…and this is a 
I'm very disappointed in Australia. Here I thought it was the kind of place where individuality was valued, and there was some good old rugged common sense to the people. But then I read this ghastly story.
In short, Tegan Leach gets pregnant at the age of 18, she and her boyfriend sensibly realize they are too young to be having children, and she obtains some RU486 to induce an abortion. That's smart and practical, although it would have been better if she'd gotten the assistance of a health care professional to monitor the situation.
Apparently, that wasn't an option. Doctors refuse to perform abortions of any kind in Queensland, and the laws are hopelessly muddled. The courts are freaking out, and the citizens are insane. These kids had their house firebombed, and their car attacked. Now she's being prosecuted, and faces seven years in prison.
Maybe she'll feel mature enough to bear children when she gets out. It's an interesting social strategy: perhaps you could cage all the girls and women until they are of an age to get pregnant, and then you could release them briefly for breeding? Then, of course, they'd be returned to a larger cage with a crib and a changing table.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 15, 2009 11:36 PM
Woah, hadn't heard about this but really dissapointed.
But i'd just like to state for the record that queenslanders are crazy.
Posted by: Simon Scott | September 15, 2009 11:40 PM
The significant term in this story is "Queensland".
Theyre all nuts there.
In WA you get none of this nonsense.
Posted by: Brock | September 15, 2009 11:40 PM
Egad, that's disgusting. Australian skeptics, please speak out about that bullshit! (...not that the US is free from crazy or anything... I just don't think we need the company)
Posted by: bargal20 | September 15, 2009 11:40 PM
It's Queensland. It's a state legal issue. The government there has always been strangely entranced by fundamentalist christians.
Posted by: Berner | September 15, 2009 11:40 PM
These kinds of people who only care about unborn "life" (once it's out of the womb it's not THEIR responsibility) really need to get their priorities straight. Fucking savages.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 15, 2009 11:43 PM
You can borrow Roe v Wade if you'd like.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 15, 2009 11:44 PM
holy.fucking.hell.
i didn't know australian laws were this fucked up. poor girl :-/
Posted by: Rorschach | September 15, 2009 11:44 PM
Yeah, it's a disgrace that she is being prosecuted for this.But as the article states, the law is 100 years old and doctors are in legal limbo, especially in QLD.One can only hope that she gets away without a prison sentence, and that this case is taken as an opportunity to overhaul the abortion legislation.
Posted by: Amplexus | September 15, 2009 11:45 PM
Reminder that other countries are sometimes worse than the US is even at times.
This is really fucked up... I mean really! This should have been a private medical decision, not involving the media and courts. With her face on the
How would those men like it if there was a hi-def PNG of their scrotum up in lights somewhere in public, with special detail to all it's wrinkles.. This is basically the same thing
Please, spare me the details. This is between a doctor and nurse and a patient.
Posted by: Glenn | September 15, 2009 11:46 PM
I never realized how much of a shit hole Australia was until my British friend temporarily moved there, and ran the fuck back to Canada.
Posted by: Mathew | September 15, 2009 11:46 PM
Ah well that's Queensland for you.
I think demented 'nuttiness' correlates with heat.
See Pauline Hanson.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | September 15, 2009 11:46 PM
It's a problem all right, but it may not work out as badly as it looks. I hope. We have a lot of old laws on the books that are never enforced. This used to be one of them... and now there is a public outcry.
There's some more detail and a poll that needs pharyngulating here. (news.com is murdoch press, which may explain the initial bad result) http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26072582-3102,00.html
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 15, 2009 11:46 PM
well, that's at least something. still, even if the girl is spoken free, the whole ordeal has to be massively traumatizing
Posted by: WMDKitty | September 15, 2009 11:47 PM
It's her body, and as long as the zygote/embryo/fetus resides within her body, SHE has the right to decide whether or not to evict the little fucker.
There's no such thing as "Pro-Life" -- they are ANTI-WOMAN.
Posted by: Amplexus | September 15, 2009 11:47 PM
Reminder that other countries are sometimes worse than the US is even at times.
This is really fucked up... I mean really! This should have been a private medical decision, not involving the media and courts. With her face on the cover of newspapers
How would those men like it if there was a hi-def PNG of their scrotum up in lights somewhere in public, with special detail to all it's wrinkles.. This is basically the same thing
Please, spare me the details. This is between a doctor and nurse and a patient.
Now for you foreign people reading this where should I go to grad school, I really want to leave this country, i'm already a socialist and want to be with my ilk, where should I go to avoid this stuff.
I'd hate to go to Norway but end up in the Alabama area of Norway. Help me out. I want to come to your country for an education and contribute lots
Posted by: Andrew | September 15, 2009 11:49 PM
As some have pointed out, this is largely a Queensland specific problem. Certainly it is not an issue in Western Australia. I guess it's a bit like Texas doing some things the rest of your country doesn't agree with.
I've had plenty of water cooler discussions with people in New South Wales and Western Australia and everyone is shocked and horrified that this is occurring.
Hopefully the outrage will lead to Queensland catching up with the 21st century.
Posted by: Toby S. | September 15, 2009 11:49 PM
Dear Australia: I was planning on visiting your beautiful country next year, but now? My tourism boycott of Australia began a few moments ago after I finished reading about your outdated, insane and ridiculous abortion laws.
Posted by: Kane Murdoch | September 15, 2009 11:53 PM
All Australians know that Queensland is the land that time forgot, but it fills us with shame to know they are attached to our landmass all the same. And my wife's a Queenslander!
Posted by: bargal20 | September 15, 2009 11:53 PM
I've never met Glenn, and I never knew what a dick he is was until another commenter told me.
Posted by: Lynaka | September 15, 2009 11:54 PM
But what about the fact that she brought illegal drugs into the country? This has to be considered apart from what the drugs were going to be used for. She procured drugs that weren't allowed in that State. And what were the police doing in her home to begin with, considering the drugs were found coincidentally; the article makes it sound like they weren't specifically looking for abortion pills. So what else was it that they were actually about to get in trouble for and have their home searched?
If anything the story has opened my eyes to the Draconian abortion laws in Queensland. I'm sorry the girl felt she had to go outside of the country to get the pills. But it also sounds like if she had attempted legitimate sources at home, she may have been able to get them there since they are available under medical supervision. Personally, I'm not quite prepared to make her the poster girl for the Right to Choose cause in Queensland.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 15, 2009 11:56 PM
We are in the 21st centuary if you haven’t notice. You’re biblical laws means nothing to us.
Posted by: John Morales | September 15, 2009 11:57 PM
Sigh. It's been said, but again: it's Queensland.
You Americans, think "bible belt".
Posted by: Bastard Sheep | September 15, 2009 11:57 PM
You guys have the deep south, we in the southern hemisphere have the deep north (aka Queensland).
Most of us here see this story as a good thing as it has brought media attention to the stupid laws and will most likely lead to them being overruled. Things are already in motion now that it has the public's attention, where as prior to this point nobody could care enough for anybody to get anything done about it.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 16, 2009 12:00 AM
This makes me glad I don't live in Queensland anymore - well, that and it's where Ken 'Piglet Rapist' Ham comes from.
Posted by: spudbeach | September 16, 2009 12:00 AM
I learned long ago to not assume that other countries/cultures/groups aren't as stupid as my own, so I'm not surprised by this barbarism.
Further, Australia has some strict movie censorship, a start on an internet filtering scheme, as well as 11 years of rule by a conservative, John Howard (ok, technically of the liberal party, but just as conservative as George Bush).
This is not an aberration, just politics as usual. The attitude that it is OK to ruin two lives to save a blastocyst is sadly not just an American thing.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 16, 2009 12:01 AM
Got to love the Queensland bashing done. Like when you see a story like this out of Texas - it's not the US, it's Texas! That place is backwards ;) And hell, I even participate in it at times, for instance Ken Ham is not from Australia - he's from Queensland. Of course that may have something to do with growing up in NSW and being pissed that we lost the State Of Origin again this year.
I remember hearing recently on the news that they are looking to rectify this situation - so if that is correct then that is what really should be taken away. Yes there's an archaic law on the book, but this is highlighting that there is need for action and it is being taken.
Posted by: DethB4DCaf
|
September 16, 2009 12:03 AM
Mmmmmm....Fresh Poll.....TASTY!.....
Thanks for voting, here are the results so far:
Should abortion be legalised in Queensland?
Yes 29% (1373 votes)
No 70% (3256 votes)
Unsure 0% (13 votes)
Total votes: 4642 votes so far
Posted by: kamaka | September 16, 2009 12:05 AM
Your blaspheming head will serve as example
Ah, a fine example of christer moral high ground.
Go to hell.
Posted by: Marty in Boise | September 16, 2009 12:05 AM
Darn it, every time I see the abbreviation for New South Wales I think somebody's linking to a site that's not safe for work.
I have the same problem with the abbreviation for the National Science Foundation...
Posted by: Jess | September 16, 2009 12:07 AM
Those laws are so depressing and I can't believe they apply to me as a Queenslander (and a female Queenslander at that). I'm honestly amazed at the awful and intolerant knee-jerk reactions people have had towards the poor girl; I genuinely expected much better from people and I am horrifically disappointed.
I'm sitting here currently administering an EEG to a research participant in the interests of increasing humanity's understanding of neuroscience and cognitive function, but I better make sure I never recruit as a participant anyone who had a part in establishing and maintaining those anti-abortion laws - it would be most annoying to go through the rigmarole of getting the electrode cap on only to get no signal whatsoever from anywhere inside their skull.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 12:08 AM
/You're really, seriously insane, aren't you
Posted by: Bhan | September 16, 2009 12:08 AM
Dear Australia: I was planning on visiting your beautiful country next year, but now? My tourism boycott of Australia began a few moments ago after I finished reading about your outdated, insane and ridiculous abortion laws.
I suppose you're kidding, but as a inhabitant of a country with bad abortion laws (Brazil), I disagree that doing harm to a country's touristic industry would improve the situation... IMHO, kind of pointless.
P.S.: how to properly quote, people?
Posted by: Auguste | September 16, 2009 12:11 AM
Apparently there's a city/town/locale in Queensland called Townsville. Perhaps the Powerpuff Girls should smack some sense into state lawmakers.
Posted by: MrFire | September 16, 2009 12:11 AM
Oh Christ, it's a Mabus attack.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 12:11 AM
Bhan, I'm sure the people of Austrailia will weep at the loss....not really, but sleep well anyway.
*rolls eyes*
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 12:12 AM
Like this:
<blockquote>P.S.: how to properly quote, people?</blockquote>
Posted by: James | September 16, 2009 12:13 AM
As an apparently 'insane' citizen of Queensland I thought I should point out that there is not as much 'freaking out' going on over here as PZ might suggest. This is the first time in decades that someone has been prosecuted for procuring an abortion, and there is definitely a growing sentiment in Queensland that these particular charges should be dropped. The fact that having abortion remain in the criminal code is archaic and it the law should be changed. The police and the courts can't be blamed though; they are just doing their job.
Unfortunately, the current Premier Anna Bligh, whilst pro-choice herself is concerned that if laws were put to the (unicameral) parliament, then it might backfire and result in conservative MPs voting to make abortion even more inaccessible. This is a legitimate concern, as a vote on this issue would likely be a conscience vote, where MPs would not be forced to vote on party lines.
Regarding doctors in Queensland, they recently stopped performing abortions in public hospitals over concerns that they might not be protected from prosecution. A law was rushed through parliament recently though to clarify that medical and surgical abortions are legal to protect the physical or mental health of the mother. (Or in the case of fetal abnormalities, I believe.)
It would unfair to lump all Australians in with a few out of touch MPs in Queensland, especially when some other states have much more liberal abortion laws. In Victoria, for example, abortion is completely legal after the government changed the laws in the last couple of years.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 16, 2009 12:15 AM
Another story about people freaking out over controlling women's bodies. Shocker.
Posted by: Jennie | September 16, 2009 12:16 AM
Ummm.
Yes, as an ex-Queenslander I can say that there are quite a few lunatics up there, especially as you go further north (like, e.g., Cairns, where this case happened).
However, just to clarify:
The abortion law in Queensland currently states that surgical abortion is permissible in cases of risks to the woman's life or health. Essentially this has meant abortion on demand, with the authorities turning a blind eye to what's going on.
A few doctors in Queensland (including one in Cairns who has written on the case, e.g., here have legal authority from the Therapeutic Goods Administration to prescribe RU486. They are now, obviously, considering their legal position given this prosecution. The young woman is being charged under two sections of the Queensland law; it is the first case in over fifty years with respect to one section, and the first case *ever* (I think) under the other.
For some reason this young woman did not know of the options available to her, and a member of her partner's family illegally imported misoprostol (not RU486) illegally from the Ukraine. This was reported to the police three months later, and apparently by someone who wants to wage a personal vendetta against the woman.
It's obviously beyond ridiculous that she's being charged. The Queensland Premier is now moving to have the relevant law changed so that medical as well as surgical abortion is covered under the 'life or health' clause. This is quite insufficient - given that over 70% of Queenslanders support the total decriminalisation of abortion, the proper legislative reform would be to make it legal on request (as it is in many other states). However, as usual, the politicians are running scared from the loud religious zealots.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 12:17 AM
Well it's a comfort to know the women of Australia can go to Victoria to bash their issue to pieces.
Thanks, James. Bhan can sleep well tonight indeed.
Posted by: AndrewB | September 16, 2009 12:20 AM
The only part of that story that wasn't fucked up was that there Government is going to do something about it, hopefully it will be enough.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 12:21 AM
"Essentially this has meant abortion on demand, with the authorities turning a blind eye to what's going on."
Hopefully they turned their heads downwind so as not to have themselves splattered with the results of their derelictions.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 12:21 AM
'Amazed' doesn't believe that women own their own bodies or can be trusted to make their own decisions.
Posted by: Ing | September 16, 2009 12:21 AM
So This person thinks that sending a death threat to a faculty member to every other member of the staff somehow helps his case?
Posted by: David | September 16, 2009 12:22 AM
Some of the comments show a distinct lack of proportion. As a Queenslander I am outraged that the police took this issue this far and I am confidant that a vast majority of Queenslanders feel the same way. We have our cranks and fundies just the same as the USA. To then take this issue and turn it into anti-Queensland or anti-Australian comment shows a distinct lack of critical thinking, that is not what this blog is all about. Look at the world and every country has injustices of some kind. Be opposed to injustice everywhere. At least we have sane gun laws here, so that there was a fire bombing instead of using Assault Rifles as is the case in certain other parts of the world I could name.
Posted by: dusty | September 16, 2009 12:22 AM
And her in the USA we've got this fresh out of Tallahassee.:
" TALLAHASSEE -- A nationwide anti-abortion group launched an effort in Florida Friday to outlaw all abortions and certain types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill.
The religion-infused movement, called "Personhood Florida," would define conception in Florida's constitution at the "biological beginnings," supporters said -- when the sperm meets the egg. The group filed its amendment today but the exact ballot language is still being worked out, said Secretary of State Spokeswoman Jennifer Krell-Davis.
The amendment seeks to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. Also criminalized: the morning-after pill and oral contraceptives taken by women, known as the pill. "There are some (birth control) methods that kill a child," said Pat McEwan, who is leading the Personhood Florida group."
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/anti-abortion-group-announces-drive-o
They want to outlaw the Pill because it "sometimes kills a child".
Posted by: John S. Wilkins
|
September 16, 2009 12:22 AM
I recently moved from Queensland, and was left with the impression that the only thing wrong with that state was all the Queenslanders who lived there.
But the abortion laws, which were reformed or quietly abandoned in the 1970s, are still a mess, and only convention has kept them from being more widely applied - that, and the fact that most people think abortion is a matter of personal choice or belief.
Even my home state Victoria, which since 1969 has permitted medically mandated abortion, strictly speaking only allows it on the fiction that it is "medically necessary", which is supposed to mean that the mother's well being is endangered. This precedent is what drives the NSW and Queensland courts as well.
Basically we do not have the right to choose in Australia; we have the right to ask a medical practitioner to go along with the legal fiction. In practice it has not meant much difference, as abortion is widely available, but it leads to stupid cases like this.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 12:23 AM
Not a bit AM. I'm all for the bloodsport....toss 'em to the lions says I!
Posted by: Rorschach | September 16, 2009 12:25 AM
Voting in that poll upthread lead me to this article about a failed execution in Ohio.Words fail me to be honest :
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26080901-952,00.html
Posted by: Alex | September 16, 2009 12:26 AM
Thank god I waited to post, Jennie had a much better description than what I could have come up with.
I am fairly sure the law has already been changed though, or at the very least has been voted on and passed (out of everybody in the government voting, only 1 person voted no).
As for our laws, we have lots of stupid, old, out of touch (etc.) laws in place, but they just aren't enforced in the large majority of cases (only when the cops can't link you to the actual main law that you broke, in this case they only found the boxes the drugs come in, but she admitted to taking them). So just because something may be technically illegal, doesn't mean it's actually "illegal" in practise.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 12:26 AM
Yeah, yeah drmab...we got it. Stop wasting time and get to the snitching.
Posted by: archaeoangel
|
September 16, 2009 12:30 AM
I live in Cairns and I assure you that there are many, many people here who do not agree with the abortion law or with how Tegan Leach is being treated. There have been public protests, fundraisers, and a great many of us are appalled at the courts decision to prosecute. It is true that Queensland is the most 'redneck' of the Australian states, but not all Queenslanders are rednecks! The abortion laws throughout Australia leave something to be desired and are far from ideal. Hopefully this case might bring thoughtful consideration to the issue of unwanted pregnancy and the reproductive rights of Australian women. In the meantime, I apologise for those Cairns region people who are such backwards misogynists. I am only one woman, but I am trying my best to spread a bit of secular enlightenment - but as you can imagine, it's not easy. Peace.
Posted by: John Morales | September 16, 2009 12:31 AM
[OT]
Rorschach, from your link:
Sheesh. How hard is it to arrange a “quick and painless”
murderexecution?A few hundred grams of high explosive detonated next to his skull should do it...
</disgust>
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 12:32 AM
But what about the fact that she brought illegal drugs into the country? This has to be considered apart from what the drugs were going to be used for.
fuck all that...
her house was FIREBOMBED FFS!!
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 12:32 AM
"Basically we do not have the right to choose in Australia; we have the right to ask a medical practitioner to go along with the legal fiction."
Don't know your way around a spanner do you, John? Forced to wait for someone else to do the dirty deed in your stead, are you?
I suggest your whelps are worth at least your best efforts, sport!
Posted by: Jeff S | September 16, 2009 12:32 AM
Why is it that these "pro-life" people tend to rush to violence so quickly? It shows the hypocrisy of these fanatics.
Posted by: Paul Goodhew | September 16, 2009 12:33 AM
As James says, this is the first time anyone has been prosecuted in Queensland for an abortion for a long, long time. 14,000 abortions were carried out in Queensland last year. Alot of those were in the public system.
Reread James' post to get some perspective on this.
Most states have archaic old laws that are not enforced.
It is however shocking and disturbing that this poor girl has been prosecuted and I really hope the charges are dropped.
PZ, your sweeping generalisations are not appreciated and they are not rational. You are ranting and raving and injecting a healthy dose of emotional noise into an issue that is complex and requires a cool, sensible approach to get the best outcome for people who are directly affected.
Infact this post sounds like a sensational tabloid rant.
Makes me wonder what issues that I am less familiar with you have given a similarly inaccurate treatment.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 12:35 AM
Pity the abortion clinic wasn't alerted before hand.....all those babies and a good flame gone to waste, eh?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 12:35 AM
btw, this is definitely a case where NZ has it all over OZ.
The abortion laws here actually DO make sense, and getting an abortion is perfectly safe and legal and free.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 12:37 AM
injecting a healthy dose of emotional noise into an issue that is complex and requires a cool, sensible approach to get the best outcome for people who are directly affected.
...like firebombing their house, say??
Posted by: Queequeg | September 16, 2009 12:37 AM
Well, if she's "morally corrupt" she should be considered even more of a poster girl. Actually, the people we should be happiest to provide abortions for, are those who would not provide the child with a good upbringing... in my opinion. However, seeing as she was responsible enough to go to that much effort to have an abortion when she was sure she couldn't take care of the child, she may actually have made a reasonably good mother.
Whatever the case may be for this couple, it is in my opinion wrong to put women in prison for having abortions. Therefore, Queensland needs to get a grip. (But I should probably mention that in my country abortions are illegal except in extreme cases, as decided by the doctor).
Posted by: Coran | September 16, 2009 12:38 AM
I think most places have their share of laws that are out-dated, so there are a number of things that are socially OK but technically illegal. This appears to be such a case. I heard comment on the case that in Queensland it's medical abortion that's illegal, whilst surgical abortion is legal, but the doctors aren't taking any risks with their liberty until they know they won't be prosecuted on the basis of some old law that's only dug up when someone's got their knickers in a twist.
It is good to see that the laws are being changed.
Posted by: snitch7 | September 16, 2009 12:39 AM
WOW!
TO MOST OF THE COMMENTATORS SO FAR:
NICE WAY TO RAG ON AN ENTIRE COUNTRY BASED ON ONE STATE'S OUTDATED (AND WRONG) LAW!!
LOSE THE PLOT MUCH?
GENERALIZE MUCH?
WOWWWWWWWWW
Posted by: photon | September 16, 2009 12:40 AM
One of the saddest things about this case is that if the young woman had gone to her doctor or a family planning clinic she would almost certainly have been able to have had a safe, legal abortion, with the costs covered by our single-payer, universal health insurance scheme.
Unfortunately her boyfriend imported some black-market drugs instead, attracted the attention of the legal system, and some dickhead decided to drag out a Victorian era law.
Hopefully the fallout will be severe enough to get the law changed (although I'm not going to hold my breath)
As for the fire-bombing, etc, well - idiots are idiots, no matter what their accents.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 12:41 AM
"...the doctors aren't taking any risks with their liberty until they know they won't be prosecuted on the basis of some old law that's only dug up when someone's got their knickers in a twist."
That's what a good stout piece of wire is good for, eh mate?
The stout man steps up where the weak kneed doctors fail.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 16, 2009 12:44 AM
From what I gather from the treatment of the girl, the argument made by pro-life people seems to be:
Choose to protect life, OR I'M GONNA FUCKEN KEEL YOU!
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 12:45 AM
'Amazed,' why do you think women should be ashamed of a medical procedure?
Posted by: Reader5000 | September 16, 2009 12:46 AM
Are there any leads regarding the terrorist attack against this woman? Are the police even taking it seriously?
Posted by: Silmarillion | September 16, 2009 12:47 AM
Wow, I kind of expected better from Pharyngula and its -ites.
Not true. Doctors routinely perform abortions in Queensland in accordance with a legal decision in the 1980's that it's allowable when a woman’s physical or mental health was at risk from continuing a pregnancy. When this case was brought to light, as James said, public doctors stopped performing abortions in public hospitals over concerns that they might not be protected from prosecution. Private doctors are still performing. Only 300 out of 14,000 abortions are done in public hospitals. Yes, it's sad that our state government won't push for reform, but they're kind of preoccupied with jobs and infrastructure at the moment.Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 12:47 AM
? What are you saying?
I think every woman should be proud to expose their wombs to the mighty vacuum of freedom.
Posted by: Heidi | September 16, 2009 12:49 AM
Oh my holy hell. Australians, learn from our (US) mistakes and contain this horror before it spreads!
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 12:50 AM
That's what a good stout piece of wire is good for, eh mate?
now why do i want to take that same wire and garrote you with it, I wonder?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 12:50 AM
Dear Australians:
As a citizen of the United States, I know how it feels to have my whole nation criticized. But sometimes we need to be publicly embarrassed in order to spur us toward the right action.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 12:51 AM
"Are there any leads regarding the terrorist attack against this woman? Are the police even taking it seriously?"
No worries, love.
Jack Bauer is on the job and will have the villains squirming in their own entrails in a flash.
Just as soon as they clear off the entrails of the last baby he hoiked out in defense of FREEDOM!
Posted by: Twisted_Colour | September 16, 2009 12:52 AM
Nothing surprising about this. Hell, Queensland was a fascist dictatorship until 1987.
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 16, 2009 12:53 AM
Amazed.
If you have some issue with a woman's right to her own body, how about trying some rational argument to support it. this sarcasm is getting tedious.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 12:54 AM
Tsk, tsk icky....violent keyboard fantasies wont get the blighter out of the fun tunnel will it?
Do stay focused!
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 12:54 AM
'Amazed,' you are trying to make a medical procedure sound terrifying. It seems pretty obvious that you are an anti-choice troll who is trying to poison the discussion. But on the off chance that you're not, you need to understand that you are unfairly stigmatizing a medical procedure that no one undertakes lightly. And either way, you need to stop.
Posted by: williamwaite | September 16, 2009 12:55 AM
I think an interesting issue here is the surgical v. medical abortion side of it.
As mentioned, very few practitioners in Aust are licensed to administer RU486 or similar drugs (Thanks, Tony Abbott!); this means that if she wished to have an abortion, most likely she would have been sent to a private clinic to have a surgical abortion.
The whole "problem" with RU 486 according to Abbott was that it would "make abortion attractive". In reality, it makes abortion safer, less medically intensive, and better for providers and for women. It prevents a surgical procedure.
Access to contraceptives, Plan B and RU486 make women's lives better, safer and more productive. Family Planning is the best thing for improving quality of life, for everyone.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 12:56 AM
Wow, I think some of the Aussie commenters here need to grow a thicker skin. How much shit has been thrown at the US for our stupid government policies whether at a state or national level? How much do people make fun of us for the backwards hicks we have living here, some of whom are in the legislature? The Aussies I know (and I share an office with one) wouldn't be such babies about getting a little abuse.
You don't want us making fun of your country, get rid of the crappy laws. We're trying to do the same, and until we succeed we will just agree with you when you point out that there are some things here that are fucked up. And while I can't do anything about the laws in Louisitucky unless we can get something passed on a national level, I can agree that the right wing dicks are just that.
Every country seems to have their share of idiots. While this story kills my fantasy of Australia as a great place to move my family when Sarah Palin gets elected president, I'm still going to need somewhere to go. If you can stop your whinging I'll keep you on the list.
I think the thing that many of the Aussies posting here fail to realize is how dismayed many of us Americans are that this could happen there - because to me at least it seems like a sanctuary for people like us.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 12:58 AM
Not a bit, Strange. What is terrifying about a simple pinch and tug to get on with the fun?
It's not like there will be anyone left to complain, eh? *wink*
Posted by: Adelaidian | September 16, 2009 12:58 AM
I dunno if you should take that on yourselves, mate. I've been to NT and I live in SA, and it isn't clear at all to me that Queensland is any worse then either of those two.
Posted by: Jennie | September 16, 2009 1:00 AM
Quite. In addition, illegal importation of prescription drugs is not the crime with which she is charged.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 1:00 AM
This is 100% true.
I should point out though, that the penalty for not blaspheming is also death.
And it also bears mentioning that there is no correlation between blasphemy vs. non-blasphemy and lifespan.
Thanks for bringing it up though.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 1:02 AM
'Amazed,' it's proven now that you are an anti-choice troll.
Now get on with your actual argument. Your stupid dance routine is not helpful to your case.
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 16, 2009 1:03 AM
... get back to the dungeon mabus
Posted by: Coran | September 16, 2009 1:04 AM
I don't think 'Amazed' is an anti-choice troll so much as an anti-sanity troll. It's certainly not demonstrated any semblance of sanity so far. This is apparently what happens when there's not enough resources put in to the care of the mentally ill.
Posted by: Taylor | September 16, 2009 1:05 AM
It is really really sad that a "human life" only matters while the woman is pregnant. Once the woman is forced to have a baby...don't come asking us for help.
Ok now that my rant on that is over, this makes me really really really sad. Why isn't a woman considered responsible for the happenings in her own body or the rest of her life?
And if a medical abortion was so easily accessible like many of the previous comments suggest, why didn't this couple just go the legal route? Makes me wonder what the quality of information on options is like in Queensland.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 1:06 AM
I'm still going to need somewhere to go.
I'd suggest New Zealand, but I got here first, damnit!
;)
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 1:06 AM
Stupid dance routine, you say?
That reminds me of the story of the Shiela that changed her mind right on the table...but perhaps that's one we should keep to ourselves, eh?
*wink*
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 1:08 AM
'Amazed' is definitely an anti-choice troll. Note how at #81 it tries to imply that women have abortions for fun. This is a common theme of anti-choicers. They hate women so much that they really believe a woman who takes her sexual life into her own hands must be so stupid that she would have invasive medical procedures for frivolous reasons.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 1:08 AM
Stupid dance routine, you say?
you've outlived your entertainment value rather quickly.
Hope you don't plan on a long stay?
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 1:09 AM
Well, I'm out.
I have to get back to sexually abusing my stepdaughter.
Ta.
*wink*
Posted by: Jennie | September 16, 2009 1:12 AM
Ooops. My last comment made no sense. I cut and pasted the wrong thing. I meant to reply to this:
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 1:12 AM
why didn't this couple just go the legal route?
let's see...
house is firebombed and car attacked as soon as locals discover she has had an abortion...
Now I'm not saying this is the case across all of Queensland, but it sure suggests a reason why they might not have wanted ANYONE to know, or even suspect, they went to a clinic for an abortion.
I really, really hope that actually ISN'T the case, though.
just a lone fire-loving looney?
*sigh*
Posted by: mikecbraun | September 16, 2009 1:12 AM
Wow, the loonies are really out on this thread. Must be a full moon. Amazed and dmab, you guys should hook up. I'm sure you'd have fun painting with your feces and speaking in tongues.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 1:13 AM
Och, AM you dullard. Slipping the blighter isn't fun! It's just necessary to get on with the fun, don't you see?
Diapers, bottles, schoolbooks...agh, away!
Nothing but the slippery sin for you and I, eh mate? Nothing to worry about, just the getting of it.
Yea, that's the thing!
Posted by: hotshoe | September 16, 2009 1:14 AM
Hey, there's a poll
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26072582-3102,00.html
Should abortion be decriminalized (in Queensland) ?
Posted by: mikecbraun | September 16, 2009 1:16 AM
I like how the nutjob making obvious death threats won't put the "k" in "fuck." Even loonies have their ethics, I guess.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 1:17 AM
@Ichthyic
Unfortunately for you, NZ is now at the top of the list. :)
Posted by: Jennie | September 16, 2009 1:17 AM
Well, I'm not sure that's representative of overall community sentiment (as I mentioned before, over 70% of Queenslanders support legal abortion). It seems to me that there's something more going on in this particular case; the whole case started because someone reported them to the police (three months later).
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 16, 2009 1:18 AM
ok, does Canada really not have a law against making death-threats on the internet?
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 16, 2009 1:20 AM
You know, if something horrible should happen to Ichthyic, investigators could see this as a threat. They can track you down and prosecute you for making a threat online.
OTOH, I doubt you'd be able to harm something that pertians to a fish.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 1:23 AM
you fuckers are going to pay...
I do hope someone is caching this page, so we can use it as evidence that Markuze/Mabus is making threats using his internet connections.
Not only will you lose your connection, nutter, but I'm hoping you'll be brought up on charges as well.
maybe then you'll be forced to get the medical treatment you so obviously need, before you hurt yourself or someone else.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 16, 2009 1:24 AM
I'm taking screenshots, just in case
Posted by: Paul Goodhew | September 16, 2009 1:24 AM
let's see...
house is firebombed and car attacked as soon as locals discover she has had an abortion...
Now I'm not saying this is the case across all of Queensland, but it sure suggests a reason why they might not have wanted ANYONE to know, or even suspect, they went to a clinic for an abortion.
I really, really hope that actually ISN'T the case, though.
just a lone fire-loving looney?
*sigh*
I don't think any Queenslander would be afraid to seek a medical abortion on the grounds that their house might be fire bombed or car vandalised.
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 1:24 AM
Yes, this has been a known issue for a few years, but this is just the news story that dragged it into the light. There used to be a doctor in Cains that would perform the chemical abortion procedure, but no other doctor was willing to pick it up. There is no official choice, but plenty of legal fictions going on. For those who care, there's a parallel story going on with euthanasia, it happens every day, but it's another legal fallacy.
As for all the ex-Queenslanders who want to bash the state. Fuck you! I'm glad your not still living here moping around. You probably had a bee up your ass to begin with and you wouldn't be happy anywhere. I do like my state, there are some good people here. I've always been happy to get home when I've been away for a while in NSW or Vic.
Now to commit a complete back flip, there are some fucking crazy nut jobs around here. I grew up to the SW of Brisbane. We don't have right wing, left wing division like the US, we've got our own divisions along different lines but they're just as pack-following, knee-jerking, irrational, anti-intelligence as anywhere else you care to mention. You can't even open your mouth in some places without getting told "Don't get smart with me!!" And you have to be damn careful with the language you use in the pubs, if you break character from "stereotype Aussie" you better make sure your with friends, or you could end up in a punch up because someone doesn't "like you".
I could go on, but yea come to Brisbane it's an awesome place. I plan to raise a family here shortly.
Posted by: Kristy | September 16, 2009 1:25 AM
It's true, PZ, Queensland desperately needs your influence. Please put us on your itinerary for March.
Honestly, Queensland is not as draconian as everyone is making out and the issue with this girl is that she imported drugs illegally into the country. Of course, I agree that RU486 should be legal, but currently it's not, and she put herself at risk by breaking the law.
I will be absolutely amazed if she is given anything more than a slap on the wrist for this. Meanwhile it's being blown out of all proportion.
It's a terrible thing for her to have to go through, and I feel desperately sorry for her, but ultimately, she did do the wrong thing when there were other avenues open to her.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 1:25 AM
At any other venue, I'd say old mabusa was quite the kook....but we all know Pharyngula is well through the looking glass, don't we?
Carry on, lad. Carry on.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 16, 2009 1:26 AM
Please do not feed the mentally ill troll.
@ 103,
that poll was mentioned @ 12 already.
Posted by: Jennie | September 16, 2009 1:26 AM
He's just popped up on a Deltoid thread as well, with exactly the same text.
Posted by: tortorific
|
September 16, 2009 1:26 AM
Abortion is not illegal in Queensland and was carried out up until this idiotic case happened. The problem was a loophole in the laws which covered surgical abortions but did not cover other medical abortions. The government was unaware of the problem until some idiot law enforcement officials, clearly with an agenda, arrested that poor girl. The law was changed within the week, mostly because the medical community had been carrying out abortions and shit itself, doctors wanted the laws straightened out so that they would not be charged.
As for the poor girl she could still be in trouble for having an abortion without medical supervision, she could have and should have gone to a doctor about it. I don't believe the judge has returned a decision yet.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 1:26 AM
'Amazed,' you are making clear to all women in the audience, and all men who care about the women in their lives, that the anti-choice movement is entirely about hating women. You believe that women are stupid, and that they choose to have invasive medical procedures for frivolous reasons.
But we know this is false:
"The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner. About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children."
Many women who have abortions want to have a child later but cannot afford to make a decent life for a child now. Many cannot afford another child and are trying to make a decent life for the children they already have.
Women know how to make responsible choices for themselves and their families. But because you hate women, you believe they are incapable of choosing responsibly, and you want to take their choices away.
No one here is going to fall for your anti-woman worldview. But you have provided a reminder to us all that the anti-choice movement is not motivated by concern for women or children, only by hatred and authoritarianism.
Posted by: shane | September 16, 2009 1:29 AM
I suspect not. According to the reports I've read the couple have been claiming they didn't know they were committing a crime.
I can't understand why they bothered ordering and waiting for drugs from Russia though? You'd hope they had them couriered.
Posted by: DexX | September 16, 2009 1:29 AM
Legally, Queensland is still a bit of a backwater ghetto, residue from decades of insane rule by Sir Joh Bjelke-Peterson, a hard-core right-wing fascist who was determined to remake the whole state in his image.
Queensland is an awesome place to visit, and most of its residents are great people, but its state-specific legal codes are a mess from decades of insanity.
This is exacerbated by Queensland's notoriously heavy-handed, right-wing police force, who became infamous in the 70s and 80s for violence toward hippies, homosexuals, and anybody else they took a dislike toward. Again, the Queensland police force is tainted from the top by the remainder of JBP-appointed old boys and the culture they encouraged.
An example of their idiocy was the poor bastard who was prosecuted for "distributing child abuse material" when he uploaded a viral video to LiveLeak of a Ukrainian circus dad swinging his baby around. These are laws intended for the prosecution of child abuses and disseminators of child porn.
So yeah, Queensland has its issues, but progressive public figures are working hard to fix them. The rest of Australia is a lot more progressive, but every state has it archaic laws on the books that are never enforced.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 16, 2009 1:30 AM
Screenshot taken and will be post on my blog as evidence.
But for all you know Mabus, I could just be a computer program that regularly puts out comments. How are you going to kill that?
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 1:30 AM
"I'm taking screenshots, just in case"
ha! Well played, indeed!
I'm sure that a jury of sober citizens will see that this fellow is quite insane when his comments are put to the fore of all the rest!
HAHA indeed!
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 1:31 AM
This is how you do it:
http://www.webcitation.org/5jp9pHsGw
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 1:32 AM
ichthyic see you think you are safe lying behind your computer... i am going to execute you...
Oooh, I'll make sure not to open the door to any hockey-mask wearing, chainsaw wielding, drooling Canadians.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 1:33 AM
Some of the evidence, though, is going to be on the scienceblogs servers. I don't know exactly what sort of interface PZ gets to use with the database, but he should be careful not to completely delete anything incriminating.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 1:35 AM
Och, strange. You've not twigged me at all.
Hoik the blaggards out now to make room for merriment today and for room for another when it's convenient..what is simpler?
Posted by: paul Goodhew | September 16, 2009 1:36 AM
Doo Shabag, if you are so acutely aware of the injustice in generalising a country by the actions of a few, then why engage in it yourself?
Look, I'm not going to lose any sleep over a few generalisations from random blog posters, I just thought I'd point that out.
But PZ has lost some of the trust I put in him to report on issues fairly and accurately.
I guess the lesson is not to form opinions based on a single blog post.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 16, 2009 1:36 AM
Amazed, what are you doing here? The only thing that you've been able to put out is that you think that the rights of women are nothing more than a game. You seem to think women get abortions for fun. You've spewed nothing but fallacies with no data to back it up. Care to bring some substantial to the table?
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 16, 2009 1:37 AM
Oh you christians and your crazy rituals...
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 1:38 AM
'Amazed,' just keep insulting women. You are proving my point that you are motivated by hatred.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 1:38 AM
And mab, what is to become of me? Will you not be visiting havoc in my quarter?
Posted by: JJR | September 16, 2009 1:40 AM
Late to the discussion, but yeah, I don't condemn Australia, just Queensland. As Bill Bryson wrote in _In a Sunburned Country", quoting another Australian about Queenslanders, they're "madder than cut snakes".
Also, I believe Ken Ham is from Queensland. I thought Ray Comfort was too, but actually he's from NZ.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 1:42 AM
Gewphucgrew, the topic for the table is a pregger Sheila. Everyone here agrees that a hoiking is called for...what's your beef, mate?
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 1:43 AM
Thanks, mab...good on you, mate.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 1:43 AM
The misogynist 'Amazed' is a racist too. Who could have guessed.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 1:44 AM
pz snd his entire family will be tortured and executed for blasphemy by DIVINE FORCES
don't forget to take pictures!
you have a Flickr account?
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 1:45 AM
Look, I know I'm late to this thread and haven't done anything to incur DrMab's wrath as of yet, but I just can't help coveting all these wonderful death threats being bandied about.
So, if I promise to do something totally blaspheme-y later on--like masturbating shrimp into mixed-fiber socks--can I get a death threat of my very own? Pretty please?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 1:47 AM
oh, i just can't let this go...
pz snd his entire family will be tortured and executed for blasphemy by DIVINE FORCES
Now THAT would meet Randi's challenge for sure!
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 1:47 AM
like masturbating shrimp into mixed-fiber socks
Haaaaaaa...
Want to come up and see my retchings?
Posted by: robertDW | September 16, 2009 1:47 AM
Another Queenslander here: The situation is a bit more complex than it sounds.
It's legal in Queensland to have abortions under medical supervision - that is, to have a doctor do it, based on the doctor's opinion about health of the mother, etc. There's a reasonable amount of counselling built into the process. There has been a concern recently about the legal liability of doctors which was corrected as a direct result of the publicity around this case.
What's not legal is to do the abortion yourself, or to supply the drugs to another. This is what Tegan Leach (and her boyfriend) are being charged with: procuring a miscarriage (Tegan) and supplying drugs or instruments to procure a miscarriage (her boyfriend (Sergie Brennan).
Nobody wants women to be able to pick up abortion drugs over the counter at a pharmacy, pop the pills at home, and have the resulting miscarriage on the train. Abortion is a serious matter, medically, emotionally and legally - there needs to be some process in place to ensure the health of the women who choose to have abortions. Counselling and instructions on safe sex and contraceptives isn't a bad idea either.
The real situation with abortions here in Queensland is that you can get them medically, and doctors and family planning clinics will assist women in obtaining one. We aren't as socially progressive as Europe in this respect, but I'd say that Queensland - which is by far the most conservative state in Australia - is well ahead of the average US state.
(Hey, Aussie people - anyone remember the fuss a few years ago when the Federal Libs wanted to outsource the Teen Hotline (a crisis counselling phone service for teenagers) to religious groups - particularly anti-abortion ones?)
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 1:47 AM
Somehow, Egu, I'm betting you'll have your way with the shrimp anyway. You always do, don't you, mate?
But I'm rooting for something nasty to come your way, if that helps.
Posted by: The Chemist | September 16, 2009 1:48 AM
As a person (possibly one of many) who sent PZ this item, let me point out that I'm an American who doesn't think Australia is a haven of stupidity. I mean I decided to avoid Cronulla back in 2005, but I still think the rest of Australia is probably just like in the brochures.
I agree with the commenter above that you guys need to get a thicker skin. I live in the American South, trust me- just because you don't live in Queensland it doesn't mean that sensible people living in Queensland are necessarily more powerful than you in putting a stop to this madness, so taking it personally because it's not your problem isn't exactly a mature way to receive the news.
This is just PZ's way of goading you into outrage at you national level for the sake of your pride. We're well aware by now that the law is old and selectively enforced, but this girl is still on the hot plate, and she doesn't deserve to be.
Also, mabus can suck bunions in hell.
Also, Amazing wasn't.
Posted by: DexX | September 16, 2009 1:48 AM
As for the firebombings and all that, I can guarantee they weren't carried out by their neighbours and are not indicative of community attitudes. I am 100% certain that they were masterminded and carried out by one or more religious nutjobs, who probably travelled a long way to carry out their idiotic actions. Said nutjobs are a vocal but ineffective minority, capable of nothing substantial and resorting to acts of base terrorism to achieve their ends.
Looking forward to your visit, PZ. Hopefully you'll get a better view of what regular Aussies are like, instead of having your experience tainted by crap like this.
Ph, and for those who want to move to Oz but want to live somewhere progressive and cosmopolitan, Melbourne is the way to go. Queensland is fun to visit, but I really wouldn't want to live there.
Posted by: efrique | September 16, 2009 1:50 AM
Just like america, laws differ from state to state.
If they'd been smart, they'd have simply travelled to the ACT or Victoria and got a 100% legal abortion.
Instead they chose to illegally smuggle RU486 from overseas, and it just got worse from there.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 1:53 AM
I would think the bigger issue keeping people from moving to Australia is that every single fucking plant and animal that lives there will kill you. Hell, even the koalas carry knives (so I've heard).
Posted by: DexX | September 16, 2009 1:53 AM
Hey, Dr Mabuse or whatever your name is, can I get a death threat too?
I'm feeling left out.
Posted by: bad Jim | September 16, 2009 1:54 AM
This thread, with the moronic Mabusa refrain, reads something like a cantata by John Adams. Queensland bad, Queensland not so bad, your blaspheming head, repeat ad nauseam.
The lady in question did survive her unauthorized therapy, did she not? Doesn't that render moot the objection that she shouldn't have self-administered illegally imported substances? And doesn't the fucking fire-bombing render suspect any defense of the basic tolerance and liberality of Queenslanders? Not to mention the subsequent downing of tools by the state's obstetricians.
RU486? I used to be, until I got a Pentium.
Posted by: The Chemist | September 16, 2009 1:55 AM
What's not legal is to do the abortion yourself,
There shouldn't be a penalty for procuring your own abortion. That's bullshit. How do you deserve jail time for attempting something that could only hurt you? (Shut the fuck up Amazed)
I don't go to prison for trying to amputate my own penis- however stupid that may be.
"Sorry, but for your own good, we're going to stick you in a cell for seven years."
C'mon.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 1:57 AM
I would think the bigger issue keeping people from moving to Australia is that every single fucking plant and animal that lives there will kill you. Hell, even the koalas carry knives (so I've heard).
despite what most have probably heard, New Zealand is dangerous like that too!
I barely survived my trip to the South Island, and still live in constant fear, mostly living boarded up in a small room in the house...
http://pokeitwithastick-ichthyic.blogspot.com/2009/04/horror-horror.html
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 1:57 AM
Sorry, dexx. You're going to have to bugger a shrimp or hoik out an infant, I fear.
Right, mab?
Posted by: JD | September 16, 2009 1:58 AM
Australia is getting an undeserved bad rap by too many here. I'm not Australian, but c'mon, every young democracy has states that are known to be a little behind the enlightenment. The US has the South, Canada has Alberta and, apparently, Australia has Queensland. What they all have in common is a high proportion of Christian fundamentalists. That's the problem, not the countries. Unfortunately, the states/provinces have their own laws. I don't hold it against the entire country of the US just because they have Texas.
From reading the linked article, it appears the majority of Australians seem to be upset by the treatment this young woman has had to endure. That's more important. Maybe the outrage will force change.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 1:59 AM
Sweet! I'll be Crucified! I cry, I pray, mon dieu!
Posted by: DexX | September 16, 2009 2:01 AM
Hooray!
So, will you be carrying this out personally, or will you be praying for it to happen spontaneously? I'm just curious.
If it's the former, be aware that airfares to Australia from Canada are not cheap, and you'll have to procure weapons when you get here as they won't let you take them on the plane.
If it's the latter... um... I don't think it will work. There's no easy way to say this, but... well, god doesn't exist and praying doesn't actually do anything.
Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you.
(Sorry, I'll stop feeding the troll now.)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 16, 2009 2:03 AM
you win one (1) internet
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 2:04 AM
@dmab ---> (___*___)
Troll fail = dmab
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 2:04 AM
Making women into criminals is not a reasonable part of that process.
Abortion is legal in every US state.
Posted by: The Chemist | September 16, 2009 2:05 AM
@DexX
It's really like one of those awful email chain-letters from the nineties isn't it?
"Forward this to ten people or you will see these creeepy things."
Is really no different from:
"Post in this thread and will die."
If I don't die, do I get a cookie?
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 2:06 AM
@paul Goodhew
Hmmmm . . . first did I say it was injustice to bash the US for our policies? I didn't mean to imply that, I think it is totally fair to verbally abuse us for our policies as long as it is not hateful or incendiary, and I'm not seeing anything like that directed at AUS from anyone here.
Second, did I actually engage in generalizing an entire country? I said if you don't like us mocking you, change the law. I'm glad we're not the messed up ones in this story.
Look, my opinion of Australia is diminished because of this - that doesn't mean I have a bad opinion of Australia, it's just not as good as it used to be. It used to be exceedingly high, now it is just very high. But seriously, the inability to take some friendly bashing is a pretty big negative for me, and completely out of line from with all of the Australians I personally know.
Finally, "acutely aware" implies that I am somehow hurt by the criticism of the US. I'm not, it is often warranted and I am frequently embarrassed by our laws (like prop 8 in California, even though I'm two states north and have no say there). Then again, where I originally come from (New Jersey) we dish out abuse and we can take it without getting too cranky about it. When people mock Australia for this I just expect agreement from the Aussies I know, not defensiveness.
As a side note about New Jersey, one of my favorite mom jokes I just heard again from Jon Stewart whose point is that in NJ you can say whatever you want to someone as long as you include the words "I'm just saying" (and which is not directed at you or anyone, I just think it's funny): "I'm not saying your mom's a whore, I'm just saying she sucks dick for money."
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 2:06 AM
Click it Mab. I dares ya.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 2:06 AM
is there anyone else who wants to lose their SOUL tonight?
Hey, why give your soul to Markuze when you can sell it for pizza discounts!
https://hellpizza.co.nz/
I wonder how many countries have a pizza joint named "hell"?
Posted by: shane | September 16, 2009 2:06 AM
Ichthyic, thanks for the link to to your blog. Fuck. Just fuck. I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit.
I am looking forward to the The Head Raping Parrots though.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 2:07 AM
Here's a link to the Courier Mail's most recent story (the Courier Mail is the main paper in Brisbane, the state capital of Queensland; note, though, that Brisbane is roughly 1400 km away from Cairns - about the same distance as between New York City and Montgomery, Alabama):
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26063354-952,00.html
According to the end of that article (not that I particular trust the Courier Mail), "Doctors say more than 14,000 abortions are performed in Queensland each year."
Apparently, there are about 1.3 million abortions in the US each year (though that figure comes from anti-abortion sites, which dominated the Google search I just performed). On a per-capita basis that means that 0.6% of women in Queensland each year get abortions vs about 0.85% of women in the US; Sweden clocks in at about 0.8% of women - see this report for figures in Sweden
The abortion-to-live-birth ratio sounds more interesting, because it would imply how widely used abortion-as-birth-control is.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 2:08 AM
Not everyone can afford to take time off from work to travel. These people did nothing wrong. You are focusing on so-called illegal behavior, but it is the law that is wrong.
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 2:11 AM
VIRUS WARNING
My, just followed dmabs links, 1 minute later, computer crashes. May be a coincidence. I know dumb of me, but just in case.
DON'T FOLLOW THE LINKS FROM THE TROLL
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 2:11 AM
you know, the more of this website I explore, the more mab makes sense.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | September 16, 2009 2:11 AM
Well, I guess spermatozoa could be said to be without any god, so that would make them Atheists...So I'd say he is describing the horrific slaughter of all the poor spermatozoa he is splashing over his keyboard, monitor, face, hands, walls, ceiling etc etc as his self-rightous crusade across this blog continues...
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 2:12 AM
Well, now you're just being silly.
Posted by: Commissar Claw
|
September 16, 2009 2:14 AM
This thread just needs John Kwok to show up and we'll hit the kook trifecta.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 2:15 AM
"I know dumb of me, but just in case."
Not a bit monkey! The very fact that you are here amongst we genius' is proof that you're a very smart fellow indeed!
Although your mother may have a case vis-a-vis the pencil lead.
Posted by: Buffybot | September 16, 2009 2:16 AM
I'm in the same room as Ichthyic, so I'll report back on whether setting fire to him with mind waves works out. Just give me a minute to go out and buy some marshmallows.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 2:17 AM
TheChemist@163:
It's a side effect of our nanny-state philosophy. Because we have universal state-provided medicine, we have laws saying you can't do stupid things to hurt yourself because the tax payer foots the bill to patch you up. It's like how we have rules saying you have to wear seat belts.
I'm still waiting for the mandatory exercise regime - that would actually do me a world of good.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 2:17 AM
Don't make it sound frivolous. Women have good reasons for choosing abortion when they do.
Posted by: shane | September 16, 2009 2:18 AM
The only thing wrong with the whole sorry saga is the illegal procurement of drugs from overseas and then using them without medical supervision. That is just dumb. BTW, importing the pill from overseas or procuring it without a prescription is illegal too.
Posted by: blufindr | September 16, 2009 2:19 AM
Er, I have to say that this is a pretty singular law, and Queensland-specific. I'm fortunate enough to live in Victoria, where abortion is available on request. There's absolutely no reason at all to boycott all of us, based on the actions of a single government.
Besides, as has been noted, it's Queensland, and they're all fruity up there anyway. ;)
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 2:20 AM
Amazed, still hatin'.
Posted by: The Chemist | September 16, 2009 2:20 AM
@Teflonmonkey
If you really think it's a virus from Facebook, you should ask the admins to check it out.
@ #182 Mabus the Troll
Haha! You're talking out of your-
OH MY GOD IT BURNS! IT BUUURNS!
...
....
*Phew* That's some spicy chili. Lucky I had a glass of milk handy. Now where was I? Oh yeah...
-ass.
*buuurp*
Posted by: Hank | September 16, 2009 2:20 AM
As has been noted, the key word here is QUEENSLAND.
That single state is one enormous self-contained Bible belt, held in thrall by countless generations of Christian farmers masquerading as politicians who are easily elected by the enormous grey vote. Trust me, Pee Zed, the rest of this country is still reasonably sensible.
Most of us down here recommend visiting Queensland for the great weather but living pretty much anywhere else - or being very, very careful. They still chuck people in jail for smoking a jazz cigarette!
Posted by: robertDW | September 16, 2009 2:20 AM
Efrique@158 - she could have had a 100% legal abortion in Queensland had she gone to a doctor.
The uproar about doctors refusing to perform abortions is a direct result of the news story, where suddenly it looks like due to a loophole in the laws they could be held responsible. So the loophole got fixed with agreement from both major parties - the only person who held out was a right-wing nutcase independent.
Posted by: bric | September 16, 2009 2:21 AM
Can we have an IGNORE button, pretty please?
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 2:21 AM
I'm getting a vibe from strange that tells me she isn't in any immanent danger of impregnation.
Is it the coke-bottle glasses, or the guava figure?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Posted by: Another Ben | September 16, 2009 2:22 AM
Gah... and the Queensland haters come out of the woodwork...
Why don't all you southerners fuck off back to Sydney and Melbourne? If you hate Queensland so much, how come 10,000 of you move up here every year? :-)
But seriously, I live in inner city Brisbane and there is a "family planning clinic" (as they're euphemistically called around here) literally one block from where I live. And yes, they perform abortions there, as they have done for the last 8 years I've been living in the area.
The pro-lifers even have a regular protest/prayer meeting outside on the street every so often, but unlike in other places I could mention, the vast majority of people here don't give them the time of day.
So why all the fuss? I think the real issue is that they illegally obtained a prescription-only drug by smuggling it into the country. To me this seems like a whole new level of stupid considering the risks to the woman involved in procuring her own abortion when she could have just as easily gone to a clinic.
The upside of this whole fiasco is that hopefully the law will be changed.
PS: if you think Queensland is full of rednecks, you obviously haven't been to Western Australia...
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 2:24 AM
Mabs is clearly some OCD nutjob, so in a sense, I feel bad for him and hope he gets help.
Amazed, you're just a douche.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 2:24 AM
(Not to say that on a good day and a few jars of Fosters it couldn't happen....*wink)
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 2:26 AM
Yes, you can: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4107
Posted by: paul Goodhew | September 16, 2009 2:26 AM
Just to inject a bit of FACTUAL info into the conjecture that Queensland is a backwards state:
From the 2006 Australian Census, percentage of respondants who answeredd "No Religion" to the religious affiliation question by state:
NSW - 14.3%
QLD - 18.6%
VIC - 20.4%
TAS - 21.5%
WA - 22.9%
NT - 23.1%
ACT - 23.4%
SA - 24.2%
Australia - 18.7%
Seems we are a bit less enlightened than other states!
Posted by: may | September 16, 2009 2:27 AM
oh yus we have our rightshus(hells bells,i've forgotten how to spell it) religious,indeedy we do.
the head of our national broadcaster is an evangelical christist from (guess where?).
the worm has infected my very own family witches, demons and all.
but take heart,the godbotherers keep showing their true colours and they generally get told to keep their opinions to themselve in no uncertain manner.
as for Queensland?
weel,if you can manage to avoid the worst,the best is very good.
also,for a local example of the financial horror story,
check out "Storm" out of Townsville,Queensland.
Posted by: raven | September 16, 2009 2:27 AM
OK, so importing drugs into Queensland is illegal. How about arson, attempted murder, and vandalism of an auto?
Looks like there were some crimes committed here. Are the police searching for the criminals or are they too busy intimidating scared and confused teen age girls?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 2:28 AM
'Amazed,' I wouldn't put my dick anywhere near you, you racist, misogynist filth.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | September 16, 2009 2:28 AM
It probably matches the retirement and senility rates... ... ...Oh, but I jest! :)Posted by: The Chemist | September 16, 2009 2:29 AM
I have to say it, I find Mabus's brand of madness oddly endearing and hilarious. It reminds me of this too much for me not to laugh.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 2:29 AM
Yes, Raven. It's the scaring girls thing. Nighty nite.
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 2:31 AM
FALSE ALARM
Just scary timing, blue screen of death on safemode, grrr!
It wasn't facebook, I was snooping around looking for more references for dmab when it happened. I looked at the devils camera thing and was actually looking at a site in south africa, and bam BSOD!
IT are on the job, I probably shouldn't be doing this at work, but they're cool, a phone call and
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 2:31 AM
Look, my opinion of Australia is diminished because of this - that doesn't mean I have a bad opinion of Australia, it's just not as good as it used to be. It used to be exceedingly high, now it is just very high.
sorry to break it to you, but there appears to be also a serious undercurrent of misogyny in many areas of OZ, too.
don't know if it's as bad now as it was in the 80's, but...
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/stalked-by-a-culture-of-misogyny/2006/05/21/1148150120229.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/02/2233861.htm
It's one of the reasons I chose NZ over OZ, frankly. My brother visited back in the 80's and even though he himself is a tolerant surfer bloke, he was pretty disgusted with all the misogynist attitudes he ran into in many areas.
Now, it's not like that around Melbourne I hear. I'll see for myself in March when the conference hits there.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 2:31 AM
Why does everybody keep blaming the victim?
Maybe she didn't want people to know that she was getting an abortion because she was afraid her house would be firebombed.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 2:32 AM
Oh! How embarrassing. Here I thought strange was a Sheila....but I'm guessing I'm not the first, eh mate?
You like shrimp, too?
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 2:33 AM
strange gods@174: Abortion may well be legal in every US state, thanks to Roe vs Wade, but finding doctors who will perform the procedure, or a hospital for the procedure to be performed in, may be hard. Also, we don't have protesters marching outside, or doctors being shot or clinics being bombed (the firebombing of Tegan Leach's house is the first such incident in a few decades).
Also, strange gods@192: I'm not trying to be flippant. I know women who choose abortions do so for very serious reasons. However, the abortion-to-live-birth ratio would be a very good indicator of how effective and wide spread contraception is. You know, the easy kind like condoms and the Pill. My working hypothesis would be that easy, hassle-free access to contraceptives would result in a lower abortion rate. Combined, of course, with solid sex education.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 2:36 AM
Amazed's standard of manhood is to hate women.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 2:36 AM
Say, mab? Can I get that with cheese?
Posted by: ScottB | September 16, 2009 2:36 AM
*de-lurks*
I'm only doing this so I can get on mab's death list. Come on mab, make my de-lurking worthwhile.
Posted by: ashling | September 16, 2009 2:37 AM
strange gods before me wrote:
Really nicely put. As an Australian, I must say I am embarrassed. I guess we like to think we are somewhat more progressive on social issues such as this, so it's good to have some conciousness-raising when we drop the ball.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 2:37 AM
RobertDW @ 2:33 AM, I see what you're saying now. Thank you for clarifying.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 2:38 AM
Ah, strange. No need to flounce. I'm sure you're quite fetching...after a few beers.
Posted by: paul Goodhew | September 16, 2009 2:40 AM
@Doo Shabag
perhaps if your ever in Australia we can have a beverage of your choosing and we can get Australia back up to it's previous status in your scale of impressedness. :)
Posted by: The Chemist | September 16, 2009 2:40 AM
@Amazed #228,
Didn't you say you were going?
If you must troll, at least be entertaining like mabus in the comment below.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 2:41 AM
Eh, mab? The cheese your next pass through, if you please?
Posted by: may | September 16, 2009 2:42 AM
i'm confused.
this blasphemy of which is spoken.
is that islamic,christian,jewish or hindu blasphemy?
i mean whichever way it is looked at somebody is going to get it in the neck.
why bother?
Posted by: Nicolas Keller | September 16, 2009 2:42 AM
2h sleep :/.showertime!
i call poe on mabuuuUUuuuuuUUuuuussssaaa.
gimme some roasting ol mab!
Posted by: Scrabcake | September 16, 2009 2:43 AM
Hmmm. As a person who used to live in Queensland, I'd like to apologize for my people. Really nothing I can say that can justify this except that I hope it gets shot down in the name of justice. There are probably a large majority of Queenslanders looking at this one going WTF, too.
Oh yeah. I'd like to apologize for Ken Ham and Pauline Hansen, too.
Posted by: shane | September 16, 2009 2:44 AM
Where I live that we call that Friday night. However even in Queensland arson is considered a serious crime and would be investigated with the same vigour as any serious crime.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 2:44 AM
Do you perhaps Crush heads, too?
Posted by: MayhemMachine | September 16, 2009 2:45 AM
How to kill a troll:
"STARVE them. Ignore them. DO not feed them. DO not give them any attention, not even negative attention.Do not downrate them or post under them."
You guys are doing a piss poor job of it, even this post is too much, but you all should know better.
Although, an ignore button would be nice.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 2:46 AM
@Ichthyic
Great, just great! Now it has gone from very high to pretty high. If there's much more of this my opinion of Australia will be down to the level of my opinion of the US.
Of course, I would have been going to Melbourne anyway, that's where my friends have moved back to. Plus one of them owns a brewery, that might be too high a bar to overcome unless I become friends with someone who owns a brewery in NZ. :)
Posted by: DexX | September 16, 2009 2:46 AM
Amazed, I can tell that you are making a clumsy attempt to seem Australian, but instead you're more like Monty Python's Bruce sketch. For future reference:
* Aussies eat prawns, not shrimp.
* Aussies drink beer out of cans (aka "tinnies", not to be confused with aluminium dinghies, also "tinnies") or out of bottles (aka "stubbies" or "longnecks", depending on the bottle's capacity).
* Aussies never call women "sheilas" except in 1970s cultural-cringe comedies.
If you are going to be an irritating git, the least you could do is get the impersonation right.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 2:47 AM
Scrab, I always enjoy the company of people that are fit to apologize for an entire state.
Can I get cheese with that?
Posted by: Nicolas Keller | September 16, 2009 2:47 AM
i imagine ol mab crawling through my chimney like santa and being in a hurry ,because "tonight, the slaughter of 1000 atheists!", which is very stressful if your damned atheists are living on different continents ;D
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 2:48 AM
Dude, it's nearly two in the morning where I am. If you're up this late, you might as well be amusing yourself. Besides, Mabs will keep posting until PZ gets up tomorrow and bans him, whether we respond to him or not.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 2:48 AM
I think it's interesting how openly and proudly misogynist the anti-choicers are willing to be. They seem to get high from their feelings of righteousness and certainty, and the buzz makes them feel like they can do no wrong. So they'll say the most contemptuous things about women, without any worry that they'll be judged as vile haters.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 2:49 AM
Plus one of them owns a brewery, that might be too high a bar to overcome
well, there ya go.
what the fuck are you waitin' for??
:)
P.S.
...Still not on fire...
Posted by: DexX | September 16, 2009 2:50 AM
I don't normally feed trolls, but Dave Self-Abusa is weirdly entertaining in his single-minded drive and purpose.
He's so obsessive I bet he irons his socks.
Posted by: Aaron | September 16, 2009 2:51 AM
As a citizen of Queensland (in particular, Nth Qld which is absolute crazy-land) and formerly of New South Wales, I can attest to the backwards ways of Queensland.
That said:
- It is no where near as bad as the bible belt in America
AND
- The most moronic laws in Australia can be generally found ONLY in Queensland (with some disparities among other states)
Posted by: shane | September 16, 2009 2:51 AM
It is the first instance of firebombing after an abortion (in Oz) that I'm aware of so I very much doubt that is the case. The couple are claiming that they did not know that what they did was illegal.
Posted by: Commissar Claw
|
September 16, 2009 2:51 AM
@ Nicolas Keller
Sadly, Mabus isn't a Poe. He's an actual crazy person. You've seen two of his fixations so far atheism and depeche mode. He has several others too, for example...
Mabus, has James Randi paid the million dollars he owes you yet?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 2:52 AM
Here: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4107
Posted by: Another Ben | September 16, 2009 2:52 AM
strange gods before me@218
...or maybe her boyfriend was too much of a cheapskate to shell out for an abortion in a clinic? You know, one with proper equipment and trained medical staff on hand in case there was an emergency?
This is only one step removed from the ol' coat hanger method.
BTW victim-hood is not mutually exclusive with stupidity.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | September 16, 2009 2:52 AM
Suspicion: 'dave mabusa' = 'Amazed' sockpuppet?
Posted by: What | September 16, 2009 2:53 AM
The comments section of this blog has come to resemble a Tourette Syndrome support group. As an atheist I am appalled. Does anyone here think that the comments here bode well for atheism?
Posted by: The Chemist | September 16, 2009 2:53 AM
@239 MayhemMachine
You're right. I have to hang my head in shame because I do know better. I guess I was just bored. No excuse, of course.
@Everyone sitting up on their high horse about how she broke the law.
Boo-fucking-hoo! It's a stupid law anyway, and the sentence is hardly proportional.
Oh come on. Gimme a break, if the only concern was just that state pays, then the punishment wouldn't be jail time- there's something else at work here, and it involves casual disregard for the rights and equality of women. End of story really.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 2:53 AM
@paul Goodhew
Now you are speaking my language, and what I expect from ozzy bastards who we Americans think of us our slightly retarded cousins :)
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 2:54 AM
Dexx, i bet that sock visual has got your wank on real good, eh, mate?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 2:56 AM
The comments section of this blog has come to resemble a Tourette Syndrome support group. As an atheist I am appalled. Does anyone here think that the comments here bode well for atheism?
goddamn fucking concern troll.
P.S.
...Still not on fire...
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 2:57 AM
RU-486 is very safe. You don't actually do it at the clinic. You do it at home. You go to the clinic if there are any complications, but generally there are not.
This woman is the victim of a crazed police force, and you are blaming her for her problems. She did not bring this upon herself.
Posted by: Hyperon | September 16, 2009 2:57 AM
The buzz-phrase that women have the right to "do what they want with their bodies" might sound impressive, yet it has absolutely nothing to do with the debate on abortion. Women DO NOT have the right to do anything they want with their bodies at the expense of other individuals. Pro-choice is the right position simply because an abortus is NOT an individual. If anyone could adduce solid empirical evidence that casts doubt on the notion that an abortus is not an individual, then the above feminist talking point would be irreparably invalidated.
Funny that I've never heard Australians talking about the vile laws in this backward Queensland state. (A whole state out of merely six states, notice.) They're usually too busy telling me how much America sucks to notice the hefty plank in their eye.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | September 16, 2009 2:59 AM
This. Is. PHARYNGULA!!!
(Your concern has been kicked backwards into a deep well labelled 'Noted')
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 2:59 AM
@Ichthyic
Free airline tickets? :) I nearly made it there in 2007 for the Yeast Genetics meeting but couldn't make it happen. Some day.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 16, 2009 2:59 AM
And look at Amazed go!
Below his* feet, it's... the shark!
Flying way above his head, it's the point!
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 2:59 AM
thechemist - are you feeling a little hot yet?
do you feel the radiation all around you?
oh! oh!
me next!
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 3:02 AM
Oh, look. Snow's jealous....*blush*
You have a coat hanger for after?
Posted by: Buffybot | September 16, 2009 3:02 AM
What @ #256, That's abs KNICKERS urd. This COCKWALRUS thread is TAINTMONKEY nothing like a Tourettes ARSEFERRET support group.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 3:02 AM
Abortus? OK, I looked it up, and it really is a word, but I have never once heard it used prior to this post.
Secondly, it wouldn't matter to me if a fetus could take out a library card--as long as it's a parasite on a woman's body, she gets to act as she sees fit.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 16, 2009 3:02 AM
Everyone,
PZ has repeatedly asked people to not to respond to the insane asshole known as Mabus. All his comments will be gone in a few hours. Just ignore him.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 3:02 AM
Oh look, Hyperon is here to tell us that a woman has no right to prevent an uninvited individual from using her body as an incubator.
Posted by: The Chemist | September 16, 2009 3:03 AM
@ Egnu Cledge #245
This is going to sound hypocritical since I fed him too, but I have to agree that ignoring him is the best policy.
I can think of at least one way people amuse themselves on the Internet without feeding trolls. I'll just leave it at that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 3:04 AM
You know, one with proper equipment and trained medical staff on hand in case there was an emergency?
It's my understanding that arbortions are covered under citizen medical, so that leaves:
ignorance
social stigma
HOUSE
FIREBOMBED
hmm, I know which way I'm leaning.
btw, for the last time SHE IS NOT BEING CHARGED WITH IMPORTING ILLEGAL DRUGS.
that's what her boyfriend is being charged with.
P.S.
...Still not on fire...
Posted by: Scrabcake | September 16, 2009 3:05 AM
How could a person stay mad at the state that produced "Orby the Spider, Devourer of Songbirds?!"
http://tkcollier.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/easpider122.jpg
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 3:05 AM
Say, mab? Not that I have anything against faggy 80's pop bands, but can we get back to crucifixions and immolation's?
With cheese?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 3:06 AM
Update cache: http://www.webcitation.org/5jpG42Iap
Posted by: Commissar Claw
|
September 16, 2009 3:09 AM
@ Strange Gods Before Me 275
I call dibs on Hyperon's left kidney, I might need a new one soon.
Posted by: toby | September 16, 2009 3:09 AM
Ireland forbade abortion in its constitution, and ended up preventing an abused child travelling to England for a termination.
The situation was so rediculous and attracted such obloquy that the state ended up enshrining the "right to travel" in the Constitution as well. The only good that came out of was that the fundamentalist forces have been on the defensive ever since.
Perhaps this Queensland case might be a similar watershed.
My only question is: are there no Federal Australian laws that protect the young woman in this case?
Posted by: linkthewindow | September 16, 2009 3:11 AM
"Queensland" is Australia's Texas - a while ago, some (private) schools reintroduced flogging. With plenty of prayer, of course, so the children are saved, even if they do have a sore bum.
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 16, 2009 3:12 AM
dave mab, dave mabusa, mabus, mabusa.
Quit the morphing will you? PZ is asleep, all youre doing is giving me rsi in my killfile finger.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | September 16, 2009 3:14 AM
hmmm, previous 'spermatozoa' post didn't work...too technical maybe? Maybe I should have speculated that mabus' wild ejaculations were being enhanced by a large crucifix tickling his prostate?
Posted by: The Chemist | September 16, 2009 3:15 AM
I agree with Hyperon about the implications of a "live fetus". It's a moot point, because fetuses aren't, but there you have it.
I'm not going to go into why I agree, because I fear it would derail a thread already plagued with fat, happy trolls. I just felt like my silence was my assent and wanted my opinion noted. [You may now ignore this comment]
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | September 16, 2009 3:15 AM
I'm sorry that some of you have been disillusioned about Australia. It's not actually Utopia with poisonous animals, you know, there's dickheads everywhere. They are mostly of the redneck style in the country, and entitled rich gits in the city. It's not really a state thing. The deep north is country. Brisbane is city. Australia has a much bigger city/country divide than state divide. (Except for sports, of course.)
Posted by: Tom Mahon | September 16, 2009 3:15 AM
They "sensibly realized?" Wow! Were they hit by a bolt from blue? If they were truly sensible, they would have understood that having sex before marriage is wrong. They would have then plan their future together by preparing to get married when they were a little older and wiser.
It may be practical, but it is certainly not smart. How could killing an unborn child and damaging one's health be smart?
Of course, I shouldn't be surprised that the so-called atheistic pushers of evolution are devoid of morals principles; while espousing the survival of the fittest. So it is not surprising that they are quite happy to kill an unwanted child, without batting an eyelid! How evil can one be?
Posted by: mrcreosote | September 16, 2009 3:16 AM
Queensland is in another time zone to the rest of Australia. When you cross the state border, you have to wind your watch back 50 years.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 16, 2009 3:16 AM
Actually, there is a line of thought that states that the fetus, even if we take it to be an individual, does not have the right to occupy a woman's womb against her will.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 3:17 AM
Fair dibs, Commissar Claw. I'll be needing Hyperon's liver, though.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 3:18 AM
Ichthyic and you are going to go through this - see above video...
You are going to BURN
well?
I ain't got all night.
...Still not on fire...
btw, Markuze, you might try seeing a real pro at what you are trying to do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVeNqwIEC9s&feature=PlayList&p=2F06D318151CF2A1&index=6
He thought to turn all the evil people two feet tall...
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 16, 2009 3:19 AM
It was bad enough that Mabus, Amazing and What are here. Now Tom Mahon is here to make this a toxic spot.
This thread kills brain cells.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 3:20 AM
It could hardly get any worse.
Posted by: Aaron | September 16, 2009 3:21 AM
Tom, you only think that sec before marriage is wrong because your idiotic religion tells you so!
And "devoid of morals principles"?! I'm so fucking sick of Christians/morons et al claiming that they have the monopoly on morality because their "bible tells them so"!
Finally, define morality, and define good, and define evil! I think you'll find that such concepts (for that is EXACTLY what they are, and nothing else) have many many varying definitions.
Learn to think, moron.
Posted by: Andrej | September 16, 2009 3:22 AM
As a doctor in Queensland, allow me to offer some input on this discussion. There have been a few posts above that have sought to clarify the legal situation of abortion in Queensland. To summarise:
Abortion is technically a criminal offence in this state, however SURGICAL abortion is allowed in cases where the woman's medical and psychological well-being is threatened. As others have said, this de facto means that abortion is available freely, and is witnessed by the fact that 14,000 have been performed in the last year. This situation is not unique to Queensland, but slowly the Australian states are ammending their laws. Most recently, Victoria has decriminalised abortion altogether.
(On a side note, just to show that crazy fundies aren't limited to Queensland, Victorian Pastor Danny Nalliah claimed that the Black Saturday bushfires in "progressive" Victoria in 2008 were punishment from God for that state's decriminalisation of abortion: http://www.smh.com.au/national/pastors-abortion-dream-inflames-bushfire-tragedy-20090210-832f.html )
As post #37 explained, the reason for this discrepancy between the law and actual medical practice, is that there is a vocal "pro-life" lobby in Queensland, and it is unfortunately true that our state is the most socially conservative in Australia - particularly the far north. Premier Anna Bligh has explained that she is reluctant to bring the matter before parliament, because she fears that a clarification of the law may in fact backfire. A clarification which further outlaws abortion would only make matters worse.
It is worth noting, as others have said, over 70% of Queenslanders support elective abortion.
On the issue of doctors "downing tools", this is not entirely correct. Surgical abortions continue, and it is medical abortions which have entered a legal gray zone. Doctors in some hospitals around the state have ceased ordering medical abortions until this is cleared up. This is being rectified in parliament as we speak.
If abortions are freely accessible, why didn't they go through the normal channels?
I don't know. Most women do.
Had they seen a doctor about this, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Clearly they didn't have the right information given to them. Unfortunately, this is one of the problems with having such a schizophrenic abortion law.
Yes, our law needs changing. But I believe Anna Bligh is right, and a knee-jerk attempt to fix this without thinking it through could make matters much worse.
Good luck to them for their Friday hearing.
Andrej
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 3:22 AM
Tom Mahon, why do you believe women are too stupid to make decisions for themselves? Is it because you think everyone is as stupid as you?
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 3:24 AM
@The Chemist
Don't be silly, of course a fetus is alive. As is a blastocyst. As are the sperm and egg prior to fertilization. Life does not "begin", it is a continuum.
The abortion debate should really be about when the constitutional rights of the parasitic fertilized egg/blastocyst/fetus begin and are more important than those of the host mother, but the fundies don't want to discuss it in those terms.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 3:27 AM
Andrej @ 3:22 AM, thank you for the informative post.
Posted by: Damien | September 16, 2009 3:28 AM
@Amazed: I really think you could stand to actually go throgh an abortion, then you be motherfucking flip about it you unaccountable cunt.
@Mabus: Oh PLLEEEEEEEAAAAZZZZEE!!!!! I'm so ready to get roasted; it's chilly in my room, and I don't have a heater.
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 16, 2009 3:30 AM
I have to agree with cath re: the city/country divide. I can go from sydney to wellington and hardly notice a difference, but when I head out to dubbo... its another world. Cairns is so remote that you could probably nuke it and noone would notice for weeks.
Also, yay tom mahon's here. thats the moronic troll trifecta.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 3:31 AM
Personally I'm waiting to see what the judge says at the trial. Basically, if the girl and her boyfriend hadn't admitted that they took the drugs to the cops, this would have been dropped already.
My personal guess: guilty, but with no sentence (other than maybe probation). The guilty part is because they admitted to the crime, and would face other problems if they disowned their sworn statement.
I would love for the abortion laws to be more sensible and line up with the real public opinion, but:
a) they're not that harsh now. Really. 14,000 abortions a year in a state of 4.5 million people isn't a low rate of abortion.
b) the sex ed policy is good - even at the religious schools (which have to conform to government curriculum to qualify for funding)
c) more sensible laws would take massive debate in parliament which in turn would distract the government (AND the opposition) from actually doing their job. (A large part of the problems in Queensland is due to the fact that the opposition party of the day tends to be about as useless as the current US Republicans)
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 16, 2009 3:34 AM
I don't know, Tom, your god has killed plenty of babies (along with children, women, the elderly, the sick, etc.) Hell, he has committed genocides. You shouldn't try to lecture us on morals with a god like that.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 3:35 AM
And the answer is at birth.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/
Posted by: Michael Jefferies | September 16, 2009 3:36 AM
I hope PZ reads the doctor's reply above #300 and does a bit more research next time before posting a comment like this one as it misrepresents in a number of ways!
I do agree that the situation is, to put it mildly, a complete lunacy of the first order. However it is a bit rich to hear such comment without some appreciation of the lunacies of the US states on a number of things. Unfortunately we are all human.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | September 16, 2009 3:37 AM
Bah, knock-off time and still no curse! So does that mean I'm safe? If Mr D 'Radioactiveman' Mabus tries to blast me with his Megadeathprayer while I'm away from the computer, will he miss? Will it catch up with me when I get home and check in, or does it stay with this IP address?
Guess I'll find out when I get in tomorrow and spontaeneous combust. (note to self... bring marshmallows to work tomorrow)
Posted by: Another Ben | September 16, 2009 3:38 AM
strange gods before me@263
"Safe" is a relative term. They don't hand those things out like aspirin. I'm no pharmacologist, but I'm pretty certain there is a good reason why they're prescripition-only. She could have obtained it legally if she wanted to, but no, she went and imported it illegally. That sounds stupid to me.
The police only found the drugs in her house because they were searching it for something else. Just like in the US (I hope), the police in Queensland can't just kick in your front door without a warrant issued by a judge. They were under suspicion for something else, probably for "other" kinds of illegal drugs, if they were pulling the house apart diligently enough to find the wrappers from the RU-486.
She did bring this on herself (with help from her boyfriend). She got pregnant. She could have obtained a termination legally, but no, she had to go and do it illegally in the most ridiculously circuitous way (come on, think about it - a Russian doctor's instructions and a Chinese knock-off version of RU-486?).
Now I agree that this law is archaic and needs to be removed and I can agree that the police are being ass-hats by pinning this on her and her boyfriend (probably because they didn't find anything else), but she is still an idiot and so is her boyfriend.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 3:39 AM
Their job is to ensure that people have safe and easy access to medical procedures.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 16, 2009 3:40 AM
What is this, mentally deranged Bingo?
Tom Mahon the morally bancrupt medieval fringe loon @ 291 :
blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 3:42 AM
Another Ben, you are pretty much contemptible. No one deserves this. Having sex is not consenting to police harassment.
Posted by: Darren | September 16, 2009 3:43 AM
PZ, what gave you the impression our country was any more sane than yours? After all, both were run by GW Bush for quite a few years.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 3:46 AM
Andrej, I would like to echo strange god's thanks for your post - it was very informative, and it was good to hear someone with a more insider view.
Posted by: The Chemist | September 16, 2009 3:49 AM
#308
Just so you know, some of us have been aware of that precise idea you cite and find it utterly incomplete and unconvincing.
There are numerous issues, including a false statement of equivalency. The violinist falls into a coma through no fault of his own, and the innocent is a random person.
Pregnancy is usually instigated through the actions of the mother and father. Therefore they do bear responsibility for the life they put in jeopardy. That the author cannot render a better statement of the case renders this document (which is widely circulated) the garbage left after real philosophy is done. I suspect it's adoption is because it's a useful rhetorical tool, but let's not pretend it's unassailable logic.
Once again, it's beating a dead horse and arguing a moot point.
I really shouldn't be responding, as per my earlier comment. I promise to shut up about this from here on.
Posted by: Another Ben | September 16, 2009 3:50 AM
strange gods before me@314
What part of "The police only found the drugs in her house because they were searching it for something else" don't you understand?
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 3:52 AM
@strange gods before me
You'll get very little argument from me, although I would say it should be illegal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy in the exact manner and time of her choosing. My concept is that any child who is at least n weeks along, where n is the age minus 2 weeks of earliest delivered surviving fetus, must be delivered and helped to survive if possible. And any mother choosing such an option must give up any future rights to the child.
Because while it is immoral to force a woman to carry an unborn child for any length of time, it is ALSO immoral to simply kill the unborn child rather than try to save it. My solution solves both problems - if a woman wants to be rid of an unborn child against medical advice she may do so at ANY time on short notice, even 39 weeks. However, when removing an unborn child against medical advice the doctors must attempt to save any child who is at least n weeks along.
I hope I am explaining it clearly. I'm not sure of the earliest surviving delivery, but I imagine n is something like 22 weeks.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 3:52 AM
Blaming-the-victim Ben, what part of "sex is not consent for police harassment" don't you understand? You seriously said this:
That is exactly the same argument that misogynists use for why abortion should be illegal. Quit it. Quit blaming the victim.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 3:59 AM
No, Doo Shabag. No one has the right to use anyone else's body. You do not have the right to force a woman to give birth! That is a potentially very dangerous medical procedure with higher risk to her own health than abortion. You do not have the right to risk a woman's life or health over your own squeamishness. To believe otherwise is absolutely contemptuous of women.
Posted by: Another Ben | September 16, 2009 4:00 AM
Nice quote mining there, strange gods before me. Read the whole paragraph again.
"She did bring this on herself (with help from her boyfriend). She got pregnant. She could have obtained a termination legally, but no, she had to go and do it illegally in the most ridiculously circuitous way (come on, think about it - a Russian doctor's instructions and a Chinese knock-off version of RU-486?)."
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 4:02 AM
@strange gods before me
Read it again - where did I say anyone would be forced to give birth? She can have the fetus removed at ANY time. It is just a question of whether the doctors try to help the fetus live or not. And if it is removed against medical advice then it is essentially automatically given up for adoption.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 4:03 AM
Doesn't matter, Ben. Sex is not consent for police harassment. You are blaming the victim. Stop it.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 4:04 AM
strange gods@314: I wouldn't be too certain that this is a case of police harassment.
A summary of the case is here [side note - the ABC tends to be a good source for this sort of news]. Basically, the cops searched their house as part of a murder investigation due to an anonymous tipoff. They found the empty wrappers on a shelf in the couple's bedroom.
This wasn't planted evidence - the couple admitted it was theirs, and described what it was for. Unfortunately, they did this as part of a sworn statement. This means the cops didn't have much choice but to arrest them and charge them. This is the first abortion-related charge anywhere in Australia since the early '80s.
Far from harassing them, the police have gone out of their way to protect them, helping to set them up in a safe house.
The only other abortion-related case I've heard about in my memory (about 30 years - I don't remember the first few years of my life) was also in Queensland: a man was arrested and charged with assault of his girlfriend, who was pregnant. In addition to an assault charge, the man got charged with causing a miscarriage when it was revealed that was the reason behind the assault (the guy kicked his girlfriend - who was mid-2nd term IIRC - several times in the stomach). That guy got 20 years in jail I think. And I hope he rots there.
Posted by: John Morales | September 16, 2009 4:05 AM
Doo Shabag: Amillia Sonja Taylor, born Oct. 24 after just under 22 weeks in the womb.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 4:08 AM
Right here:
The procedures used in an abortion are safer to the woman's life and health than labor and giving birth. You do not have the right to force a woman to give birth against her will, and subject her body to greater danger. You are operating under the assumption that the state owns pregnant women's bodies.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 4:10 AM
@John Morales
Thanks, so then for now n=20 weeks for my scenario. Despite the horrific health complications, with no major long-term effects why not give the child a chance to live? I am simply suggesting removing the unborn child at the time of the mother's choosing in a manner which enhances the possibility of survival.
Posted by: Another Ben | September 16, 2009 4:10 AM
And where did I say say "sex is consent for police harassment"? I believe that would be you, strange gods before me?
In your shrill indignation you seem to have missed my last paragraph in which I agree with you:
"Now I agree that this law is archaic and needs to be removed and I can agree that the police are being ass-hats by pinning this on her and her boyfriend (probably because they didn't find anything else), but she is still an idiot and so is her boyfriend."
She is not an idiot for having sex and getting pregnant; she is an idiot for making things difficult for herself.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 4:12 AM
RobertDW, the police do not have to bring charges. Police look the other way all the time for all sorts of crimes. Underage drinkers are made to pour out alcohol and sent on their way, for instance. The police made a choice to bring charges on a ridiculous non-crime. That was wrong. The police are at fault.
Posted by: MayhemMachine | September 16, 2009 4:14 AM
I just want to say, killfile where have you been all my life, so much angst could have been avoided, had I only known, thanks strange gods for the link.
Goodbye Tom Mohon, I'll never have to read another of your sniveling pathetic babbling posts again. I'm going to have a beer to celebrate.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 4:15 AM
And yet you keep trying to focus on her behavior instaed of the police. You are blaming the victim. Stop it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 4:18 AM
*sigh*
...STILL not on fire...
signing off, and very dissapointed in Markuze/Mabus.
How's he ever expect to win Randi's challenge if he can't even exhibit the powers of pyrokinesis he claims to have?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 4:20 AM
No problem, MayhemMachine.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 4:21 AM
@strange gods before me
There is a difference between a fetus being "delivered" and forcing "labor and giving birth". If a woman would like it simply aborted she should have it done before "n" weeks. After that time it can be removed at a time of her choosing in a variety of ways that are safe for the mother and do not preclude the possibility of a live delivery. I am not an expert, but I think this is far more lenient than the current laws in the US.
I am not, I am operating under the assumption that the fetus has a right to survive outside of the woman's body if such a thing is possible.Posted by: Pimientita | September 16, 2009 4:23 AM
*sigh* I'd forgotten about that particular obsession of his until now. Maybe one more beer will erase that association again.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 4:24 AM
I am not, I am operating under the assumption that the fetus has a right to survive outside of the woman's body if such a thing is possible.
and when we get to the point where we can raise humans completely externally, what then?
outlaw abortion, right?
NO.
it must always remain a choice of the woman. It's always her choice whether or not to bring a life into the world.
period.
that she CAN choose to give a fetus over to external tank raising should STILL be her choice, not the states, not ever.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 4:25 AM
Police do look the other way all the time. But not when it goes on the record. If there was a mistake made by the police, it was not finding out what the drugs were for before asking during the formal interview.
When, during the recorded interview, the couple admitted to a crime, the cops had to act. They are not at fault for that - the fault lies with the archaic law, as well as the couple for not throwing the packages out (call it blaming the victim if you like, but if I was importing drugs from outside the country to do something I thought was dodgy, I'd dispose of the evidence). Heck, I'll go so far as to blame the system for not letting her know what her options were
This is not police harassment. Or if it is, it's at the extreme opposite end of the scale to, say, the Rodney King incident. This is just police doing their job following their procedures.
I'll also like to point out here that her boyfriend is up for 14 years in jail - it's not like she's taking all the blame for this.
I repeat: wait for the trial verdict, where I predict both will be let off with at most probation. Their biggest problem is likely to be their new found celebrity status.
(In a way, I kind of hope she does get found guilty just so she can appeal; if the case got to the State Supreme Court, the law would probably get struck down. But I wouldn't wish the publicity consequences of that on either her or her boyfriend)
Posted by: Another Ben | September 16, 2009 4:25 AM
RobertDW - thanks for the update. When I heard the police found the stuff searching the house I assumed it was a drug bust.
strange gods before me - I'm curious about where you draw the line on personal responsiblilty? If I smoke a joint in front of a cop and I get arrested for possession, is that my fault? Am I stupid or am I a victim?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 4:27 AM
You are making shit up.
Another authoritarian who can't let women make decisions for themselves. Despite your contempt for women's minds, they actually do know what's best for their own lives. What if a woman is planning to give birth, and then loses her job and can no longer afford to raise a child? Under your scheme, she forfeited her rights to control her own body by not having an abortion when you thought she should.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 4:27 AM
...if you want, you can look at it like adoption.
It's still the woman's choice to terminate or not, but she can offer a fetus up for adoption at an ever earlier age thanks to the wonders of modern science.
That's simply the way it should be.
Posted by: John Morales | September 16, 2009 4:28 AM
Update re the poll linked @12:
Should abortion be legalised in Queensland?
Yes 31% (1676 votes)
No 68% (3698 votes)
Unsure 0% (17 votes)
Total votes: 5391 votes so far
Posted by: weaves | September 16, 2009 4:28 AM
QLD has a shit loads of ridiculous rules, the primary reason I refuse to move that eaxtra 200km north.
However, there seems to be a huge ass overhaul happening in the other states to deal with abortion laws, and it is v. legal to get abortions in Vic and Tas.
btw, maybe this poll can be boosted?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26072582-3102,00.html
Normally it's a pretty celar cut 50/50, but right now the conservatives of confusing australia (aka the liberals) are voting for no-abortion
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 4:30 AM
...there is no benefit to society in forcing someone to give birth, period.
That is the direction everyone should be looking at this from.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 4:32 AM
If I smoke a joint in front of a cop and I get arrested for possession, is that my fault?
red herring.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | September 16, 2009 4:33 AM
Queensland: The Deep North Bible-belt.
Chock-full o' ignoramuses and corrupt officials.
Sound familiar?
Posted by: Miguel | September 16, 2009 4:34 AM
Queensland. Yep, that pretty much sums it up.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 4:34 AM
They didn't make a purchase in front of the police. We do not know why they bought RU-486 from out of state, but they didn't even do anything stupid by doing so, because they managed to evade the police through the purchase. So no, they did not do anything stupid. And you need to quit blaming the victim.
Posted by: Another Ben | September 16, 2009 4:37 AM
Ichthyic - red herring maybe, but it's pretty obvious that strange gods before me, and I have different metrics for what a "victim" is, so I guess I'm trying set some kind of benchmark?
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 4:37 AM
@Ichthyic
Assuming we can get to the point where a fertilized egg can be raised in an artificial womb and we have NOT perfected contraception, then maybe it should be illegal to kill a fertilized egg. Maybe. I don't really see the problem with keeping it alive with no burden on the woman, but maybe you can explain it to me from a perspective I have not considered.
Here is something that perhaps you have not considered - you are ignoring the rights of the man, and his choice in this situation. We agree it is immoral to force the woman to carry the child. But if it could be removed and incubated, should it only be up to the woman to decide if it should be saved? What if the woman wants it aborted but the man wants to keep it? Why not remove it from the woman, raise it in some artificial chamber until it can survive on its own, then allow the man to raise it?
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 4:39 AM
The courier mail is Brisbane's equivalent of fox news, possibly only MX is more of a waste of paper. Actually, I'm going to fail all Australian Newspapers, they're all pretty bad. Although the Australian "seems" to be picking up it's act, but it's all southern rubbish, who really cares about Sydney. :P Come to think of it, this is hardly the time or the place, but let me be the first to say... Go the Maroons!
Posted by: Paul Macgowan | September 16, 2009 4:41 AM
Well, what do you expect from "the deep north", Qld has always been a little backward. No other state has anything like these laws
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 4:42 AM
but maybe you can explain it to me from a perspective I have not considered.
I did, you're NOT LISTENING.
It's a woman's choice whether or not to bring a new life into the world.
not mine.
not yours.
not the state.
not the church.
There is no benefit to a civilized society to force someone to bring a life into the world.
period.
you are ignoring the rights of the man, and his choice in this situation.
what rights?
are you fucking going to carry a baby to term yourself, eh?
Posted by: Abbadon | September 16, 2009 4:42 AM
It's Queensland, what did you expect? It's like where all Austrlias hicks and red necks live... Not exactly NSW or Victoria.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 4:42 AM
The man does not own the woman's body either!
What is wrong with you?
No one has the right to force a woman to give birth against her will!
Because you do not have the right to subject a woman to any medical procedure that she does not consent to. Full stop.
You do not have the right to decide that she should take the risk of this procedure instead of that procedure. That decision is her right, alone.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 4:44 AM
...
and I'm still not on fire.
'nite.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 4:47 AM
strange gods@348, I'm not trying to blame the victim. I agree with you to an extent - the fact that she is being charged is somewhat of a travesty. But not throwing out the wrappers so that they left where the police would later (much later) is at least ignorance.
Ignorance is the heart of the problem. She was ignorant of her options, so she chose a bad one. She was ignorant that it was bad, so she (and her boyfriend) discussed it with the police in an interview. And a sufficiently vocal percentage of queenslanders and our politicians are ignorant enough that changing the law to make it fairer is a big problem.
It's not like this is a normal case or that we regularly bring people seeking abortions in front of a judge. This case is very much an exceptional case that is falling, unfairly, through cracks in the system. Not out of malice, but just because life sucks sometimes. And I repeat: I very much doubt that the judge will give the couple anything more than a slap on the wrist.
Posted by: Anon. | September 16, 2009 4:50 AM
Isn't issuing death threats electronically a felony in most countries? I would have thought PeeZed is well within his moral rights to have this Mabus nutter chased down and to see him booked.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 4:51 AM
@strange gods before me
Evidence? Ooh, the ad hominem attacks begin I agree. No, I am saying she can have the unborn fetus removed . She should just not be allowed to kill it for no good reason.Let me point out a few things:
1. "n" is not some arbitrary number of weeks, it would be a medically reasonable gestation period in which to try to save the fetus.
2. The woman could choose to do this at any time, no questions asked.
3. The doctor would only be required to try to save the life of the fetus if this is happening against medical advice.
4. "n" is currently at 20 weeks according to what John Morales posted - again, not an expert but I'm pretty sure this is more permissible than what is currently allowed under US law.
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 4:51 AM
@ Doo Shabag
You want to raise a fertilised egg out of the womb, what
are you aiming for here a clone army? In the case of IVF you wouldn't bother you'd just tip it down the sink like they do already. If it's a fertilised egg in a womb already, it'll be a needle in a hay stack, you're not going to be able to find it for the first couple of weeks. And in all that time, it's got as much awareness as a house fly. You raise a pointless hypothetical.
No the man doesn't have the same rights as a woman in the case of abortion, if they had the same equipment it'd be different. But they don't, so don't even think of pushing that burden onto a woman because someone else want it. She caries the child, she gets the final say, it would be great if the father is there to support her decision, but he has no say in what happens to her body.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 4:58 AM
RobertDW, my reply there at #348 (4:34 AM when some of the troll posts get deleted) was not addressed to you. I am not accusing you of blaming the victim. You aren't repeatedly trying to put the focus on her and her boyfriend's actions, like Ben is.
But I disagree with you that it was wrong to not get rid of the wrappers right away. No one should have to constantly be preparing for a police raid.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 5:00 AM
@Ichthyic
Wow, which part of "remove the fertilized egg from the woman and raise it in a chamber" makes you think I am suggesting I am going to carry a baby to term?
@strange gods before me
I think you simply lack imagination. Instead of getting angry, consider a pill that could cause a tiny embryo to detach from the uterine wall where it would be passed out of the body. Oh yeah, that pill already exists. So you are objecting to someone collecting it as it passes and saving it? How human of you.
If the goal was to save the fetus and research was put in that direction, I think we could do it. But you seem to think I must just hate women because I think we should try to save a life when it has no significant impact on the mother.
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 5:00 AM
@ Paul Macgowan, "what other state has these crazy laws" what about NSW and VIC and their bikie laws. FFS that was the most shambolic shower of shit since the net filter. Which incidentally was a Victorians idea.
Posted by: DexX | September 16, 2009 5:02 AM
I'm pro-choice, but I still think there should be some kind of legal limit on late term abortion.
Come on, what if a woman decides to abort at eight months and three weeks, killing a perfectly healthy and viable but as-yet unborn baby that would survive just fine outside the womb?
You you seriously think abortion at that late stage is ethical?
Posted by: Joel | September 16, 2009 5:02 AM
@127 has it about right.
I'm a Queenslander and I can tell you that although we definitely have our religious kooks (Answers In Genesis was actually founded here after all), a lot of Queenslanders are great people. I can't speak for Cairns simply because I haven't been there, but I live in Brisbane and there is a thriving community of people to the left of center here.
The issue is that although a lot of people are socially progressive, we really don't have any sort of progressive political party that has a hope of forming government. Basically you can choose between the regressive LNP party (under whose previous government education funding was cut and gay rights were actually limited even further than their already non-existent state), or the appeasing Labor party that is largely moderate but will very frequently choose the conservative path because they don't want to upset the religious demographic. Not to mention the Catholic church shamelessly and publicly threatening catholic politicians with excommunication if they don't vote the way it wants.
Queensland's (and Australia's) political arena is a tangled, bureaucratic car accident of a system that makes significant change difficult. But people are getting fed up and I think it will be fixed, likely more sooner than later.
Posted by: Don Rowe | September 16, 2009 5:03 AM
Queensland has always been considered the backwards state in the country, but I didn't know it was this archaic.
That poll requires the dexterous fingers of Pharyngulans, ASAP.
Yes 31% (1712 votes)
No 68% (3793 votes)
Unsure 0% (17 votes)
Sum votes:
Total votes: 5522 votes so far
Posted by: The Silent Moose of Doom
|
September 16, 2009 5:05 AM
Every time I hear the phrase 'your ugly blaspheming head', it kind of makes me want to giggle.
Oh, and hi DexX. *waves*
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 5:06 AM
@Teflonmonkey
We are discussing a hypothetical future where such things are possible. It might be pointless, but it is a point(less) that Ichthyic raised.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 5:06 AM
I'm also not speaking entirely from ignorance here - 8 years ago, my wife was pregnant with triplets. We wanted the pregnancy very badly; we'd been trying for a number of years. But triplets was not an option we wanted to face (amongst other matters - such as raising triplets - we, and our doctor, were very concerned about the ability of my wife to carry one baby to term, let alone three).
We sought out, and found, lots of counselling and advice on the matter. The doctor we went to for a second opinion recommended aborting two, given the health problems of my wife. In the end, we decided to abort one foetus. A 12-week scan showed one with potential abnormalities - it was also the highest one, and if it miscarried later, there was a good chance we would lose all three. We aborted that embryo through a surgical procedure (basically, a syringe was used to inject the embryo with a lot of saline, forcing it to break apart - I think; it was some time ago). I watched the embryo die; my wife refused to look at the screen.
This was in Queensland. The doctor who performed the procedure specialised in ultrasounds, collecting cell samples from foetuses, and abortions, and was one of three in that hospital alone.
(For the record: my wife ended up going into labour at 28 weeks of pregnancy - she got unlucky and caught a bad cold which forced her to cough a lot and miscarry. My children were delivered prematurely at the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital, where they spent 12 weeks in the neo-natal unit. All covered by the government - our private health insurance covered my wife, but their "pregnancy related cover" only kicked in if the pregnancy went to at least 35 weeks. Go figure)
Posted by: Thommo | September 16, 2009 5:07 AM
Queensland is a great place. My mum lives there.. When driving over the border it's important to adjust your watch for Queensland's unique time zone.. and adjust your calendar for the pre-war mind-set.
The first war mindset, not the second.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 5:11 AM
You're claiming that there's some magical way of giving birth that doesn't count as giving birth.
Be sure you know what an ad hominem fallacy actually is before you start throwing around the big words.
It's a fact that you are an authoritarian. You are proposing that women should be subjected to medical procedures that they do not consent to, for the sake of your own squeamishness.
By proposing these medical procedures against consent, you are in fact saying that a woman cannot be relied upon to choose to the medical procedures that are best for her. You have contempt for her choices.
The point at which you believe the woman should have gotten an abortion sooner, if she wanted to control her own body.
How Christian of you.
You mean the doctor would only be required to force her to undergo a different medical procedure, with different risks, than the one she consented to.
It's much more restrictive. It's trivial to find abortion services at 24 weeks, for example Those aren't available in all states -- as has been pointed out, there are effectively no abortions performed in some states -- but it's legal and it's possible to travel.
In the end, again, you do not have the right to subject a woman to any medical procedure that she does not consent to. You need to get over this idea that you have the state suddenly owns a woman's body at some point during gestation and can force her to undergo medical procedures against her consent.
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 5:11 AM
ATTENTION BRISBANE SKEPTICS, a question please.
OK, while I have all the Brisbane people looking this way. Does anyone know of any "Skeptics in the Pub" around here. I've tried contacting the UQ and QUT listings but they're not answering their mail. And the only other active groups around here look to be on the Goldcoast.
@DexX, Yes in that case I can agree with you, perhaps in that instance it would be better to put it up for adoption. It would be an odd case where that would happen though.
@Don Rowe, that pole really isn't doing us any favors, but as I said before, it's our local equivalent of fox so don't I expect much.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 5:14 AM
@strange gods before me
Further . . .
Imagine this present-day scenario. A woman is 34 weeks pregnant and suffering from preeclampsia. It is so bad that the doctors want to deliver the baby via c-section immediately for fear it may die. The woman refuses because she wants to carry the baby to term and deliver vaginally. The doctors ignore her and go ahead with the c-section, saving the life of the child.
In your world, she sues the doctors and wins because they performed a medical procedure against her consent.
Do I have that about right?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 5:15 AM
This is a red herring. No one is doing that. You have to believe that women are stupid and incompetent to make decisions, to think that they are incapable of planning ahead and knowing what they want, to think that they are frivolously deciding on abortion at the last minute.
This is an old anti-choice talking point and does not deserve discussion. It relies on the assumption that women are stupid and frivolous.
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 5:18 AM
@ Doo Shabag, hmmm... ok. If, if, if all that was possible. Then would it be any different from the IVF fertilised embryos we have now? I don't think so, it's still just a few cells. Also, at that stage some of the cues for development come from the mother, so what would that make the machine that took over for it?
@ strange gods, I agree
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 5:21 AM
Thank you for demonstrating that your objection is rooted in religious mysticism. There is no one home in that fertilized egg. You are working from the assumption of some kind of pseudo-soul. There is nothing to save. There is no tragedy if a fertilized egg dies.
You keep ignoring that abortion is less dangerous than giving birth, at 20 weeks or whenever. It's clear that since you dismiss this fact, the woman's health is of no concern to you.
Posted by: DexX | September 16, 2009 5:24 AM
Uh... what?
"That won't ever happen so we don't need to discuss the ethics of it" is a cop-out.
Fine, so when you we decide that something MIGHT happen and it's okay to discuss the ethics of it, since you have given yourself the authority to frame the terms of the debate and summarily dismiss ideas as not worth discussing?
Eight months?
Seven months?
Your refusal to debate sounds like intellectual cowardice to me.
I state again - I am pro-choice, but I get ethically uncomfortable with late-term abortion of viable, healthy babies. I think there needs to be a reasonable, civilised debate over where to draw a line.
You say no woman would ever choose to abort at 8.5 months. What if one did? Would you tell her she can't? What grounds would you base your decision on?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 16, 2009 5:25 AM
@Ichthyic: If you had a bad dream, that was Mabus burning your very soul. And if you didn't have a bad dream -- well, you did, you just may not remember it. Because it was so traumatic. But it was an awful dream, I'm sure.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 5:25 AM
That is the real world. Doctors do not perform medical procedures against a patient's consent. You would rather change this and actively remove people's current rights.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 5:26 AM
Teflonmonkey@372: you may want to try http://www.qldskeptics.com/.
They meet at the Red Brick Hotel in South Brisbane on Annerley Rd - it's kind of hard to miss (it's a hotel and, um, it's made of red brick) on the last monday of the month, which would be the 29th this month.
There is also Briskepticon in late November - program looks really good; wish I could go, but I doubt the wife would let me off kid watching duties for an entire weekend... ;)
Posted by: John Morales | September 16, 2009 5:26 AM
Doo Shabag:
I think so — assuming she's compos mentis.
In my world, too; in this matter I agree entirely with sgbm.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 5:27 AM
@strange gods before me
That is not what I said, you removed the words "labor and" from the phrase "labor and giving birth". I am not suggesting labor, and c-section is one way of giving birth without labor. It is your opinion that I am an authoritarian. And not that it is relevant, but having assisted in several brain and CNS autopsies, watched over the curtain (standing while holding my wife's hand) while my kids were delivered via c-section, and having watched several surgical procedures (including on myself) from within a foot or so, I assure you I am not in the least squeamish. I suppose I do have contempt for someone who would kill someone for no reason other than they choose to. I agree it is immoral to force a woman to carry a child. I also think it is immoral to kill the child when it can be saved. You apparently do not agree with that last part.No one has the absolute right to do whatever they want with their bodies, nor should they. I think you should have the right to run yourself through with a spear if you so choose - but not when I am standing right behind you.
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 5:32 AM
Hello Brisbane Skeptics
I think we need a regular pub event for skeptics in Brisbane like they seem to have all over the US.
Hello! Is anyone there? :P
Posted by: Brian English | September 16, 2009 5:33 AM
Good to see that some have pointed out that states like Victoria have decriminalized abortion. In spite of the ignorance or misrepresentation of those who said otherwise. I think Queensland will probably go some part of the way there with this embarassing situation. I agree with whoever said "fight injustice whereever it is".
Posted by: Teflonmonkey2 | September 16, 2009 5:34 AM
Ignore #383, just slow :P
Posted by: Von Krieger | September 16, 2009 5:35 AM
Just stop arguing with him. He's a troll. He's calling himself DOUCHEBAG, after all.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 16, 2009 5:36 AM
The forced-birthers in thsi thread need to grasp: there is no point talking about a _child_ until after it's born. Until then it's a _fetus_, not a person, and all decisions about its fate rest entirely with the mother; she can do what she wants with her body and its contents. Pretending that a fetus is a person has only one purpose: to exert control over the woman's body. Pretending that abortion is about "killing people" is ridiculous. No _person_ dies in an abortion unless the _woman_ dies.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 5:38 AM
It's a fact that it does not happen, and you are bringing up a fake anti-choice talking point that relies on assumptions that women are stupid.
I'm not refusing to debate, but you need to bring up questions that are not bullshit.
Hey, your discomfort is not the important thing here. The important thing is whether or not the state owns the woman's body.
As in the thought experiment of the violinist, at no time does the woman ever lose her right to make her own medical decisions. And she doesn't have to have reasons that you think are good enough.
But you're living in a fever-dream if you think this is a real issue. Women and their doctors come to reasonable decisions all the time without your meddling. Trust them.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 5:40 AM
@strange gods before me
Wait a minute, you just suggested a woman should be able to get an abortion if she loses her job. That is a last minute decision. You can't have it both ways.
@Teflonmonkey
If they could be raised then I think maybe they should but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
@strange gods before me
Umm, yeah. Atheist here. No soul. But I do think it is worth saving lives. Sorry about that, I guess. So if it is not then you have no objections? Because I think I have made it clear that we are talking about putting research money into saving lives.
@John Morales
I don't now if anyone around here is a lawyer or not, but I think a strong case could be made that a woman who would rather her child die than she miss her goal of delivering vaginally is non compos mentis
Posted by: John Morales | September 16, 2009 5:43 AM
[meta]
Von Krieger, Doo Shabag is a regular here, and makes some great comments IMO.
He's anything but a troll.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 5:46 AM
@Von Krieger
I may not post that often, but I'm not a troll. This is just my honest opinion. I can see some don't like it.
@Stephen Wells
I think this might be directed at me. It is entertaining that I am somehow a "forced birther" when I advocate removing a fetus on demand. When did attempting to save a life become a horrible thing?
Seriously, do whatever you want with your body - shoot yourself in the hand, just not when it is on my chest, ok?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 5:52 AM
I believe Von Krieger is right, but I feel unable to take that good advice just yet. :/
Holy shit, now you're demanding even more invasive medical procedures against the woman's consent. You are one sick fuck.
You do not have the right to force a woman to have a medical procedure that she does not consent to. The only way you would have that right is if you owned her body. But you do not own her body. And the state does not own her body. She owns her body. She and only she gets to decide what medical procedures will be performed on her.
You absolutely do have contempt for women if you will not allow them to have autonomy over their own bodies.
What ridiculous bullshit. The difference is that it's entirely possible for a person to stab that spear right through whatever part of their body they'd like without killing a bystander. So the community has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the person doesn't kill a bystander. But it's not possible for a woman to choose to undergo a D&X without destroying the fetus. It's not for you to choose some other medical procedure for her instead.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 16, 2009 6:00 AM
Douchebag @ 391,
I am unclear as to your motives for insisting on "saving a life" wrt aborted fetuses.
The example of the 8 months,3 week pregnant woman is rubbish, unless there are grave health risks to the mother nobody would agree to such a procedure, and it's not like it's a common lifestyle choice for women or something.
Which leaves the abortions that are performed for fetal abnormalities or the woman's health, now how exactly does "saving the life" of a fetus help anyone? Certainly not the mother, and most certainly not the fetus that if it survived, would have to do so without parents.
If we put every second trimester aborted fetus into ICU not only would the health system collapse but we would create an army of fosterkids with all its social consequences.
Posted by: v-pills | September 16, 2009 6:03 AM
I am unclear as to your motives for insisting on "saving a life" wrt aborted fetuses.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 6:03 AM
@strange gods before me
Wait, lets back up a second, since you are misconstruing what I said. My point is that there are ways of giving birth without going into labor, since you said I was going to force a woman into "labor and giving birth." The c-section example was only meant to demonstrate a technique that can deliver a child without labor, I was not in any way suggesting that women be forced to have c-sections. If it came across that way I am really sorry. I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry, but if there were a way of doing it without destroying the fetus that was just as safe for the woman as a D&X then it is immoral and I think should be illegal for a woman to choose to do the D&X.
Again I ask, if it was just as safe for the mother if the doctor removed the fetus live rather than dead, you have no objection?
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 6:04 AM
Not quite the same thing as preeclampsia, but OBs in Australia can perform c-sections, even against the mother's expressed desire, if the health of the mother or the baby is at severe risk. The most normal situation for this to occur is during prolonged labor.
Now I'm not saying that most OBs would do this - I'm just saying that in court cases against them, OBs have successfully used the defence of the baby's own right to life. Australian law (and it varies from state to state) does recognise that an unborn child does have rights.
In similar circumstances, Australian ER doctors have given blood transfusions to children of Jehovah Witnesses, against the stated opinion of the parents. Again, not all or even most doctors would do this, but they are protected to an extent if they do. (They're also protected if they don't)
I would advise any woman who was pregnant and wanted to deliver naturally to consult with their OB about what circumstances surgical intervention would be recommended, just to cover this ground well in advance. If you go private, you can obviously select your own OB, but even if you go public, you can usually find out who your OB will be in advance.
Stephen Wells@389: there's nothing special about birth that magically makes a newborn a "person". The newborn is 100% dependant on assistance to survive - it's just now that assistance can be provided by other people. The baby's right to life at 5 seconds before delivery is no weaker than 5 seconds after. The mother, by choosing to continue the pregnancy that long, has already consented to allowing the child to be born. By a sufficiently advanced stage - say, the end of the 2nd trimester, which seems to be a commonly used boundary - the only rationale for abortion should be the health and safety of the mother. I certainly feel, for example, the Chinese policy of at-birth abortions to be immoral.
(Actually being forced to _raise_ the child is a different matter - a new mother who thinks she can't support or cope with a newborn should have the right to put the baby into state care. Which in turn should be decent enough to not disadvantage or abuse the child)
Posted by: John Morales | September 16, 2009 6:04 AM
DS:
How are you not?
You would restrict women (after your n weeks) to the choice of carrying to term or having a medical procedure to extract the fetus — the latter being functionally equivalent to birth.
"Forced birther" fits precisely.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 6:06 AM
If you're having trouble following the conversation, then you should stop. I said the line must be drawn at birth. But that doesn't change the fact that no one is actually getting frivolous late term abortions, so to bring it up seriously is to rely on an argument that women are stupid.
You do believe in a soul, even though you won't admit it, if you think there's anyone's life to save in a fertilized egg. I'm not going to let this slide by with you pretending that you have some secular argument. You do not. You probably will not even try, but if you try you will fail to provide any secular argument for having a moral interest in fertilized eggs.
I absolutely do object to forcing women to have medical procedures against their will! What is wrong with you? Why are you so completely contemptuous of women's autonomy?
There it is, proof that you do not believe women can be trusted to make the decisions that are right for them. She doesn't have to give you her reasons why she doesn't want to be cut open. She doesn't have to justify herself to you.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 16, 2009 6:07 AM
So, basically, the woman can opt out of the c-section if she is sane, but if she does, that proves she is insane?
Is this some kind of through-the-looking-glass Catch 22?
Posted by: The Silent Moose of Doom
|
September 16, 2009 6:08 AM
I get where DexX (and some others, possibly, but I forget who) is coming from, but I'm with SGBM on this one.
Thankfully, I've never had an unwanted pregnancy, so I've never had to make this particular decision.
I think that abortion is a horrible thing to have to go through for all concerned. In my ideal world, contraception would be so effective and freely available and medicine so advanced that every blastocyst/embryo/foetus in existence was 100% wanted and 100% healthy.
But since this is real life (unfortunately), a woman's right to control her own body has to trump everything else. If there were some way to magically and non-invasively 'poof' an unwanted pregnancy out of the woman's body and into some kind of artificial gestation chamber (provided that the woman consented to this), I'd be more open to the idea.
As it is, though, it's my body and nobody gets to inhabit it in any way without my consent. It's not a perfect state of affairs, but it's all I've got right now.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 6:10 AM
Rorschach
If they can be saved, then why not?
This fails the "against medical advice" part of what I am suggesting.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 6:11 AM
I absolutely object to anyone being forced to undergo any medical procedure without consent. Safety is only one consideration, and that is up to the woman to decide, with her doctor's advice, and no one else.
Posted by: Cimourdain | September 16, 2009 6:12 AM
Just on this:
That is their right.
As regards the whole debate about abortion, the whole question hinges on one thing: What is the status of the unborn? Is it a human being or not? If it is, then no reason ever put forward for abortion works. If it isn't, then most of the arguments are not necessary.
Penn Jillette made an interesting point here, from a bioethicist acquaintance of his: we consider someone clinically dead when they have no brain function. Conversely, we should consider someone clinically alive, and human, when they can demonstrate that. Now, we have the information on when that is for the foetus: two months in. That seems the only moral position to take.
And, yes, that means that the hideous practice euphemistically called "late term abortion" is actually infanticide.
Posted by: Al | September 16, 2009 6:13 AM
Queensland's been notorious for ages - look up Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the Queensland Gerrymander sometime...
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 6:16 AM
@Doo Shabag #389
Ok, No. I put the split between what you are saving and a life. At this point you are saving a nemetode. It is not a life, it may have a potential to become one in the hypothetical future, but that is not the same thing ethically. For the nemetode to survive it will put demands on an existing life, the mother. The nematode does not come before the choice of the mother. This opens the biological ladder can of worms, lets not go there.
@strange gods before me #392
I know what you are saying, but the individual has a great deal of control over what happens to their body. But don't mistake that for absolute control. The state does impose limits, theoretically if you could do what ever you wanted, drugs wouldn't be illegal and nor would euthanasia. And that's another can of worms.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 6:17 AM
That's a completely different matter. The kids are not inside the mother's body, and nothing is being forced upon someone legally capable of consent.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 6:21 AM
I think we're arguing about what the law should be, here. In any case I'm all for assisted suicide, as well as legalizing drugs and treating addiction with health care.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 6:23 AM
SGBM:
I don't believe in a soul. I do believe in life. I believe that there is life in that fertilised egg. I watched an embryo being destroyed at 18-weeks gestation. A week before I saw that same embryo swimming around doing backflips and waving. There was at least as much life in that 18-week embryo as there is in a goldfish. I know that we killed that life - that I was instrumental in causing the death of my son (yes, we knew the gender). The fact that the embryo in question had maybe a 1% chance of surviving to term was irrelevant - we chose the time of death.
I'm tempted to say you believe in a soul if you think making a distinction at birth, regardless of gestation time, is so vital. A new born baby can not survive even a few hours without help. Why is the fact of birth so important? Because that help can be given by someone else now?
If there is any line, that line is viability. Once the foetus would be viable outside the womb, I would say that there is a moral duty to give it that chance. The health and well-being of the mother is important, but it's not an absolute trump card for the entire duration of the pregnancy.
Oh - and if you want examples of people choosing (and being forced to choose) late-term abortions, look to China.
(I also think mothers who smoke during pregnancy should be charged with child-abuse, but that's just me - I can't stand smokers)
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 6:24 AM
And when Penn Jillette has an answer for the violinist problem, we can talk. Until then, no one, with or without a functional brain, has any right to use a woman's body against her will for their survival.
That is the only moral position to take. Penn Jillette doesn't own women's bodies.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 16, 2009 6:34 AM
Ahem, no. It hinges on the question whether the host has autonomy over their body or not. Wrong again. Please at least read the arguments put forth in this very thread. Two months in? Really? At which point of brain development are you willing to consider the embryo to be a person? What brain functions do you take as a criterion, and why?Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 6:36 AM
SGBM@409:
Moral position? Who made you a god and gave you the power to decide morals?
The only moral position possible is the average consensus of community as a whole - morals are a social invention, and as such are dictated by the community. This is why they change over time - opinions change.
The current moral consensus, in the Western culture, is that unborn children have rights. Exactly what rights, and to what extent, is still being debated, but it is very clear that the consensus is that late-stage foetus have a right to life nearly as strong as the mothers. When two people have rights that conflict, both get bent to some degree. Sorry, but you lose on that argument.
Is it a sensible decision? Maybe, maybe not. In China, for example, the historical (not current!) moral consensus was that a child wasn't alive until a year after birth - it helps to deal with high infant mortality that way. In what way is your line of birth more defensible than their line of a year after birth? What is so special about birth?
Anyway - off for the night. Got more important things to do than SIWOTI Syndrome; Spicks & Specks is about to start!
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 6:36 AM
@strange gods before me, #407
Fair point, and on some days I would agree with you on what the laws should be with regards to assisted suicide and drugs. If we are talking about should, I also think there are some limits as to what you can legally do to yourself. Simply from a society point of view, you can't mutilate yourself to deliberately burden yourself onto others or commit crime. Similarly, I don't think we should allow people to sell parts of their body.
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 16, 2009 6:36 AM
This debate hinges around when a foetus achieves personhood.
Before that I think that most people can agree that termination is a pretty morally neutral act as the only ones damage done is the emotional damage to the woman and those around her.
After the foetus becomes a person, we have to weigh the rights of this new person against the rights of the mother. The rights of the mother may trump the child's, they may not, thats something we can debate if we can settle on whether this thing counts as a person.
Now, I'm with SGBM, while the foetus is a part of the mother's body it does not count as its own entity. Thus the mother has the right to do what she wants. And the physician should have the right to assist or refuse to do so.
Personally, I think infanticide should be the grey area... but I'm unlikely to find much support for that view, and I would hate to give the christians something to gloat about.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 6:38 AM
@John Morales
I can't really fault your logic, except that it does not apply prior to my "n" weeks and the term has implications about the right to choose to carry a fetus or not that do not apply to me. A fertilized egg is alive. Do you deny that? That is my only point, that if it can be saved then why not? Does believing that make me religious in some way? I am trying to see where your limits to a person's rights are. Why do you insist on a woman's right to destroy something that in my scenario can be removed safely without being destroyed? If it could be removed via Star Trek transporter, would you insist it be destroyed if the mother so chose? Would it be ok for the mother to insist on a D&X? Seriously, where your the line? That's just your preconceived notion of what I think. Of course women and men can make their own decisions under normal circumstances, but if a MAN said the same thing I would make the same argument. It is not a gender based argument, people under extreme stress sometimes make bad decisions.
@Forbidden Snowflake
@The Silent Moose of Doom
I agree 100% Now we're talking. I agree with this too.
@strange gods before me
Ok. It is not like I am suggesting anything horrible, but if you can't even
@Teflonmonkey
Well, it is ALIVE, whether it is "a life" or not is more of a philosophical debate. And we are discussing a case where there are no demands on the existing life, so I'm not sure your argument applies.
@RobertDW
Man, am I glad I never had to go through that. I feel for you, and agree with pretty much everything you said. And the "pretty much" is only in there in case I didn't read closely enough.
This has really been an interesting discussion. It's way past my bedtime, so I think I'm off for the night. Maybe 5 more minutes . . .
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 6:39 AM
I try to choose my words to say exactly what I mean, and I sometimes succeed. In this case, I succeeded, and the part in bold is very relevant. A fertilized egg is just as alive as an unfertilized egg, but in either case, there is no one's life there to save. There is no one home.
Don't extrapolate what I said about fertilized eggs to an 18 week embryos and think that you've learned anything about what I believe.
I'll say this unambiguously.
I believe a thirty week old fetus is a person; there is someone home.
I believe that no person has the right to use another person's body for survival.
I believe that the privilege of using another person's body for survival may be freely given and freely taken away at any time.
Yes, because if the mother wants to abandon her newborn, the newborn can survive with the help of the state, without taking ownership of the woman's body.
I'd say the line is personhood. And so if I were a pregnant woman, I would not have an abortion after I believed that the fetus was either conscious of its own existence or able to experience pain (whichever comes first, if there is any distinction).
But my personal morals don't give me the right to take ownership of a woman's body.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 6:46 AM
Sorry, forgot to finish this thought:
@strange gods before me
Ok. It is not like I am suggesting anything horrible, but if you can't even agree that it is worth allowing the clump of cells to live if possible, then I suppose there is not much to talk about. Because all I am suggesting is that if it can be done as safely then there is no moral reason not to do so. And "because I don't want to" isn't really a good moral reason to me.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 6:52 AM
A single bacteria is alive. Do we say "if that bacteria can be saved then why not?" The question "why should anyone bother to save that bacteria?" is just as valid. There is no one home. There is no one to save. Imagining otherwise is religious.
There is no limit to a person's right to bodily autonomy. You are inventing these fake scenarios that do not exist, in order to disguise your disgusting and abhorrent beliefs.
In reality you want to force women into labor or perform Cesarean-sections on them against their will. Sick.
No reason to believe you, since this only happens to women. Indeed, we'd all have a very different opinion of abortion if men got pregnant. Abortion would be a holy sacrament.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 16, 2009 6:53 AM
However, if there isn't anyone "at home", there is no moral reason to do so, either. It is, if the individual at stake is not a sentient living being.Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 6:55 AM
@strange gods before me
I agree, there is no one presently home. But there will be, and if it can happen outside of the mother's body with no burden on here then I don't see the problem. I agree, but I also think a woman should be allowed to have an abortion at this point, no questions asked. Agree completely. Still agree 100%. I agree, I just don't agree that removing a fetus at her request in a way that increases the chances of that fetus surviving is an immoral act. But I am not suggesting draconian measures, if we (as a society) could agree that this is a desirable thing then we could try to find ways to do it as safely as possible for both people.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 6:56 AM
And it's a damn good thing that your backwards morals aren't the ones that determine the law.
You are inventing a soul that makes a clump of cells matter. There is no way to make a clump of undifferentiated cells have any moral significance without a soul. You never bothered to try to offer a secular argument for it, because as I said, you cannot. There is no such argument.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 7:01 AM
Teleology. There's your religious thinking coming through. You think that a person who does not exist yet has some interests that we ought to protect in the present.
You just don't agree that forcing a woman to undergo a medical procedure against her consent is immoral. You just don't believe that forced birth is immoral. You just don't believe that forced C-section is immpral. You just don't care what women actually want for themselves.
Society does not own women's bodies. I will not be dragged into feudalism for the sake of your sentimentality.
Posted by: Daniel Raffaele | September 16, 2009 7:02 AM
NB for Americans: Australia has STATES. Queensland is just one of them. States are sovereign and for all intents and purposes operate rather like countries. Just because QLD is a backwards hic State with about as much common sense as a box of hair does not mean that EVERY AUSTRALIAN is devoid of normal cognitive function.
Please don't paint us all with the Queensland brush. After all, we don't say that all Americans are gun-toting, bible-bashing, homophobic racists from Alabama.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 7:05 AM
So does America. But we don't let our states get away with violating an individual's right to medical privacy.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 7:11 AM
@strange gods before me
In your reality I guess, but it is only in your mind. Especially since I specifically said I would not force either of those things. And here I thought we were agreeing on some things, but I can see you've veered off into crazy town. Oh, I get it, you accuse me of being misogynistic to cover your own misandry. And somehow the part where I'm suggesting abortion for women at any time keeps getting lost.@Forbidden Snowflake
Again, I don't kill things for no reason. Allowing and even helping something to live is the default position to me.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 16, 2009 7:17 AM
So, there is such a thing as an antipodean brand of crazy after all.
I was thinking of trying to move to Australia one day, but now I will think twice.
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 7:17 AM
@Doo Shabag, #414
It applies because this is essentially not a point that's worth arguing about. This is the biological ladder thing I didn't want to go into. Essentially you could use your argument to say that a small single celled organism like yeast has the same rights as you, the multi-cellular, thinking, reasoning being you are. That's if you say that a living thing has rights just because it's alive, and I do mean "thing" because it's not a human yet. That's moving into existential territory that is ultimately fruitless. From here you can take; Door #1) humans are special; Door #2) Life is special; or Door #3) cut the argument into smaller increasingly abstract hypothetical situations until you find a unit small enough where the fertilised embryo has rights equal to the mother.
My point was similar to SGBMs in #420, there really is no secular argument for your view.
Posted by: Hyperon | September 16, 2009 7:22 AM
"strange gods before me" (what a completely brain-dead choice of moniker you have, by the way):
Plainly, she doesn't have the right to inflict suffering or to kill sentient beings. That's what abortion boils down to: Can a fetus suffer? Is it a sentient being? Rational people conclude no. Irrational people conclude yes, or alternatively get bogged down by irrelevant rhetoric concerning women's rights.Of course the focus on women's rights does have its uses. If you incessantly huff and puff about injustice, it stands to reason -- doesn't it? -- that you must be such a compassionate and all-around swell individual. Actually, no it doesn't. Your motive is transparent, and your pathetic strategy fails miserably.
Posted by: NiroZ | September 16, 2009 7:27 AM
Yeah, IIRC, Queensland is trying to fix those laws, but yeah, Queensland is redneck central for australia. That's where we got Pauline Hanson from (think the british national party/sarah palin but more racist).
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 16, 2009 7:30 AM
You don't masturbate? Really? You're one of the 5%*?
Spermatozoa are alive, you know.
*You know the joke...
Posted by: Mrs Tilton
|
September 16, 2009 7:30 AM
Bad Queensland, no biscuit.
Jadehawk @13,
if the girl is spoken free
That want we to hope. ;)
Kel @26,
we lost the State Of Origin again this year
Well then, you'll just have to find a better code to follow...
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 16, 2009 7:32 AM
Doo, you gave yourself away with that "there will be" comment. No, if the fetus is destroyed, there won't be. Problem solved.
And you, like all of us, eliminate living cells, living _human cells_, all the time without the slightest fuss or moral qualms. Dandruff, skin flakes, spit, tears, semen, vaginal fluids, feces, blood- all loaded with human cells! Won't somebody think of those poor vitally important _human cells_ that should not ever, ever be destroyed without a reason? We've already generated mice from stem cells; when we can take any human cell, revert it to a stem cell and generate a fetus, will you spend all your time hoovering up cellular debris and rushing it to a petri dish so that it will have the chance to become that potential person you think every clump of cells has a right to be?
Posted by: John Morales | September 16, 2009 7:33 AM
[OT]
Teflonmonkey,
I do think that, outside an anthropomorphic perspective, a yeast has the same rights as I¹, but then, I find Peter Singer's arguments very persuasive.
--
PS Gregory and others: Queensland may be the "redneck state", but it's still a damn nice place where the people are in general very friendly and where life is rather good — or so I've found when on holiday there.
This case, as others have said, is more of an aberration than a general indicator of attitude.
--
¹ Because 'rights' are a human construct.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 16, 2009 7:33 AM
Neither does a fetus.
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 7:33 AM
@ Daniel Raffaele, #422
Oh, get off your high horse you hypocrite.
What a pathetic thing to say. Who are you trying to please? If Queensland's such a horrible place, why do we have such a high population growth from all the southerners moving up here?
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 7:34 AM
@strange gods before me
As I've said, I believe it is worth allowing the clump of cells to live. Not because it has a soul, but because killing it just seems mean. Seriously, why kill something you don't have to? I don't kill anything for no reason. It has nothing to do with souls, but I do appreciate life, especially my own. If that makes me religious in your mind then fine. False. I see no reason to needlessly kill something harmless that can be saved, whether it is a fetus or a tree or a yeast cell. And I regularly kill billions of yeast and bacteria cells because it is the right thing to do.
You've really lost it with the rest of your post, since you keep accusing me of being in favor of things that I have explicitly stated I am against.
@Teflonmonkey
Huh. Well, I don't kill living things for no reason, but it has nothing to do with the sanctity of life. I don't destroy non-living things for no good reason either, whether formerly living things like wooden doors and sheets of paper, or never living things like glass and aluminum foil and such. Because I think destroying things for no good reason is lame, and a waste of my time. Is the fact that I place value on living and non-living things somehow not secular?
@Forbidden Snowflake
Hah! Are you saying there is no reason to masturbate? I do not concur.
And as I've said it is way past my bed time. I'm interested in your reply Teflonmonkey, but I can't stay up any later - I'll check tomorrow. This has been interesting, good night.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 16, 2009 7:36 AM
Interesting thought; if we take antibiotics so as to kill billions upon billions of bacterial cells in order to save one person's life, have we just failed some sort of moral calculus? What with all living cells having the same rights, that is.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 7:36 AM
Okay, Spicks and Specks is over.
SGBM: let me put a different spin on it, if I may.
There is a point in the pregnancy where, if miscarriage occurs, the foetus is small enough that the tissue can be re-absorbed or flushed by the mother, with no ill effect.
As the pregnancy goes on, the ability of the woman to do this becomes less. For example, at 20 weeks gestation, if a miscarriage occurs, the woman _has_ to give birth or have a c-section. There's no question of viability - the earliest date for viable premature babies is about 24 weeks gestation. The baby may be alive when born, or it may be stillborn. But it's fate is known if a miscarriage occurs at this stage.
So: by about 20 weeks on - halfway through the second trimester - there is no option _but_ birth of some fashion. If the potential mother wants to avoid birth, she really should have made that decision earlier. This is not a legal question - this is about what is medically possible.
The third trimester starts around week 27 - 28. At this point, the foetus is viable with modern medical care. At this point, I will switch to 'mother' and 'child'. This is one rationale for not allowing abortion (except for health reasons) at this stage - if the mother wants to stop being the host for the child, it is feasible to extract the foetus and allow it to develop outside the womb. More to the point, if the mother wants to stop being the host for the child it is NOT feasible to not extract the foetus - the mother can take as many abortifacients as she likes, but the child is still being born, even if it is still born.
So - given that birth or an operation will occur if a pregnancy gets to the third trimester, AND given that modern society has decided that unborn children - especially by the third trimester - have rights (wether you personally agree or not), at what point does the woman's desire to avoid an operation (backed by her right to autonomy over her body) override the right of the unborn child to life?
When two independent rights clash, the normal situation is for both to bend somewhat. The usual outcome for that is: a) don't allow women in the third trimester to abort except for health reasons; b) allow the mother to choose natural birth; c) intervene surgically if the natural birth develops complications that put the child or the mother's life at risk.
This is not about treating the mother as property - this is about not allowing the mother
to treat her child as property. A mother who insists on putting her child through a natural vaginal delivery that the baby can't survive is treating her child as property.
Fortunately, in the real world, this situation seldom arises because responsible OBs discuss this with their patients. The only scenario I've heard like this in the real world (ie. in the media) was one of those water-birthers who had complications; the baby had defecated in the womb, and would have died if the mother hadn't undergone a c-section (that she didn't consent to); fortunately (for the child) the mother did have the baby at a birthing centre in the hospital - if it had been a home birth, the baby would have died.
So - to bring it back to the question I had a while back: what makes birth special?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 16, 2009 7:40 AM
And doo has established that personal pleasure is more than sufficient reason to kill a bunch of cells during masturbation. So all the whining turns out to be baseless if it's fine to kill cells because you want to.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 16, 2009 7:42 AM
No, I'm saying that the reason to masturbate basically boils down to wanting to - which, as you claim, is not a good enough "moral reason" to kill something.
Why is wanting to release some tension a good enough reason to kill a million spermatozoa, but not wanting to go through an [imaginary] medical procedure for rescuing an embryo for further in-vitro cultivation isn't a good reason to kill it?
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 7:43 AM
I agree, there is no one presently home. But there will be, and if it can happen outside of the mother's body with no burden on here then I don't see the problem.
So then you also agree that all men should be legally forced to save every bit of semen they ejaculate, because no one is presently home in the sperm, but there will be.
I'm also astounded at your classification of women as baby-making factories, given how much you keep repeating that the embryo should just be removed from the woman and raised elsewhere if she doesn't want it. I don't have time to look up the primary lit. right now, but here is a summary of a few studies on the effects on women of giving up babies. You keep saying that it shouldn't matter to the woman one way or another, but that's really crap. It's entirely possible to be ok with aborting an embryo, but having strong feelings for an actual born person, and it's astounding that you think it's otherwise.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 16, 2009 7:48 AM
Birth is special because it's the point where you (a) have a new-born child and (b) the child can now depend on other people rather than the mother, if necessary. Before that point, you have a fetus in the womb, and it should be for the mother to decide what happens to and in her body. I'm happy to trust women in general not to have frivolous late-term abortions.
Birth is the _earliest_ point at which we can sensibly treat a newborn as a person with rights.
Posted by: Teflonmonkey | September 16, 2009 7:49 AM
Wow, we just lost about 100 posts, PZ must have just saw the Troll from earlier.
@John Morales
:P I'm not going to bite, because that will undercut this whole thread and we float away into existential dream land.
@Doo Shabag
Hmmm... you moved the goal posts there. Lets go back to the original point, no one here is talking about "no reason", quite the opposite. Value on living things is fine, just don't try to pin down those values or we'll be here all night.
The short of it is, the rights are not equal, mum gets to decide.
Posted by: Mr. Whiting | September 16, 2009 7:55 AM
There is a reason that Punk music started in Queensland (the Saints, Birthday Party, etc.) and had to move to England. They have the most backward laws in the whole country.
Brisbane is often likened to a country town as opposed to a Capital City, and for good reason (I say this having come from a country town). Generally the other states are quite respectful of womens rights, but it tends to be heading backwards in NSW with Fred Nile and his Christian Soldiers.
Posted by: Andyman | September 16, 2009 7:57 AM
@#202
Yes WA doesn't have daylight saving, or 7-day trading/late night trading. BUT we still have legal abortion, plus our gay couples can adopt.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 8:18 AM
But Stephen - like I said, by week 28 of the pregnancy, birth is inevitable. The baby may be born vaginally or surgically; it may be born dead, dying, or alive. It will be born. This isn't any form of wishful thinking - this is biology, as applied to the female human.
I would not want to advocate for forcing c-sections on women unnecessarily; vaginal birth is what humans are evolved for, and there are lots of evidence to support it being better. But if it comes down to the life of the child - well, a lot of still borns are delivered by c-section anyway. Once the child is dead, you have to remove it from the mother's body reasonably fast or the mother will get ill and possibly die.
So here's the hypothetical situation: the mother wants to give birth vaginally. She is in early labour. As a (hypothetical) OB, you feel that the child needs to be born in, say, the next sixteen hours, in order to survive. If the baby dies, a c-section is going to be required anyway, most likely. Prepping for an emergency c-section takes about 10 minutes - a slightly more gentle pace is about 60 minutes. Most of this delay is for the epidural, so if the mother wants that anyway you've got a lot more leeway.
At what point in the sixteen hours would you want to raise the possibility of a c-section?
If the baby dies, you're probably doing a c-section anyway, to save the life of the mother. Do you consider doing this while the baby is alive?
If you wait for the baby to die, and then do the c-section, without the consent of the mother, in order to save her life, what do you say in court when she sues you for performing the operation without her consent and not saving her baby's life?
(BTW, I'm sure these aren't that hypothetical - I'm reasonably sure most OBs have been in this situation or have colleagues who have been in this situation).
No need for waffling about rights, etc. At what point do you decide to perform a c-section to save the life of the mother - before or after the baby dies?
Posted by: sorting algorithm | September 16, 2009 8:22 AM
Did Dr. Myers equate caring for an infant with being in prison?
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 8:24 AM
Here's another thing: let's deal with reality, rather than theory. According to Guttmacher, less than one and a half percent of abortions are done after the 20th week. The majority of those are for major health-related issues. Many of the rest are only because the women were restricted in their access to abortion and it took that long to find a provider/get enough money for the procedure.
So really, for those arguing that past a certain magic point abortions on a whim shouldn't happen, they don't. Do you really think women are so stupid that they routinely see no problem in being lazy enough to wait until it changes from a fairly easy medical procedure to a more invasive and dangerous one, or that they're so heartless that they waddle off to get an abortion two weeks before the due date? Do you honestly have that low of an opinion of women that you feel the need to legislate against this remote possibility?
I, for one, think women do have brains, and logic, and emotions. I also think that personal bodily autonomy is a basic human right, and paramount to all others. We're talking about a trade-off: ensuring basic autonomy for all on the off chance that a couple of people here and there might take advantage of it. And I think that's worth it. We take the same trade-off with regard to organ donations, yes? We would never even manage to pass an opt-out policy with regard to those. Hell no, no one can take your cornea after you're dead and don't need it any more unless you've absolutely said ok, just in case someone might think it's against their religion or something. Same principle. So why, suddenly, when it comes to women, is it not their decision? The only honest explanation is that you are valuing the potential of a clump of cells at a higher level than an actual living, breathing, human woman. And that's misogyny, pure and simple.
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 8:27 AM
I was too upset to flesh out my reasoning properly:
Organ donations save lives, yet we don't require them. Blood transfusions save lives, yet we don't require Jehovah's witnesses to accept them. Pulling someone from a burning car saves a life, yet we don't charge bystanders with a crime if they fail to do so. Our society has already decided that personal bodily autonomy trumps "saving lives" in all sorts of situations. So why is it we suddenly balk at the one situation that applies only to women?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 16, 2009 8:37 AM
@402: at what point in the process did the mother cease to be capable of making decisions? Why does your description not contain any point where our hypothetical OB discusses these points with the mother? Why do you leave her wishes at "I don't want a c-section" and then assume she's incommunicado for the next sixteen hours?
Anyway, that's all irrelevant to abortion rights, and Carlie just put most of the relevant points rather well.
Posted by: The Vicar | September 16, 2009 8:41 AM
Interesting -- in Bill Bryson's book on Australia, the section on Queensland suggests that they are backward and kind of crazy/stupid, and other Australians think they are -- and I quote -- "madder than cut snakes", which I consider to be a gem of a phrase. So it's interesting to see that the Australian commenters here seem to agree.
Posted by: John Morales | September 16, 2009 8:43 AM
Re Australian laws, here's Queensland featuring again: Baby-swinging video charges dropped.
(found via Bruce at Thinkers' Podium.)
Posted by: echidna | September 16, 2009 8:43 AM
Carlie@404:
Applause. Well said.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 16, 2009 8:49 AM
Come now Carlie, you know better than to let facts get in the way of ideology.I remember taking up a similar position to you last time the topic put up. It seems the anti-abortion crowd don't want to think about it in pure statistical terms - after all an aborted "baby" is a much more powerful image than "so infrequently happens that it is worthless to legislate against".
Posted by: DebinOz | September 16, 2009 8:53 AM
Not long after Victoria suffered the terrible bushfires in February this year, Pastor Danny Nalliah from Catch the Fire Ministries in NSW, issued a media release, in which he blamed the bushfires on the recent decriminalisation of abortion in Victoria:
http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/2009/02/10/media-release-abortion-laws-to-blame-for-bush-fires/
Danny Nalliah had also been a candidate for an Australian Senate seat with the Family First Party, second to Steve Fielding (who won a seat).
Please, fellow Australians, we must do everything we can to prevent these RWNJs from getting into positions of power.
Posted by: 10/10 | September 16, 2009 8:54 AM
"Maybe she'll feel mature enough to bear children when she gets out. It's an interesting social strategy: perhaps you could cage all the girls and women until they are of an age to get pregnant, and then you could release them briefly for breeding? Then, of course, they'd be returned to a larger cage with a crib and a changing table."
Sounds good to me.
Posted by: Cimourdain | September 16, 2009 9:03 AM
Wonderful. A bunch of unscientific, amoral cranks on, of all places, Pharyngula. Like I always say, it's one thing to praise science; quite another to genuinely think scientifically, or to accept its findings in full.
In a couple of nations, there was a certain community consensus of what to do with certain people. So, I guess Auschwitz and Vorkuta are fine by you, asshole? Also, what's wrong then with creationism, if the majority wants it? Or honour killings? Or stoning for adultery?
If this sentence means anything, it means that even if we can show that the foetus is a human being in the full sense, it's still legitimate to kill it. Like I say, cranks.
Richard Dawkins once wondered what practice we consider normal today will be considered a horror by future generations. My guess is abortion. As we continue to advance in neuroscience, and are able to better and better define humanity and consciousness, people are going to look at some of the things practiced today with abject horror.
I restate my stance; up to the first two months, which, incidentally, is more than enough time to figure these things out, nowadays, after that it is actually murder.
Posted by: shyster | September 16, 2009 9:03 AM
Perhaps I missed it somewhere along the line; how did this become a public issue? How did the "authorities" find out about the young lady and the Satan drug? This drug and its result are usually a private matter.
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 16, 2009 9:05 AM
@ Carlie
I normally refrain from saying things like this but,
Amen.
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 9:16 AM
So then you think it's also legitimate to force a person to be a kidney donor to someone else, because if not, you're killing that person who needs the kidney. If you see someone trapped in a burning car, you must try to get them out, because otherwise you're killing them. Or are you going to hide behind the trolley scenario?
Posted by: 1/10 | September 16, 2009 9:17 AM
Not addressed to me but...
"In a couple of nations, there was a certain community consensus of what to do with certain people. So, I guess Auschwitz and Vorkuta are fine by you, asshole?"
No and you really don't have to be okay with it just because you recognize that some people thought it would be fine.
"Also, what's wrong then with creationism, if the majority wants it?"
Because it's a question of fact, not opinion.
"Or honour killings? Or stoning for adultery?"
No and no. Same argument as in my first paragraph.
BTW the word you're looking for is moral relativism (to which I don't fully subscribe myself). Not amoral.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 16, 2009 9:17 AM
Cimourdain, if you imagine you have some _scientific_ reason to claim that a fetus is a person at two months, you're deluded. Troll off.
Future generations will regard it as horrifying that so many people in the 21st century were happy to deny women the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies.
Posted by: Carolyn | September 16, 2009 9:19 AM
I don't know if anyone is reading this so far down. I don't know how I made it to the bottom myself :)
But all those who say it's about illegally importing drugs - if it were, that's what the charges would be. If it is, really, and they made this abortion charge, well, no wonder people feel vulnerable now. Laws on the books generally not enforced are still on the books, and can be used, and people do make decisions based on the laws as well as the reality.
Some people might not be comfortable with doing something technically illegal openly, where there's a record of it. Or the first doctor approached might say it's illegal to try and scare them off it. I think it makes a difference.
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 9:19 AM
Well, Stephen, it's because she has a little ladybrain that's also all doped up with oxytocin and stuff, so nothing she says is relevant!
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 9:20 AM
Stephen Wells@406: I didn't. I asked the explicit question: at what point would you bring it up? You're the one leaving it 16 hours.
Personally I would bring it up when I thought the chance of a natural vaginal birth had dropped below about 75%. I would probably bring it up again a few hours later. Then, when it got to the point when I felt vaginal birth was not going to happen, I would probably bring it up then. And if the woman refused it then - yes, I would probably decide that she was non compos mentis and proceed to save the life of the child. This is not misogyny - this is deciding that the right to life of the child (50% chance it's a girl, remember) overrules, at the final call, the right to autonomy. The right to life is simply a stronger right. OTH, if it's the life of the mother vs the life of the child - I'd back the mother.
This is not an irrelevant question to abortion rights. I asked explicitly where the line was drawn - where do the woman's right to her personal autonomy give way to the right of the unborn child to live. We agree that this is not at conception - a fertilised egg doesn't have these rights. You and SGMB have ruled that the baby gains no rights until birth, and you base that on the fact that until then the baby is a parasite on the mother. Ergo, the right place to discuss this is at the edge of birth itself. Personally I think the baby gains these rights around the start of the third trimester, and I base that on viability (though the fact the baby develops pain sensors at the start of the third trimester is another good argument, at least to me).
This is exactly what the abortion rights debate is about: where do you draw the line? If you draw the line at conception, there is no abortion. If you draw the line at birth, then Chinese doctors injecting formaldehyde into the skulls of crowning babies is okay.
If a unborn baby has no rights, then there is no recourse if a pregnant woman is exposed to radiation or chemicals which doesn't harm her, but may have resulted in the baby being deformed. If a unborn baby does have rights, then those rights can be weighed against the rights of the mother, and there will be situations where the mother's rights lose out (and there will be situations when the foetus' rights lose out). That's just what happens when rights come into conflict.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | September 16, 2009 9:27 AM
THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Abdominal surgery is a hell of a burden.
Posted by: Endor | September 16, 2009 9:28 AM
Cimourdain thank you for once again reiterating your "bitchez ain't shit" philosophy. We get it. Women are not allowed basic bodily autonomy that men are allowed because there are imaginary babies in your head. Excellent.
"So why is it we suddenly balk at the one situation that applies only to women?"
The Pro-Misogyny Brigade has made that perfectly clear. Their entire argument is simply justified misogyny - notice every single bullshit argument has been about what the rights of the FETUS are, when the FETUS becomes a person, what happens to the FETUS. They erase women altogether. Their sole concern is justifying misogyny using the guise of caring about imaginary babies.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 16, 2009 9:29 AM
after that it is actually murder.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 9:31 AM
Only in this scenario. I've been trying to explain that the right to life never legally trumps the right to autonomy in any other situation, nor do any right-to-lifers ever seem to argue that it should. Why is that? Are you willing to argue that anyone who needs an organ transplant has the right to take it from any compatible donor because "the right to life is simply a stronger right"? Are you willing to charge anyone with murder who doesn't risk their own life to save someone else's every time the chance arises? For that matter, are you willing to defend that we should have universal health care, because the right to life trumps the right of insurance companies to make money? Seriously, why is it only pregnancy where it is argued that the right to life is of higher value than the right to autonomy?
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 16, 2009 9:32 AM
well, essentially in 2,5,10 years time when the child suffers the consequences, harm is being done to a person. The child is a person, and has a right not to be harmed, regardless of when it was caused.
However, if that child never came into existence as a person, who is being harmed?
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 16, 2009 9:32 AM
Just as it legitimate to let a sick person die without a donor's kidney instead of getting one by force from somebody.
The main difference between the situations is on the intuitive action/inaction level, not on the level of actual rights.
If you claim a two-month embryo should be considered a person by neurological standards, please present the exact standards and the corresponding data, like you were asked before.
Posted by: Endor | September 16, 2009 9:32 AM
"If a unborn baby has no rights, then there is no recourse if a pregnant woman is exposed to radiation or chemicals which doesn't harm her, but may have resulted in the baby being deformed."
See what I mean? The fact that there *might* have been a WOMAN who wanted the baby in question harmed by "radiation", etc., DOESN'T EVEN ENTER HIS MIND.
Apparently, they honestly can't tell the difference between abortion and crime.
Posted by: Annie | September 16, 2009 9:34 AM
I'm a Queenslander woman and take no offense to people ragging on Australia, or on Queensland, for this. This state is JUST as much of a hole as you think it is, and I completely understand that "redneck state" =/= "only contains rednecks".
To my knowledge, now there are no abortions (surgical or medical? jump in if you know I'm wrong) being performed in Cairns, and I think fewer surgical abortions in Brisbane (and no medical). Women seeking abortions for complications that will kill their baby and could kill them, are being sent out-of-state. No idea what the rural folk are supposed to do; it's hard enough to travel to Cairns or Brisbane...
Posted by: D | September 16, 2009 9:35 AM
This is what the abortion rights debate is only for those who don't think of women as relevant. For those of us who do think women are relevant, the question is rather, when does a person loose their right to personal bodily integrity/autonomy. And that renders your false choice irrelevant.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 9:35 AM
Actually, here's a little tidbit that is relevant to Doo Shabag's earlier arguments.
According to Wikipedia, there are 9 US states that permit late term (ie third trimester) abortions, but require a second physician to be present to be able to care for the foetus if it's viable.
As I pointed out earlier, by the time you get to the third trimester, the baby is going to be born. Abortions at this stage are either c-sections or induced labor. So we get back to Doo Shabag's hypothetical: if the woman wants the foetus removed (for a valid reason) and the foetus can be salvaged, should we? At least 9 states, including New York, think "yes" to the point of mandating it.
Wonder what the policy is if the child lives? Is the mother responsible for raising it even after the abortion? I would assume the child goes into state care, but I really don't know. Is having the abortion itself a waiver of parental rights (meaning that a woman couldn't have a late term abortion because, say, of suspected Downes syndrome, then decide to keep the child after it is born alive with no Downes syndrome)? Someone, somewhere, has the answers to those questions...
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 16, 2009 9:40 AM
@421: thank you for blessing us with your finely honed ethical judgement that it's perfectly OK to cut a women open against her clearly stated wishes. Please stay away from sharp knives and other people.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 9:40 AM
D@430: The first question to determine is when does the foetus obtain any rights.
If a foetus has no rights, then there is no debate - the mother's right to autonomy trumps all.
If the foetus has any rights, then that will include the right to life.
If a foetus has a right to life, that right can come into conflict with the mother's right to autonomy.
If two rights come into conflict, either both get compromised, or one gets trampled.
You have to start a sensible discussion on abortion at the question of "when do foetuses develop rights". Unfortunately, here at least, that discussion has stopped at the "at birth" stage.
Posted by: Cimourdain | September 16, 2009 9:43 AM
1/10,
There's a reason I didn't address it to you; most people aren't such bloody idiots as to endorse an opinion like that. However, when someone does it's necessary to take them apart.
I don't know what some think, but I'm not, in any shape or form, a utilitarian. The Romans had a saying, Fiat justitia ruat caelum , "Do justice and let the sky fall". I'm sure I'd be a heck of a lot more popular if I just went along with the fashionable view of abortion, and mouthed the usual platitudes. But the moral principle is absolute: an innocent may life cannot and may not be sacrificed to another. Period. That's not something that can be compromised.
It follows that the important question is whether or not the foetus qualifies as a human being, or, more accurately, at what point it does so. I think the detection of brain activity marks that point, for reasons that I have already stated, and have not been taken up on.
Posted by: 1/10 | September 16, 2009 9:44 AM
Well put Robert.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | September 16, 2009 9:47 AM
So you advocate forced organ donation then? After all, a person can live without one kidney, take it so the other isn't needlessly sacrificed.
Posted by: D | September 16, 2009 9:48 AM
Incorrect. Actually considering women to be full people renders the foetus rights irrelevant unless you take extremely abnormal views on bodily integrety/autonomy rights, as Carlie and others have pointed out. If that is the case, then we can move on to see if there is any conflict in the situation of abortion.
Posted by: D | September 16, 2009 9:52 AM
In what manner is something that is literally feeding off of the life blood of a person without said person's consent, innocent?
Posted by: Cimourdain | September 16, 2009 9:55 AM
I'm going to skip over the idiots trying to put words in my mouth, and deal with the substantive point.
Correct. You cannot force someone to serve as sacrificial fodder for another human being. Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
As for the rest of this, I have the references handy, but I need to visit the library to get the exact quotes.
Posted by: 1/10 | September 16, 2009 9:56 AM
Cimourdain
I think that's too early. Even vegetables (as in humans) have brain activity yet we (I at least) don't think it's unethical to pull the plug. We assume that the victim doesn't feel any discomfort even though they have brain activity. Then again I also think that a person who hasn't performed the abortion 2 months after the conception must be pretty damn stupid.
I honestly don't have a very specific opinion on the subject though. Mainly because I don't really care that much about it.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 16, 2009 9:56 AM
the moral principle is absolute: an innocent may life cannot and may not be sacrificed to another. Period. That's not something that can be compromised. - Cimourdain
So, you're a complete pacifist, and a vegan. Tell me, what sort of whisk do you use to remove the innocent insects from your path?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 16, 2009 10:00 AM
Cimourdain, a platypus has brain activity; so that's not going to buy you personhood for a two-month fetus.
Also, your current arguments leave you in the position that we can't treat for intestinal worms; we would be sacrificing their innocent lives for the convenience of their host.
Carry on pretending to be a clear thinker! It's really entertaining!
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | September 16, 2009 10:01 AM
Which means you can't force birth either. What else is pregnancy but being used as fodder?
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 10:06 AM
Carlie@405:
I can think of lots of situations where personal autonomy should get trumped by the right to live.
I believe vaccinations for common diseases should be mandatory except where contraindications occur. I believe people with nasty contagious illnesses should be quarantined I believe people should not be able to override a decision to have an autopsy, if one is needed to determine cause of death or rule out homicide I believe people should not be able to drink & drive (at all - 0.00% blood alcohol for me) I believe no amount of evidence is strong enough to justify a death sentence, whereas I do believe in incarceration of prisoners I believe smokers should be forced to enjoy their habit inside airtight boxes, so that all the resulting pollution is contained. (Did I mention earlier I really don't like smokers?)There are many more situations I can think of where I believe the right to personal autonomy gets trumped by the right to life. I can think of many more situations still where the right to personal autonomy gets trumped by different rights (e.g. I support the right of the collective, in the form of government, to raise revenue via taxation). In other words, as a general rule, I do not hold the right of autonomy paramount in all situations. In particular, I do not believe that one individual's right to autonomy trumps another individual's right to live.
Some of these beliefs are in line with society; some are more extreme, and a few are less extreme. That's normal.
I believe foetus develop a right to live at about the start of the third trimester. This is in general consensus with abortion laws in most Western countries, and is roughly consistent with viability (with support) outside of the womb. I believe that the mother's right to have a natural vaginal birth wins out right up to the point where the baby's health is in danger. I even believe in the right to home birth, because most births don't have risk, as long as a qualified mid wife is in attendance.
What I don't believe is that the mother has the exclusive right to refuse medical care that would save the life of her child. I don't believe she has that right after the child is born (which is why I brought up the Jehovah's Witness example earlier), and I don't believe she has the right just before the child is born either. At some period in the typical 9-month gestation, the baby develops the right to live.
If you disagree with that, that's fine. But that's the heart of the abortion debate. If a foetus has no rights, there is no debate - the woman definitely has rights. If a foetus does have rights, when does it get them, and to what extend do they conflict with the woman's rights?
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | September 16, 2009 10:11 AM
The do you believe in forced blood donation and forced (live) organ donation? If not, why not?
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 10:12 AM
And this has already been decided in favor of the potential donor in every other possible situation except pregnancy. How can I make this any clearer? There is not even an exception in the other cases with regard to any 'mother-child bond'. A woman of 50 cannot be legally coerced to donate her kidney to her 30 year old child. We have, as a society, already drawn that line. Can you give me any justification why it should be different in pregnancy that doesn't boil down to "she had sex so she deserves it"?
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 10:14 AM
Also - I'm not anti-abortion. I'm very much pro-choice, up to (as I said) about the third trimester.
As for the violinist example: if someone hooked you up to the famous violinist without your consent and told you you have to stay hooked up for 9 months or the violinist dies - I would say that detaching the hooks at 8 months and 27 days isn't on. At some point, simply allowing yourself to remain attached becomes consent.
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 10:19 AM
Thank you for your examples, RobertDW. However, a lot of them are behaviors. That isn't "bodily autonomy" per se, as it doesn't address intrusions on the body itself.
I believe vaccinations for common diseases should be mandatory except where contraindications occur.
This does fall under that definition, and is internally consistent.
I believe people with nasty contagious illnesses should be quarantined
Behavior, not bodily autonomy wrt a person's body.
I believe people should not be able to override a decision to have an autopsy, if one is needed to determine cause of death or rule out homicide
Dead body, so it has nothing to do with the individual themselves. Bodily autonomy ceases after you're not around to, um, 'autonomize' any more.
I believe people should not be able to drink & drive (at all - 0.00% blood alcohol for me)
Also behavior.
I believe no amount of evidence is strong enough to justify a death sentence, whereas I do believe in incarceration of prisoners.
That is consistent with your other view, and I actually agree with you there.
I believe smokers should be forced to enjoy their habit inside airtight boxes, so that all the resulting pollution is contained. (Did I mention earlier I really don't like smokers?)
Behavior.
In particular, I do not believe that one individual's right to autonomy trumps another individual's right to live.
So again, do you support forced organ donations or not?
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | September 16, 2009 10:20 AM
In an ideal world, I agree.
This isn't an ideal world. Given all the attempts at delaying actions, this isn't a tenable position.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | September 16, 2009 10:28 AM
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/09/modest-proposal-jennifer-jennifer.html
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 10:32 AM
Carlie and others: Re: forced blood transfusion and organ donations, please note that I said individual. I believe collective rights to autonomy trump individual rights to life - hence no forced organ donations.
I also believe that by carrying a foetus to term, the mother has already expressed a degree of consent, informed or otherwise, about the foetus having the right to live. I believe the chance for the mother to back out of letting the foetus live, assuming it is viable, was before the start of the third trimester.
If the mother develops health problems, and her own right to life and health is jeopardised, then the mother wins - I've made the very clear as well.
Carlie, I get the strong sense that you aren't hearing what I'm trying to say. I'm get a weaker sense that it's because you're not listening. Let me try really hard to sum up my point of view in just a few short bullet points:
Abortion, up to a point, should be legal. Not necessarily open-slather; I'm happy for there to be some process around it. But it should be legal and unrestricted. Birth control & contraceptives are better than abortions. Anyone here disagree with that? At some point in the pregnancy, abortion by choice should be prohibited. A common cutoff for this seems to be 'viability', but between '20 weeks' and 'third trimester' is the spread. I like 'viability'; it means if a foetus is found to be non-viable at 39 weeks, you can still abort. A rough guide to 'viability' is 24-28 weeks. By the time the third trimester comes around, the foetus has to be 'born', even if it dies - the mother has no other way to expel it. My understanding is that a lot of still borns are removed by c-section (which I may be wrong about) Carrying the foetus to term, as far as I'm concerned, counts as consent for letting the baby live Yes, that means that I would support a c-section, as a last resort and against the mother's desire for a natural birth, if that was what was necessary to save the child's life.A key part of this is that second last point: carrying the child into the third trimester counts as consent, to some point, and yes that weakens the mother's right to autonomy.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 10:35 AM
Hyperon, you imbecile. You assert all this, but none of it holds unless you are also claiming that consciousness actually begins at birth or later.
RobertDW, it's hard to believe, but there really is one person here who does think that birth magically makes an unconscious fetus into a conscious baby. Have fun with the idiot Hyperon.
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | September 16, 2009 10:39 AM
1/10:
Two months after the conception is eight to ten weeks into the pregnancy. Tests to check for abnormalities like Down Syndrome, Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and Tay-Sachs disease cannot be done until twelve weeks at the earliest (chorionic villus sampling). Amniocentesis, which also checks for many of these problems, is usually done at sixteen weeks.
If a woman decides she does not want to bring a child to term who has one of these disabilities, she literally can't find that out UNTIL past two months after conception. That's just medical fact. It has nothing to do with intelligence or stupidity. It's a decision she can't make without the facts, and the facts cannot be gathered until twelve to sixteen weeks after conception.
Posted by: Annie | September 16, 2009 10:40 AM
"The Abortion Myth" by Leslie Cannold (with definite Australian tint, I'll add) relates back to the idea that a woman who has CHOSEN to have a child later deciding to have an abortion is what disturbs people most. (So a mentally-healthy woman who has stayed pregnant until 9 months when she had access to abortion services, now going in for an abortion, is something that most pro-life AND pro-choice people have a problem with.) Just figured that was related.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 10:41 AM
No, it doesn't. Consent can be revoked at any time, or else we're not even talking about consent. You are in fact talking about forcing a woman to undergo a medical procedure against her expressly stated consent. It's something Orwellian a woman is saying "no" and you are pretending she's saying "yes."
Your view betrays an absolute disdain for women's freedom. As soon as you decide that a woman has no more freedom, that's enough, and therefore she has no freedom. Sick.
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 10:47 AM
Cuttlefish, you're a genius.
RobertDW, that does make it more clear, except for the first part: "Re: forced blood transfusion and organ donations, please note that I said individual. I believe collective rights to autonomy trump individual rights to life - hence no forced organ donations."
I still don't see how that's any different than forced pregnancy.
However, given that you've said in general it's ok until the third trimester or so, how would that play out for you in the real world? Abortions cost money, because even with insurance they're often not covered (and the new "public option" being bantered about wouldn't cover them either, thanks OBAMA). A lot of states have enacted waiting laws, so that a woman has to make two visits 24-48 hours apart, meaning even more time off of work that she might not be allowed or able to afford. Many women aren't close enough to an abortion provider to be able to easily make the trip. Here is another Guttmacher study that has some stats on the problems with access to abortion. Also see here for several links to research articles documenting how difficult it can be to get a provider.
Relevant statistic: In 2005, 87% of counties in the US had no abortion providers.
It is simply the case right now that many women are physically not able to get to an abortion provider in a timely manner. Until the entire system is fixed to the point that they can, it is unrealistic to assume that carrying into the third trimester automatically indicates consent, and that she then changed her mind.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 10:48 AM
Clearly you do want to do these things. You are the one who brought up Cesarean-sections because you thought they would make you sound less vile. And you started this off by saying "it should be illegal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy in the exact manner and time of her choosing." And you admitted at #371 that John was right and you are a forced birther.
Ha! Now simply noting that men tend to run things is 'misandrist.' You're a nut, Doo Shabag. This is why you can't be taken seriously.
And you are not allowing abortion at any time. You are very explicitly disallowing it after 20 weeks, where you are replacing it with forced birth.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 10:49 AM
Carlie@448
This will have to be my last post for the night; It's 12:30am where I am (Queensland). I'll try to answer some of your explicit points:
Well, that's a different matter. Suffice to say that I believe you don't have autonomy if you're locked in a cage with no room to move. Constraints on behaviour are a restriction on autonomy to me.But an interesting one. The person is ill through no fault of their own. They are then forced to remain segregated from society.
I tossed this one in because you brought up forced organ donations, BTW. I believe a human corpse is bio hazardous garbage needing to be disposed off in a sanitary fashion, but a lot of people seem to think that the human body is special and should be treated with respect. A lot of these people do, for example, decide not to donate organs out of a desire for bodily autonomy - they want to be whole and intact for the worms to enjoy.
Yes - I'm imposing a limit on someones autonomy of behaviour because of the increased risk of injury to others. If you wish to extend the analogy - I have no problems with forced breathalysers or forced blood tests for suspected drink drivers, though I would hold off on the blood test if the breathalyser wasn't positive. This, BTW, is the law in Australia - I understand in the US some states don't use breathalysers because it would count as "incriminating yourself", which you're not allowed to do.No I don't. Because the collective right to autonomy (which as far as I'm concerned extends _after_ I'm dead) outweighs the individual. Also, there is no consent formed, which (as I stated in my last post) I think there is for late-term pregnancies.
Out of curiosity: since you explicitly state that you think autonomy ends with death, I want to know: do you support forced organ donations?
(Side note: my main objection to forced organ donation is actually the potential for abuse, not a philosophical objection to the sanctity of life or the human body, etc, etc.)
Posted by: Endor | September 16, 2009 10:57 AM
"Then again I also think that a person who hasn't performed the abortion 2 months after the conception must be pretty damn stupid."
because abortion services are so cheap and easily available to every single women on earth, clearly the silly woman is just stupid if she didn't get one.
To reiterate something Carlie posted: In 2005, 87% of counties in the US had no abortion providers.
So women in those 87% of US counties are just pretty damn stupid, I guess.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 16, 2009 10:59 AM
Robert, I think you misunderstood the purpose of the forced organ donation question: consider the case of kidney donation, where a _living_ donor can donate one kidney and survive on the other. You're sitting in the doctor's waiting room one day when a nurse asks you: you're tissue compatible with john q. randomstranger, will you donate a kidney to save his life? You say no- which you might for any number of reasons- and they chloroform you and you wake up with one less kidney. The patient's right to life has trumped your right to autonomy. Do you have any objection?
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 10:59 AM
Carlie@456: yes, Cuttlefish is a genius - it's very hard to believe he just whips those poems out so quickly.
I'm in Australia - in Queensland, the state mentioned in the article above, where Tegan Leach is being tried for having an illegal abortion. We have legal abortion, through doctors, clincs and hospitals. It's covered under both private health insurance and the public system (called Medicare); it's the same level of care under both, but the private option means you get to wait in a fancier reception room.
Waiting limits? In the case of my wife with the abortion we had, it was about a week from when we decided - we could have had it done the next day, but it didn't suit our schedules, and the next week was the next time slot the doctor we chose had.
Providers? The hospital we went to had 3 specialists in ultrasounds, collecting samples from foetuses, and abortions. One hospital in a city with about 8 of them offering that level of care. If you live in a rural town, you might have a problem, particularly if you wanted it done without your family knowing, but there will be access for you. Even the smallest rural towns have doctors and clinics rotate through regularly.
The US situation: I think you guys are all fucked up about abortion. Seriously. And one reason for that is that you can't have a sensible discussion, starting with the basic one of "when does the child get rights".
Posted by: SC, OM | September 16, 2009 11:02 AM
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/steinem.html
Anyone who thinks Hitler's, Franco's, Mussolini's,... policies on reproduction had anything to do with a recognition of bodily autonomy and human rights for women is extremely ignorant. Anti-reproductive-rights policies ("positive" and "negative" eugenics are but two sides of the same coin, as Robert Jay Lifton shows in Nazi Doctors) have always been authoritarian - about controlling women's (and men's) resproduction and denying them decision-making power over their own bodies.
Posted by: B. Scott Andersen | September 16, 2009 11:05 AM
Prostitution is legal in Queensland. Obviously the young man chose poorly among the sins available to him. {sigh}
It is a sign of cowardice in our modern world that people make a hobby of putting people, especially young people, through these meat grinders of "sin and retribution." In the end we have just two groups: the bullies and those they've bullied.
I, for one, am pretty tired of seeing the bullies win.
-- Scott
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 11:05 AM
We've been having that discussion. Then answer is at birth. You keep asking why. I answered: "because if the mother wants to abandon her newborn, the newborn can survive with the help of the state, without taking ownership of the woman's body."
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 11:07 AM
Robert keeps saying over and over that we need to have a reasonable discussion. We've been having the discussion. He just doesn't like the conclusion, so he keeps pretending that the discussion hasn't happened yet. Apparently it's only a discussion if it happens on his terms and ends on his conclusion.
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 11:08 AM
RobertDW - (for tomorrow morning)
I don't know if I'll cede your point on behavior; not entirely, anyway. I'll have to think about it more, to be honest. I reject most forms of behavioral coercion "for your own good" because it can lead to very nasty places - think of it being illegal to ingest caffeine while pregnant, or it being illegal to eat chocolate, etc. However, there are certain behaviors that require restriction, such as drunk driving. I still think there's a barrier line at the skin - drinking is ok, drinking and driving a car that can hit someone else is not. That would put me in a weird position on vaccinations where I don't want to be, though.
I'm still not sure what you mean about organ donations. I was pretty sloppy in conflating the two, but I was primarily thinking of forced living donations - blood, one kidney, etc. (Side note: There's a book called "The Unit" by Ninni Holmqvist out now that covers this in a reaaaally interesting way - near-future society where people over the age of 50 who have no dependents have to report to facilities where they live in the lap of luxury, except for having to be donors for anyone who needs any body part until they finally have nothing left. Everybody go read it!)
Out of curiosity: since you explicitly state that you think autonomy ends with death, I want to know: do you support forced organ donations?
Forced donations while alive, no. Forced donations after death, to a point. I think we should be opt-out rather than opt-in. Right now in the US you have to have provided explicit consent to be an organ donor, which means that a lot of people who would be ok with it but never get around to signing any papers don't have it happen, and there is a huge shortage as a result. If it were opt-out, then the default would be donation, but anyone who objects to it could sign paperwork to the contrary and not have it done. That would also mean that the supply of organs is high enough that the potential for abuse goes away - there is no need for pressuring someone to die prematurely to get their parts when there are enough parts to go around.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 11:14 AM
Right, ABSOLUTELY last response - I'm just trying to answer the questions people ask me, honestly...
SGBM@455:
Bullshit. The act of consent can be to a contract, which can not be revoked. The woman can choose to have the pregnancy ended as far as I'm concerned - but past viability, she doesn't get to decide if the foetus can live. I do not believe that a woman can deliberately endanger the life of her unborn baby than I believe she can smash its head against rocks the way the Spartans did with deformed children.
C-sections are a last resort, but yes, I would consent to them against the woman's expressed wishes. Past 28 weeks, the baby is getting out somehow, and if the baby dies, the method of removal is almost certain to be a c-section anyway. Why do you you insist on waiting for the baby to die to perform an operation that will save the mother's life?
Stephen Wells@460: yes, I've got objections. The first and most obvious one is that they don't know if I can live on one kidney - maybe my spare is damaged. The second is that I didn't consent to an operation that I didn't need to have.
By contrast, as I said before - when the baby is at term and trying to be born, if it dies it will need to be a c-section. Still borns don't tend to be delivered vaginally due to the health risks to the mother. So: baby at severe risk of dying - do you do the c-section before the baby dies or after?
(I should point out here that my position is based on my understanding that late-term still births tend to be delivered via c-section anyway. With the operation inevitable, the question becomes one of timing - do it when the baby's life is at risk or the mother's? I could be wrong on that understanding - which in turn changes the whole ethical dilemma. I should also point out that a real OB would know the real facts)
Posted by: Lynna | September 16, 2009 11:15 AM
Some comments up-thread from residents of Queensland say that most Queenslanders want to amend the abortion laws, however the poll is still running at more than 60 percent "No" to legalizing abortion.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | September 16, 2009 11:21 AM
Larry Niven has some good stories on organ donation as well. It's more sci-fi, in that rejection is no longer a problem and it can be used to extend life nearly indefinitely.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 16, 2009 11:26 AM
Bullshit, Robert. The woman did not sign a contract. And you don't get to decide that she basically did, when she in fact did not. And contract law ensures that contracts can be broken. If I sign a contract saying that you can have my kidney, but I change my mind, you don't actually get to come and take my kidney anyway against my consent. You can sue me for damages regarding breach of contract, and get a monetary reward. And that's it.
You are saying that a woman who is in fact saying 'no' is actually saying 'yes.' This is Orwellian and sick, and you need to stop.
Because it's up to the woman -- not the 'mother,' so you can quit poisoning the well, you dishonest ass -- to decide whether she wants to have a c-section or give birth. It's up to her to decide what medical procedures she is willing to undergo.
You do not have the right to subject a woman to medical procedures that she does not consent to!
By proposing these medical procedures against consent, you are in fact saying that a woman cannot be relied upon to choose to the medical procedures that are best for her. You have complete contempt for her and her ability to make choices.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 16, 2009 11:30 AM
Robert, all I'm insisting on is that I can't subject the mother to an operation she states a firm objection to unless it's a question of saving _her_ life. You stated the problem, don't complain to me if you don't like the answer.
Your objection in the kidney case indicates that yes, your right to autonomy can override somebody else's right to life. Which was Carlie's point, IIRC.
Posted by: 1/10 | September 16, 2009 11:33 AM
Endor
Sorry that I assumed that at least every woman was able to get an abortion locally (I didn't think it would be free though). I don't live in the US, so I just assumed that it would be possible (live in country where abortion can be attained for free and almost at every public or private "health center" (I lack a better word)).
Then again if one really doesn't wanna get pregnant one just has to stop having sex and the risk of pregnancy should be a recognized risk by both partners. Especially if one really can't afford getting pregnant.
Posted by: emote_control | September 16, 2009 11:35 AM
This confirms the impression of Australian culture that I have been given by Australian ex-pats.
The place is kind of batshit. A friend of mine who was born there moved back to have a baby because their child benefits are absolutely bloody amazing. Then when the kid was a year old, she returned to Canada because Oz is full of nutjobs and poisonous things.
Posted by: Felix | September 16, 2009 11:36 AM
Pharyngulation fail. From the point where it was posted, the poll has budged one full percent point in favor of choice. Forced birth is at 67%.
Posted by: 1/10 | September 16, 2009 11:36 AM
Lauren Ipsum:
Sorry that I didn't bother to mention the obvious things. I thought it wasn't needed.
sry for the doublepost also
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 16, 2009 11:36 AM
hen again if one really doesn't wanna get pregnant one just has to stop having sex and the risk of pregnancy should be a recognized risk by both partners. Especially if one really can't afford getting pregnant.
I was chatting with colleagues last night. Their birth control pills are not covered under our employee insurance from blue cross of north dakota. They can get it for acne or controlling menstruation, but not for contraception. Our insurance company forces people to engage in fraud in order to avoid pregnancy. Either that, or pay several hundred dollars.
This country is fucked up in ways you can't imagine.
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 11:37 AM
Then again if one really doesn't wanna get pregnant one just has to stop having sex and the risk of pregnancy should be a recognized risk by both partners.
THERE it is! I was wondering how long it would take to get to that point. BULL. SHIT. "Recognized risk by both partners" is an absolute crock when one "risk" is basically zero and the other is potentially lethal. And having sex is NOT a contract to have a child. It isn't. If you want to take the route to say it is, then you've got to be against all forms of birth control entirely. It's all or nothing.
Posted by: DrFrank | September 16, 2009 11:38 AM
I'm surprised that no one (to my knowledge) has yet posted Carl Sagan's take on this issue, which I found an interesting read.
His position seems most similar to that of RobertDW in the current discussion, so I'm guessing SGBM and others would disagree with it (unless I've misunderstood some of the positions here, which is certainly possible).
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 16, 2009 11:39 AM
THERE it is! I was wondering how long it would take to get to that point. BULL. SHIT. "Recognized risk by both partners" is an absolute crock when one "risk" is basically zero and the other is potentially lethal. And having sex is NOT a contract to have a child. It isn't. If you want to take the route to say it is, then you've got to be against all forms of birth control entirely. It's all or nothing.
And, having an abortion is taking responsibility for the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 16, 2009 11:39 AM
That line of thinking is eerily reminiscent to the backwoods way the arrest in Lawrence v. Texas was written off by homophobes in the U.S.A. "Just doing my job" doesn't cut it in my opinion; it's a cop out for police and judges that enables them to not have to take responsibility for their roles in humans rights abuses. Tegan should never have been arrested. She had a legitimate need for an abortion. Would it have hurt the police to have given her a warning instead? In the end, I hope it turns out for the better like the Lawrence v. Texas case did in 2003.Posted by: Cimourdain | September 16, 2009 11:41 AM
Ignoramii to the right, Ignoramii to the left....
I cannot believe that I need to specify human life, but apparently there are those who need everything spelled out. Also, there are apparently those who can't read words like "innocent".
SC, read what I actually wrote, why don't you? It was in response to a fool claiming morality is just a social construct.
Now to the reasonable people,
1/10, I see where you're coming from. Could I suggest you try to read up on this subject yourself? Don't want to be patronizing here, but things don't get settled in blog debates, but I'm confident enough in my own case that if people seriously study it, they'll accept it.
Lauren, I see your point, but it still doesn't change the underlying principle. Even if we can't test for debilitating diseases that early, that's still not an argument for killing a human being, for the same reason that we have moved on from assholes like H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw who were cool with that sort of thing.
The argument that some people can't abort before two months, strikes me as highly suspect, and even if it were true, it would be a matter of technical solving, and it still doesn't change the moral law involved. One human's suffering cannot give them a claim on the life of another. Period.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 16, 2009 11:42 AM
And of course, tough luck for the woman in cases of abuse or rape.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | September 16, 2009 11:46 AM
This deserves repeating. How the heck is giving birth and igorning/abusing it considered "taking responsibility" and abortion isn't? I just don't get it.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | September 16, 2009 11:49 AM
And people that can't use them. In what way is a parasite innocent?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 16, 2009 11:51 AM
@Stephen Wells
I know! What are people thinking? It always translates to "women are cattle" to me.Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | September 16, 2009 11:58 AM
1/10:
Apology accepted. Those "obvious things" were only brought up in one other post in this entire lengthy thread, so apparently they did need to be mentioned.
Women (couples, even) have many different reasons for choosing abortions, and it's foolish to lump all these people together under the rubric of "stupidity" based on an argument from a single philosophical standpoint which doesn't allow for other medical or economic facts.
Posted by: 1/10 | September 16, 2009 12:00 PM
"THERE it is! I was wondering how long it would take to get to that point. BULL. SHIT. "Recognized risk by both partners" is an absolute crock when one "risk" is basically zero and the other is potentially lethal."
What? If the woman doesn't have a possibility to get an abortion then it should be a risk one needs to consider. If one can afford getting an abortion then OK. Have sex without a second thought. I don't care. It's not like I'm advocating that you shouldn't be able to have an abortion at almost every health center for a moderate fee.
"And having sex is NOT a contract to have a child. It isn't."
I agree. However if one can't get an abortion (due to economical reasons or some other reason) then one needs to recognize that when having sex.
"If you want to take the route to say it is, then you've got to be against all forms of birth control entirely. It's all or nothing."
No. I'm for all forms of reliable birth control. TBH I have no idea where this discussion is even going...
"I see where you're coming from. Could I suggest you try to read up on this subject yourself? Don't want to be patronizing here, but things don't get settled in blog debates, but I'm confident enough in my own case that if people seriously study it, they'll accept it."
I have, although somewhat superficially. I mostly agree with RobertDW on this matter.
Posted by: Lynna | September 16, 2009 12:00 PM
Trolls and their faulty intuition: Amazed assumed that Strange Gods Before Me was female because SGBM stuck up for women. Now that's revealing. If you consider women to be more than just bearers of the "fun tunnel" then you must be female? Because no man in his right mind would hesitate to disregard women's rights?
Reminds me of when a troll assumed I was an adolescent male.
Gender roles and the lovely consequences.
Strange gods, well-done in the replies to off-putting, but not amazing, Amazed. Kudos to Ichthyic as well -- and to whomever is sitting in the same room with him waiting to report on whether or not he bursts into flame.
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 12:06 PM
So the fact that you think it's suspect = reality. Apart from all of the cited references given about how difficult it is to find a provider and have the means to do it, do you even understand basic biology? A good number of women don't even know they're pregnant at all until after two months in. Until recently home pregnancy tests couldn't even detect it until at least 6 weeks. Women with irregular periods might not notice missing one. When I was actively trying to get pregnant and checking for pregnancy all the time, STILL the delay from conception - ability for home test to check - getting an appointment - getting it confirmed at the appointment took nine weeks, which is one more than your two-month window.
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 12:08 PM
I'm sure that by now Ichthyic has spontaneously combusted! Should we arrange for the ashes to be scattered at sea?
Posted by: Michael Dickens | September 16, 2009 12:14 PM
She got her house firebombed? That's ridiculous. Some people are not only massive idiots, but massive hypocrites.
Posted by: Jason | September 16, 2009 12:17 PM
Pretty simple issue when you take out all the emotional hype that most people seem to have bought into with the original tone of the post.
This is not an abortion issue - it is an illegal abortion issue. She is being prosecuted for obtaining illegal contraband abortion drugs and using them. If she had of used a medical professional and obtained some drug legally she would not be in this situation at all.
I am currently living in Queensland - for the last year - originally from Victoria - QLD is not the most progressive state - but as far as stupidity is concerned it is on par with any American region. There is a higher percentage of fundamentalist religious 'people' in QLD than the rest of Australia - but that is still way less than any US state.
There are more critical issues in the world than this rocket surgeon and her legal problems.
It certainly doesn't help with kneejerk comments about boycotting the country over any of this - by all means strike Australia off your list of places you would complain about if you ever visited - if you need to feel morally superior and judge millions of people in one fell swoop - we don't need your type coming here anyway - we have filled our quota. Probably visit somewhere you can be truly outraged about.
I am new to this site - and i have serious reservations about the tone of the post and the finger pointing at an entire country based on one story that isn't even headline worthy.
I somehow expected more
Posted by: SC, OM | September 16, 2009 12:19 PM
I don't care. It was a broader point I was making, addressed to all authoritarian forced-birthers. As Stephen Wells pointed out, your "Richard Dawkins once wondered what practice we consider normal today will be considered a horror by future generations. My guess is abortion" is not plausible from a historical perspective. Humanity is moving in the direction of increasing recognition of people's political, economic, and social rights and how these are intertwined. Policies that restrict sexual and reproductive rights have historically been reactionary - part of larger authoritarian programs that restrict other rights as well. As Steinem pointed out way back in the '80s, anti-reproductive rights movements and policies are often not taken seriously because they're mainly directed at women, but this should not blind anyone to what it means to have a polity in which the state decides what people can do with their bodies and when their reproductive choices are valid. ...Moreover, compare abortion rates across countries with different restrictions on abortion.
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 12:20 PM
She is being
prosecutedfirebombed for obtaining illegal contraband abortion drugs and using them.There, fixed that for you. The issue is that 1)she is being prosecuted under a law that was assumed to have gone dormant; 2) that her life has been in danger due to vigilante 'justice'; and 3) that the law makes no sense as written.
Posted by: mikecbraun | September 16, 2009 12:24 PM
With all of his pointless, unfunny-Graham-Chapman-character-like rantings, I would expect Amazed to OWN Liberty University by now. He's gone far above and beyond what he needs for the ol' master's or doctorate!
Posted by: Bobber | September 16, 2009 12:29 PM
Among other things, this struck me:
Uhm... a contract in this case would be between two parties. One party definitely exists - the woman. With whom is the woman making the contract? A ghost? A soul? A "potential person"? Fine. Let the potential person sue the woman with a potential lawyer. I'd love to hear the cross examination.
Posted by: Endor | September 16, 2009 12:31 PM
"Pretty simple issue when you take out all the emotional hype that most people seem to have bought into with the original tone of the post."
Translation: women's lives and concerns are just silly emotions. Let's focus on my version of the story cuz that's totes where the MOST important issue lies. Even if I had to make it up.
"Then again if one really doesn't wanna get pregnant one just has to stop having sex and the risk of pregnancy should be a recognized risk by both partners. Especially if one really can't afford getting pregnant."
That's a nice "FUCK YOU BITCHEZ" to rape victims, women (and children) forced into marriage and trafficked women (and children) all over the world.
Your slut shaming and misogynstic lack of compassion is duly noted.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 12:41 PM
You keep saying this, but I'm fairly certain that it's not true (not for the women I've known in that situation, anyway). A fetus that has died in the womb is removed by a D&C, or what has been mislabeled a "partial birth abortion". Performing a c-section would be horribly and unnecessarily intrusive.
But you just keep on with "consenting" for women.
Posted by: Jason | September 16, 2009 12:43 PM
@Endor - And you illustrate my point perfectly!
Just for the record, i am not advocating anyone stop having sex - and i have compassion for rape victims.
This girl was not a rape victim.
As far as i am concerned anyone that wishes to have an abortion for any reason should have access through proper medical channels.
Hell, i kind of wish your parents had taken that option.
Get back to the facts of the case at hand. Girl gets illegal drugs uses them - gets prosecuted for it. WHo gives a shit what a backward probably religious zealout does when her story hits the press, there is a lot more people getting seriously hurt any given day in multiple areas that don't even make the news. What makes this girl and her moronic family special and worth consideration?
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 12:45 PM
With whom is the woman making the contract?
With the magic sparkle unicorn that flies out of her vagina at the moment of conception to announce to her that she is pregnant, of course.
(That solves Cimourdain's problem of the woman knowing so soon that she's pregnant, and Jason's problem of who to consent with.)
There are more critical issues in the world than this rocket surgeon and her legal problems.
Idiot. It's not just about that, her life has been threatened. But of course, there are more important issues in the world - a woman dying isn't worth much, is it?
And no one is specifically targeting Queensland for being Queensland - they're targeting a government that made this happen and the people who are egging it on to violence.
Posted by: 1/10 | September 16, 2009 12:50 PM
"That's a nice "FUCK YOU BITCHEZ" to rape victims, women (and children) forced into marriage and trafficked women (and children) all over the world.
Your slut shaming and misogynstic lack of compassion is duly noted."
HAHA
I knew I was getting this kinda reply because I didn't mention the exception of rape (I must say I didn't come to think of those other things you mentioned there though). I wanted to try id you'd actually bite me for leaving it out (one could even call it a trollbait, although I was skeptical whether someone would actually take notice of it).
Seriously though, you're pretty quick to judge people who didn't even touch the subject in their post. I wonder what justification you had to call me a misogynist with a lack of compassion?
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 12:52 PM
@Carlie
But there won't be, ever. It will die after what, a couple of days? Weeks under optimal conditions? Never anyone home.
And anyway, I think the best reason that no one came up with for not trying to save every single possible blastocyst if we had the technology, is overpopulation. There's already too many people on the planet and I don't think it is sustainable in the long term.
Exactly how does allowing an embryo to grow in vitro mean that women are baby making factories? If such technology were possible perhaps it would become the norm for women to avoid the trials of carrying a baby altogether, who knows what people might decide? I don't think it actually is otherwise, but if you are saying that a living fetus removed from the mother is "an actual born person" then why would you not be in favor of it?And Carlie, re: your post #404, I think abortion should be readily available on demand for women at any time they choose. I just think that viable fetuses should be delivered alive when possible. And you probably know that there are countries where organ donation is opt out, so maybe it will happen here too.
@Teflonmonkey
I agree the mother gets to decide when it is removed, but I think it does come down to "no reason", because I am saying the woman can have it removed on demand, she just doesn't get to decide what happens to it afterward. And as RobertDW said, it has to come out somehow - in our scenario here, where I have explicitly stated the procedures are one as safe as another, I think removal should be done in such a way as to allow a chance for the fetus to survive.
@strange gods before me
I brought them up a a way of delivering without labor, nothing more. I've said this more than once, is it sinking in yet? Emphasis on manner and time. If you want to choose the time, which I think is perfectly reasonable, then after point it should be in a manner which allows a chance for the fetus to survive assuming no additional risks for the mother. If you want to choose the manner, which I think is also reasonable, any method you choose which does not allow for survival of the fetus should be disallowed after the fetus has reached viability if there is another method available that has no additional risks for the mother.
As far as I can tell your argument boils down to "I have the right to remove any chance of survival from my fetus if I want", while mine is "you have the right to have it removed from your body absolutely any time you want, and if the doctor can save it she should".
Admitted with a few caveats you are ignoring. How do you propose removing a fetus after 20 weeks without some form of birth, live, still or otherwise?@anyone still reading at this point
Do you want to know what I REALLY want?
1. I want comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education for everyone in the world.
2. I want 100% effective and idiot-proof male AND female contraception cheap and readily available.
3. I want a cure for all venereal diseases, preferably in some preventative form rather than after the fact. Also cheap and readily available.
4. I want every pregnancy to be intentional.
5. Even with #4, I want easy access to abortion against medical advice should the mother decide that is what she needs to have happen.
6. And with #5, I want doctors to try to save the fetus if they can do so without any additional risk to the mother.
If this makes me a misogynist in your world, there is little I can do about it.
Posted by: Cimourdain | September 16, 2009 12:54 PM
Apparently SC doesn't care about what's actually written, so I'll leave it to its devices, Endor doesn't even bother to read what's written, and Carlie can't manage to finish reading a sentence. I think these can be profitably skipped. I'll wait until actual thinkers get back to writing
Jason, what you're encountering here is the great herd of independent minds. Isn't a pretty sight, is it?
Posted by: Jason | September 16, 2009 12:54 PM
@carlie
Idiot. It's not just about that, her life has been threatened. But of course, there are more important issues in the world - a woman dying isn't worth much, is it?
Of course, i must be a woman hating son of a bitch because i have no empathy with the illegal drug buying halfwit who is getting raided by the police.
Why don't you save your bleeding hearts for some cause that deserves it.
I know maybe if a change my name do Rachel and start posting it will get a better response! Maybe then i will be sensible.
I care about people dying, just not sure if the reason this girl is being 'targeted' has anything at all to do with an abortion. For all we know she killed and dismembered 12 people and the police were looking for evidence of the bodies when they raided her house.
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 12:55 PM
Exactly. (although it's D&C for early-term, D&X for later-term). However, in the good old US of A, D&X has been entirely banned at the federal level, no matter what the circumstance, no matter how dangerous it would be for a woman to undergo a c-section at that time, no matter how it would irreparably damage her uterus so that she couldn't be pregnant again (given that a lot of those late-term fetal death cases are due to placental abruption, severe pre-eclampsia, other things that are, you know life-threatening for the mother with only an hour or two to make the difference between living or not). Because a D&X is kind of icky. Yea us!
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 12:55 PM
Actually 1/10 you said you support RobertDW's arguments, which are based in the notion that women forfeit the ability to withdraw consent and henceforth become the property of the state. That's still pretty misogynist. I understand you are trying not to be misogynist. But you aren't trying hard enough.
Posted by: Walton | September 16, 2009 12:57 PM
Well, I suppose I'm a "potential lawyer" since I haven't finished my degree yet... and I'd love to see a judge's reaction to a claim for breach of contract on behalf of a foetus. (Considering that a foetus has no legal personality and hence no capacity to sue or to contract, you wouldn't get very far.)
That said, it wouldn't be quite as batshit insane as some of the civil cases that have passed through the courts over the years; in one memorable case, an American tried to sue the Devil - in federal court, no less - for violating his constitutional rights. The judge struck out the claim at a preliminary hearing, holding that "We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district... We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions as to service of process."
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 1:01 PM
Yes, Doo Shabag, you are talking about forcing women to undergo medical procedures that they did not consent to. That makes their bodies not their own, but the property of the state. That is misogynist.
D&X. It sure as hell isn't birth.
Bullshit. You could stop trying to force women into your preferred medical procedures against their will.
Posted by: 1/10 | September 16, 2009 1:03 PM
I said I *mostly* agree. In normal circumstances getting an abortion before the 3rd trimester shouldn't be a problem. In case any defects in the fetus are detected or the woman's life is in danger then I think the abortion can be performed at any time. I'm just trying to reach a middle ground here. If that's misogynistic, then I'm ok with being called a misogynist.
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 1:04 PM
Dishonest Doo Shabag, who keeps trying to avoid the facts:
You do not have the right to subject a woman to any medical procedure that she does not consent to.
Disregarding a woman's consent is inherently misogynist. Full stop.
Posted by: ken | September 16, 2009 1:07 PM
This may not be about abortion or "Victorian-era values" at all. From the referenced article:
"The court heard that police found empty pharmaceutical blister packets alleged to have contained contraband abortion drugs ... during a search of the couple's Cairns home in relation to another matter in February."
There's no mention of what those "other matters" are that prompted the police search. That would be interesting to know.
As in many legal cases when a person's criminal culpability is known but prosecutable evidence is inadequate to gain a conviction, law enforcement & prosecutors will seize on anything else they can use to prosecute the offender. For example, Al Capone, though a notorious gangster, was incarcerated for tax evasion (rather than murder, racketerring, etc. etc.).
Very often, law enforcement settles for what it can get because that's the best it can do.
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 1:07 PM
1/10, see Carlie's argument at #404 for more on why you are using inherently misogynist arguments.
You are saying that at some point a woman's consent no longer matters. That is misogynist. You shouldn't be okay with it.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 1:10 PM
How should it be delivered alive, you idiot? You briefly backed off from forced c-sections, and then came back to saying they were Ok ("as a last resort"). But what other method is there to get a fetus out of a woman that doesn't involve a vaginal procedure?
You keep going off on magical sci-fi technologies, as if we should restrict women's rights in the here and now because a thousand years into the future babies will be delivered by genetically engineered kittens who will transport us into the ice cream & orgasms dimension via licking us with their trans-dimensional-psychotropic spit while the baby exits by way of our laughter.
Ain't happenin'. Completely irrelevant to women today.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 1:16 PM
Thanks, Carlie. I thought there was an X in there somewhere, but I couldn't remember which was which.
My girlfriend's mother works with a woman whose baby died late in the pregnancy and needed a D&X, but because of the current laws, she had to carry her dead fetus for a couple of weeks before the doctors could get her in and induce labor. Because carrying your dead child and then actually going through labor to deliver it is so much more morally healthy for the woman than just removing it through a routine and relatively safe medical procedure.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 1:18 PM
Exactly which "preferred medical procedures" are you going to pretend I am forcing on women? Are you going to go with c-section, the one I explicitly said several times I am not in favor of forcing on anyone? Please? Accuse me of it again!Posted by: SC, OM | September 16, 2009 1:20 PM
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html
Given this, on what basis do people support restrictive abortion policies?
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 1:21 PM
"Look, I'm just saying that slaves have to work the fields for free Monday through Friday,but...BUT...they're free on weekends AND their masters have to buy them a beer."
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 1:23 PM
Cimourdain, how would my finishing the sentence I quoted from you change anything?
Here it is in its entirety:"The argument that some people can't abort before two months, strikes me as highly suspect, and even if it were true, it would be a matter of technical solving, and it still doesn't change the moral law involved."
I was specifically addressing your assertion that it is highly suspect that people (let's say women, shall we, since this only applies to them?) can't abort before two months. But I'll go ahead and address the rest of the sentence: what would your "technical solving" be? Mandatory monthly pregnancy tests for every woman of childbearing age?
I know maybe if a change my name do Rachel and start posting it will get a better response! Maybe then i will be sensible.
Jason, I think you might have gotten a little straw in your eye from the beating you just did there.
Posted by: 1/10 | September 16, 2009 1:30 PM
"1/10, see Carlie's argument at #404 for more on why you are using inherently misogynist arguments.
You are saying that at some point a woman's consent no longer matters. That is misogynist. You shouldn't be okay with it."
Yes I guess I'm saying that. I don't think that a fetus magically becomes a human being the moments it pops it's head into the outside world. I do think that the fetus has some rights, although they should come after the woman's rights. I also don't see how making the legislation clear on the matter is somehow misogynistic. Why not make the legislation clear so that people know exactly what they can and cannot do. I see no harm in that. Post 404 didn't give any real world reason for why we shouldn't make the legislation clear on the matter. If it doesn't happen (as post 404 hinted) then why not make sure that it wont happen in the future. I don't concern myself with imaginary forms of liberty.
OT but mentioned in 404: I think that organs should be automatically donated after death and if you/your family didn't/don't want them donated then you/they could opt out.
Posted by: Hairhead | September 16, 2009 1:34 PM
To all the forced-birthers posting here: If you were to interfere with my wife's bodily autonomy and declare that you were going to force an unwanted medical procedure on her, you'd better not turn your back on her, because she would put an ice-pick or other blunt instrument right through your thick skull.
Which would be EXACTLY what I would do if ANYONE wanted to force an unwanted major medical procedure on me.
My wife has been through both live-birth and late-term abortion, both cases, her choice. She's actually quite conservative, socially, but no-one, NO-ONE, in her mind, has control over her body EXCEPT HER.
If you forced-birthers are so hot about restraining a woman and cutting into her, I hope you volunteer to guard the women you want to force to give birth; and I would like to see how well you would defend yourself against a woman determined NOT to give up her bodily autonomy.
Final point: I live in Canada. We have NO, repeat NO law regarding abortion: NONE. No doctor's committees, no nothing. Haven't had for 20 years. And we don't have sluts waddling into emergency rooms demanding doctors crush their fetus' skulls. Whaddaya know! Given to opportunity and freedom of choice to act like responsible adults -- women do!
Fuck you misogynists.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 1:35 PM
Then you agree that as long as a fetus is inside a woman's body, whatever hypothetical rights it may have are completely irrelevant.
Posted by: 1/10 | September 16, 2009 1:39 PM
Egnu Cledge: I meant to delete that passage from my text. It wasn't meant to be there, but I forgot to take it out. Otherwise I'd be contradicting myself.
Posted by: PixelFish | September 16, 2009 1:41 PM
MAJeff: I love you forever for the remark that getting an abortion is taking responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy. Never has it been put so plainly and without judgement.
.....
As to the person who wondered why women don't have abortions by the second month if they don't want 'em. Here's a partial list of reasons:
- Time to discover one is pregnant. Sometimes one gets spotting about the time implantation occurs, which they may mistake for a really light period.
- In the same vein, erratic periods occur in many women. (When my doctor at my MEPS exam asked me if my period was regular, I just laughed and laughed and laughed.)
- Erroneous pregnancy tests indicating false negatives. While pregnancy tests are way better these days and in some individuals may be able to detect pregnancy
- Time to make the decision. Because it's so politically (and usually religiously) charged as an issue, I doubt most people read the pregnancy test and go, "Hey, honey, I'm calling the clinic."
- Time to schedule the appointments. Depending on where the clinic is, you may have a wait of two weeks (the usual) to a month or two. Some clinics share doctors on rotation. Or maybe the doctor performing abortions only comes in on Wednesdays and Fridays. Many clinics operate as public health clinics for women on non-surgery days.
- Transit and travel issues. Getting work off. Scheduling work off for anybody who might accompany you.
- For victims of domestic violence, getting to a doctor's office of any kind can be tricky. Specially if your partner demands to account for every minute of your day.
- Financial costs. While an abortion is not expensive compared to other surgical operations, and while many women are eligible for hardship waivers and things like that, folks may still want some time to scrape together money.
This is just a partial list, mind you. But there a number of complicating factors in women having
Posted by: octopod | September 16, 2009 1:45 PM
PZ, I wish I could say your "strategy" with caging women was satire. Unfortunately, it's more like "what actually happens in many parts of the world".
See also: "purdah".
Posted by: Endor | September 16, 2009 1:46 PM
" I wanted to try id you'd actually bite me for leaving it out (:
Translation: I'll say whatever I have to say at this point to avoid admitting an egregious mistake.
"I wonder what justification you had to call me a misogynist with a lack of compassion?"
Your posts.
"I also don't see how making the legislation clear on the matter is somehow misogynistic"
Of course you don't – it doesn't affect you personally. Therefore, you can sit there lecturing those that it does affect safe in the knowledge that, regardless of the outcome, your rights, your health and your safety are perfectly safe.
That's what your pro-slavery morons don't seem to get – this is not merely an academic issue. This isn't about the "rights" of imaginary babies. This is the rights, health and safety of REAL WOMEN. That you refuse to focus on that is very, very telling.
++
" And you illustrate my point perfectly!"
Translation: Since this issue doesn't personally affect me, those who are personally affected by it are just silly and emotional. My privilege makes me right.
"Hell, i kind of wish your parents had taken that option."
So much for your being the rational and calm one, huh. LOL.
" Get back to the facts of the case at hand"
YOUR version of the facts has already been corrected. No one cares about your conveniently spinning of the story that erases the actual point.
Posted by: stogoe | September 16, 2009 1:46 PM
Bullshit. With all the parental notification, mandatory waiting periods, and multiple visits laws on the books all across the US, not to mention getting time off your job to travel to the nearest city in the next state over to even see an abortion provider, there is simply no way that being forced by the state to delay your abortion until the third trimester equals consent.In an ideal world, these fucknugget restrictions and waiting periods wouldn't exist, but again, we don't live in an ideal world (though sadly this probably is the best of all possible worlds).
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 16, 2009 1:48 PM
Richard Dawkins once wondered what practice we consider normal today will be considered a horror by future generations. My guess is abortion
Really? I'd say slavery.
I'm just trying to reach a middle ground here.
What's so great about the middle? It's like Broder and his fetishism of bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake. And, why is the middle always necessary when it comes to the humanity of women?
Given this, on what basis do people support restrictive abortion policies?
Because women can't be trusted?
Fuck you misogynists.
Seconded!
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 1:49 PM
@Egnu Cledge
Sorry, you have me confused with someone else. Never said "as a last resort". Since you are obviously familiar with the concept of hypothetical situations, I'm not sure why this is confusing to you. Never mentioned we should "restrict women's rights in the here and now". I'm pretty sure I've mentioned several times safe alternatives. If there is no safe alternate procedure then the hypothetical does not apply.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 16, 2009 1:51 PM
Added to PixelFish's list of reasons this: in many states getting an abortion is a multiple day event. In many state's you are required to wait 24 hours in between getting information about an abortion and getting the abortion. Now, in a place like North Dakota, where there is only one location in the state to obtain an abortion, and it's only available one day a week...well, poor women are getting screwed yet again.
But, I keep forgetting, women don't matter.
Posted by: PixelFish | September 16, 2009 1:59 PM
MAJeff: I forgot about that particular complication, but that also often means that people who travelled to the clinic will have to arrange for overnight stays at motels and whatnot.
Posted by: Bobber | September 16, 2009 2:06 PM
Oh, come on. I mean, after all, 100 years of Jim Crow - at least it wasn't slavery...
Middle grounders... you know, for some things, no compromise is warranted. Mushy, gushy, spineless "middle ground"... so you possess a physical spine. Don't forget you have an intellectual and moral one, too.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 2:16 PM
You're right, I think Robert said "as a last resort". You said, "I just think that viable fetuses should be delivered alive when possible."
How, outside of a c-section or magical transporter technology, would a fetus be "delivered alive" other than vaginal birth?
Saying "I think women should be able to have abortions" and then defining "abortion" as "delivering the baby and putting it up for adoption" does not make you pro-choice.
Posted by: Bing | September 16, 2009 2:18 PM
Ichthyic:
I guess it's no use me ringing the bell and inviting you out for a beer then, eh?
The hockey mask is obvious. We are all given them as a coming-of-age gift when we puck-mitzvah. The chainsaw too; we're all lumberjacks when not playing hockey. And the drooling? Side effect of losing all those teeth playing hockey as youngsters.
It's sad that you know so little about us, and are not willing to learn more over a 2-4.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 16, 2009 2:23 PM
:D
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 2:32 PM
@Egnu Cledge
You're right, it is science fiction in most cases with current technology. But 500 years ago talking long distances over wires was science fiction. 100 years ago talking long distances without wires was science fiction. I have no idea what people will come up with in the future, perhaps healing technologies will be such that a c-section would actually be deemed safer, more comfortable and less invasive than dialating the cervix. I have no idea.
But having watched my wife have a c-section and being so afraid for her life that the nurses literally had to force me to hold my kids because I wold not let go of her hand and did not want to leave her side, I would never force a c-section on anyone with our current level of technology.
Oh, and one other thing on the dialation of the cervix - my wife was given pitocin, which is sometimes used to induce labor in D&X procedures. She said it was by far the most painful part of the entire experience - not the application itself, but the effects. More painful then getting an epidural when the guy missed the first time.
Then again, it was not the pitocin that caused her to lay in bed for days and be unable to do much - that was the c-section. It is major surgery.
Posted by: 1/10 | September 16, 2009 2:42 PM
"Translation: I'll say whatever I have to say at this point to avoid admitting an egregious mistake."
Your assertion is wrong. What else can I say. Also how in the world would that even be a mistake? I just left it out. That wasn't a mistake, but I guess that doesn't register with a numbnut like you.
"Your posts."
I don't mind being called that when it's coming from a person with no regard or compassion for anything but herself (as far as I can tell).
"Of course you don't – it doesn't affect you personally. Therefore, you can sit there lecturing those that it does affect safe in the knowledge that, regardless of the outcome, your rights, your health and your safety are perfectly safe."
If I was able to get pregnant then I'd also want to have a clear legislation on the matter. Why not make it specific?
"That's what your pro-slavery morons don't seem to get – this is not merely an academic issue. This isn't about the "rights" of imaginary babies. This is the rights, health and safety of REAL WOMEN. That you refuse to focus on that is very, very telling."
And I never protested this point and if you had actually read my posts then you'd see that I put the health and safety of the woman before the fetus. You really want to label me a misogynist that badly huh ;)
Try harder in your next post.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 2:44 PM
Oops, missed this:
@Egnu Cledge
I think women should be able to have a fetus removed from their body at any time for any reason. It is immoral to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. Most people would consider that a pro-choice position, regardless of what is done with the fetus after it is removed.
Posted by: Dianne | September 16, 2009 3:10 PM
carrying the child into the third trimester counts as consent
I could see the argument for this statement if and only if a couple of conditions were met:
1. Abortion were readily available and cheap or free in the first and second trimesters. No waiting periods, no having to find the only provider within 500 miles, no taking 3 months to scrape together enough money to pay. If the decision to procedure time averaged 1 day and wait times of one week were scandals, then I'd say you might have a case. If...
2. It were a crime to obstruct access to abortion. Of course, blatant physical force (i.e. kidnapping) is already illegal, but coercion should also be illegal. And...
3. Exceptions were readily available for cases of danger to the mother's life or health or non-viable fetus.
Meet those criteria and I'd consider a ban on elective third trimester abortion reasonable. As well as totally redundant.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 3:18 PM
If you're saying no abortions after a certain date, then you're saying forced birth. Whatever magical technology might exist in the future is irrelevant.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 16, 2009 3:28 PM
RobertDW,
I think all people who drive cars should be forced to do so in airtight boxes so that their pollution is contained.
What, exactly, is wrong with a smoker having a cigarette outdoors, away from the entrances and exits of buildings? You don't have to walk over to the smokers and inhale their smoke.
Posted by: help ma boab | September 16, 2009 3:45 PM
Usually my sympathy goes to whoever gets scraped into the incinerator.
Posted by: Bobber | September 16, 2009 3:55 PM
Since no "who" ever does in these circumstances, you should be just fine, then.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 16, 2009 3:59 PM
@Lynna #468: Remember that internet polls are absolutely useless for gaging public opinion.
Posted by: LadyH | September 16, 2009 4:12 PM
Totally late to the party, but I had to mention this
When my son was being born his heart rate dropped rapidly during a (for the most part) normal labour. Within 2 minutes I had been given a consent form to sign and was told that my sons life would be in jeapardy if I did not have a C-section RIGHT NOW!!! Now, I can tell you that I was the LAST person in the world who wanted a C-section: I was absolutely terrified of it. But to save my childs life I didn't hesitate for a moment. To claim that someone would do so just so that she wouldn't have scars or wanted to have the experience of vaginal birth is just retarded and assuming that the woman is insane. I'm sure the statistics on this are so rare as to be non existent.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 4:20 PM
@Egnu Cledge
I have repeatedly said "abortion on demand at any time for any reason" - and I mean any time, even 39 weeks. Less restrictive than current law. ANY TIME.
But I do not agree that future technology is irrelevant. What I am saying, and hopefully it will be very clear, is this:
If the fetus is viable, and if it can be removed alive in a way that does not endanger or even discomfort the woman any more than some other method, then it should be done that way should she decide she wants it removed. Since this is not possible with our current technology, then this does not apply. She should still be able to have the fetus removed at ANY TIME.
However, you seem to be arguing that, assuming transporters existed, a woman should be able to have the fetus removed by first transporting out its brain, and then the rest - because it is her body, and doing it in any way other than what she wants is wrong. While I am arguing the fetus should be transported out whole and the doctors should try to save it. Because in the case where they can be removed via identical means, removing it alive should be preferred.
Do you agree?
Or maybe I can put it in terms that might be a bit more technologically relevant for today. Let's assume a woman is having a fetus removed when she is 32 weeks pregnant. For some obscure medical reason it can't be done vaginally and she has to have a c-section. She is not being forced to have a c-section, it is the only option. I am saying the fetus should be removed alive and an attempt made to keep it that way. Yes? No? Why is that a bad thing?
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 4:26 PM
@LadyH
Yes, this is my point exactly. Anyone doing that could reasonably be considered to be insane at the time.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 16, 2009 4:29 PM
most of this argument has been already covered, but I can't resist adding my 2cents worth:
completely irrelevant. we don't force people to undergo marrow extractions and organ donations, even though doing so would save many many lives, and refusing to donate could certainly be seen as selfish and immoral. being a selfish ass is not illegal, and shouldn't be.
so do you also believe that it should be illegal to refuse to undergo a bone-marrow extraction because doing so will result in the death of the potential receiver of marrow?relevant article
seconded
so, are you a Jainist? or at least Vegan? do you think we should ban all animal products? antibiotics?because if not, you're talking out of your ass here.
help that can be given by anyone, without the necessity of impinging on another persons bodily integrity. THAT is the difference. The line is at the point where choices for one human can be made without impinging on basic medical consent of another.
nope. we can't legally force people into medical procedures to save another adult's life. therefore, we cannot force people into medical procedures to save an unborn life, whether it's a person or not. this debate hinges on bodily autonomy, and nothing else.
again, that's completely irrelevant. it's a good enough legal reason, and that's the only relevant thing here. being an ass is not illegal.
actually, yes you have. you have stated above that you feel it should be illegal to have abortions if live-removal was possible. thus, you want the legal right to force women into one kind of procedure over another, without their consent.
so; is refusing to donate bone-marrow to save the life of your child murder, too? should we force people to give up their blood/marrow/organs to save their offspring?
women have collective rights to autonomy too
in Fairy-Lalaland this might be true. in the real world it isn't.Incidentally, this is the same argument than men have used to say there's no such thing as marital rape. "you agreed to sex, you can't just randomly un-agree now!!!!". and marriage is a hell of a lot more like a contract than pregnancy is...
interesting. I'm going to guess you're against treating sports injuries too then. after all, people just need to stop doing sports if they don't want to risk such an injury.or obesity related health-problems, since people could just stop stuffing their faces with McD's; or any number of such things
no?
huh, that's strange.
yes.
huh. i can't afford insurance at all(i'm one of them "uninsurables"). shall i seal myself in a bubble then and refuse to leave my home because doing ANYTHING could cause me to incur a medical procedure i wouldn't be able to have?why do so many idiots attempt this sort of special pleading? why is abortion always considered an exception to all the rules we have about medical procedures?
Posted by: Hairhead | September 16, 2009 4:32 PM
Unfortunately, Doo Shabag, people make decisions ALL THE TIME which others consider insane -- but which are not legal grounds for commitment or removal of autonomy.
Consider, for one instance only, adult Jehovah's Witnesses who are dying in the hospital, and who refuse blood transfusions, even though the lack of such guarantees their death. There are many other examples; sane, competent people make strange choices all the time. And it is cavalier in the extreme to make a list of choices YOU deem insane, and then remove people's autonomy willy-nilly.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 4:35 PM
My emphasis.
Excellent. Since we both agree this is a ludicrously moot point, kindly shut up until transporter technology becomes available. Get back to me in about a thousand years and we'll talk.
Yes, well since we're so concerned with what fictional women will do in a fictional future, I'll say that I plan to change my mind about everything as soon Jesus shows up and starts giving me blow jobs.
In our fictional future, removing a fetus that late in the game will be done for the very same reasons it's done today. Transporter technology won't make much of a difference to something that isn't going to survive outside the womb, anyway.
Why is this woman having it removed? If she wants the baby but can't successfully carry it to term, then she might decide for a c-section and hope the ICU can keep it alive. If she doesn't want it, then there's absolutely no reason for a c-section. As I and others have repeatedly pointed out, a c-section is never the only option, or even the go-to option. A fetus would be removed by a D&X as it's the least invasive/does the least possible harm to the woman.
Posted by: help ma boab | September 16, 2009 4:48 PM
Call me old fashioned, but I always regard an unborn baby as a 'who'.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 16, 2009 4:52 PM
a Who
Posted by: Dianne | September 16, 2009 4:56 PM
I believe that there is life in that fertilised egg.
So what? There is life in an unfertilized gamete, but that doesn't mean that one should be compelled to conceive at every possibility to "save" those lives. There is also life in a Staph aureus, a HeLa cell, and the vast majority of a brain dead person's body. Should it be murder to take antibiotics, treat cancer, or use organs from a brain dead person?
I watched an embryo being destroyed at 18-weeks gestation. A week before I saw that same embryo swimming around doing backflips and waving. There was at least as much life in that 18-week embryo as there is in a goldfish.
Unless you're arguing for radical veganism and declaring the killing of a goldfish to be murder (or at least some form of immoral killing), I don't see your point.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 16, 2009 4:56 PM
HMB, we aren't interested in your opinion, and consider the opposite of your opinion as where we should be. That is why we consider you a "total fool". You offer nothing to the discussion except your ignorance and delusions.
Posted by: bootsy | September 16, 2009 4:58 PM
@550: Call him old-fashioned, but he'll always refer to a black as a slave, and a woman as a weak bearer of original sin. Give him that old-time religion; stone his ass for eating bacon!
Posted by: truebutnotuseful | September 16, 2009 4:58 PM
@ help ma boab:
You are old fashioned. Also, stupid.
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 5:02 PM
I get the feeling there are a lot of back alley abortions going on in Whoville.
Posted by: Dianne | September 16, 2009 5:02 PM
Let's assume a woman is having a fetus removed when she is 32 weeks pregnant. For some obscure medical reason it can't be done vaginally and she has to have a c-section.
In many cases in which a 3rd trimester abortion is necessary, the fetus is malformed and malpositioned such that an intact vaginal delivery is flat out impossible and a c-section would involve making a large incision on the uterus, endangering the life and future fertility of the woman. Examples might be severe hydrocephalus with ancephaly in which the head may be twice the size of a normal fetus' or a muscle disorder leading to spasm of the fetus in an abnormal and undeliverable position. Both fortunately rare but hardly unknown.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 5:04 PM
@Jadehawk, OM
I'll only address the parts of this that were re:comments I made.
Nonsense, the choice is between allowing someone to live when it has no impact on you at all. A bone marrow extraction is hardly no impact. I have made clear again and again that we are talking about equivalent procedures where one leaves the fetus alive and the other does not.
@Egnu Cledge
You're the one who jumped into the hypothetical. Who says it won't survive outside of the womb? A 32 week old fetus has a great chance of survival with today's technology. Let alone any technological advances that have been at that point. But I thought you wanted to stop talking about it? Why she wants it removed is irrelevant to the situation, it can be removed at her request at any time for any reason. And in a hypothetical situation when it is stated that "For some obscure medical reason it can't be done vaginally and she has to have a c-section" you can't say "c-section is never the only option" and continue to have a meaningful conversation. You do understand that, right?
Posted by: Walton | September 16, 2009 5:05 PM
Why do debates on abortion always go around and around and around, like a carousel?
Posted by: truebutnotuseful | September 16, 2009 5:06 PM
strange gods before me: You've done a fantastic job in this thread. You're getting my nomination for the next Molly.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 5:06 PM
...Still not on fire.
Buffybot was disappointed she had to eat her marshmallows untoasted.
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 5:07 PM
The "you'd better be vegan then" argument is fine, but even most of us actual vegans recognize bodily autonomy. If a live piglet crawls up your butt and takes up residence in your abdomen, feel free to kill it. Unless you're Ken Ham and you shoved that piglet up there on purpose.
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 5:11 PM
Thank you, truebutnotuseful.
Posted by: amphiox | September 16, 2009 5:11 PM
If in some hypothetical future a hypothetical technology is developed whereby it became possible to remove a fetus from a woman's womb and keep it alive, and gestate it to maturity, and the risk of this procedure for the woman is no different (or less) than an abortion, and cost of this procedure not exceedingly high relative to the abortion, I would foresee this procedure rapidly and completely replacing abortion. It would not, in fact, be ethical or any medical practitioner to recommend or perform an abortion in lieu of this hypothetical procedure. The woman's right to autonomy would not apply because the consequences and risks she would face would be identical for either procedure. As for the fetus, the moment it is removed alive, it would de facto be "born" and would be legally human.
This hypothetical procedure does not and may never exist. To continue to refer to it and things like it in the context of a present-day abortion debate smacks of wishful thinking - hoping for some miracle technology to appear and solve our moral and ethical dilemmas for us.
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 5:13 PM
Ichthyic, I'm so glad to hear it. Not even a fever? You know, I believe you're alive today because I was praying for you.
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 5:14 PM
I am saying the fetus should be removed alive and an attempt made to keep it that way.
And then do what with it, exactly?
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 5:15 PM
Walton,
BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOD.
:)
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 16, 2009 5:19 PM
amphiox, #564: If in some hypothetical future a hypothetical technology is developed whereby it became possible to remove a fetus from a woman's womb and keep it alive... It would not, in fact, be ethical or any medical practitioner to recommend or perform an abortion in lieu of this hypothetical procedure.
This is not true. "Abortion is wrong" is not the default position to be taken if this one particular argument in favor of abortion no longer applies. You still have to reason why abortion would be wrong, and your reasoning would still be subject to debate.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 5:23 PM
Okay - I'm leaving this, because It's not a discussion. My final points - take them or leave them.
SGBM: you are an example of the problem. You have a polarised view that is immobile - that a child as no rights until born. The social consensus in the western world is that babies do have rights prior to birth, but you aren't even willing to accept that as a starting point in a discussion.
As a direct result of this, you are prepared to throw insults around and label others horribly with terms such as misogynist - something that is completely false in my case at at least. This is not something I chose to reciprocate with - for example, at no point did I throw up a label of "baby killer" at you. The essence of our disagreement is that I think the foetus has rights which, under some circumstances, can trump the rights of the mother. You don't.
This polarisation is the problem with the abortion debate in the US. Two camps of extremists - one starting with 'at conception' and the other with 'at birth' firing talking points and insults at each other rather than trying to cope with a reality that is far messier and uglier.
Carlie: I think we've been talking past each other a bit. An honest attempt at communication that failed, by both parties.
Doo Shabag: your thought experiment matches reality. As I discovered last night, 9 US states require that any pregnancy deliberately terminated after the foetus is potentially viable attempt to save the baby if possible, to the point of having a second physician there. All of these states were at the more liberal end of abortion permits, permitting abortions even in the third trimester for the life & health of the mother. I posted the link earlier.
Finally: I live in Queensland, the state mentioned in the article above. Yes, we've got some bad laws on the books still - a legacy of earlier eras that haven't yet got abolished. I think that what happened to Tegan Leach and her boyfriend (you know, the one charged with bringing in the abortion drugs) is unfortunate, but I do not believe she will be sentenced to anything besides at most probation. I also think she was an idiot for not going to the doctor first, and unfortunately being an idiot sometimes has consequences.
All that said: our situation in regards to abortion is a damn sight more sensible than most (but not all) of the United States. So before you start throwing rocks our way, you really need to look into your own glass house where "87% of counties in the US had no abortion providers."
In Australia, if you live in a city or town with a hospital, a teenage girl under 18 can walk into a hospital and arrange to terminate a pregnancy before the third trimester with out her parent's knowledge or consent. That's 95% of our population. We have government provided hospitals in every town above about 2000 people. Doing it in a small town might be harder, but that's due to the gossip factor of small town life. If you live in a small community more than an hours drive from a town (4.9% of the population), then about once or twice a month a medical clinic comes to visit - an abortion can be arranged then. Finally, you get the very small group that lives on farms more than an hour away from a town (and more than an hour can equate to about 2-3 days away). Yes, these women have a problem accessing abortion without the knowledge of their partner, and may have distance problems, but that's the only barrier. Given that ready access - all covered by our government-funded medical system - I am prepared to state that someone who waits to the third trimester has forfeited their right to an abortion by choice.
Despite any archaic laws on our books, that's a much saner reality than the US. And that's the last I'll say on this post. Come back to me when a US state or federal government allows government provided healthcare to be used for an abortion by choice.
Posted by: D | September 16, 2009 5:23 PM
Fatten it for thanksgiving of course.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 16, 2009 5:28 PM
Fatten it for thanksgiving of course
They're better lean. Especially as sashimi.
Posted by: CJO | September 16, 2009 5:31 PM
Why do debates on abortion always go around and around and around, like a carousel?
Because forced-birthers cannot believe that their disingenuous "concern" for the rights of the fetus are not the final word on the matter.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 5:33 PM
The social consensus in the western world is that babies do have rights prior to birth, but you aren't even willing to accept that as a starting point in a discussion.
because there' no rational support for it.
it always boils down to exactly when a fetus "obtains" these rights, and since life itself is a continuous process, the decision is necessarily an arbitrary one.
for example, at no point did I throw up a label of "baby killer" at you.
good, because that would be a ridiculous comparison. Although that you apparently don't seem to think so says volumes.
The essence of our disagreement is that I think the foetus has rights which, under some circumstances, can trump the rights of the mother.
when and what rights does this fetus obtain, and based on who's say so?
yeah, that's what I thought.
trying to cope with a reality that is far messier and uglier.
bah. the issue of rights assignment can be a totally separate one from the issue of a woman's right to do with her body as she sees fit. The Supreme Court long ago decided that the woman's right supercedes any artificially assigned rights to a fetus (yes, artificial). I swear, people who argue this shit might actually try reading Roe V Wade. It's worth it, as all your arguments on rights assignments were already debated.
also think she was an idiot for not going to the doctor first, and unfortunately being an idiot sometimes has consequences.
one could only wish that were really the case.
hell, there wouldn't be any creationists left!
Posted by: D | September 16, 2009 5:36 PM
Hmm, haven't tried that. I usually cook them whole on spit and bast them with flaming lard.
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 5:40 PM
No, you are part of the problem, Robert. The problem is that women who need access to abortion right now aren't getting it, and you are more interested in inventing reasons why the state should own women's bodies.
I allowed, as in the violin scenario, that a fetus may have a right to live. But that doesn't mean that it has the right to use another person's body to live.
It's completely correct in your case. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that misogyny is only about what you feel, and if you don't feel hate in your heart toward women, then you must not be a misogynist. This is false. Your positions are those of contempt for women's choices and autonomy. You have insisted that women sacrifice their right to consent. These are quite simply misogynist things to say.
You are an extremist, Robert. Only an extremist would insist that 'no' means 'yes.'
The extremist position is actually well beyond mine: see Peter Singer's justifications for infanticide. They are not unreasonable arguments. I reject them because I believe there is a community (state) interest in the well-being of newborns.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 5:41 PM
This polarisation is the problem with the abortion debate in the US. Two camps of extremists - one starting with 'at conception' and the other with 'at birth' firing talking points and insults at each other rather than trying to cope with a reality that is far messier and uglier.
you yourself are the one creating the complication.
it's quite simple, really:
one of those propositions means that rights do not interfere with one another.
the other doesn't.
can you figure out which is which, I wonder?
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 5:41 PM
You're the one who keeps droning on and on about some non-existent, hypothetical procedure that would be exactly equivalent to abortion but in which the fetus would survive. Except in the cases where you fantasize about c-sections being the only option, because--in reality--that would be the only option to remove a fetus alive.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 16, 2009 5:42 PM
Hmm, haven't tried that. I usually cook them whole on spit and bast them with flaming lard.
Hmm. The other thing that works nice is if you get them before the bones have hardened. You can fry 'em up--I like tempura-style--sort of like soft-shell crabs.
Posted by: amphiox | September 16, 2009 5:44 PM
I've seen a lot of autonomy-related analogies bandied about in this long thread, but I think the vast majority of these analogies are actually flawed and cannot be applied to the abortion debate.
Everything from the extraction of kidney to "donate" to a stranger to the intravenous violinist to the mandatory c-section are all examples of negative autonomy - the right that each of us has to refuse to have a medical procedure done to us.
This right is absolute. Even in the event of near-certain death, we all (assuming mental competency) have the right to refuse the offered procedure and choose to die instead.
But abortion isn't a question of negative autonomy, it is one of positive autonomy - the right to demand a medical procedure be done to us.
And this right is not absolute. We have it for medically necessary procedures, but not for unnecessary ones. I cannot demand of my orthopedic surgeon that he/she amputate my healthy right leg because I want to compete in the Special Olympics. Even for necessary procedures, we do not have the absolute right to demand specific procedures, either. A patient coming to see me for a malignant brain tumor has the right to choose among several treatment options that I might recommend, but some options are off the table. He cannot, for example, demand that I perform a trepanotomy on him using medieval tools and techniques. As a more prosaic example, if you go to your family doctor convinced you have a strep throat and ask for antibiotics, but she determines after examining you that you most likely have a viral infection for which antibiotics would do no good, you cannot force her to write that penicillin prescription.
Or, from a different perspective, the negative autonomy of the medical professional - the right to refuse to be compelled to perform any procedure he or she considers medically unnecessary or a violation of his or her professional ethics, is absolute. Negative autonomy trumps positive autonomy most of the time.
The analogy regarding brain activity with the comatose person also fails. We consider it ethically acceptable in some cases to "pull the plug" on severely brain damaged/comatose patients only because the likelihood of recovery is small to non-existent. The potential for future function is the whole argument here. If we admit this line of reasoning into the abortion debate then we must admit all arguments related to the fetus' future potential for becoming a human being.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 5:44 PM
...I thought we were talking about slow smoking over various hardwoods being the bestest?
Posted by: CJO | September 16, 2009 5:55 PM
This polarisation is the problem with the abortion debate in the US. Two camps of extremists - one starting with 'at conception' and the other with 'at birth' firing talking points and insults at each other rather than trying to cope with a reality that is far messier and uglier.
Indeed. Nothing messier or uglier than the reality that many men believe women should not be allowed to direct their own medical care.
Posted by: amphiox | September 16, 2009 5:56 PM
Chiroptera #568: "You still have to reason why abortion would be wrong, and your reasoning would still be subject to debate."
The reason abortion would be wrong in my hypothetical scenario is that the alternate procedure is superior in every aspect and in every circumstance. The woman is subject to the same or less risk and trauma, gains exactly the same benefit, and the fetus is harmed less. The unspoken assumption here, of course, is that the woman is not compelled to care for the fetus any more after the procedure. Our hypothetical super advanced technological civilization will take care of all those details.
In medical ethics, it is not acceptable to knowingly provide an inferior procedure (suboptimal care) when a superior procedure is available, all other factors being equal. (Other factors being things like cost, availability, technical expertise, etc. They are never equal in real life, of course, but in the impossible hypothetical scenario under discussion, they are).
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 16, 2009 6:00 PM
amphiox, #579: I've seen a lot of autonomy-related analogies bandied about in this long thread, but I think the vast majority of these analogies are actually flawed and cannot be applied to the abortion debate.
The problem I have with the autonomy arguments is that they are used to explain why the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus. But until it is explained why fetuses even have rights (or why the state or society in general has a compelling interest in the matter), there is no need, in my opinion, to even invoke an individual's right to autonomy. Which is why when I get into these "debates" I usually make most of my effort in pointing out how the other side's blather about fetus rights are nonsensical.
A woman has the right to abort an unwanted or inopportune pregnancy for the same reason that anyone who has a medical condition has the right to have that condition treated.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 16, 2009 6:02 PM
amphiox, at least for this discussion, the issue is not with negative vs positive autonomy, but rather the choice between two instances of positive autonomy (i.e. a procedure that will remove a fetus dead, vs. one might remove it alive); the autonomy of doctors is also not in question, since doctors aren't forced to perform abortions against their will.
and the examples of a patient only having a range of choices only exists because you cannot force a doctor to perform a dangerous, most likely deadly operation which would be certainly not successful in treating the condition. this parallels abortion.... how? abortion is safer than giving birth, and it is a pretty surefire way of fixing the ondition for which it is used.
Posted by: Dianne | September 16, 2009 6:02 PM
Nonsense, the choice is between allowing someone to live when it has no impact on you at all.
Whatthe? Completing a pregnancy has no impact on you? Well, it doesn't if you're not the woman who is pregnant. If you are it has a huge impact on you. To start with, the chances of dying completing pregnancy are greater than 10X the chances of dying in legal abortion. And third trimester abortions are essentially all about pregnancies that aren't going to have a happy ending: sometimes because the mother is too debilitated to delivery normally and would be at very high risk for dying during a c-section, more often because the fetus is just not viable. So banning abortion or even an absolute ban on third trimester abortion would have a huge impact on a (fortunately small) number of women.
Incidentally, the risk of dying through a bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell donation is about the same as the risk of dying through legal abortion. In short, more than 10X safer than completing pregnancy. So if it's ok to force someone to complete a pregnancy because it isn't that dangerous then it's definitely ok to force bone marrow donation, which is much safer.
Posted by: amphiox | September 16, 2009 6:03 PM
A woman's absolute right to autonomy and bodily integrity encompasses everything up to and including her uterus and part of the placenta (precluding forced c-section). But it ends somewhere between the placenta and the point where the umbilical cord enters the fetus. From that point onwards the woman's right to autonomy and bodily integrity must be considered relative to the fetus' right to autonomy and bodily autonomy. So the question therefore is whether or not the woman's right supercedes the fetus' right in every possible circumstance, or whether there are potential situations wherein the fetus' right takes precedence over the woman's right.
The pro-life position (that the fetus' right supercedes the woman's right in nearly every situation) of course, is rationally untenable and ethically immoral.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 6:04 PM
Damn it I can't quite stay away - I realised I didn't address Ichthyic's talking points.
Yes, but we can try to have some rationality involved. At birth is a very clear distinction. Unfortunately for the "rights at birth" crowd, the reality is that the social consensus is that foetus obtain rights before birth.
By the third trimester, a foetus can feel pain, digest food, breathe, and generally survive without the mother if given assistance. That assistance is more extreme at 28 weeks gestation than it is at 40, but it's still possible. That's my rationale, and I suspect it's the rationale for a lot of people.
Some people believe those rights are given at conception. I think those folks are nuts.
Nor do I believe that the rights of the foetus always trumps the rights of the mother. But if the rights of the foetus can never trump the rights of the mother, then the foetus has no rights.
I never labelled SGBM as a baby killer because I don't think he is one. But he feels free to label me a misogynist because I feel that under some fairly extreme circumstances a woman's rights can be trumped by the rights of her baby. Because I support the right to leave, he labels me with a word used to describe people who think women should be kept barefoot and pregnant, without the right to vote, or even to choose who they can marry. I'm sorry, but I don't appreciate being labelled that way, and I don't think it is healthy for a discussion to label people that way. That was my point.
Roe vs Wade? An awkward decision by a court in a country that is fucked up and socially backwards, by modern Western standards, on the issue of abortion. But for what it's worth, I've read it. It boils down to "the rights of the foetus do not always overrule the rights of the mother". Not "the rights of mother always overrule the rights of the foetus". Roe vs Wade also makes it explicit that the foetus has rights before birth. Several US states have passed abortion laws that restrict to some degree the right to abortion which have held up in court.
Rights are given by social consensus, same as morals. There are no absolute rights or an absolute moral standard - there is no God to hand them down from on high. They are human constructs, subject to change over time, and never perfect.
And I never said that idiocy always has consequences; just sometimes. Tegan Leach got unlucky and is experiencing some consequences of her decision to not go to the doctor.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 16, 2009 6:04 PM
amphiox, #582: The woman is subject to the same or less risk and trauma, gains exactly the same benefit, and the fetus is harmed less. The unspoken assumption here, of course, is that the woman is not compelled to care for the fetus any more after the procedure.
Actually, the unspoken assumption is that it matters whether or not the fetus is "harmed". If it doesn't matter, then the two procedures are, for all intents and purpose, identical.
-
In medical ethics, it is not acceptable to knowingly provide an inferior procedure (suboptimal care) when a superior procedure is available, all other factors being equal.
If medical ethics thinks that a fetus is a "person" that shouldn't be "harmed", then I think that medical ethics needs think a little harder about the subject.
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 6:06 PM
That's not a positive liberty unless we're also demanding that the state pay the bill for the operation.
And there are people who perform abortions on themselves. Obviously this has nothing to do with positive liberty.
You certainly can demand it. Your surgeon is under no obligation to comply.
I doubt that you'll find anyone here who disagrees. I think you may be accidentally building a strawman.
Not at all. The comatose patient's brain contains memories and a personality that has already developed -- it is to this person who we owe a consideration for their future revival. A fetus with no developed self does not require the same moral consideration.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 16, 2009 6:07 PM
yeah, but what if we could teleport marrow out? just like those teleportation-non-abortions?
dude, sci-fi hypotheticals are fucking irrelevant in discussions of current law. please get that through your head.
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 6:09 PM
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 16, 2009 6:17 PM
fetus fetishists certainly are a fascinating bunch.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 6:24 PM
SGBM, You did not fix that for me, you deliberately broke it with your twisted misreading of what I am saying. Don't edit my words.
You are too willing to put people who agree with 99% of your point of view into a box labeled "other" and "the enemy" and treat them like their ideas are worthless. You're also the one on the far extreme of social reality, not me. Enjoy your life as an extremist.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 16, 2009 6:29 PM
MAJeff, OM, #592:
If fetus fetishists didn't fan the fears of ordinary folk, their fury would be funny.
Sorry, I'll stop now.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 6:38 PM
@Egnu Cledge
No one was forcing you to participate, were they?
@Dianne
Dianne, we were not talking about forcing anyone to complete a pregnancy. We were talking about what should happen to a living and viable fetus after it is removed from the woman.
@Jadehawk, OM
Having bone marrow removed in any way is not a no-impact procedure, since it would take a while to rebuild the marrow. Just like you should not be forced to give blood to save someone even if they can magic it out of you. Or saliva. Kindly get through your head that I am not discussing current law. That should have been obvious since we were discussing sci-fi hypotheticals.
If you want to limit it to current law and what is happening today, my opinion is that we should have comprehensive age-appropriate sex education for everyone, with easily available birth control, more money spent to research male contraceptives and improve female contraceptives, and women should be able to easily get an abortion at any time for any reason, all of which should be covered by a robust public health care system. Full stop, as SGBM likes to say, although I suppose now I have ruined my full stop.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | September 16, 2009 6:41 PM
Just checking in to find out how many atheists have woken up to find themselves dead this morning. Mabus will have had to have been busier than Father Christmas last night.
Posted by: CJO | September 16, 2009 6:52 PM
people who agree with 99% of your point of view
What you're missing is that there is not a continuum. You can't 99% agree that a woman has the right to direct their own medical care, just as a man does. You either do or you don't. By your own admission, you do not.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 6:55 PM
So,what you're saying is that you've been deliberately wasting everyone's time arguing about fictional abortion laws under fictional situations in a time and place that will probably never exist.
A troll.
Posted by: Talen Lee | September 16, 2009 7:02 PM
At the risk of repeating what's already been said, it's Queensland. The state is quite large and has a small population, most of which is concentrated around one or two educated population centres, then the rest is smeared up to the tip in a bunch of low-education areas that focus more on tourism and service industries. It's kinda like our own little Florida bolted to our own little Texas: Big, self-important, and not quite as clever as it thinks it is.
I'm not saying that absolves the nation of the responsibility, but my ability as a man living in New South Wales is almost nil to influence it, aside from kicking up a stink. Western Australia has a similar problem, in that the level of remoteness you get increases the incident of 'odd' things like zoophilia and incest (in varying degrees of problematics). The fact that Australia has about the same area as all of America and the population of barely Georgia has a really weird effect on our legislature and our population.
This is really depressing stuff, though, and I fully intend to kick up as much stink as I can. But then, I'm still wandering around in a daze and will no doubt be far more bothered when people mention Patrick Swayze to me when they don't know who Norman Borlaug was. :(
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 7:04 PM
@Egnu Cledge
I don't consider discussing hypotheticals a waste of time. If you do, you were under no pressure or obligation to participate. I actually found it very interesting to hear others opinions on the subject, and learned some things from some people. If you were looking for an echo chamber, sorry to disappoint you.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | September 16, 2009 7:08 PM
The poll is the way it is because it's the courier mail, Murdoch press.
Diane said: "[meet sensible criteria] and I'd consider a ban on elective third trimester abortion reasonable. As well as totally redundant." I'm with that. Because it *is* totally redundant, and so will not actually physically harm anyone. Even if you consider the moral message sent by such legislation to be socially harmful, (which I do) it's one hell of a lot less harmful than restricting abortion in earlier stages.
It's a pointless concession that we can make to the fundies. And by doing so, we remove the really really annoying talking point of "OMG stoopid sluts r killing they're babbies at 9 months" that always takes over the discussion. Not happening. And since not happening, fine, have your way, outlaw it, who bloody cares? If playing pretend with imaginary women will help real actual women, by all means proceed.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 7:08 PM
You're telling me that thing Gandalf killed in the mines had a first name?
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 7:12 PM
OK, fine, I hereby concede that when magic is possible, I might consider a discussion on changing abortion laws.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 7:16 PM
@Egnu Cledge
Well, any sufficiently advanced technology yadda yadda yadda.
And besides, I think the laws should be changed now to allow abortions at any time for any reason. Because it is just plain immoral to force a woman to remain pregnant against her wishes.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 7:18 PM
It is never a matter of concession with the fundies. If we outlaw third trimester abortions--even in a hypothetical future where they would never be needed anyway--we would simply be hearing "If you think a baby has rights at 6 months and one day, then what's to keep some slut from aborting at six months minus one day?".
It will never end. Which is why birth is the only sensible place to draw the line at fetal rights.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 7:27 PM
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 7:29 PM
Robert, you liar, you've said over and over that you want to force women to undergo medical operations that they do not consent to, and that you define consent by a woman saying 'no I do not want that.'
If you're not willing to consider how this is a misogynist stance, then you aren't an ally.
Posted by: strange gods before me, number 8 is hideous | September 16, 2009 7:30 PM
Of course it wasn't a hypothetical. Doo Shabag got caught saying horrible things, and retreated.
Posted by: viverravid | September 16, 2009 7:36 PM
To those saying the removed alive vs. removed dead distinction should not matter to the mother, aren't you talking about creating a situation, in this hypothetical technologically advanced society, akin to adoption? Or do the kittens take care of that too?
In practice a majority of adopted children have sought out their birth parents, and are often successful despite the protections in place regarding identifying birth parents.
Presumably, unless human ideas about parenthood change drastically, something similar would happen in this hypothetical "abort alive" scenario.
Posted by: Hyperon | September 16, 2009 8:42 PM
Which is a flagrant lie, since in the very text I quoted I specifically disavowed that interpretation:
Your dirty little lie would be bad enough, but for someone constantly in hysterics about alleged dishonesty, it is disgraceful indeed. I fear you've reached such rarified heights of shameful hypocrisy that even Ted Haggard can't hope to follow you.Posted by: Dregs | September 16, 2009 9:19 PM
I like Queensland bashing as much as the next man. However...
Sometimes, in Oz when you want to clarify an archaic and convoluted law, you give it a test and see what happens. Same thing 10-15 years ago in Tasmania when homosexuality was still illegal. It creates a ruckus, which creates momentum to get some sort of action on it.
Perhaps not the best way, but in the end, this will probably work. (You can't feed a terminally ill man against his wishes now, either)
Now back to your regular knee-jerk reactions.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 9:25 PM
At birth is a very clear distinction.
glad we agree.
Unfortunately for the "rights at birth" crowd, the reality is that the social consensus is that foetus obtain rights before birth.
argumentum ad populum is all you have going for you, apparently.
and when popular opinion in your little neck of the woods changes?
Posted by: Carlie | September 16, 2009 9:28 PM
Wow. So now the defense is down to "But I'm arguing hypotheticals".
I like hypotheticals. There are lots of situations in which going to the hypothetical conclusion can really clarify an issue. However, basing what you think ought to be legal practice on far-end hypotheticals is incredibly dangerous, given that one can so easily ignore reality while doing so.
Please understand the vehement response you'll often get when you take something like abortion rights and then claim you were just speaking about hypothetical situations. (The kind of response, in fact, that I am trying very hard to choke back right now.)
Right now, abortion rights are not hypothetical to women. Women have to deal with the reality of the laws and social structures in place. What kind of restrictions are in place and how accessible the care is in an area is an immediate concern to thousands of women every day. If you ask around, you'll find that most women you know have friends or family members who have dealt with abortions. (Most men know women who have too, but they may well not have been told about it.) They are fully aware not just of what does happen to other women, but what will happen to them if they should ever need one. They have stories of being terrorized by protesters when they are already feeling vulnerable, of being slut-shamed by doctors and nurses who they dared ask for a referral, of not knowing how to scrape the money together to get an abortion, of being scared that they won't be able to do it in time before the arbitrary legal deadline hits. This is something that is a reality in women's lives.
Can you then see how insulting it is to banter about whether abortions should in reality be illegal based on whatever random hypothetical situation you can dream up, particularly if you are a person for whom this situation will never arise? That kind of rhetoric leads to actual restrictions on abortions that actual women need, and it's based on nothing more than someone's "what-if".
This is not about imaginary terrible selfish women and their magic perfect fetus-babies. All women feel the impact of those attitudes. In the extreme case, to the point that the right is legislated away. In the more common case, she's treated like a social leper if she admits to having had an abortion. If you go back to the post, it's about an actual woman who is currently in danger of being killed; that is, if the government doesn't manage to lock her away for several years first. Anyone who has a hard time turning away from that real-life result of restrictive abortion laws is not going to give your "but what if all fetuses could survive outside the womb after being teleported out" much respect.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 9:29 PM
Oh my. Everyone is still here trying to out talk one another.
Look. There are people out there who are not fit to procreate; just look at some of these comments.
Now the best idea would be to simply hoik out selected ovaries and testes and save everyone a lot of trouble. The problem is that the law, as it stands today, only allows the forceable hoiking of children, messy yes, but there we are.
After reading some of these comments, I'm more convinced than ever that if strange or Eggo ever find themselves missing some genetic material, it'd be not only acceptable, but highly desirable to assist them in destroying their issue at all costs.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 9:39 PM
Had my testes hoiked (or un-hooked, rather) a couple of years ago. Couldn't be happier. I recommend it to everybody. But then, unlike you, I actually care about my girlfriend's health, safety, happiness, and comfort.
Posted by: John Morales | September 16, 2009 9:39 PM
Amazed troll, your sniping is pathetic, but apparently it's all you're good for.
Bah.
Posted by: scenario dave | September 16, 2009 9:40 PM
"Posted by: CJO | September 16, 2009 6:52 PM
people who agree with 99% of your point of view
What you're missing is that there is not a continuum. You can't 99% agree that a woman has the right to direct their own medical care, just as a man does. You either do or you don't. By your own admission, you do not."
So you believe in absolute equality between men and women.
Biologically, men and women are different. There medical needs are different. If a drug is harmless to women but very dangerous to men, is it wrong to treat the distribution of the drug to men differently then to women?
If a doctor gives a women the drug but refuses to give the same drug to a man because he knows that it may kill the man, is the doctor discriminating against men? Neither men nor women have a 100% right to direct their own medical care. Sorry, everything cannot be 100% the same between men and women, but it should be as close as possible.
I agree that abortions should be both legally and practically available, but I don't believe that is with no restrictions. If the fetus/baby's rights begin at birth then exactly when during the birth, when the head comes out, when the entire body comes out, when the cord is cut? Can you abort the baby after it is born but before the cord is cut?
If the mother is in a place where the only food available is by her breastfeeding it, does she have the right to refuse to breastfeed the infant and let it starve to death? After all the milk comes from the woman's body and she has an absolute right to what happens to her body.
Many people feel don't feel right about very late terms abortions when the mother's life is not in danger. I don't buy the arguement that abortions at 8.9 months will never happen. I don't believe that women, in general would do it, but I do believe that there are a few women that would abort at 8.9 months. Nobody would be stupid enough to... is a weak arguement. There is always someone stupid enough to do just about anything.
Some women don't know their pregnant until they actually give birth. What if a woman in this situation demanded an abortion when she was in labor? Unlikely, of course, but you don't have to look far on the web to find things even more unlikely that actually happened.
There are no easy cut and dried answer to this question,its where you want to draw the line. Even birth is a slippery line.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 9:42 PM
But if the rights of the foetus can never trump the rights of the mother, then the foetus has no rights.
The assignment of rights is arbitrary. depending on when and where you live, your rights vary tremendously.
You only feel a fetus has rights at a specific stage of development because at some point, someone or something convinced you they should. Most likely, due to the pervasive nature of western religion, that had something to do with it.
Is there really any rational reason behind it?
no, there isn't.
as you agreed, the only clear division that eliminates the direct conflict between the desires of the mother and fetus is birth itself.
If it's the mother's choice to bring a life into the world, the assignment of arbitrary rights to the fetus post birth in this case is simply the most parsimonius, and creates the least conflict.
there simply is no rational basis to assign rights to a fetus that would conflict with the mother's decision to bring or not bring a life into the world.
once born, there simply is no more conflict. the two are now entirely separate entities.
It's the only division that can always be applied.
Noone has ever shown that the state ever has had a compelling interest in forcing a parent to bring a life into the world when they wish not to.
Posted by: Amazed | September 16, 2009 9:42 PM
Atta boy, Eggo! Good on ya mate.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 16, 2009 9:45 PM
You are a proponent of eugenics? So you think the forceful sterilization of living humans is better than abortion?
Sounds to me like this is a case of an ethnic-cleanser-advocate.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 9:45 PM
Look. There are people out there who are not fit to procreate; just look at some of these comments.
you mean the comments from you?
are you asking us to use yourself as the example?
I expect that practically, you will become a self-fulfilling prophecy and get yourself tossed from here quick enough.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 9:49 PM
I agree that abortions should be both legally and practically available, but I don't believe that is with no restrictions. If the fetus/baby's rights begin at birth then exactly when during the birth, when the head comes out, when the entire body comes out, when the cord is cut? Can you abort the baby after it is born but before the cord is cut?
I'd go with as soon as it's breathing on it's own.
but hey, it's just an arbitrary decision.
Like I said, they ALL are. It's just best to pick ones that have the least amount of conflicts.
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 9:51 PM
Don't be disingenuous. Equality means equality under the law. It doesn't mean we expect the rules of biochemistry to change.
If it makes you feel any better, I believe in the absolute right of a man to have an abortion if he should ever find himself pregnant.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 9:52 PM
Biologically, men and women are different. There medical needs are different. If a drug is harmless to women but very dangerous to men, is it wrong to treat the distribution of the drug to men differently then to women?
scenarioDave should rename his handle to RedHerringDave
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 9:56 PM
So we're back to restricting the rights of all women based on the hypothetical actions of one out of billions doing something you don't approve of.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | September 16, 2009 10:06 PM
3rd trimester abortions are *already* tightly regulated in most countries. Roe v Wade did not grant 3rd trimester abortion rights in the US. A majority of people currently think it's icky and should only happen for medical reasons. And likewise most people in Aus think 1st trimester abortions are perfectly fine and sensible.
And every fucking internet debate always comes down to this bloody red herring. Look at this - the OP is about an early abortion, and yet here we are again on 8 month cases.
The well-being of actual real live women would be much more solidly ensured by getting 1st & 2nd trimester abortion rights firmly in place than by holding out for the unpopular hypothetical 3rd trimester. The absence of sensible 1st & 2nd trimester options is where the real harm comes in. The absence of third trimester abortion on demand basically harms no-one.
If there is a slippery slope, I see it working in our favour. (In Australia, anyway.) If everyone agrees that third trimester abortion is for medical reasons only, then the forced-birthers have to go and argue much less winnable points. They gain popular opinion with this particular red herring. Take it away from them, I say.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 16, 2009 10:18 PM
except that the absence of third trimester abortions won't help cement the rights of 1st and 2nd trimester abortions, either. it's not as if reality has ever stopped the fundie crowd from anything. giving them the 3rd trimesters won't win us any battles.
besides, if you look at the article i linked in my lengthy comment, you'll see what happens when a woman's ability to make choices is allowed to be doubted.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 16, 2009 10:21 PM
hmmm.... another awkward sentence construction (I blame the heat). let's try again:
"when it's acceptable to doubt a woman's choices in regarding her pregnancy"
Posted by: Egnu Cledge | September 16, 2009 10:23 PM
As I said earlier, giving in on the third trimester just gives them more license to go after second and first.
Posted by: truebutnotuseful | September 16, 2009 10:26 PM
@ Amazed: We grow weary of your pathetic, ham-fisted attempts at hyperbole.
Fuck off, would you kindly.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 16, 2009 10:29 PM
Since we all agree that hypothetical scenarios give important insight to real life ethical decisions:
What if transporter technology can easily and safely remove a fetus from a uterus, but the woman is being attacked by the Borg while crossing the International Date Line?
I say that means that fetuses should have the right to buy cigarettes.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 16, 2009 10:30 PM
So we're back to restricting the rights of all women based on the hypothetical actions of one out of billions doing something you don't approve of.
But remember, it's not about controlling women.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 10:32 PM
I say that means that fetuses should have the right to buy cigarettes.
...so long as he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me.
Posted by: Another Ben | September 16, 2009 10:52 PM
Gah... strange gods before me, I wish I lived in your simple reality. You seem incapable of holding a nuanced position on this issue. There is no such thing as "moral absolutes".
I agree with you that a women has the preeminent right to dictate what she does with her body. And I agree with Robert too, and that in some very specific circumstances, that right may be over-ruled.
This is no different to saying that your right to live is preeminent, but that in some very specific circumstances, that right may be over-ruled and I'm allowed to shoot you.
Now I think that is a sensible position to take, and I don't think that makes me either a misogynist or homicidal maniac.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 16, 2009 10:53 PM
Chiroptera,
LOL!
Though I've read the whole thread, I've stayed out of the discussion because I always end up incredibly pissed at the misogynists that don't think women can make decisions for themselves. I do find it so heartwarming that the Pharyngulite hordes are here to call misogyny when they see it. Kudos to all who are defending the rights of women on this thread!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 16, 2009 11:02 PM
Then you don't get it. Either women have absolute rights or no rights. Ergo, they must be absolute. Else women are second class citizens.Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 11:06 PM
You seem incapable of holding a nuanced position on this issue. There is no such thing as "moral absolutes".
do you know what "fallacy of the middle ground" or "fallacy of the golden mean" refer to?
no?
let me help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
And I agree with Robert too, and that in some very specific circumstances, that right may be over-ruled.
even if you COULD make that case, it hardly implies it should be the basis for law, now does it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 11:08 PM
This is no different to saying that your right to live is preeminent, but that in some very specific circumstances, that right may be over-ruled and I'm allowed to shoot you.
...
Now I think that is a sensible position to take, and I don't think that makes me either a misogynist or homicidal maniac.
no, what it makes you is a peddler of red herrings instead of arguments.
Posted by: Another Ben | September 16, 2009 11:20 PM
Nerd of Redhead - nobody has absolute rights for anything. Every right you have can be over-ruled in certain circumstances.
Ichthyic - in what way am I appealing to the golden mean fallacy? And in what way is my statement a red herring? This whole abortion issue is essentially an argument about the rights of individuals, is it not?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 16, 2009 11:23 PM
Another Ben, Yawn, specious argument. Everyone has the absolute to manage their medical care while they are competent. You are saying women are not competent. Back that up with hard evidence or shut up. Welcome to science.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 11:27 PM
Damn it, I wasn't going to bite... but this is too much of a feed line.
Nerd of RedHead@636:
Women have absolute rights. I concede that. I go further than that - I think people have absolute rights.
Children are people. Either children have absolute rights or no rights. Ergo, they must be absolute.
The difference between a baby and a foetus five minutes before delivery is one of location. I don't feel that "birth" is a magic line that grants rights - at most, birth is a magic line that removes conflicts between rights.
I feel that a foetus gains rights as it develops, with a primary emphasis being on viability. These rights are either absolute or non-existant.
So - a foetus has an absolute right to life which is absolute once the foetus is viable (try and avoid the quote mining people), or it has no rights. Ergo, it has an absolute right to life, once it is viable. (This is my opinion, and also the consensus opinion as expressed by most countries in law)
The scenario we have been arguing about is what happens when the two absolute rights come into conflict, and the best way to deal with that.
I fully acknowledge and support that women have the same rights as men. Do you acknowledge that children have the same absolute rights, particularly the right to life, as adults?
Posted by: Another Ben | September 16, 2009 11:28 PM
Congratulations Nerd of Redhead, you agree with me:
"Everyone has the absolute to manage their medical care while they are competent."
Posted by: John Morales | September 16, 2009 11:31 PM
RobertDW,
Um, that and an umbilical cord.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 11:32 PM
at most, birth is a magic line that removes conflicts between rights.
whee! we all agree.
done.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 16, 2009 11:36 PM
Robert. Until the fetus is born, and breathing on its own, it isn't a baby. How close is irrelevant. Period, end of story. I will give your opinion as much thought as you give mine. Get it?
Ben, no we are not in agreement. You are claiming women are not competent without evidence. And until you provide said evidence, you have nothing but your inane opinion.
And both of you have twisted the truth sufficiently that no one can trust your opinions as facts. That is the problem when you try to warp facts to meet your opinions, instead of letting the evidence speak for itself.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 16, 2009 11:36 PM
RobertDW, 641: The difference between a baby and a foetus five minutes before delivery is one of location.
In fact, that is exactly what most of the pro-choice side has been saying all along. The difference is location: being inside another human being verses being outside. That difference, though, turns out to be an important distinction.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 16, 2009 11:39 PM
@Egnu Cledge
I went through this before for SGBM, but let me reiterate that the emphasis was supposed to be on exact manner and time, and then I went on to lay out the hypothetical situation I have been arguing. At the end I said "I hope I am explaining it clearly", but obviously I did not because I did not mean it the way it has been taken. I also later apologized when it became apparent that my meaning was being misunderstood.
@Carlie
I understand it is a hot button issue. I have clearly stated what I think abortion rights should be right now, but I think we can learn things about others positions by exploring the extreme hypotheticals.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 16, 2009 11:40 PM
I need to get some sleep. My not responding for the next 8 hours does not constitute agreement, merely that I am off line.
Posted by: BD | September 16, 2009 11:50 PM
This sounds about right for Queensland, Australia's answer to the US deep South and further proof if it was needed that too much sunshine is bad for the brain.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 12:01 AM
So no one ever answered my question @ #516*? I think that's an answer right there. "Yeah, sure, we know how to reduce the rate of abortion drastically and make it safe (i.e., such that women aren't permanently injured, left unable to have children, or dead, and in fact safer than pregnancy), but we prefer to talk about ridiculous hypotheticals and sci-fi scenarios while women die en masse. But really, it's so not about controlling women."
Fuck you, dishonest assholes.
*Which I believe I stole from sgbm in a previous incarnation, but...
Posted by: Another Ben | September 17, 2009 12:11 AM
Nerd of Redhead - I never made any claim that women were not competent. If I did, please point out exactly where, and I will apologise, because it is certainly not what I meant.
I said you agree with me because you mentioned a scenario in which a right might be over-ruled. That's pretty much what I've been saying. If a right can be over-ruled it's not "absolute", unless your definition of absolute is different from mine.
My inane opinion is that this is an argument about individual rights, and in what circumstances those rights are allowed to be curtailed.
I'm trying to generalise because abortion is such an emotive issue and some people seem to have difficulty with separating the moral aspect of the discussion with the emotional one.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 12:19 AM
Here's something to keep in mind:
As I noted above and Steinem (in the piece I linked to) made clear, control over women is a common element of authoritarian governments. But in practice it doesn't end there. In supporting it, you support the growth of a state that makes all manner of decisions over people's sexuality and reproduction. Even if you're not female, this will likely include you. You have to decide if you have a problem with that.
The fight for our human rights is the fight for everyone's human rights.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 12:27 AM
@SC, OM
I did not respond to your post #516 because I do not "support restrictive abortion policies". My position on what the current laws should be is outlined in several places, but here it is again from #595:
Doo Shabag wrote:
I have yet to see anyone here disagree with that sentiment. I think what I am suggesting above would go a long way toward reducing abortions. Sorry, but you don't get to decide what people discuss. It's fine with me if you don't want to participate, but I don't understand your anger with those who do. Yeah, my statement that women should be able to get abortions at any time no questions asked is totally about my desire to control women. Wtf? That doesn't even make any sense.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 17, 2009 12:37 AM
Doo Shabag
as an aside, does anyone else find it really hard to take someone who calls themselves douchebag seriously?
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 12:41 AM
Doo Shabag,
You're an idiot. Carlie explained the problem with what you're doing @ #613, and I have nothing to add to that. Why don't you try dropping the defensiveness and trying to understand what she's saying? Your posts are here for anyone to read. Stop digging.
I get to express my anger and tell you to fuck off any time I want. This is Pharyngula.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 12:43 AM
@Ichthyic
Ha! Probably. If it makes people feel better I can come up with something sciencey, like you have "Ichthyic" instead of "fishy". :)
Posted by: Old Thrashburg | September 17, 2009 12:44 AM
Pot, meet Kettle.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 17, 2009 12:45 AM
THIS/b>
IS
PHARYNGULA!
*pictures SC's boot kicking douchebag over the edge of a deep well*
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 12:48 AM
Occur to you that he might actually be an ichthyologist? Are you a scientist?
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 12:57 AM
@SC, OM
I do understand what she is saying. I get the problem that she, and you, and some others have with the hypothetical situation and in some cases with me even bringing up a hypothetical situation. I just don't agree that it or any subject is taboo. Afterall, "This is Pharyngula". I am actually hoping that you tell me to fuck off after every post I make in any thread, regardless of the topic, content, or time from today.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 1:02 AM
@SC, OM
Um, yeah on both counts. Sorry, next time I will include more than one smiley to make it more obvious that I am making a joke.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 1:04 AM
Poof! goes the straw.
I am actually finding that rather creepy.
I'll have forgotten this in short order (not the content of the discussion, just your identity).
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 1:07 AM
Hard to believe on the latter.
Or you could just make it funny. Either way.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 1:21 AM
Hah! You have clearly stated that you have a problem with exploring the hypotheticals, so it is no strawman for me to say you think it is taboo. If you'd like to restate things fine. So? Noted. I'll work on my jokes if you work on your sense of humor.Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 1:24 AM
See here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/molly.php
2+ years ago.
If you want to pun on this blog, you need to step up your game, Massen-gill.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 1:30 AM
I never claimed it was original, and I'm ok stipulating that I suck at jokes.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 1:34 AM
I don't have to. Carlie said it already. Look, you're not acting as (pay attention to that - this is not about your inner fucking dialogue or motives) a fucking ally. Let the scales fall from your eyes. Your contributions here have contributed to negative outcomes (including death) for women. Here's a restatement: Fuck you and the hypothetical you rode in on.
Gah, that's confused.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 1:48 AM
@SC, OM
Wow, this is just an absurd statement. You honestly believe that things posted here in the last 24 hours have contributed to a woman's death? Seriously?
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | September 17, 2009 1:52 AM
I find it absolutely fascinating that anyone would invent a clearly fictional ("hypothetical") medical hocus-pocus and use it to tell women what rights we would not have in his also-fictional hypothetical world.
You know how you feel when you read a book and realize that the author wrote in in bad faith? Bad taste in your mouth and contempt for the author.
I wonder what, exactly, kicked off this chain of fiction and rhetoric in its author.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 1:58 AM
@Ron Sullivan
Concern noted.
I am an awful person because I believe that women should be able to have fetuses removed from their bodies at any time for any reason, but if there is no additional burden on the woman then the fetus should be saved if possible. Shame on me.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 2:07 AM
Germany, 1930: "Of course, I believe that Jews should have all civil rights. ...But we should consider a situation in which 98% of professors are Jews..."
Posted by: John Morales | September 17, 2009 2:14 AM
Sigh. Holes, digging, etc.
Doo Shabag, I think, is advocating for fetal human rights, as per his first post:
I make it he wants those rights to begin to apply at the threshold of viability (were said fetus to be extracted), and he considers this fetal right-to-life trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy.
It's in defending this claim against accusations of imposing upon women that he's dug his hole — though, as has been pointed out, there's de-facto support for a similar stance to his in current law in Australia and other countries.
Can't have it both ways (not without hypothetical technology, anyway).
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 2:20 AM
@SC, OM
Really, Nazi imagery? That's disappointing.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 2:30 AM
@John Morales
I am not. I said that is what the debate SHOULD be about, but it is not. I never stated that I thought the fetal right to life EVER trumps the woman's rights, and when I saw that people were taking it the wrong way I apologized and clarified again and again. Because they do not ever trump the woman's rights. I admit, I did I shitty job of explaining it, but I thought it would be obvious that my use of the word "parasitic" to describe the fetus would make it clear which side I was on. I was wrong.
Perhaps if you read it in the context of someone who is being honest when they say that "women should be able to have fetuses removed from their bodies at any time for any reason, but if there is no additional burden on the woman then the fetus should be saved if possible" my meaning would not be so garbled.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 2:36 AM
Address the analogy.
Posted by: John Morales | September 17, 2009 2:40 AM
Doo Shabag, fair enough, though it seemed like backpedalling.
I accept what you now write:
I have highlighted the problematic clause.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 2:41 AM
I would if I found it analogous. It just reads to me like you have supported Godwin's Law.Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 2:49 AM
Why?
Do you have a response to the specific analogy I offered? Do you even understand it? If not, I can explain.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 2:55 AM
@John Morales
I can see that, but my argument was really that the fundies will not say the fetal rights trump the woman's, they will say it is wrong to "kill the innocent". How the argument is framed has a big influence on which side people choose, and so I was suggesting what I think is the proper frame to use to move people to the pro-choice side of the aisle.
I understand the highlighted clause is the one that people have a problem with, but I have seen few decent arguments against it. Because "no additional burden on the woman" is a huge component of that and people tend to ignore it and accuse me of wanting forced c-sections. So perhaps it could not be invoked in any case in the next two or five years, or maybe just one. Or maybe it could never be invoked, because honestly the best argument I saw (and I don't recall who posted it, but it is really a great counter argument) is essentially that the fact that the woman knows that her child is out there somewhere is a burden.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 3:00 AM
@SC, OM
As I said in #679
"the fundies will not say the fetal rights trump the woman's, they will say it is wrong to "kill the innocent". How the argument is framed has a big influence on which side people choose, and so I was suggesting what I think is the proper frame to use to move people to the pro-choice side of the aisle."
If it is framed as fetal rights vs. women's rights, the anti-choicers will lose some of the women on their side. Not all of them, but some of them.
Please do, because as I said I do not find it analogous.Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 3:27 AM
Bullshit. And, again, what is the justification for framing it in this fucking manner?
You're either ridiculously stupid or ridiculously disingenuous.
Human beings - Jews - are struggling to preserve and expand their human rights, in a situation in which movements, closely connected to the government, want to abolish them, and in which people are already dying. Someone - a non-Jew - saunters up to the lectern at a public meeting, declaring:
"You'll get very little argument from me, although I would say it should be illegal for Jews - who may well become 98% of the professoriate - to make decisions about the future of academia and the nation according to their laws."
Get it?
Posted by: Roameo | September 17, 2009 3:35 AM
A damn good point which happens to be 100% true. I know that this is stepping beyond the right to bodily autonomy, (a right which feminists, and i proudly include myself under that title, will defend tooth and nail) and into the right of a woman to decide whether or not to bring a life into this world.
I know that adoption is often held up as an alternative option, but ive witnessed first hand the long term effects that it will have on both mother and child. For the mother, it is knowing that there is a life out there that she is responsible for. Someone who will always feel betrayed by her and who she will not be able to meet for 18 years or maybe never meet at all. Add that to the usual christian shame and silence surrounding an unwanted pregnancy and you have an emotional timebomb.
On the other hand, I know plenty of women who have had abortions. It was not an easy descision for any of them, but was always the right choice and had none of the pain of bringing a life into this world and giving it away.
So, anyone who wants to deny a woman's agency in bringing a life into this world needs to realise that you are inflicting a world of hurt, regardless of the physical procedure.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 3:54 AM
@SC, OM
The justification is that there are fewer people who will argue that the fetus is more important than the mother than who will argue that who should not kill innocents. But since I understand that you do not get where I am coming from, let me explain further.
When a fundie says "it is wrong to kill innocents" and a pro-choicer says "yes, but . . ." then they have already lost the argument regardless of whether their next statement is "there is no person being killed" or "but the woman's rights are more important" because they have accepted the frame.
I'm not being disingenuous, I think the pro-choice side is stronger with the argument that the woman's rights can not be subordinated. Because while my wife is strongly pro-choice, you will never convince her that the two fertilized eggs in her womb were anything other than people with distinct personalities in the womb. Trying to do so will just piss her off, when what you are really trying to do is get her to agree that her right to abort comes first (which she will do immediately if you phrase it that way). So call me stupid if you want, that's fine. Oh, how dense of me to not understand the context of your unknown and abbreviated quote. I am stupid.How many times do I have to say that women should be able to have a fetus removed at any time for any reason? I am such a Nazi for believing they should have that right.
Posted by: DingoJack | September 17, 2009 3:58 AM
Ok, lets do a little digging here,
The story broke in WA Today and PerthNow on 21 April 2009. Reporters Marissa Calligeros and Peter Michael (respectively), told that Teagan Simone Leach and her boyfriend Serge Brennan had faced the Cains Magistrates' Court on the previous Thursday (16th July), on charges of 'Procuring an Abortion' and 'Supplying Drugs to cause an Abortion', respectively, the first such case for over half a century. The case was to be held over to 11 June.
The story then re-appeared in the Australian on 12 June in article written by journalist Andrew Fraser and Sean Parnell. Mostly referring to the Queensland Premier defending the use of Section 223 of the Criminal Code (written in 1899, two years before the Federation).
The Courier Mail reported the story on 8 July, briefly rehashing the facts.
Then in August there was a flurry of stories. On 1 August, Jamie Walker and Viva Hyde in the Australian filled in some extra detail. Mr Brennan, who had immigrated to Australia from the Ukraine in 2003, allegedly asked his sister to smuggle a Chinese version of the abortifactant RU486 from that country around Christmas 2008. The drug is legally proscribed by doctors, for women in cases of medical complications during pregnancy. Both pro and anti abortion advocate are extremely surprised by the Police Prosecutor taking up this case. The Premier, under pressure to have a more open and transparent government, is under the spotlight.
The Australian kept the story simmering, on the % august they printed a story by Walker and Hyde, adding extra details on how the discovery was made. An informant in the unrelated murder of Lance Sobieralski, gave police a tip-off. The police entered and searched Mr Brennen & Ms Leach's house and found the empty blister packs of RU486. It was also revealed that pro-abortion Dr Caroline de Costa, said she had been told the couple had been fire-bombed [by whom I wonder? Could it have been by either Jamie Walker or Viva Hyde, by any chance? The police were not informed of 'fire-bombings'].
By 3 September the Australian was reporting that the charges against Ms Leach had been dropped because, as it was revealed in court, the police had not tested the blister-pack, for chemical residue. There was insufficient evidence to charge her.
A week later the Age was noting that section 223 of the Queensland Criminal code was being revised to give clearer guidance on the law.
Then along came Anne Baraclough, right there on the front-lines in Sydney, rehashing the story exactly as it was known five months earlier. Well done Anne! Perhaps I'll nominate you for the "Campbell Reid Trophy for Brazen Recycling Other People's Work" [aka 'The Barra'] this year. - DJ
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 3:59 AM
@Roameo
Yeah, I think you are probably right.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 4:38 AM
What?
Ah. So we're developing policy based on fundies.
I'm not saying that. What are you talking about? Who's saying that, and what does it have to do with your other arguments?
Oh, now you're arguing feminist strategy? No. Respond to my posts, flairer.
Look, you and your wife both sound like douchebags. I don't give a flying fuck about your experiences. Keep your idiotic hypotheticals OFF MY BODY.
NOTE: TO ALL OF THE WIVES OF THE FAUX-, QUASI-, AND APPRARENTLY ANTI-FEMINISTS WHO POST HERE: YOU ARE SILENT, IF YOU EXIST AT ALL. I PERSONALLY DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY AUTHORITY WITHIN YOUR MARRIAGE YOU'LL POST YOURSELVES OR TELL YOUR SOs TO STOP SPEAKING FOR YOU.
No, I don't give a shit what either of you assholes thinks. I know more about social-movement strategy than you'll ever learn. Kiss my ass, goalpost-mover.
Indeed. Now I'm wondering why I even bothered.
Posted by: Hyperon | September 17, 2009 4:41 AM
It's not complicated. Women's rights don't bear even slightly on the controversy concerning abortion. They aren't of any relevance at all. ANYONE who has no issue with "slippery slope" arguments, and grants that a fetus is not an individual and/or a sentient being, will INELUCTABLY allow that a woman has the right to choose whether to have an abortion.
Suppose, however, that it does amazingly turn out to be the case that a fetus is capable of horrific suffering. Suppose, alternatively, that someone can produce a coherent argument that abortion creates a logical slide into social meltdown. Clearly all the petty feminist whining in the world about women's rights to "do what they want with their bodies" can't possibly override either one of these considerations.
Posted by: Walton | September 17, 2009 4:47 AM
strange gods: I have a reply waiting for you on the Texan thread.
Posted by: Hyperon | September 17, 2009 4:53 AM
SC, #671,
I think PZ should contemplate banning you from this blog for highly offensive trivializing of the Holocaust. Women in the West are in nowhere near the same situation that Jews were in in Nazi Germany, you offense-seeking, insecure, whiny fucking femifascist. It's not even in the same ballpark.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 17, 2009 4:54 AM
For those who are arguing that a fetus near term has some rights which could trump those of the pregnant woman:
If the woman feels that her fetus has rights which should be taken into account, _I will trust the woman to take responsibility and make decisions on that basis_. _She_ can decide what the balance is between her rights and the fetus' rights. Who else should?
If the woman _doesn't_ feel that her fetus has rights which should be taken into account, _I will trust the woman to take responsibility and make decisions on that basis_. Who else should?
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 4:56 AM
Suppose a mushroom can surf on striped bacon. Suppose lesbians take over the Vatican with their Bible play...
Suppposing is fun! Can we do more?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 17, 2009 4:57 AM
Oh luck, Hyperon is on the "whiny feminists" kick again. What's wrong, diddums? Feeling inadequate?
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 5:06 AM
Yes, I'm sure PZ will take that under advisement. Does the concept of an analogy or the notion of basic human rights (where is this limited to "the West," I wonder? did you read the links?) utterly elude you, you hyperbolic fuck? Do you know anything about history, you sexist shit?
[...Still no one addressing the actual analogy...]
Posted by: Hyperon | September 17, 2009 5:07 AM
Unlike SC, I don't have a psychologically interesting need to call others stupid and to turn every thread into a feminist whinge-fest.Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 17, 2009 5:09 AM
Ooh, a hypothetical for Doo!- consider what's going to happen once we get human cloning sorted out. Then instead of just throwing away the appendix if it has to be removed, we'll be able to care for it and bring it up into an entire healthy new person! What a wonderful outcome. Of course, you won't have any say in whether or not we grow your clone. No problem there, right? After all, we wouldn't want to do any harm to a hypothetical future person if we have the chance to create one.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 5:19 AM
Aaaaaaaaand still. You do realize how pathetic it makes you look to evade substantive arguments, right? But by all means, keep up the ad homs. They're all you've got.
Posted by: Hyperon | September 17, 2009 5:20 AM
Yes, I do understand the concept of analogy, and I do know my history. You apparently don't, or you would not be so oblivious to why your above post represents a shockingly absurd trivializing of the Holocaust.If you're so interested in misogyny in the wider world, then Islamic misogyny ought to be your primary concern. You whine a lot on this blog, but I don't remember Islam even once being the subject of your whining. On the contrary, you even seem to obscure the cruelty of Islam by over-emphasizing "Western imperialism", and persistently playing up trivial little bullshit such as there being too many males on a poster of famous scientists.
Posted by: Hyperon | September 17, 2009 5:22 AM
What substantial arguments, fuckface?Rich that you, of all people, would complain about ad homs.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 17, 2009 5:25 AM
I think PZ should contemplate banning you from this blog for highly offensive trivializing of the Holocaust.
are you studying Drama Queens 101 or something?
Was it your homework to create the most silly bit of hyberbole you could?
your concern is noted.
and it is stupid.
Posted by: johannes | September 17, 2009 5:28 AM
Strange that places like Queensland or the midwest of the US that had been socialist or progressive in the early 20th century are now among the most conservative quarters of the western world.
Posted by: Hyperon | September 17, 2009 5:34 AM
Funny that when I do it I'm a drama queen. When SC and some others do it (with much less justification), they're Noble and Righteous.Posted by: DrFrank | September 17, 2009 5:36 AM
I have to agree that SC's Nazi analogy was unnecessary and not at all comparable.
It would only have worked, as I see it, if a complete ban on abortion was being suggested due to the possibility of some women electing to abort late on, but this was not the case.
Even then it would be veering dangerously close to Godwin.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 5:39 AM
Doubtful.
Beyond doubtful.
Idiot.
No, not necessarily. Catholic Church, perhaps?
I've done no whining, but you may want to check out my blog for examples of struggles against Islam.
Wrong. Again, see my blog.
Ah. And there we are.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/an_inspirational_poster.php
What have you contributed to this thread, Hyperon? To this blog? Anything? Ever?
Posted by: Hyperon | September 17, 2009 5:50 AM
Wow, shocking. You really don't have a clue. I did browse your blog. I remember nothing about Islam, and several posts in which you celebrate that buffoon Chomsky, who's possibly done more than anyone else in the world to deter the liberal left from criticizing Islam. Didn't say I have. How is this relevant?Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 5:52 AM
Yeah. I give a shit. Try again. And when you do, address the article by Steinem that I linked to above. Address the issue of authoritarian government. (And address how wild, unactualized hypotheticals are used politically in any context.)
And note that women are dying every fucking day unnecessarily, you callous asshole, due to authoritarian reproductive policies. Talk to me about unnecessary when that's not the case.
Posted by: robertDW | September 17, 2009 5:54 AM
John Morales@672:
Doo Shabag wasn't arguing that exact argument. I was, almost. If the last sentence said "this fetal right-to-life can, under some circumstances trump the mother's right to bodily autonomy", then it would be a good summation.
Just clarifying - not trying to continue this discussion. Both Doo Shabag, Another Ben, and myself have stated we agree women have rights. SGBM and co have not explicitly said that foetus have no rights, but they certainly have failed to agree to answer my questions on that matter.
Given that (SGBM and co apparently thinking foetus have no rights, even up to just before the point of birth), there isn't any point in having the discussion, just as I wouldn't bother having the discussion with a Xian fundie who thinks that a just fertilised egg has all the rights of a newborn. I think there is a spectrum, and was trying to debate the spectrum with fundamentalists of a different sort who have it pinned down at one end.
SGBM, Ithycic, etal: can you think of even one scenario where the right of the baby to live overrides the right of the mother to bodily autonomy? One? Screw someone forcing a c-section - that was my example in response to somebody else's strawman. Come up with your own. If you need a starting point: would it be okay to prevent a woman, at 8 months gestation, shooting herself in her own abdomen in an attempt to terminate her pregnancy? As a follow-up: would it be okay to prevent a man, or a non-pregnant woman, shooting him/herself in his/her abdomen? As a final follow-up to that: would it be okay to prevent a woman, at 8 months gestation, to shoot herself in the abdomen if the intent was self-harm instead of terminating the pregnancy?
If you need to have an active violation of bodily autonomy, then which is worse: to shoot a pregnant women in the abdomen, or shoot a man in the abdomen?
Want to get away from severe lasting physical harm? Tasing or using pepper spray against a violent pregnant woman vs tasing or using pepper spray against an equally violent man? (of similar build and strength - let's steer away from the stereotypes)
(Before anyone paints words on me, I think it is permissible to prevent anyone inflicting that degree of harm on themselves, and inflicting harm on pregnant women is worse, to me, than inflicting said harm on a non pregnant women which is marginally worse than inflicting said harm on a man)
Don't like these? Come up with your own. I want to know: is there ANY circumstance, no matter how extreme, where the foetus has a right to life that is not subordinate to the whims and decisions of the mother? If you think there is, all you have to do is say yes - I'm not even asking for a description. Because right now you look to me like you would stand aside if the women drank a series of RU486 & vodka cocktails in front of you while smoking tobacco & marijuana cigars at 8 months.
Posted by: Walton | September 17, 2009 5:57 AM
Stephen Wells,
While I'm not necessarily opposed to late-term abortions - and I'm not going to express an opinion on the subject, especially in this particularly acrimonious thread - the above is an absurd argument.
Let's assume for a minute that a foetus does have rights which should be taken into account. (Again, I'm not necessarily arguing that it does have any such rights.) But if it does have rights, which are in conflict with the wishes of the woman and must be balanced against her rights, then to allow her to make the final decision about those rights would violate the legal principle of nemo iudex in causa sua: no one should be judge in their own cause.
The whole reason we have courts and a legal system is because one person's rights must sometimes be balanced against another person's rights - and, in all such cases, an impartial person or body must adjudicate between A's rights and B's rights, and decide whose wishes will prevail. This isn't about "not trusting women"; the whole point of an impartial legal system is that we don't trust anyone to be a judge in their own cause. In general, if A and B both have rights, and their rights are in conflict, then it would be unfair, and contrary to natural justice, for A to make the final decision on whose rights should prevail.
I must reiterate that I'm not necessarily asserting that a foetus actually has any rights. And, even if a foetus does have rights of some sort, it is arguable that a woman has an absolute right of sovereignty over her own body, and therefore has the right to exclude the foetus from it. So I'm not denying that there are strong arguments for unconditional abortion rights - and, indeed, I would characterise myself as pro-choice. However, I'm seeking to specifically address Stephen Wells' argument, which, for the reasons I have given, I consider to be a weak one.
Posted by: DrFrank | September 17, 2009 5:59 AM
I'm sorry, did I say anywhere that I disagree with your basic position? If you think that, you are mistaken - I think the situation in the US (and elsewhere) is terrible and it should be much easier to get a referral and ideally free to get an abortion (perhaps if the healthcare reforms go through, if any luck).I was just calling out something that I thought was an unfair comparison when dealing with Hyperon's position.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 6:03 AM
Do elaborate.
Then browse again. I'm not responsible for your ignorance.
You're an ignoramus with a chip on his shoulder about Chomsky. Have a specific substantive point to make? Make it.
OK, so you're a troll and proud. That it?
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 6:11 AM
Who cares? What you need to address is "how wild, unactualized hypotheticals are used politically in any context," related to the original argument:
It's about a certain type of behavior.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 17, 2009 6:14 AM
Thank you Walton, that is the essence of what I have been saying, distilled better than I could do it.
Posted by: Hyperon | September 17, 2009 6:17 AM
If you think Catholicism comes close to the misogyny perpetrated by Islam, you really need to get a fucking clue. You really need to learn something about, you know, life.Posted by: DrFrank | September 17, 2009 6:20 AM
Sorry, but I'm not going to bother addressing anything - if you'd obeyed PZ's three-post rule and not immediately assumed the absolute worst of me and directly insulted me, I would have bothered to engage you properly. Right now, though, I have bugger all motivation to do so.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 6:25 AM
Bzzt. No, you, Dr. Binary. But of course you don't care about actual women in any culture, just which you care to attack. So women in Catholic-dominated countries are SOL.
You may want to review my link above.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 17, 2009 6:30 AM
A little, but I'm not really in a position to talk, am I? o.o
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 6:32 AM
First, PZ rocks, but I don't obey anything or anyone. Second, this is evasive bullshit.
Posted by: John Morales | September 17, 2009 6:35 AM
robertDW,
I shall be explicit, then: I personally think a fetus should have only what rights its mother chooses to give it¹, but that a baby has full human and legal rights².
On the other hand, I will abide by whatever the law states.
On a personal note, neither my wife nor I wanted (nor have) children, but she made it very clear to me that, should she become pregnant, abortion would be out of the question.
We've been careful.
--
¹ Because it's part of her body.
(Subject to the caveat of compos mentis)
² Including the right to compensation for any deliberate harm done to it in utero.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 6:36 AM
Er, I'd take you very seriously.
Posted by: Roameo | September 17, 2009 6:38 AM
Sure, so the church is slightly fairer to women than Islam. Thats not not hard, and it doesnt make the church any less mysogenistic. Any advances made have not been the result of enlightened leadership, they have been forced on the church by the feminist movement and its gradual acceptance in the west. Once you go into areas that havent been influenced by feminism, the church is back to its old tricks
I have to quote stanhope in saying "how does their suck make our suck, suck any less?"
Posted by: Hyperon | September 17, 2009 7:03 AM
My parents are Catholic, and I once lived in a rather devoutly Catholic part of Scotland. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I haven't come across any Catholic burqas or Catholic circumcision. Haven't seen any Catholic honour killings, or laws passed in Catholic countries which forbid women from leaving the house without male relatives. Etc.I'm someone who actually tries to make progress in understanding the world and in discussing real-world issues. Islam is hugely, massively more of an evil in the world than Catholicism, and unlike you I'm not going to coat over this important truth merely because it's trendy to do so. Learn to think for yourself and then we might be able to have a serious discussion.
Posted by: Wolfhound | September 17, 2009 7:18 AM
No, Robert, I can't think of even one scenario where the "right of the baby to live" overrides the right of the mother to bodily autonomy. Sorry, no matter how icky I might personally find it nor how fabulous and miraculous you have found your own proto-children to be, the woman's rights must always trump the non-existance rights of the fetus.
And to me, hooking up a baby to multiple tubes and keeping it in an incubator to keep it alive doesn't make it "viable". As I said, just my opinion and likely to enflame those who have had premies that would have otherwise died had they not been kept alive through such extreme means. Shrug.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 17, 2009 7:18 AM
Hypey, You live quite close to Northern fucking Ireland and never heard of Catholic honour killings?
Blimey.
We know that Catholicism is marginally less bad for women than fundamentalist Islam. This is a bit like modern US torture apologists pointing out that what they've done is not as bad as the Gestapo. It's true, but it's not the important point.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 17, 2009 7:20 AM
Yawn, Robert still doesn't get it, and neither does Ben. At no point when the fetus is inside of the mothers body does it have any rights not granted by the mother. What is so hard to understand? All it takes is looking at the evidence, and not what you want the evidence to say. It avoids making yourself look foolish.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 17, 2009 7:26 AM
So you are still unaware of how the Catholic Church ran children's homes in Ireland ?
Do have anything to offer in defence of such ignorance other than simple stupidity ?
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | September 17, 2009 7:33 AM
My point is harm minimisation. It's where you accept a less than perfect solution, because it saves lives. This does not make me a pseudo feminist. Legal 1st & 2nd trimester choice, and medical reasons for 3rd, is all we really need, in actual real life. Because those whacky hypotheticals are just that, and the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
I totally disagree that conceding on 3rd trimester makes the fundies grab at the rest any easier. I think it removes their biggest deceptive talking point. Now, I might possibly be wrong if I were saying that about the US, but your fundies are much, much, much more powerful than ours.
And jebus christ on a fucking pogo stick I am so sick of those damned ludicrous hypotheticals being all that is ever discussed.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 17, 2009 7:34 AM
John Morales@717:
Then we may as well just agree to disagree, because while I can have a conversation over where to draw the line on foetal rights, I'm not going to accept it as "at birth" - I view that as a strawman extremist position just as absurd as the belief the rights get granted at conception. As far as I can see, the foetus must surely accrue rights during development, and the advent of birth can at most remove a conflict of rights.
I'll also re-iterate my earlier opinion: it is my sincere belief that people like you with your fixed views are equally to blame for the ongoing abortion debate in the US as the fundies at the other end. You people seem to have a problem having a debate and discussion - it's not about hunkering down in your own corner shouting talking points. It's about trying to find a common ground where people can put the debate behind them. If you can't consider being moved from your position at all, it's either because you're convinced your right, or you're not willing to listen.
Not being willing to listen is the definition of a closed mind.
Not willing to admit the possibility of error is equally bad.
(Okay, that's too much - the fundies are worse. But you're still part of the problem, not the solution).
Nice to hear. I also do the same. There's certainly enough people (on both ends of the abortion debate extremes) who won't.
Posted by: Carlie | September 17, 2009 7:37 AM
I still would like to know what's to be done with all of the hypothetical beamed-out feti. Prospective birth parents have a suite of characteristics they're looking for in babies that are most often not met by the available children. If you look at this chart from the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2007 there were about 500,000 kids in foster care, and only 51,000 adopted. That's a lot of leftovers just with the way things are now.
I would also urge anyone who thinks "giving it up for adoption" is always a peachy-keen idea to read The Girls Who Went Away. It covers women who wanted to keep their babies as well as those who didn't want to be pregnant in the first place, but makes it very clear how wrenching a decision that is, with long-term effects, even for women who would rather have gotten an abortion.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 17, 2009 7:42 AM
Pot. Kettle. Black. You need to truly understand what we are saying instead of preaching yourself. Pretending to discuss when you can't admit you are wrong doesn't help a rational discussion either. You have to admit to yourself you just can't let the woman be in total charge until the baby is born.Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 17, 2009 7:45 AM
The problem, Walton and others, is that if you declare that fetuses have rights then you're in the position of marching up to a pregnant woman and telling her that _you can speak better than she can concerning the personhood of the contents of her womb_, so you get to tell her what happens to her body.
I find that disgusting.
Could whoever came up with that hypothetical about people shooting themselves in the abdomen please seek counselling.
Posted by: Hyperon | September 17, 2009 7:48 AM
See, this is the kind of fashionable obscurantism I'm talking about. When speaking to lefties nowadays it's nearly impossible to argue that Islam is significantly worse than Christianity, without being impeded by these cheap and irrelevant distractions.
I'm referring to Islamic women-specific honour killings, for instance for the crime of being raped. I think you'll have a job finding an Irish tradition that's anywhere near equally misogynist. You're simply an idiot if you truly believe in that "marginally". Islam is massively, HUGELY worse for women than Catholicism. As was tragically brought home in a recent news story, Islam promotes arranged marriages between grown men and pre-pubescent girls. Islam forces on hundreds of millions of women highly restrictive dress, and they face beatings and imprisonment if they don't conform. In courts in most Muslim countries, a woman's testimony counts for half the testimony of a man. And so on ad nauseam. There's no room for equivocation here. Islam is worse, significantly, not "marginally" or "slightly". Learn how to read, lamebrain. I never said the Catholic church is unimpeachable. The claim is only that Catholicism is not nearly as misogynist as Islam.Posted by: Chiroptera | September 17, 2009 7:52 AM
Holy shit! Now we're talking about Islam?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 17, 2009 7:53 AM
Robert, _why_ do you think that a fetus "must surely accrue rights during development"? Seriously, why?
You persistently argue that using birth as the marker of personhood is a delay in granting rights that the fetus should have got already. But...
Have you considered the possibility that maybe a newborn isn't, objectively speaking, anything near a fully fledged person? That maybe personhood and rights might _start_ accruing from birth, and that we very generously _bring forward_ the granting of rights all the way to the point of birth?
Maybe you'll find that perspective horrifying, maybe just baffling, maybe you won't bother to consider it at all. But it should stop you using "surely" as if it were an argument.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 17, 2009 8:03 AM
Stephen Well, #732: That maybe personhood and rights might _start_ accruing from birth, and that we very generously _bring forward_ the granting of rights all the way to the point of birth?
This has always been my position, just so you know you're not alone. I've always been afraid to bring it up, thinking it would derail the thread, but seeing how we're now talking about using Star Trek transporters on pregnant time travelling Muslim women....
Posted by: perturbed | September 17, 2009 8:06 AM
Spudbeach @ September 16, 2009 12:00 AM...
Would you care to describe who put the beginning of that internet filter in place, and who is trying to ram it through?
That's right, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. NOT the conservative John Howard, who was George Bush's mate and who offered optional net filtering software free on a government website only to those who wanted it. KEVIN RUDD, THE MAN AUSTRALIA ELECTED TO MAKE IT ALL BETTER AND MAKE THE BAD CONSERVATIVES GO AWAY, WANTS TO RESTRICT THE FREEDOM OF THE INTERNET.
By a curious coincidence he is also a Queenslander.
Queensland is its own, very special place. PZ and others, please don't judge the rest of Australia by it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 17, 2009 8:09 AM
And just why did you bring Islam into this ? Islam was not the topic of conversation so do not complain when people point this out to you.
I suspect you are just planning on doing some trolling. Either way, why not just piss off ?
I note you do not offer an explanation as to why you were ignorant of the abuse by Catholic agencies in Ireland. So we'll just put it down to your being stupid.
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 17, 2009 8:11 AM
Well said Stephan, couldnt agree with you more. I know that this will not be the most popular of opinions but i think that putting the personhood threshold is generous indeed.
When you take into account that a newborn child is less self aware than a cow or sheep, or any animal we would happily kill for food, unless youre a strict vegetarian its hard to see how this baby is a person.
If you want to argue that although not a person at this stage, it has the potential to be in the future... well that problem is pretty well solved by a termination, no person ever existed. If you think it has rights simply because of this potential personhood, good luck finding a point between spermatoza and infant to draw the line.
And if you want to argue that humans are just special... We'll i think that position is technically chauvanist, and I fully want to be able to argue for the personal rights of sufficiently advanced AI in the future.
I know this means that in order to be consistent I must support infanticide. But, if the parents and anyone else emotionally attached to the infant are willing participants, and there is no suffering, WHO is harmed?
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 17, 2009 8:21 AM
should read:
I know that this will not be the most popular of opinions but i think that putting the personhood threshold at birth is generous indeed.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 17, 2009 8:30 AM
Carlie@727:
It's a very interesting question. Carlie, do you live in one of these states:
Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio(*), Oklahoma, or Pennsylvania?
These states, according to the Guttmacher Institute allow later-term abortions for medical reasons, in many cases if the mental health of the mother is at risk, but require a second physician to attend. The other physician is there to treat the foetus if it is viable. This is a real-world application of the principle, albeit with surgical intervention instead of Star Trek beaming.
(Also note that most of these states have the cutoff as "viability" - some have X weeks gestation instead. So, if science progress to the point where we CAN save a foetus at 6 weeks gestation, these states will be mandating it)
This means that at least some of these governments have a policy in place to deal with the scenario of "14 year old girl, victim of incest, rape, doesn't want to raise her daddy's child, couldn't get an abortion until 7 months gestation". (Just trying to come up with an example of clear mental health risk) The law states that she can have the pregnancy terminated, but the foetus will be born. I don't believe the government would force the girl to raise the baby, but I don't know what their policy is. I would speculate that the baby goes into the state's "Safe Haven" adoption program.
Why not ask their health departments? I would avoid New York - they only permit late term abortions if the life of the mother is at risk. Indiana, Pennsylvania and Ohio support life or physical health at risk - they won't let the 14 year old girl have the abortion that late, assuming she's physically developed enough(**) But the others, at least by law, will, and I'm sure they've got a policy. Maybe you can try Illinois?
If you do ask, and get an answer, please post it back here - I would be most interested.
* Ohio's laws are on hold due to court challenge.
** The states in question may have an "incest or rape" exemption; if you want to get picky about that part, drop that qualification from the example. I'd say any 14 year old girl could claim risk to mental health at the thought of raising a child, even without the extra problems of incest or rape.
Posted by: Bobber | September 17, 2009 8:36 AM
Carlie said:
Ignoring for now the comedic beauty of that phrase ("beamed-out feti"), your point is excellent. The conversation often seems to end with "saving the life of the baby", and rarely ever moves on to "...and then" territory.
I've been reading this thread for two days now, and the same arguments I heard while debating abortion ten years ago are being made now. The same problems keep popping up, too - and people are similarly blind. The primary focus in questions regarding abortion is, and always must be, the ability of a woman to make decisions regarding her own body. In matters of personal autonomy (especially this one - I can't think of any that are more intimate or carry potential life-changing impact as pregnancy), the default position must be respect for an individual's control over how her own body is to be used. We are not slaves to an unalterable state imposed by biology, nor should we impose such slavery on others due to what amounts to our own squeamishness or mystical values. ("Because while my wife is strongly pro-choice, you will never convince her that the two fertilized eggs in her womb were anything other than people with distinct personalities in the womb." How is this anything less than mysticism?)
Here's a novel idea for those of my gender who, in this blog, have argued for various limitations on the freedom of women when they become pregnant: try listening to what the women posting here have said. If you find your views at odds with those of human beings who can actually get pregnant and may or may not have abortions, then perhaps you should seriously re-examine your views.
Years ago, the former girlfriend of an official of New Zealand said to me at a dinner party, "We never had a problem with the Maoris until they started acting up." What she never understood was that the Maoris certainly always had a problem with how they were treated by the government - the government just never listened. Perhaps you (men) should listen more, and speak less, regarding issues with which you may not, and in this case CANNOT, have first-hand knowledge.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 17, 2009 8:39 AM
I have very strong opinions about Muslim libertarians having abortions in college auditoriums!
Posted by: Anon | September 17, 2009 8:46 AM
So Bobber, are a woman's arguments made right because she is a woman?
Dangerous path to tread that. There exist Pro-Life women....
Louis
Posted by: Walton | September 17, 2009 8:49 AM
Stephen Wells,
Read my post again - I did not say that foetuses have rights. Indeed, I went to great pains to make clear, at least three times, that I was making no such argument.
I don't intend on getting involved in the abortion debate any further, since (a) we've had the same discussion several times in the past, and (b) this thread is already becoming particularly acrimonious and unpleasant.
Hyperon,
I'd agree that, on average, the social impact of Islam (globally) is worse than that of Christianity. However, this should not obscure the fact that there are several fundamentalist Christian sects, some very large, which are just as oppressive towards women (and gays, and children) as any strain of Islam. Fundies of both the Christian and Islamic varieties deserve equal condemnation, IMO.
Posted by: Louis | September 17, 2009 8:50 AM
Bugger, for some reason my login in failed. Apologies all.
BTW, I agree that women get to make the decision (I hold the same pro-choice views that SC/Carlie/SGBM and others have expressed), I'm just trying to clarify what you mean with the last part of your comment. I'm scared of arguments that ring "X is a member of Y group so their arguments are more logically/factually valid than is X were not a member of Y group."
Other than that, I am looking forward to teleported babies. That made I laugh.
Louis
Posted by: Orion | September 17, 2009 8:51 AM
Sorry, Queensland is like the Aussie version of California.
Posted by: Dianne | September 17, 2009 8:51 AM
I know that this will not be the most popular of opinions but i think that putting the personhood threshold at birth is generous indeed.
It is. The dirty little secret of human development is that newborns and infants are probably not self-aware. Humans generally can't pass the mirror test until about 18 months. This is not a good excuse for infanticide, but does suggest that birth is a generous place to put the threshold. However, it is still the best point: there's no way to tell exactly when any given individual is going to start being self-aware and birth is the point at which the fetus/infant stops being dependent on any given individual and so the rights of others stop being significant.
That having been said, I'm still reasonably ok with limitations on third trimester abortions as long as sensible laws exist to ensure that women don't find themselves unable to obtain an abortion earlier and there are exceptions for life and health of the mother or non-viable fetus.
Posted by: Louis | September 17, 2009 8:52 AM
And typos and login errors oh my. Lesson: Never post from work.
Sod it!
Louis
Posted by: Bobber | September 17, 2009 8:53 AM
Who said anything about "right" or "wrong"? I'm just saying that someone who can be or has been pregnant, who can give or has given birth to children, and/or who can have or has had an abortion, might have an opinion with more weight on this subject than say, oh, a celibate 85-year old who wears medieval robes. Yes, that includes "pro-life" women.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 17, 2009 8:54 AM
Nerd of Redhead@728
I freely admit that I do not believe the woman has the 100% total right of decision over the life of the foetus. I also freely admit that as a direct consequence of that, the woman should not be "in total charge".
The people who do have the say on where these rights are demarcated are the courts and the legislature. The US courts happen to have ruled that the mother does not have 100% total right of decision. That's a fact - you can dislike it, but it's not going away. If you want to have a constructive discussion, you have to start by accepting the fact that the woman is not "in total charge".
Stephen Wells@732:
I actually do believe that some rights accrue over time. For example, I would not allow a newborn baby the right to vote. Some rights also require proof of ability - e.g. the right to drive requires you pass a driving test, as well as merely waiting X years. These are probably better rights - they have a degree of rationale behind them (e.g. you can drive because you have demonstrated an ability to do so). (It would be really good if the right to vote could be limited to people who have proved to be able think rationally and not be swayed easily by blatantly false political slander [e.g. "Obama was born in Kenya"], but there would be no way to test that in a fashion immune to bias; it's safer to cast the franchise as open as possible)
But, as I said, the courts in the US have ruled that a foetus has rights before birth. The right to life being foremost amongst them. Ergo, the act of birth can't grant the right to life - at most it can only remove a conflict. But I've said this before... you keep insisting that the foetus has no rights, when the world around you is insisting that the foetus does.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 17, 2009 8:58 AM
Woman implodes in fetus-beaming disaster?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 17, 2009 9:06 AM
Robert, "the courts in the US" speak for a maximum of 5% of the world, and in practice for rather less; don't tell me what "the world around me" insists on. USA =/= world.
So, independent of what any US courts have said on the matter, do you see how the assumption that the fetus is accruing rights before birth is not so obvious that you can get away with a "surely"?
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 17, 2009 9:13 AM
That is the Legal state of affairs. The courts have no influence over what is ethical. Hell, the US courts dont even have any say over what is legal in my case, as like a lot of the readers here I live outside the states.
Most of us here are not arguing legality, thats for lawyers and politicians, and they must ultimately defer to whatever some douchebag before them in government wrote on a bit of paper. Sure, the laws should reflect what is moral. and in a perfect world they would. But to say that morality should be based around what is legal, is just another argument from authority.
I for one adhere to my own moral code. And I try like hell to make sure it is based in reason, and is as consistent as possible. Now by arguing here we're not going to change any laws. But we can try to make sure that our own moralities, as well as everyone else's, only become more reasonable, fair and consistent. That way, the next time someone we know accidentally falls pregnant, we can offer them the support they need.
What that support is, whether it's emotional support, a ride to the abortion clinic, to be left alone, or as one of the trolls suggested - a stiff coathanger, it will rely on our judgement, and that will be based in the morality we're all trying so hard to define.
Posted by: Dianne | September 17, 2009 9:18 AM
Have you ever thought about what it would look like if there were no restrictions on late term abortions? What would the interaction be between reputable OB/GYNs who performed third trimester abortions and potential patients? Based on how things work for other serious medical problems, I'd guess it would depend on the reasons and situation but might look something like this...
Patient comes in looking for an abortion at 28+ weeks gestation. First question asked is why she wants it. Some potential scenarios...
Pt (between gasps): I need an abortion because my pulmonary artery pressure is 110 and my systemic BP is 90 and I won't survive continued pregnancy.
Doctor: I'm calling an ambulance to get you over to the hospital for an emergency procedure right now. We'll do it as soon as we have the OR ready and cardiology recommendations.
Pt: The ultrasound showed that the baby's head is the size of a bowling ball and the brain is next to non-existent.
MD: I'm very sorry. We'll schedule the procedure now...can you come in tomorrow? Remember not to eat anything after midnight.
Pt: I just realized I was pregnant. Maybe it has to do with being 16 and getting pregnant by a 40 year old who I slept with because he made me feel more mature. I just didn't want to believe that I could be pregnant. It can't happen to me, right?
MD: You need to think this through and be sure it's what you want. Make sure you know all your options, including what the risks of each are. And I've got to call the police to report the incidence of abuse of a minor.
Pt: It's the devil's baby!
MD: (Psych consult)
Pt: I'm mad at my husband/boyfriend and I want an abortion.
MD: Um...we need to talk this over in more detail. Can you come back tomorrow for a second visit? (With any luck she'll have found another way to get back at her SO by then.)
Posted by: Louis | September 17, 2009 9:23 AM
Bobber,
You said nothing about right or wrong, hence why I asked a question and didn't make a statement. I was checking, trying to improve understanding, see?
For example this comment from you:
Would put me at odds with pro-life women. I support abortion fully, in the manner described above by many others. Should I listen to pro-life women simply because they can get pregnant, i.e. because they are women? I'd argue not, despite your completely correct point that the issue affects them infinitely more than it affects me.
I think pro-choice women are more than capable of making good, strong, coherent, logical, fact based arguments in favour of abortion rights (in fact they have done). The fact that they are women is irrelevant to the quality of their arguments.
Forgive my perhaps obscure intent here, but I think, very passionately in fact, that we don't need to make bad arguments for things. There are two things here: 1) who is influenced most by an issue, and 2) the soundness (or otherwise) of an argument made regarding that issue. Point 2) is unaffected by the person making the argument. For example, in a debate between a pro-choice man and a pro-life woman, I'd hope the pro-choice man's arguments would be the one's you favour because of their logical/factual soundness, not because of his possession of a specific set of genitals.
Issue 1) not under question (at least not by me)! And, luckily, we've had on this thread several very eloquent and forceful expressions of the pro-choice position from pro-choice women. I don't listen to these women because they are women, I listen to them because they make bloody good arguments for their position.
I'm not disagreeing with you chastising the more mystic-friendly/obscurantist/foetus teleporting fraternity on this thread, nor am I disagreeing with your comment re: listen to the women per se. I think listening to anyone is a given and as impartially as possible weighing the merits of the arguments they make as arguments (and not on the merits or otherwise of the arguer) is vital. I was just trying to clarify what you were saying.
Ta.
Louis
Posted by: maureen brian | September 17, 2009 9:31 AM
Until we can refine this foetus-beaming technique so that each 3 month, 4 month, ancephalic potential infant lands straight into either its father or any passing lawmaker - whichever is most convenient - with the rules they suggest then applying to them, we will get no sense out of or into some of those above.
I hope that several labs are working on it right now!
Posted by: Bobber | September 17, 2009 9:32 AM
Louis:
I hope I didn't imply that I took offense at your statement!
There is certainly nothing wrong with looking for clarification. You are, of course, right in determining the soundness of an argument. But it has to begin with what you listed as (1) - and I think, for many people, they don't start from there. That's why I brought up the Maori anecdote. People who aren't intimately connected with an issue had better be damn sure that they listen to those who are (of all opinions) before coming to their own conclusions.
So, I will thank you for taking my over general statement and making it clearer!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 17, 2009 9:45 AM
There's your problem. You lie at that step to yourself. Then you lie to us. The woman has the total right to the decision. Her body, her decision. What part of that don't you understand?By the way, you are using technique #3 from the US antiabortionist handbook. Try to sound like you are trying to reach a consensus, but never, ever, move your position. Those of us who have been arguing since Roe v. Wade recognize the lack of consensus growing on your part, just the continued repetition of your wrong opinion.
Posted by: Louis | September 17, 2009 9:47 AM
Bobber:
Oh arse! Have we just agreed on something in a vaguely civil manner? But but but THIS! IS! PHARYNGULA! We're doing something wrong.
Can't you just call me a misogynist baby killer, I'll call you a baby killer misogynist, we'll both tell each other to fuck off and sanity will be restored. Such as it ever is here! ;-)
Louis
P.S. I wasn't sure if you had taken offence or not, but you know how it is with Teh Intarwebs, best to be safe rather than sorry. Now, I have to stop posting from work because I have foetuses to teleport....damn I've said too much.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 17, 2009 10:06 AM
Bobber, #739: ...try listening to what the women posting here have said. If you find your views at odds with those of human beings who can actually get pregnant and may or may not have abortions, then perhaps you should seriously re-examine your views.
I think to be fair we need to listen to the other party in the situation: the fetus!
What do fetuses have to say?
....
Well, I guess I have to go along with pregnant women, then.
Posted by: Carlie | September 17, 2009 10:35 AM
RobertDW, I think you nicked the edge of my point. I was saying that given the hypothetical scenario that any unwanted fetus is gently removed from its mother in such a way so that it is not damaged, then what happens to it? A hypothetical can't ignore all of the supporting environment that has to be envisioned. You did mention that some states have "safe haven" laws, but those simply release the woman from legal responsibilities towards the infant. They do nothing concerning the life of the baby itself. what would that entire lifespan look like in the hypothetical world that has been brought up here? Does the state step in and raise all of the unwanted feti to babyhood? The hospital? Some private charity group? Then what? Where do they go? Who adopts them? How is that process carried out? More bluntly, what happens to all of the babies that nobody wants? The ones that have mental problems or physical deformities or aren't quite the right shade for anyone's liking or sit around too long and get too old for anyone to want? You're talking about a seriously huge investment into social services, which most right-to-lifers will respond to by screaming random scary names like "socialist" and "Stalin" and "Hitler" at anyone who mentions investing in such services.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 17, 2009 12:20 PM
I respect the argument that Cath the Canberra Cook is putting forward. It's a reality-based argument and Cath's intent is maximizing women's freedom; so this deserves more consideration than Robert's and others' arguments which deliberately seek to limit women's freedom. As I don't know the details of Australian law, I won't address the argument as it applies there.
It does not apply in the USA. Settling for a third-trimester elective ban is settling for exactly what we already have protected under Roe v Wade. We have won that argument. But we cannot rest on that victory. Allowing that to be the compromise does nothing to move the Overton window in our direction, but the other side's repetition of the talking point that "life begins at conception" does move the window in their direction. When they're working for a ban on contraception, and we're working just to keep the third-trimester compromise in place, the beloved golden mean will be an even earlier ban.
Also, there is no way to craft a ban that actually prevents elective late term abortions without killing women. Say you have a ban that allows doctors to perform abortions at any time for medical necessity. But, as anti-choicers like to point out, sometimes the doctors are wrong, and the woman could have survived. There is no perfect way to discern all cases as "she will certainly live without an abortion" and "she will certainly die without an abortion." What happens when doctors can only say "she might die without an abortion?" You can't craft a law that bans late term abortion and allows medical exceptions under particular circumstances without still killing the women who didn't obviously meet the circumstances. Even the most carefully crafted anti-choice law is a death sentence.
Dead women are what you'll get if you require that doctors be able to provide testimony in court and make their case that the abortion was necessary. There will always be uncertain cases, and if the doctor has to balance another person's life against the doctor's own legal liability, some women are going to die in the calculation.
On the other hand, what if you make a law that just allows abortion whenever a doctor affirms that it was necessary, the doctor does not have to provide any evidence or testimony, and no legal challenges can be made to the affirmation? Then there will be elective abortions done. If I were a doctor, I would just sign the affirmation for any elective abortion, and ignore the restrictive spirit of the law. I'm sure I'm not the only person who would do this. So such a law will not prevent elective abortions as it's intended to. It will be nothing but meaningless words. If you think that will be useful nevertheless as a political compromise, maybe you'll be right, but I would suggest that it just provides a framework to later bring in an enforceable law with real teeth, and then we're back to killing women in borderline cases.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 17, 2009 12:42 PM
A few points I would like to make:
We're arguing a few different things on this thread, so I'm just going to point them out...
1. When should abortion be legal. I'm of the opinion that it should always be legal, up to birth. Some are arguing for various points during a woman's pregnancy. These points seem to be brain activity, viability, 8 mo 29 days.
2. Specific legal realities in a few countries including the topic of the post and the USA. The point I'd like to make is that Americans (like me) have a different experience with the anti-choice wingnuts than many other people do. We have polls like this. Where 44% of Americans think abortion should be illegal is all or most cases. That's our reality and that's why any concession on abortion (even seemingly innocuous restrictions on very late-term abortion) results in the more chipping away at the rights of women. In the USA there are all sorts of weird restrictions on abortion clinics including specifying ceiling height. These laws aim at shutting down abortion clinics to reduce access. Hint, if someone is talking about a "fetus," they're probably American. If they're talking about a "foetus," they're probably not an American.
3. Weird hypothetical situations involving Star Trek transporters and mechanical wombs. These do not merit discussion because the reality is that women are dying from lack of access to abortion is the USA and elsewhere, and it's simply not possible to do this with current technology or in the foreseeable future. As others have pointed out, there's also the issue of what happens to the baby that's a result of the mechanical womb. Many women choose abortion because they don't want to have a child and they don't want to give their child up for adoption. I won't provide a link since others already have, but adoption is tremendously hard on both the woman and the child.
4. Some American states require a second physician to be present at late-term abortions in case the fetus doesn't die during the procedure. These are not births, for the most part the women have not gone through labor. It's an abortion. Sometimes the abortion doesn't succeed in terminating the fetus before it is removed from the woman. The fetus is not born! This is not a birth. It's a failed abortion. Use the proper terminology.
Posted by: DingoJack | September 17, 2009 12:50 PM
My dear Orion (#744) - Queensland is the equivalent of Texas, not California.
I notice no one took any notice of the actual story as it developed from April to September, 2009. Well, hell, why let truth get in the way of a good story, right? Journalism at it's finest! - DJ
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 12:55 PM
@SC, OM
Since that is who your argument is with re: today's laws, yes, you should be basing your policy and countering their beliefs. Yes, read it again. I said this is what it SHOULD be about - how is that not arguing strategy, regardless of which side you think I'm on? You should, because it is people's experiences you are arguing against when you tell them that a 38 week old fetus is not a person. You might know something about it, but your strategy seems to be to scream at people rather than actually try to have a rational discussion. That is usually not effective.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 17, 2009 12:57 PM
DingoJack, #762: Well, hell, why let truth get in the way of a good story, right?
Especially stories that involve teleporting fetuses out of the wombs of radical Muslim terrorists!
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 1:02 PM
@Stephen Wells
Thanks, I enjoy these even if they irritate others. So you've raised the ethical issue - if we can, does that mean we should? The main difference here is that the human grown from an appendix is a clone of the original.Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 1:31 PM
Because he's a 3-chord wonder:
Chomsky lefties Islam Islam
Chomsky lefties Islam Islam
And not that it would matter to the larger debate, but I'd like him to produce some actual quotations from Chomsky's supposed letter/email to him re porn.
Christianity (mainly Catholicism) is the primary impediment to women's rights in my hemisphere. But you don't care about women's struggles anywhere, so your ploy is noted and rejected.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 17, 2009 1:38 PM
Are your parents still alive, Doo Shabag? Will they take bribes?
Posted by: Bexley | September 17, 2009 1:49 PM
@ Doo
So why does that make a difference? Your appendix is still a bunch of cells that could with the right technology be turned into another full grown human being. Same as a foetus that has been aborted and has about as much self awareness!
I think someone above was asking how you decide what rights a newborn baby has accrued. This seems a difficult question because ultimately how would you measure what rights a creature has accrued?
I suppose one answer to this would be to ask do you think animals have any rights? If you do look for an animal that is broadly comparable with a newborn baby (in terms of intelligence etc) and the baby presumably should have similar rights.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | September 17, 2009 2:17 PM
Doo Shabag@670:
@Ron Sullivan
Concern noted.
That's not concern; that's contempt. You get amazed by the heat you're getting from women in this thread and apparently haven't figured out what you did to earn it. You started out with a "hypothetical" that sounded a whole lot like something you thought was possible already—how? Sieve on the toilet?FedEx used jumbo-size pads to the lab?—and then got backed up enough to talk about how you meant Star-Trek-style transporters all along. (And never get around to imagining what that would feel like, or any practical consequences to your imagined procedure.) You didn't say right off the bat that you meant frozen zygotes in fertility labs, which certainly would have made the point you claim you want to make and already exist, no hypotheticals about it. What obligations do you think fertility labs have to these?
Instead, you go on about abortions and write completely naively, in a detachment that I'd bet money you think is virtuous objectivity, about the bodies they happen to. Then a couple more guys come in with various O-Pin-Yuns about how to push women around: "don't have absolute rights" et alii; and then you get the debate team: e.g. Louis:
Should I listen to pro-life women simply because they can get pregnant, i.e. because they are women? I'd argue not, despite your completely correct point that the issue affects them infinitely more than it affects me.
I think pro-choice women are more than capable of making good, strong, coherent, logical, fact based arguments in favour of abortion rights (in fact they have done). The fact that they are women is irrelevant to the quality of their arguments.
Louis, the point isn't that you have to agree with either pro-choice or "pro-life" women. You're being asked to listen. I'm glad you're pro-choice and all, but that's not all that's going on here and we won't resolve the matter in yet another huge Pharyngula thread.
Though it might be an interesting venue for it... Someplace outside my body.
OK, disclaimer: It's all outside my body now; I'm nearly 60 and had my tubes tied decades ago.
The fact that women can "make strong arguments in favour of abortion rights" is, frankly, a side issue. We've been making such arguments for centuries and between laws and social censure we're still up Shit Creek, as my sainted mother used to say, in rather a lot of the world.
You guys are paying games and we're remembering (and anticipating, and given the size of the readership here, probably experiencing) real, nasty consequences. You bet you're getting heat.
Doo, 765: Thanks, I enjoy these even if they irritate others.
Figured out why, yet? Any chance y'all could go play your video games where people whose faces are on the targets won't have to watch?
Do I have a proposed solution? Just as a start: Does anyone else here remember Jane?
Posted by: SC, OM | September 17, 2009 2:25 PM
That was just great.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 3:11 PM
@Carlie
You raise a good point Carlie. As I said before there are already too many people in the world and I think it is unsustainable at current population levels and current technology. I don't know how that will change in the future. And I don't know what the right answer is. I'm sure it is a tough decision with long-term mental health affects. Happy to talk about this too.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 3:22 PM
@Bobber
There is nothing mystical about it, fetuses behave in different ways in the womb. Attributing it to personality differences might not be fully scientifically supported, but that hardly makes it mystical. But let me put it another way - as soon as they were born people noted that the girl was quieter and "more reserved" and the boy was louder. I could use more words to explain this, but hopefully you get the gist. Do you suppose that this magically happened when the doctors pulled them from her womb? It is an ongoing process that probably starts when the brain beings to develop and continues to today and into the future.
And still, let me repeat, the woman's rights to have the fetus removed from her body should not be subordinated.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 3:47 PM
@Dianne #752 - nice scenarios, we can hope we'll get there.
@Pygmy Loris #761
What should be done in the here and now seems to have good general agreement among the posters here. If you think that is what we should be discussing, feel free to do so. I see it as a wank fest. "I agree with you", "No, I agree with you."
I find it interesting to discuss future ethical issues, and it is fine with me if you don't. While the transporter thing might be far fetched, advances in tissue repair (which is being actively research by the US government) make it foreseeable that in the next 50 years a c-section could be the easiest, most painless, and shortest recovery way for a woman to obtain an abortion. And if you don't want to discuss it, then don't.
But since you hate that hypothetical, let me give you a real world one that is possible today. A woman is 23 weeks pregnant and decides to get an abortion for personal reasons. She is on her way to the clinic when she is in a car accident and is rushed to the hospital unconscious. She is given an emergency c-section to save her life, and the doctors save the fetus as well. I'm pretty sure the majority here will say that she then has the option to either keep it or give it up. Killing it is not an option, although it was a valid one while it was inside her. This is the situation I was trying to get at with the transporter stuff - if the life or death of the fetus has no bearing on the physical health of the woman, is it ethical to kill it? Some people have raised very good points about the mental health of the mother and child, as well as what happens to all of these kids. I never claimed to have all of the answers, just looking for discussion.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 3:52 PM
@strange gods before me
One is. If you'd like to make an offer I'll pass it along and let you know.
Posted by: Louis | September 17, 2009 3:53 PM
@ Ron Sullivan #769:
I think you missed the point of my question to Bobber.
Personally, I adopt a position based on the quality of the support it has. If the pro-life people could make a good, coherent, fact based, pragmatic, harm minimising case for their position, I'd be a pro-life person. I think it should go without saying that they can't do this and thus I am not. In fact it's more than that, the pro-choice arguments DO fit these criteria, hence I'm a pro-choice person.
You seem to see this, and discussion about it, as "playing games". I think you're wrong. Very wrong. I'm far from the only person who follows an argument/claim back to the evidence/logical coherence for its quality. I vote, people with this same proclivity vote, people with this same proclivity make laws etc, not all of them are pro-choice women. The quality of people's arguments MATTERS whether you like it or not. Of course it's a side issue when compared to the horrors of the state of women's rights globally (or even just close to home), but I don't think that prevents anyone from discussing it. It's far from the totality of the discussion, and I don't think you'll find me claiming anywhere that it is the only thing going on here. I think you're projecting your preconceptions onto a really very innocent aside I made to one poster.
I am certainly not going to disagree that women the world over have a vastly shittier time of it (to put it very mildly) than men do when it comes to reproductive rights etc (at least). In fact where you would get the impression that I would is beyond me, but I digress. The fact that women have been making these wonderful quality arguments for centuries is by no means irrelevant, but I haven't been alive for centuries. I wasn't born with pro-choice arguments pre-existing in my brain. I had to learn about the issue, bash the ideas about, look at the evidence. And I'm not alone. In fact I think about 6.4 billion people are in roughly the same position intellectually! Each generation has to learn this stuff at least partially anew. Hence why such discussions ARE relevant, although, as I have already agreed they are a tiny part of the massive whole and a side issue in general.
Also what heat? I wasn't aware I was getting heat, and I wasn't aware of complaining about any heat. I think you've got me confused with someone else. I also don't expect any issue to be resolved in a Pharyngula thread. This is somewhere to come for discussion. It isn't where I do any form of activism or general attempt to change the status quo on any issue.
Like I said, I think you're projecting a different intent onto my question than I have.
Cheers
Louis
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 3:56 PM
@Bexley
I give some level of importance to uniqueness. Maybe that is unfair of me, I don't know. It certainly raises an interesting problem when discussing identical twins :)
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 17, 2009 4:08 PM
@Ron Sullivan #769
Yes, thank you, frozen zygotes is a good example. I have a few thoughts: I think the labs should be obligated to keep them alive as long as possible with some caveats. Since there is currently no way to actually raise them without implanting them in a woman, if the parents don't want to then they should not be implanted - the parents should retain control of them. Stem cell research is a good use for those, so I personally think it is a reasonable use with current technology, and with the parent's consent. I don't think they should be thrown in an autoclave even if that is what the parents want, but I'm willing to be convinced I am wrong about that.I didn't mean star trek transporters automatically, I meant something that would not have an impact on the woman. I have admitted several times I explained it poorly, and apologized for the confusion.
Posted by: Hyperon | September 17, 2009 6:32 PM
Walton,
If you truly believe that, I'm afraid you're either singularly stupid or singularly ignorant of the world around you. I've already explained how Islam is more oppressive of women than any Christian sect. (To cite a more colourful example, how about the Taliban's literal ripping apart of girl as punishment for her temerity to learn algebra?) In many Islamic countries, the penalty for homosexuality is death. Death. Now which Christian sects do you have in mind which emulate this degree of oppression?Posted by: Hyperon | September 17, 2009 6:47 PM
Wikipedia has s a helpful list of Islamic laws on homosexuality. In at least six of those countries there's a death penalty. Almost all the others have penalties of fines and imprisonment. I'm not sure how to reconcile this with the idea that Catholicism is only "slightly" worse.
Posted by: Dianne | September 17, 2009 10:11 PM
I think the labs should be obligated to keep them [frozen embryos] alive as long as possible with some caveats.
If successful, immortalization and in vitro culture could keep the cells alive far longer than implantation in a uterus and development. So, is implantation a morally acceptable alternative or one that should only be used if conversion to a cell culture line is impossible? And what obligations do researchers then have to the cells in the culture line? Presumably keeping the line alive is important, but do the individual cells have rights?
(My opinion, in case anyone's interested, is that they're undifferentiated cells and undifferentiated cells have no rights whatsoever. They belong to the donors who have the right to use them as they see fit (reproduction, production of cell culture line, research, coffee table ornament, dessert topping, whatever) or destroy them if that is their wish. I feel much the same way about unfertilized gametes except that gametes-or embryos-donated to another can not be reclaimed.)
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 18, 2009 12:57 AM
@Dianne
I think that it is really up to the parents. If they want to donate them for use in research, cool. At the point they become a cell line then their value is as a cell line, not human life. If they want to donate them for implantation in some other woman, also fine. No, I agree with your opinion in general, cell lines do not have rights, differentiated or not. Otherwise what would we do with all of the myocytes my coworkers use? :) I might be inclined to draw the line at destruction though without a good reason, simply because I am opposed to destroying things, living or not. The bar for "good reason" can be pretty low though. Like I'm trying to teach my kids, killing harmless ants in the yard just because you want to is not ok. Killing the biting ants that decide to build a nest in the middle of where the kids play is fine. So destroying because "I can't bear the thought of anyone experimenting on it, nor can I handle the thought of a stranger raising my child" is probably ok. Not the choice I would make, but that's fine.
In the case the parents disagree on what should be done though, I think there would have to be some kind of arbitration to work it out. What if the ex-husband wants some for his new wife? What if that is all there is? What if it is not? What if he wants them destroyed but she wants them implanted in herself? Too many possibilities to cover easily in a post.