and the particular language of their cause into the thread.
Why, exactly, is it ridiculous that I would want to acknowledge the complexity of the issue? Or maybe you consider it ridiculous that I would want to add a caveat to my use of a controversial word so as not to be ambushed by it later in the thread, should I continue this discussion. Perhaps, instead, you felt it was ridiculous that I would clarify my position while other people who may or may not hold similar views to mine were making statement you disagreed with. Or is it because you thought it'd be easier to attack the parenthetical, which was clearly unimportant to the point I was making (hence the "but whatever"), rather than address that point?
I fail to see how that's as ridiculous as griping about who started it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Finding a safe, legal abortion provider in Birmingham doesn't appear to be too difficult. It took me about 30 seconds. I don't see Planned Parenthood suddenly being shut down as a result of this case, nor is there any indication in the article that Abortion services anywhere but this clinic are being targeted and curtailed.
Jim-Me, this may not be as simple or straight-forward as it seems on the surface. I can share some information about how things worked behind the scenes (so to speak) in a different city (not Birmingham! not Birmingham!), but I'm not naming names. I'm changing incidental details, though, for confidentiality's sake, and I can elaborate on this privately if anyone has any concerns about this affecting the story. In my opinion, it doesn't, but I am happy to explain elsewhere.
By the way, I don't tell this story to drive home any particular point. I just want to natter on and reminisce (while I have a captivish audience ) and, more seriously, give a sense of the nuance that sometimes gets stripped from a black-and-white story.
I knew a young generalist physician who had been active volunteering at PP as a medical student and who sought out extra training in abortion in order to provide a regular provider there. You see, PP [in that city] had a small group of sort of "itinerant practitioners" -- physicians who would cycle through and around the surrounding states on a regular basis -- who provided their abortion services. A woman in search of an abortion would be seen by PP and then make an appointment for an upcoming time when one of the travelling providers was scheduled to make a visit.
Unfortunately (in all sorts of ways, actually -- and this part troubles me), the travelling providers were a pretty sleazy lot. Although the PP staff, as far as I am aware, did not have any reason to fault the surgical skills of the physicians, the staff as a whole got a pretty smarmy feel from the lot, and they made sure not to leave the patients alone with them, even while clothed.
It was frankly pretty horrid. PP wanted to provide what they believed to be needed, legal, and ethical services, but because of the way the situation currently works, they were unable to find an affiliate who they deemed to be a good doctor in every sense of the term. To them, it was a matter of chosing between evils, I guess.
(Of course, I know this is not going to serve as an argument to establish the morality of providing abortions, but I do take it as a given that none of us wish to see women -- or anyone -- receive less than quality care, and none of us want unethical/unscrupulous physicians working on anyone.)
That is, it is currently very difficult to find good training in providing abortions, in part because of the violent harrassment of providers that does occur (and death threats by mail, phone, and even to one's children are common, from what I've seen), but also because in this environment, it's the shady characters who just want to run women through as fast as possible (with the bottom line being money) who thrive. And then the training they would give -- if they even would concede to do so -- would not be of the best quality.
By the way, this is why that old provider I knew stayed in the business well past retirement age. He did not shuffle women through like cattle -- indeed, he spent time discussing all of their options with them, and he helped them find support to carry to term, if they chose.
The story doesn't have much of a positive ending. This young generalist was unable to find appropriate training (I'm glossing over a lot here, but it is appropriate to do so), and so -- in order to provide legal services, the PP was having to lower standards below what they wanted.
Mind you, none of these practitioners had done anything unethical that the staff at PP knew about, and they all were sufficiently skilled to do the procedures. I have no reason to think that this place was anything like the Birmingham clinic that Belle originally reference in this thread.
One might still state that the PP staff shouldn't have gotten involved with anyone that tripped their red flags, even if there was no evidence of inappropriate behavior. But then again, these people did believe that providing access to legal procedures was important, and they knew that a local place much more like the one Belle has described would be the only provider left for the area if PP stopped offering services.
It was not a simple situation. The best option for what they wanted to do was to bring in someone who they trusted, and the young physician would have been ideal -- if he had been able to be sufficiently trained. He wasn't. The bulk of control right now in the field of providing abortions is, IMO, being taken over by particularly unsavoury sorts. There are still good providers out there, but it is getting harder and harder to find them.
-----
By the way, I am not the "young physician" in this story, but he was my friend and one of my teachers.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Where is the line drawn? When does the child, in your mind, stop being a mass of useless tissue and start to be a person? If a mother wants an abortion, and at the clinic, her water broke, and she delivered, could she still kill that baby? Some babies actually go through an induced birth, and come out healthy and crying, and are then burned to death in a bucket of saline solution. These people have their entire lives ahead of them, and they are being killed for no reason other than inconvenience in more than 99% of all cases. Whether or not they are sentient, or they have feelings, is moot. If you were about to fall senseless into a coma, but you knew that you would emerge in a few months and live a full, healthy life, with an infinite number of ways to live it, would you want them to take you off life support? Would you be a useless piece of flesh?
And what about the risks to the mother? I recently met with a woman who had had an abortion at seventeen. She, like one out of every five women who ever undergo an abortion, will never be able to concieve again. There are also thousands of mothers who have died from blood loss, infection, or scarring after an abortion. All this, while there are alternatives like adoption and child-care available to anyone who asks.
I could go on and on, but no one cares what I say anyway.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[Edited to add citation for clarification]
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Where is the line drawn? When does the child, in your mind, stop being a mass of useless tissue and start to be a person? If a mother wants an abortion, and at the clinic, her water broke, and she delivered, could she still kill that baby? Some babies actually go through an induced birth, and come out healthy and crying, and are then burned to death in a bucket of saline solution. These people have their entire lives ahead of them, and they are being killed for no reason other than inconvenience in more than 99% of all cases. Whether or not they are sentient, or they have feelings, is moot. If you were about to fall senseless into a coma, but you knew that you would emerge in a few months and live a full, healthy life, with an infinite number of ways to live it, would you want them to take you off life support? Would you be a useless piece of flesh?
And what about the risks to the mother? I recently met with a woman who had had an abortion at seventeen. She, like one out of every five women who ever undergo an abortion, will never be able to concieve again. There are also thousands of mothers who have died from blood loss, infection, or scarring after an abortion. All this, while there are alternatives like adoption and child-care available to anyone who asks.
I could go on and on, but no one cares what I say anyway.
Well, FToS, reliable citations (e.g., for the 1-in-5 number) would be helpful, although I suppose not quite necessary.
I'm pretty sure that, once again, I can't offer much to the discussion in response to the details and wording of your concerns (at least, not without becoming pendantic), but that definitely doesn't mean that someone else may not. As Dagonee noted (and thanks, sugar!), I don't want to squelch others' discussions.
[ May 21, 2006, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why, exactly, is it ridiculous that I would want to acknowledge the complexity of the issue?
For one thing, the use of "life" and related words such as "murder" in my posts on the subject were based on the value judgments of the person who voiced the comparison. At this point in the discussion, "life" wasn't a contentious word because both sides agreed that a life was lost. It was a 6 pound 4 ounce baby that was stillborn. The word "murder" was used by the person who made the value judgment that the use of this incident by pro-lifers was "worse" than the (a value judgment she has since clarified and stepped back from).
Because at best that alludes to one portion of the complexity of the issue. You're only acknowledging the doubt on one side of the issue - which is a ridiculous thing to be doing when, as you yourself state, it wasn't important.
quote:Or maybe you consider it ridiculous that I would want to add a caveat to my use of a controversial word so as not to be ambushed by it later in the thread, should I continue this discussion.
Yes, that's ridiculous, too.
quote:Perhaps, instead, you felt it was ridiculous that I would clarify my position while other people who may or may not hold similar views to mine were making statement you disagreed with.
That clarified nothing.
quote:Or is it because you thought it'd be easier to attack the parenthetical, which was clearly unimportant to the point I was making (hence the "but whatever"), rather than address that point?
Don't flatter yourself. I referenced it as an example of a larger point. You were merely a convenient example of the double standard.
As to your larger "point," it's both lacking a factual basis - this incident is not going to alter the larger abortion debate one iota - and represents a reprehensible value system if you truly believe that the potential propaganda is worse than the murder. And, lest you forget, the word murder was not mine, but the person making the initial comparison I took issue with.
So yes, because the acknowledgment of the complexity was one-sided and because there was not contention about the use of the word "life" in the discussion you inserted yourself into, that parenthetical was ridiculous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As Dagonee noted (and thanks, sugar!), I don't want to squelch others' discussions.
You're incredibly classy, CT, and even though I often take a different path in these discussions than you do, I have great respect for how you handle yourself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:* n the US: Frequency depends on gestational age (GA) at time of abortion and method of abortion. Complication rates according to GA at time of abortion are as follows: (1) fewer than 6 weeks, less than 1%; (2) 12-13 weeks, 3-6%; and (3) second trimester, up to 50%, possibly higher. Mortality/Morbidity: Mortality and morbidity depend on GA at time of abortion. In the US, mortality ra
Those numbers are for all complications, and my understanding is that most abortions are in the first trimester. It is possible even in light of these numbers that 1 in 5 are thereafter sterile, but it seems very unlikely.
There are very serious potential effects of abortion, no doubt, but factual inaccuracies weaken the pro-life argument.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:At this point in the discussion, "life" wasn't a contentious word because both sides agreed that a life was lost.
Although it is in the larger debate, which is what I was trying to be mindful of.
quote:Yes, that's ridiculous, too.
Because it's clearly never happened before. And certainly not in abortion discussions.
quote:Don't flatter yourself. I referenced it as an example of a larger point. You were merely a convenient example of the double standard.
Then you chose a poor example for a poor point, as I wasn't setting up or reinforcing any kind of double standard, nor do I think anyone in this thread has.
quote:As to your larger "point," it's both lacking a factual basis - this incident is not going to alter the larger abortion debate one iota
No more lacking than yours.
quote:and represents a reprehensible value system if you truly believe that the potential propaganda is worse than the murder.
I believe the propaganda could have the potential to cause worse than the loss of a life. I'm not sure if this is a murder or not.
quote:the acknowledgment of the complexity was one-sided
I confess this statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There's nothing one-sided about recognizing that people disagree about the meaning of the word in the context of abortion. For the record, I do think of this baby as life, and I wouldn't try to raise doubt about the fact.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Yeah. That's what's disgusting TL. Not someone specifically saying that potential propoganda is worse than the murder of a baby.
For the record, it's possible for more than one thing to be disgusting in any given thread.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Some babies actually go through an induced birth, and come out healthy and crying, and are then burned to death in a bucket of saline solution. These people have their entire lives ahead of them, and they are being killed for no reason other than inconvenience in more than 99% of all cases.
I thought partial-birth abortion was illegal nowadays.
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:As Dagonee noted (and thanks, sugar!), I don't want to squelch others' discussions.
You're incredibly classy, CT, and even though I often take a different path in these discussions than you do, I have great respect for how you handle yourself.
I blush. Seriously, that's a heckuva compliment, especially coming from you.
I wonder if the 1 in 5 number isn't the number who become sterile because of the abortion procedure itself, but who become sterile afterwards (i.e., a correlation rather than a causation). I can certainly make a case for there being an increased correlation with PID ([one of] the primary cause[s] of fertility issues in the US, not including increasing age) in women who either do not have access to or who are chosing not to use sufficient birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and who may well be making other less than stellar decisions (be it from being in desparate situations, ignorance, lack of caring, what have you).
Still seems like an awfully high number, though, and it doesn't reflect what I have been taught about PID. And even so, it would have been perhaps somewhat misleadingly worded in the initial claim here.
[ May 21, 2006, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
I heard that number in a presentation done by a member of the pregnancy support center. The woman I talked to was sterile because of it. And yes, that does include post-abortion complications.
Dagonee, that link you posted didn't mention sterility as a complication. If anyone finds a link with a more reliable fact, or if I find one, post it.
pH, the babies are aborted a few weeks or months before their due date. Not all baby-killing happens in the womb. They could survive, however, if put into intensive care. I was born a month prematurely, and I'm pretty much fine.
My main points were in the first paragraph, but your points, CT and Dag, are taken.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: I heard that number in a presentation done by a member of the pregnancy support center. The woman I talked to was sterile because of it. And yes, that does include post-abortion complications.
What I'm not sure about is whether the ratio is supposed to include "only post-abortion complications," which I take to mean "sterility as a direct result of the abortion procedure itself."
Was that what you were trying to say, or did you mean to include other things (not related directly to the procedure itself) in the "post-abortion complications?"
(Just trying to piece this through.)
I'm pretty sure something like sterility as a complication would be tracked by the CDC. It might be worth searching the MMWR (Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, a CDC publication) for this information, or search the main CDC website.
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: pH, the babies are aborted a few weeks or months before their due date. Not all baby-killing happens in the womb. They could survive, however, if put into intensive care. I was born a month prematurely, and I'm pretty much fine.
I'm also not sure exactly what you mean by this, and I'm probably misunderstanding you. It's one of the reasons I have trouble participating in these discussions -- stuff goes by so fast, and I'm not that sharp.
Do you mean to say that there is a substantial problem with babies being born and then drowned in saline in this country? Or do you mean worldwide? Or that it is a tragic and horrible event, albeit rare, in this country?
[Edited to add: I get that this topic is one of particular passion and interest to you, and I respect that. I come from a family that self-identifies as pro-life (very devout Catholics), and I was that way myself before I started teaching ethics classes as a grad student. Piecing through the details brought me to a different understanding, although I am full aware that someone can be exceedingly well-informed and yet come to a different conclusion than I did. Not the first time, not the last.]
[ May 21, 2006, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jim-Me:
quote:People responding took a neutral attitude for the most part, as if Princess Leah and Dagonee were equally at fault.
If this was aimed at me, please note what I said earlier...:
quote:Dag, I meant no disrespect to you. I know this topic tends to polarize Hatrack and bring out the nasty verbiage like few other topics do around here. At any rate, I wasn't trying to BLAME anyone, but to ask people to step away from the fray.
I also wasn't analyzing who said what first, so, again, it wasn't an attempt to afix blame for the thread going in a bad direction.
It may be a distinction you'd care not to acknowledge, but it is indeed possible for a person to wish for a more level-headed discussion and not really care who said what first.
I've done it the other way here in the past and I can certainly understand if someone thought I was not acknowledging the right of pro-life people to express outrage. But I was trying to do something different -- get the discussion back on track.
Anyway, I think it seems to be getting onto a less angry footing, and I'm very glad of it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: pH, the babies are aborted a few weeks or months before their due date. Not all baby-killing happens in the womb. They could survive, however, if put into intensive care. I was born a month prematurely, and I'm pretty much fine.
That's the thing...I think people who were born preemie tend to get more up-in-arms about it. I don't know; I was born way late. But like I said, I thought that partial-birth abortion was illegal now.
-pH
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, that is why I mentioned it...I know full well that it is very possible in these types of discussions to have miscommunications, particularily in sensitive matters such as these. Just because I read something into a post doesn't mean that was the intent of the post.
That being said, I have heard those types of arguments from pro-life supporters myself, so I know my thought on the subject were valid...at least in my mind.
Semantically, I know what the mother in that situation wants....I have no idea if a fetus wants anything at all.
Too bad semantics aren't the heart of the matter, though.
Kwea
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think people who were born preemie tend to get more up-in-arms about it.
I was born at 7 months, and adopted, and I'm pro-choice.
Although I wouldn't have problems with laws preventing late-term abortions as long as exemptions for medical emergencies were included. My wife's mother had a late term abortion after she began hemoraging and the option was to save her or lose both. Since Teresa was born after her mom (barely) survived the previous attempt, I have big problems with any anti-abortion legislation that prevents a doctor from exercising medical judgment.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think that all hospitals should be shut down. I mean, egregious examples of malpractice have happened, so clearly, medicine is the problem.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Bob, I was actually thinking of your post when I wrote that, but I didn't mean it to be critical, as it apparently sounded. I think peacemaking is generally a good thing and I wasn't trying to denigrate your course of action, but to explain that, apart from (I think) one line from Rakeesh, no one was taking *my* course of action and that's why I felt compelled to speak up... which is not meant to imply that Dagonee can't take care of himself, of course
CT, thanks for the story. I was oversimplfying to be sure.
Lisa, I don't think anyone has suggested that this story is a reason to be pro-life. Several people have suggested that it could be pro-life propoganda, as I suggested that clinic bombings and physician murdering are excellent pro-choice propoganda. Strictly speaking, neither should have any effect on people's positions, but a visceral response can be a powerful thing.
Edit: this brings up an interesting point-- is propoganda, in and of itself, an immoral thing? I don't mean lies, I mean this type of thing, using an emotionally impactful or manipulative thing to help sway an audience. Where is that different from rhetoric and style? the words "rhetoric" and "propoganda" are often used as negatives... I think with the implication that all the other side has to offer is these emotional appeals... but in the abstract rhetoric and emotional appeal are essential parts of persuasion. Ask any trial lawyer, right Dags?
apologies if I have been misspelling "propoganda"
[ May 22, 2006, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Yes, CT, it is pretty important to me. Whenever people die for no reason, people who could have done anything with their lives, it saddens me. The statistics probably include all women who have had an abortion, who have become sterile.
Chris, Hospitals offer that service. In the rare case of life and death, it is the mother's right to live, even if it kills the baby. That's done in the hospital. Almost all pro-lifers agree on this point.
It is the existence of abortion clinics, where people commit infanticide for no other reason than convenience, that angers people.
Whenever we want to commit an atrocity against another group of people, we dehumanize them. It's been done to native americans and blacks in the U.S., to make it possible to mistreat and enslave them. In Germany, the law refused to accept Jews as people, because they couldn't slaughter people. And how long ago was it that the constitution accepted women as persons? Not as long as some might think. And in all those cases there were people who used propaganda to inurepeople to the status quo.
Nobody took my first post seriously enough to answer my questions. They actually weren't rhetorical.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Jim-Me, propaganda is a tool, which can be used for good or bad.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jim-me...thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to be dismissive of you or Dag's position on this issue, but I can see how my comment might've come across that way.
...
Ironically, I think a case could be made for degradation of care in these facilities (or even the very existence of separate, sub-par clinics dedicated almost solely to abortion services) being due to the controversy and political pressure surrounding this issue and the clinics themselves.
Given a choice, a person would have to be specifically motivated to be working in this area, seems to me. For some, the motivation might well be a concern for women and wanting to see that services are provided safely. As with any rare commodity in our society, the financial motivation surely creeps in. So...it stands to reason that as protests are more successful, the cost of these services (and the motivation for those seeking to make a buck) is going to rise.
If this is true, one might predict that communities with high rates of protest at clinics would be the places where the more mercenary practices would prevail.
Other motivations (both for staying in and getting out of the business) are, of course, possible. Many doctors would stay away from such clinics for reasons of conscience, I assume. It just seems to me that there's a dynamic here that I'd never really thought through before.
I'm betting that countries with socialized medicine and legal abortion don't see this kind of thing very much. I wonder if our Canadian and British members might weigh in on this. I mean, I know they have protests in those countries too, but the "false economy" hasn't been set up there like it has here in the US.
At least, I assume women in those countries get abortions through the usual health care network, not through private clinics, for the most part.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
FT on a S:
quote:The statistics probably include all women who have had an abortion, who have become sterile.
Don't you know?
It would seem to me that before citing statistics, you'd want to know what's measured (and what isn't) before trying to use them in a discussion.
Around here, it's usually considered bad form to cite stuff without providing the source. I note that more than one person has asked you to provide a link. Is there some reason that you haven't done so?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
You're right Bob, we don't see too much of what happened in Alabama up here. The babies are killed cleanly.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
FTOAS:
See my prior posts. Have I given you any reason to believe that I would engage you in the manner you seem to desire?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Bob, I reiterate, I heard that fact at a presentation. Maybe I misheard, and she actually said 5%. If so, I retract that statement. However, 5% of the millions of aborted women is still very many women.
Dag, again, your point is taken. People will use a numerical inconsistency to try to refute your entire statepoint.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Bob, I'm not trying to engage anybody, I'm just calling abortion what it is-baby killing. If I offended you, I'm sorry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, again, your point is taken. People will use a numerical inconsistency to try to refute your entire statepoint.
Are you saying Bob has done this? Because I don't see where he did.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
He didn't. I just stated it as a matter of fact. Keep in mind that I'm a little high school kid that doesn't know much about how to phrase things calmly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Belle's story about the doctors wishing the sick woman to be taken down stairs instead of the elevator to avoid the controversey is horrendous.
Clearly this clinic, at least, was taking advantage of people in a desperate situation, without care or compassion for either mother or child. I'm glad it has been shut down.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If abortion is truly baby-killing and if you truly believe that, I very much doubt you're sorry for offending anyone by saying it.
I certainly wouldn't be sorry if people objected to my labeled unprovoked killing of other human beings as 'murder'. Therefore I doubt you are, either. Or if you're sorry, then I suspect you don't in fact believe abortion is simply baby-killing. There is a great deal of room for nuance in this discussion when it comes to intent.
As for being a little high school kid, then by so labeling yourself and by engaging in admittedly high-schoolish behavior...is there a reason people shouldn't treat you like an immature teenager not worthy of an adult's helping of respect and attention? A reason why you should not be treated as someone who wants to say rude things addressing points not made, and weasels out of it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, 5% of the millions of aborted women is still very many women.
We're still working with a hypothetical, even imaginary, number at this point.
And since not everyone involved in this discussion does think that abortion is in fact "baby-killing," insisting that it IS baby-killing is pretty much on par with PL's earlier comments.
Of course, we could ALSO just mentally preface all the posts in this thread with "in my opinion, which is not necessarily backed by anything resembling fact," but that'd be too much work.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:As for being a little high school kid, then by so labeling yourself and by engaging in admittedly high-schoolish behavior...is there a reason people shouldn't treat you like an immature teenager not worthy of an adult's helping of respect and attention? A reason why you should not be treated as someone who wants to say rude things addressing points not made, and weasels out of it?
Yes, there is. I'd say it's the same reason we should still respect all the other people (including many adults) who act in a similarly rude manner.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And since not everyone involved in this discussion does think that abortion is in fact "baby-killing," insisting that it IS baby-killing is pretty much on par with PL's earlier comments.
I did ask earlier how small an unborn child has to be before it is no longer a baby, but rather is just a mass of cells. Nobody answered - but I don't see the point of any other discussion on the abortion issue before that question is answered, because that really is the question upon which the whole issue rests. If nobody gives any reason for why they think one collection of cells is a person and another isn't, then there really is nothing to debate about. All we'd be doing is shouting out conclusions at one another, without doing anything to examine where the disagreement comes from.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Nobody answered - but I don't see the point of any other discussion on the abortion issue before that question is answered, because that really is the question upon which the whole issue rests.
While I agree with you, I also think the possibility of getting universal agreement on that point is nil -- so, if abortion is going to be addressed by society at all, we must find a way to discuss the issue without coming to agreement on that point.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
I call it baby-killing because abortion is a generic term, which could mean many things. Calling it abortion marginalizes it.
As Tresopax said, many questions asked in this forum have been sidelined by rhetoric, and some responses (if not answers) would be appreciated.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:And since not everyone involved in this discussion does think that abortion is in fact "baby-killing," insisting that it IS baby-killing is pretty much on par with PL's earlier comments.
I did ask earlier how small an unborn child has to be before it is no longer a baby, but rather is just a mass of cells. Nobody answered - but I don't see the point of any other discussion on the abortion issue before that question is answered, because that really is the question upon which the whole issue rests. If nobody gives any reason for why they think one collection of cells is a person and another isn't, then there really is nothing to debate about. All we'd be doing is shouting out conclusions at one another, without doing anything to examine where the disagreement comes from.
I'll float one definition out there: group of cells with sufficient organization to have formed a functioning Reticular Activating System. This is a basic level of organization of the brain (very basic), and the lack of its functioning is equivalent to "brain dead."
If I recall correctly, the fetal brainstem develops in the 7th to 9th week of gestation, and although the RAS development would take longer, I think that would make a viable demarcation point. I'd look at the functioning RAS as a necessary but not sufficient condition for personhood, resting on the development of the brainstem as a necessary but not sufficient condition for a functioning RAS, so -- we'd be erring far on the side of way too early a cutoff if we made it at 8 weeks. Way, way on the side of conservative, but it's a start.
And, of course, over half of legally obtained induced abortions in the US occur at less than or equal to** 8 weeks, with more than 80% at less than or equal to** 13 weeks, per the CDC.*
--------
FToaS, I have taught college courses in bioethics for many years (not currently, though), and I have given about an equivalent number of As to students who wrote from pro-life or pro-choice positions. That is just to say that I have seen many, many arguments and debated things from both sides.
I understand that you are passionate about this topic. I encourage you to be as scrupulous as possible about being exceedingly correct in the facts you cite, as -- in my experience -- this is the single greatest indicator of someone who cares enough about a subject to study it very, very seriously.
Good ethics starts with good facts. If you get the facts wrong, it sends out a message that you might not have thought through much of this yet in a substantial way. Then again, maybe you have -- but if you've been working with misinformation, it's harder to give you the benefit of the doubt in your logic and reasoning habits.
------
*[forgot link: latest MMWR I can find is the pdf here at the CDC] ------
**changed from > to "less than or equal to" (software won't let me put the typical change notation in brackets)
[ May 22, 2006, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: 0.05*Approximately 46 million =Approximately 2.3 million women left sterile each year due to abortion.
*gently
FToaS, I still think that 5% is a grossly exaggerated number. Your cited website is using data from the 1970s and 1980s, and -- even if it was correct at the time -- it is extremely outdated now. You can recheck the eMedicine article previously linked, if you like -- it reflects the current state of affairs.
You see, open heart surgery complication rates were muuuuuuch different way back then, and one wouldn't judge the current procedure complication rate on what was happening 20-30 years ago.
quote:I call it baby-killing because abortion is a generic term, which could mean many things. Calling it abortion marginalizes it.
As Tresopax said, many questions asked in this forum have been sidelined by rhetoric, and some responses (if not answers) would be appreciated.
Well, not so much "rhetoric" as "accurate information." "Rhetoric" is a style of speaking, often use to inflame or excite passion in others. It seems to me that it is not the responses to you that have been focused on rhetoric.
We can discuss this here -- really, we can. And your viewpoint can be honored and respected for what it is. I think, though, that engaging with someone very impassioned means having more than one conversation at a time: there is the formal one, and then there is the implied subtext of respect or disrespect. It is exhausting to try to engage productively on both fronts with someone who is not actively engaging in productive effort for each from the other side.
[Edited to add:
*grin
You're a teenager. You have energy we old fogies can only dream of! You also have a lot of new ideas and interesting perspectives that make for stimulating and intriguing conversation. But please understand, if the tenor isn't fairly calm, careful, and level-headed, some of us may not have the time and energy to engage with you.
That's okay, of course. But it's bound to happen.]
[ May 22, 2006, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I call it baby-killing because abortion is a generic term, which could mean many things. Calling it abortion marginalizes it.
As Tresopax said, many questions asked in this forum have been sidelined by rhetoric....
*polite cough* I'm just pointing out the mote in your eye, here. Don't mind my beam.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Some babies actually go through an induced birth, and come out healthy and crying, and are then burned to death in a bucket of saline solution.
I highly doubt that's the case. If it's ever happened, it'd be murder. According to everyone. But I suspect it's pure invention.
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: And what about the risks to the mother?
What about them? You aren't actually concerned for the mother at all, so why pretend you are?
If the mother's life is in danger, you'd still prevent her from having an abortion. You aren't about "pro-life"; you're about anti-abortion.
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: I could go on and on, but no one cares what I say anyway.
Not when you're screaming, no sir, no one does.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
FToaS, one last caveat for now, as I have to return to work -- in order to assess the comparative repercussions of induced abortion versus attempted carrying to term, one would have to compare the rates between women who had induced abortions and those who attempted to carry to term. You might find that the infertility rate (or rate of other major negative sequelae) for the latter is actually higher, and so you'd find yourself promoting an argument for your opposition.
I don't think that's a bad thing, mind you. If the point is an important one, it shouldn't matter which way it weighs out in the end. Accurate information is what underlies robust ethics, and more accurate information can only be a good thing.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Hmmm. I would say that baby-killing is too broad a term for this discussion, as there are many instances of killing babies that have nothing to do with medicine, future sterility or Roe vs. Wade.
But whatever floats your boat.
Personally, I think the world would be a better place if people who didn't want babies managed notto get pregnant in the first place. Here's to hoping *lifts glass of OJ*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Personally, I think the world would be a better place if people who didn't want babies managed notto get pregnant in the first place. Here's to hoping *lifts glass of OJ*
Word up.
*clinks mug of chai
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I wish that I had handled yesterday with the aplomb with which you guys are handling Toad today
Toad, I have just spent a good deal of time chiding several pro-choice people for having dismissive and overly aggressive attitudes and making factual misstatements. It is more irksome than I can express to have you come in and do the same thing on my side of the argument. To be fair, I should be just as strident with you as I was yesterday. Whether it is my sympathy with your position, the fact that I am tending sick children, or the patience already displayed by Bob and CT, I just lack the energy and motivation right now.
Consider yourself chastened.
CT, I had thought the brain stem developed around 6 weeks, thanks for letting me know otherwise.
Bob, I never felt you were being dismissive, just not choosing sides, which is understandable when you are trying to calm both sides. I, on the other hand, tend to to take more of an offensive approach. Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote: What about them? You aren't actually concerned for the mother at all, so why pretend you are?
If the mother's life is in danger, you'd still prevent her from having an abortion. You aren't about "pro-life"; you're about anti-abortion.
SL, I've clearly stated that when the mother's life is in danger, it is the mother's right to live. When someone has sex, they take the risk of becoming pregnant. If you don't want to risk getting pregnant, don't partake in the action that is designed to get you pregnant. In the case of rape, it still doesn't give you the option of killing a baby.
CT, would you kill a brain-dead child if you knew that it would awaken and be healthy in a few months?
Alright, I'll tone it down a bit.
Here are some questions.
1. When does the piece of developping matter become a human being, with inalienable rights?
2. What separates abortion from infanticide?
3. Where and when do a mother's rights to kill her offspring end?
4. What, exactly, are the pro-choice arguments?
5. Why do people choose abortion over adoption?
Now can I get some answers?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: And what about the risks to the mother?
What about them? You aren't actually concerned for the mother at all, so why pretend you are?
If the mother's life is in danger, you'd still prevent her from having an abortion. You aren't about "pro-life"; you're about anti-abortion.
Did FToaS actually say that (I confess I stopped reading his or her posts in detail)?
That's a rather extreme position and I've never heard anyone advocate making that law before.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Now can I get some answers?
Explain World War II. Use both sides of paper if necessary. *grin
I have my paid work to do right now, FToaS, but I will try to return to this later. Could you perhaps pick one and only one question which you want to tackle first? That, and an explicit explanation of what you want from an answer to that question (an overview, links to detailed information in other cites, merely to spar back and forth -- which is okay, by the way, so long as we all know what we are getting into), would help tremendously.
Thanks!
[Edited to add: Jim-Me, I don't think that's actually what FToaS has advocated, but I haven't yet reread to be sure.]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Alright, I'll tone it down a bit.
Here are some questions.
1. When does the piece of developping matter become a human being, with inalienable rights?
2. What separates abortion from infanticide?
3. Where and when do a mother's rights to kill her offspring end?
4. What, exactly, are the pro-choice arguments?
5. Why do people choose abortion over adoption?
Now can I get some answers?
1. The bold part-- that's not toning it down very much
2. all of those questions have been addressed here in the past ad nauseum. The questions are actually very good ones and a worthwhile discussion of them is a good thing. Demanding answers is not.
I know you feel strongly about this, as do I. Please note that it's entirely possible to be forceful without being dismissive and talking down to people.
Edit to add: some might suggest that I'm not very good at that last, myself...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And, of course, over half of legally obtained induced abortions in the US occur at >/= 8 weeks, with more than 80% at >/= 13 weeks, per the CDC.*
Something is jarring me about those numbers. Are the >s supposed to be <s?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Yes! I am doing too much at once. Thanks! Will correct.)
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
My feelings and thoughts about abortion aside, the idea of a medical clinic with such appalling attention to medical issues is frightening. Medical procedures taking place without properly trained and licensed personnel, gross misreading of test results, failure to address serious medical issues, not complying with state laws - I would think we can all agree that these problems are serious enough to warrant closure of the facility and possible legal ramifications.
Posted by dawnmaria (Member # 4142) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Personally, I think the world would be a better place if people who didn't want babies managed notto get pregnant in the first place. Here's to hoping *lifts glass of OJ*
I whole-heartedly agree. And maybe if there were more people out there that wouldn't judge when young people try to get contaception and make it hard for them to get it less would get pregnant. Most teenagers are going to have sex. We need to try and help them be safe and hopefully lower the demand for abortion. Can we start in schools teaching girls to be true to themselves, have some self esteem and not necessarily believe the boy when he says he loves you? Get them motivated to take charge of their lives and not risk having sex at a young age? It's a dream I know but I have always thought we could solve a lot af the worlds problems by getting to the next generation of mothers now so they'd raise a new generation of enlightened people. Never happen but I like to picture it anyway. I hope I can get to my little girl at least.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
FToaS - are you asking for the current legal answers to your questions, or do you want everyone's personal responses?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote: What about them? You aren't actually concerned for the mother at all, so why pretend you are?
If the mother's life is in danger, you'd still prevent her from having an abortion. You aren't about "pro-life"; you're about anti-abortion.
SL, I've clearly stated that when the mother's life is in danger, it is the mother's right to live. When someone has sex, they take the risk of becoming pregnant. If you don't want to risk getting pregnant, don't partake in the action that is designed to get you pregnant. In the case of rape, it still doesn't give you the option of killing a baby.
CT, would you kill a brain-dead child if you knew that it would awaken and be healthy in a few months?
Alright, I'll tone it down a bit.
Here are some questions.
1. When does the piece of developping matter become a human being, with inalienable rights?
2. What separates abortion from infanticide?
3. Where and when do a mother's rights to kill her offspring end?
4. What, exactly, are the pro-choice arguments?
5. Why do people choose abortion over adoption?
Now can I get some answers?
Every single one of those questions could have their own thread, TBH I do not see why its profitable to have everyone in the community broadly argue about all 5. I forsee a complete lack of conclusion to any of them. 4 seems to a great extent to be tied up in many of the answers to the other questions.
Actually now that I think about it, I am just not in an Abortion debating mood right now so it seems silly of me to request that you limit your question to just one point. A point by point discussion MAY prove more profitable then a general discussion of ALL those points. Maybe Ill get bored enough at work to actually contribute to this conversation
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:1. When does the piece of developping matter become a human being, with inalienable rights?
2. What separates abortion from infanticide?
3. Where and when do a mother's rights to kill her offspring end?
4. What, exactly, are the pro-choice arguments?
5. Why do people choose abortion over adoption?
The answers to #2 and #3 seem to be determined mostly by how you answer #1. And I think the pro-choice arguments follow four general paths: A) A developing fetus is (probably) not yet a person, so we can kill it without killing any person, if they are good reasons to do so that outweigh any chance that it is a person. B) A developing fetus may or may not be a person, and since we can't prove it one way or the other then the government should leave it up to the parents to determine whether it is. C) Regardless of personhood, there may be other more important needs that outweigh any right to life that the fetus has. D) Regardless of personhood, a mother has a right to do what she wants with any part of her body, including a developing fetus.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I'm not sure why I'm taking part in this thread, but I wanted to express my opinion on the subject, so here goes. Again, these are only opinions and they are based on nothing other than my understanding of the situation, as lacking as that may be. I in no way intend to be insulting or offensive, however, some of my opinions may be viewed as crass to some. I am fine with that.
1. Which inalienable rights would be the deciding factor. I believe a baby has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as soon as it can perform the basic functions of being alive (breathing, eating, pumping blood) on it's own. I guess that would be about a month or two within full term. I don't really buy into the whole potential life school of thought as I believe the actual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is far far more important than the potential.
2. Infanticide is killing infants. The consensus I'm getting from dictionary.com is that infants have to be born in order to be... uh... infants. Abortion would be the killing of a fetus.
3. See number 1.
4. See number 1. I believe that the actual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are far far more important than the potential life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. (I can't say what "exactly" the pro-choice arguments are for anyone else of course, that is just the best way to sum up my reason.)
5. Because they don't want to give birth. If you need further explanation, you'll have to ask everyone who's ever gotten an abortion, as I'm sure the reasons vary widely.
These answers are necessarily vague. I don't have the time, space or ambition to write out a full essay on the topic, but wanted to give my overall opinions. Also, there are always going to be exceptions to anything, including everything I've said above.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think the # of weeks argument is specious. The more important question is where or when in the developmental process is life NOT there? If it is life, it is human life -- the cells are human cells unless some mad scientist type has found a way for human females to foster-bear fetuses from other species.
Ultimately, I think the pro-choice folks would do better to simply acknowledge the fact of the life that's thee and state their belief in the absolute right of the woman to decide what to do with that life based on the mere fact that it is dependent on her for its survival during a special period of time known as "gestation."
If people are more comfortable setting a time period for legal abortion, I suspect the reasons for it are less medical (although, the larger the fetus, surely the more risks are involved in some forms of abortion), than they are asthetic. If you can look at it and tell its human, it's a lot tougher to deal with on an emotional level.
If it looks like a "cluster of cells" then the problem isn't nearly as salient to the imagination.
But, realistically speaking, those maturational distinctions are not very meaningful. The only difference between them is time and nothing BAD happening (naturally or induced).
This realization is, I suspect, where the whole "age of viability" argument comes in. But really, that's a medically moveable and fuzzy boundary. I'm told that any neonatal ICU worth its salt can handle premies beginning at 24 weeks gestation. I don't know if that's true. I just heard it, so if someone has better facts, let me know.
But suffice it to say that the boundary between LIFE and DEATH for premature infants is being pushed further and further back. Perhaps there's an absolute limit to this. Perhaps not. The more that incubators and treatments mimic the womb, the more I suspect that we'll get away from even the concept of "full term" and have to redefine this "boundary" in some other way.
It's considerations like this that make me (a staunch pro-choice person) believe that abortion is a bad solution to a problem that is best avoided, through whatever means work most effectively for the most people, taking their psychology and probability of sexual activity into account.
I'm not big on punishment as a motivator in most situations involving adults. And, at least for the purposes of child-bearing, sexually mature is "adult" in my book.
My preferences are as follows:
1) Abstinence until one is either married or has reached a level of maturity where the decisions about sexual activity are clearly your own business and no-one else's is the prefered option. It obviously avoids pregnancies other than the ones arising from sexual abuse/rape. That's good. But even better, it is a good healthy decision for the "young" person to make to wait until he or she is truly ready for the decisions that must be made regarding sexual behavior in general, and child-rearing in particular. I don't know what the good "cut off" age is, but I could see myself counseling anyone under the age 18 to strongly consider waiting. I can see myself advising a fair number of people in their early 20's to think long and hard before engaging in sexual intercourse.
2) I think there are lots of people who will not abstain until they reach the level of maturity (or are married) that would make ME comfortable that they are "ready" for the decisions that need to be made. For them, and really for EVERYONE, I recommend no-nonsense education about sex and protection. Because even though I think sexual activity at too young an age is potentially damaging, it is not as damaging to the person's mental well-being and future prospects as pregnancy (or fatherhood) at too young an age. ON AVERAGE -- I know several people who did just fine as teen parents and I marvel at them and hold them up as examples of good parents even. That's not the point (see #1 above, there are people younger than MY comfort "age" who could do just great at this parenting stuff). I acknowledge it.
So...anyway, non-nonsense education. What sex is. What committed relationships are. What it takes to raise a kid "well"...parenting classes for the non-parents...all of it. And if there's a message encouraging abstinence in there too, I'm down with that.
3) When people do get pregnant, especially first time pregnancy, I would make parenting classes mandatory. And if a person wants an abortion, as long as it's still legal in this country, then she should get it, and from the best medical providers we have available. Just as I think that if a woman decides to have a child, she should get excellent care. To that end, I think a pooled fund that covers all pregnant women, no matter what they decide (keep the baby, offer the baby for adoption, or abort). No questions asked, just treat them in a top-flight setting at the public expense.
4) Now...the man...I believe that fathers have rights. Their rights are secondary to the woman's in the sense that they do not have a womb to offer during gestation. I recognize that there may be disputes in some cases, but I would not bar a woman from keeping or aborting a baby (or giving it up for adoption even) solely on the basis of the father's rights. I know this sounds like I'm saying fathers have no rights. But really, I think it's more like they don't have the same rights as the woman carrying the fetus does.
I don't have a great answer on this aspect of it.
Anyway, there's my take on the whole issue as much as I feel like getting into now.
AS FOR THE "MURDER" ISSUE:
I solve that by defining the entire gestational period as a special case. I do believe that's how we have been treating it without actually saying so. Just as I would explicitly recognize that human embryos are alive, I would also recognize that during gestation their life isn't the same as the life of someone already born.
I think we'll end up arguing over when (at what point during gestation) a fetus starts to have rights, but I think that at the moment the answer in our laws is that it does not have rights that are severable from its mother's. I would recommend against changing that because I think it opens us up to some very problematic legal issues and some rather ghoulish thoughts about truly severing child from mother before birth.
We aren't ready to take those issues on yet as a society, IMO.
Someday, there will be technology that would make such a thing possible and even preferable in some cases (the drug addicted HIV+ mom versus gestation in an artificial womb, for example).
I'd like to defer those decisions for a few decades if we can.
That's just a preference, though, not a statement of my unwillingness to discuss the ideas.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Sorry to have started the thread, made only one post and disappeared. Been busy, and sick from chemo this week.
Wanted to respond to this, though:
quote:Belle, I recall that you mentioned there were things going on that Wes knew through his work but couldn't (and wouldn't) speak about publicly, both for professional and legal reasons.
You won't believe how much I've been biting my tongue and trying very hard not to share knowledge that shouldn't probably be shared. I know much more than I've said, through my husband, and no doubt he may even know more than he's told me. At some point I think he decided to keep some stuff from me to avoid upsetting me. I will say I've spent many a night crying because of what he would call and tell me from the station.
Trust me when I say that everyone, pro-choice, pro-life, whatever - anybody who cares at all about young women should be glad this place is shut down. The atrocities that went on there - I do feel justified calling them atrocities and I'm not referring to the legal abortions that took place there. I'm referring to some unimaginable things.
CT is also right about how it isn't all that easy to find an abortion provider. DeHenre was one of the type she described, a travelling doctor who spent two days a week in a clinic in Jackson MS and two days a week in Birmingham. He was the only physician of record at Summit, and who they replaced him with I have no idea. Probably another traveling, itinerant physician.
Honestly, I don't know what I can tell you. Certainly I would never reveal names or other private information. I don't know what is in the public record and what is not. I do know Wes was never put under any kind of gag order or told by a judge that he couldn't talk about the case, though he did decline interview requests from the media.
But to be safe, I will not go into any more detail than what I've already shared here, just in case it would be improper to do so. I will say that if Summit is a typical abortion clinic, I have a hard time believing the CDC's numbers on complications. I can't imagine why it isn't higher.
One thing I think contributes to it is that there isn't anyplace in the paperwork to indicate "abortion caused injury", it often just goes down as hemorrhage or something. And women may be so ashamed they might not want to admit they had been at an abortion clinic days earlier. Plus, if the clinics are capable of some of the things I've learned about, I don't think for one moment they are not capable of falsifying their records. In fact, my husband can tell you of cases where they have deliberately tried to convince him to change his paperwork such as asking him not to record vital signs, so that it looks on paper as if the patient was in better shape when he picked her up than she really was.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:but I would not bar a woman from keeping or aborting a baby (or giving it up for adoption even) solely on the basis of the father's rights.
(edit because my surprise looked snarky) Are you saying that the mother of a child should be allowed to put up a baby for adoption even if the father wants to raise the child himself?
[ May 22, 2006, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Holy mackerel! The people that run this place shouldn't have their licenses suspended, they should be arrested. Is the case you'r husband was testifying in over? If so, what was the outcome? If your able to talk about it, that is. I just can't believe that that kind of thing would go unreported for so long. Or if it was reported, that the authorities took so long to shut it down.
That is such a horrible example of what people will do to make money. I find it hard to believe that people would stoop to such levels, and coming face to screen with the knowledge that it does is staggering.
I don't know what to say, that just makes me so angry. How can a doctor insist that medical records be falsified?! Ugh! Guh! That is just grotesque.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
These arguments over when a fetus is worthy of being considered a human being with a right to life always make me uncomfortable. Like we're standing over a crying baby with a knife, asking, "So when, technically, am I allowed to kill this?"
I know the conversation has to take place, and that it doesn't feel that way to a lot of people, but still. If you start with a viable newborn baby and start working backwards in time, and then you pick a point, and say, "Now! Now is when you can kill it, and it's okay" ... can you then fast-forward again and look that baby in the face and say, "Sorry, but it's my choice, not yours."
Obviously, in the real world, no, you can't do that. The baby that I'm imagining simply never exists at that level of maturity, I get that.
But ... I don't know. We're human beings, and we will always think like human beings. What is or is not "real" to us is a flexible thing. We're capable of having compassion for people and things that we have never seen, and we're capable of ignoring and compartmentalizing things that are going on right in front of us. And both of these traits can potentially be used for good ... though not always.
Is a human being living in sub-saharan Africa any more "real" in the mind of your average American than their own future offspring? I would venture to say NO, they're not. They're characters on TV; not real at all. While future offspring is something that most people think of with fondess or fear ... but REAL emotions, either way, despite the fact that it does not yet exist.
How do genocidal armies stomach the killing of thousands of innocents? By dehumanizing them. Calling them names, stereotyping them, and imagining them as some sort of "other" unworthy of consideration or compassion on any level. And so these human beings are able to do ghastly things to other human beings, and they act as though they are doing little more than slaughtering animals.
And now, in this discussion, we're training ourselves to do that same kind of thing. Whether you think it's right or not, when we insist on using dehumanizing terminology to make it easier to stomach killing our offspring in the womb, that mental process we're putting ourselves through is the same one that death squads go through.
I wonder ... if the word "fetus", or anything like it, did not exist in our language, and the word "baby" applied universally to every stage of human development up to toddlerhood, and we were all FORCED to use it ... would more people have trouble stomaching the pro-choice position?
I wonder, in general, how well the pro-choice argument would fare if people on that side didn't insist on controlling the terminology. And actually ... is eliminating emotion and compassion by exiling the word "baby" from the conversation actually helpful, in the long run?
I mean, as humans, we HAVE to live with our emotions, whatever they are. If we completely eliminate emotion and compassion from our discussion, are we really taking into account all the relevant factors? Could the decisions we make that way end up having negative side-effects we should have anticipated?
For instance, imagine a young woman who got pregnant carelessly, and is terrified of having a baby and messing up all her plans for the future. But she's torn. On the one hand, she doesn't want the life she'll have raising the child, but on the other, she doesn't want to "kill her baby".
She goes to a counsellor, who uses a lot of medical terminology to keep the decision from being an emotional one. By thinking of her offspring as a "fetus" that is just a growth inside her body, and not a person, she is able to put off the feelings that were holding her back, and with her future plans sitting there as the only remaining concern, she decides to have an abortion.
But then every time in the future that she fails to compartmentalize her thoughts that way, and (for instance) imagines herself with a baby, or sees a single friend give birth to a beautiful child despite hardship, or postulates what might ahve happened if she hadn't had the abortion, or whatever ... those feelings come rushing back. She feels horrible, and feels like she killed her baby, even though at the time, she had managed to put those feelings off long enough to make the decision.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone, or even to most people. My point isn't to paint all abortion patients with this brush, by any means. The purpose of this hypothetical is thus: If having an abortion is ever a good decision, then I think that decision should be made with ALL the relevant factors in place, INCLUDING emotion. If a person can't stomach the idea of killing their unborn offspring, then whatever decision they make needs to take that into account. If our society needs to decide whether we can stomach (or continue to stomach) allowing some of our members to choose to kill their unborn offspring, then we, too, need to take emotion and compassion into account. If compassion prevents us from making the decision that seems reasonable in a dispassionate argument ... maybe that's okay. Us being human, after all.
But that's just my opinion For the record, I'm not on the extreme end of the pro-life position. I don't think that abortion is as terrible a wrong as murder, and I think there are many cases where it is the lesser of two evils. I also think that our society has become so dependent on abortion-on-demand that were we to remove it all at once, it would be very much like taking away someone's heroin. The withdrawal could be as bad as or worse than the addiction.
However, after becoming a parent, I am suddenly able to conceive of the enormity of what we're talking about here. It's not a distant thing to me anymore. That six-pound stillborn child wasn't one of those "characters on TV" to me ... when I read that, I was forced to imagine my early fears about my own daughter before she was born, and ... well, it hurt. And I think it should hurt. When it stops hurting because we have succeeded in quashing all our feelings of compassion or emotional concern for our unborn offspring, that is when I think that humanity will have lost its humanity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If a person can't stomach the idea of killing their unborn offspring, then whatever decision they make needs to take that into account.
It's worth noting -- and I speak here as someone who's anti-abortion -- that using the word "baby" strongly encourages the minimization of the word "unborn." And I think the relative importance of those words is VERY crucial to both sides.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone, or even to most people. My point isn't to paint all abortion patients with this brush, by any means. The purpose of this hypothetical is thus: If having an abortion is ever a good decision, then I think that decision should be made with ALL the relevant factors in place, INCLUDING emotion. If a person can't stomach the idea of killing their unborn offspring, then whatever decision they make needs to take that into account. If our society needs to decide whether we can stomach (or continue to stomach) allowing some of our members to choose to kill their unborn offspring, then we, too, need to take emotion and compassion into account. If compassion prevents us from making the decision that seems reasonable in a dispassionate argument ... maybe that's okay. Us being human, after all.
I wholeheartedly agree with your reasoning behind the anecdote, Puppy. Attempting to reach a dispassionate decision is not a good idea when the subject matter is something that deserves passion.
With that in mind, though, I feel like the purpose behind differentiating between baby and fetus isn't just a matter of seperating the emotion from the decision; it's an important distinction that, ultimately, every person has to (and does) make for themselves.
After all, most of the reasonable pro-life people I know can use the term fetus in an abortion discussion and never once surrender their belief that a fetus is indeed a baby.
The question of when life begins originating is important in other context as well, given the number of contraceptives that allow fertilization but prevent implantation. It's an issue as old and weary as the line between fetus and baby, but still an important one.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Very well stated Geoff, and with much more discipline and tonal control than I can muster when I talk about abortion. I agree with you 100%.
I'm doing a research paper on the Armenian genocide of 1915. I'm seeing a lot of the terminology they used to dehumanize the Armenians, and I keep thinking to myself:Those were people, my people, and they were butchered for pride: the numbers range from 800000 to 1.5 million dead, depending on the source. That's for another thread, though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Only one problem....you may consider a fetus a human, but legally it isn't. . . and a lot of people disagree about it's level of humanity.
So it isn't, by definition, a baby, nor can it be dehuminized.
I am not trying to discuss just the semantics of the issue, but rather to point out some very real differences in views about them. I personally would never, barring no other real choices (death of mother, ect.), consider abortion as a viable choice for my wofe and I. I just don't think I have the right to choose for another person.
It isn't a matter of dehuimanizing a baby from this side of the fence; rather it is about someone trying to personify and humanize a fetus, which is not a human being. Trying to relate it to a baby in order to decrease the chances of it being aborted.
It isn't a human, not at that point anyway. Not a complete one, and it's rights don't outweigh the mothers.
At least not yet.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:(edit because my surprise looked snarky) Are you saying that the mother of a child should be allowed to put up a baby for adoption even if the father wants to raise the child himself?
Actually, the least considered part of my opinion is the man's rights. I just haven't spent a lot of time considering them. I can imagine some situations, certainly, in which the man's desire to raise the child should not supercede the woman's desire to put it up for adoption. Rape, incest, and child abuse, for example, could be perfectly valid reasons for the woman to not want the biological father to end up with custody of the child.
Barring those, if the situation were simply two people who didn't see eye-to-eye on adoption, I still wouldn't automatically just agree that the father should get to keep the child if the woman wants it to be part of an anonymous adoption.
I can also see that there'd be situations where the woman should not have automatic custody of the child even if she wants to keep it.
But, yeah, I haven't done a lot of thinking about father's rights.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Barring those, if the situation were simply two people who didn't see eye-to-eye on adoption, I still wouldn't automatically just agree that the father should get to keep the child if the woman wants it to be part of an anonymous adoption.
Wow. I'm fairly stunned by this.
quote:So it isn't, by definition, a baby, nor can it be dehuminized.
Kwea, once again, you are attempting to assert that the particular state of our laws are somehow definitive in a discussion which is about whether those laws are just.
It's kind of like someone quoting the Bible to prove to an atheist that God exists - you're using the conclusion of one of the sides as a starting premise, and it's just not sound to do so in this circumstance.
Whether or not the law should recognize an unborn fetus as a human being is the issue being debated. Stating the law's lack of recognition as a proof that one isn't a human being is begging the question.
quote:It isn't a human, not at that point anyway. Not a complete one, and it's rights don't outweigh the mothers.
If you want to use the law as the baseline, then the moment a person becomes worthy of protection by the state is dependent on technology - because, under Casey, the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of a viable fetus.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Barring those, if the situation were simply two people who didn't see eye-to-eye on adoption, I still wouldn't automatically just agree that the father should get to keep the child if the woman wants it to be part of an anonymous adoption.
Color me equally stunned. I've always thought there would be, in a hypothetical perfect world, a way to identify paternity before birth and that both parents would have to agree to an abortion. Of course, if it were a perfect world, then we wouldn't have unplanned pregnancies at all.
I know a man who was informed by his girlfriend that she was pregnant and then went and got an abortion against his express wishes. To this day he mourns his child. He would have happily raised the child, with or without her help.
If the situation were reversed, and a woman gives birth to a child that a man doesn't want we still make him pay child support. And we should, because we recognize it takes two people to make a baby and a man should be as responsible as a woman. But we don't grant him the right to have a say in whether or not his child is even born, and I think that's tragic. I think it's even more tragic that some people don't see a problem with that.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think the # of weeks argument is specious. The more important question is where or when in the developmental process is life NOT there? If it is life, it is human life -- the cells are human cells unless some mad scientist type has found a way for human females to foster-bear fetuses from other species.
Here is where the teratoma comes in for me. Not as an abstraction, but as a real issue. Functional organization does seem key.
As far as the sustainability being an arbitrary cutoff, I agree -- but it also arbitrary at the end of life, as well. We could keep people "alive" artificially for a long, long time, and we have. It doesn't seem, though, that this is a reasonable or desirable, not when you are faced with what actually happens in certain individual cases.
Again, functional organization seems key to me -- but this is, admittedly, only after having been exposed to a great many individual (very difficult, very much unanticipated back in my "lay" years) situations up close. I don't mean this to be dismissive or pull rank. Really, I'm not. I'm just trying to explain that my gut reactions changed over the years, and I don't think it was merely because I became inured to things (although surely that must influence things as well). It's just that I had to deal with things which my worldview wasn't prepared to answer, not without some deep thought and reconsideration.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: These arguments over when a fetus is worthy of being considered a human being with a right to life always make me uncomfortable. Like we're standing over a crying baby with a knife, asking, "So when, technically, am I allowed to kill this?"
I know the conversation has to take place, and that it doesn't feel that way to a lot of people, but still. If you start with a viable newborn baby and start working backwards in time, and then you pick a point, and say, "Now! Now is when you can kill it, and it's okay" ... can you then fast-forward again and look that baby in the face and say, "Sorry, but it's my choice, not yours."
And here is where the issue of infertility and frozen embryos comes up for me. Again, not as an abstraction, but as a real and substantive issue that pulls out conflicting heart-tugging emotions.
In both of these cases, the other issues I mention give me pause because they conflict with my [prior] gut response. I think there is a role for both gut and intellect in this, in large part because neither is sufficient to answer all of the questions that arise.
I'd submit that it is easier to see this as a simple issue the less you know about it. I think we do ourselves and one another a disservice by not trying to tackle it in its complexity, if we are going to address it at all. And obviously, we have to.
[ May 23, 2006, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
An example for illustration: one's gut may tell one that sickle cell anemia is a disease. When you first find out about it, especially if you know someone who is going through a sickle cell crisis (excruciating pain, self-destruction of the spleen, and in some cases death), you would -- and rightly so, based on the evidence you have -- be gut-certain that SCA is a bad thing. And it is.
But then if you learn about malaria, and you come to see what malaria is like (and what devastation it can wreck in a population), you will know at a gut level that malaria is a bad thing. And it is. However, the connection between malaria and SCA is an unexpected thing that pops up, too.
Suddenly, there is a level of incongruity here (or, at least, unexpected complexity). It's not that SCA becomes a good thing, and it's not that your former reaction to SCA was unwarranted. It's just that you now look at SCA somewhat differently, and it would be -- I think -- inappropriate and unjust not to look at it at least a little differently. And, too, that wouldn't make you less of a good person for now feeling somewhat differently about this disease. That is, I wouldn't necessary embrace SCA, but I would have to consider that getting rid of the SCA gene may not be a good decision in all circumstances.
This is a terrible analogy, by the way. I'm not trying to say it is a great one for modelling what I'm trying to say. Rather, I'm just trying to give a flavor of why I have an appreciation for the complexity as well as the initial gut reaction. (And granted, I do not have my own children, so my "initial gut reaction" may well have been more informed and changed if I had, as Puppy states his was. I would not deny that; rather, I'm pretty sure of it.)
I used to be very much a proponent of the general idea that "if it is alive and it has human DNA, then it is human life, and human life should be honored and preserved." I then started to run into situations (like the teratoma, like people after severe head injury) where my gut had a conflicting reaction that didn't seem to make sense with what I thought I believed.
On the one hand, I could have tossed out these other situations as anomalies or exceptions to the rule. But a) they were less anomalous than I'd realized, the fact of which was a real problem, and b) a good, strong, robust moral theory should be able to explain the exceptions to the rule as well as the rule itself. Otherwise, it seems to me, we are just cherry-picking out rules (or, at least, it is a strong risk that we are doing so). I certainly wouldn't claim that anyone here is cherry-picking rules for convenience, by the way. I do think it's a risk we take if we take in a much broader picture, but then decide not to address the sticky points because they are either uncomfortable issues or just don't fit in with the theory.
I'm at the point where if I were to go back to the stripped-down version (more elegant, more "pure," more convincing, less wishy-washy-looking ) of morality in this area that I held before, I would be cherry-picking. Even if it might be easier, I can't do that. Not in an authentic way, even if it would be appealling to do so.
--------------
Edited to add: Of course, Theca has been exposed to many (if not all) of the situations I was in, and quite possibly more besides, but she has come to a different conclusion about abortion. That is, I think it's also important to note that not everyone who has seen some of these things will have the same reactions or draw the same conclusions.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not trying to say "I'm right because I know more than you," but rather "I might believe differently because I was challenged in unexpected ways, not because I am a cold, heartless, unfeeling person who wants babies to die." There's a big difference.
[ May 23, 2006, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I would weigh a lot of things before giving a child to one or the other parent in a disputed case. That's all I'm saying.
I think being stunned or pointing to "tragedy" is putting far too much spin on what, to me, is really just not a clear issue.
I agree that there are single men out there who would make wonderful parents. And I would hope that if the state is involved in the decision at all, that their desire and ability to raise a child would be recognized and given weight.
But wishing for it and actually doing it are two different things and I would not give them automatic custody.
But then, I wouldn't give automatic unsupervised custody of a child to anyone. I think there are far too many screw ups out there having kids and while I respect the rights of the individual, I do think that we put far too little emphasis on parenting skills as a pre-requisite for actually being a parent.
I have a strongly ingrained antipathy against big-brother solutions, but while we're wrangling over the rights of the unborn, how about the rights of and responsibilities toward the just born? And the maturing.
Do you know the average age of a homeless person in the USA? It's 9 according data presented by "Sheltered Reality" (and no, I haven't looked up the US Gov't figures on that).
But really, I'm not trying to reframe the debate here. I would like every pregnancy to occur out of love and desire, and every child to be born into a stable loving family in which resources and knowledge for raising the child are present. I'm not saying every kid has to have a Nintendo or we're failing...
What I am saying is that the real tragedies are when people have children and neglect them, abuse them, or even simply just fail to raise them to be happy, healthy, and confident individuals.
Mere "desire" to be parent is not enough, IMO. It's a good part of the equation, but it's not everything. And I want EVERYTHING to be considered.
(and before you ask, when I say "resources," I'm not saying "give the kid to the wealthiest person who is interested." I grew up around the children of the wealthy in one of the richest communities on the planet. Some of them had great parents. Some of them may as well have been raised by wolves. That is most emphatically NOT where I was going with this)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
While we're at it...when, during maturation, do the problems of child stop being the parent's responsibility and become the responsibility of that person themselves?
I'm sure you've all known low-self-esteem kids and been around them as adults. In our society, we wring our hands over them as little ones -- they get picked on and never get a break. But as adults, our society still looks at their depression and bad decision-making (especially in their personal lives) as their own problem and they should "fix" themselves.
We look at homeless people and see losers.
(yeah, yeah, I know, not all of us do that...)
We look at the addicted and tsk tsk about how they are wasting their lives and it's their problem.
The cult of personal responsibility that permeates our thinking on "justice" in this country is appalling.
If it's possible to care so much for the unborn, I think we should carry that forward. I'm not saying that nobody does, but innocence and guilt are concepts that we layer onto our perceptions of other's lives and the mess that those lives are.
Fact is, if we allow the decks to be stacked against a kid, it doesn't mean there's a zero probability that the kid will turn out okay, but pointing to the few successes and saying "hey, he made it" or "she didn't end up bad" is missing the point.
The point is that we have some structural problems in our society, they relate very closely to poor child rearing, and we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of how to fix it.
Parent's rights, once the child is born, are practically inviolate with respect to the effects parents have on the MENTAL well being of a child (and the future adult).
The discussions about abortion are things we need to go through in this society.
But the 800 lb gorilla in the room is still waiting for us to deal with, IMO.
And I don't think it's just a "we'll get to it next" kind of thing. I think it's more of a social gear shift than the abortion debate has ever been for us.
I mean basically, the reason the "pro-life" moniker is so powerful is because EVERYONE wants to be considered in favor of life. It's a given.
If we start having the larger debate about how children are raised, the firestorm over personal rights is going to be HUGE. It strikes at the very core of the principles this country was founded on, and our guarantees of rights and freedoms.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What I am saying is that the real tragedies are when people have children and neglect them, abuse them, or even simply just fail to raise them to be happy, healthy, and confident individuals.
Kill your children before they become teenagers, or you will fail as a parent.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:Barring those, if the situation were simply two people who didn't see eye-to-eye on adoption, I still wouldn't automatically just agree that the father should get to keep the child if the woman wants it to be part of an anonymous adoption.
Color me equally stunned. I've always thought there would be, in a hypothetical perfect world, a way to identify paternity before birth and that both parents would have to agree to an abortion. Of course, if it were a perfect world, then we wouldn't have unplanned pregnancies at all.
I know a man who was informed by his girlfriend that she was pregnant and then went and got an abortion against his express wishes. To this day he mourns his child. He would have happily raised the child, with or without her help.
If the situation were reversed, and a woman gives birth to a child that a man doesn't want we still make him pay child support. And we should, because we recognize it takes two people to make a baby and a man should be as responsible as a woman. But we don't grant him the right to have a say in whether or not his child is even born, and I think that's tragic. I think it's even more tragic that some people don't see a problem with that.
I see a major problem with it. I totally agree with you, Belle.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Ultimately, I think the pro-choice folks would do better to simply acknowledge the fact of the life that's thee and state their belief in the absolute right of the woman to decide what to do with that life based on the mere fact that it is dependent on her for its survival during a special period of time known as "gestation."
The trouble with this is that I think it's pretty clear that no such right exists. Nobody has a blank check to do freely whatever they want with their own body IF those actions are going to directly lead to the deaths of other people. If I were to catch the Bird Flu, for instance, the government would have every right to quarantine me - I wouldn't be entitled to claim "It's my body and I can do what I want with it, so I can bring it on a plane with this infectious flu if I want to." The implications of your decisions on other people, including on unborn people, do need to be considered to some degree or another.
In addition to this, any special right a woman did have in such a situation would be negated by her choice to have sex and risk pregnancy. You can't buy a stock and then assert you have a right to get all your original money back if the stock crashes unexpectedly the next day. Similarly, no person can choose to have sex but then assert a "right" to undo a pregnancy that results from their choice. Making a voluntary choice limits your rights insofar as you must now take responsibility for that choice. In making that choice to have sex, there is an inherent sacrifice of the parent's right to do whatever she wants with her own body in the event that her choice results in pregnancy - which is one big reason why sex should not be treated as just another enjoyable activity.
So, if pro-choicers are going to make an argument for abortion, I don't think they can assert that no matter what a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body. Instead, I think they have to make the more difficult argument that the moral benefits of having abortion outweigh whatever the costs are. And I don't see that as possible if the fetus is an actual person - because killing a person is such a massive "cost" that I see few (if any) benefits that could ever morally justify it. On the other hand, if a fetus is just a collection of cells and not a person, then the costs would be far far less, because presumably no person would be getting killed.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You know, I am strongly pro-choice, but I think I would consider a compromise where abortion was made unavailable except for in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life on the condition that we had nation-wide informative sexual education (not abstiance-only) and access to free birth control without parental permission. So if we could say that every woman and man in the country is well informed of the facts of how sex and contraception work, why it's important to use birth control and what kinds also protect from STDs, what the failure rates of each kind are, etc. And the person could walk into a clinic and get examined and a prescription for the pill, or a shot, and a supply of condoms, no questions asked, no worrying about if your insurance covers it or having to tell your parents. There would still be unplanned pregnancies, sure, but I'd be a lot more comfortable telling those women they made the choice and have to deal with the consequences in that situation. There would also have to be a discussion about if the morning after pill counted as contraceptive or abortion, I suppose, but I don't think we'd ever (as a country) get to the point of having to make that decision anyway. No opting out of the sex ed for religious reasons, either. Sure, the parents can say they wouldn't let their kid have an abortion anyway, but then it's not the teenager making the informed decision to or not to have sex knowing they won't be able to get an abortion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would weigh a lot of things before giving a child to one or the other parent in a disputed case. That's all I'm saying.
I think being stunned or pointing to "tragedy" is putting far too much spin on what, to me, is really just not a clear issue.
But you're not talking about giving the child to one or the other parent. You're talking about allowing the mother to give the child to an anonymous stranger.
If all you're saying is that there are situations where children should be removed from the custody of their natural parents, of course I'd agree. But it seems to me that you're assigning more weight to the mother's opinion on whether a stranger should raise their child. And that strikes me as not just wrong, but very, very wrong.
If the mother wishes to put the baby up for adoption and the father objects, then the issue will come before the courts. But, once done, the decision should be made on the presumption that the biological parents are both fit, just as it is whenever the issue of a child's custody comes before the court.
In other words, the mother's opinion should mean absolutely nothing. Her testimony about specific facts related to the father's fitness as a parent should be weighed, along with every other available piece of evidence. Having already excluded the fairly obvious disqualifiers (rape, incest) and couched it in terms of not seeing eye-to-eye about anonymous adoption, I do find the attitude stunning.
It is a very clear issue: barring evidence of being an unfit parent, a biological parent should be allowed to raise their child. More importantly, I think there's a right of the child to be raised by a biological parent, again barring evidence of unfitness.
Obviously, when there's a dispute, someone must be selected. Between two biological parents, the biology cancels out. Between a biological parent and an anonymous stranger, a fit (and a rapist or incest-commiter is not fit) biological parent should obtain custody. Always.
quote:What I am saying is that the real tragedies are when people have children and neglect them, abuse them, or even simply just fail to raise them to be happy, healthy, and confident individuals.
Mere "desire" to be parent is not enough, IMO. It's a good part of the equation, but it's not everything. And I want EVERYTHING to be considered.
I want everything to be considered, too. However, most of what your talking about, especially the well-adjustedness and mental health, is something the government is flat-out not qualified to do in general.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I am again reminded why I am so much in awe of CT. Thank you, dear, for being so gracious and wise. You're someone I very much admire.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea,
quote:It isn't a human, not at that point anyway. Not a complete one, and it's rights don't outweigh the mothers.
Let's suppose it's granted that a fetus is at no point prior to birth a human being-since you're going from the purely legal standpoint, in one way...
You're speaking as though one right is equal to a completely different right, and violating one in favor of the other is a gross inequity. But there are rights and there are really big rights. For instance...
By the reasoning you're using here-one party's rights (or, I suppose since many pro-choicers would hesitate at even that distinction) thing's rights are completely subordinate, even its most important rights, to much less vital rights of the other party.
So, if someone robs me, I get to apprehend, imprison, and interrogate them myself, right? After all, their rights certainly don't outweigh mine. If someone harms a loved one of mine, then I get to do equal harm to that perpetrator because their rights did not supersede my loved one's rights, did they?
I have never heard it explained very well why a woman's right to terminate a voluntary pregnancy-as it almost always is, so long as you define 'voluntary' to mean 'outcome that could have been cheaply and painlessly avoided'-is somehow more worthy of protection under the law than the right of the fetus to have a life.
We protect animals from harm and death and maltreatment, even from their owners if society becomes aware of mistreatment. I fail to see why an animal has a greater right to protection than a fetus which could have been avoided entirely.
It's like saying, "Yeah, I ran that red light but whoever's in that intersection better get the hell outta my way! I got a right to go where I wanna go!"
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: If I recall correctly, the fetal brainstem develops in the 7th to 9th week of gestation, and although the RAS development would take longer, I think that would make a viable demarcation point. I'd look at the functioning RAS as a necessary but not sufficient condition for personhood
How do you measure 'personhood'? Does that show up on an ultrasound? "Ahh, looks like she's at 43.8% personhood and coming along nicely. A few more weeks and she'll be a full person."
Of course, 'personhood' is a conveniently nebulous term that really doesn't mean anything at all. Saying that a fetus hasn't achieved 'personhood' due to brain development is no different from taking a religious position that the 'soul' is acquired at conception. Neither argument has any place in setting public policy.
[edited to correct accidental omission]
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: You know, I am strongly pro-choice, but I think I would consider a compromise where abortion was made unavailable except for in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life on the condition that we had nation-wide informative sexual education (not abstiance-only) and access to free birth control without parental permission...
As a strongly pro-life person, I would accept the terms you describe in a New York minute.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Great! Now we just have to get elected. . .
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Abortion: Outlaw all abortions except in the case of fatal/near fatal danger to the mother, as beginning of humanity cannot be defined and we should err on the side of caution. Instead, put tons of money into birth control research and make safe, reliable birth control available for free to anyone who wants it, with penalties for anyone who prevents another person from using birth control (although you can advise against it all you want). Teach safe sex at school, which can only be avoided if the student can pass a test on safe sex and pregnancy. Work to stress the importance of commitment and responsibility.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I will point out that that was well before I registered. Still, there's no such thing as an original idea, right?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Me, too. And I tend to fall in the middle, in that I think abortion is abused in this country and is often the least morally responsible choice, but I don't agree that abortion might not be the best option under certain extereme circumstances (and also that those choices shouldn't be legislated).
Eljay for president!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Am I going to have to break out my Nuvaring sheet o' birth control statistics?
Birth control isn't 100% effective when used PERFECTLY...and we are not perfect creatures.
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Right. But if we are well educated about the risks involved -- including the risk of birth control not working -- and still choose to have sex, we do so knowing we may end up pregnant. Then we should take responsibility for our actions, and have the baby.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Right. But if we are well educated about the risks involved -- including the risk of birth control not working -- and still choose to have sex, we do so knowing we may end up pregnant. Then we should take responsibility for our actions, and have the baby.
...and recognize that until we are able to raise the baby decently, we should not risk being forced to take on that responsibility, and thus we should not be choosing to have sex.
The time to decide that is not when someone finds out they are already pregnant. The time to decide if you are ready for a child is before committing the act that could make you pregnant.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I would also allow abortion in the event that carrying to term would seriously damage the mother's health, even if the risk of death was small. Say a brittle diabetic knows it would be dangerous for her to have babies, so she and her husband adopt, because they want kids. They use BC responsibly, but, lo, she ends up pregnant anyway. The complications could be serious, but with propper treatment she probably won't die. The risks are high for long-term complications, though, that could seriously impair her ability to care for her existing children.
Again, severely extreme circumstances. Not a choice I would ever want to have to make, BUT, I would want that woman to HAVE a choice.
I would also exclude treatments that prevent implantation (such as "morning after" use of hormones) from the ban. They would be useful in situations where BC was known to have failed or rape. The reason I don't have a moral problem with BC that prevents implantation is that a huge percentage of fertilized eggs don't implant anyway (I saw this on Nova when I was pregnant - it made me realize what a miracle it is that anyone is ever born ). So, if life begins at fertilization, I have flushed multiple lived down the toilet without even knowing it, which would be a terrible waste of immortal souls, if you ask me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:They use BC responsibly, but, lo, she ends up pregnant anyway. The complications could be serious, but with propper treatment she probably won't die. The risks are high for long-term complications, though, that could seriously impair her ability to care for her existing children.
Would you accept embryo transfer instead of abortion for cases like this?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
pH,
quote:Am I going to have to break out my Nuvaring sheet o' birth control statistics?
Birth control isn't 100% effective when used PERFECTLY...and we are not perfect creatures.
By all means, break out that sheet. Then break out such a sheet which includes statistics on redundant birth control use resulting in unwanted pregnancies. And the sheet which includes an analysis of how often exactly, when used properly in all ways, birth control tools fail.
Finally, break out the sheet which includes statistics on accidental pregnancies when couples have had the appropriate surgery to avoid fertility, or just don't have sex at all until they believe they are ready to have children.
That first paragraph is serious, the second one is pretty snarky I admit. But your statement of, "We are not perfect people," seems to be to be burying your head in the sand about how accidental pregancies really come about. I'm using the word 'accidental' in a very specific way, of course.
I have never seen even a whiff of the possibility of evidence which suggests that anything more than a tiny percentage of all abortions performed in this country are done when couples are properly educated about birth control and use the tools properly, yet the tools fail within their own small-to-tiny margins of error as manufactured products.
Which is of course the single most obvious reason for educating the populace in sexual education and birth control, and the single most important reason I personally take the stance I do on this issue.
Instead of granting a woman the right to terminate something which may or may not be a human life, why not deny her that right in all but extreme cases (and no, proof of rape or incest would not be required, because those things are hard to prove)...and remind her-and the man, since anything redundant would include him, obviously-of their many rights and methods for avoiding the entire business in the first place?
"It's her body" seems an entirely inadequate response to the question, "Well why didn't you avoid it in the first place?"
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Right. But if we are well educated about the risks involved -- including the risk of birth control not working -- and still choose to have sex, we do so knowing we may end up pregnant. Then we should take responsibility for our actions, and have the baby.
...and recognize that until we are able to raise the baby decently, we should not risk being forced to take on that responsibility, and thus we should not be choosing to have sex.
The time to decide that is not when someone finds out they are already pregnant. The time to decide if you are ready for a child is before committing the act that could make you pregnant.
I think that the time at which people are emotionally ready to have sex is very different from the time at which people are emotionally ready to have children.
To say that people shouldn't have sex unless they're ready to have children eliminates the purpose of family planning altogether, even for married couples.
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Thanks, Jenny Gardener. )
I'll throw another two complications into the fray, accompanied by an offer to expand on them if it is useful or desirable to anyone.
Regarding a discussion of rights: What do we do about conflicting rights when it isn't a matter of placental connection? That is, does a child's right to life trump your right to keep both your kidneys if you choose to? What if it is someone else's child versus your child who needs a transplant (or does that matter)? Should it be immoral to refuse? More relevantly, should it be illegal to refuse?
Regarding a discussion of responsibility for consequences: If engaging in sex that can result in a pregnancy is irresponsible in a given case, how much is that irresponsibility mitigated by those involved engaging in sex which cannot result in a pregnancy? (e.g., non-heterosexual sex, masturbation, and/or sex that involves different body parts) Is there a problem with the potential fallout from enforcing* this sort of choice (e.g., the current trend of viewing oral or other non-pregnancy related sex as "not really sex;" i.e., as a means to preserve virginity) -- and if there is, how much (if at all) does it weigh against what is gained by maintaining this hardline standard?
I suspect that all of us would have fairly thoughtful and considered responses to these questions, but that they would differ. Some would discuss choosing the lesser of two evils, some would not see a problem raised in a given hypothetical, and so forth. I suspect, though, that we'd each have to give a pretty complicated explanation of what makes for right and wrong policy in these cases (all things considered).
------------
*[Edited to add: As Dagonee has pointed out before, I'm fairly committed to the pragmatist stance. That is, I am willing to make concessions in terms of public policy regarding actions which I find less than positive at the individual level. That is, I might make one choice for myself, and possibly recommend that choice to other individuals, but be unwilling to write enforcement of it into law -- e.g., because of the way the law would be unable to take into account individual circumstances, or the likelihood of disparate enforcement of the law, etc.
This isn't a distinction everyone would make, and I do have respect for those people who take an absolutits stance and are willing to bite the bullet in acknowledging and accepting responsibility for how it eventually falls out.]
[ May 23, 2006, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:That first paragraph is serious, the second one is pretty snarky I admit. But your statement of, "We are not perfect people," seems to be to be burying your head in the sand about how accidental pregancies really come about. I'm using the word 'accidental' in a very specific way, of course.
I have never seen even a whiff of the possibility of evidence which suggests that anything more than a tiny percentage of all abortions performed in this country are done when couples are properly educated about birth control and use the tools properly, yet the tools fail within their own small-to-tiny margins of error as manufactured products.
Do you know how difficult it is to use birth control pills perfectly? Absolutely perfectly?
-pH
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Of course, if it is at all possible, that would be preferrable. I don't think we're quite there yet, though there are people who are working on it.
Edit: This was in answer to Scott R. My network connection is crawling today.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Would you accept embryo transfer instead of abortion for cases like this?
Scott R, I anticipate a serious furor about this issue when artificial wombs become a viable alternative, and I expect the technology is further along than we generally realize.
For what it's worth, my pro-choice position has never included establishing a "right to the death of the fetus." I'm actually anticipating the time when many of the issues about maternal danger and responsibility can be addressed without necessitating some of these choices.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Right. But if we are well educated about the risks involved -- including the risk of birth control not working -- and still choose to have sex, we do so knowing we may end up pregnant. Then we should take responsibility for our actions, and have the baby.
...and recognize that until we are able to raise the baby decently, we should not risk being forced to take on that responsibility, and thus we should not be choosing to have sex.
Alternately, of course, if someone felt they could not raise the child in their current situation they could give it up for adoption.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
CT and Bob,
Have I mentioned lately how much I adore and admire you both?
You, too, President ElJay.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I saw an interview with some folks who were trying to find a way to transfer fetuses. I think their research involved using cows. The same show also interviewed a man who was working on developing an articficial womb. That was a few years ago, but both agreed that they were at least a decade away from human trials. I need to do some googling...
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I saw an interview with some folks who were trying to find a way to transfer fetuses. I think their research involved using cows. The same show also interviewed a man who was working on developing an articficial womb. That was a few years ago, but both agreed that they were at least a decade away from human trials. I need to do some googling...
There is a Japanese researcher who has developed an artificial womb that carried a goat to term (pretty amazing images, seeing the developing goat backlit throught the pink-and-red artificial womb -- very sci-fi-ish). I've linked to this elsewhere here before, but I haven't time to dig right now.
IIRC, the problem was in getting the goat disengaged from the various tubes and machinery at the time of "birth," and possibly also (stretching my memory here) an issue with the legs breaking (?). But far, far along from where I'd expected. I'm pretty sure I'll see it developed for human use within my lifetime, and that simply boggled my mind.
(Of course, maybe I'm just easily impressed. *grin)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Olivet-- my dad worked in a company (Grenada) that was successful with transferring embryos between cattle.
This was back in the eighties, but he's done some embryo transfer work as early as last year. I'm not sure what the extent of his involvement is...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
For those who think abortion should be limited to certain cases: If these cases include rape, does the woman have to "prove" that she was raped? If so, how?
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: CT and Bob,
Have I mentioned lately how much I adore and admire you both?
You, too, President ElJay.
(Aha! I am lumped with excellent company. Thanks, kmboots, and likewise.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
pH,
Yes, which is an excellent reason to use birth control pills as a part of a sexually-active couple's plan to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. Putting all of one's eggs in one basket is pretty foolish. That's the point of the aphorism so far as I can tell, right?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(And BTW, I am getting ready to drive 5 hours to a casino where I may or may not have internet access, which I may or may not have time to use anyway -- and not because I'll be gambling. Work stuff. But I'll definitely be back when I can, and please don't take any silence on my part in the upcoming day or two as anger or disinterest. Take care, all.)
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Regarding a discussion of rights: What do we do about conflicting rights when it isn't a matter of placental connection? That is, does a child's right to life trump your right to keep both your kidneys if you choose to? What if it is someone else's child versus your child who needs a transplant (or does that matter)? Should it be immoral to refuse? More relevantly, should it be illegal to refuse?
The simple answer here is that there is a difference between taking an action to end a life and taking an action to save one. I don't think it needs elaboration but I will if you wish.
quote:Regarding a discussion of responsibility for consequences:...
I'm not sure I followed you, CT. I think I'll wait for you to elaborate before I answer there.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Regarding a discussion of rights: What do we do about conflicting rights when it isn't a matter of placental connection? That is, does a child's right to life trump your right to keep both your kidneys if you choose to? What if it is someone else's child versus your child who needs a transplant (or does that matter)? Should it be immoral to refuse? More relevantly, should it be illegal to refuse?
Withholding a kidney is passive, with the incidental consequence of death; elective abortion is active, with the express purpose of killing. There's a fairly broad line between the two. Passive apathy can be justified (or at least tolerated) a bit more than active malice, in my opinion.
As for the inevitable question (not from you, but someone) of why a child has a right to use someone else's uterus and not someone else's kidney, I think that gets back to personal responsibilty for pregnancy-causing behavior. But let's assume, for the moment, that the child does NOT have the right to use his/her mother's uterus, in the same way that I don't have the right to swim in my neighbor's pool. Is the death penalty a fitting remedy?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
The rape exception is one of the sticking points when you look at the compromise position. I can totally see the number of frivolous rape accusations rising if making the accusation was the only way to get an abortion.
And then in THAT climate, I can see actual rapists getting off because there is just a general sense of reasonable doubt about all rape cases in which the woman gets an abortion.
I AM in favor of the "illegal with exceptions" position, but issues like this are why I think we need to be very careful about taking the plunge into it.
pH, sex is an unusual case, because evolution gave us two conflicting issues:
1. Sex is AWESOME. 2. Sex often results in heavy, life-changing responsibilities.
Our culture teaches young people to expect to have ALL of #1 without ANY of #2. They can feel emotionally-ready for sex because they feel like they're mature, it doesn't seem like a big deal, they're being careful, they're in love, and did I mention, it's AWESOME.
The problem is, you CAN'T have #1 without #2. I'd argue that if someone isn't ready for the risk of pregnancy, then they are NOT entirely ready for sex. They might be ready for the first part, but sex comes as a package deal.
It's like saying that because you're emotionally ready to handle a huge paycheck, that means you're emotionally ready to be the CEO of a major worldwide accounting firm.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, it's a very tricky problem, Puppy. Part of me wants to say, "If many rape claims were made that were untrue, the transgression would be on the individual woman involved and not the state." But then I am left with the same problem: the killing of something which may or may not be a human life.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
As a general rule, I'm against changing ethically-sound laws because they accidentally encourage bad decisions.
For instance, I find the "back-alley abortion" argument TOTALLY unpersuasive. "If we outlaw abortions, millions of women will die getting back-alley abortions with coathangers!" People making bad choices and hurting themselves because the wrong thing they want to do is illegal isn't a reason, for me, to make that thing legal. It strikes me as being akin to giving in to terrorism to allow people to do something awful simply because they threaten to hurt themselves if you don't.
However, back-alley abortions involve people hurting themselves. Frivolous rape accusations hurt innocent victims, so we have to be more careful. A criminal taking himself hostage is a far less sticky situation than a criminal taking other people hostage.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The rape exception does become a difficult question. In a perfect world, education about the importance of reporting a rape when it happens and why would be included in the manditory sex ed, and then there wouldn't be a question of if a woman is just reporting it because she's pregnant and wants an abortion, because there would be the police report. But there are so many reasons that rape doesn't get reported that I think it would take a sea change in our culture to make that effective. Which I'm hoping the widespread sex ed and free birth control would help with. But, when it gets down to it, I would take the woman at her word.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Puppy, the thing is, I disagree with your premise that "[o]ur culture teaches young people to expect to have ALL of #1 without ANY of #2". I agree that there is oversexualization (particularly in advertising), but I don't know how you can correlate the two. Maybe certain parts have glorified it... But I still consider this a playing out of the reaction of the prior culture that taught the opposite concerning #1, and taught correctly #2 (and for much longer, mind you). Today it's swung a bit the other way, with (assuming your school system has any sort of credible sex ed) at worst being mum on #2, IMO, but not teaching the opposite.
At some point, we're going to realize and internalize #1 and #2 at an intellectual level, and maybe then we can make some headway.
It depends on which end of the spectrum you've started on, I suppose. I don't know what my point is exactly, but that one sentence bugged me for some reason.
-Bok
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think it also depends on whether Puppy meant modern American culture when he said "our culture." To varying degrees, young people have been having unmarried sex for as long as there have been young people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Regarding a discussion of rights: What do we do about conflicting rights when it isn't a matter of placental connection?
This is pretty much the central question of the idea of legally enforceable rights. The key is to balance the interests and make a decision - something easy to say and difficult to do.
Factors for possible consideration are the responsibility of the mother for the pregnancy (ranging from unprotected sex through failed birth control through rape), the risk of harm to the mother (ranging from severe inconvenience for 9 months and the associated risks of pregnancy through life-altering change through mental or physical health risks to death), and the nature of the fetus being aborted.
Because of my beliefs on the final factor, the responsibility factor ends up being discarded for me. If the act of abortion is killing a human being, then we have a long history of moral justifications for killing human beings to draw on. If responsibility is taken into account, then it should be taken into account on both sides. The fetus will usually have less and sometimes have the same amount of responsibility for the situation. This is ultimately why even rape doesn't change the outcome for me.
So the choice becomes balancing the consequences. Again, I'm starting from the premise that the consequence for the fetus is the death of a human being. We generally allow private persons to take life only in response to imminent threat of serious bodily injury (although some states allow deadly force in response to property threats as well).
It is a relatively new innovation in the law that allows the legal taking of the life of an "innocent" (a person who did not intentionally create the life-threatening situation), and it is not universally allowed in the common-law jurisdictions of the world. It used to be only allowed to kill someone who had some moral culpability in the existence of the life-threatening scenario. Even today, deadly force cannot be used to defend property from a non-culpable person.
Pregnancy, of course, is unique in that it is not property but the body which has been "trespassed" upon. However, this difference is clearly not at the heart of the current abortion rights scheme, since unborn babies who could survive outside the womb can be destroyed instead of simply removed from the place they are "trespassing."
Even prior to such circumstances, however, the temporary (albeit long) "trespass" does not outweigh the harm caused by killing a human being (which is my premise, remember).
quote:That is, does a child's right to life trump your right to keep both your kidneys if you choose to? What if it is someone else's child versus your child who needs a transplant (or does that matter)? Should it be immoral to refuse? More relevantly, should it be illegal to refuse?
Jim-Me summed up my answer to this succinctly. As you know, I've never been able to articulate fully why the distinction between action and inaction is so important, which suggests to me that it is very close to a first principle for me.
Not all inaction is morally non-culpable, of course. Refusing to reach into a bathtub to pull out a baby that has just fallen into the water is nearly as morally repugnant as putting the baby in the bathtub to drown in the first place. Both actions are well into the moral equivalent for murder for me.
But the greater the risk a particular act poses for the actor (and kidney donation is not without serious risks, as opposed to reaching into a bathtub to pick up a baby) and the expected benefit (the success rate of kidney transplants is not nearly as great as the success rate of picking up a baby who just fell into a bathtub), the less moral culpability I think exists. At some point on the risk/success chart, there is no moral obligation to act to attempt to save someone, even though to make the attempt would be a moral good. You'll note that I haven't ventured an opinion as to which side of the chart the kidney transplant situation would fall.
The moral line for actions is not nearly as graduated. It is wrong to kill the only other shipwreck survivor to eat him (or, to be less gruesome, to prolong the amount of water left).
The action/inaction distinction is far more important with respect to what actions should be legal. Essentially, far more actions should be legally forbidden than are legally required. The force of law is a terrible one - necessary, but inherently coercive, and to be reserved for particular types of harms and particular types of causes of harms. I would likely be opposed to the kidney donation being required by law.
This is a fairly consistent principle in my moral outlook - witness the discussion about forcing pharmacists to fill particular prescriptions we've had.
The huge fuzzy area I've left untouched, of course, is that many inactions can be expressed in terms of acting and vice-versa. So before the analysis I've alluded to above can even be reached, a whole other complex question ("Is this an act or an omission?") needs to be answered. However, I think the answer to that single question is clear in the abortion/kidney transplant hypothetical.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:To varying degrees, young people have been having unmarried sex for as long as there have been young people.
Absolutely. In past times, though, I think they had a better understanding that their actions might lead to pregnancy which would in turn result in a significant weight of responsibility. Increasingly, it seems to me, sex is divorced from parenthood in most of the informational forums in which it is presented to adolescents.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I would dispute that (tricky to do, as neither of us can offer data). If anything teenagers today have more data available to them than ever before. The problem is not only one of misinformation or ignorance, it is also one of "this can't happen to me" and willful ignorance. And those are ancient.
Something else to figure, in these deliberations. If a woman is raped and keeps the baby, can she have the father's parental rights permanently blocked? Annulled?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:In past times, though, I think they had a better understanding that their actions might lead to pregnancy which would in turn result in a significant weight of responsibility.
When you say "past times," what time period(s) are you referencing? I don't think I would agree that, for example, medieval adolescents had such an understanding. If you mean something within the last hundred or hundred and fifty years, then I don't think that would be unreasonable (though I still wouldn't take it as a given).
quote:Increasingly, it seems to me, sex is divorced from parenthood in most of the informational forums in which it is presented to adolescents.
I can't really judge this. I haven't noticed a change in the relevant portion of my lifetime, but I'm 25.
I have had sex with little regard for the consequences, but that's precisely what I'm suggesting people have always done (and, I think, will always continue to do).
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Chris and Twinky-
My belief is that the movement from an agrarian society to an urban society removes one of the most powerful teaching methods about the connection between sex and parenthood. That's partially where my comment was coming from.
I agree there's more information than ever before, but I believe that the information holds dramatically less immediacy to adolescents, and so doesn't have a significant effect in their decision processes.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I don't think I would agree that, for example, medieval adolescents had such an understanding. If you mean something within the last hundred or hundred and fifty years, then I don't think that would be unreasonable (though I still wouldn't take it as a given).
Heh, I would tend to think the opposite!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If a woman is raped and keeps the baby, can she have the father's parental rights permanently blocked? Annulled?
If not, she should be able to.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't think I would agree that, for example, medieval adolescents had such an understanding.
Are you saying that medival adolescents didn't know that preganacy comes from sex?
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:I don't think I would agree that, for example, medieval adolescents had such an understanding. If you mean something within the last hundred or hundred and fifty years, then I don't think that would be unreasonable (though I still wouldn't take it as a given).
Heh, I would tend to think the opposite!
I agree. The mere fact of living centuries ago doesn't make people stupid. They understood cause & effect.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
They were also much less removed from the lives and breeding livestock and other animals than most people are today.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I don't think I would agree that, for example, medieval adolescents had such an understanding.
Are you saying that medival adolescents didn't know that preganacy comes from sex?
No. Nor am I suggesting they were stupid. I'm saying there's no reason to think that they were more mindful of the consequences of sex than modern adolescents.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Reason #1: They were much less removed from the lives and breeding livestock and other animals than most people are today.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yes, I can read. I'm unconvinced.
Added: That's snarky. But did you really think I'd missed Senoj's post?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Twinky-
I won't try to convince you. My reasons for believing this are perhaps too convoluted to lay out and certainly affected by growing up in a rural area.
I think the decision to have sex is often a thoughtless one, as you've pointed out. But I also believe that even thoughtless decisions (or maybe especially thoughtless decisions) are strongly influenced by the stories and metaphors of our everyday lives, and in severing ourselves from farms we've also severed a strong psychological tie between sex and parenthood.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
This is a good and interesting discussion.
I just wanted to add (and perhaps it has already been mentioned and I missed it) - that although any debate about abortion seems to always bring up all these "special case scenarios" (rape, incest, life of mother endanger, failure of birth control even when used properly) -- the already documented statistics show that BY FAR most abortions taking place at present fall into none of those special cases. Very very very few of current-day pregnancies resulting in abortion fit into those special criteria. Most are convenience and/or financial, and the pregnancy came about via unprotected, consensual sex.
FG
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And we replaced that with television series which show attractive young people bed-hopping with no consequences whatsoever. Where if someone does get pregnant, it's a punchline and they give birth to a perfect, beautiful baby then carry on their sitcom lives as if nothing ever happened.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Senoj, I was originally going to ask you to elaborate on it. It might be worth exploring in a thread of its own.
I grew up in a rural area myself -- a town nominally of roughly 3,000 that more than doubled in size when the local university was in session. Though I grew up "in town," so perhaps it would be fairer to say that I grew up near a rural area.
My perception in adolescence was that, in this regard, there was no significant difference between kids who'd grown up "in town" and kids who'd grown up on farms outside town. But I wasn't doing those sorts of things as an adolescent, so my perception could certainly be skewed, or my town could have been abnormal.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Farmgirl, we HAVE discussed that, and I think everyone agrees that that is a bad state of affairs. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are circumstances under which a moral person might choose abortion. So the argument of special circumstances does have a place in the discussion of whether or not abortion should ever be legal.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Belle, see, that's where I disagree, especially the last 5-10 years. Every show I watch, at least, does portray pregnancy as a BIG DEAL. Sure everything turns out okay in the end, at least in sitcoms, but they are _sitcoms_.
Some of us have also had it replaced with comprehensive sex education/science class that explained the processes involved.
Like I said, it all depends on which angle you are coming from.
-Bok
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My mother, aunt, grandmother, and great-grandmother all got pregnant out of wedlock. This is not a new thing. (I hope it isn't a genetic thing!)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Belle, see, that's where I disagree, especially the last 5-10 years. Every show I watch, at least, does portray pregnancy as a BIG DEAL. Sure everything turns out okay in the end, at least in sitcoms, but they are _sitcoms_.
Some of us have also had it replaced with comprehensive sex education/science class that explained the processes involved.
Like I said, it all depends on which angle you are coming from.
-Bok
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Given the turn the discussion has taken, I think it might be worth pointing out that you could nearly sum up the pracitcal (as opposed to mystical) aspects of the Catholic view of sex by saying that severing that tie is a dangerous thing to do...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
From talking to women now in their 60s and 70s who grew up on farms, in many families in this area at least girls were kept away from the animals when breeding was going on. Their brothers had a working knowledge of reproduction, but they didn't. And, of course, boys are not the ones who bear (most, sometimes any) of the consequences when someone gets pregnant.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Kim-
Again, the contention (my contention at least) isn't that kids didn't used to have sex. It's that in having sex they were more conscious of the potential of a pregnancy and more psychologically prepared to take on the responsibility when it happened. I know lots of farm families where children are born out of wedlock, but I don't think that disproves my point.
<edit> dkw-
That's very interesting. I haven't heard similar stories; I wonder if it's a regional thing. </edit>
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I think that the time at which people are emotionally ready to have sex is very different from the time at which people are emotionally ready to have children.
I agree... but I think that in order to be completely ready for something, you have to not only be ready for it, but ALSO be ready for the consequences of it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:And we replaced that with television series which show attractive young people bed-hopping with no consequences whatsoever. Where if someone does get pregnant, it's a punchline and they give birth to a perfect, beautiful baby then carry on their sitcom lives as if nothing ever happened.
Honestly, I have no idea what shows you must be watching. Every show I've seen in the past seven or eight years (which is about as long as I've been paying even slight attention to TV) has been pretty up front and realistic (insofar as anything portrayed by Hollywood is realistic) about the risks, problems and consequences inherent in being sexually active.
Edit:
quote:And, of course, boys are not the ones who bear (most, sometimes any) of the consequences when someone gets pregnant.
Yeah, kind of like how (most, sometimes all of the) women who get pregnant are bitchy, indecisive sluts.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Bok-
I think that education in a sex ed class, no matter how comprehensive, is a poor substite for exposure through everyday activities.
As for the tv shows: Ross & Rachel? C'mon. Except for a couple obligatory "look how hard this is" episodes, I don't think any aspect of parenthood was represented in anything resembling a remotely realistic fashion.
I will say, however, that not all tv shows are equal offenders. I've seen several tv shows (e.g. My Wife & Kids, Everwood, 7th heaven) that I think did a fairly good job in this respect.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If we're talking about accurate descriptions of parenthood, I hope you're not arguing the notions of parenting acquired by watching farm animals are "anything resembling a remotely realistic fashion".
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
erosomniac, I'm not sure what you're implying. Are you really suggesting that the idea that in a teenage pregnancy the girl bears most of the consequences is an untrue stereotype?
edit: particularly, as in the cases I was refering to, 50 years ago, before paternity testing was even a possibility?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Fugu-
I'd say observing farm animals offers a much more realistic demonstration of the connection between sex and parenthood than Friends. Of course, I'd say observing almost anything would provide a much more realistic ... yadda, yadda, yadda. _rimshot_
I'm not suggesting farm animals provide the model by which we should parent (although I believe we do use lots of metaphors in parenting derived from nature generally), but rather that the true effects of sex are more apparent in nature and on farms than on tv shows like Friends.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:erosomniac, I'm not sure what you're implying. Are you really suggesting that the idea that in a teenage pregnancy the girl bears most of the consequences is an untrue stereotype?
Nowhere did anyone mention "teenage."
quote: edit: particularly, as in the cases I was refering to, 50 years ago, before paternity testing was even a possibility?
I assumed that because the sentence I quoted was the one present tense sentence in your post that you were referring to present day.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Again, I think emotional readiness for sex and emotional readiness for parenthood ARE two completely separate things.
Using methods of birth control and such, in my opinion, is definitely an indication of emotional readiness.
At the same time, as I said before, there are plenty of people having sex who just really aren't ready to have kids. There are plenty of married couples who wait a long time before deciding to have children. Therefore, saying that one shouldn't have sex unless one is prepared to have children isn't a very strong position to me, unless one also believes that some marital sex is also immoral.
-pH
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Okay, out-of-wedlock pregnancy at any age.
My question remains, are you claiming that the idea that the female partner bears the greater consequences in unintended pregnancy is false?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Okay, out-of-wedlock pregnancy at any age.
My question remains, are you claiming that the idea that the female partner bears the greater consequences in unintended pregnancy is false?
Oh, now we're talking about out-of-wedlock pregnancy only?
I take my comparison back. Your post wasn't offensive, just completely and totally unclear.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
[Sorry about the double-post, internet hiccup]
The thing is, there are more shows than just Friends. So to say our culture/mass media have replaced down-home learning with this schizophrenic potrayal of sex/pregnancy is a bit hyperbolic, IMO. It's a convenient story to convince ourselves that a manner of living that we consider (and largely rightfully so) clean and decent is superior to other forms. A sort of elitism, IMO.
Maybe some people just respond better to different ways of explaining these facts. I had no need to watch animals being birthed to get it into my head the realities and fallout of sex. Perhaps there's a correlation, but what do you propose as an alternative? Obviously we can't all live on farms anymore. Is toning done entertainment without providing the equivalent to "The Farm" satisfactory? Can we overwhelm the media potrayal with repeated and comprehensive sex education? Could more explicit/less censored television be an answer, allowing producers to not only show more about the act (which is also highly sanitized on TV, particularly sitcoms), but also more of the fallout?
-Bok
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:realities and fallout of sex.
To me, this indicates a believe that sex is wrong, as "fallout" has a very negative connotation. Which is also my problem with saying that sex has "consequences." Consequence, to me, implies punishment.
And we all already know how I feel about teaching young'ns that sex is wrong and dirty.
At any rate, I suppose to me, abortion isn't a waiver of responsibility. I think that discussing such issues with one's partner beforehand is the responsible thing to do.
-pH
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm afraid you still haven't answered my question, erosomniac. Do you dispute that the female partner carries the greater share of the consequences of unintended pregnancy?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I think that the time at which people are emotionally ready to have sex is very different from the time at which people are emotionally ready to have children.
I agree... but I think that in order to be completely ready for something, you have to not only be ready for it, but ALSO be ready for the consequences of it.
I thought that was a good point Tres.
pH-I know you are saying that they are two seperate things, sex and producing offspring. I'll agree that it's easier being ready for sex than parenthood. After all, what's to get ready for, it's AWESOME (to quote Puppy). However, in my mind you can't divorce the two. Like drinking heavily without impaired judgement or the hangover. I don't see the consequences as some sort of punishment for drinking. Nor do I see pregnancy as the punishment for sex. It's just the natural outcome.
If you aren't ready for the potential consequences of an action, you aren't ready to take the action.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
ph, is that an alternative to "fallout"? "Eventualities" perhaps?
(Just trying to find an amenable term).
-Bok
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I'm afraid you still haven't answered my question, erosomniac. Do you dispute that the female partner carries the greater share of the consequences of unintended pregnancy?
You keep rephrasing your question and completely changing my answer. As the question exists now: no, I will admit that given that there are physiological consequences experienced by the woman alone, the greater share is typically endured by the woman. Your original question suggested that MOST, if not ALL consequences are endured by the women, which is complete and total tripe.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I don't think anyone is really expressing the thought that abortions should be banned because we want the woman to suffer the consequences of having sex. Rather, I think the key argument is that the fetus deserves to live.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Which is also my problem with saying that sex has "consequences." Consequence, to me, implies punishment.
The consequence of eating correctly and exercising is a healthier body than one would have otherwise. The consequence of not doing so is a less healthy body than one would have otherwise.
If one is not ready for the possibility of a child, one is not truly ready for an act which can result in that child. Even married couples trying to delay children need to be ready to handle a pregnancy if birth control fails.
Acknowledging this does not mean one thinks sex is wrong. It might mean one thinks that deciding to have sex when one cannot face the possible consequences is wrong.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
In terms of television shows, there has never been an instance where a character has underwent an abortion.
Just saying that that aspect of the media certainly doesn't encourage that method of dealing with pregnancy, even if it is oversexed.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:In terms of television shows, there has never been an instance where a character has underwent an abortion.
That's not true. I've seen characters who had abortions more than once on TV.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: ph, is that an alternative to "fallout"? "Eventualities" perhaps?
(Just trying to find an amenable term).
-Bok
"Possible result," maybe.
The thing is, to me, accepting the fact that one may need to have an abortion is also taking responsibility for possible results. I think that couples should decide beforehand what they should do...even if they change their minds later, it's good to have that conversation. And I don't mean that they should say, "Oh, it's okay honey, if we have unprotected sex and you get pregnant, you can just get an abortion! YAY!"
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kristen: In terms of television shows, there has never been an instance where a character has underwent an abortion.
Just saying that that aspect of the media certainly doesn't encourage that method of dealing with pregnancy, even if it is oversexed.
quote:Maude had an abortion in November 1972, and the episodes which dealt with the situation are probably the series' most famous and certainly its most controversial. Maude, at age 47, found herself pregnant, and she and Walter did not want to become parents again. Her daughter, Carol, brought to her attention that abortion was now legal in New York state. After some soul-searching, Maude decided at the end of the two-parter that the abortion was probably for the best. Noticing the wide controversy around the episode, CBS decided to rerun the episodes in August 1973, and members of the country's clergy reacted strongly to the decision. At least 30 stations dropped the show.
There have been others, but usually guest characters.
Your larger point is well-taken, though.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Thanks for the tidbit. There MUST have also been one on Degrassi as every episode on that show is "very special".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There was one on the PBS version of Degrassi High, I believe.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
There was also an admittedly underplayed abortion on Grey's Anatomy this season.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Do people actually have sex with the idea, well, if I get pregnant, I'll just get an abortion? The people I know who actually think through the act to the possible consequence tend to be big on birth control. The people I know who have unprotected sex generally went with the claim, but I won't get pregnant or you can't get pregnant the first x times or something along those lines. A lot of denial or just no thought at all. I would say we need better sex ed that makes sure people understand that connection in order to change behavior. Favorite stupid sex story has to be the 2 couples having sex in a car. Only one had a condom so when they finished, they passed the condom to the other couple, who flipped it inside out and used it. The girl in the second couple got pregnant with the first guy's baby. (Was a court case on the news and such, not an urban legend- unless the teen was lying to everyone).
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Scholar: I know a lot of people who do in fact believe that; they accept an unwanted pregnancy/abortion as an eventuality.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I don't remember an abortion on Grey's Anatomy. There was that secret tubal ligation, and that intern's miscarriage, but I don't remember an abortion. But if Addison did it I probably didn't even notice. I find her character more unrealistic than the others, medically speaking, so I pay her less attention.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do people actually have sex with the idea, well, if I get pregnant, I'll just get an abortion?
With regards to unprotected sex, I suspect it happens less often than pro-life activists would tend to believe and more often than pro-choice activists would tend to believe (both being generalities - specific people in each category will have different beliefs). That's a suspicion - all I can attest to is that some people definitely say this.
I know I've encountered people who have said that they will have an abortion if they get pregnant, some of whom used no birth control. One who had said this using a less-reliable form of birth control ended up getting pregnant and not getting an abortion.
There are many (at least, I have met many as a percentage - the sample is surely not scientific) people who acknowledge abortion as a fallback position prior to having sex, but either take better precautions or (as you described) think they are taking better precautions but aren't.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
jeni, except that it took up several episodes, and honestly, I don't see how the character would behaved differently.
Theca, the intern was planning on getting an abortion prior to the miscarriage.
(I also think they'll have her face it again someday, in a future episode).
-Bok
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
On Grey's Anatomy, the intern was going to get an abortion- had an appt set and everything. But, instead it turned out to be a tubal pregnancy, which is different from a miscarriage. Ectopic pregnancies do not lead to a baby and often cause damage leading to fertility problems, which was the case in Grey's Anatomy- the intern has only one functioning tube now.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Okay, I just realized that I am really going to miss good prime time tv. After House tonight, I have no shows to look forward to.
Not to completely derail the thread or anything, but I really will.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Me too.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I see no problem with deciding to take birth control measures and also deciding that if it is necessary, one will have an abortion.
I see a problem with using abortion as a primary method of birth control. Abortion is not simply a shirking of responsibility to me, which is how many seem to paint it. Abortion is not happy fun time.
-pH
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Me three about TV. Though for me GA reruns aren't that bad since I probably missed half of the season.
I was only just starting to get into Grey's Anatomy when Yang found out she was pregnant and then I missed whatever episode it was where she ended the pregnancy. It was pretty understated, though I recall a scene were she was watching a very pregnant Bailey on an airplane. I assumed she went through with the abortion since Yang clearly didn't stay pregnant. Sorry about that.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think there have been a few times that people on SVU decided to get abortions. Like that girl whose dad told her that she had to have babies as her duty to the family...
-pH
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I see a problem with using abortion as a primary method of birth control.
Why? Granted, abortion is somewhat more troublesome and risky than just keeping up with the Pill, etc. -- but what business is it of yours if somebody wants to use abortion as their primary method?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless:
quote:Originally posted by pH: I see a problem with using abortion as a primary method of birth control.
Why? Granted, abortion is somewhat more troublesome and risky than just keeping up with the Pill, etc. -- but what business is it of yours if somebody wants to use abortion as their primary method?
I, personally, don't find that to be the preferable method.
But I also don't think that it's the business of the law to enforce morality so much.
-pH
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Fair enough. So what *is* it the business of the law to do?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Maintain order in society.
-pH
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My mother, aunt, grandmother, and great-grandmother all got pregnant out of wedlock. This is not a new thing. (I hope it isn't a genetic thing!)
That made me snort soda on the screen.
*grin*
Seriously, though . . . that points up a fairly big cultural difference. A change just since my mom's time.
Out-of-wedlock pregnancy more often ended up in forced adoptions, abandoned children, or shot-gun weddings.
Now, those women that become pregnant out of wedlock find that they have some other choices. Raising the child as a single parent and legal abortion.
Are any of the choices absolutely stunningly wonderful?
Nope.
But as a society, we have expanded the options open to women.
If, as a society, we would like to narrow them, I would hope we could do so without forcing other options on these women (or young girls,as the case may be.)
I.e., let's address some of the other issues that add to the perplexity of the problem.
This has been a fascinating thread to follow. Carry on.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm afraid that is not the sole role of law in our society, pH. That may be what you would like it to be.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Kwea,
quote:It isn't a human, not at that point anyway. Not a complete one, and it's rights don't outweigh the mothers.
Let's suppose it's granted that a fetus is at no point prior to birth a human being-since you're going from the purely legal standpoint, in one way...
You're speaking as though one right is equal to a completely different right, and violating one in favor of the other is a gross inequity. But there are rights and there are really big rights. For instance...
By the reasoning you're using here-one party's rights (or, I suppose since many pro-choicers would hesitate at even that distinction) thing's rights are completely subordinate, even its most important rights, to much less vital rights of the other party.
So, if someone robs me, I get to apprehend, imprison, and interrogate them myself, right? After all, their rights certainly don't outweigh mine. If someone harms a loved one of mine, then I get to do equal harm to that perpetrator because their rights did not supersede my loved one's rights, did they?
I have never heard it explained very well why a woman's right to terminate a voluntary pregnancy-as it almost always is, so long as you define 'voluntary' to mean 'outcome that could have been cheaply and painlessly avoided'-is somehow more worthy of protection under the law than the right of the fetus to have a life.
We protect animals from harm and death and maltreatment, even from their owners if society becomes aware of mistreatment. I fail to see why an animal has a greater right to protection than a fetus which could have been avoided entirely.
It's like saying, "Yeah, I ran that red light but whoever's in that intersection better get the hell outta my way! I got a right to go where I wanna go!"
quote: Originally posted by Dag:
So it isn't, by definition, a baby, nor can it be dehumanized.
Kwea, once again, you are attempting to assert that the particular state of our laws are somehow definitive in a discussion which is about whether those laws are just.
It's kind of like someone quoting the Bible to prove to an atheist that God exists - you're using the conclusion of one of the sides as a starting premise, and it's just not sound to do so in this circumstance.
Whether or not the law should recognize an unborn fetus as a human being is the issue being debated. Stating the law's lack of recognition as a proof that one isn't a human being is begging the question.
I wasn't using the law as precedent, but rather as an example of how not everyone agrees with your beliefs. I am not even really taking about the law at all, but peoples perspective of the issues.
Someone said that calling a fetus a baby would be a better choice, because people would be less likely to abort it, and someone else mentioned how the word fetus was "dehumanizing".....and I was trying to make the point that it ISN'T a baby, by legal definition, by the definition of the word itself, and in the mind of a lot of people.
Also, insisting that a fetus be called a baby would be the same thing, in reverse, that pro-choice people were being accused of....changing the definition of a word to make resistance to their political/moral agenda harder to oppose.
Also, I don't believe that the fetus' rights outweigh the mothers, regardless of what the law states. I am glad that the law agrees with me at this point, but at no point do I agree that a fetus has ANY rights until it is born. I don't see any in the laws, or in my own mind; at least none that outweigh the obvious rights the mother does have.
Nothing has a RIGHT to be born, although once they are they gain rights accordingly....just like any other human being. You may wish they do, and even try to make it so, but you won't convince me you "know" anything of the sort. You believe it, strongly, but I don't acknowledge it...and I am hardly a staunch pro-choice person.
Nor do I stand alone in this belief.
ANY line of demarcation is subject to interpretation, so I feel that I have to defend either the nebulous rights of something that may become human at sometime in the future, or the rights of a human who's intent and decisions I know beyond a doubt.
But my argument is not a circular legalese argument. Far from it, actually. One way or another I have decided. even though the thought of abortion disturbs me, I will always defend the rights of the individual in this case. I may not like their choice (I know I wouldn't) but that in no way gives me the right to remove that choice from them.
Kwea
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Far from it, actually. One way or another I have decided. even though the thought of abortion disturbs me, I will always defend the rights of the individual in this case. I may not like their choice (I know I wouldn't) but that in no way gives me the right to remove that choice from them.
Precisely.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:One way or another I have decided. even though the thought of abortion disturbs me, I will always defend the rights of the individual in this case. I may not like their choice (I know I wouldn't) but that in no way gives me the right to remove that choice from them.
You seem to be suggesting that because people disagree about whether a fetus is human, therefore the law has no place providing protection to the fetus.
I'm sure a moment's thought will allow you to come up with the obvious counterexample to why this isn't sufficient to deny a fetus protection. (Think slavery, for example.)
Now, what is it that distinguishes this situation where people disagree about what the law should be from every other situation where people disagree what the law should be (i.e., every single other law on the books).
I, too will always defend the rights of the individual in this case - specifically, the individual that is being killed.
quote:Nothing has a RIGHT to be born, although once they are they gain rights accordingly....just like any other human being. You may wish they do, and even try to make it so, but you won't convince me you "know" anything of the sort. You believe it, strongly, but I don't acknowledge it...and I am hardly a staunch pro-choice person.
No one has ANY rights by the standard you are putting forth here. Why do you have the right not to be blown away by a total stranger? Why did that right attach at birth, and not two minutes prior?
As a means of distinguishing between when rights should be legally enforced, there's no "there" there. All first moral principles stand on the same ground. Your moral principle that individuals should decide whether a being is human is exactly as unfounded as mine.
Morally, a fetus has the right to not be killed. Your lack of recognition of that doesn't change that, nor is your lack of recognition of that somehow supported by a more provable first principle than my recognition of that right it.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: and I was trying to make the point that it ISN'T a baby, by legal definition
Please provide a sourced 'legal definition' of the word "baby."
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I got a lot out of this thread. I'm actually fairly impressed with Hatrack for being able to sustain a reasoned discussion on this topic for several pages.
I also got to see where I need to do some more thinking, and that's always a good thing.
And I got mentioned in the same compliment as CT and president ElJay!!! Thanks kmboots!
At the risk of reopening a topic from too many pages ago, I would like to comment on the rape/incest situation.
I suspect that if the true incidence of rape was reliably measurable in this country it would shock a lot of people.
There comes a point where I just have to walk away when people casually toss out terms like "frivolous rape accusation" in conversation because, unless we really have good measures of it, I'm inclined to consider the charges real and serious.
In the case of a reason for an abortion, I suspect we're not going to ever have full agreement on this.
I await the day when artificial wombs and embryo transplants make it possible for a pregnant rape victim to have a choice other than abortion or carrying their rapists' child.
Until then, I have to lean toward the position that even if abortion is declared illegal, an exception should be made for a woman who was raped. And I wouldn't put her through having to prove it either. I would prefer that she have it on record already, but I wouldn't make that a requirement. If the rape wasn't previously reported, I would prefer that she file a police report as part of the process of obtaining an abortion (should she so choose), but I wouldn't require that either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I may not like their choice (I know I wouldn't) but that in no way gives me the right to remove that choice from them.
I would argue that the question of whether someone has the right to kill someone else in this situation is at the heart of the matter, and pro-choicers do themselves a disservice by taking that for granted.
What most pro-choice advocates assume is that the fetus is not a human being deserving of life; it's an implicit assumption on which the whole discussion of any "rights of the individual is predicated (because, after all, if the fetus is ALSO an individual, then we've got some other rights to worry about).
So by bringing up the issue of personal rights, pro-choicers are also dismissing the entire pro-life argument without discussion.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: and I was trying to make the point that it ISN'T a baby, by legal definition
Please provide a sourced 'legal definition' of the word "baby."
It's two steps away...here they are, for your semantic pleasure....
Fetuses are not human, as they have not been born yet. Birth is the defining state of personhood as we know it now. No person NOT BORN has rights under ANY legal document in the USA, Lacy's Law notwithstanding (that provides punishment for a crime based on the possibility of life, one of the things I disagree with).
I agree with this, as giving a fetus rights would limit the freedom of the mother to an unacceptable degree, and involve the government in reproductive rights to an absurd degree.
You can't document a negative. As you well know. Pro-life people are the ones attempting to stretch the definition to include unborn children, so that the laws that govern human behavior will apply to them as well. Until that happens, fetuses have no rights.
I am not trying to use the laws to defend my beliefs, but a specific question was asked about legal definitions. The fact is, there are no legal definitions because under the law they aren't human yet, and won't be until birth. If they were, they would have rights....which doesn't automatically mean their rights would outweigh the mothers, BTW.
I believe a woman should have the right to determine what happens to her body, plain and simple. I don't have to agree with her decision to defend her right to choose.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Tom, it is more that that area has been discussed to futility, and neither side is willing to give on the matter.
Even if I did consider it was human at that point....which I am not willing to concede)....it still wouldn't change the fact that I feel a woman has the right to decide for herself where her life is going to go.
I don't even trust the government to deal with the US people in a fair and impartial manner in subject much, much less important than reproductive rights. I can't think of a place where the government belongs less than this, actually.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: The fact is, there are no legal definitions because under the law they aren't human yet, and won't be until birth. If they were, they would have rights...
Were African slaves human -- and did they have rights -- prior to recognition of such status by law?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I keep reading your last two posts, Kwea, and I just don't understand how you can care about the legal definition so much.
This part:
quote:You can't document a negative. As you well know. Pro-life people are the ones attempting to stretch the definition to include unborn children, so that the laws that govern human behavior will apply to them as well. Until that happens, fetuses have no rights.
Ugh. I think injuring a nine months pregnant woman to the point that the baby dies, SHOULD be considered illegal. Surely not just us pro-lifers are the only ones that believe this. Surely there must be many other groups of people that see this as a montrous act. And if they see this as an illegal act there are probably many who would see this as monstrous at eight months. Many who would see it as monstrous in the third trimester. Or the second. The law and the definition of personhood are not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Nor is being pro-life that simple.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:I think injuring a nine months pregnant woman to the point that the baby dies, SHOULD be considered illegal.
It is illegal. Are you meaning to say that assaulting a pregnant woman should be considered a greater crime than a woman who is, as some wish to put it, only "pre-pregnant"? Or that it should become a murder+assault?
quote:The law and the definition of personhood are not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Nor is being pro-life that simple.
I agree. Being pro-choice, for me, is similarly much more complicated than simply deciding whether or not a fetus is human or whatnot at any given point.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I meant to say that the death of the baby should be illegal, even without Laci's Law. Of course harming the woman would be illegal.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
As a seperate entity from the woman?
Hmm. That's a tough question. I'm not sure I would count the two differently. Intention counts, obviously on the part of the offender...I think probably not on the part of the pregnant woman, because up to the very moment, there is the possibility of changing her mind about aborting.
Morally, my gut feeling is that it is a worse crime to hurt a pregnant woman, but I'm not sure if that can viably carry over to a legal point of view, or that it should be.
And after mulling it over for a few minutes, I conclude that I can conclude nothing, and most likely will not at this hour of the morning. But I will continue to think about this. Good questions, Theca.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And there is another of the many contradictions inherent in abortion which in my opinion illustrates just how much convincing pro-choicers must do for themselves to continue to be staunchly pro-choice...some, anyway, of some degrees of intensity.
I think you would have to look very, very, very hard and long to find someone who didn't think knowingly harming a pregnant woman was worse than knowingly harming a woman who wasn't pregnant. Similarly that it's worse for a pregnant woman to drink to excess, use narcotics, etc. than it is for a non-pregnant woman to do so.
I still have not heard a reason why any single one of a woman's rights trumps in and of itselfall potential rights of the unborn. It's not just a question of whether or not the fully-grown adult human being should have more rights (and responsibilities, although that word rarely gets mated to 'rights' in this discussion) than the unborn. Obviously, she should.
But that is not the argument that pro-choice makes. The argument made is that a woman's 'right' to lack of financial hardship, for instance, trumps any potential right of the unborn to be alive for example.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I think you would have to look very, very, very hard and long to find someone who didn't think knowingly harming a pregnant woman was worse than knowingly harming a woman who wasn't pregnant.
Or maybe not so hard. I don't think it would be any worse for you to knowingly harm me now than it would have been for you to knowingly harm me five months ago.
Or, to put it the other direction, if you were to punch me in the stomach five months from now, I'd think you were just as much a jerk as if you did it now.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Rakeesh, I think your summation of "the argument made" is more of a summation of your take on the effects of the arugment, rather than the argument itself.
For example, I'm presently slightly pro-choice precisely because I'm unwilling to make the very determination that you attribute to me. From my perspective, CT's posts earlier in this thread are very, very apt.
I also think that you may be overlooking the implications of your own view. Dagonee is the only person on this board who I have seen outline a cohesive, workable legal framework to handle illegalized abortion. I think that this side of the issue is much more complex than you are making it out to be.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Dagonee is the only person on this board who I have seen outline a cohesive, workable legal framework to handle illegalized abortion. I think that this side of the issue is much more complex than you are making it out to be.
I think that's because he's a lawyer.
For my part, I don't think it should have been made legal to begin with, but now that the genie's out of the bottle, I would be very happy to get some restrictions in place. I have long maintained that Pro-Life organizations could make a lot of progress by saying "our opponents want to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. Thus far they've made it legal. We need to make it safer and rarer." I think conceding the legality of it and working on closer regulation (is anyone else a little dissatisfied with the official response to the incident that started this thread? I know there is the hope that they will eventually close the place down permanently but...) and preventative education ( not just sex education but, as pH so correctly points out, abortion is no Sunday picnic and a lot of people need to be made aware of that).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Dagonee is the only person on this board who I have seen outline a cohesive, workable legal framework to handle illegalized abortion. I think that this side of the issue is much more complex than you are making it out to be.
I think that's because he's a lawyer.
Good point.
I agree with the rest of your post in that I think whichever "side" moves toward a compromise position (e.g. restrictions) in the U.S. first will gain a lot of good will from the great big middle, and will ultimately be perceived as the "winner" insofar as this debate can have one.
Here in Canada the issue seems unlikely to be revisited, but I don't know much about the debate because it happened well before I was paying any significant attention to politics.
Added: Also, one of the main reasons that my opinion on this issue is so fuzzy is that if I ever had to deal with it on a personal level I would be inclined to put more weight on my partner's opinion than on my own. She would be the one who had to deal with the lion's share of the immediate consequences of either choice -- that is, the lion's share by far of the physiological and psychological consequences of either decision. We would share the responsibility-type consequences, and of course I would want input into the decision, but if she felt strongly one way or the other I think I would do my best to support her.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Even if I did consider it was human at that point....which I am not willing to concede)....it still wouldn't change the fact that I feel a woman has the right to decide for herself where her life is going to go.
I'm going to call your bluff on this one. If a woman decides that she's better off without her fourteen-year-old son, of course you don't think she has the right to kill her son to get her life back on track. The rights (or lack thereof) of the fetus are crucial to any argument that asserts the right of the mother.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If the fourteen-year-old son is living inside her body, she might have an argument.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Most people don't have complete control over where their lives are going to go. The needs of other people always affect your options in life.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I don't have anything to contribute to this discussion except to say great posts, Dagonee, and keep up the excellent work.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
twinky,
I'm not sure which determination you mean, nor what exactly you mean by effects of the argument rather than the argument itself. I don't know if I'm having a brain fart, or what?
As for implications of my own view, I am aware of them. In the past on Hatrack and elsewhere, I have gone into some detail about what I would do if I had it my way and had to deal with the ramifications. Nowhere nearly as detailed as Dagonee of course, but that applies pretty much across the board, heh. Suffice it to say I think Puppy's analogy to heroin addiction was quite apt in that you can't just stop doing heroin once you're addicted.
------
kmbboots,
If as is the case with a vast majority of 'unwanted' pregancies the fourteen year old wasn't given a choice in the matter of whose body he would be living in, and she did bring him in on her own...then I'm afraid not, she wouldn't have much of an argument. At least not to me anyway, obviously. Once the woman starts saying, "It's my body," that begs the question, "So this just happened to you then, but it's your body now and you are in complete control?"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
twinky,
I'm not sure which determination you mean, nor what exactly you mean by effects of the argument rather than the argument itself. I don't know if I'm having a brain fart, or what?
As for implications of my own view, I am aware of them. In the past on Hatrack and elsewhere, I have gone into some detail about what I would do if I had it my way and had to deal with the ramifications. Nowhere nearly as detailed as Dagonee of course, but that applies pretty much across the board, heh. Suffice it to say I think Puppy's analogy to heroin addiction was quite apt in that you can't just stop doing heroin once you're addicted.
------
kmbboots,
If as is the case with a vast majority of 'unwanted' pregancies the fourteen year old wasn't given a choice in the matter of whose body he would be living in, and she did bring him in on her own...then I'm afraid not, she wouldn't have much of an argument. At least not to me anyway, obviously. Once the woman starts saying, "It's my body," that begs the question, "So this just happened to you then, but it's your body now and you are in complete control?"
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
As far as whether or not an assault on a pregnant woman should be punished more harshly than an assualt on a non-pregnant woman- I vote yes. If you cause a woman to miscarry, and I would be so extreme as to argue from conception, that is far more of a loss than just an assault. Also, if you consider all the sacrifices involved in getting pregnant for some woman (thinking of the cost of in vitro fertilization and such), there is a huge financial investment in that baby already, as well as an emotional investment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If as is the case with a vast majority of 'unwanted' pregancies the fourteen year old wasn't given a choice in the matter of whose body he would be living in, and she did bring him in on her own...then I'm afraid not, she wouldn't have much of an argument. At least not to me anyway, obviously. Once the woman starts saying, "It's my body," that begs the question, "So this just happened to you then, but it's your body now and you are in complete control?"
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not sure which determination you mean, nor what exactly you mean by effects of the argument rather than the argument itself. I don't know if I'm having a brain fart, or what?
No problem. I'll try to explain it better. You wrote:
quote:But that is not the argument that pro-choice makes. The argument made is that a woman's 'right' to lack of financial hardship, for instance, trumps any potential right of the unborn to be alive for example.
Maybe we're listening to different pro-choicers, but I don't think I've ever heard this argument the way your express it. I think you're collapsing the spectrum of loosely pro-choice views into a single proposition and then scrutinizing it through the lens of your own position. Let's say I accept that some variant of this is "the argument made by pro-choicers" (I don't, but you know, sake of argument and all that ). My rephrase would be that "a woman has the right to decide what happens in her life (e.g. avoid financial hardship) with respect to pregnancy." The obvious distinction is the complete absence of even hypothetical rights for the fetus, because I don't think "the pro-choice argument," insofar as there is one, inherently recognizes any right of the unborn to be alive -- in particular, at or near conception. If there is no such right, it can't be trumped. In other words, while you feel that the result of the argument is that the rights of the fetus are trumped, that isn't the content of argument. It's the outcome or effect.
The determination that I'm unwilling to make is that same one -- that the mother's rights trump the fetus' rights (or, conversely, that the fetus' rights trump the mother's). I'm not sure that they do; I'm not sure that the fetus has rights at all, or if so at what point they kick in, and finally I also don't think it should be up to me. That's why my position is fuzzy but overall slightly on the pro-choice "side," without making what you characterized as "the argument pro-choice makes."
Did that help?
quote:As for implications of my own view, I am aware of them. In the past on Hatrack and elsewhere, I have gone into some detail about what I would do if I had it my way and had to deal with the ramifications. Nowhere nearly as detailed as Dagonee of course, but that applies pretty much across the board, heh. Suffice it to say I think Puppy's analogy to heroin addiction was quite apt in that you can't just stop doing heroin once you're addicted.
That's one important aspect, and definitely well worth considering. I'm also thinking of the implications of the moral statement you're trying to make: that an embryo, fetus, or unborn baby has rights, foremost among them the right to life independent of what the pregnant woman may think. Some of the implications of granting such rights upon conception in particular give me an ethical migraine. I'm not interested in discussing it publically, but shoot me an email if you want to talk about it further.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I'm probably way off base here, but some of the arguments I've heard for the pro-choice position are based on the fact that the baby could not survive without the mother- it is in essense a parasite. I think that's may be why partial birth abortions/late-term birth abortions often make some pro-choice people uncomfortable. Based on my understanding, these abortions are illegal to perform, correct?
I guess my ethical question is this: if artificial womb technology becomes viable, and the procedure to tranfer to them is as inexpensive and safe as an abortion, would/should all abortion then be illegal since the fetus could survive without the mother? Just kind of a question that popped into my head while reading this thread.
Note: I'm not trying to say all pro-choice supporters have the same opinion or reasoning. I'm simply stating what I have heard some of them use as an argument in the abortion arena.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I guess my ethical question is this: if artificial womb technology becomes viable, and the procedure to tranfer to them is as inexpensive and safe as an abortion, would/should all abortion then be illegal since the fetus could survive without the mother? Just kind of a question that popped into my head while reading this thread.
It would change the legal aspect at least somewhat, because Casey makes a clear cutoff at viability.
If we assumed that the risks associated with embryo/fetal transfer were less than or equal to the risks of abortion, then Casey could be read such that states would be allowed to require the transfer in lieu of abortion. Those are big iffs, and there's a frozen embryo case (in a state supreme court) that speaks of the right not to reproduce that might have to be examined in that case.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Shouldn't the right not to reproduce be exercised at the time of not-conception? I'm not up on the particular case ...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think we'd also have an interesting time trying to decide who pays for the operation to transfer the fetus to the artificial womb, who pays for its upkeep, and who is responsible financially for the child after it is born.
Assuming there are sufficient numbers of adoptive parents waiting in this wings, this may not be a problem as long as part of the qualification for adoption includes having the money to pay for all this medical care.
If a woman wants an abortion and the "father" wants her to put the baby in an artificial womb, would she be required to do so? And would he or she, or both, have to pay for it?
Or, if the state forces a woman to use the artificial womb instead of having an abortion, is the fetus now a ward of the state? Or, can a judge order the pregnant couple to pay for the upkeep of their fetus, or find adoptive parents?
And let's not even open the discussion about fetuses with identifiable defects.
When I first touched on this topic (to basically put it outside the realm of things I was considering back on p2 (I think it was), I did so for a reason -- we aren't ready for this.
In my opinion, while artificial wombs or embryo transplants may solve some issues, they open us up to a whole host of other issues that are clearly goint to intensify the moral debate, not lessen it.
And the "right to not reproduce" is merely one of the many things we will have to fight over when this stuff finally does become commonplace.
I wish us all luck.
If we were smart, we'd find ways to constructively deal with the problems we have now, and use that experience to deal with the bigger problems that are coming down the pike.
I'm imagining one serious dialogue that's going to strain some definitions of pro-life and pro-choice right off the bat -- the question of who pays for the unwanted fetuses that aren't going to be adopted. At least some pro-choice folks are going to point out that they would've been more than willing to have the public pay for the abortions, but find it ludicrous that their tax dollars should go to pay for the unwanted kids. I suspect that many people who are anti-abortion now are going to take the stance that people who get pregnant are financially responsible for their offspring. But, if those people were barred by the state from getting an abortion, they might simply leave the country or file bankruptcy rather than pay for a child they didn't want. Of course, some pro-life people may argue that all of us collectively should pay for the children, which could usher in some socialist thinking into what are traditionally conservative minded folks.
I see a LOT of social upheaval over this issue, frankly.
And, actually, I think it'll do us all good.
But it could be VERY painful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Shouldn't the right not to reproduce be exercised at the time of not-conception? I'm not up on the particular case ...
quote:This appeal presents a question of first impression, involving the Disposition of the cryogenically-preserved product of in vitro fertilization (IVF), commonly referred to in the popular press and the legal journals as "frozen embryos." The case began as a divorce action, filed by the appellee, Junior Lewis Davis, against his then wife, appellant Mary Sue Davis. The parties were able to agree upon all terms of dissolution, except one: who was to have "custody" of the seven "frozen embryos" stored in a Knoxville fertility clinic that had attempted to assist the Davises in achieving a much-wanted pregnancy during a happier period in their relationship.
[15] I. Introduction
[16] Mary Sue Davis originally asked for control of the "frozen embryos" with the intent to have them transferred to her own uterus, in a post-divorce effort to become pregnant. Junior Davis objected, saying that he preferred to leave the embryos in their frozen state until he decided whether or not he wanted to become a parent outside the bounds of marriage.
[17] Based on its determination that the embryos were "human beings" from the moment of fertilization, the trial court awarded "custody" to Mary Sue Davis and directed that she "be permitted the opportunity to bring these children to term through implantation." The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Junior Davis has a "constitutionally protected right not to beget a child where no pregnancy has taken place" and holding that "there is no compelling state interest to justify [] ordering implantation against the will of either party." The Court of Appeals further held that "the parties share an interest in the seven fertilized ova" and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of an order vesting them with "joint control . . . and equal voice over their Disposition."
[18] Mary Sue Davis then sought review in this Court, contesting the validity of the constitutional basis for the Court of Appeals decision. We granted review, not because we disagree with the basic legal analysis utilized by the intermediate court, but because of the obvious importance of the case in terms of the development of law regarding the new reproductive technologies, and because the decision of the Court of Appeals does not give adequate guidance to the trial court in the event the parties cannot agree.
[19] We note, in this latter regard, that their positions have already shifted: both have remarried and Mary Sue Davis (now Mary Sue Stowe) has moved out of state. She no longer wishes to utilize the "frozen embryos" herself, but wants authority to donate them to a childless couple. Junior Davis is adamantly opposed to such donation and would prefer to see the "frozen embryos" discarded. The result is, once again, an impasse, but the parties' current legal position does have an effect on the probable outcome of the case, as discussed below.
[20] At the outset, it is important to note the absence of two critical factors that might otherwise influence or control the result of this litigation: When the Davises signed up for the IVF program at the Knoxville clinic, they did not execute a written agreement specifying what Disposition should be made of any unused embryos that might result from the cryopreservation process.
Summary of the court's decision. (Please don't think this is an adequate summary of all the issues resolved. This is the court's language, with numbering and line breaks added by me for clarity):
quote:In summary, we hold that disputes involving the Disposition of preembryos produced by in vitro fertilization should be resolved, first, by looking to the preferences of the progenitors.
[1.] If their wishes cannot be ascertained, or if there is dispute, then their prior agreement concerning Disposition should be carried out.
[2.] If no prior agreement exists, then the relative interests of the parties in using or not using the preembryos must be weighed.
[3.] Ordinarily, the party wishing to avoid procreation should prevail, assuming that the other party has a reasonable possibility of achieving parenthood by means other than use of the preembryos in question.
[4.] If no other reasonable alternatives exist, then the argument in favor of using the preembryos to achieve pregnancy should be considered.
[5.] However, if the party seeking control of the preembryos intends merely to donate them to another couple, the objecting party obviously has the greater interest and should prevail.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Twinky,
Thanks for the clarification, I understand what you mean now.
I should have been more specific. When I say, "...trumps any potential right of the fetus to be alive," I don't just mean potential because it's a hypothetical. I mean potential in that it's up in the air entirely, so hypothetical is a better word. The pro-choice argument is founded both on denying that hypothesis, and when forced to acknowledge that hypothesis (partial-birth abortions, for exampe, although not a blanket example), founded on a refusal to acknowledge it because doing so would threaten the rights of the mother.
The pro-choice argument, to be moral in my opinion, must be founded in a certainty that aborted fetuses are not true human lives. If they are not true human lives, then what is lost is merely potential...and potential is a very cheap thing indeed. Infinite. If they are true human lives, though...well then, that's an entirely different thing, isn't it? If they are true human lives, then clearly the woman's right to determine what happens in her life should be protected and sacred much earlier in the question, shouldn't it?
The pro-choice argument is guilty of the same accusation it flings at the pro-life argument, simply that it makes a certainty out of what is only a possibility: that aborted fetuses were not true human lives. I have not heard many (any, that I can think of) who would be pro-choice if it were definitively proven beyond any doubt that aborted human fetuses were in fact true human lives.
That is what I mean when I say that the pro-choice argument boils down to the rights of the mother trumping any hypothetical rights of the unborn, or even any ONE right of the mothers to trump ALL of the hypothetical rights of the unborn.
I am not suggesting that the unborn are true human lives. What I am suggestinig is that there is some substantial possibilities that they are...and so long as that possibility exists, we should err on the side of caution. It's actually the same reason I'm not an opponent of appeals ad naseum in death penalty cases in the US justice system.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I've heard that logical progression from you before, and it's not unreasonable. Last time, I was reluctant to agree with it but couldn't put my finger on why. I think CT's posts in this thread, though, are as good a summation of why I don't accept that logic as you're likely to find anywhere.
I also think that "erring on the side of caution," as you put it, will inevitably foster the belief that true human life begins at conception. (As an aside, from my perspective, that in itself will encourage belief in spirit or soul, which to be perfectly frank makes me somewhat uncomfortable.) I think "Erring on the side of caution" would be widely regarded as acceptance of the pro-life argument, insofar as a single argument exists; the effect would be the same (i.e. a ban on abortions with a short list of exceptions).
I think that the only viable solution in the U.S. is some sort of compromise, where morning-after pills and other very early-term abortive techniques are available but mid-term or late-term abortions are not.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I am not suggesting that the unborn are true human lives.
I would not only suggest it but assert it as a matter of concrete fact. Healthy embryos and fetuses are human, by virtue of their DNA, and they are living organisms by standard biological criteria (growth, reaction to stimuli, etc.).
The notion of conferring 'personhood' at some arbitrary point in their development is essentially a religious position, and has no place in public policy, IMO.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Twinky,
I think one of the strongest arguments for the pro-life side is that it *is* erring on the side of caution. So refusing to accept erring on the side of caution because it will lead to adopting the pro-life stance seems funny to me.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The sperm and egg are alive, and have human DNA.
There is no point at which life is NOT present.
It's all continuous, tracing back from the infant that survives to birth backward through the parents gametes, and their parents gametes, and their parents, and so on and so on.
There is no discontinuity in the passing on of life from humans to their offspring.
This is why I think that line of reasoning is not well suited to the pro-choice side of the debate.
I think there's much more to be made from acknowledging the special status of the gestational period, as I've said before.
I freely admit that the gametes, embryo and fetus are alive and human.
I also assert that gestation is not the same as already having been born.
Someone a few pages back asked something about when during gestation the soul enters, or if there's a point where we could agree that at x-1 it is not a human BEING and at x+1 it is.
I know Dagonee doesn't like my answer to this, but I will risk his disdain and repeat it anyway:
I believe that if we acknowledge the special status of the gestational period, and the reliance of the fetus for all continued growth and even instant-by-instant access to oxygen, we can arrive at a pro-choice position that is consistent with acknowledging the essential truth of biology about the human DNA in the living cells.
Or, we can go another route, also one that I personally accept, but probably doesn't please many here. That is that my personal views on it (and yours too) only matter in cases where I am a parent or potential parent. In all cases, it is up to the parents and their own moral code and conscience to decide. My take on it is both anti-abortion and pro-choice simply because the alternative (anti-abortion and anti-choice) means giving government a power I wouldn't want them to have it it were my body in which the fetus was gestating.
Thus I align myself with CT, I believe, in not wanting an abortion myself, but not being willing to tell others what they can or cannot do.
It's not going to hold up in a debate over logic, but it does get us off of the rocks in terms of arguing over whether something is alive, and whether or not it is human, and when.
Those questions, which "seem" so central, really are not. Mainly, they are not because there are really only two possible answers:
a) every step involves life. And if it isn't human life, then someone is playing a huge joke on us. or,
b) we don't know.
If a is true, then there's nothing more to talk about regarding "date of human-ness". Instead we can talk about what really matters: each individual's comfort level with either government control over people's bodies, or comfort level with ending a life (or however, you care to cast the alternatives).
If b is true, then it comes down to an endless series of arguments over something that is essentially unknowable. And we'll either reach some uncomfortable compromise (as we have now) or we'll push the "date of human-ness" forward and backward with each new change in the power structure.
I submit that really by talking about dates and stages of maturation we are just masking the real debate that needs to happen -- what do people want the government to do?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:we'll either reach some uncomfortable compromise (as we have now)
What, exactly, is the nature of the compromise we've reached now. As of now, a woman can have an abortion up until the moment of birth in all 50 states merely by asserting that it having the child will harm her mental health. What, exactly, has been compromised?
quote:what do people want the government to do?
The same thing it does with other criminal laws: defend a victim from the use of private force.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Technical, but I think important, point, Bob, the sperm and egg have haploid DNA totally derived from the parent. The zygote has a full set which is different from that of either parent.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: My take on it is both anti-abortion and pro-choice simply because the alternative (anti-abortion and anti-choice) means giving government a power I wouldn't want them to have it it were my body in which the fetus was gestating.
Bob -- even if you were to take government out of the equation -- so that it is "just up to the parents" as you say.
What if the parents disagree? You stated both the sperm and the egg are alive (independently until joined) and have DNA. So if you, personally, as a "person who does not want abortion" yourself, but you (hypothetically, of course) impregnate someone who does want an abortion, whose rights triumph?
FG
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Presumably in such a situation the couple would have to arrive at some sort of compromise. I've stated elsewhere that I would most likely defer to the views of my partner if the question of abortion ever arose in a relationship I was in.
I'm not suggesting that that's a perfect solution or even a good solution, of course, because if both parteners were firm in their views it could easily get really unpleasant.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yes, but I guess in my thinking -- it would drag it back to "the government" in that case -- because one parent could fight the other parent in court, and they we would need a "ruling", etc. - and I just don't see how you can ever keep that from happening.
FG
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The sperm and egg are alive, and have human DNA.
They carry human DNA, but they do not meet all of the biological criteria I referenced in order to be independent living organisms, particularly in that they do not reproduce themselves. They also do not have a whole human genome (how many human beings have only 23 chromosomes?) They are merely incomplete cells of the parents' bodies.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Given how often we kill other forms of life (bugs, weeds, bacteria) without a second thought, I think it would be misleading to suggest abortion is bad simply because all life is sacred. I think it must be something else, beyond simply being a living organism, that makes a given living being sacred enough to not kill.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Tha fact that it's a human life? Which leads us to the same question, when does a foetus become a human being...
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
For me, the question that must be answered before we change abortion laws is- then what? We are now introducing millions of babies into the world that are completely unwanted. Who will take care of them, make sure they are educated, become decent members of society? How many of these children are going to be starving, abused, hated? Would they be able to find any joy in life in some of these situation? So, if I were queen of the world, I would put abortion issues on the back burner and focus on fixing society. Put money into sex ed (and real sex ed- abstinance only isn't going to work though absitance should be mentioned and encouraged). Put money into the educational system in general- esp trade schools- so that people can rise above poverty. Fix the adoption and foster care system so that they are more accessible and reliable (I doubt the Desperate Housewife ending happens in most cases, but that fear probably keeps people away from adopting). Then, I have no problem changing the abortion laws. "We care so much about the rights of the unborn that we forget about the living." (can't remember where I heard that, but it stuck with me)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"We care so much about the rights of the unborn that we forget about the living."
And yet no one decrying our lack of response in Rwanda thought that, because we have an inadequate famine relief program, we shouldn't have tried to stop the killings there.
If someone believes abortion is the active killing of a human being, it makes sense for them to focus a lot of energy on gaining legal protection for the victims.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't really care for the legal take on things actually, as i know a lot of people who don't break the letter of the law but who are despicable human beings.
But what we are talking about is the morality AND the legality of abortion, and some specific issues were brought up that I felt like answering.
As far as trying to equate the rights of the unborn with the rights of black during slavery, I think it falls short on many levels.
I can always ASK a slave what they need, and they answer. They had lives, as much as slave owners let them, outside and separate of their owners and their work, and no slave owner was forced to carry them around inside of their own bodies.
Also, I have a problem with equating natural with good or even desirable. We do a lot of things for ourselves that are against the natural way of life. Some help us, some harm us. Just because the natural consequence of having sex USE to be having a child doesn't mean it is the best for the person giving birth...and I don't think that anyone should have the right to chose FOR her whether to have it or not. It is too private a decision, and I fear what the consequences will be if the government gets too involved in this.
As far as Laci's law, it shouldn't be TWO crimes, although if they wanted to they could create a separate category of crimes that cause a woman to lose a child without making it a separate crime. We already have some laws that differentiate between things like that. I realize this sounds like splitting hairs, but I feel it will be a crucial point soon. Laci's law attempts to give something that was never born rights...which could pave the way for granting it FULL rights, despite not being born yet.
[ May 25, 2006, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also, from my point of view being pro-life isn't being cautious of rightts at all. It trumps all rights from the one being we know, beyond a doubt, IS alive and a human being in favor of rights for something that may or may not be.
That may or may not ever be born at all.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:... no slave owner was forced to carry them around inside of their won bodies.
I would argue that the abortion patients whose abortions most pro-lifers object to were not forced to carry their offspring, either. If a slaveowner intentionally put himself in a situation in which having a slave become physically dependent upon him was a likely outcome, I don't think that killing the slave would then become a legitimate way out.
People seem to act as though there were little zygotes flying around like pollen, attaching themselves to women at random, and forcing them to become pregnant. If that were the case, then I think abortion would be a LOT more permissable in most people's minds.
In the real world, however, there is some cause-and-effect to take into account.
[ May 25, 2006, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The sperm and egg are alive, and have human DNA.
They carry human DNA, but they do not meet all of the biological criteria I referenced in order to be independent living organisms, particularly in that they do not reproduce themselves. They also do not have a whole human genome (how many human beings have only 23 chromosomes?) They are merely incomplete cells of the parents' bodies.
And, of course, my point was merely that they are alive and have human DNA. It's not like you can claim that they are dead, lifeless or inanimate. So, if they are alive, and came from a human, they are part of the human reproductive cycle.
I mean, really, I'm not trying to make a big deal of this, I just don't see the discontinuity of life that would allow anyone to claim that something is NOT alive, and then it is, with respect to human reproduction. Or reproduction of ANY living thing on this planet for that matter.
I think you'll find that I've been chosing my words very carefully in that respect.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:we'll either reach some uncomfortable compromise (as we have now)
What, exactly, is the nature of the compromise we've reached now. As of now, a woman can have an abortion up until the moment of birth in all 50 states merely by asserting that it having the child will harm her mental health. What, exactly, has been compromised?
quote:what do people want the government to do?
The same thing it does with other criminal laws: defend a victim from the use of private force.
Dag, are you being deliberately snarky? If you fail to see that no-one is really getting their way here, I think you've lost some perspective. In fact, as we've learned through the posts in this thread alone, abortion-on-demand is not really true. The medical quality and availability of the procedure varies widely from community to community to the point where, in some places it simply isn't there at all.
This is not what pro-choice people envisioned as th ideal? As we've said, nobody wants to put women in jeopardy for having this procedure. But it has come to pass that in many places that is exactly what happens.
I called it a defacto compromise. Nobody is happy with the way things are now. It is clearly unsatisfactory.
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with the criminal thing, but again, your tone would indicate that you had some point to make about criminalizing abortion as the desired end state. I'm not sure if that's what people want from their government. Maybe that's what some people want, but I was talking about a consensus opinion arrived at through dialog and some serious consideration of what would be better than the defacto compromise that we do have now -- the one I still assert is making nobody really happy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, are you being deliberately snarky? If you fail to see that no-one is really getting their way here, I think you've lost some perspective.
What the hell is snarky about asking where the compromise is? I'll ask again, since you didn't answer: one side wants abortion illegal throughout pregnancy except to prevent physical harm. One side wants it legal throughout pregnancy. It is legal throughout pregnancy now, based on the mere assertion of mental harm through continuing the pregnancy - a limitation that stops zero abortions. Where, exactly, has each side given up something they wanted?
I think you've lost perspective. The issue is government prohibition or allowance of abortion. The people who want it allowed throughout pregnancy have what they want. The people who want it banned have nothing. That's not a compromise (that is, "a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions"). What concessions are in effect that limit abortion? Essentially none. The fact that people who want abortion available on demand don't have everything they want does not mean they've compromised on the central issue. They've won on the central issue.
quote:This is not what pro-choice people envisioned as th ideal? As we've said, nobody wants to put women in jeopardy for having this procedure. But it has come to pass that in many places that is exactly what happens.
And this jeopardy isn't based on a compromise over whether abortion is legal. The government intervened to stop the shoddy medical procedures - something everyone agrees is good, right?
quote:I called it a defacto compromise. Nobody is happy with the way things are now. It is clearly unsatisfactory.
Please. That's not a compromise. What twinky proposed is a compromise. Abortion on demand throughout pregnancy is not.
quote:I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with the criminal thing, but again, your tone would indicate that you had some point to make about criminalizing abortion as the desired end state.
No. What I'm getting at is that almost everyone agrees that the principle goal of criminal law is the protection of people from private violence and coercion. This is as close to a universal statement as one can make about criminal law.
quote:I was talking about a consensus opinion arrived at through dialog and some serious consideration of what would be better than the defacto compromise that we do have now -- the one I still assert is making nobody really happy.
You can't get that consensus. I'm sorry. But a very large number of people believe that abortion is the killing of a human being. They will not form a consensus that fails to recognize that and treat it accordingly, although they will make compromises (which haven't been made yet) if they can't achieve the just goal of banning this killing.
Sure, no one is happy with what we have now. That doesn't mean that we're going to be happy with some other situation that subjects a million or so children to death each year.
This so-called "maturation" of the debate you advocate is an end of the debate, and for you to present it as otherwise is incredibly disingenuous. Your contention that right now we are in a state of compromise is equally disingenuous. I can't tell at this point if that's intentional or not, but removing the issue that's actually under dispute from consideration is not an advancement of the dialog.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
But lots of things carry a cause and effect naturaly, and we act as we choose to to mitigate the results.
Lots of things have human DNA, so the fact that fetuses do doesn't sell me on the pro-life position either.
Nature killed most people long before their 60th birthday not that many yeras ago, but we changed that. Sex, consensual or not, use to hold women hostage to their own biology...and it still does today, although not to the same extent.
Puppy, you just exposed the root of the matter, or at least part of it....a lot of the pro-life argument comes from outdated morality, a morality that allowed men to have mistresses but forced women to marry at 16.
A lot of pro-life people have strong religious reasons OTHER than the sancitity of human life that lead them to believe that abortion is wrong. It is not s conicidence that a lot of the same people who complain about abortion are the same people who castigate the sexual revolution.
Not all pro-life people have these views, but it has been my personal expreience that most to the people who are pro-life are more interested in what their neighbor is doing behind closed doors than most, more conderned abou who is sleeping with who so to speak.
IMO, neither abortion OR other peoples sex life is any of their business.
I don't feel like anyone is really listening, or learning anything at this point, so I am done. I have my own views, and I didn't find them in a Cracker Jack's box...and I know that there are plenty of good people on BOTH sides of this debate.
I am just tired of talking about it yet again.
Dag, if you really believe abortion is that easy to get, think again. Talk to the DR's here at Hatrack again. Talk to people who have tried to get one and not been able to find a single provider anywhere within their state, despite it being legal.
Abortions are not always easy to get, nor concequence free. I can without a doubt say that they are painful and difficult to get in most locations I have lived, and I lived in some of the single most liberal states in the USA.
You are smarter than that.
Kwea
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea,
Putting aside your statements about society mitigating outcomes of cause-and-effect situations (we don't, really, protect adult individuals from the outcome of their voluntary leisure activities except to help them AFTER the fact)...
quote:Puppy, you just exposed the root of the matter, or at least part of it....a lot of the pro-life argument comes from outdated morality, a morality that allowed men to have mistresses but forced women to marry at 16.
It's pleasant to be labeled a closet bigot, a prude, someone who is more concerned with keeping women down than in protecting (hypothetical) defenseless victims.
What, because there was hypocrisy in the past about sexuality means it still inspires and motivates related beliefs today? How wonderful! Then of course the enlightened liberal woman-friendly perspective is of course equally dependant on past hypocrisies, correct?
Or rather it would be, but that side of things isn't so...misogynistic.
Abortion is related to the sex lives of others, but the discussion about it is not about their sex lives, as much as you would like to claim it is. Clearly you are not the one who is listening because if you were, you'd have long since realized that the one thing which unites pro-lifers is their concern that true human lives are being exterminated, largely for the sake of convenience.
Whether or not many pro-choicers also have beef with the sexual choices of those who get abortions is irrelevant, except when they try and do things like restrict access to sexual education and protections.
You are the one who isn't listening. It isn't surprising, then, that you're tired of talking about it yet again. Maybe when you're rested up, you can imply more things about pro-lifers. I do so look forward to hearing more about that.
Dagonee has not said that abortions are to be found at the local 7-11, darnit. He has said that they aren't restricted, in all but a few cases right at the very end of pregnancy (excuse me, hostage-situation). This is not a compromise because it is not pro-lifers causing this to happen. More abortion clinics could be opened, and the law would not stop that from happening except for zoning laws or somesuch.
So once again, you weren't listening. If you were, you would have known Dagonee did not insist that there hasn't been a compromise because abortions (pardon me, hostage-rescue) can sometimes be difficult to get and consequence-ridden.
Aren't you smarter than that?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote: Puppy, you just exposed the root of the matter, or at least part of it....a lot of the pro-life argument comes from outdated morality, a morality that allowed men to have mistresses but forced women to marry at 16.
A lot of pro-life people have strong religious reasons OTHER than the sancitity of human life that lead them to believe that abortion is wrong. It is not s conicidence that a lot of the same people who complain about abortion are the same people who castigate the sexual revolution.
It's easy to sideline abortion as a "religious issue", and call it's morality flawed. It's also easy to assign motivations to a group of people, and say that because some of them have ulterior motives, their entire case is flawed. The debate should be about the issue itself, IMHO. For example, criminals can help tremendously in the conviction of other criminals, and in doing so, shorten their own sentence. Does that make those convictions any less good for society?
quote:Not all pro-life people have these views, but it has been my personal expreience that most to the people who are pro-life are more interested in what their neighbor is doing behind closed doors than most, more conderned abou who is sleeping with who so to speak.
I'm glad you didn't include everybody, but what point does this make?
quote: Dag, if you really believe abortion is that easy to get, think again. Talk to the DR's here at Hatrack again. Talk to people who have tried to get one and not been able to find a single provider anywhere within their state, despite it being legal.
Abortions are not always easy to get, nor concequence free. I can without a doubt say that they are painful and difficult to get in most locations I have lived, and I lived in some of the single most liberal states in the USA.
That is the decision of the individuals in those states who build and run abortion clinics. It doesn't constitute a legal compromise, because the law is still 100% on your side
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Mental harm is just as problematic as physical harm, in many cases...mental harm can lead to physical harm.
And I don't think anyone thinks that abortion should be legal through the entire pregnancy for any reason whatsoever.
-pH
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
OK...I didn't label anyone a bigot, or a religious fanatic. I did mention that a lot of the "you play, you pay" argument, which HAS been used in this very thread, is based on morality that is rooted in the old sexual stereotypes of the Church.
Also, I have met people on BOTH sides of this argument who seem far less concerned with any life as they are "proving" the other side wrong, or themselves right. Not all, not even most, but there is no one underlying principal that unites "all" of us on any side of this argument. Some people have a purely religious objection, some dislike the cottage industry of abortions they feel has arisen; some don't know what they think for sure, but feel this is to error on the side of caution.
Some think anyone who has an abortion, for any reason, is a murderer.
I was also QUITE clear that not everyone on the pro-life side of the argument is that way, just like everyone on the pro-choice side isn't an uncaring child-murder. Some probably are, but most of us have very real concerns about the right to live ones life as one sees fit, regardless of others religious views and affiliation.
Put your opinion in quotes, italics, or boldface, it doesn't make any more of a difference to me. I completely understand your point of view, even if you refuse to acknowledge ANY sort of validity of mine. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't understand, you know.
It is possible for two reasonable, moral, rational, fairly intelligent people to have widely varying opinions on this. It doesn't mean one of them is a monster, or an idiot.
Your statements label you a close minded bigot, not any post of mine. I can at least admit that I don't know everything, and see the points others make even if I don't agree with them, or place the same amount of value on them.
Also, it IS the decision of individuals to target and harass abortion clinics, forcing providers out of business with death threats and mail bombs. Many, many clinics have been targeted this way on a regular basis, and it just goes to show that a good amount of abortion opponents only care about the law when it is in their favor.
I don't see any pro-choice people running around forcing pro-life people to have involuntary abortions, but I have seen violence done to pregnant women seeking abortions, committed my people who claim to be Christians.
quote: Whether or not many pro-choicers also have beef with the sexual choices of those who get abortions is irrelevant, except when they try and do things like restrict access to sexual education and protections.
It is anything BUT irrelevant, when the SAME "morality" is what leads to the "you play, you pay" argument...in other words, the argument that their real choice should have been to not have sex at all, a point that was made more than once in this very thread. The same people who blockade abortion clinics are the ones who repeat the "play/pay" argument over and over again, and fight a lot of other family planning methods. It is a sly way of expressing disaproval of others lifestyle choices, claiming some sort of moral superiority over them.
Once again, not ALL oppose both, but a significant amount of them do.
quote:Clearly you are not the one who is listening because if you were, you'd have long since realized that the one thing which unites pro-lifers is their concern that true human lives are being exterminated, largely for the sake of convenience.
Thank you for stating precisely what I was talking about. Convenience? That is a widely accepted stance, and shows the precise attitude I am talking about...the thought that YOU have the right to pass judgment on my life, in regards to sexual matters. YOU feel it MUST be mainly for convenience, so it MUST be, right?
Abortion isn't a convenience, nor is it taken lightly by the majority of women I know who have considered it. A lot of this argument is EXACTLY a moral argument, where the sides argue about sexual activity and the possible consequences of it.
It is one side sticking their noses into another persons business, which is why it is a right to privacy issue.
I severely dislike hidden agendas, so I thought I would point out a few. Not that those are the only ones, of that one side has a monopoly on them, but those are the ones I have noticed just in this thread.
Read it again, people. Dag WAS claiming that abortions were easy to get, across the board. That simply isn't true, because even when a woman has a clear legal right to an abortion, her access is quite often blocked by terrorist tactics used by SOME pro-life advocates.
I didn't say he claimed they were on every corner, I just pointed out that it is a lot harder than what was implied.
pH, on the other side of this I HAVE heard some people say ALL abortions should be legal, and do wish them to be at every 7-11. Not many, but it isn't the only time I have heard the suggestion.
(smart ass comment about intelligence deleted in a vain attempt to maintain some sort of civility)
[ May 26, 2006, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea,
quote:OK...I didn't label anyone a bigot, or a religious fanatic.
Then why bring it up at all? Just to point out that the pro-life movement is founded in 'outdated morality'? Don't make me laugh. If I'm in a conversation with someone and out of the blue I told them, "You know, quite a lot of people who think similar to you are idiots...not YOU...just people who think like you," which is essentially what you said, I would not expect them to take me at face value, either.
The 'you play, you pay' argument is secondary, but you spent quite a substantial piece of your post talking about them (not you, pro-lifers here on Hatrack, but those OTHER pro-lifers). Even for the people who really are as spiteful about it as you suggest, 'you play, you pay' argument is not their FIRST reason for opposing abortion. Whatever you may have learned from, you know, reading their minds notwithstanding.
quote:I completely understand your point of view, even if you refuse to acknowledge ANY sort of validity of mine. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't understand, you know.
On the contrary, you don't acknowledge the validity of my argument. I say, "We aren't sure they're true human lives," and your response is either, "According to the law they aren't," or just, "They aren't, so it's none of your business." Ii acknowledge that if you are correct, that fetuses aren't true human lives then there isn't anything immoral about abortion. You choose to ignore the uncertainty about that, however. To brush it aside.
quote:Your statements label you a close minded bigot, not any post of mine. I can at least admit that I don't know everything, and see the points others make even if I don't agree with them, or place the same amount of value on them.
It's interesting that to criticize you is to be equivalent to a closed minded bigot (rather redundant, come to think of it). That must make your moral world very comfortable indeed. I am not bigoted towards pro-choicers at all, certainly not to the extent you are towards pro-lifers since you spend a good deal of time focusing on the most fanatic and backwards of them.
All I've ever asked is for someone to explain to me how we can learn if fetuses are true human lives, or not. Or when. To date, that question has not been answered satisfactorily to me. I wish it could be proven, and that the time was late in pregnancy indeed. That would make things much simpler, and mean that far fewer human deaths had occurred. I would welcome being proven wrong about my uncertainty. I would be grateful.
quote:Also, it IS the decision of individuals to target and harass abortion clinics, forcing providers out of business with death threats and mail bombs. Many, many clinics have been targeted this way on a regular basis, and it just goes to show that a good amount of abortion opponents only care about the law when it is in their favor.
A serious problem, it's true. But the number of abortions going on annually in the USA is quite high. Do you have any actual data on how many abortion clinics would be open were it not for fanatic terrorist activities? Or any speculation besides the pulled-from-posterior variety?
It goes to show that PEOPLE-especially fanatics-only care about the law when it's in their favor. Because you know there ARE fanatics on both sides. We can both agree on THAT, at least. What do fanatics do, generally? Well, they stir up trouble and violence and hatred. Why do you suppose the pro-choice fanatics aren't doing that?
Could it be because the law favors them overwhelmingly in terms of abortion at the present time? I suppose this is back to your unspoken but hinted-at belief that at least the pro-choice fanatics aren't quite as much backwards yokels as the pro-life fanatics.
quote:It is anything BUT irrelevant, when the SAME "morality" is what leads to the "you play, you pay" argument...in other words, the argument that their real choice should have been to not have sex at all, a point that was made more than once in this very thread. The same people who blockade abortion clinics are the ones who repeat the "play/pay" argument over and over again, and fight a lot of other family planning methods. It is a sly way of expressing disaproval of others lifestyle choices, claiming some sort of moral superiority over them.
It was irrelevant to Dagonee's point, which was that there is not a 'compromise' right now. A vast number of legal abortions go on yearly in the USA, pro-life wishes to the contrary. Someone please twist that FACT into something that is a compromise, I look forward to it.
I think if you review this thread, abstinence is one of the OPTIONS frequently mentioned to avoid pregnancy. It is not harped on over and over again as the thing that should have been done. Despite some people in fact believing it.
It's not very sly, such people do believe their morality is superior. As you believe about yours. You've got a beam in your eye on this, buddy. It's abundantly clear from your latest two posts that you think your morality is superior to your opposition's.
quote:Thank you for stating precisely what I was talking about. Convenience? That is a widely accepted stance, and shows the precise attitude I am talking about...the thought that YOU have the right to pass judgment on my life, in regards to sexual matters. YOU feel it MUST be mainly for convenience, so it MUST be, right?
In what way isn't it a matter of convenience for the majority of abortions? 'Convenience' has a connotation of light matters, but it still applies...because if it were a seriously important matter that the couple took seriously, the chances of there being an abortion are vanishingly small.
Or are you going to assert that most abortions aren't done because one or both of the couple 'aren't ready' 'can't afford it' 'haven't lived my life yet' etc. etc. etc. They all boil down to convenience: having a child right now would wreck my life as I know it, and I am unwilling to do that. If it's so important, then why not avoid the potential for killing a true human life and exercise a little self-restraint? I'm not even talking about abstinence!
quote:One side wants it legal throughout pregnancy. It is legal throughout pregnancy now, based on the mere assertion of mental harm through continuing the pregnancy - a limitation that stops zero abortions.
Thank you for stating precisely what I was talking about. Convenience? That is a widely accepted stance, and shows the precise attitude I am talking about...the thought that YOU have the right to pass judgment on my life, in regards to sexual matters. YOU feel it MUST be mainly for convenience, so it MUST be, right?
Abortion isn't a convenience, nor is it taken lightly by the majority of women I know who have considered it. A lot of this argument is EXACTLY a moral argument, where the sides argue about sexual activity and the possible consequences of it.
It is one side sticking their noses into another persons business, which is why it is a right to privacy issue.
I severely dislike hidden agendas, so I thought I would point out a few. Not that those are the only ones, of that one side has a monopoly on them, but those are the ones I have noticed just in this thread.
Read it again, people. Dag WAS claiming that abortions were easy to get, across the board. That simply isn't true, because even when a woman has a clear legal right to an abortion, her access is quite often blocked by terrorist tactics used by SOME pro-life advocates.
I didn't say he claimed they were on every corner, I just pointed out that it is a lot harder than what was implied.
Where, exactly, did he imply it was easy across the board? Which even if it IS difficult in places, STILL does not invalidate his point which you seized on while going on a rant against pro-life bigots.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:(smart ass comment about intelligence deleted in a vain attempt to maintain some sort of civilit)
Are you kidding me with this? A fine example of sarcasm indeed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, if you really believe abortion is that easy to get, think again. Talk to the DR's here at Hatrack again. Talk to people who have tried to get one and not been able to find a single provider anywhere within their state, despite it being legal.
Abortions are not always easy to get, nor concequence free. I can without a doubt say that they are painful and difficult to get in most locations I have lived, and I lived in some of the single most liberal states in the USA.
You are smarter than that.
quote:Read it again, people. Dag WAS claiming that abortions were easy to get, across the board. That simply isn't true, because even when a woman has a clear legal right to an abortion, her access is quite often blocked by terrorist tactics used by SOME pro-life advocates.
I didn't say he claimed they were on every corner, I just pointed out that it is a lot harder than what was implied.
You read it again. You've said this twice. Please quote my language where I said "abortion is easy for anyone to get." Or even where I imply it.
Evidently you think this is so obvious that it warrants your little "You are smarter than that" response. I am smarter than that, and that's why I didn't say any such thing.
The only place you can make a case for it is where I used the phrase "abortion on demand," which was done in the context of a post about the difference between availability and legality as relates to the existence of a compromise. Since my use of the phrase "abortion on demand" is followed by an acknowledgment that those who want it "don't have everything they want," the implication that I intended to say they were available everywhere is weak if it exists at all.
It's certainly not clear enough to maintain your claim that "Dag WAS claiming that abortions were easy to get, across the board."
quote: [A] lot of the "you play, you pay" argument, which HAS been used in this very thread, is based on morality that is rooted in the old sexual stereotypes of the Church.
No, it's rooted in some of the oldest traditions of common law concerning when a person has a private right to kill. Certain situations create a legal justification for deadly force. A person whose actions contribute to the existence of such a situation has legal justification to kill than a person whose actions do not contribute to the danger. The difference can be between total mitigation and murder.
It's a moral principle that's been ingrained in our law for at least 5 centuries.
You keep claiming you understand the other side, but it's clear you don't. You badly misunderstand my post as claiming that abortion is easy to get across the board. Now your reading your little agenda into attempts to remind people of the simple biological fact that sex leads to pregnancy.
There are two principle reason others are bringing "you pay you play." First, because they are attempting to integrate this existing principle, reflected in our laws, into the laws governing abortion. Second, in response to some rather shrill comments about birth control not being 100% effective so what can we do about people who don't want to be pregnant.
In the first instance, it's an integration of moral principle into a proposed law. In the second, it's a response to someone insisting that she be allowed to avoid one of the know consequences of engaging in sex.
quote:I severely dislike hidden agendas, so I thought I would point out a few.
Then perhaps you should stop making other people's hidden agendas up.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sorry Dag,
I read a lot of anger into your post. I still see it. Must just be me, eh?
I only have one answer to your latest: there are different types of compromise. What we have now is the bad kind. The kind where nobody talked it through. Whoever could get the upper hand for a period of time pushed through what they could, while those with less power for a time used "tactics" to get their way.
As a result we have a situation that is neither fish nor fowl.
If you'd rather use a different term than compromise, I'm fine with that. If you were trying to imply that pro-choice people have what they wanted and expected in a country with legal abortion, I'd have to disagree.
Maybe we should just call the current situation a "mess" and leave it at that.
quote: This so-called "maturation" of the debate you advocate is an end of the debate, and for you to present it as otherwise is incredibly disingenuous. Your contention that right now we are in a state of compromise is equally disingenuous. I can't tell at this point if that's intentional or not, but removing the issue that's actually under dispute from consideration is not an advancement of the dialog.
And yet you would consider twinky's compromise???
I think you're proving my point.
I think it's a bad idea for any of the sides in this debate to present themselves as having decided to be intractable. Don't you?
I have spelled out my problem with the "weeks of gestation" method we use now. I didn't say that I anticipate any change in it any time soon. I can't even claim that my take on it is going to give rise to a practical solution. What I do think, however, is that we have indeed framed this debate around some convenient fictions that will not work in the long run. I think that we could do better.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And, of course, my point was merely that they are alive and have human DNA. It's not like you can claim that they are dead, lifeless or inanimate. So, if they are alive, and came from a human, they are part of the human reproductive cycle.
I mean, really, I'm not trying to make a big deal of this, I just don't see the discontinuity of life that would allow anyone to claim that something is NOT alive, and then it is, with respect to human reproduction. Or reproduction of ANY living thing on this planet for that matter.
But, Bob, the whole point is that there *is* a distinct point of discontinuity where an individual begins-- when the gametes combine there is a distinct point at which you have an empirically definable human entity that did not exist prior to that point-- which is *not* merely a part of the the father *or* a part of the mother. Equating the gametes to the zygote is a factually incorrect method of sliding past that discontinuity.
[ May 26, 2006, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Puppy, you just exposed the root of the matter, or at least part of it....a lot of the pro-life argument comes from outdated morality, a morality that allowed men to have mistresses but forced women to marry at 16.
I have never made an argument that descends from this idea. Ever.
Nor have I seen one put forth on hatrack except as a straw man by a pro-choice person.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
On a re-read, Kwea, it is staggering the number of words you are putting into people's mouths. Yes, we *are* smarter than that. Please treat us as such by addressing our real points instead of your nosy neighbors and invented comments supposedly made by Dagonee.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Maybe we should just call the current situation a "mess" and leave it at that.
I think you should have
quote: I have spelled out my problem with the "weeks of gestation" method we use now. I didn't say that I anticipate any change in it any time soon. I can't even claim that my take on it is going to give rise to a practical solution. What I do think, however, is that we have indeed framed this debate around some convenient fictions that will not work in the long run. I think that we could do better.
Bob, I believe Dagonee's point is that there is no "method" we use now. There are arguments about periods of gestation because pro-choice people keep wanting to know when it's a real human being and they want evidence beyond what has been presented. Pro-life people tend to draw the line at conception-- gestational arguments are totally secondary. You are setting up a straw man by saying that pro-life arguments rest on gestation.
Anbd the reason he's angry is you aren't listening to him. You accused him of being snarky, but he's exactly right-- you said there was a "compromise" when what you meant was there is a "mess" -- the law is as one side wants it, but it hasn't brought about what that side wants, which is for any woman, at any time, to be able to walk into a store, put a dime in a slot, and get an abortion. As Dagonee points out, the article which launched this debate is sufficient to show why that's a bad idea. That there are issues with safety and availibility regardless of the law is not remotely like a compromise between the two positions, more like an issue in the implementation of one position.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jim-Me:
My call to view life as continuous was specifically addressed to those of us who are pro-choice. I was recommending a change from the "X weeks of gestation = human" argument that did indeed come from the pro-choice side.
Also, I'll wait for Dag to tell me why (and if) he's angry. Unless you are an alt-persona for him.
Maybe you're angry because I used the wrong word. So, fine...change the word "compromise" to "it's a mess."
I'm not that wedded to the idea of calling it a compromise. Dag tends to focus on stuff that I consider minutia and doesn't tell me what he thinks of my main point. I can deal with it, but it took him several posts to tell me he doesn't like the perspective I posted -- he instead picked on my word choice. And yes, he WAS snarky about it. At least he was snarkier about it than my word choice warranted.
I've said several times here that I'm not trying to put forward a strong position and instead of dialog on that position, I get yelled at for thinking that pro-choice people have any reason to be disatisfied with the current situation.
Ugh.
I'm not that concerned with whether we call the current situation a compromise.
That was A VERY MINOR part of the post.
Dag does this a lot -- picks on small stuff and doesn't answer the bigger point.
I know he's got this thing about precise use of language, but that's just not something I can do much about. I said it wrong. Fine. So now it's corrected to say something else.
I have learned, a bit, to be more precise in my use of language, but I don't have a legal background and sometimes the terms just mean different things to different people. Meh. I sometimes think Dag and I are doomed to go through this every few weeks. Sometimes I think it helps me learn to be more precise.
Most of the time, it's just frustrating.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And yet you would consider twinky's compromise??? I think you're proving my point.
I would not consider twinky's compromise as a final resolution. I consider it to be a compromise between total availability and no availability (and before starLisa jumps in with her accusations again, I'm STILL not talking about banning it when the mother's life or health is in physical danger). I would vote for it right now (assuming I couldn't vote for what I really want), but I would make it clear that I would still work for a more complete ban.
quote:I think it's a bad idea for any of the sides in this debate to present themselves as having decided to be intractable. Don't you? I have spelled out my problem with the "weeks of gestation" method we use now.
I have at least as many problems with the viability cutoff (which is the current legal representation of gestation time) as you do.
As for intractability, some principles are not to be compromised. "Separate but equal" was a compromise which turned out to be untenable. The NAACP brought hundreds of separate but equal lawsuits before attempting to attack the precedent directly, but they never compromised the underlying principle.
I am not intractable as far as discussing what policies will be implemented. I am basically intractable at this point (after 22 years of deep thought and consideration on the subject) with regard to what policies I consider just and moral.
quote: I didn't say that I anticipate any change in it any time soon. I can't even claim that my take on it is going to give rise to a practical solution. What I do think, however, is that we have indeed framed this debate around some convenient fictions that will not work in the long run. I think that we could do better.
Yet the alternative you propose simply declares the central issue to not be part of the debate. That's not better.
quote:the law is as one side wants it, but it hasn't brought about what that side wants, which is for any woman, at any time, to be able to walk into a store, put a dime in a slot, and get an abortion.
To be fair, very few people actually want this. Which is another reason I don't consider the current state of things a compromise at all - the current legal situation is more permissive than many pro-choice people want.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks Dag,
That made a lot of sense.
And while I too would vote for something like twinky's compromise, I would work very hard to stop it from going any further toward an outright ban.
And I would work hard for a sensible mental health exception.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag tends to focus on stuff that I consider minutia and doesn't tell me what he thinks of my main point.
It's not a small thing. It's a huge thing - the starting point. If someone honestly thinks that the current legal resolution represents a compromise, then there are basic differences that must be resolved before any further productive discussion can occur. Especially when the further discussion would involve discussing a major transformation of the debate - a "maturation" even.
quote:Dag does this a lot -- picks on small stuff and doesn't answer the bigger point.
It's pointless to discuss whether a new proposed framework for discussion is more mature than the current framework if the two participants don't agree on what the current framework is.
quote:I know he's got this thing about precise use of language, but that's just not something I can do much about.
It's not about precision, as your first response to my question shows. Nor did you consider it a minute point yesterday. You felt the point so important and seemingly so obvious that you commented on my perspective when I asked a question based on my understanding of the word.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Dagonee,
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Please quote my language where I said "abortion is easy for anyone to get." Or even where I imply it.
I've only skimmed this page of the thread, but on the last page, I did take this:
quote:As of now, a woman can have an abortion up until the moment of birth in all 50 states merely by asserting that it having the child will harm her mental health.
To imply that abortions are easily (if not readily) obtainable. I think it's your use of the word "merely" that makes it parse that way for me. I don't know if that was your intention -- from what you've said on this page, what I've read of it, it doesn't seem that way. I'm just letting you know how I read it.
I think this part of the debate, at least, comes back to something Jim-Me said much earlier on -- the "safe, legal, and rare" thing. He's right in that at the moment, of those three, in the U.S. it's only legal, not safe or rare. I think it's the "unsafe" part, combined with inconsistent availability, that is leading Bob to say that the pro-choice camp is not having its way in a manner as unfettered as you're arguing. I do agree that in the U.S., pro-choice advocates have at least some (if not most) of what they want, while pro-life advocates have essentially none of what they want.
------------------
Jim,
To address your point from the previous page, I think I misled you with poor choice of phrasing.
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: I think one of the strongest arguments for the pro-life side is that it *is* erring on the side of caution. So refusing to accept erring on the side of caution because it will lead to adopting the pro-life stance seems funny to me.
I may have misused "the pro-life argument" in the post you're referencing; I meant it to be loosely synonymous with the belief that human life of the sort entitled to legal protections begins at conception. I do think that "erring on the side of caution" would foster that belief, and I'm not certain that I would like to see that occur.
------------------
Bob,
Dagonee never said he would consider my compromise, he just said that it would be a compromise.
------------------
To that point, Rakeesh, Jim-Me, Dagonee, Toad, I have a question: To what extent would you accept a compromise along the lines of what I proposed about a page ago? I'll try to give it a bit more detail.
(1) Morning-after pills would be readily available. Parental permission or knowledge would not be required. (I'd be inclined to have it stocked "behind the counter," so to speak, but only if availability could be guaranteed.)
(2) Other very early-term abortive techniques would be available with the consent of parents, two physicians (one of whom being the physician doing the abortion), and one licensed mental health professional. (My knowledge of abortive techniques at this developmental stage is limited. Where exactly the line gets drawn here is the fuzzy part of the equation, of course, as CT has said far more eloquently than I ever could. Loosely, I would say foetal "awareness" would be where I think the line should be drawn -- similarly, I felt strongly that Michael Schiavo did the right thing. Doctors and lawyers from both "sides" of the debate would have to determine where to draw the legal line, somehow.)
(3) Mid-term and late-term abortions would be illegal, but would not be considered homicide; they would receive their own special criminal category separate from homicide. ("Murder" is a loaded word and I don't much like the notion of millions of women trying to come to grips with the thought that the law thinks they "murdered their babies." The social fallout from illegalized mid-to-late-term abortion -- Puppy's "heroin addict" -- would be widespread enough without adding homicide to the mix.)
Is that a workable starting point for an compromise that could see the light of day?
Added: Er, I guess I spent too long fleshing this post out. Ignore the bits at the beginning that are no longer relevant. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'd get behind twinky's proposal, which is, as far as I can tell:
1) Ready availability of the morning after pill; 2) Accessible early-term abortions 3) Mid-term to late-term abortions banned.
It's a compromise.
Religiously, I'm NOT kosher with it. Religiously, IMO, there's no difference between willfully destroying a spirit that's been in existence for 9 seconds and one that's been in existence for 9 months.
But it's an encouraging start.
EDIT: Twinky and I posted at the same time.
Twinky, I don't know that I'd feel comfortable prosecuting women/doctors that performed abortions. I think, for doctors, they should be disbarred (if there is such a thing), but jail time, or fines? I don't know...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Jim-Me:
My call to view life as continuous was specifically addressed to those of us who are pro-choice. I was recommending a change from the "X weeks of gestation = human" argument that did indeed come from the pro-choice side.
Which is why the first time I responded to it (which was before irregardless) I just said it was a technical point. It just became of point of contention later and I was trying to clarify it.
quote:Also, I'll wait for Dag to tell me why (and if) he's angry. Unless you are an alt-persona for him.
That's certainly the correct thing to do. I thought it would be obvious that I was offering my opinion.
quote:Maybe you're angry because I used the wrong word. So, fine...change the word "compromise" to "it's a mess."
Oh, I'm not angry. You only need to look at the front page of thei thread to see how my posting style turns when I'm angry. We're cool, I think?
quote:I've said several times here that I'm not trying to put forward a strong position and instead of dialog on that position, I get yelled at for thinking that pro-choice people have any reason to be disatisfied with the current situation.
I'll let Dagonee address this (and the rest), in deference to your earlier comments Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:
quote:the law is as one side wants it, but it hasn't brought about what that side wants, which is for any woman, at any time, to be able to walk into a store, put a dime in a slot, and get an abortion.
To be fair, very few people actually want this. Which is another reason I don't consider the current state of things a compromise at all - the current legal situation is more permissive than many pro-choice people want.
Agreed. I think it'd be an unecessary tangent at this point to try explaining what I meant by that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I get yelled at for thinking that pro-choice people have any reason to be disatisfied with the current situation.
BTW, this is why "precision" becomes important. I never said that "pro-choice people [don't] have any reason to be disatisfied with the current situation" and, in fact, explicitly acknowledged in my second post on the subject that they don't have everything they want.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
My question before endorsing twinky's compromise is about where early term ends and mid term begins. I would want to be sure that people would have plenty of time to know they're pregnant. . . I have a highly variable cycle, for example, and it's not unusualy for me to menstruate every 3 weeks, and it's not unusual for it to be 6 weeks. For a person with a longer cycle who didn't have morning sicknes, I think it's reasonable that they wouldn't realize they had a birth control failure until they were 6 - 8 weeks pregnant. As long as the law is such that that person would still have time to review their options and make a decision, then I would vote for it. And, of course, work very hard to stop it from going any further, and to make sure that legal abortions are safely and widely available, preferably in hospitals instead of stand-alone clinics, both because of quality of care issues and because it would be harder to harass women on their way in.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Twinky, I don't know that I'd feel comfortable prosecuting women/doctors that performed abortions. I think, for doctors, they should be disbarred (if there is such a thing), but jail time, or fines? I don't know...
I'm not sure either, but if it's going to be banned, there has to be some kind of consequence for the physician. I'm [even less sure] about the woman (or couple).
Added: On reviewing my proposal, there's one fairly obvious thing that I would like to add to it, which is comprehensive, universal sex education. Preferably with no opting out. Watching farm animals get it on would be optional. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I do agree that in the U.S., pro-choice advocates have at least some (if not most) of what they want, while pro-life advocates have essentially none of what they want.
I wish one of us had said that sooner, because I think it's a statement of the present situation we can all agree on. Good on ya'.
To your question, I would definitely prefer your compromise to what we have now (with the, I think, obvious additions that late-term abortions to protect the mother should be allowable and that RU486 should require a prescription). A key point, however, is the need for parental involvement to have medical procedures performed. To me, personally, that is a huge issue. Edit to add: I also like the physician concurrance and especially the involvement of an LPC.
I would not, however, be satisfied enough to stop trying to move things further towards the pro-life side.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Eljay, I assumed that the word 'term' was synonymous with 'trimester.'
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Puppy, you just exposed the root of the matter, or at least part of it....a lot of the pro-life argument comes from outdated morality, a morality that allowed men to have mistresses but forced women to marry at 16.
I have never made an argument that descends from this idea. Ever.
Nor have I seen one put forth on hatrack except as a straw man by a pro-choice person.
I never said you had, Jim. I could post a comments or three here in this very thread that refer to it thhough, even if they don't spell it out. And those type of comments are regular, not rare as claimed. I could pull dozens of similar comments from multiple abortion discussiona here at Hatrack.
Dag, I did think you were smart enough to know abortions weree not candy, offered at every drugstore. That was why I was confused as to what you meant.
You do like precise language, and whether you meant to or not your posts came across as implying abortion was easy as pie to get, pretty much everywhere, for any reason. If that wasn't your intention, I am sorry, but I went back and reread those posts and it still reads that way to me.
I should have done what I said, stayed out of this thread. It was late, and I came across far more snarky than I intended. I don't recant what I said, but I wish I had been able to phrase it better, I guess.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am not putting words into anyones elses mouth at all. Dag, if that isn't what you were implying then you weren't very clear at all. I think the word "merely" refers to that quite evedently.
I do thin that a lot of the foundation of the pro-life stance is based on a need to dictate codes of behavior regarding sexuality. It isn't a secondary issue all the time, and it was mentioned, or refered to obliquly, in this thread more than once. I strongly idsagree with this idea, even though in my own life I have followed most of those ideas quite closly.
My actual view of abortion, from a personal viewpoint, is actualy quite close to what most pro-life people believe.
But that doesn't mean I feel I have any right to forcfully remove options, no matter how distasteful, from other people. It would interfere with their lives far too much, and isn't my place.
Abortion is a life chnaging, mindbending, alteration, and to label it a "mere convience" (yes I know I an conbigning the two arguments there) is exactaly the attitude I am talking about...the attitude that someone else has the right to lebel your decisions and force a course of action upon you.
I went through pains to say multiple times that not all people on either side of this issue knowingly hold these views, and most people are not extremeists. OTHER people said I had called them names, or labeled them, so I was not the first person to place words in someones mouth.
And I had originaly posted something quite rude and inflammatory at the end of that post...I removed it because it wasn't nice, and didn't have any point other than to express my frustration. I left the comment I did because I hate it when someone edits their post and leaves no trace of it, particularily when they were in the worng saying something. It makes anyone who comments on it after the post look like an idiot.
It wasn't sarcasm...sarcasm is what I removed because it was counterpoductive and rude.
I should have left it in, I would fit in better. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Scott, and ElJay: As I noted, the medical and legal location of the "line" would have to be determined by doctors and lawyers. My guess is that it would loosely correspond with trimesters, but that's just a layman's speculation. I left that one intentionally fuzzy, in CT's terms, because I'm not a doctor, lawyer, or, most importantly, a woman.
Jim, prescription RU486 makes sense to me (at least offhand) given the approximately 1 in 200,000 fatality rate from its abortive use. I also agree with you about parental knowledge of medical procedures, at least in this case. I do think it's very important to my proposal that Plan B not require a prescription, a physician's consent, or parental consent, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am not putting words into anyones elses mouth at all. Dag, if that isn't what you were implying then you weren't very clear at all. I think the word "merely" refers to that quite evedently.
"Merely" was referring to the legal justification needed. Nothing more. Before telling the "people" to read what I wrote, make sure you read the whole context. Especially when the follow up post made this explicit: "It is legal throughout pregnancy now, based on the mere assertion of mental harm through continuing the pregnancy."
You had access to that post when you told "people" to read what I wrote. I commend to you your own advice.
quote:But that doesn't mean I feel I have any right to forcfully remove options, no matter how distasteful, from other people. It would interfere with their lives far too much, and isn't my place.
You do feel you have the right to forcefully remove "options" from other people. For example, you strongly feel that the law should forcefully remove a bar patron's option to lift your pool cue. You just happen to think that abortion is one of the options you don't have the right to remove. What separates the two situations for you are your conceptions of the rights of the victim in each case.
Twinky, I need time to gather my thoughts on your compromise, although you already have my basic position on it from my reply to Bob.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I know you specified it. I'm just saying that if the doctors and lawyers came up with the wrong answer (read: not mine) for that particular location than I would not support this plan. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Plan B not require a prescription, a physician's consent, or parental consent, though.
Ok... I have a feeling I'm gonna look awfully stupid here, but what was "Plan B" again?
Edit: yes, I am stupid. sorry about that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The morning after pill.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The "morning-after" pill. I think that for my compromise to work it has to be readily available, preferably for free, with no questions asked. Here's a Wikipedia link with some general information.
Added: D'oh, brevity wins.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Sorry for brain death. May I ask why you feel it's essential to avoid a prescription?
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
If we are to draft a system that allow early abortions I think it is necessary to draw the line so as the ensure that a) the woman has a reasonable window in which to discover she is pregnant and b) a reasonable time during which to come to a decision, discuss it with all concerned parties (be it partner, parents and/or councellor) and schedule an appointment. How about eight weeks for a) given the concerns about irregular periods, etc., that ElJay pointed out above plus an additional two weeks for b)?
Ten weeks total?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Sorry for brain death. May I ask why you feel it's essential to avoid a prescription?
It's pretty difficult to get a prescription for something without going to the emergency room on weekends. And Planned Parenthood is closed. And doctors are expensive anyway, if you don't have health insurance.
-pH
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I think that for my compromise to work it has to be readily available, preferably for free
Who's going to pay for it? If you tax pro-life people to fund what they regard as murder, that's not much of a compromise. Maybe pro-choice people could form a charitable fund to make this available.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Who's going to pay for the increased need for social services for all those unwanted babies, Irregardless?
While you're right on the surface-- I don't want my tax money being used for abortions of any type-- some compromise is necessary. I *think* I could stomach paying for these services IF Twinky's plan of outlawing mid to late term abortions were implemented.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Hmmm... how about "Plan B pills readily and freely availible at rape crisis centers, college health clinics, and anywhere or way you could get conventional birth control pills." I know that's not what you guys are looking for but something about this bothers me regarding the drug aspect of this. The use of the pill itself, as I understand it, is effectively "insta-IUD", correct?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well law-abiding pacifists still pay taxes for the military, and some of my money goes to fund art that I probably think is a waste, and still more goes to pet projects like building a multi-million dollar bridge to a remote town in Alaska, so I don't particularly find that argument convincing, Irregardless.
-Bok
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Hmmm... how about "Plan B pills readily and freely availible at rape crisis centers, college health clinics, and anywhere or way you could get conventional birth control pills." I know that's not what you guys are looking for but something about this bothers me regarding the drug aspect of this. The use of the pill itself, as I understand it, is effectively "insta-IUD", correct?
None of which are open on weekends, and Plan B is more effective the closer it's taken to unprotected sex.
It's my understanding that Plan B primarily prevents ovulation, but if ovulation and and fertilization do occur, it may prevent implantation.
quote: Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.
-pH
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Well law-abiding pacifists still pay taxes for the military
Well, that's kind of the point. I doubt those pacifists regard it as a good 'compromise.'
quote:and some of my money goes to fund art that I probably think is a waste, and still more goes to pet projects like building a multi-million dollar bridge to a remote town in Alaska, so I don't particularly find that argument convincing, Irregardless.
I fail to see how the existence of certain abuses justifies the imposition of additional ones.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
pH basically gave my reasons, Jim. Plan B and other such drugs have a 72-hour window during which it may not be possible to get a prescription.
Irregardless, I have to say that I'm not particularly concerned about who pays, provided the availability is there. If it can't be non-pay because of your country's health care system, make the cost as low as possible. Added: it's also worth noting that Plan B's main mechanisms (preventing ovulation and fertilization) aren't "murder" even by the strictest pro-life definition. It might prevent implantation, which would fall under such a definition.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Some do, some don't. Honestly, those that don't are likely the types for whom no compromise is possible. In which case they are truly dividers of our national society, not uniters (or makers, if you prefer). I sympathize with the position many pro-lifers feel themselves to be in (the analogy to "separate but equal"), btw, but this issue is not black-and-white to many people, and that needs to be traken into account when a solution is devised, even if you disagree with that view.
-Bok
EDIT: Also, your argument leaves us in the relatively absurd (though not unsupported by some) position of leaving the government completely toothless, since it would be not be able to fund most things (I'm thinking, in particular, the highway systems... How many non-eastern MA residents would have funded the Big Dig if they could have helped it?).
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Added: it's also worth noting that Plan B's main mechanisms (preventing ovulation and fertilization) aren't "murder" even by the strictest pro-life definition. It might prevent implantation, which would fall under such a definition.
Noted. They're the same mechanisms as with standard birth control pills, but surely ovulation is quite a bit more likely to have already occurred with 'plan B.'
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Added: it's also worth noting that Plan B's main mechanisms (preventing ovulation and fertilization) aren't "murder" even by the strictest pro-life definition. It might prevent implantation, which would fall under such a definition.
Noted. They're the same mechanisms as with standard birth control pills, but surely ovulation is quite a bit more likely to have already occurred with 'plan B.'
Well, it's my understanding that the actual window of fertility is relatively small, but I'm not sure.
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The thing is, without Plan B being easily and free or cheaply available, what's in this compromise for pro-choice advocates? Like Dagonee said, abortion is legal now. I'm will to restrict that legality somewhat, by giving up mid and late term abortions. But not if everything else is going to stay the same. In order for it to be a compromise, the other side has to give a little, too.
My preference would be for that compromise to include increased sex ed and easy and cheap or free birth control as well as easy and cheap or free Plan B. I would much prefer people were using birth control than Plan B. Easier on your body, less stress, and less likelyhood of screwing it up. But for people who are using condoms as their primary method and the condom breaks, they need to be able to get Plan B on weekends and after hours.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
by "rape crisis center" I meant "place where rape victims can go in the immediate wake of a rape." I certainly hope they are open 24-7, even if it's only in the emergency room of the local hospital.
I understand the concept of the 72 hour window... I just wonder that we can't expect people to be conscious of the consequences of their decision till after they've made it? Again, my issue here is more of making a heretofore prescription drug completely availible. I don't know that progestin is any more dangerous than ibuprofen, but it *is* currently a prescription drug in the United States and asking someone to take a really bare modicum of caution with respect to sexual involvement seems like a better solution than changing a prescription drug into a non-prescription one.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My old drama coach used to get tons of Plan B prescriptions from her doctor (even though she was post-menopausal) and keep them at her house so that if any of her students or her daughter or her daughter's friends ever needed it, they could get it with no questions asked. Or maybe she didn't keep it at her house, but anyway, she would make sure girls got it if they needed it.
There is no point to that story. I just thought it was a good deed.
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: My preference would be for that compromise to include increased sex ed and easy and cheap or free birth control as well as easy and cheap or free Plan B. I would much prefer people were using birth control than Plan B. Easier on your body, less stress, and less likelyhood of screwing it up. But for people who are using condoms as their primary method and the condom breaks, they need to be able to get Plan B on weekends and after hours.
These probably have something to do with the prescription requirement for plan B.
What's the shelf life of plan B? I just don't see why it's so difficult to have one sitting in reserve in case the condom breaks or you get a little impetuous.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
" I just wonder that we can't expect people to be conscious of the consequences of their decision till after they've made it? "
If we could expect that, we wouldn't be having this debate at all, because there would be no unplanned pregnancies. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: " I just wonder that we can't expect people to be conscious of the consequences of their decision till after they've made it? "
If we could expect that, we wouldn't be having this debate at all, because there would be no unplanned pregnancies.
...which implies that people wouldn't have sex.
-pH
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I'm coming at this a bit late, but Kwea:
quote:Puppy, you just exposed the root of the matter, or at least part of it....a lot of the pro-life argument comes from outdated morality, a morality that allowed men to have mistresses but forced women to marry at 16.
I think you're making a leap that I didn't make. What in the world does my last post have to do with an "outdated morality", "men having mistresses", and "women forced to marry at 16"?
Do you mean to say that drawing a distinction between an unplanned pregnancy that is nevertheless the result of an intentional action by the pregnant person, versus a pregnancy that is entirely forced upon the pregnant person against their will, with no volition of theirs going into it ... is "outdated"?
Can you explain the new, hip, cool modern morality in which personal choice and volition are universally irrelevant to responsibility? And how this is preferable and advances society?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Added: it's also worth noting that Plan B's main mechanisms (preventing ovulation and fertilization) aren't "murder" even by the strictest pro-life definition. It might prevent implantation, which would fall under such a definition.
Of course, it's also worth noting that that the one birth control measure approved by the Catholic church, the rhythm method, appears to kill a fair number of embryos as well.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, you misread my intent, ElJay, rather generously, actually, for which I thank you.
What I'm saying is that at some point, the individual is going to have to take some responsibility. I don't think I have an issue with making the pill readily availible or even subsidizing it. I think using national law to make something non-prescription merely to allow weekend accessibility for the sexually active people who can't be bothered enough to keep one handy "just in case the condom breaks" is going too far to be accomodating.
I want to make it clear that this isn't a moral objection at all, just a "when did this become our responsibility?" one.
If the FDA, through its research and decision making were to make Plan B an OTC medication, and I would presume ordinary birth control pills as well, I'd drop this whole line.
But they aren't and I don't see *this* reason as sufficient justification to reverse their decision. I say this, again, completely ignorant of their justification for making it prescription-only to begin with.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Noemon,
There's some pretty vague language there, involving two steps of logic:
quote:As many as 50% of conceptions may not survive long enough even to disrupt menstruation, Bovens says. It is reasonable to assume then, he adds, that embryos created from sperm that has been sitting for days within the female's reproductive tract before ovulation may be disadvantaged.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume at all, in terms of the ability to implant (obviously they are disadvantaged in their ability to acheive conception). Not to mention that I thought sperm only survived for a few days, period?
and the article identifies the gentleman as a "philsopher" from a school of economics-- hardly, it seems, a subject matter expert on biology.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If the FDA, through its research and decision making were to make Plan B an OTC medication, and I would presume ordinary birth control pills as well, I'd drop this whole line.
The science review committee at FDA approved Plan B for OTC to over 16 by something like 23-3. There were no dissenters on the question of whether it was safe enough.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Jim, the link I posted earlier outlines some of that stuff. My recollection is that there was a lot of debate about making Plan B available over-the-counter because of the possibility that it might chemically induce an abortion if fertilization has already occurred.
My reasoning is simply this: it needs to be readily available for those "Oh s*%#" moments, which I think we can all agree will happen regardless of how responsible sex education can or can't make people.
Added: Geez, beaten by Dag again. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
If what Dagonee said is correct I completely withdraw my objection. The minimal research I did on this pill led me to believe it was prescription only.
So, color me better educated and let them sell it OTC at Wal Mart next to the condoms. I think we're cool there.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
So far Jim and Dagonee have said that they would support something along the lines of my compromise proposal in the absence of alternatives closer to their position(s), and continue to work toward those positions; Scott said that he would support it with the knowledge that it doesn't completely suit him but that it is at least better than what you have in the U.S. now.
That's something, at least. It shows that we can talk about this without acrimony, a lesson I've been trying to teach myself without success for some time. Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
I'm with Jim-Me on this. I think if Plan B is too easily available or free, some people won't even use birth control at all since they have a fall back. (I realize that the purpose of sex education is to deter this. I know that eating too much sugar isn't good for me but sometimes I just have to have that cookie.)
I think there has to be a bit of accountability here because it's the ones who would not use birth conrtol that would ruin the "compromise" of Plan B for those who would use it properly.
edit: Took too long to post Dag kind of covered this point but I still think that the abuse of Plan B is a little bit of an issue that needs consideration.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
JimMe, if you don't live in a city or at least a large town chances are you don't have a rape crisis center. In the last town I lived the closest hospital with an emergency room was 4 towns away. (Although, honestly, I'm not sure where you could go to have access closer than that. The options in town would be the grain elevator or the gas station.)
(And I'm way too late. Carry on.)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by sweetbaboo: I think there has to be a bit of accountability here because it's the ones who would not use birth conrtol that would ruin the "compromise" of Plan B for those who would use it properly.
This is why I would keep it behind the counter provided availability could be ensured. I'm hoping that that would deter usage as a replacement for birth control (since it would only be of questionable effectiveness anyway, hence the name "Plan B"). Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
I do thin that a lot of the foundation of the pro-life stance is based on a need to dictate codes of behavior regarding sexuality.
Holy cow, how many times does this need to be said. It's not about regulating sex! If a guy or girl wants to get it on with a different partner every night I don't think it's the business of the law. I don't care what they do in the bedroom either, as long as it's consensual. I feel it's their business.
From all the pro-lifers I've interacted with in RL (most of them close minded religious bigots I think the phrase has been) I found that they don't care either. It's when a third, dependent helpless life is introduced to the situation and then killed that they feel the law should be involved.
I am very much in favor of wide availability of birth control, sex ed, etc. Personally, I don't want people having kids they don't want. I think it does the children a great disservice to have a single, deadbeat parent. I just think the time to do it is before the pregnancy occurs, not after. Most of us are able to operate automobiles, run personal computers, play complex video games and sports, yet people can't figure out how to use a condom? Give me a break.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
BQT, how do you feel about my compromise proposal on page 7?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by sweetbaboo: I'm with Jim-Me on this. I think if Plan B is too easily available or free, some people won't even use birth control at all since they have a fall back.
I don't think you understand how Plan B works. When you take it, you have your period. Now. No one is going to decide that taking a pill that causes menstration to start is acceptable to do after every time you have sex, instead of using normal birth control. You can't wait until after you know you're pregnant to have it, it has to be taken within 72 hours.
--
Jim-Me, I believe the reason normal birth control requires a prescription isn't because of any danger involved in taking it. . . it's a bit of social engineering. If a woman is sexually active, she should be getting a yearly pap smear and exam. If she can't get her pills without getting the exam, it makes sure she goes to the doctor. I know a lot less men who have annual check-ups than women. . . because they don't need to get that piece of paper for their refills.
--
My other concern about this compromise is that part of the reason I'd be willing to do it is to put an end to the abortion debate in this country. I think it takes up way too much of our national attention, and finding a compromise would allow us to focus on other issues. If a large chunk of pro-lifers are going to support it as better than we have now but will then continue to work for a full ban, well, it takes away a good deal of my motivation to compromise.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
twinky,
It falls someone short of what I would want, but I guess that's what a compromise is, right I like it. I could go for it. I would have no qualms about my tax money going to fund birth control & sex education- IMO if you don't pay up now, the social cost down the road simply escalates.
Part of my objection to abortion is religious, and part of it is personal. I don't know when a fetus achieves personhood. I somewhat doubt it's on conception or implantation, but it's possible. So the futher it can be pushed back, the better to me. I see this as an acceptable compromise- but I hope it wouldn't stop the dialog (although at the same time I hope it stops bleeding national energy dry). I hope that we will come to the point as humanity that we understand when it is the fetus is a person.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I am very much in favor of wide availability of birth control, sex ed, etc. Personally, I don't want people having kids they don't want. I think it does the children a great disservice to have a single, deadbeat parent
Indeed. Someone at my workplace has a bumper sticker that says something to the effect of 'If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?' Aside from the euphemistic use of the word "choice", it's a bad premise anyway. I *don't* trust abortion-inclined people to properly take care of a child. They lack the moral character and/or critical thinking to do the job right, IMO. But being a crappy parent is not justification for infanticide.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Twinky, I read your compromise on page 7 and while it falls far short of what I myself would want, I'd take it over what we have now. What you need to understand about many of us pro-lifers is we believe that a child is being killed during abortion, so ANY action that would reduce the number of abortions is something that we're going to be happy about - even if it doesn't give us everything we want. I cheer every limitation passed - parental notification, late term restrictions, etc. because even if they don't do what I really want, they do move toward reducing the number of abortions. I cheered when this clinic was shut down. Sure, there are other places women can get abortions done but it will certainly make it harder and more inconvenient and maybe one woman, just one, will re-think her position because of that delay and decide instead to carry her baby to term. If it saves one child, it's worth it.
In my code of morality teens having sex outside marriage is wrong, but I don't think that they shouldn't be taught about birth control methods because if they do choose a path I disagree with, I'd want them as safe as possible - I'd want them using condoms to protect themselves from STD's and also from pregnancy.
While my teenager has been lectured about the consequences of sexual activity and told a million times it's best to wait until after marriage I also gave her a thorough discussion about how her body works and how people get pregnant and what STD's are. I don't hide my head in the sand and pretend people don't have premarital sex.
I think the portrayal of pro-lifers as people who just want to shove outdated morality down other's throats as Kwea said is a bit unfair. Sure there are some religious people who think if they never talk about sex their kids won't have it, but in my experience they're the minority. Most of us want to protect our children from the consequences of premarital sex, and care about the life of the unborn and want to see it protected. That's all - we aren't trying to police the sex lives of everyone. I can't control what you do in your bedroom and quite frankly I don't even want to know what you do. I like to keep my sex life private and think everyone else should too. It's when an innocent third party, the baby, gets involved that I start caring.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
The pro-lifers are not trying to regulate sex. What the pro-life people absolutely recognize is that pregnancy cannot happen by accident. There is no way that a woman can "Catch" pregnancy. Pro-life people are all, actually, pro-choice.
We just believe the choice is made when a woman decides to have sex.
This doesn't mean we want to make that choice for her.
In fact, I have long advocated that if the world really wanted to be pro-choice and make sure a woman had nothing growin in her she didn't want there, we would toughen up the rape laws. I strongly believe rapists should receive the death penalty. When I mention this to anyone, though, I'm usually answered with a bizzare defense of the rights of the guilty rapist, and dismissal of the rights of the innocent fetus, an incredibly hypocritical stance.
So it's not about controlling the sexual activity of any one. The choice is still theirs. We're simply asking that they recognize the responsibility that comes from the real choice they already made. That's the adult way to handle it.
Instead, it's the pro-choicers who want to separate sex and responsibility, who want to see this as adolesents and magically separate action from consequence. It's pro-choicers who are trying to manipulate the way pregnancy is perceived in a way that makes their view of sexuality more acceptable.
So when pro-"late"-choicers are after a way to have sex without consequences, it can feel like other people are trying to stop you from having sex. We don't care about the sex. Screw around. Get all the STDs you want. Or don't. That's entirely up to you.
But the second another life is created--because that really is what you're "choosing" here, to experiment with the power to create human life--then we get involved, and ask that you respect what you've created.
If it wasn't your choice, that is different. But since rape and incent currently only accounts for less than half a percent of the abortions taking place in this country, that's not really what this discussion is about.
I realize that my language is not as concilliatory as this thread has been so far. I try to stay out of the abortion topics for that reason. I know I can't talk about this in a way that persuades anybody, and anybody who agrees with me doesn't need to read what I have to say.
But the logical leap that it takes to assert that being against abortion is tantamount to shoving babies into women's wombs is unbelievable to me.
This isn't really about babies going without. The infant adoption rates in this country are 100%. There are waiting lists for infants to go to good, caring families.
This isn't about rape or incest. I already gave that statitic.
This isn't about telling people when they can or can't have sex.
This isn't even about embryos dying. That happens as part of life. Miscarriages happen as part of life.
It's about a fundamental attitude towards life, that ultimately respects having brought it into existance, accepts responsibility for it, and considers it valuable enough that it will be treated with the same care and respect it should after it leaves the womb in which it was created.
So I ask to the pro-choicers:
What can we offer you? What could we, as a society, offer to the women who have become pregant in a situation where they do not want to keep the baby, that will help "ease" the burdern we know you are under?
Can we, as a society, offer to more fully cover your health care expenses? Faster adoption services? More involved adoption services, so you can be confident the child is in a good home? Counseling centers?
Could we create a system where adoptive couples would help support the mother until her child was brought to term?
What can we offer you?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
doc, great post, but seriously:
quote:But the second another life is created--because that really is what you're "choosing" here, to experiment with the power to create human life--then we get involved, and ask that you respect what you've created.
This is what it will always come back to. Until one side of the issue accepts the other side's view of whether a fetus is a human life or not, your reasoning is pointless.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We're simply asking that they recognize the responsibility that comes from the real choice they already made. That's the adult way to handle it.
I suspect that many pro-choicers would argue that children are not an inherent consequence of choosing to have sex, in the same way that getting fat is not an inherent consequence of overeating. While one leads to the other, and indeed one is almost -- but not entirely contingent -- on the other, it's possible to eat too much pizza while still remaining thin, either through increased exercise, a wise choice of pizza, etc.
The idea that pregancy is a required consequence of sex, so that the decision to have sex can be equated to the decision to become pregnant, is unique to the pro-life movement.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Tom, I nobody said it was required.
To use your pizza analogy, we're just saying that if the person does become overweight, they can't argue that it was solely because of a lack of access to liposuction.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: My other concern about this compromise is that part of the reason I'd be willing to do it is to put an end to the abortion debate in this country. I think it takes up way too much of our national attention, and finding a compromise would allow us to focus on other issues. If a large chunk of pro-lifers are going to support it as better than we have now but will then continue to work for a full ban, well, it takes away a good deal of my motivation to compromise.
I have a great deal of faith in the ability of the Great Wide Middle to set debates aside (not necessarily forever, but at least put them on the back burner) once a compromise solution is reached. That has definitely been the way things work on my side of the Canada-U.S. border, anyway; I'm not sure to what extent that extends south.
That's why I said I think that whatever side puts forward a compromise that a broad base of people can at least stomach will ultimately "win" the debate in the U.S.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: What you need to understand about many of us pro-lifers is we believe that a child is being killed during abortion, so ANY action that would reduce the number of abortions is something that we're going to be happy about - even if it doesn't give us everything we want.
I do understand that, which is why I see the enormous difficulty inherent in trying to work out a lasting compromise. A compromise that allows any abortion at all -- possibly even a compromise that allows Plan B, because it might prevent implantation -- will inevitably be unacceptable to pro-life supporters who won't abide any abortions at all (leaving aside special case exemptions like averting death of the pregnant woman). My thinking is that people like Scott will be able to support a compromise along the lines I proposed because it's much better, from the pro-life perspective (insofar as there is only one) than what you have in the U.S. now. You, Jim, Dagonee, and BQT have said things along the lines of "I'd take it over what we have now," which is essentially what I was aiming for with the compromise proposal.
Irregardless, I know you qualified your statement with "IMO," but the suggestion that any person who would be willing to have an abortion is inherently a bad parent is... well, let me put it this way: I think my parents were excellent parents. My failings (and I'm sure you would have a different take on what those are than I do) are my own. I don't think casting aspersions on their character is at all useful to the discussion at hand.
doc, eros, Tom, would you accept the proposal I outlined?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My other concern about this compromise is that part of the reason I'd be willing to do it is to put an end to the abortion debate in this country. I think it takes up way too much of our national attention, and finding a compromise would allow us to focus on other issues. If a large chunk of pro-lifers are going to support it as better than we have now but will then continue to work for a full ban, well, it takes away a good deal of my motivation to compromise.
This is why I don't think such a compromise would occur. I'd be upfront about my intention of seeking further restrictions (both because I'd have to be upfront to be able to look at myself in the mirror and because I wouldn't want future attempts to be used to discredit my honesty), and I'd take rhetorical advantage of the ratchet effect to keep the restrictions from being loosened later. Pro-choice advocates aren't stupid and recognize that phenomenon.
So while it sounds nice, I'd be skeptical of it being agreed to.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I have a great deal of faith in the ability of the Great Wide Middle to set debates aside (not necessarily forever, but at least put them on the back burner) once a compromise solution is reached. That has definitely been the way things work on my side of the Canada-U.S. border, anyway; I'm not sure to what extent that extends south.
For some reason I keep thinking of the 'Missouri Compromise' in the 1800s, and other measures instituted to maintain a balance between slave & free states in the expanding U.S. I'm sure abolitionists were happy to get whatever concessions they could in such circumstances, but the nature of the issue was such that they were not going to give up pushing for more. I do think such compromises are temporary. It's unrealistic to expect those who regard elective abortion as murder to settle on an acceptable rate of it.
quote:Irregardless, I know you qualified your statement with "IMO," but the suggestion that any person who would be willing to have an abortion is inherently a bad parent is... well, let me put it this way: I think my parents were excellent parents. My failings (and I'm sure you would have a different take on what those are than I do) are my own. I don't think casting aspersions on their character is at all useful to the discussion at hand.
I didn't specify bad character as the only option; I also allowed that some may have good character but lack the inclination or ability to accurately evaluate issues independently (critical thinking).
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My husband and I talked about the abortion debate not long ago and he brought up CPR. Bear with me, this will take a while to get to the point.
He, like most paramedics (or, rather every single paramedic I know) does not believe CPR works in the majority of cases. Paramedics are usually very much for living wills, they do not want to be resuscitated, and it's because they see the effects of resusciatation so much and know that in most cases, it's futile.
Now let's define what I mean by "CPR doesn't work." Despite the tv shows you've seen, most people whose hearts are re-started in the field by a paramedic do not get up and start walking around the next scene. Most of them die. Usually pretty soon after the paramedics get their heart going again. CPR rarely does anything more than prolong the moment of death. The vast, vast majority of people who my husband gets a rhythm back on in the field will never leave the hospital. And he knows this.
Yet, we expend huge amounts of resources into training paramedics, we spend tons on drugs and other supplies so they can resuscitate in the field. I asked Wes why, when it was so rarely effective. He said "Because sometimes it does work. Not often, very rarely, but when you're talking about human life, you err on the side of saving life."
That's why, I'll be perfectly honest, I have a hard time accepting the pro-choice position. Because if we can't conclusively prove when that embryo/fetus becomes a human (and I don't think it's something we can ever "prove") then why don't we do the same? Why don't we err on the side of saving life?
Why don't we protect that embryo, why can't we say "OK, I don't know if it's human or not, but I'm not going to take the chance of it being a human life that I'm allowing to be destroyed so this procedure that deprives it of any chance of life, is wrong." We will expend thousands of dollars trying to save someone that every doctor and paramedic knows can't be saved, because there is the smalllest, slightest chance they're wrong and that person deserves that small chance. But an embryo doesnt' deserve the same consideration? Because it's small and doesn't "look" human? Is that the only reason?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: That's why, I'll be perfectly honest, I have a hard time accepting the pro-choice position. Because if we can't conclusively prove when that embryo/fetus becomes a human (and I don't think it's something we can ever "prove") then why don't we do the same? Why don't we err on the side of saving life?
Why don't we protect that embryo, why can't we say "OK, I don't know if it's human or not, but I'm not going to take the chance of it being a human life that I'm allowing to be destroyed so this procedure that deprives it of any chance of life, is wrong." We will expend thousands of dollars trying to save someone that every doctor and paramedic knows can't be saved, because there is the smalllest, slightest chance they're wrong and that person deserves that small chance. But an embryo doesnt' deserve the same consideration? Because it's small and doesn't "look" human? Is that the only reason?
Although I am pro-life, my guess is that it lies in what is sacrificed. With CPR, we're merely giving up money. With abortion, people are 'ruining their lives' by erring on the side of caution. I'm not saying that I agree with that, but it's one possible answer to your question.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I suspect that many pro-choicers would argue that children are not an inherent consequence of choosing to have sex, in the same way that getting fat is not an inherent consequence of overeating. While one leads to the other, and indeed one is almost -- but not entirely contingent -- on the other, it's possible to eat too much pizza while still remaining thin, either through increased exercise, a wise choice of pizza, etc.
When someone overeats unwisely and gets fat as a result, society in general considers that to be their responsiblity, and not just an accident that happens to them. They can't sue the pizza makers and win, for instance.
When someone gets fat for other reasons (like metabolic changes with age, a hormone imbalance, or just a general stocky build), then society (except for mean people) does not consider it to be their responsibility.
Either way, if the fatness had the potential to seriously hurt someone else, then you can bet that people who got fat through their own choices when they didn't have to would be expected to rein in their harmful behavior and keep their weight down, while people who bore no responsibility for their fatness would have far fewer expectations placed on them, and more aid offered to them.
That's the kind of thing that pro-lifers are looking for, I think. Some sense that when a person makes choices that result in a tough situation for themselves and others, society will expect that person to bear responsibility for the situation, and not try to claim that they have a "right" to not deal with the consequences of their actions.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
From a purely practical stand point, I'm willing to concede pre-implantation strategies even though I still have a moral objection to them. I think the case on those would be too difficult to make, especially in light of the recent assertions I've seen (but not followed up on, myself) regarding the number of conceptions that fail to implant.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Jim-Me I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that statistics on how many embryos fail to implant naturally really enter into it. I mean, there's a huge difference between allowing a natural process to take place and taking action on something. An embryo that fails to implant is a natural process. The morning after pill is an action designed to interfere in the natural process - they are two different things.
It's not murder if a person dies peacefully in their bed - a natural process has taken place. It is murder to walk in and stab that same person to death.
However, I do believe the morning-after pill regimen should be available to all rape victims. In this case, it's definitely okay for me to allow the victim that peace of mind - she need never know if she would have become pregnant or not. Yes, a few embryos that would have implanted might be lost, but I can accept that in the same way that I can accept the loss of an embryo if the mother's life is in genuine danger and requires an abortion to save her. The rape victim's mental health in that situation is enough of a consideration that the morning-after regimen is warranted.
But to have it readily available for anyone to use? No, I would prefer not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I think my parents were excellent parents.
As are mine. As well as being reasonably critical thinkers. You might want to stop throwing around offensive generalities, Irregardless.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You might want to stop throwing around offensive generalities, Irregardless.
You should really finish your sentences Kate. And use real words. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Belle, I think pro-life groups need to do a lot of cost/revenue analysis. Fight for reasonable laws and then try to educate people where the law isn't going to change.
I'm in total agreement with the active versus passive aspects you bring up.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: It's not murder if a person dies peacefully in their bed - a natural process has taken place. It is murder to walk in and stab that same person to death.
The problem I have with this metaphor is this: If zygotes have souls, then God (or whatever) is really wasting a lot of them. I don't think God (or whatever) would be that wasteful, therefore I don't think unimplanted zygotes have souls. If they do, then whoever's in charge needs a brain enima.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: The problem I have with this metaphor is this: If zygotes have souls, then God (or whatever) is really wasting a lot of them. I don't think God (or whatever) would be that wasteful, therefore I don't think unimplanted zygotes have souls. If they do, then whoever's in charge needs a brain enema.
But I am trying to leave religion out of my argument.
Also, I really do need to see what people are saying about all these fetilized eggs being lost. That's new stuff to me and I'm not sure how to address it. The article Noemon cited above tried to make the assertion that degenerate sperm and/or eggs resulted in failed implantation and so the rhythm method produced a greater percentage of conceptions which were then killed.
That conclusion definitely did not follow from what was written in the article. One of the objections I had is that, from the wording used in the article, it's not clear that the conception itself is complete. A defective or incomplete conception would probably result in a failed implantation. But I am ignorant here... did the studies on this show that the the product of conception in these cases was complete and undergoing reproduction, respiration, response to stimuli, and excretion?
All that to say I'd like to see a fuller study on that before I make up my mind on how it affects my views.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:So when pro-"late"-choicers are after a way to have sex without consequences, it can feel like other people are trying to stop you from having sex. We don't care about the sex. Screw around. Get all the STDs you want. Or don't. That's entirely up to you.
That pretty much says that you DO think that people should be punished for having premarital sex. "Get all the STDs you want. Or don't"? For God's sake.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Also, as to regular birth control remaining prescription-only if Plan B is available over the counter: Regular birth control really does need more doctor supervision, in my opinion, than Plan B. Plan B is a one-time dose (it used to be one pill immediately, then another 12 hours later, but nowadays they tell you it doesn't matter if you take both of them at once). Regular birth control, well, you have to be careful if you're taking St. John's Wart or antibiotics...it's a constant thing. And sometimes you really do need a doctor to help you find the kind of pill that's best for you. Plan B, overall, is a lot less complicated for the consumer. At least, those are my thoughts on the subject.
-pH
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
pH, hon, go get a manicure or something. This one is sooo not worth it.
Jim-me - The statistic I heard was on a Nova show about pregnancy, and it said that approximately 40% of fertilized eggs do not implant (because of the time of the month, or where the egg was when it was fertilized). I was pregnant with Robert, so that was 1996-7. My hubby and I gave eacvh other high-fives for getting it right on the first try. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
This definition (from wikipedia) would seem to have a bearing on the debate:
quote: Gastrulation is the point in development when the implanted blastocyst develops three germ layers, the endoderm, the exoderm and the mesoderm. It is at this point that the genetic code of the father becomes fully involved in the development of the embryo. Until this point in development, twinning is possible. Additionally, interspecies hybrids which have no chance of development survive until gastrulation
The facts that twinning is possible, that this is the point where the father's genetic coding begins having an effect, and that interspecies hybrids make it this far are, I think, notable and germane to the debate.
also this link explains why CT and I were two weeks off-- I was thinking "weeks past conception" not "weeks of pregnancy."
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:That pretty much says that you DO think that people should be punished for having premarital sex. "Get all the STDs you want. Or don't"? For God's sake.
Wait ... don't tell me you believe that disease is a punishment from God or something I thought it was a natural consequence of having careless sex with carriers of disease Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: pH, hon, go get a manicure or something. This one is sooo not worth it.
*whine* But I already gots mah hurr did!
-pH
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Right, because you aren't actually pregnant during the first two weeks of "gestation."
Edit: This was to Jim-me
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Which is possibly the stupidest way of counting anything that I have ever heard of. Apparently at the point of conception you become retroactively pregnant for the previous two weeks.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:That pretty much says that you DO think that people should be punished for having premarital sex. "Get all the STDs you want. Or don't"? For God's sake.
Wait ... don't tell me you believe that disease is a punishment from God or something I thought it was a natural consequence of having careless sex with carriers of disease
But your phrasing is what implies that immoral behavior is how people get STDs, when that is not necessarily true.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: My hubby and I gave eacvh other high-fives for getting it right on the first try.
I'm not sure I want to ask this...but how do you know for sure it was "the first try"? Maybe one slipped by when you weren't looking. Unless Robert was a honeymoon baby.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Which is possibly the stupidest way of counting anything that I have ever heard of. Apparently at the point of conception you become retroactively pregnant for the previous two weeks.
Unless, like my ex-wife, you typically go 8 weeks between periods (she skipped months more often than not, to my recollection), in which case you are suddenly 6 weeks along!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Which, goofiness aside, does raise a legitimate question for any laws based on timeframes. They would have to be fairly specific about how that would be calculated. Otherwise someone like your ex could be too late for a "less than six weeks pregnant" option before the embryo even implanted.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Seno, My Beloved was travelling for work at the time, a LOT. The month we decided to try, we weren't even in the same city at my supposed "fertile time" and by the time he was home, I was late.
"First try" basically meant the one day we had together that month, not to put to fine a point on it.
Edit: Crap! New page!
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:But your phrasing is what implies that immoral behavior is how people get STDs, when that is not necessarily true.
It wasn't my phrasing, I was just jumping in.
But if you want to get all Venn-diagram about it, you're right, not all people who get STDs were particularly careless in the process of getting them. But on the flip side, people who are incredibly careless in their pursuit of sex do incur a preventably high risk of catching an STD.
Which I think is what the original poster is referring to. If someone can link to research that shows that careless sexual behavior does not lead to a higher risk of STDs, please put this piece of common wisdom to rest.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I have a great deal of faith in the ability of the Great Wide Middle to set debates aside (not necessarily forever, but at least put them on the back burner) once a compromise solution is reached. That has definitely been the way things work on my side of the Canada-U.S. border, anyway; I'm not sure to what extent that extends south.
For some reason I keep thinking of the 'Missouri Compromise' in the 1800s, and other measures instituted to maintain a balance between slave & free states in the expanding U.S. I'm sure abolitionists were happy to get whatever concessions they could in such circumstances, but the nature of the issue was such that they were not going to give up pushing for more. I do think such compromises are temporary. It's unrealistic to expect those who regard elective abortion as murder to settle on an acceptable rate of it.
Quite so, but as an example: there is a pro-life movement here in Canada, and yet the issue of abortion, politically, is not even on the table. It may come back in the future, since the pro-life movement will certainly continue to work toward that, but for the time being we can focus our national energy on other things.
However, in this case, that wasn't done by reaching a compromise. I don't really know what happened.
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: I didn't specify bad character as the only option; I also allowed that some may have good character but lack the inclination or ability to accurately evaluate issues independently (critical thinking).
I don't see how that isn't just as insulting, particularly given the implication you make that anyone who doesn't agree with you about this issue has not evaluated the issue critically and/or is incapable of doing so.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
"please put this piece of common wisdom to rest."
No need to be snippy. People do get STDs without engaging in risk behaviors, and people do engage in risk behaviors and still not get STDs. Of COURSE it doesn't disprove statiscal information.
I was just jumping in because of outside issues that you can't know about. I tend to be protective if my friends, and even moreso of younger people that I care about, and I know that you wouldn't take such a superior tone if you had any idea what said person has been through in the past year. At least, I hope you wouldn't.
So it wasn't simple facts that I was reacting to (as opposed to reponding to), it was tone. Knowing what I know (that you couldn't possibly be aware of) I just wish you could be a little gentler. *shrug* Apples and trees.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, I have read it more than once, and it still seems to be flippant about the avalibility of abortions.
I have already said I may have misinterpeted you, although if I did I was hardly the only one.
Puppy, a lot of people DO make those very arguments, or arguments based in thinking like that. Pregnancy doesn't HAVE to be the logical outcome of sex these days, and a lot of women do get pregnant despite taking percautions. To use the very poor "fatness" anology, preventing abortion would be like telling a person with a thyroid disorder that they weren't allowed to have a gastric bypass, because that would be against the natural order of things...they were "obviously" intended to get fat, so they should just deal with it. I know this doesn't address their belif in the humanity of a fetus, but it IS one other position I have heard more than once from some pro-life people.
Dag, no one forced those kids to steal my pool cue. The pool cue doesn't have any rights, so even if they claimed the cue WANTED to go with them it wouldn't matter. However, i DID buy it, and they didn't, so they don't have a right to force their view (that my pool cue was better off with them( upon me...as I was the victem.
I was making a specific point about reproductive rights; you are the one trying (unsucessfully) to extrapolate my views in relation to other crimes. One of my main objections to the pro-life stance if it interferes with another persons right to decide what is best for themselves and their families. Thar right of self determination trumps the vague, nebulous possibility of rights a fetus has in some peoples mind, hands down...at least for me. It is not that pro-life people are wrong to me, but that I value the rights of the mother more than the potential rights of the unborn.
My wife would never have an abortion unless her life was threatened (we talkied about that before we ever had sex) because TO US the very potential of life is far too valuable to me to extinguish . I just don't think my beliefs should be forced on other people, particularily since they may not have the same values as I do.
Puppy, a lot of people get very judgmental when sexuality is mentioned, and a lot of those same people are very, very pro-life. I don't think that that is a coincidence....do you? I think that the same morality that looks down on a person based on how many sexual partners they have had is very, very similar to the morality that allows many people to think they know what is better for a womans life than she herself does. Both stances are passing judgement on provate matters that really are none of their business, IMO.
Many, many reasons pro-life people give for opposing abortions boil down to this: religious objections and a feeling of moral superiority that they feel gives them the right so enforce their own beliefs and morality on others. i don't think their morality is any better of more valid than anyone elses, nor do I feel their religious views should be forced upon others.
So even though my personal beliefs (about religion AND abortion) are closer to the pro-life camp than you would think, I am staunchly pro-choice.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Many, many reasons pro-life people give for opposing abortions boil down to this: religious objections and a feeling of moral superiority that they feel gives them the right so enforce their own beliefs and morality on others.
Again, Kwea, I *never* have. I don't believe Dag or Rakeesh has either. When we make arguments and you bring in "other people say x", it doesn't address what we are saying. There's absolutely no reason to keep bringing it up except to associate our arguments with those invalid ones.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: No need to be snippy. People do get STDs without engaging in risk behaviors, and people do engage in risk behaviors and still not get STDs. Of COURSE it doesn't disprove statiscal information.
To be truly accurate, to get an STD someone has to be engaging in risk behaviors. Totally monogamous couples have absolutely no risk of STD...
/takes off public health hat.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was making a specific point about reproductive rights; you are the one trying (unsucessfully) to extrapolate my views in relation to other crimes.
Actually, my extrapolation was very successful. I didn't say that your views about the pool cue mean that you must support banning abortion to be consistent. I said that you clearly support the coercive use of the state's power to limit people's options. And you do.
I was trying to narrow your statement down from the incorrect general way you stated it to the distinguishing principle you are using to apply the same principle to reach different results in pool cue theft and abortion. Considering your explanation about why you support the law prohibiting pool cue theft can be exactly summarized by my previous post on the subject, I'd say I did so accurately.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I was just jumping in because of outside issues that you can't know about. I tend to be protective if my friends, and even moreso of younger people that I care about, and I know that you wouldn't take such a superior tone if you had any idea what said person has been through in the past year. At least, I hope you wouldn't.
So it wasn't simple facts that I was reacting to (as opposed to reponding to), it was tone. Knowing what I know (that you couldn't possibly be aware of) I just wish you could be a little gentler. *shrug* Apples and trees.
I'm sorry, I really wasn't trying to tread in an area that would hurt anyone.
I've just been in a similar discussion with pH before, and this has turned into a pet peeve for me. Honestly, I'm not sure how to discuss the fact that some actions carry a stronger risk of negative consequences than others (which seems to be a pretty neutral truism from my perspective) without her saying, "You think people should be punished for sex!"
I don't think that. I don't think that the comments that tend to elicit that reaction from pH even begin to suggest that. So when she reacts that way, I'm bewildered.
I also don't generally assume that a broad statistical statement should be directly applied to individual cases, ever, and so I didn't realize that my response could have done any harm to anyone. Sorry about that again. I'll drop it now, since I really don't know what you're talking about, and pretty much anything I say could be wrong at this point
But ... I mean ... dang it, how do we talk about things like this under these conditions? I wasn't verbally abusing someone, flaming someone, or even stating anything that was controversial. I thought I was just going on with the discussion as usual, and suddenly, I'm hurting someone and need to stop? Would it be possible for people with secret problems to realize that other people are unaware of them, and are not trying to offend them by bringing up sensitive subjects?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Puppy, I'm right there with you.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by maui babe:
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: No need to be snippy. People do get STDs without engaging in risk behaviors, and people do engage in risk behaviors and still not get STDs. Of COURSE it doesn't disprove statiscal information.
To be truly accurate, to get an STD someone has to be engaging in risk behaviors. Totally monogamous couples have absolutely no risk of STD...
/takes off public health hat.
In sex ed, I was told that if your monogamous partner has a cold sore in his mouth and you have oral sex, it can become genital herpes. I don't know if this is an urban legend or not, but if true, it would disprove the claim of no risk.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It is true, and it has hapened to someone I knew in the Army. Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Yep, it's an urban legend. The virus that causes cold sores is related to Herpes Simplex II which causes genital herpes, but is not the same.
There are some genital infections that are sometimes caused by "innocent" events and can also be spread by sexual contact (gardnerella comes to mind off the top of my head), but true STDs (syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, HSII) are not contracted any other way. If you have syphilis, either you or your partner has had sex with someone else somewhere along the line.
I do a limited number of STD investigations, and it's amazing what people will try to tell their partners to explain how they got infected. And even more amazing is what people are willing to believe. But that doesn't change the facts.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It is true, and it has hapened to someone I knew in the Army.
No it's not, and no, it didn't, despite what you may have heard to the contrary.
Thanks for demonstrating my point about what people are willing to believe. Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Okay, that was probably harsher than it needed to be. It's true that you can pass HSII on through oral sex, but it's NOT just a "cold sore"... it's a completely different virus and originally came from some other sexual contact.
So, again, SOMEBODY is fooling around somewhere down the line.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by maui babe: Yep, it's an urban legend. The virus that causes cold sores is related to Herpes Simplex II which causes genital herpes, but is not the same.
maui babe, herpes simplex I and II can both infect either or both of the mouth and genitals. In fact, the version traditionally associated with the oral form has become the most common cause of genital cases of herpes simplex at my current site, the University of Wisconsin.
quote:Genital herpes is a common sexually transmitted infection throughout the world. The majority of new infections occur in adolescents and young adults, although prevalence rates generally increase with age and cumulative sexual experience. In young adults, herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) infection is becoming a more common cause of genital herpes. Reasons for this trend include changing sexual practices, notably oral-genital exposure and the use of condoms for intercourse. Important implications of having genital herpes include the risk of transmission to sexual partners and the increased risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV. Genital herpes infections are often unrecognized, and transmission to uninfected partners is likely to occur during asymptomatic shedding. A diagnosis of herpes may also affect psychosexual development, particularly in adolescents. Such factors contribute to the growing global HSV prevalence and suggest a need to implement better screening programmes in young adults. Recognizing and treating HSV early offers benefits to patients and their sexual partners by reducing the frequency and severity of outbreaks, limiting the likelihood of disease transmission, and preventing new infections.
--------
I'll return tomorrow to address the follow-up comments to the posts I made earlier. Thanks for such fascinating reading, everyone. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(And you posted while I was writing. )
quote:Originally posted by maui babe: Okay, that was probably harsher than it needed to be. It's true that you can pass HSII on through oral sex, but it's NOT just a "cold sore"... it's a completely different virus and originally came from some other sexual contact.
So, again, SOMEBODY is fooling around somewhere down the line.
But both herpes simplex I and II can be essentially asymptomatically shed, no? If I recall correctly, there is some considerable variability in the original prodrome, so someone might shed the virus who hadn't realized that he or she had contracted it years ago.
[edited to add: more on Herpes Simplex from eMedicine for those interested.]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
But an individual WHO DOES NOT engage in risk behaviors CAN get an STD, THAT is what I was saying. One cannot control whether one's partner is monogamous (absent extensive use of padlocks and restraints...).
*shoves public health hat up...* (love ya, babe! I'm just waaay cranky today)
Puppy, I get it. I shouldn't have jumped in like that. pH is basically doing the same thing that I am, which arguing from the POV of people we care about who have been through stuff and experienced things that large portions of the population just don't understand.
I do believe, however, that it is possible to discuss things without being insensitive (probably not if you can't tell when you're being insensitive, which is a large part of the problem, I'm sure).
That issue aside, though, I think we are of very similar views on the subject at hand (in that we would both like to live in a world where abortion was extremely rare).
That said, School is out and family fun time is much more precious to me than argue-about-crap-I-can't-change on the internet time, so I wish you all well.
Edit: CT *tackle hug*
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
But both herpes simplex I and II can be essentially asymptomatically shed, no? If I recall correctly, there is some considerable variability in the original prodrome, so someone might shed the virus who hadn't realized that he or she had contracted it years ago.
That really doesn't change what I'm saying here. I'm not trying to make a value judgement or a moral point. Just trying to be accurate in the way that I am at work. If two people are totally monogamous for life, there is NO chance of STD. I know that's not reality for most people (including myself by the way - I've been married twice, and my first husband was quite the philanderer), but I'm convinced it is an ideal to strive for.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Okay, I can see what you're getting at. When I said that STDs are "a natural consequence of careless behavior", I was thinking only of the literal logic of the statement. That if you engage in careless sexual behavior, X is one possible consequence.
I forgot that it is easy to read that sentence as saying that careless sexual behavior is the ONLY thing that leads to consequence X, which is by no means what I meant to suggest. So, sorry if that came across wrong or made anyone uncomfortable. What I should have said was this:
"The fact that an STD is a possible consequence of careless sexual behavior doesn't make it a punishment. Lots of things have consequences that have no moral implications whatsoever. If I leave my shoelaces untied, I stand a greater risk of falling down the stairs. But is stair-falling a punishment for not tying my shoes? No, it's just something that happens as one possible result. But I should be aware of that possible result, and let it inform my decisions about whether or not to tie my shoes.
"Certainly, if I were to talk about the causal connection between untied shoes and stair-falling, people would be overreacting if they took offense and accused me of wanting to punish people, or make them FEEL punished, for not tying their shoes. As difficult a subject as it can be to talk about, if we don't talk about it, all we're doing is setting more people up for some nasty falls. Falling down is hard enough to avoid as it is. The last thing we need to do is make it harder by shoving these issues under a rug."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by maui babe:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
But both herpes simplex I and II can be essentially asymptomatically shed, no? If I recall correctly, there is some considerable variability in the original prodrome, so someone might shed the virus who hadn't realized that he or she had contracted it years ago.
That really doesn't change what I'm saying here. I'm not trying to make a value judgement or a moral point. Just trying to be accurate in the way that I am at work. If two people are totally monogamous for life, there is NO chance of STD. I know that's not reality for most people (including myself by the way - I've been married twice, and my first husband was quite the philanderer), but I'm convinced it is an ideal to strive for.
I take it, though, that one could contract genital herpes from oral sex with a partner who had contracted oral herpes at a very young age (as most young children do test positive for antibodies to HSV-I), even if both were lifetime monogamous.
I'm not sure the distinction between HSV-I and HSV-II as only the latter being an STD makes much sense any more, as HSV-I is a disease that also can be transmitted sexually. I think the current epidemiology supports this as a distinction without much of a difference anymore (with relation to the STD discussion, that is). And I bet Olivet was referring to this in her above post, as it's something I've mentioned before in threads she participated in.
[Edited to add: Not that this is much more than a tangent, of course. i was feeling somewhat responsible for that part of the information, though, and I thought I should clarify.]
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Okay, I have to eat some crow here. I just talked to a co-worker who works with STDs and HSV-I (oral herpes) can be transmitted to the genital area and cause infection through oral sex. It is distinguishable by lab from HSV-II, and HSV-I generally causes a milder infection with less chance of recurrance. This is new research since I was in school, and I don't work directly with STDs so I'm not as up on this as I am on other communicable disease.
Here's the CDC fact sheet.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
( to maui babe, completely without mucosa-to-mucosa contact *grin )
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I have my dental dam right here to protect me like the good little epidemiologist that I am... Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I learned about it myself only through the research done here at U Wisconsin. I just -happened- to be doing a rotation through the University Health Services right as they were submitting the article, and I found it fascinating.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Okay, I can see what you're getting at. When I said that STDs are "a natural consequence of careless behavior", I was thinking only of the literal logic of the statement. That if you engage in careless sexual behavior, X is one possible consequence.
I forgot that it is easy to read that sentence as saying that careless sexual behavior is the ONLY thing that leads to consequence X, which is by no means what I meant to suggest. So, sorry if that came across wrong or made anyone uncomfortable. What I should have said was this:
"The fact that an STD is a possible consequence of careless sexual behavior doesn't make it a punishment. Lots of things have consequences that have no moral implications whatsoever. If I leave my shoelaces untied, I stand a greater risk of falling down the stairs. But is stair-falling a punishment for not tying my shoes? No, it's just something that happens as one possible result. But I should be aware of that possible result, and let it inform my decisions about whether or not to tie my shoes.
"Certainly, if I were to talk about the causal connection between untied shoes and stair-falling, people would be overreacting if they took offense and accused me of wanting to punish people, or make them FEEL punished, for not tying their shoes. As difficult a subject as it can be to talk about, if we don't talk about it, all we're doing is setting more people up for some nasty falls. Falling down is hard enough to avoid as it is. The last thing we need to do is make it harder by shoving these issues under a rug."
Puppy-
You're a cool guy, I like reading your posts. You attempt to be sensitive, you apologize when you hurt someone's feelings that you wouldn't even know that you hurt or how you would have hurt them, and then you try a different method of explaining your point. Thank you.
That is all
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
CT, while you're around I'd love to hear your thoughts on Gastru-whatever as a waypoint in the "when is this thing a human individual" debate...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Either way, if the fatness had the potential to seriously hurt someone else...
Again, as I said much earlier in this thread, that's really the meat of the issue. Whether or not there's "someone else" to be hurt in this scenario is exactly the point on which people are unable to compromise.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I was a medic,nor am I prone to fall for urban legends of the medical variety.
Both types of Herpes CAN be transmitted by more than one method, and herpes CAN be transmitted to the mouth via sexual organs the other way around as well.
They were monogomous at that point in their life (I knew them both well), but one of them had contracted Herpes when he was younger and was unaware of it, and passed it to her genital area during oral sex.
(sorry, just noticed you posted a correction. )
Not that I know everyhting about medicine, not even close, but I had persoanl experience with people who had this happen to them years ago so I knew it was possible.
Wait...perhaps the phrase "personal experience" is a little misleading.
Kwea
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Just to clarify, I made the STD comment. It was a while ago, and I'm not widely known, so I'm putting that forward now.
Here's what I was saying.
I didn't mean to draw the connection that lots of people are drawing--that STDs are "punishment" for sex.
What I was saying, clumsily, I guess, is that you can have sex and get all the consequent enjoyment and/or suffering you want out of it, and neither I or any other pro-lifers will try to interfere.
I understand you are making a choice, and we stand by your right to make that choice. I won't tell you not to have sex so you don't get Aids or STDs. There might be people who do that, but they're a little different from the pro-life crowd, kind of like PETA is different from Greenpeace.
The consequences, good or bad, that affect you, personally, aren't important to me. I care, but I recognize that ultimately it's your choice.
I only start to care--or feel inclined to tell you what to do--once what I feel is an independent life becomes involved.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
(Continued from previous post)
Which brings us to Tom's repeated statement--how to decide when the fetus is "alive" and "human."
The problem is, even this is decided by what stance you're coming from.
People who are thinking in terms of "life" obviously look for the earliest point at which anything that consitutes life is present--and since egg and sperm combined meet the Sesame Street requirements for life (moves, grows, needs nourishment) we draw the line there.
This is, again, because respect for life rules the day for them, and anything less would be compromising on what constitues "valid" life. There's no need for discussion about when that life becomes human--a human has begun its life, which to them is synonymous with existance. It is inherently human already. Everything they're doing is about proving the value of all human life, so they're not interested in hashing out the fine points of when a checklist of "humanity requirements" might be fulfilled.
For pro-choicers, it's different. Their ability to be in control rules the day. They're interested in not having to be subject to what they perceive to be an outside circumstance (eg pregancy is like a thyroid condition). So they're interested in finding ways to parce the defition of humanity so they can treat what they perceive as all but a form of illness the woman has "aquired." And to parse out the different phases of human existance the way we do with seed vs. sprout vs. sapling vs. tree, and assign relative worths to each.
So I submit that it is impossible for science to provide us an answer to this. The question is entirely philosophical, and can only be answered once we come to an agreement about what has moral value.
In other words, we would first need to agree on what was most important to us before we could agree on how to solve this issue.
As long as the "values" are different--what we feel is most important--we will be hard pressed to agree on this issue.
Which, of course, we all knew already, making this a fairly pointless post.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For pro-choicers, it's different. Their ability to be in control rules the day.
Speaking as a former pro-choicer to someone who was clearly never a pro-choicer, I feel compelled to recommend that you not attempt to speak for people who hold an opinion you don't share. While it's perfectly fair for you to say that, for you, the value of human life "rules the day," it's not fair for you to make a similar generalization about someone you don't understand.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Seems like a valid point to me, although not an all inclusive point to be sure.
It was a simplified explanation to be sure, but it was valid as far as it went. I would say that it it just as important to prevent OTHERS from gaining control of their bodies/reproductive systems as well, though.
My family may never (God willing) have/need an abortion, but I dislike anyone else trying to force their morality on us, or removing any viable option from our consideration. Quite frankly, if this isn't a private decision, between by wife and I, then what is?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:For pro-choicers, it's different. Their ability to be in control rules the day. They're interested in not having to be subject to what they perceive to be an outside circumstance (eg pregancy is like a thyroid condition). So they're interested in finding ways to parce the defition of humanity so they can treat what they perceive as all but a form of illness the woman has "aquired." And to parse out the different phases of human existance the way we do with seed vs. sprout vs. sapling vs. tree, and assign relative worths to each.
...most pro-choicers are not trying to "justify" a position that they some how, deep down, "know" is wrong, which is what the thought process you're describing seems to imply.
-pH
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Look, here's the easiest way I can think of to say what I'm trying to say:
When a pro-choicer argues that it feels like someone else is trying to control their sexuality, it is exactly the same as a pro-lifer saying that they feel like someone is trying to murder babies. It might be what it feels like, because of where they stand as opposed to you, but it ultimately is not what is in their hearts.
And Tom, you didn't feel the need to leap to stop people from assigning motivations to pro-lifers. So my asserting to understand the other sides position is not, in and of itself, wrong.
However, please elaborate on where pro-choice values lie, especially if you think it will help find a genuine common basis of values on the topic.
Also, everyone, please try to see that I am not arguing anything that I am not, in fact, actually arguing. I truly believe that pro-choicers feel that what they are doing is not wrong. I'm even explaining why they feel that way.
It's different from what I believe, and some of my feelings on it shows in my wording, but again, you could just as easily say that I'm arguing pro-lifers are the obsitnate ones, because they won't even consider the idea that life might begin at a later point, that a fetus may be no more a human than a seed is yet a tree.
I am suggesting that something is being held as so important to each that it guides thier judgement on all other parts of the discussion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And Tom, you didn't feel the need to leap to stop people from assigning motivations to pro-lifers.
People beat me to it. I don't hang out in abortion threads all that often anymore.
quote:I truly believe that pro-choicers feel that what they are doing is not wrong. I'm even explaining why they feel that way.
It's the second part that's a bit presumptuous, IMO.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Thanks, Bao That was really cool of you to say.
Posted by Jimbo the Clown (Member # 9251) on :
About the abortion debate, I have this to say: Slavery was a heavily debated topic in the States a century or so ago. Compromises were proposed, but eventually, slavery was banned. We look back and say it was a good thing. Unfortunately, people are still enslaved nowadays.
Compare this to abortion. Abortion is currently being debated. Compromises are being proposed. Let's assume that abortion is eventually banned, just for the sake of this point. In a century or so, it will still be practiced. But what will people's views on it be? After all, it'll be illegal. So, is the law right? Or is it wrong? And if you're the sort to start saying, "Well, it's the law; it must be right!" I ask you, what side of the fence are you on right now? If you're a pro-lifer, do you realise that it isn't illegal right now? Is that law right? If you're pro-choice, would you give up so easily?
The point I'm trying to make is this: Many (and I'm not pointing fingers at any Hatrackers; I don't know y'all well enough to make this judgement) people base their morality off of the law. If it is legal, it is good. If it is illegal, it is bad. Sure, there are exceptions. Speeding comes to mind. But Big Issues like abortion will be determined by the morality. Pro-choicers, I want you to take a good look at your stance and see if it derives from legality, what people have said about it, or if it is your own moral opinion. Pro-lifers, the same. Is it your God's law, or is it your belief?
Now, I'm not about to argue for or against abortion. It's a topic that people argue without any conversions to either side. I just wanted to make sure everyone arguing the topic was doing so because THEY believe in it, not their pastor. Again, I'm not pointing any fingers. Let the blame fall on you only if it fits.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jimbo...
I'm pro-choice and I base my stance on the benefits to women and society.
Most of the people I know who are religious would not see much of a distinction between God's law and their belief.
This:
quote:Now, I'm not about to argue for or against abortion. It's a topic that people argue without any conversions to either side. I just wanted to make sure everyone arguing the topic was doing so because THEY believe in it, not their pastor.
Implies that, in particular with the pro-life folks, they are being led around by their noses by a bunch of manipulative clergy, rather than being able to think for themselves.
My only response to this is to suggest you read this thread from the begining. Accusing Hatrack's pro-life contingent of being unthinking -- even if you trying to say "I don't know any of YOU well enough to know if this applies" is just displaying a profound ignorance of your current audience.
This group here has spent a lot of time and a lot of internal (and external) debate on this issue and there isn't a person here I would call gullible or unthinking.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
docmagic, for what it's worth, Tom has in the past been very vocal about stopping people from assigning motives (especially religious ones) to people are pro-life. He is personally pro-life and is not a religious person.
there's a LOT of history on this issue here at Hatrack, most of which I've forgotten, but a post by Tom in reply to something I said back probably in 2000 or 2001 has stuck with me for years.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:With abortion, people are 'ruining their lives' by erring on the side of caution.
I know it's probably pointless to nit pick on something posted a page ago, but this drives me crazy. The idea that a baby "ruins" people's lives and therefore it's okay to get rid of it.
My mom lives with me now. She works and is still active, but what if she has a stroke tomorrow and needs my full time care? Then I would be spending every day here taking care of her instead of pursuing my dreams to finish college and start a new career. I would be severly burdened financially, emotionally, even physically if she requires me to lift her and help her move around.
Would it be okay then, for me to shoot her between the eyes because, after all, she's "ruining my life?"
If the fetus is human (and I know we can't prove that) the "it's ruining my life" argument doesn't hold. Sorry. But you don't get to eliminate people just because they're a burden to you. Besides, we have other options like adoption so that once you've given birth, your life need never be burdened or "ruined" at all.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I kind of wonder how much of people's ideas on abortion come from their view of society in general. I have a great respect for feminism, for example, mainly because I saw it unfold during a period where the movement really starting having huge effects on our society and social norms in practically every facet of life in our society.
We're on the verge of accepting a woman President in the US -- I fully expect to see that happen in my lifetime. I remember when we got our first female Supreme Court justice and how rare it was for women to be in the House or the Senate -- not unheard of in my early years, but certainly rare.
Equal pay for equal work wasn't just a slogan, it was a real social issue that people debated. And much of the debate centered around the perception that paying men more meant that they could "support their families" whereas women's income was viewed as "temporary, used for the "extras" and would stop once she decided to stay home and raise the kids." Truly, one of the reasons given for opposing equal pay was that women didn't need it -- if they were working, it meant they didn't have children to raise. If they started work and were of child-bearing years, the company would "lose its investment" once she started having babies because she would naturally want to quit and stay home.
I remember this stuff. My mother certainly faced it and she was in a "traditional" woman's job -- teaching. Thing is, she was among the shocking group of women in the late 50's and 60's who kept working even after the kids were born. She took a lot of heat for that from the women in the neighborhood where we lived. Some of them even said stuff to my brother and I -- the @#$@# shrews!
Anyway, in that context, the sexual revoluation wasn't about "free love...baby!" but about women taking control of their own destiny -- no longer being viewed as a adjunct to their husband's destiny. I still firmly believe that this society needed to go through that shift in attitude.
Some say it happened because women had entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers during the war years, and it took about a 1/2 generation for the girls who saw that growing up to rebel against going back to a more traditional set of norms. The 40's and 50's were the birthplace of the 60's and 70's.
I also think that legalized abortion had a role to play in that social shift. I don't know that I would say that the shift wouldn't have happened without the increased availability of abortion, and removal of some of the social stigma attached to it. But I think having abortion available definitely speeded up the social change. Among other things, it meant that a woman who wanted to return to work (against the wishes of a more traditionally-minded husband) had an option. Sure, maybe by today's standards we would prefer that a couple in that situation talk it through, decide on a mutually acceptable plan, and figure out how to deal with child-care needs, etc. But back then all this stuff really wasn't in place.
A married woman who didn't want to have children and stay home was considered anomalous. If she wanted to use birth control to avoid pregnancy, and her husband didn't, she was the one who was going to be the pariah. Today at least a good part of the population would chide the husband for not considering his wife's desires...Back then the entire weight of society would've been on the man's side. IMO, having abortion available to women in such a situation was important, and even necessary if our society was going to integrate women into the full experience of having control over their own lives.
As I lived more years and started dating and searching for a mate myself, I noticed something truly bizarre about our society. Judging from the admittedly limited sample to that point, I was reaching the conclusion that the proportion of women who had experienced sexual assault in this country was pretty darn close to 1.0. The incidence of actual rape was lower, but still quite high -- again from limited sample of women I knew well enough to talk about the subject, it was well over 50% of the population.
I knew enough not to generalize to the US as a whole, but that kind of thing gave me pause. It speaks to a ugly and unacknowledged flaw in our society (at least at that time) and made me think that much of what the feminist writers were saying about control issues was absolutely true. Not just a philosophical thing, but a practical reaction to some serious maladjustment in the world we had created.
Sadly, as I learned more about child abuse and sexual abuse in this country, I don't believe we've really turned the corner on these issues yet. I don't know that the incidence of them is as high as I would've concluded from my limited sample, but even the incidence of reported crimes is shocking, and every study I've read says uncategorically that the number of unreported cases dwarfs the number of reported cases.
Looking at that, I land firmly on the side of feminist thinkers who still assert that we aren't there yet. That children, and especially girl children, growing up in this society are statistically prone to be victimized, often by relatives or friends of the family -- people in power relationships with them.
I still see it happening in every community I have lived in.
And, yes, I see it happening to boys too -- not as frequently, but absolutely happening more than is generally believed by most of the people who don't bother to check the data.
I look upon this stuff as inherently and unquestionably evil. And I look at women's control of their own bodies as a necessary precondition for fixing this evil in our society.
That is why I remain pro-choice even thought in the depths of my soul I believe that abortion at any stage of development is the taking of a human life. It is because I have known so many women who were abused as girls (and as women) that I think there is an evil in this society that we should address first.
Now, the obvious counter to this is abortion statistics that show women are using the treatment as a convenience. It is why, even though I remain pro-choice, I am more and more willing to support restrictions.
I also note that our society HAS changed somewhat. There are ways for women to get out of abusive relationships. Divorce is not uncommmon and in most segments of our population it bears little or no social stigma. Not like it did back in the 50's and 60's. There are shelters. There are emergency shelters. There are laws in place. And women can get reliable birth control without a lot of hassle.
So, corresponding to the changes in society, I see abortion as less of a necessary "escape method" for women who may find themselves in those situations where they can't practice birth control.
Again, my readiness to support restrictions on abortion is directly correlated to the changes I perceive in society and societal norms.
Before this goes too far, I would like to state that I haven't gone through and edited this post for precision or shown any data. If people have a problem with what I'm saying, that's okay, but realize that mostly I'm arguing from personal experience and from growing up in an environment where I experienced the downsides of the kind of society where women weren't in power, or had to buck a LOT of social pressure in order to have what young women today take for granted.
If I thought for an instant that supporting a ban on abortion would return us to the kind of society where women couldn't choose to pursue a career or if in doing so would face a sort of monolithic social structure that barred their path, then I would drop my support for that ban in an instant.
I do NOT want any child of mine to grow up in a society where every child can't pursue their dreams of accomplishment in any realm they have an aptitude for. Including child rearing, I hasten to add.
I've spent too much space and time relating this. But I think it's important and it hasn't really been coming out in our Hatrack debates on this issue, IMO, probably because only a few of us here are old enough to recall the society of the late 50's and early 60's, and maybe only some of us who lived through it really WANTED the social upheaval to occur.
[ May 27, 2006, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Would it be okay then, for me to shoot her between the eyes because, after all, she's "ruining my life?"
Belle, I don't think this analogy holds up well. You could, for example, simply have chosen not to let your mom live with you. Or, if she does become a problem you can choose to ship her off to a nursing home. You could have that solution in place in a day -- a week at the most.
I'm not saying this to excuse abortion, but to say only that this particular argument by analogy doesn't really contain enough similarity to be compelling.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You could, for example, simply have chosen not to let your mom live with you.
Except in a very few cases - even accepting a 50% rape victim statistic, the percentage of pregnancies caused by rape is far, far, far lower - a woman could have chosen not to have sex.
quote:You could have that solution in place in a day -- a week at the most.
So the problem is somewhere between one week and nine months?
I don't say this to be glib. It's a deadly serious question. If Belle let her mother die by not feeding her in that situation (prior to finding a new solution) she would be convicted of murder in most states.
Also, you are seriously, seriously underestimating the problems with finding and paying for hospice care. It's far more difficult to find and far more expensive than it is to make arrangements to give a child up for adoption.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But I think it's important and it hasn't really been coming out in our Hatrack debates on this issue, IMO, probably because only a few of us here are old enough to recall the society of the late 50's and early 60's, and maybe only some of us who lived through it really WANTED the social upheaval to occur.
Accepting your statement of the situation prior to widespread availability of abortion as fact for purposes of this discussion only, I can tell you why a large number of people haven't discussed it: because it's not as directly relevant as you state.
First, the area of analysis that's lacking in your post is causation: was the change in attitudes caused by increased availability of abortion, was increased availability of abortion caused by the change in attitudes, were they both cased by other factors, or are they unrelated?
The fourth option can probably be dismissed, but I don't think the second and third can.
One thing I've often wondered about is if abortion is to the feminism movement what slavery was to our founding as a democracy: a poison wrapped up by and intermingled with a largely good movement. The acceptance of slavery by those who knew it to be evil in order to allow for the Constitution created an injustice which haunts us to this day. It nearly destroyed the country and was a clear affront to the principles upon which this nation was founded.
The only time I have ever been threatened with an honor violation (and also threatened with a lawsuit by the western Va director of Planned Parenthood) was when I advertised a speaker whose primary contention was that the ideals of feminism are incompatible with support for legalized abortion. The essence of the honor charge - voiced in an open student council meeting but never filed - was that by calling the speech "a feminist perspective on abortion" I was lying, because a feminist perspective must be pro-choice.
The key area of disagreement, of course, was between your idea that abortion is necessary for progress on these issues and the idea that it hinders progress on these issues.
Beyond all that, it is this statement I have a huge problem with:
quote:That is why I remain pro-choice even thought in the depths of my soul I believe that abortion at any stage of development is the taking of a human life. It is because I have known so many women who were abused as girls (and as women) that I think there is an evil in this society that we should address first.
If we could eliminate rape, sexual abuse, and domestic violence in society for the price of the sacrifice of 1,000,000 infants a year, we wouldn't do it.
I also think that abortion is not as necessary to decreasing those ills as this statement seems to assume. My opposition to abortion is wrapped up intensely with my opposition to the exploitation of women and children. I'm quite frankly at a loss to see how allowing someone to (as you have accepted) kill a human being makes it easier or harder to implement better domestic abuse and anti-rape programs.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: Also, you are seriously, seriously underestimating the problems with finding and paying for hospice care. It's far more difficult to find and far more expensive than it is to make arrangements to give a child up for adoption.]
I've been through this. You're wrong.
[quote]One thing I've often wondered about is if abortion is to the feminism movement what slavery was to our founding as a democracy: a poison wrapped up by and intermingled with a largely good movement. The acceptance of slavery by those who knew it to be evil in order to allow for the Constitution created an injustice which haunts us to this day. It nearly destroyed the country and was a clear affront to the principles upon which this nation was founded.
I started to agree with you, but then I had to pull back because the analogy falls apart for me. Legalized abortion was in some ways a reaction to years of oppression and minority status for women. I think the analogy is better to things that went too far in the aftermath of the civil rights movement -- things that allowed for reverse discrimination and race-based "points" granted remedially. It was there for a reason that made sense to some at the time, but had unforseen consequences.
quote:also think that abortion is not as necessary to decreasing those ills as this statement seems to assume. My opposition to abortion is wrapped up intensely with my opposition to the exploitation of women and children. I'm quite frankly at a loss to see how allowing someone to (as you have accepted) kill a human being makes it easier or harder to implement better domestic abuse and anti-rape programs
You assume too much, Dag. I never said that abortion was a necessary condition to women gaining even the partial measure of equality they hae today. What I said explicitly (earlier in the post) was that abortion probably made the social change come faster. I think it did. You may disagree. I can't think of a very good way to prove my assertion, so I can't really argue the point.
But I never once said that I thought abortion was a necessary precondition for women's equality.
Back in the 60's, it probably did feel like it was to a lot of people, myself included. In retrospect, I think it probably isn't.
My point in the segment you are objecting to was a bit different though. The point was that if I felt like as part of banning abortion (even partially) was a rollback in women's rights, then I'd be against that ban.
Until fairly recently, I would've rejected such a ban without even reading it because I was fairly convinced that some women's rights would've been jeopardized by any law that restricted their access to abortion.
Ultimately, I can't say how I would vote if a ballot measure came up today. If I felt as if there were still women for whom abortion was their sole way out of bad situations, then, I'd probably vote against it. If I felt like we've progressed enough that women have the ability to choose their reproductive future without needing abortion as an option, then I'd be more inclined to vote in favor of a ban.
We'll see when/if that ever comes up for a vote.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I've been through this. You're wrong.
Been through which, adoption or arranging hospice care? Because I can tell you flat out that it can take as long as two years to arrange for permanent care of the type you told Belle she could arrange in a week. Assuming, of course, she doesn't have the money to pay for the care herself. This assumes that hospitalization isn't required to treat the medical condition, but rather "only" daily care is. Meanwhile, she'd have a duty to care for her mother omission of which would subject her to murder charges.
quote:I started to agree with you, but then I had to pull back because the analogy falls apart for me. Legalized abortion was in some ways a reaction to years of oppression and minority status for women. I think the analogy is better to things that went too far in the aftermath of the civil rights movement -- things that allowed for reverse discrimination and race-based "points" granted remedially. It was there for a reason that made sense to some at the time, but had unforseen consequences.
Your analogy dies on the incredible distance between the worst possible consequences of reverse discrimination and the consequence of abortion as you have defined it - the taking of a human life.
quote:You assume too much, Dag. I never said that abortion was a necessary condition to women gaining even the partial measure of equality they hae today. What I said explicitly (earlier in the post) was that abortion probably made the social change come faster. I think it did. You may disagree. I can't think of a very good way to prove my assertion, so I can't really argue the point.
But I never once said that I thought abortion was a necessary precondition for women's equality.
I'm sorry. I assumed that, recognizing abortion as the killing of a human being, you would consider it to be necessary to the achievement of the goals you consider worth the human cost.
Your clarification makes me disagree with you even more vehemently, of course. You are advocating the permitting of the taking of human life to speed up a societal change which could occur absent the life-taking.
quote:My point in the segment you are objecting to was a bit different though. The point was that if I felt like as part of banning abortion (even partially) was a rollback in women's rights, then I'd be against that ban.
I see your appreciation of those consequences - you've acknowledged that they are among the most severe consequences going. What I don't get is any sense of weighing the consequences of the abortion against the possible. Traditionally, when choosing between two policies which will both lead to bad outcomes, the bad outcomes are weighed against each other to see which policy is rejected.
Assuming you've done that, then you seem to be saying that the removal of a mechanism allowing some women to leave a bad situation* produces greater harm than a greater number** of intentionally-caused human deaths. I can't wrap my head around that conclusion, at least on the premises you've supplied so far.
*Please believe that I can fully appreciate how bad those situations can be.
**Assuming that not all abortions performed are to allow a woman to leave a bad situation.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I still acknowledge the special nature of the gestational period, while acknowledging that the life ended is human life.
I think there's reason to consider the gestational period as a special case and thus not ascribe the word "murder" to abortion.
Sorry. I know we aren't going to agree on this. You aren't convincing me at all, and I'm not convincing you at all.
I think you put too little stock in things I care a great deal about. You think I haven't put enough weight on the consequences.
All this does is highlight the gulf between our understandings of the situation and what we each think are the important considerations and what ultimately needs to be done.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think you put too little stock in things I care a great deal about.
I don't think you have any basis to say this. I have assigned the harm caused by abortion a much higher quantity than you have. The fact that such assignment results in a decision to ban abortion gives you no information about how I value the other side of that comparison.
Edit: Assuming you would not allow the killing of an already born baby to help women escape that situation, it's clear that someone can both put a lot of stock into the things you care about and still not allow an action that could further those things, based on the cost of the proposed action.
I'm assuming, again, that you draw the line at outright murder. Therefore, the fact that I consider abortion to be morally equivalent to murder means that it's possible that I put as much or more stock into those things than you do.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You put relatively too little stock into the things I care a great deal about.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: You put relatively too little stock into the things I care a great deal about.
Again, Bob, you don't have enough information to say that.
I wish you'd at least respond to the reasoning I provided above instead of trying to tell me what I care about and how much.
Here it is symbolically:
We have two bad consequences, X and Y, and a binary policy choice, A and ~A. We have two evaluators of consequences, B and D.
B(Y) > B(X), therefore A.
D(X) > D(Y), therefore ~A.
This is all we know about the amount of stock each of up put into things.
It tells us nothing about whether B(Y) is greater than or less than D(Y).
So please, either explain why you feel qualified to evaluate how much stock I put in things you care about or desist doing so.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Deal with it Dag. You can't have it both ways. If you put enough stock in the things I care about, you'd agree with me. The very fact that you disagree with me indicates that you care less about those things than I do, and are putting other things before them.
consider it a rank order of prioritizations and I think you'll probably get closer to the way I view this.
If I put death a fetus and freedom of women to choose exactly equal, and you give death of a fetus even one more "strength" point, then you are giving too little value to women's freedom IN MY OPINION.
Deal with it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: We'll see when/if that ever comes up for a vote.
It is, I think, worth noting at this point that, of course, this topic has *never* been put to vote, even in congress, much less in the booth...
...and then passing on, because, of course, everyone here is aware of that and it's a whole 'nother argument.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Deal with it Dag. You can't have it both ways.
Bull crap.
I took three years off from a 6 figure salary, spent $80,000 on tuition, and will make less than a third of my previous salary in large part because I want to help women get out the situations you find to be so horrible. I've seen it. I've helped them do it. I've put people in jail to try to stop them from victimizing women. And I'll do it again.
You don't think I put too little stock in these things. You think I put too much stock in something else. This is a simple, basic concept, and I will not let you fart around with it like this:
quote:If you put enough stock in the things I care about, you'd agree with me. The very fact that you disagree with me indicates that you care less about those things than I do, and are putting other things before them.
Deal with it? Why don't you start being honest. This isn't a matter of your opinion. It's a matter of my opinion.
quote:consider it a rank order of prioritizations and I think you'll probably get closer to the way I view this.
Yeah, I get how YOU view it. In YOUR OPINION, my prioritization should be different.
quote:If I put death a fetus and freedom of women to choose exactly equal, and you give death of a fetus even one more "strength" point, then you are giving too little value to women's freedom IN MY OPINION.
No. If the "strength" points I give to women's freedom is the same as yours, but I give an additional strength point to the death of a human being during the gestational period, then it means I'm giving too much value to the life of the human being during the gestational period IN YOUR OPINION.
Get it?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag,
I'm not going to argue with you anymore.
I'm glad you fight for women and help them get out of bad situations.
I don't agree with you about abortion. I'm not likely to any time soon. Your style and mine do not mesh on this issue. I can't talk to you about it and make myself understood because I just get too frustrated with what I see as you being overly sensitive about word usage.
I've obviously offended you and I obviously didn't mean to. I not apologizing because I still think this is just not even an argument worth making. I've already said that from our individual perspectives the other person has their priorities out of whack.
You yell at me for a whole post and then say the same thing I said 5 posts ago.
I'll talk with you about other stuff, if you still want to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I can't talk to you about it and make myself understood because I just get too frustrated with what I see as you being overly sensitive about word usage.
Criminy.
Do you really think this is about word usage? I give the **** up.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yes, Dag, I really do.
I'm sorry, but your way of discussing this stuff sounds mostly to me like you hate the way I use certain words. I keep thinking if only I could pick le mot juste, you would undestand my position to the point where you:
a) wouldn't take personal offense b) wouldn't ascribe motives to me that I clearly haven't stated or adhere to c) wouldn't get so angry d) wouldn't keep lecturing
I'm sorry you are frustrated. I am too.
I really think it best if we just don't discuss this topic with each other anymore.
I'm sure it'd do my blood pressure a world of good.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Do you really think this is about word usage? I give the **** up.
Ah, welcome to my world, Dag.
quote:I've obviously offended you and I obviously didn't mean to. I not apologizing because I still think this is just not even an argument worth making. I've already said that from our individual perspectives the other person has their priorities out of whack.
Do you believe both of your perspectives are equally valid, or do you believe there is some reason why your perspective is more accurate than his? Or do you think your perspective is more accurate for no communicable reason?
quote:If I put death a fetus and freedom of women to choose exactly equal, and you give death of a fetus even one more "strength" point, then you are giving too little value to women's freedom IN MY OPINION.
I don't think your opinion is correct, in that case. There are really three possibilities here: A) Dag is giving less value to a women's rights than you'd give it B) Dag is giving more value to the life of the fetus than you would c) Both A and B
I think the only way to figure out which of these is true is to compare the value of both of these things in other situations. Can you think of a case, other than abortion, where you think women's rights should be most important, yet Dag would not? He has suggested that in other cases of victimization he is consistently in support of women's rights - as much so as you would be. Thus, I would wager that he does not value women's rights less than you.
If that is true, then the disagreement would have to be over how important the life of the fetus is. And then the question would be: why? I think Dag has offered a reasonable explanation - that he considers a fetus to be more of a true person than you do. Is this true? How much of a person do you consider a fetus? Do you consider it to have just as many rights as a born human being would? If I said that you had to choose between killing a fetus or killing a baby, would you consider it to be more moral to kill the unborn fetus, or would you consider the two to be exactly equally bad?
Or, it might be helpful to consider the case of a test tube baby in which no mother is involved, and thus where women's rights do not factor into the issue. Would it ever be acceptable to abort a fetus growing in some sort of artificial womb? Would such a fetus have the exact same right to life as you or I?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
If he was in your world Tres, he would have defined the terms in a manner that no one else agreed with, then spent the whole time chiding the entire thread for not accepting his terms as the standard usage. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
And he would have made a darn good argument for doing so too! Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Bob, I think what is happening here is simple to explain. We are talking about relative values.
Dag sees X as the most valuable thing, which doesn't mean he discounts the value of Y. You do th opposite. It doesn't mean that either of you discounts the value of the other sides arguments, but that neither of you feels his side is getting enough credit/consideration.
Just because someone doesn't agree with your priorities doesn't mean he doesn't discounts the other sides arguments completely....it just means that TO THEM those arguments don't outweighs their own.
Call it a plus on their side, or a minus on yours, either way the outcome is different for them than for you, all because of personal perspective.
That is why I don't like these type of arguments...and why I mentioned earlier in this thread that
quote: it is all too easy to lose the individual tragedy in the large principles and arguments about abortion, and that is just a shame.
The original topic was a very personal, horrible story about unacceptable medical care.
How many of these pages of posts refer to the original topic at all? It has already happened, the personal tragedy has been lost in pages of squabbling and rhetoric. I was a large part of losing it as well, even though it never left my mind....but my posts drifted further and further from what happened to spur this thread.
I think this was the thing people were referring to earlier, only without targeting either side of the abortion debate specifically.....that the political views and agendas eclipse the actual events, and the people behind the story get lost in it...and that is a real shame.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It seems pretty simple to me. Dagonee values protecting and assisting women out of tough situations such as unwanted pregancies at, say, a dozen pearls. However he values the life he believes is sacrificed in an abortion at, say, a dozen diamonds. I think he's made that abundantly and repeatedly clear. I don't see how it can be said he values protecting and assisting women out of tough situations less than anyone else, unless you're looking at value from a totally relativistic perspective.
Which I don't think it can be, in this situation. It seems to me that in this situation, 'value' is defined by what we'd be willing to do and/or give up to obtain it. What would each of us be willing to do to criminalize or keep legalized abortion, and more importantly what would we be willing to insist others must do?
Either of you I imagine would call the police and attempt to physically restrain a rapist if you saw the man raping someone. Would either of you be willing to murder another innocent human being in order to stop this crime of violence and coercion? Obviously not. But to some, the latter is very close, even identical to the act of abortion. Does the one who would perform the latter value the woman's safety and rights more than the other? In one way, yes. In another way, definitely not.
[ May 28, 2006, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag,
For what it's worth, I wouldn't change you even if I could. I value your opinions and I dare say I've learned a lot from you both as a discussant and as an occassional adversary in those discussions.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:It seems pretty simple to me. Dagonee values protecting and assisting women out of tough situations such as unwanted pregancies at, say, a dozen pearls.
However, there is more than one way out of tough situations, even unwanted pregnancy. There are other options besides killing the fetus.
If Bob does believe it's a human life, I dont understand why he still thinks abortion is vital for women's freedom. If a woman doesn't want to raise a child she has other options besides abortion. She can 1) not have sex or 2) give the baby up for adoption.
I don't buy your argument, Bob, that abortion is an essential part of women's freedom. If the price for sexual freedom is that I have to see millions of babies slaughtered, I'd rather not, thank you. Besides, I think I have plenty of freedom now - I'm free to choose who to sleep with and under what circumstances and so is every other woman (excepting cases of rape or incest). Legal abortion didn't give me that.
And do you really think outlawing abortion would increase rape and other crimes against women? What about women who are forced into abortions? They do exist, you know. I've talked to one of them. Her father forced her to abort her baby and it took four people to hold her down during the procedure. The one thing that stuck with me that I'll never forget the rest of my life is when she told us (she spoke to my church) with tears in her eyes "I know God forgives me but I can't forgive myself - I should have fought harder to save my baby." This is a case when legal abortion contributed to the abuse of a young girl and it still haunts her.
You can't turn a blind eye to millions of dead babies (and you admit that they are human lives, you've said so) and say it's because you think we have too many problems with abuse of women in this country. That's a cop out, IMO.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Belle, It's not a cop out in my opinion.
It's one of the reasons I continue to support the availability of abortion in this country.
I didn't say it was the only one.
I also remain committed to the proposition that the pregnant woman is the one who should make the decision. Not me, and not the government on her (or my) behalf.
I consider the period of gestation a special case and do not, therefore, conclude automatically that the death of a fetus is murder.
If I thought it was murder, then I'd want the murder laws to apply, not a special law about abortion.
Since I don't thnk it's murder, and I don't want to see women who have an abortion treated as murderers, I arrive at the conclusion that I think of gestation as a special case.
Given that, I much prefer that the current "law" be made more explicit, tweaked if necessary, but that abortion not be banned. If a woman decides she wants one, then I think it should be available to her. And when/if she goes through with it, and is satisfied with her choice, I would support that decision as the right one for her at that time.
[ May 28, 2006, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote: If the price for sexual freedom is that I have to see millions of babies slaughtered, I'd rather not, thank you.
The last time this topic came up here, you said that you didn't use this sort of language because it wasn't productive in discussions. I'm not trying to nitpick you in particular here, but I really don't think language like this helps, and I remember you explaining to me why you refrained from using it.
It also offends me, which is why I'm posting about it. I hope you recognize, at least, that it's possible to understand your position and still reject it.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Twink, Belle was trying to demonstrate that the real disagreement was over the personness of a fetus, and not about women's rights. She was just pointing out that if the choice were between a nebulous ideal called "women's rights" and an ideal called "keeping babies alive", the vast majority of people would choose to keep babies alive. So the only reason we have a disagreement is because some people do not value fetuses as being comparable to babies.
So, to sum up. She didn't allege that abortion was infanticide. Instead, she alleged that pro-choice people would not accept infanticide as a fair cost for women's rights — an allegation I'm sure they would agree with.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Which is offensive, Twinky? That she said it, or that she might believe it? And if she believes it, is offending you a sufficient reason she shouldn't say it?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Twink, Belle was trying to demonstrate...
I used a similar rhetorical technique in the last big abortion debate on this forum, ARND, to which Belle took deep and justified offence. I have not used it since she pointed out how offensive it was. That a rhetorical technique might be effective does not necessarily mean that it's appropriate; moreover, in this case, I don't think it was at all effective either in helping her to make her point or in fostering civil discussion (the same was true of the case with me last time).
quote:She was just pointing out that if the choice were between a nebulous ideal called "women's rights" and an ideal called "keeping babies alive", the vast majority of people would choose to keep babies alive. So the only reason we have a disagreement is because some people do not value fetuses as being comparable to babies.
I thought her point was quite clear before she used the word "slaughter." I don't see how it helps her argument; indeed, it hurts it by offending people like me.
quote:She didn't allege that abortion was infanticide.
I don't see how "slaughtering babies," when used to refer to abortion, could possibly imply anything else.
quote:Which is offensive, Twinky? That she said it, or that she might believe it?
I don't see how that's relevant, frankly, but it's the former. I'm aware that she believes it, but it's easy (and, I would argue, both more effective and more useful) to say it without using language that alienates people who don't agree.
quote: And if she believes it, is offending you a sufficient reason she shouldn't say it?
I haven't suggested that, nor would I. Should I then never open my mouth when something is said on this forum that offends me? She knows how I feel about it now and is free to either keep using "slaughter" in this context or refrain in the future. That's up to her, not me, and I wouldn't presume otherwise.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm kind of reluctant to bump this, but, for those interested in the outcome of the clinic closure:
quote:MONTGOMERY, Ala., June 14 -- A Birmingham abortion clinic has surrendered its license amid allegations that a woman delivered a nearly full-term stillborn baby after a clinic staff member gave her an abortion-inducing drug and performed other medical treatments without a doctor present, health officials said Wednesday.
...
Wednesday's move avoids a hearing on June 20 in which the state would have presented its case against the center and sought to revoke its license.
"We got the same remedy we were trying to get in the hearing," Harris said.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I hope there are still criminal procedings against the perpetrators in this case. I sincerely hope they can't just turn in their license and walk away from this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The article mentions that the AG is still investigating and not planning on dropping charges. No guarantee of criminal charges, but the decision today doesn't prevent it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)