« A Century of Fakers | Main | I'm the Only One to Give Back Your Stolen Guns »

February 23, 2010

Comments

I think that's because England didn't have Roe v Wade, or Doe v Bolton. Having the courts impose by fiat something approximating the most extreme position of pro-choicers has really warped things here

Likewise, there was no racism before Brown vs. Board of Education imposed the most extreme position of the integrationists.

There have been similar numbers of arsons against university animal and genetics research labs as against abortion centers, especially in the last ten years (in which abortion violence has been on a steep decline

As mentioned, the only doctor who performs abortions in South Dakota flies there once a week. Do you think that that's because there's such small demand for abortions in a state of almost a million people, or is it a result of the harassment campaign against abortionists? And do you think that the success of this campaign in reducing the number of abortionists is unrelated to the decline in the number of violent incidents against them?

And in case it's not perfectly clear, I couldn't care less about this girl, and in an ideal world I would never have heard about the whole event. It's not a good case for pro-life activists or pro-choice activists, and if I had my way neither side would be attempting to use it to advance their cause.

It's just trivial, stupid crap that worked itself out without anyone getting badly hurt, which is about all you can hope for when you're a kinda dumb 17 year old like pretty much all of us once were. I'm perfectly well aware that passing judgment on the behavior of 17 year olds makes you come off as a "smug git" and I generally don't waste my time on it, but both sides - Jes here, the Utah legislature elsewhere - were attempting to use this stupid case as proof positive of their own ineluctable rightness. Well, it doesn't prove either side right. This girl is not a tormented victim of abortion law, nor is she a harbinger of a wave of teenage miscarriage-inducers.

In opposing the use of her case as motivation for a new law making every miscarriage a potential crime scene, I think it is reasonable to point out that this kind of thing is extremely rare because most people are not that stupid. I don't think some kind of solidarity requires me to pretend that I don't think it was stupid.

I think that's because England didn't have Roe v Wade, or Doe v Bolton. Having the courts impose by fiat something approximating the most extreme position of pro-choicers has really warped things here.

The simplest answer to that, Brett, is ... no.


The right to have an abortion in the UK was imposed by fiat (a Private Member's Bill that was made law in 1967, supported by MPs who understood that the issue was that women didn't deserve to die), and then the feminist movement worked on improving access - which was of course easier with the NHS than with the US's already substandard healthcare system.

Pro-lifers in the UK (this is anecdotal, I'm just going by what they say when we talk about abortion rights without yelling at each other, which I admit isn't often) regard the violent and unprincipled terrorism of the pro-life movement in the US as an embarrassment to their cause: they usually want to be quite clear that violence in the name of preventing women having access to abortions is an American thing. Also, the kind of harassment that's allowed outside US health clinics of patients and staff going in and out would likely not be allowed in the UK: the worst I've ever seen a group of pro-lifers outside a hospital do is stand quietly and hand out leaflets. (If they can: they have to be political, as it's illegal to hand out leaflets on the street unless you have a trading permit or unless they're directly political.)

Jacob: I'm perfectly well aware that passing judgment on the behavior of 17 year olds makes you come off as a "smug git" and I generally don't waste my time on it

And I think you should stick to that.

And I think you should stick to that.

After you, I insist.

"As mentioned, the only doctor who performs abortions in South Dakota flies there once a week."

Cite?

My understanding is that the only one who provides THIRD trimester abortions flies in. That would be a rather different proposition, right?

And Jesurgislac, telling someone to not pass judgment is almost humorous coming from you. Are you even aware of non-judgmental as a potential state of mind? ;)

"The right to have an abortion in the UK was imposed by fiat (a Private Member's Bill that was made law in 1967, supported by MPs who understood that the issue was that women didn't deserve to die)"

I think we've got a different understanding of the meaning of "fiat" in a democracy. Duly enacted legislation doesn't count.

So you would support legislation giving people the right to take - without consent - the organs of their matched donors? Have you ever donated a kidney to a dialysis patient? If not, how repelled do you feel about yourself that you have taken the arbitrary right to kill a person who was made dependent on your good grace?

Did you deliberately miss out a critical clause or was it a complete accident? The parents actively made the baby dependent on their good grace. Random matched donors did not make people with destroyed kidneys dependent on their good grace. The problem isn't the withholding of resources. It is the withholding of resources after ensuring that the person who needs them will die if they are withheld.

More seriously, Francis, the fact that you sufficiently identify with the pro-life movement that you are aware is a terrorist movement, that you use their rhetoric about "killing children" that justified murdering Doctor Tiller, makes you more on their side than on the side of the women whose lives he saved, and yet you seem to be well aware that's the evil side to be on. Why choose evil, when you have sufficient self-awareness to know it's evil?

Because you are, as normal, entirely missing my point. There is one advocate in this thread who will get some traction at making people more likely to be pro-life than they already are. It's not Sebastian. It's certainly not Brett Bellmore. It's not me. It's the lady rising from the lake. And I am trying to demonstrate to you why this is so.

Most people who are pro-life are so because they react emotionally (I've managed to flip one on third trimester abortions in the last few months by pointing out that I didn't care what the video she had seen showed - any crying in the middle of a so-called partial birth abortion is added as a cheap manipulative ploy on behalf of the video makers). And your rhetoric can be only very slightly trimmed (plus stripped of facts and links) and used as an effective straw-liberal.

My understanding is that the only one who provides THIRD trimester abortions flies in.

You understanding needs to be updated. From a recent edition of the Washington Post

Unlike Tiller, she does not do late-term abortions, and she has not received threats. But her trips are carefully orchestrated by security officers, and she declined to allow her face to be photographed for this article.

I presume that in your view she gets no credit for bravery, since she's received no direct threats.

I think we've got a different understanding of the meaning of "fiat" in a democracy. Duly enacted legislation doesn't count.

Neither does voiding legislation that's clearly unconstitutional.

Sebastian: "Cite?

My understanding is that the only one who provides THIRD trimester abortions flies in. That would be a rather different proposition, right?"

Cite.

Abortion after the 24th week is simply illegal in SD. Therefore, zero doctors perform third trimester abortions in SD. It would have been a very different proposition, but my statement was almost* accurate as-written.

*According to that CNN story, a total of four out-of-state physicians (not one) perform abortions at one single clinic in SD for a total of one day per week.

I'm against abortion, except when the life of the mother is endangered, or the woman has been raped.

In cases where parents wish to abort, the government should adopt the baby and pay every expense, including four years of undergraduate education and an IRA starter fund.

I'm for fully taxpayer financed, univeral, government-provided healthcare for every citizen.

Raise my taxes now or shut up.

Let's trade one for the other.

Tomorrow. By noon. In law.

After noon, the deal is off the table and deserving, fully human, unemployed fetuses and post-fetal, non-deserving, unemployed adult fetuses can continue to put up with the status quo in this kiss-my-ass culture.

Regarding the Philippines, two things:

A beautiful, family-centered, child-loving culture.

Also one in which I can enter any bar on Mabini Street in Manila and witness an aquarium full of female children being offered up for wholesale fucking any hour of the day. Blowjobs were birth control.

Also this: the volcano that destroyed the U.S. Army Base on Luzon and the decision to shut down the Subic Bay Naval Base, where fine young Republican males took shore leave, prevented more abortions than Focus On the Family could ever envision.

Francis: The parents actively made the baby dependent on their good grace.

Well, yes, they would if the mother opted to give birth.

But we're discussing fetuses, not babies. How is it so hard for you to remember this?

Did you deliberately miss out a critical clause or was it a complete accident?

Every single person who could stay alive if you were willing to give up the use of one of your organs is actively dependent on your good grace.

Your assertion that denial of good grace is tantamount to killing means you are killing each person to whom you COULD have donated one of your kidneys, or a lobe of your liver, or even a pint or more of your blood - and you didn't.

(Or did you? Are you a live donor? Or is your talk of how women are killers for not being live donors simply all about what women should do - while men, especially you, are entitled to keep their bodies sacrosanct regardless of who you kill as a result?)

Most people who are pro-life are so because they react emotionally

Most people who are pro-choice are so because they react emotionally to the idea that women ought to be forced.

Most people who are pro-life are so because they lack an emotional dimension - they cannot perceive women as human beings.

The previous discussion in this thread where Jacob and Sebastian both turned out to feel more compassion for a fetus than for a 17-year-old girl was right on the money as an example of pro-lifers just not seeing a 17-year-old girl as human (granted Jacob did acknowledge post-discussion that he'd come across as a smug git) and as more worthy of compassion, care, and help than the fetus she is carrying.

Taking away humanity from women does not save more fetuses. Taking away compassion and care from pregnant woman kills more fetuses than it will ever save - because the only real way of saving a fetus is to care for the woman who is carrying the fetus. Sometimes that care is going to require providing a safe abortion. But denying that care isn't going to ensure the fetus is carried safely to term.

What makes people pro-choice is understanding that girls and woman are human.

Brett: I think we've got a different understanding of the meaning of "fiat"

We do. Evidently. But the only understanding I have is the dictionary definition. "1. official sanction; authoritative permission; 2. an arbitrary order or decree; 3. Chiefly literary any command, decision, or act of will that brings something about" All of which applies to an Act of Parliament, especially a Private Member's Bill.

The distinction, for your better understanding, is that ordinarily, a party will put forward a manifesto of things they intend to accomplish when they get into power: the voters (well, some of them, anyway) will read the manifestos and decide which party to vote for. That's the idea anyway. But in the UK and US system of first-past-the-post party elections, obviously plenty of people vote for candidates of their chosen party without ever reading the manifestos - and even those that do won't agree with all of them before they get in - and a candidate can gain a seat even though a majority of people in their constituency voted for someone else.

But, in the UK Parliament, every parliamentary session MPs can draw for the right to put forward a private Bill, which, if enacted, will become the law of the land though it may never have been in a party manifesto and therefore never, even tenuously, have been voted on by the general public. The Abortion Act 1967 was an example of such legislation.

So while you may have a private definition of "by fiat" I think you should stop using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It took me a little while to dig this post up from Slacktivist, but if you're at all interested in the real history of the pro-life terrorist movement, Slacktivist's post on Francis">http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2009/06/killing-in-the-name-of/">Francis Schaeffer is a place to start.

The use of the rabid rhetoric comparing abortion to "baby killing" is extremely convenient to the kind of right-wing politics that needs a political issue to undercut the natural support of low-income voters for left-wing politics. Racism used to be a perfect issue for getting white working-class voters to vote against their best interests: abortion is another successful tactic, surprisingly so given that one in three American women will have an abortion at some point before they turn 40.

Jes, I take the not uncommon position that writing laws and deciding policy is precisely what legislators are elected to do, and precisely what judges are NOT appointed to do. Whatever degree of "fiatness" you might attribute to a law written, debated, and enacted by a legislature, pales in comparison to that degree possessed by the same policy being imposed out of the blue by a judiciary.

I take the not uncommon position that writing laws and deciding policy is precisely what legislators are elected to do, and precisely what judges are NOT appointed to do.

Not uncommon, as ignorance sadly never is. Let me enlighten your ignorance, since apparently I know more about your country's constitution and legal system than you do:

The US's legal system is a clone of the common law system of England/Wales in the 18th century.

In the common law system, judges are appointed for their experience and legal knowledge precisely so that they may decide the correct interpretation of the law. They are not, in most common law systems, elected because their role is not to decide democratically what the law ought to be, but to decide knowledgeably what the law is.

Your ignorance of this is understandable, but now you know better: you can always study up on the finer points in your spare time.

The Supreme Court of the United States was set up for the purpose of deciding the correct interpretation of constitutional law. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution".

In Roe vs Wade, 1973, SCOTUS decided that the US Constitution mandates that a woman's consultation with her doctor is private and privileged, and the state is not entitled to intervene: this was based squarely on Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution mandated a right to privacy.

You may fiercely object to the idea that people have a Constitutional right to privacy - that every element of their lives ought to be available for public exposure at the will and regulation of the state, without any protection from the law, is a little weird to me, but if you feel that strongly about it, why don't you ask to be on Jerry Springer?

The previous discussion in this thread where Jacob and Sebastian both turned out to feel more compassion for a fetus than for a 17-year-old girl was right on the money as an example of pro-lifers just not seeing a 17-year-old girl as human (granted Jacob did acknowledge post-discussion that he'd come across as a smug git) and as more worthy of compassion, care, and help than the fetus she is carrying.

I don't recall reading comparative expressions of compassion. As to compassion, care and help, might that include advising a pregnant 17-year-old girl not to do something stupid and dangerous and that she will likely regret for a very long time, perhaps the rest of her life? What if she had easy access to an abortion doctor who performed third-trimester abortions, and that doctor decided that he would not perform the abortion for his own moral, ethical and professional reasons? Would he be a smug git, too? Does prenancy make 17-year-old girls unquestionable pillars of wisdom?

Jes, I take the not uncommon position that writing laws and deciding policy is precisely what legislators are elected to do, and precisely what judges are NOT appointed to do.

Then you agree with me that the recent decision in which corporations were declared by fiat to be citizens with First Amendment rights is an abomination, or is that different?

Every single person who could stay alive if you were willing to give up the use of one of your organs is actively dependent on your good grace.

And once again you completely ignore the relevant clause. I'm not going to impute motivation. The fetus in the case of an abortion is only in the position of needing support because the parents had sex and something went wrong. That was not the intent. But that was the result.

I haven't destroyed someone's kidneys ever. As far as I know I have never been responsible for actions with the direct result of someone being destroyed. So your analogy doesn't hold.

And to ward off your next misinterpretation, no this isn't a claim that "The silly sluts should just keep their legs together". I support both contraception and child maintainance payments. Do as you will as long as it harms none (is a naive and useless philosophy on its own, but is a good general principle). You should not be able to kill another person just to avoid severe inconvenience from something you have done to them.

Most people who are pro-life are so because they lack an emotional dimension - they cannot perceive women as human beings.

Which is why according to polling data (as opposed to random internet advocates) women make up a substantial proportion of the pro-life movement.

What makes people pro-choice is understanding that girls and woman are human.

And what throws them across to pro-life in the case of all the feminist pro-lifers I know is the belief that fetusses are also human. And that it wasn't the fetus that was responsible for the problems that lead to an elective abortion seeming desirable.

As to compassion, care and help, might that include advising a pregnant 17-year-old girl not to do something stupid and dangerous and that she will likely regret for a very long time, perhaps the rest of her life?

Like having a baby? Yeah.

What if she had easy access to an abortion doctor who performed third-trimester abortions, and that doctor decided that he would not perform the abortion for his own moral, ethical and professional reasons? Would he be a smug git, too?

Depends how he reacted after he discovered that when he decided his own moral, ethical, and professional reasons were superior to the girl's need to have an abortion, she induced a miscarriage illegally and unsafely.

There was a case a few years ago in the UK of a girl who went to her local GP on realizing that she was pregnant, and asked him for an abortion (normal system: GP signs when recommending pregnant woman to the consultant who will perform the abortion, who provides the second doctor's signature): she was 20 weeks pregnant, so the GP refused her, on the grounds that after 20 weeks a healthy normal fetus shouldn't be aborted.

She went home, told no one, gave birth alone, and stuffed the baby into a cupboard wrapped in a towel where the baby died: the corpse was discovered by the smell a few days later. Apparently this kind of absolute mental denial of both pregnancy and childbirth leading to infanticide (neonaticide is the term used to mean a woman who kills her newborn baby) is fairly common in young women unable to obtain an abortion who do not want to be pregnant - may actually more common that killing a baby after a few days. A Systematic Investigation of 16 Cases of Neonaticide

Why should it be regarded as a better solution for young women to induce miscarriage by having themselves savagely beaten, or to have the newborn baby die by abandonment?

I could wish that someone had sensibly sat down with the 17-year-old girl as soon as she missed her first period and told her that she really needed to seriously consider having an abortion ASAP because having a baby at her age is a seriously bad idea, and please to ignore all the creepy mad talk claiming that abortion is "killing babies" - her body, her right, her life.

(And it would be really nice if the government of Utah hadn't decided that the state's job is to intervene between parent and child and she could just have gone to her local family planning clinic and got an abortion as soon as she decided for it, without anyone having to tell her parents. And that the local family planning clinic actually performed abortions on demand. Oh, and let's wish that as a minor she could have got the abortion performed for free. None of which is true.)

(Plus of course I could wish that she'd been on the pill and her boyfriend had used condoms and that if the condom broke she was able to go get emergency contraception within 8 hours of having sex - all of which MIGHT be true, but given this was rural Utah, I doubt it...)

Of course it would be better if: In school she AND her boyfriend had been taught explicitly that if you decide to have sex, UNLESS you want a baby you should use contraception, here's how, here's where to get it, free of course.

If as soon as she realized she might be pregnant she had been able to go get sensible, confidential advice about what her choices were, including the clear facts that at 17 her BEST choice was to have an abortion as soon as possible.

If as soon as she'd decided to get an abortion, she could have made the appointment for it, in the sure knowledge that no one BUT her would be able to tell her parents and she could decide when she wanted to let them know - or IF.

If the abortion was free. If the aftercare was free. If mad religionists weren't scaremongering that having an abortion is killing a baby and she has no right to decide she doesn't want to have a baby now she's had sex. If. All of the above. None of which are true.

Whatever. The better solution would have been to let her have an abortion.

The fetus in the case of an abortion is only in the position of needing support because the parents had sex and something went wrong.

So? Are you claiming that an adult who is dying of liver failure because you would not provide a lobe of your compatible and healthy liver is somehow in that position because they deserved it? Why are the people who are dying because you regard your body as sacrosanct and won't give up the use of your organs worth less than a fetus dying because a woman regards her body as sacrosanct and won't give up the use of her organs?

I haven't destroyed someone's kidneys ever

Irrelevant. You're claiming that refusal of the use of your healthy organs to keep someone else alive is killing. People died because there was no legislation to justify their harvesting one of your kidneys against your will. Do you feel guilty about killing them?

You should not be able to kill another person just to avoid severe inconvenience from something you have done to them.

...I always find it interesting, by the way, that pro-lifers invariably regard children not as a joyful choice but as a "severe inconvenience" that women who have sex can't be permitted to avoid. Odd that you should claim you don't want to be part of the guys calling women "silly sluts", when quite evidently that's where you belong.

Which is why according to polling data (as opposed to random internet advocates) women make up a substantial proportion of the pro-life movement.

And yet... women who claim to identify as pro-life will still choose for themselves to have abortions. The pro-life idea that women don't own their own bodies, that women can and should be forced to have babies against their will, is something women may subscribe to publicly and even mean it for other women. But the facts gathered at source are straightforward: when it comes down to the choice, women are not so devoid of personal responsibility and self-will as the pro-life movement claims.

And what throws them across to pro-life in the case of all the feminist pro-lifers I know is the belief that fetusses are also human

You don't know any feminist pro-lifers, Francis: the belief that women are incubators or slaves without human rights is completely incompatible with feminism.

You may know women who prefer to identify as pro-lifers while actually thinking that, when it comes down to the individual pregnant woman, it's got to be her choice to terminate or continue, no one else's. I know several closeted pro-choice feminists like that, too.

(I do also know one very young woman who works for a human rights organization who, aged 25, still believes that if a woman chooses to have sex with a man she ought not to be allowed to decide not to have a baby... but she's a lesbian: it's not exactly personal for her or for virtually anyone she knows.)

Like having a baby? Yeah.

Please keep in mind that I agree that a 17-year-old girl should have easy access to confidential medical advice and care, including elective abortion, the earlier in the pregnancy the better. I don't agree with Utah's laws and think they make cases like the one we're discussing more likely and common than they should be.

Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that a pregnant 17-year-old girl had every opportunity to get and early abortion and decided for herself not to get one at any point before her 7th month of pregnancy. Better yet, let's say she's 8-1/2 months into it and decides suddenly that she doesn't want to go through the dangers of a live birth and wants an abortion because she believes it is safer than child birth. What advice would you give her? Would it make someone a smug git to advise her to have the baby? Should a doctor be compelled to provide her with an abortion? If not, would the doctor be a smug git for refusing to perform the abortion? Even if every indication was that the girl would go through child birth after being advised to do so, even if she later decided to have someone beat her in the abdomen to induce a miscarriage? Are there any circumstances under which you would think an abortion was a bad voluntary choice for a woman? I'm not talking about enacting laws here, just your personal opinion.

Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that a pregnant 17-year-old girl had every opportunity to get and early abortion and decided for herself not to get one at any point before her 7th month of pregnancy. Better yet, let's say she's 8-1/2 months into it and decides suddenly that she doesn't want to go through the dangers of a live birth and wants an abortion because she believes it is safer than child birth. What advice would you give her?

Why are you asking me to assume "for the sake of argument" something that we can be pretty damn certain was not the case?

That things are different for 17-year-old girls lucky enough to be born in the Netherlands rather than in the US? (Or any country with lower levels of teenage pregnancy because of saner and more helpful public policies?)

Are there any circumstances under which you would think an abortion was a bad voluntary choice for a woman?

When having an abortion was actually going to be more hazardous for the woman than giving birth: that would be a bad choice for her to opt for having an abortion. Her life, though: her choice. Not mine.

When a woman wants the baby and other factors make her feel more strongly that even though she wants the baby, she can't continue this pregnancy: economic forces in particular. (I still think it's their business to weigh up the economic factors among others, but I think it's hellish that a woman may realize she's pregnant and she wants this baby and know she can't have one now simply because she has no job, or no health insurance, or nowhere to live, or won't be able to support the other children she already has...)

I might well disagree with a woman's reasons for choosing to have an abortion
(I think some people have babies for what I think are bad reasons, too), what I knew of them (not that I think it would be any of my business) but I hate it that some women end up deciding unhappily to have an abortion not because they don't want a baby but because they know they can't afford to have a baby.

"You don't know any feminist pro-lifers, Francis: the belief that women are incubators or slaves without human rights is completely incompatible with feminism.

You may know women who prefer to identify as pro-lifers while actually thinking that, when it comes down to the individual pregnant woman, it's got to be her choice to terminate or continue, no one else's. I know several closeted pro-choice feminists like that, too."

After all is said and done, this is always the core of a Jes argument. Anyone who disagrees is not a x or is a y because you can't disagree and be what you say you are, because Jes gets to define it. Since she is right, anyone who disagrees is wrong, not only wrong but self delusional and often closeted in really agreeing.

Sorry Jes, sometimes you just aren't right.

...I always find it interesting, by the way, that pro-lifers invariably regard children not as a joyful choice but as a "severe inconvenience" that women who have sex can't be permitted to avoid.

And I find your assertion here to be ridiculous. When abortion is on the table, the baby would clearly not be a wholly joyful choice or abortion wouldn't be considered. And for that matter there's a difference between pre and post conception. Anyone who works to block access to contraception is scum. There are plenty of ways for women (and men) to have sex without conceiving.

You're claiming that refusal of the use of your healthy organs to keep someone else alive is killing.

False. I'm claiming that refusal of the use of your organs after you put them in a position where it is use those organs or die is killing.

Driving away from someone bleeding to death isn't killing them (even if it is pretty callous). Driving away from someone bleeding to death when they are bleeding because your car hit them is killing them.

You may know women who prefer to identify as pro-lifers while actually thinking that, when it comes down to the individual pregnant woman, it's got to be her choice to terminate or continue, no one else's. I know several closeted pro-choice feminists like that, too.

And yet you call me a pro-lifer. (You saw my comment earlier to genuine pro-lifers: When no abortions are needed for medical reasons and we have worked sufficiently hard to ensure that there are no accidental pregnancies then we can talk about banning abortion.)

From memory the metaphor one of them used (I haven't seen her for a couple of years) to describe abortion was driving a boat a few miles out to sea with a passenger onboard and then leaving the passenger behind.

"Then you agree with me that the recent decision in which corporations were declared by fiat to be citizens with First Amendment rights is an abomination, or is that different?"

Well, aside from your misrepresenting Citizens United, which was about protecting the 1st amendment rights of real people using corporations as a conduit for exercising their rights, there is a difference: It's called the 1st amendment.

real people using corporations as a conduit for exercising their rights

That is, corporate managers using shareholder money to further their political views. Yeah, the investors are there to be fleeced, so why stop at Lear jets and bonuses that exceed profits? And the fact that this decision gives the GOP a brand-new source of money when they'd fallen way behind the Democrats in fund-raising is, I'm sure, purely a coincidence.

But it all amounts to the usual thing. "Legislating from the bench" means making decisions the speaker disagrees with.

Why are you asking me to assume "for the sake of argument" something that we can be pretty damn certain was not the case?

Because I'm trying to better understand your positions generally.

I might well disagree with a woman's reasons for choosing to have an abortion
(I think some people have babies for what I think are bad reasons, too), what I knew of them (not that I think it would be any of my business) but I hate it that some women end up deciding unhappily to have an abortion not because they don't want a baby but because they know they can't afford to have a baby.

I could honestly write the very same words.

Given that you wrote the particular things below, do these sentiments also apply to doctors? Do you think doctors are obligated morally or otherwise to perform abortions voluntarily requested by pregnant women under any and all circumstances? If a woman shouldn't have to provide the assistance of her internal organs to a fetus, does a doctor have to provide assistance in the form of medically unnecessary abortion services to a pregnant woman?

Her life, though: her choice. Not mine.

and

(not that I think it would be any of my business)

Jes: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", then?

You want people to listen to you, to consider that your opinions on the rights of women have merit; you make both consequentialist and deontological arguments for the righteousness of what you think. And yet, you express absolute contempt for the moral opinions of others, even those who agree with you entirely about what the law should be and agree with you substantially about the moral meaning of abortion.

You can't have it both ways. You can't make moral arguments and then dismiss the moral concerns of others as irrelevant.

Well, you can do that. But we live in a democratic society, and such tactics will never win over the trust of a majority.

I really respect your passion on this subject, and I mostly agree with you. But you're not helping. By all means have your opinion, but understand, when you express this particular opinion, you hurt, not help, the cause you're so passionate about.

(Sorry, to be clear, I am not quoting Jes in the first line of the previous comment. That's something I wrote, I just wanted to note that I was addressing the comment to her.)

"Why should it be regarded as a better solution for young women to induce miscarriage by having themselves savagely beaten, or to have the newborn baby die by abandonment? "

That certainly seems like extreme choices. What about the choice to have the perfectly healthy fetus adopted when it becomes born.

The nice thing about that, is that it isn't a hypothetical. This Utah baby would have already been adopted if it weren't for the fact that the woman who tried to have it killed by having a man beat her stomach is now fighting for custody. (Which introduces a whole psychological world right there).

"Why are you asking me to assume "for the sake of argument" something that we can be pretty damn certain was not the case?"

You've used this dodge before with me for years on the non-medically necessary third trimester abortion issue. You have insisted or years that women couldn't possibly take things so trivially, and that I was a mysoginist ass for suggesting that third trimester abortions would ever be non-medical abortions.

It really isn't my fault that you introduced the cas which prove me right.

So I hope you'll forgive me for not trusting you on the "so hypothetical it could never happen" judgment when hairshirthedonist wants to hypothetically add 3-4 more weeks for the sake of clarifying your position.

Jacob: Jes: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", then?

For blood donation, kidney donation, liver donation, uterus donation, and any other live organ donation - yes. No question.

And yet, you express absolute contempt for the moral opinions of others

When those moral opinions entail forcing others to give birth against their will, yes, I do. Strangely enough. For what it's worth, I feel exactly the same about involuntary live harvesting of any other organ.

Sebastian: That certainly seems like extreme choices.

Yes, but sadly, this is the US we're talking about, where pro-life terrorism and pro-life political activism takes the less-extreme choices off the table.

What about the choice to have the perfectly healthy fetus adopted when it becomes born.

Slavery has been illegal in the US since 1865, I believe. So your "choice" is not actually yours.

The nice thing about that, is that it isn't a hypothetical.

You think it's nice to take a baby away from the baby's mother against her will, so that a wealthy couple can buy the baby and pretend that it's theirs?

You've used this dodge before with me for years on the non-medically necessary third trimester abortion issue.

Again: define "non-medically necessary". You've argued that women can be chained up and forced to give birth, or operated on against their will, in order to produce unwanted babies - in order to channel them into the US's adoption industry.

You have insisted or years that women couldn't possibly take things so trivially

A girl who is desperate enough to attempt to procure a miscarriage by having herself beaten needed an abortion. You think that desperation on a level of paying to have herself beaten is "trivial", as you thought (as I recall) that a pregnant woman at risk of suicide was "trivial".

Infant adoption is absolutely beneficial to people who make a living out of trading babies. It's pleasurable for couples who want a baby they can pretend is theirs from the start, rather than having to find an older child who desperately needs parents.

It's not, except in the repellant terms of providing profit and pleasure for others, a valid "solution" to a young girl getting pregnant. Unless, of course, you're a man who thinks whatever a woman feels is just "trivial".

The comments to this entry are closed.