Wow. This is a painful video. The camera man visits a group of abortion protesters, and asks a simple question: should abortion be legal or illegal? They are all very quick to answer "illegal!" But then he asks an obvious consequent: If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?.
Watch. Every one is stumped. They even say they've never thought about it before.
- Log in to post comments
Ha, the lady picketed against abortion for 2 years and never thought about what to do to women who have them??!! I think there is nothing going on upstairs at all-
I suspect that if these people thought about it a bit more, they would conclude that their position is that the *performing* of abortions should be illegal, not the *receiving* of abortions. Hence, they would conclude that the women who receive the abortions should not be punished, but the doctors who perform them should.
Of course, in so far as the women consent to the abortion, I suppose they could be found guilt for assisting a criminal activity.
dtlocke - if it's murder, they're hiring a hit man.
They are clearly and self-admittedly guilty of lethal negligence.
I lol'd. The last woman seems to be able to give some actual thought to the reason things are illegal, though. I would say she's on a slightly higher rung than the rest of that pack.
The rungs, of course, are on a ladder that leads down into a black pit of idiot monsters.
@Martha #4 :
Who is guilty of lethal negligence? Please explain, because your statement is overly general.
I'm surprised the prevailing method of punishment isn't something like "RIP OUT THIER UTERUSESES!!111123eleventy".
It does show how much thought they have put in their position, and by extention, the value of their opinion.
I would have thought that they would have said that they should be locked up since they are infant-killers or something. That's their reasoning anyways.
"What to do with that desperate teenager who was raped by her father, and had an illegal abortion?"
"Send her off to jail, she murdered a baby!"
I suppose if abortion were made illegal but there were no punishment for it, that would be an interesting (but unexpected) solution to the choice/life battle.
It might not actually solve the problem for those who unthinkingly claim that abortion is murder, but we all know that under that law, there is no way the person who sought the murder is less culpable than the one who performed it.
It strikes me that some of these people are 'pro-life' because they aren't actually capable of thinking about the consequences of their belief.
I think they just want the open concept of abortion to go away. Just like wanting gays to go back into the closet. If I don't see them, they don't exist. All is pleasant with my world through my rose colored glasses.
The real, messy world offends them. But I love it.
Kate: parents who allow their children to die/be killed.
I think they have the fallacious assumption that if it's illegal then no one will have abortions. They clearly haven't thought out step 2 of making things illegal. I bet if they asked men, they would have an answer.
Hmmm. Most people who think abortion should be illegal haven't thought about it. They haven't thought about the women who want them or why. They haven't thought about the consequences of illegal abortion. I knew of someone in Toronto who lost her womb at age 18 because of an illegal, late-stage abortion. If she had been able to get an early, safe abortion she would not have lost the ability to bear children ever. I did not know her, but the doctor who did the abortion sang in our church choir (and so did I at the time).
@dtlocke particularly if its made illegal some woman will perform abortions themselves, particularly given the development of RU486 that would probably be smuggled across state lines. If not the woman it might be their friends or family.
Regardless its ethically bankrupt idea that the woman who willfully has an abortion should be accountable only to God whereas those who help her are accountable to the legal system.
Really this is the weakest part of the anti-choice movement. The older woman even made a good argument for pro-choice, that it should be between the woman and God. Hopefully it can be turned into just be an anti-abortion movement
@Martha:
Yep, child = fetus, so I see no problem with your logic.
When I've asked that question of anti-choicers, almost all of them were quick to say either death for the woman or life in jail.
Which is even more frightening.
I say it's easy. Don't punish the women. They are victims of a society with an abortion mentality. They are taught that life has no value, so they don't know it's wrong.
So, Kill the Doctors!
Fatmop - I'm happy to hear that.
"So, Kill the Doctors!"
I like your style of thinking.
@Fatmop Make it illegal but not criminalized actually isn't so wacky. But it certainly shows their true objective is to make woman hate themselves for having sex, and less about stopping abortion.
If they just want it illegal and no punishment, let us make the law. If something saccharine can shut up a little brat, maybe it can shut up an adult-sized brat too.
You mean they live in a simplistic world of simplistic absolutes with simplistic fixes from having a simplistic approach to life and simply obeying simple-minded authorities in a simple-minded way so they simply don’t have to think very much?
Oh, say it isn't true!
@Martha:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02aPcsgfiSfU0/340x.jpg
But Ian, a truly anti-abortion movement would be in favour of easily available contraception, comprehensive sex education, free healthcare, and support for single mothers. These people, on the other hand, don't give a shit about how many abortions there are provided they get to spit at some sluts outside the clinic.
this is a fairly old video... i remember embedding it and it getting pulled off youtube several times. i don't know by whom or why.
i'm not surprised these women haven't thought much about punishment -- it's not as if they've thought a whole lot about the issue to begin with.
The pictures that they show are probably late stillbirths or emergency, late-term abortions. A six-week embryo looks like a soft grain of rice.
@MissPrism: Indeed, that's why I said that insofar as the women consent they could be found guilty of assisting a crime.
@Ian Monroe: Indeed, that's why it's a mistake to think of the "women" and "doctors" mentioned in my comment as two mutually exclusive categories. (Yes, yes, women who perform abortions on themselves typically won't be "doctors" in the ordinary sense, but you know what I meant by "doctor" in this context.)
@MissPrism true. :/
Hiring a hit man isn't just "assisting a crime" though. If you hire a hit man, you get tried for murder.
Why is it so hard for them to get around to stoning? There are biblical guidelines to provide, you know, guidance.
I think part of what is going on is an over-romanticization of motherhood. These people cannot imagine that any pregnant woman doesn't deep down want their baby. They see the women as victims of the largely male medical establishment, not as perpetrators themselves (that's also probably linked to seeing women as largely passive, unable to make decisions for themselves, and easily influenced and/or duped).
While it is of course completely irrational and inconsistent with legal principles in general, I have to admit that I find this naive sympathy for women who get abortions far preferable to some possible alternatives.
Jimmiraybob - If I rememer rightly, the Bible says pretty clearly that abortion should be punishable by a small fine payable to the owner of the woman whose womb it was.
Sums up the traditional religious viewpoint pretty succinctly.
Of course, "D'uh" is even more succinct.
@ #27, yes, one pillar of the anti-abortion tactic is "don't do it because it's gross."
I really appreciate the juxtaposition of this with the post immediately preceding... Removal of a parasitic lump of cells? Murder. Refusing to get medical help for your obviously sick child, resulting in a completely avoidable death? Freedom of religion.
"Epic fail" falls so far short...
It's not that these folks haven't thought about an answer.
They have.
Plenty.
But they cannot bring themselves to say publically what they privately believe should be the fate of women who would break such a law.
hypocrisy is the pre-eminent "biblical" value, it sometimes seems...
@Fatmop
HAHAHAHah!! That's exactly what I did when I read Martha's reponse to your comment.
Nice.
Fascinating. It seem to expose a hidden attitude about abortion, basically, that despite all the yelling and protesting, they know it's not remotely the same as murder. Otherwise, at a minimum they would endorse imprisonment for those that have abortion.
MissPrism #33:
Ex 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Heh. It's almost as though they don't completely think through their own positions and are, instead, regurgitating the party line.
Almost.
If abortion is murder (premeditated at that) then no matter how much you may think that the women who obtain abortions are weak, passive, and easily influenced you must try them for first degree murder. Along with all the doctors who perform abortions, all the nurses and technicians who assist, and presumably all those who are complicit (make the appointments, etc.) Since approximately one third of women will have at least one abortion in their lifetimes and a fair number who have never had an abortion will be involved in abortion care in some way that's a heck of a lot of life sentences.
BTW: I have never had an abortion but I did assist* an ob/gyn in performing the abortion that saved the life of a young woman dying during pregnancy. Please feel free to use me as an example. Go ahead, give your suggested sentence.
*Theoretically I was just there to do the bone marrow biopsy. It's a kind of convoluted story.
Nagleator #35: I think that's also the ultimate justification for the hate-on they have for teh ghey. "It's icky!"
"Epic fail" falls so far short...
This is likely attributable to your evident incompetence as both a reader and an interpreter of text more complex than "The Pet Goat," as well as what seems to be a self-righteous insensitivity (kindly; less so: ignorance) to the self-explanatory differences between a blastocyst or a foetus and the born, human, sentient child whose parents permitted it to needlessly, and cruelly, perish.
Thanks, chancelikely, that's the verse I was thinking of.
@Alex 36:
No, you got it all wrong. You see, God is good, and science and docters are evil, just because.
Before anyone mistakes this for a post endorcing the actions of the previous post, or the opinions expressed in this one, my real opinion is that religion should have no place in the laws of a secular society, and that abortion laws should be based on reasoning, and not on any scripture.
Abortion.
Safe.
On Demand.
No Questions Asked.
Not my body. Not my business.
Which is why Canada doesn't have any abortion laws.
Kill the patients who terminate and leave the lovely Ob/Gyns alone!
In the QD run world, abortions are available for free in mall kiosks, any age, no questions asked. People making protests against it based on ancient trippy juju tales will be placed under observation.
Oh, and my reign would be long, for I would use all available science to give me the ability to kill a man with my mind. Yeah, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout.
PROTESTOR: You must respect my religion!
QD: I find your abundance of faith disturbing.
PROTESTOR: (choking noises followed by a thump)
QD: (to Secret Service agent) Have that removed, please.
Let me get this straight. According to one of the interviewees, abortion is murder, but the punishment of having an abortion is punishment enough.
So, if I as a parent hire a hit man to kill my child, is the loss of the child punishment enough? That would seem to be the logically and morally consistent argument, since fetus = child from their point of view.
And how hard would they be on the doctor? Would they treat a doctor the same as a hit man? OK, a lot of them would. But think about how they would react to a parent hiring a hit man. Most of these 'pro-lifers' couldn't hang 'em high enough.
Another aspect of this is interesting. Most of the people interviewed had been doing this work for years, and had not once stopped to think about the consequences to those involved of implementing their policies. Unthinking dolts. Pretty much describes most of the movement.
Interesting that in attempting to answer this question, a number of people use the "I'm not a lawyer" out, yet they seem lawyer enough to want to criminalize abortion. What a cop-out.
@woody, #44
I'm confused... Are you saying that I don't know the difference between a foetus and a child, or that the people who espouse the view points I was (obviously, I thought) ridiculing don't?
HAHAHAH! I'd never seen this video. It's hilarious.
Putting aside all issues w/r/t abortion and legality, I love how this illuminates shortsightedness. If you assert a claim or position, you must consider all the repercussions that follow and justify each and every one to your position. Do less than that and you've not thoroughly considered your normative position. Clearly this is the case with most of the interviewees here, as they've latched onto the anti-choice movement solely because of 1) their indoctrination, and 2) their vagal and emotion reaction to the concept of abortion.
STUMPED!
"When did God call you?"
Haha!
@Quiet_Desperation: in *my* world, abortion would be mandatory. Including for men.
Martha, here was your response to a question Katie asked
#3 & #6
So, are you ready to order the summary execution of those who send/sent their children into the military? Surely that is the definition of "allowing their children to die/ be killed".
Let me think, now... It's a Prohibitionist mentality: "If we make alcohol illegal, [other] people will stop drinking." We all know how well that worked. And, of course, it's all about controlling other people. No one thinks that they need a law to keep themselves from doing something, whether they're tempted by it or not. I don't believe those Christians who say that if it weren't for the Ten Commandments, they'd be out raping and pillaging. For one thing, as Peg Bracken said, the Ten Commandments let you "kick around an old lady, as long as she isn't your own."
It's about controlling women as sexual beings. You can really see that when people make an exception for rape or incest. If abortion is wrong, then it's wrong whether or not the woman had any fun in the sexual act. It's part of a religious viewpoint that sees women as passive vessels of procreation.
As to the result, look at Nicaragua. They have enacted a stringent anti-abortion law with the approval of the Roman Catholic church. Women can go to prison for thirty years and have been so sentenced, separating them from their children. Doctors can be imprisoned. Women are subject to vaginal examinations to see if they might have had abortions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/oct/08/health.lifeandhealth
At least eighty women have died from illegal abortions in the first year of the law's operation.
What is worse, doctors are afraid to treat women for complications of pregnancy and women are afraid to seek medical help if they start to bleed during pregnancy, lest they be accused of procuring an abortion. Any death resulting from that consequence of the new law is not counted against it but is merely unfortunate. And then there are the borderline cases:
Henry Morgentaler, a Canadian doctor who is a famous crusader for safe, legal, and available abortion, didn't go into providing abortions to make money. If he'd wanted a lucrative practice, he could have become a plastic surgeon. He made one public statement that abortion should be legal, and was flooded by dozens and then hundreds of calls from desperate women wanting abortions. He began to do them to reduce the suffering of the women. It's simply the lesser of two evils.
As most women who seek abortion already have children, this law is not only killing living, breathing people but taking away children's mothers.
I'd rather have a tubal ligation than have to rely on barrier methods of contraception. Maybe that will be birth control for the new millennium: an operation that can be reversed when you want to start having kids. Doctors refuse to do such things now, but maybe not once it is easily reversible.
And I'm sure the "Right to Life"-ers will come up with a reason that this isn't quite possible according to the laws of their God, either, but it will stop abortions, which is supposedly their goal.
As Monado notes, the real goal is the control of women's sexuality.
Actually, I don't think that the Bible specifically addresses abortion (as reproductive choice.) From the reading that I've done it seems that there are passages that have been construed as addressing abortion - given the proper imagination.
Even so, you'd think these people could have at least mentioned fines. Don't they read their.....oh, never mind.
i came in to say what Woody (#37) said:
It's pretty easy to show that the "pro-lifers" don't really think of embryos/fetuses as children. Just ask them about funding for prevention of miscarriages. Spontaneous abortion/miscarriage results in the death of up to 80% of concepti. Most of these abortions take place before or shortly after implantation, but definitely after the sperm hits the egg and the pro-nuclei have fused. (For bonus fun, ask pro-lifers which event in the long sequence of conception is the point at which killing the cell(s) becomes murder. I've yet to see a pro-lifer who could describe the process of conception on a cellular level muchless define which part they thought made the cell "sacred.")
Anyway, if all concepti are people then 80% of babies dying in the first two weeks of life! Sounds pretty bad. Ok, so there's a high murder rate as well, but it's more like 10%--bad but not the pandemic that the natural death rate is. So where are the pro-lifers lobbying for more funding into research to prevent miscarriage? Shouldn't a condition that kills 80% of people in the first few weeks of life at least have its own NIH institute and a few dozen private foundations dedicated to ridding the world of this horror? But as a pro-lifer and the most they'll say is, "yeah, more funding might be nice." Or, more likely "but that's god's will/natural". Hey, cancer's natural too but that doesn't stop us from having the NCI and too many private foundations to count to research ways to prevent/treat cancer. And cancer's a rare disease compared--no more than 1/3 of people will die of it. That is, people who survived implantation. Really, only less than 7% of people die of it. If you really believe that blastulocytes are children.
You're right - Chancelikely found the verse I was thinking of, and it's about the punishment for causing a miscarriage. But still, it treats the killing of a foetus as a property crime against the husband rather than a murder.
firemancarl:
Surely you know that it isn't and you are just being a prick. "allowing their children to die" is clearly to be understood in the context of the other thread here "Child Sacrifice"; that of parents doing nothing as their child dies from cureable (or treatable) diseases.
Second, I don't think any of the armed services induct children or let parents "send" their children off to war.
The Death Cultist solution to women who have abortions is obvious. They should be tried and convicted for baby killing and incarcerated or executed. Martha, the latest crazy fundie says so.
This would result in Theocratic former America, in half the population guarding and/or murdering the other half. The usual for theocracies, rivers of blood and giant mountains of bodies. We gave all that up centuries ago without missing anything.
Martha should move to some Theocratic paradise like Somalia or Afghanistan. And be a piece of property without much in the way of legal rights and die at 40 like their women do.
Let's not forget parents who let their teenage kids drive and die in traffic accidents.
Not very apt at thinking are they?
Alex@53,
Good, I'm not the only one.
I read your post as "it is stupid to call abortion murder but call killing your adolescent child by withholding medical treatment freedom of religion"
which woody then mocked you for because he seems to believe that "it is stupid to call abortion murder but call killing your adolescent child by withholding medical treatment freedom of religion"
The answer, of course, as to what these people believe should be done to women who get abortions is . . . whatever their religious authorities tell them should be done (you know, those preachers with the most charisma and showmanship and that special steely glint in their eyes that shows how wise and godly they are).
Tulse@#60...
Which is why I said, "Supposedly".
It's always entertaining to watch someones brain rebooting. :)
I saw this video several months ago and tried the question out on my right-wing Catholic parents. Dad didn't consider it a suitable topic of discussion. Mom said that women who get abortions need to go to confession. (May be a problem if they're not Catholic.) But jail terms are not appropriate. Why not? Well, if you go to confession you're forgiven.
I see a loophole for Catholic criminals of all kinds.
"You say god called you..."
"Thank you! Have a nice day! No more questions! Sorry we are closed! Thank you! Byebye!"
SteveM@ 65:
Second, I don't think any of the armed services induct children or let parents "send" their children off to war.
Well Steve, maybe not "induct", but definitely "indoctrinate"! Military recruiters in high schools, JROTC programs, and TV shows/movies glorifying/jacking off the military are examples. And I didn't think firemancarl was being a prick, either. The military does accept 17 year-olds with parental permission.
On a lighter note, is it just me, or does it seem that religious zeal is inversely correlated to physical attractiveness (for both genders)? I wonder if not being able to get a date or attract a lover makes people so angry and envious that repressing sexual activities of everyone else is their coping mechanism.
Here's some logic I'm wrestling with, perhaps someone can provide some insight.
1. If an infant is a person immediately after birth, then they are likely a person immediately before birth. The primary difference is physical location. For sake of this argument, being a person implies typical ethical rights (life, liberty, etc).
2. When a person cannot make choices, e.g. due to incapacitation, the state typically makes reasonable choices for their benefit.
3. If the woman should be allowed to remove the fetus for her benefit, then the fetus should be allowed to remove the woman for its benefit, insomuch as it is a person.
4. Since the fetus cannot make this decision on its own, or is unable to communicate this choice, the state should make this decision for it.
So, I'm not really advocating reverse abortions, where the fetus terminates the mother as a threat to its health. That much is satire.
What I'm primarily interested in is at what point being a "person" is defined. If it is purely a temporal measure, then that leaves a lot of wriggle room. The Brits, if I remember correctly, do not even consider an infant an equal person in cases of certain laws, such as matricide.
All the quantifiable measures I have read seem like half-assed attempts. For example, measurable neural activity as a starting point. Not very impressive.
oh, canada must have some laws regarding abortions...otherwise the government wouldn't be paying for them right? (in alberta at least) or maybe it's just a part of healthcare.
Just tested this on a coworker. Her response:
"I don't know".
Perfect!
1."RIP OUT THIER UTERUSESES!!111123eleventy".
2.But it certainly shows their true objective is to make woman hate themselves for having sex, and less about stopping abortion.
3.These people, on the other hand, don't give a shit about how many abortions there are provided they get to spit at some sluts outside the clinic.
4.Abortion.
Safe.
On Demand.
No Questions Asked.
Not my body. Not my business.
The only good thing about abortion is that those who are for it (like the asinine bloggers quoted above) will eventually die out and society will replenish itself with normal people again.
The problem with these people is that they think that, if something is illegal, people will just stop doing it. Like drugs and alcohol for instance...
And, of course, due to their lack of empathy (that's the reason why they project so much) they never try to understand the other's point of view.
Oh well...
DOES NOT COMPUTE....DOES NOT COMPUTE....DOES NOT COMPUTE.....
01001001 00100000 01100001 01101101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 01110100 01100001 01110010 01100100
(that's binary for "I am a fucktard")
Wait! You mean if abortion is made illegal, women will still have them and doctors will still perform them?
How can that be? [walks away, shaking head]
#3 & #6
So, are you ready to order the summary execution of
those who send/sent their children into the military? Surely that is the definition of "allowing their children to die/ be killed".
Carl: Since when do parents send their children into the military? Did your parents force you to run into burning buildings for a living?
I found the video some what encouraging. It seemed to that some of the comments were very close to the pro-choice movement. there might not be some much separating the two sides as first appears at least with a larger percent then the anti-abortion leaders would have us think. sounds to me like for the general public it might not really be an issue as portrayed. I'm thinking that the biggest problem might be the perception that the pro-choice side has been portrayed as thinking that abortion is a good thing instead of as a very difficult regrettable decision that most woman involved might have to make.
If that is true then the real problem is that this issue is being used by some as a tool a "wedge issue" to gain power like anti-communism was in the recent past was used. There are many would be "kings" who would jump at the chance to try and control the world.
preachers get a taste of power in the pulpit as the sway their "flocks" it is a powerful drug I would bet that many are there for the thrill of the power and not for the "love of god" as an example see yesterday's pastor rick warren's performance at the inauguration.
a nasty business front to back
Living an ordinary life while pregnant exposes the unborn child to entirely too many risks; the mother could drink, or get in a traffic accident, or fall down. Clearly, every pregnant woman should be sentenced to a 9 month protective custody prison term.
"Make them illegal, but without punishment" doesn't work at all, because a) no insurance would cover them, and more importantly b) no doctors would receive training in how to do them. The lack of properly trained doctors is already a big issue.
It's pretty easy to show that the "pro-lifers" don't really think of embryos/fetuses as children. Just ask them about funding for prevention of miscarriages.
Diane: murder and death by natural causes are two different things.
A few years ago on this side of the pond an academic analysed things like traffic violations and minor crime rates in different European countries. Consistently he found that they were higher in Catholic countries. He put it down to that exact effect, if you can get absolution from the priest through confession then what's holding you back?
He was of course roundly pilloried for this evident truth.
One of my students actually wrote in her abortion paper not only that it should be illegal but that the mother should be arrested and charged with a Class A Felony.
When I tried to ask her about the murder-thingy, she was confused:
"But you said it's murder, and you're killing a person."
"That's right."
"So, why the difference in charge? Why not just Murder-1?"
[blink, blink, blink]...
@53: If the former, that whole "Pet Goat" dig becomes pretty ironic...
When the abortion issue comes up, I usually present this thought experiment:
Suppose you are at a fertility clinic when a fire breaks out. You have the choice of saving a container with a frozen embryo or a one week old baby. You save the baby I hope. But what about a container with 10 embryos? Or 100 embryos? Or 10,000? I would hope that one would still save the baby, because deep in your heart of hearts, you know there is a difference between an embryo and a fully born baby.
My co-worker just ratified her statement of "I don't know" to:
"Punish the doctor who performs the abortion for murder (i.e. life sentence, capital punishment). Treat the mother as temporarily insane."
Aaron, a good question to look at is when can the mother die, and not have the baby/fetus also immediately die as a result? (Forget the positioning, as that's a red herring.) That is the point of the fetus/baby can truly be considered a separate person. By my reckoning, that is when the baby is out of the womb and breathing on its own.
Some of your questions/conundrums go away with this answer.
I wish the Obama had been smart enough to ask that question of Rick Warren during that Saddleback "debate":
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/when-is-question-lie.html
I doubt if Warren can answer that question.
"What I'm primarily interested in is at what point being a "person" is defined. If it is purely a temporal measure, then that leaves a lot of wriggle room. The Brits, if I remember correctly, do not even consider an infant an equal person in cases of certain laws, such as matricide."
There is no clear, set definition of when a person becomes a person, that much is obvious. Development is a messy, complicated process, the end result of which is the birth of something about as intelligent as a sea sponge. It can quickly learn, of course, but it's still not fully capable of making rational decisions until late teens/early twenties. If we could find a really good determinant of "consciousness," if we could say "hey that lump of cells just gained self-awareness," then we'd solve the issue more or less. That's not gonna happen anytime soon.
A cartoon some years ago, maybe Doonesbury, went like this:
Questioner to Anti-Choice Person, " When abortion is illegal, should the woman receive the usual punishment for murder?"
A-C Person, "Well, maybe not."
Q, " Should the doctor receive the usual punishment for murder?"
A-C Person, "Well, maybe not."
Q, " Should there be anybody punished?"
A-C Person, " Maybe the lawyers?"
Bah Da Boom Bang.
NERD: Some adults (e.g. those with portable oxygen) can't breathe on their own. I still consider them human.
And babies who CAN breathe can't live on their own for long without being cared for. It's called dependency. A lot of humans, yourself included, are dependent on others.
Martha, I'm afraid I simply cannot be polite to somebody with a mindset such as yours who believes that their personal, bullshit ideology should be legislated to force others to adhere to it. In summation: Fuck you, you ignorant slut.
Kudos to the pro-lifer who is also against death penalty. At least she's consistent.
That last lady -- God called here there? So she believes the voices in her head? What if a woman gets an abortion because the voices in her head told her to?
"The only good thing about abortion is that those who are for it (like the asinine bloggers quoted above) will eventually die out and society will replenish itself with normal people again."
Normal people who wish death on other people, amirite?
There are no joints where Nature can be carved, the thing is continuous and gradual and it depends on which features you think are the most salient. Therefore all the lines we draw on it will of necessity be largely arbitrary and not particularly amenable to things like the state of the foetus.
Here in the UK we have just had a big debate on the timing of abortion and after a big stushie with the religious picketing parliament during the debate, nothing changed. The limit at the moment is a balance between when premature babies are viable and giving real world women enough time to realise they are pregnant then seek and procure an abortion. The religious tried to present 'evidence' that foetal survival at very early preterm ages had been increasing but it was shown to be bogus.
The crux as far as I'm concerned is that priviliging the foetus over the mother means you are valuing a potential person over an actual one, living, breathing, talking, walking, thinking, loving etc, etc, etc, and that is wrong. Because the other way around means women merely become baby factories with no control over their own bodies. in a perfect world no abortions would need to be performed except those necessary to preserver the life of the woman. But we do not live in that world so we need to have laws and rules that aim to minimise the harm. Allowing abortion minimises the harm.
That those who oppose abortion are not interested in other manifestly effective harm reduction measures that lower abortion like comprehensive sex and relationship education, easy access to contraception and female empowerment shows that they are not interested in reducing harm. That makes them moral scumbags in my book.
This is the prime flaw in the entire anti-abortion argument. They're all about the poor innocent mutilated fetuses. Anything outside that falls into the black pit of ignorance.
Ask them about what penalties women should face and the answers are almost always "Never thought about that."
It is because the movement only focuses on the one thing, the fetus.
Another fun question is, ok, what do you do with all the unwanted children if you manage to get abortion off the books?
Wolfhound: Your comment simply validates my earlier comment.
So, if the fetus is a full person, then if the mother dies in childbirth can the infant be charged with murder?
Apparently dipshit Martha thinks people who have abortions never have kids!!!!!!!!!!!! She is a hoot. She also think scraping out a collection cells is murder and un-natural. Hey Martha, so is plumbing and flying in airplanes, you pathetic excuse of a woman. Live in a cave, ahole.
Aaron,
What I'm primarily interested in is at what point being a "person" is defined. If it is purely a temporal measure, then that leaves a lot of wriggle room... All the quantifiable measures I have read seem like half-assed attempts. For example, measurable neural activity as a starting point. Not very impressive.
IMO, all quantifiable measures will never be more than half-assed attempts, because we're not really asking a scientific question. To me, the question "when does a living thing become a full civic person?" is a moral question and thus really can't be answered by scientific data.
So the current legal position - that a fetus is a person after birth, but not before - isn't intended to be a statement of absolute truth, necessarily. It's intended to draw some line in the sand because that's what the law has to do. An appropriate analogy would be the age of majority. I'm sure you, ilke most people, did not magically become mature enough to vote on your 18th (or whatever age it is wherever you live). Some people are ready for civic engagement before they turn 18, some people apparently never become ready. But, as a society, we have to pick something, so we do.
Allowing abortion but forbidding infanticide operates on similar principles. For some pregnant women, that fetus became a moral person well before the birth. For a few women, that fetus will never become a moral person. The law unfortunately can't work in a gray area like that.
"Wolfhound: Your comment simply validates my earlier comment."
That we're abnormal? Hmm. It would be a shame if normalcy were dictated by the minority. And if you took that to extremes, wouldn't we all be forced to accept Sikhism or Wicca as legitimate?
Also Martha should stop using the net because IT IS UNNATURAL!!!!! Hilarious stuff, you can't make this stuff up.
Another important question these people never answer sufficiently is: "So how do we prevent unplanned, unwanted pregnancies when 'abstinence only' programs are certainly not working?" No one ever confronts them with the hypocrisy that they want to force women to carry pregnancies to term against their will, but aren't willing to support prevention of pregnancy or programs to help young mothers support the children they have. "Pro-life" only means "make all fetuses be born," it doesn't mean anything about improving the lives that are already here or preventing unwanted "lives" from being started.
Martha
Martha: abortion and murder are two different things.
Logicel: Ditto (i.e.my reply to Wolfhound)
@93 "By my reckoning, that is when the baby is out of the womb and breathing on its own."
Is that really the case? I suspect that some women have died during childbirth, and then the baby was still successfully delivered shortly thereafter.
Perhaps I am wrong, but if the fetus could have been successfully removed before that point, then were they not a person then?
The point I am trying to analyze is that we have, because of human (mammalian) biology, two unfortunately conflated criteria:
1) When a fetus becomes a person.
2) When it stops being acceptable for a woman to terminate that life.
Pro-life advocates typically argue that both occur at fertilization.
Pro-choice advocates tend to argue that both occur at birth.
Likely, neither position is correct. Pragmatically, taking one position or the other is easier than trying to deal with all the "What the fuck?" moments when you take either argument to its logical conclusion.
Unnatural things have a way of coming back to haunt us. For example, processed foods, the Pill, industrial waste, etc.
Martha, red herrings (false clues) again. The people using oxygen can generally move on their own if they aren't bed ridden. Besides, if they die, no one else dies. End of story. Independent. Baby being dependent is another red herring. If it is out of the womb, the mother can die, but the baby won't die too. You fail logically big time.
They don't know, because they have always assumed that if abortion is only outlawed, it will go away.
Step away from the computer, then, Martha, and daub your semi-coherent ramblings on a tree in animal blood and charcoal, the natural way.
The only good thing about abortion is that those who are for it (like the asinine bloggers quoted above) will eventually die out and society will replenish itself with normal people again.
Oh, right, because people who favor a woman's right to own her life never have any kids, of course. You only bother to become a parent if you think abortion should be a non-option. My mom? Never supported abortion rights, no, not at all (except for when she did, and does.) My grandmother, who birthed and raised four kids? Totally anti-abortion (except for her rants on the hypocrisy of the pro-life moment). That says a lot about family life. Which would explain an awful lot about the state of the world today.
NERD said :Martha, red herrings (false clues) again. The people using oxygen can generally move on their own if they aren't bed ridden. Besides, if they die, no one else dies. End of story. Independent. Baby being dependent is another red herring. If it is out of the womb, the mother can die, but the baby won't die too. You fail logically big time.
Nerd: It sounds like you're actually referring to the fetus as a baby, whether in utero or not.
That those who oppose abortion are not interested in other manifestly effective harm reduction measures that lower abortion like comprehensive sex and relationship education, easy access to contraception and female empowerment shows that they are not interested in reducing harm. That makes them moral scumbags in my book.
Tell me, which of those am I against?
I am completely in favour of easy access to contraception. I am completely in favour of sex education in schools, including education about the correct use of contraception. I have consistently and unequivocally expressed my support for these things.
Not all pro-life people fit into the same neat little ideological box, believe it or not.
I am really just fed up with the "culture wars" mentality. On both sides, a dichotomy is drawn between the conservative religious right and the secular progressive left; and on both sides, the mentality is "if you aren't for us, you're against us".
I was accused of being a godless liberal on Conservapedia; I'm accused here of being an anti-woman reactionary. I like to think I'm neither. I'm not part of either camp. I call myself a libertarian because it's the label that fits best, given my strong belief in small and limited government; but even so, I don't subscribe to the full package deal of hardline libertarianism. My beliefs are somewhere in between. And I don't know why that makes me such a despised figure.
Carlin had a good rant on abortion. One of my favorite line was: "What, they'll do everything they can do to save a fetus, but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xPkYFH4imw
Okay, people, I have to go back to work now. Don't bother hurling invectives at me for the time being, because I won't be here to read them.
Abortion is murder....pass it on.
Aaron:
It is important to keep in mind that even though we may recognize someone as a legal person, that does not mean that they have all of the rights afforded to another (especially older) person. In the USA, for example, a natural-born citizen does not achieve their full panoply of rights until age 35.
We also assume that parents have far greater control over their children than other individuals do, even if the children themselves are minors. If I were to walk over to a stranger's 2-year old and administer even a mild spanking, I would likely be charged with a crime (and rightly so). Should the parent in question do the same thing, most folks would, I suspect, say that no crime has been committed.
As these two threads of reasoning merge, it seems quite possible that a cogent legal (and, I suspect, moral) case could be made that the diminished rights of a young person and the increased control of a parent extend even so far as the child's life. Of course, setting that line is tricky, but not, I believe, impossible, even while recognizing the (potential) humanity of the child.
Martha: "Unnatural things have a way of coming back to haunt us. For example, processed foods, the Pill, industrial waste, etc."
So, abortion will "come back to haunt us" will it? How long have we got, since abortions have been going on since as early as 1550 BC (perhaps even before), not to mention the much more dangerous methods in which the procedure was being done in those times?? And exactly how, scientfically, has "the pill" come back to haunt us? By helping to empower women and give them the ultimate choice in what happens to their bodies and when? By giving a safe alternative to unwanted pregnancy for those smart enough to utilize it? BTW, terrible usage of belief in kharma and fate to justify bad things happening (i.e. shit actually doesn't "come back to haunt" anyone), you truly are a supersticious buffoon.
I personally feel the line should be drawn at the point where the fetus has a reasonable chance of survival if either a C-section is performed or labor is induced, and such can be done without exceptional risk to the woman.
As I understand it, that would put the line at about the sixth or seventh month, barring cases of medical necessity (where either there's exceptional risk, the fetus can't survive, or both.)
Of course, I can't imagine a woman seeking an elective abortion after that timeframe anyway; that's quite a bit of time, from the practical perspective, for her to discover the pregnancy and come to the conclusion she wants an abortion, and even schedule it before that line.
It wouldn't necessarily be a solution, but it would be an Austrian Solution.
In fact, get this, abortion in the first trimester is illegal but not punished in Austria. There are clinics performing abortions, and if you've taken advantage of their services, you may openly talk about it.
After the first trimester, abortions count as murder -- unless a handicapped child would otherwise be born. I don't think "handicapped" is defined, though. In any case I've never heard of a prosecution for abortion after the first trimester.
This Austrian Solution was reached in the 1970s as a compromise between the Social Democratic party on the one hand and the conservative party and the Catholic church on the other. Practically nobody wants to change anything about it. Practically nobody even dares to ever talk about it -- in stark contrast to the USA, where the question seems to come up in every single election.
WTF?
You don't believe that yourself -- and you know that you don't believe that yourself.
But if no insurance would be punished for covering them…?
It's true that health insurance doesn't cover abortions in Austria (even though the student organization of the Social Democrats has been decrying this for decades). But then, in Austria, the state is the only health insurer.
Not the case in Austria.
@102 : "The crux as far as I'm concerned is that priviliging the foetus over the mother means you are valuing a potential person over an actual one, living, breathing, talking, walking, thinking, loving etc, etc, etc, and that is wrong. Because the other way around means women merely become baby factories with no control over their own bodies."
Peter,
I tend to agree with your points, but let's play devil's advocate here. I will rework your argument from a man's perspective (with regard to an infant and child support). I realize it is a ridiculous position, but I'm not entirely sure at which point the ridiculous starts.
The crux as far as I'm concerned is that privileging the baby over the father means you are valuing a potential person over an actual one, living, breathing, talking, walking, thinking, loving etc, etc, etc, and that is wrong. Because the other way around means men merely become baby providers with no control over their own bodies.
Okay, as I said, a ridiculous position, but...
If a person should be able to decide whether to gestate a fetus before it reaches birth and becomes a baby, then shouldn't a person have the right to decide whether to provide for that baby after it is born?
I've often thought that any politician who opposes abortion should be asked that very question. If abortion is the same as murder, how is hiring a doctor to perform one any different than hiring a hitman to kill your husband? And what about women who don't take care of themselves during pregnancy? Should we throw them in prison as well?
I'm amazed that so many abortion opponents have failed to think it through. Well, maybe, not amazed.
My punishment would be....NO SOUP FOR YOU!
I think this video puts the lie to the pro-abort propaganda that scary Christians want to imprison their uteruses. Basically Christians are as kind and decent and forgiving of slutty killers as they are of other sinners.
Unfortunately, none of the interviewees fully comprehend the reason that the wounded (rather than the killed) victims of abortion should not be subject to harsh punishment. Women who seek abortion should not be punished harshly because they are women and by nature have difficulty with intellectual abstraction. To women (and effeminate men), "my body, my choice" is a coherent argument. They see a body, even a fat body, and are incapable of understanding that what appears to be one thing is actually two things. This is why some women, even in college, believe that if a glass of water is titled the surface of the water will remain parallel to the rim of the glass. This is why there are no female philosophers of note. This is also why women seeking abortions should not be harshly punished; unless they exhibit the male ability to abstract. Then maybe they should be punished. But given how unusual this trait is in the fairer sex, it might be better if the law did not recognize the exception.
I love it, especially the last one with the crazy beads who said her god called her to this, and then clams up with the sign of the insane. I wish I was there with the questioner. "If your god is all powerful then why doesn't it (notice the 'it") stop the abortion outright with any number of supernatural means, and even go so far as to prevent conception from taking in the first place so that there would be no abortion. Why can't your god do this? And don't hand me that free will crap which is still under the control of your imaginary god. Life is not sacred, as innocent people are being slaughtered every day despite your powerful shit god. And should the parents of Kara go to jail, having indirectly killed her? Where was your freaking god then, who had the power to help Kara?" Let's see your god who seems to be absent when this question is posed and is leaving all this crap to you morons who claim it is speaking through them?
I have friends in Libertyville; it is a nice town and obviously has it's share of religious mongering.
addendum to my previous comment: I was in fact assuming abortion access was not overly restricted in my claim that 6-7 months would be sufficient for women to get an elective abortion. Obviously in places where abortion access is made too difficult, that may not apply.
See #47.
" Posted by: Martha
Diane: murder and death by natural causes are two different things."
Way to completely miss the point.
If they see a fetus as a child, they would want to prevent its death if possible regardless of the cause.
If they don't support funding for prevention of miscarriages, then they don't see fetuses as fully human.
They see a six-year-old as human, which is why they support funding for crossing guards and pediatric hospitals and incarceration of child murderers.
They see a 60 year old as human which is why they support funding for cancer research, etc. etc. etc.
If Grandma dies because nobody wanted to pay for her digitalis, that's not OK. If Junior dies because there's no crosswalk near the school, that's not OK. If Mom dies from tetanus because there's no vaccine available, that's not OK.
But no funding to prevent miscarriages - fetuses aren't Grandma or Junior or Mom - they die, it's "natural."
Anti-abortion is not about fetuses, it's about women having sex.
I personally know a couple of anti-abortion protesters, and other than their concern about "sluts!" their concern about fetuses is not much more thought out than "I love babies, so I don't like abortion." Left in the abstract, no thought about the specifics of any particular pregnancy.
Unnatural things have a way of coming back to haunt us.
Yeah! Fucking penicillin.
Aaron, you need to learn how to get rid of red herrings. Some of your talk reminds me of somebody objecting to seatbelts by saying "what if I am unconscious and the car is on fire. How do I get out?" Seat belt or no, if you are unconscious, you aren't getting out of the car.
Step back and look at the whole situation. Yes, a baby can be born if removed from the mother very shortly after she dies. For that to happen, she must be in a medical care facility. Otherwise, the fetus will die too. The fetus also has to be old enough to survive. Think about how such a situation would come about. Also how rare it would be.
"They don't know, because they have always assumed that if abortion is only outlawed, it will go away."
Only for the poor. Rich women will still have them, safely. More poor women, or just not wealth women, will die back-alley style. Of course, anti-choicers couldn't care less if women die.
I get it. We get a good laugh from the cluelessness of our adversaries. Let's just not assume that, since the video's producer included only protesters who did NOT answer the question well, that ALL such protesters are unable to give a firm answer. Would the producer care to give us an idea if this is a representative sample? We skeptics are careful to count both the positives and the negatives when forming understanding.
I would like to be more precise about the "they" PZ refers to. "They", undeniably, means "the people whose interviews made it into the video".
Still, great video. Very telling...funny and kind of scary.
Martha is an religious idiot. Pass it on.
Loudon is a Fool, you are the most amazingly stupid person I've come across this wekk, either in real life or on the web. Gratz.
Ow. The stupid, it burns.
I interviewed some anti-abortion protestors, from the Abortion Holocaust, and they were painfully stupid as well. One lady, who consented to be recorded, at first believed that a cloned person would not be a person, but then flipped to saying that it would be. The reason why I brought it up was because clones don't come from eggs and sperm, and she said that those were criteria for a person. She also was so blinded by her lack of biological knowledge that she believed that single-celled zygotes had a brain and could think, therefore it was wrong to kill them. Makes me wonder if it would be technically illegal to kill a brainless anti-abortion protestor. <----Legal Notice: Sarcasm!
A younger member of their group tried to answer the Violinist argument - and decided in order to be consistent that it would be illegal to unplug yourself from a person, allowing them to die, even if you were plugged into them against your will. Therefore, she supports legally-enforced compulsory morality. When I asked this to confirm, she said yes. Whoa.
I'll have to try the question about what the punishment should be. That's incredibly fascinating that it's a stumper, I wouldn't have thought so.
This is just so typical of the sort of tortured theological thinking one would expect from a bunch of spineless Papists, who comprise 97.8937$ of your typical Abortion Protester crowd. Had they interviewed True, Good (Protestant) Christians--the ones who are chasing down and actually doing something about the abortionists--he'd have no problem answering, "Eye for an eye, the Bible does not have a proportionality principle."
-RPTH
One of my feminist friends is fond of saying "if men got pregnant, drive-thru abortion clinics would be as commonplace as McDonald's". This whole issue is absolutely all about outdated and misconceived notions about controlling women and treating them as property. Years ago I settled how I feel about the issue: I support providing safe, sterile, and legal abortions, but I do not entirely like the idea OF abortion.
As an atheist, I was surprised to see my own thinking echoed in this excellent piece by evangelical Robert Balmer, Jesus is Not a Republican, well worth reading for xians and atheists alike. His stance on abortion is that he isn't interested in making abortion illegal, but rather making it unthinkable, by way of creating a society where every mother could be certain that her child will be cared for, supported, given equal access to all the benefits that education can bring, and so on.
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm
@136
Nerd of Redhead,
One of the key components of rational thought is the ability to handle edge cases. A situation being rare does not exclude it from being valid. If you don't ask the tricky questions then you won't have an understanding of the situation that will hold up to any scrutiny.
You seem to have come up with a solution is good enough to you. I believe I have insightful questions, not red herrings, to which "good enough" is not a useful answer.
Your point in post 93 seems flawed and oversimplified. I do not necessarily agree with your definition of when a fetus becomes a person. By this rationalization, a fetus delivered via C-section is not a person just before the umbilical cord is cut, but is a person just after. Having a stretch of blood vessels cut is not sufficient to becoming a person.
Walton:
"I was accused of being a godless liberal on Conservapedia; I'm accused here of being an anti-woman reactionary. I like to think I'm neither. I'm not part of either camp. I call myself a libertarian because it's the label that fits best, given my strong belief in small and limited government; but even so, I don't subscribe to the full package deal of hardline libertarianism. My beliefs are somewhere in between. And I don't know why that makes me such a despised figure."
Perhaps because you are deliberately posting remarks you know to be inflammatory on staunchly conservative and liberal websites?
Or perhaps because you do not provide a train of logic for us to follow but rather simply state positions, leading us to assume that there is no logic in your statements?
Of course if you'd explain why you think no abortions should ever happen, we'd be happy to discuss the answer with you. If that answer is religious, we're probably going to question the hypocrisy of following only a select few religious tenets while ignoring others.
Martha wrote:
You obviously don't know how to think.
First problem, many women who get abortions often later do choose to have kids (or have already had as many kids as they can handle).
Second problem, some of the younger girls who get abortions come from strict religious families that are against it. In fact, there are stats showing that associated with anti-abortion is also an unwillingness to give kids a proper sex education.
You are using a computer, hypocrite. Come up with another argument (if you can, that is).
The stupid! It burns!
What? You? Why you? This thread isn't about you :-)
But if you already insist on making yourself a topic, what do you think of "legal, safe, and rare"?
Hmmm, probably it works the other way around. Groups of cultists who are stupid, crazy, and evil are dying out. It isn't that they don't reproduce. It is that what they are pushing, lies, violence, ignorance, and general repulsiveness isn't worthwhile for "normal people". Their Back to the Dark Ages movement isn't going to work. The brighter among them, especially their kids grow up and drop out. Leaving an ever shrinking group of old dumb people to inhabit the lunatic fringes. Like Martha.
Polls show this clearly. The majority of the American people are sick and tired of the Oogedy Boogy religious kooks. Like Martha. Most of that majority are....other xians.
As an atheist, I was surprised to see my own thinking echoed in this excellent piece by evangelical Robert Balmer, Jesus is Not a Republican, well worth reading for xians and atheists alike. His stance on abortion is that he isn't interested in making abortion illegal, but rather making it unthinkable, by way of creating a society where every mother could be certain that her child will be cared for, supported, given equal access to all the benefits that education can bring, and so on.
I just read it. He sounds like a complete leftist idiot (making him a good counterpart to the rightist idiots who dominate the evangelical movement). What he advocates is a different form of authoritarianism, but authoritarianism nonetheless. Just as the Falwells and Robertsons would take away your right to marry who you wish and make your own moral, religious and lifestyle decisions for yourself, so this guy would, seemingly, take away your right to keep and spend your own earnings as you choose, replacing it with forced redistribution from the rich to the poor. He talks of "free enterprise" as if it were something bad; but, as with all people who say such stupid things, I'd like him to see what his life would be like without the benefit of the amazing material prosperity and technological advancement which free enterprise has brought us over the last few centuries.
Wake up, people. The mainstream left is just as bad as the mainstream right.
Aaron @ 76: Since you're asking about liberty interests, you might be interested in my post on another thread, excerpted here:
If you want to talk about the fetus as if it is a person, then you have to acknowledge that no one is obliged to give another person a property interest in their own body. Thus the pregnant woman has no obligation to give the fetus, its father, the government, or any other entity property rights in her body. If the fetus is not a person, then the woman has a perfect, unanswerable claim to do what she likes with her own body.
The rest of the post is here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/abort_a_doughnut_today.php#c…
It's a followup to a longer post slightly upstream from it, that lays out some of the reasoning in greater detail.
i live in holland so not to sure how democracy works in the usa but i'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that these guys are allowed to vote...
and guess they voted for bush.
twice.
Aaron, legally a fetus becomes a person when it breathes on its own. As a matter of common sense, it could breathe on its own if it were removed from the womb a few hours earlier. But that's irrelevant. No woman waits until just before birth and then demands an abortion. If she is unwillingly pregnant, she wants it now.
Doctors are reluctant to do even a mid-term abortion unless there's a good medical reason, because the survival age is creeping lower. The earliest births that have survived are around the 24 week stage; however, they have a high death rate and a 50% chance of disability if born before 28 weeks. A baby is premature if it is born earlier than 37 weeks out of the official 40-week term of pregnancy, which starts with the first day of the last menstrual period.
So a woman is officially two weeks pregnant at the time of conception. It can take a couple of missed periods before one who's not counting realizes she's pregnant. Then there's darn little leeway to see a doctor, confirm pregnancy, and actually arrange an abortion. Not everyone counts the days, especially if they are young and their periods haven't settled into a rhythm yet. But they should, in case they need to know in time to take action.
So I guess the answer is "Yes, but so what?"
In Canada, when gestational age was recorded, 32,000 abortions occurred at 0 - 12 weeks, 4,800 at 13 - 24 weeks, and 35 at over 24 weeks. You can bet that for those 35, and probably a lot of the 2nd-trimester abortions, the life of the woman was in danger.
In the U.S., half of all abortions are done at under 8 weeks. This web site starts counting at conception, so their "Five to six weeks" is an 8-week pregnancy.
Martha, have you studied abortion rates at all? The number of abortions performed in countries where it is legal and where it is not are about the same. The difference is in the mortality and morbidity of the women.
Should we make abortion illegal even though it will actually lead to increased deaths of both mothers and their unborn children?
As to the debate about babies surviving on their own,etc...I'm pretty sure research has shown that the current neonatal medicine 'limit' is at 26 weeks or something like that, and it is unlikely it will get pushed back further, without major medical breakthroughs.
@150
The flaw in that argument, if you read my original post @76, is that if the fetus is a person, then the fetus has no obligation to to the woman a property interest in its body. The government then should act of the fetus's behalf to remove the woman from the equation, since an abortion would do it material harm.
Or to rephrase, leaving out any concerns of viability:
If the woman can harm the fetus to protect herself, why can't the fetus harm the woman to protect itself?
Why can't the government (on the fetus's behalf) harm the woman to protect the fetus?
It seems that any attempt at a clear cut answer will run into the definition of how and when you becomes a person, and what rights that entails you to.
That is hilarious. It just shows how wacko people can be. They really believe that they dont think past what "god tells them to do". It is really sad, funny, but sad. Especially when you think that people like this can vote and support decisions that can change laws.
When I conducted similar experiments (admittedly many years ago), I found the answers were very different in the presence of recording devices from the answers provided when the interview is unrecorded.
From memory, the answers I got off camera were more like "they're murderers, and they should be charged with murder just like the doctors" if I was speaking to a man, and more like "something, I don't know, some kind of penalty, five or ten years in jail maybe, it's almost as bad as murder, but it's not the same," if I was talking to a woman.
I don't believe for a minute that these people hadn't thought about it. They think about it all the time. They just won't say what they think on camera.
The pictures they are showing are practically full term; not the typical abortion. I wonder if these protesters even know that?
Martha, in case you believe in god, the biggest abortionist in the world is god. God is an abortionist. Every miscarriage is god's abortion. So god likes abortions. See post #63 for statistics showing god loves abortions.
Since you have essentially nothing to add to our conversation, and try to put words into other peoples mouths that they don't mean, we should return the favor if you return.
"Wake up, people. The mainstream left is just as bad as the mainstream right. "
I was under the impression that you have to reach pretty far left to find kooks, whereas on the right, you needn't reach so far. The mainstream left is generally socially sensible and non-authoritarian; the mainstream right tends to be religious and morally authoritarian. What you just read seems to be an exception.
"Slutty Killers" would be a great name for an all-girl punk band.
And this Loudon is a Poe, no?
Christians can let their 14-year-old children die, and excuse that crime as a religious choice.
You left off the unnatural things like electricity, modern medicine, cars, planes and the internet.
Most fundies want to go back to the Dark Ages. I suppose a few look at that as a degenerate unnatural time and want to go back to subsistence agriculture or hunting and gathering. So go ahead, nothing is stopping you. And oh yeah, we aren't going with you.
@ Porco Dio:
Our motto is "Vote Early, Vote Often."
Could be summed up as, "Don't ask me awkward questions I may have to think."
I like the woman at the end who was called there by god. Refuses to answer the questions then gives a quick genuflection and grabs her rosery like a child with its comfort blanket.
Were they for real or poes. You never can tell.
@152
I appreciate that you provided the legal definition of being a person. As a technical matter, viability has been moved back a few weeks in recent decades (I don't have source evidence, but I believe that this number is a reasonable estimate) as technology for handling premature births improves.
My basic point remains, however: If the act of removing a fetus from a woman and then having it survive is sufficient evidence of personhood, then one can make a reasonable argument that it was already a person just before it was removed.
Why can't the government (on the fetus's behalf) harm the woman to protect the fetus?
Because the government has no right to consider the woman its property (which is the only way it could coerce her into invasive surgery). Remember not to leave the woman out of the equation.
llanitedave, #105: So, if the fetus is a full person, then if the mother dies in childbirth can the infant be charged with murder?
Not only that, but under the legal logic that many on the right operate by, they should be tried as adults.
"I support providing safe, sterile, and legal abortions, but I do not entirely like the idea OF abortion."
No one "likes the idea of abortion", though. if anti-choicers were really anti-abortion, as many others have said already, they would support comprehensive sex ed, easily available birth control, health are, etc, etc, etc. They don't, because reducing abortions isn't what they're after. Misogyny (and a huge dose of racism) is the name of their game.
I agree with what some others have said here - the video seems to reveal a tacitly held belief on the part of the interviewees that there is indeed a difference between a fetus and a baby.
I imagine they would have no trouble at all stating what the punishment should be for a father who kills a baby. The difference is either sexism or an unconscious belief that abortion is not properly classed as murder.
"My basic point remains, however: If the act of removing a fetus from a woman and then having it survive is sufficient evidence of personhood, then one can make a reasonable argument that it was already a person just before it was removed."
What you're saying here is "something is going to die." No one disputes that. It is not a pretty fact. I am in favor of choosing the being with more sentience to let live.
@166
Yes, but the government harms people all the time on the behalf of others.
-Neglect your children, go to jail. (Unless, of course, you are religious nut who prayed hard)
-Don't pay child support, have your pay docked.
If the fetus is not a person, I generally agree with your assertions. If the fetus is a person, then the government probably does have the right to harm the woman to protect the fetus, as it would if the person (fetus, baby, elderly) were otherwise incapacitated.
"If the fetus is a person, then the government probably does have the right to harm the woman to protect the fetus"
Any other females in the audience want to puke at the thought?
It is also very interesting that the woman at the end says "I'm not a lawyer, I don't know." Right, she's not a lawyer. But she's sure willing to make medical and religious decisions for everyone else even though she's (I assume) not a doctor and not a god. And then she knows she's been out-logic'ed and backs out with sick sweet politeness and blessings.
Very telling.
"If the fetus is not a person, I generally agree with your assertions. If the fetus is a person, then the government probably does have the right to harm the woman to protect the fetus, as it would if the person (fetus, baby, elderly) were otherwise incapacitated."
And in such legal cases where two parties are each trying to kill each other and the government must allow only one to succeed, whom does the government choose?
Aaron, #165: If the act of removing a fetus from a woman and then having it survive is sufficient evidence of personhood, then one can make a reasonable argument that it was already a person just before it was removed.
It's not immediately clear how (but maybe the answer is buried in the 160+ posts before this one). If it is the act that confers personhood, then obviously the fetus isn't a person before the act is performed.
@170 "I am in favor of choosing the being with more sentience to let live."
I would typically agree, but it is not a comfortable position to hold. I am not sure that value judgment has always been made correctly.
"I would typically agree, but it is not a comfortable position to hold. I am not sure that value judgment has always been made correctly."
I'm glad we agree, but this statement is unnecessary. Of COURSE it's uncomfortable to hold. Sticky ethical issues will only leave you feeling satisfied at the end if you're a moral absolutist, and I don't think either of us is.
@120 (Walton):
"I was accused of being a godless liberal on Conservapedia;"
Who hasn't?
Not everything that has human structure and DNA is a "person." Not everything that might be thought of as a "person" is human (for example, a fully sentient animal, computer, or extraterrestrial being).
The fact is, even young babies are not "people" yet. We give them the legal status of people, which they do not yet fully qualify for, because it's more convenient, emotionally satisfying, and psychologically defensible to draw the line at birth than to impose some more arbitrary criteria of sentience and functioning.
Aaron, as a scientist I look at facts, not philosophical quibble. The fetus/baby isn't a person until it is breathing "on its own". Where the fetus/baby is placed is irrelevant. Unbilical cord cut/non-cut is irrelevant. You are trying to make placement philosophically relevant when it isn't. The breath is the import fact. At that point the fetus becomes a baby.
Aaron, until the fetus is born, it is a parasite to the woman. That is the biological definition. So it is harming her. Any parasite can be removed. Again, step back and look at the facts to clear away the philosophical mumbo-jumbo.
Eighty-five year old Austrian chemist Carl Djerassi, who helped invent the contraceptive pill, now says that the Pill's creation has led to "devastating ecological effects" and a "demographic catastrophe."
Reasons? Dwindling population (except among Catholics!); an increase in female hormones in the environment leading to: transgendered fish in our lakes and rivers; decreased male fertility and emasculization(manboobs, anyone?)
Read the signs, people....read the frickin' signs....
Same idiotic arguments equating a clump of cells to sentient human life. Morons.
Try this you idiots:
An apple seed is NOT an apple. Get it? If you don't, try eating some apple seeds and then maybe you will.
Martha the twit is back. Irrelevant as always. Your god is an abortionist Martha.
Your right, that was painful. One person gave a definite answer, and she thought of it on the spot, with prodding from the interviewer. You would think these people would think out their position more, but no!
"Eighty-five year old Austrian chemist Carl Djerassi, who helped invent the contraceptive pill, now says that the Pill's creation has led to "devastating ecological effects" and a "demographic catastrophe."
Reasons? Dwindling population (except among Catholics!); an increase in female hormones in the environment leading to: transgendered fish in our lakes and rivers; decreased male fertility and emasculization(manboobs, anyone?)
Read the signs, people....read the frickin' signs....
"
FACEPALM CITY.
Post the sources, Martha. Post the frickin' sources.
Your sandwich board doesn't count.
Oh, and ellipses are three dots (...), Martha. Three frickin' dots.
@172 I appreciate your instinctive disgust with that statement, but consider the situation:
A man refuses to feed his children. You are unable to remove his children from his custody, because you live in an authoritarian, repressive regime. Would it be moral to harm him in order to feed the children?
@174 I believe the government typically prevents both parties from killing each other as much as possible.
@175 The act does not confer personhood, only demonstrates it. Personhood may have existed before the act.
@Nerd #180
There's a scientific definition of a person?
Abortion is not part of the Canadian Criminal Code. Abortion is seen as a medical procedure, not a potentially illegal act.
ctygesen: Post the sources?? POST THE SOURCES?? You guys spew out unsupported theories like it's all just one big barf-a-thon!
Actually, I normally DO post sources, but you know the old saying: When in Rome....
Aaron @ 187:
Yawn. Let me know when you come up with a rational answer to me assertion in #179. because I have a feeling you're going to ignore it unless I remind you.
Martha, you dingbat. Just because Carl was a competent enough chemist to develop a contraceptive does not in anyway mean his opinion on the results of the use of his chemistry has any value.
Cappy, that's a very important thought experiment. It's reinforced by the way people mourn a late period (usually not at all) vs. a miscarriage (regret, disappointment) vs. the death of a child (deep and lasting grief).
This is great. I'm using this on my blog. Silly people. If its "murder" then the answer should have been easy. Pre-meditated murder, gets life in prison or the death penalty in the US. Funny how they aren't willing to really enforce the crime of "murder". Which means they don't really believe abortion is murder.
Reasons? Dwindling population (except among Catholics!);
Yeah, the world's human population is totally dwindling, and that is totally sending the world to hell in a handbasket, because 6.7 billion bipedal primates wandering the Earth is nowhere NEAR enough.
Furthermore, of course Catholics don't use the Pill! Otherwise, how would they end up having as many abortions as the rest of us?
It's good to know you're also opposed to Pill use. Women are enjoying sex entirely too much these days.
Martha would be against even a perfect contraceptive that caused no harm to the environment or the user's body and that prevented the sperm and egg cell from ever meeting in the first place (wouldn't you, dear?).
Aaron, #187: @175 The act does not confer personhood, only demonstrates it. Personhood may have existed before the act.
That could be, I'm not completely familiar with how the law if phrased.
That could be corrected by legally mandating that personhood begins when the individual exists the uterus and is breathing on its own (or however this was phrased at the beginning).
Martha's doing nothing at this point but trolling and I regret ever engaging in attempted discourse with her. From here on out the sole acceptable response shall be:
https://webspace.utexas.edu/warnerwt/picard-facepalm.jpg
Listen, people - if you want sources they are all over the Internet. I'm assuming you all have Internet access. Do some research before you start with the (predictable) name-calling.
@180
It appears that you are looking less at facts than at jargon. You have some definitions that you are comfortable with, and want to squash any debate about whether they are valuable or not. That seems very little like science.
You like that the definition of fetus to baby transition is breathing on its own, but ignore the fact that this definition tells us little about whether it deserves to be regarded as a person or not. I have given arguments why that definition is arbitrary and of limited use, because it does not attempt to delineate the correctness of certain actions, specifically whether to terminate that life. You have not attempted to debate those arguments, but fallen back on an appeal to authority.
With regard to your other statement, I offer:
After a fetus is born, it is a parasite to the woman. It takes a vast amount of nutrition and energy that could be better used for her sake. So it is harming her. Any parasite can be removed.
I watched some of this clip the first time, had to click away, no I can't get it to show up again. I've tried reloading the page, going back and forth to it, and have gone to the original page at unreasonablefaith. No luck.
Help?
Brian
Martha, here's how it works. You make a claim it is your responsibility to support it.
Otherwise people can make all sorts of batshit crazy claims and then put the burden on the listener to have to support it.
That is not how it works.
"And babies who CAN breathe can't live on their own for long without being cared for. It's called dependency. A lot of humans, yourself included, are dependent on others."
Important bit of difference there: A baby outside of the womb can be cared for by any individual, not just the mother.
re: "Natural" - Kind of a weird concept. Is a two-headed cow unnatural? It happens naturally. Does something require human intervention to be unnatural? Practically all human foods have been heavily modified by human-applied (unnatural?) selection pressure. The precursor to corn looks more like wheat than corn... is corn unnatural? How about dogs? Genetic modification's not really any different - it's done using natural bits of viruses that did that kind of thing anyway, just without (dun-da-dun!) certain pressure by humans.
So, what exactly do you mean when you say 'unnatural' beyond 'I don't like it' (or perhaps 'I don't understand it')?
Martha, it's so generous of you to go out of your way and give us your time by showing all us poor, mentally impoverished heathens the truth about our disastrous, dangerous contraceptive use. Where ever would we be without YOU to educate us? We just might do something rash, like...limit our family sizes to something we can handle! And our children might grow up with horrible impediments, like...proper nutrition and shelter, and maybe even decent education! You're so brilliant, OF COURSE it's self-evident that YOU can't be the one to Google the data sources for the apocalyptic warnings you've taken the trouble to bring us! When you make absurd claims, of course it's the rest of us who must find the evidence in their favor!
Now fuck off.
Aaron, don't you have anything to say about my post #179? I'm starting to feel... ignored... like someone whose relevant argument is being conveniently shoved aside because it's too hard to answer... say it isn't so!
Alyson,
Thanks for being so understanding. However, brilliant is not an adjective I would ascribe to myself. I'm much too humble. Stick with "enlightened".
I'm much too humble. Stick with "enlightened".
Irony: she has it!
cygesen, there has to be a definite cut-off point somewhere for full personhood. If the fetus doesn't ever breath, it is stillborn. So taking that breath is absolutely required to be a full person. It is also a very hard demarcation line. That is my opinion based on the facts as I see them. I'm sure other other reasonable opinions can be had. But it also tends to fit with present laws.
For the record, I tend to feel that third trimester abortions should only be performed due to fetal abnormalities, or to save the life of the mother. Which is pretty much the case these days.
Hey martha, don't like abortions? Don't have one.
K. Thanks.
@191 (by way of 179)
I can only type so fast.
I tend to agree with you that "person" is a vague term, whereas people tend to want it to be cut and dry. The problem with arbitrary definitions, such as setting it at birth, is that someone else can come along with their arbitrary definition: at conception.
I think their position is inherently wrong. Bundles of 8 or 16 cells do not have the same rights as you or I do. The solution to arguing against their arbitrary position is not, in my opinion, to come up with a competing arbitrary position.
The correct approach is to come up with the best possible definition of "person", if there must be one. The alternative to arrive at a set of laws (or morals, if you prefer that) that:
-a mother may terminate the life up to a certain date (before or after birth)
-no one else may, without her consent, or they have done something wrong
The issue with this approach (even if it is correct) is that it is generally dangerous to have laws that make an act legal or illegal based upon who commits it.
Aaron: What I'm primarily interested in is at what point being a "person" is defined.
The problem is that you're considering "person" to be a binary condition. Like "species" in biology, there are some fuzzy edges.
Most people don't think very clearly about fuzzy edge cases.
"Nell," the Constable continued, indicating through his tone of voice that the lesson was concluding, "the difference between ignorant and educated people is that the latter know more facts. But that has nothing to do with whether they are stupid or intelligent. The difference between stupid and intelligent people--and this is true whether or not they are well-educated--is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations-- in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward."
-- from Neil Stephenson's Diamond Age
If enlightened in your little world means delusional, then yes.
You are a veritable Dali Lama of Enlightenment.
Martha, your god loves abortions. He is very good at it. Don't you want to be like god?
Ahh, I see, so because every form of electrical generation produces polution (solar panals and windmills have to be manufactured, too!), electricity is evil and should be banned.
That's the kind of thing you mean when you try to argue that the reason contraception is bad is because of poor waste control, right?
I'm still confused by the idea that people who want abortions would be wonderful happy parents if they weren't allowed to have them.
I suspect that if these people thought about it a bit more, they would conclude that their position is that the *performing* of abortions should be illegal, not the *receiving* of abortions.
If they actually thought about it, the answer would (obviously) be that an unborn child has the same rights as a born child; therefore, we treat a woman who voluntarily has an abortion just the same as we would a woman to voluntarily got somebody else to help her kill her born child. In other words, probably murder.
The reasons it doesn't occur to the protesters to say that:
1) They don't think of women as full moral actors. Most of them probably come from religious traditions where women are believed, mentally and morally, to be children; they must always be under the "headship" of a man (father, then husband). They cannot really imagine a woman making a decision about her body on her own, without some man directing and/or controlling her. Hence, it's all the doctor's fault.
2) It's political suicide. Telling people that abortion providers are greedy exploiters of women goes over quite a bit better than "Yes, we think your sister/mother/wife/best friend, who had an abortion at eight weeks' gestation, ought to be given life without parole."
3) Plenty of "pro-lifers" get abortions. It's just that *theirs* are OK, because it was rape, or it happened years ago, or because doctors lied about it, or because they're not like those other sluts.
@211
Being a person should likely be a binary condition. Not having it be a binary condition usually leads to bad laws, corrupt governments, and many, many other problems.
I have thought that point through quite extensively, so your quote does not really apply to me.
As I mentioned in my last post (210), not having personhood being a binary condition is likely the correct solution, but that position must be approached very carefully, and every contingency must be examined before it is reasonably accepted. To not do so is intellectually lazy and perhaps even morally wrong.
Walton, did you thank them for bestowing upon you a title that few if any of them could ever hope to achieve?
Speedwell, you're right. Under British Common Law and therefore in Canada, killing an infant less than three months old is infanticide. While it is homicide, it is not defined as murder. The punishment is lighter.
Aaron, it is irrelevant whether the fetus is legally a person. No person has the right to use your body against your will, even to save his or her own life. Therefore a fetus does not have the right to use your body against your will, either. Nor mine.
Monado, Aaron will doubtless point out that three months is an arbitrary cutoff point. His argument is not so much that the fetus is or isn't a person as it is that "we are not able to draft precise laws to regulate the practice, therefore it shouldn't happen at all."
I admit I haven't read too many of the comments, so it this has been raised before, please accept my apologies…
Presuming having an abortion done is illegal, and accepting the claim that “abortion = murder”, and this is in a “civilization” which likes to execute murderers, then isn't the woman a murderer who should be executed?
(For the record, I do not support execution, and I do support a woman's right to have an abortion.)
I can't be sure, but I think I saw smoke coming out of the ears of a few of those people. You can almost see 'that does not compute' scrolling across their vacuous faces.
@218 : "No person has the right to use your body against your will, even to save his or her own life."
Perhaps you are a libertarian. Otherwise, I suspect you hold many positions that contradict this statement.
Should a father have to pay child support if he does not want to?
Aaron: Being a person should likely be a binary condition.
How is that possible? A clump of four or five cells is clearly not a person. A living adult human being is clearly a person. But it is a gradual process over time that turns the clump of cells into an adult person. I can't think of any relevant factor that suddenly switches from "off" to "on" during this time. Every characteristic that I can think might be relevant changes in a gradual, not sudden manner.
We have no choice but to set an arbitrary dividing line. Maybe we'll err on the side of preventing unnecessary deaths of persons, maybe we'll err on the side of allowing freedom to the prospective mother, maybe we'll make a decision in between these two. But we are not going to avoid making an arbitrary distinction.
Maybe if the anti-abortion folks would allow the teaching of comprehensive sex education instead of abstinence only (which has been shown time and time again not to work), they then wouldn't have to worry about abortions since the number of unwanted pregnancies would potentially go down.
@219
Actually, my argument is that it is a difficult moral position, so we should not be so certain of our correctness without considering the merits of every possible argument.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
As far as laws go, we have many laws that constrain what we do with our bodies, possessions, and actions. Pregnancy is a huge cost to the mother, so it is very important, but do not assume that laws regulating what people do with their bodies are entirely unique.
Should a father have to pay child support if he does not want to?
I'm a libertarian, Aaron. Should a father pay child support even if he doesn't want to? Yes, ideally he should. Should he be coerced to do it? No.
oh, canada must have some laws regarding abortions...otherwise the government wouldn't be paying for them right? (in alberta at least) or maybe it's just a part of healthcare.
Yes, the law governing abortion is called the Canada Health Act, which is the same law covering child-birth, caearians section, appendectomy, hip replacement, cardiac bypass, cancer surgery, emergency room treatment, routine checkups, etc, etc. IOW: you answered your own question; it's part of the healthcare system. The last law specifically governing abortion was tossed out by the Supreme Court in IIRC 1988 when they acquitted Morgentaler.
The country has survived just fine like that for the past 20 years, and nobody except a few religiocons seems interested in changing it.
mythago, #215:
1) They don't think of women as full moral actors. Most of them probably come from religious traditions where women are believed, mentally and morally, to be children; they must always be under the "headship" of a man (father, then husband). They cannot really imagine a woman making a decision about her body on her own, without some man directing and/or controlling her. Hence, it's all the doctor's fault.
2) It's political suicide. Telling people that abortion providers are greedy exploiters of women goes over quite a bit better than "Yes, we think your sister/mother/wife/best friend, who had an abortion at eight weeks' gestation, ought to be given life without parole."
3) Plenty of "pro-lifers" get abortions. It's just that *theirs* are OK, because it was rape, or it happened years ago, or because doctors lied about it, or because they're not like those other sluts.
A couple more:
4) They think that criminalising abortion will mean an immediate, permanent reduction of abortion rates to zero. Just like what happened with everything else which was ever made illegal.
5) They genuinely haven't thought of it before, because they're thick as pigshit.
6) Sheer undiluted batshit insanity. (Martha, for example).
You know, it'd be mighty nice if these fundie wackos would read their own damn Bible...
According to the verses listed at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html , not to mention the numerous instances in which Yahweh ordered or condoned the killing of every person in a particular place, including expectant mothers, that particular deity places very little value on fetii. (In fact, infants under one month old are worth no shekels at all--Leviticus 27:6.)
@223
Being a binary condition is largely related to the consider of the law, and the morals behind them.
The binary condition entails:
-One possesses X number of characteristics that are necessary and sufficient to be considered a person.
-A person is entitled to Y rights and responsibilities.
The concept of person reduces the complexity of assigning rights and responsibilities to entities. Without having a binary concept, we would have
For each characteristic typical of a person, a given right or responsibility may be assigned. This position, as I said before, is likely the correct approach, but is messy because without the clean interface of "person" to filter judgments through, we get even more arbitrary decisions.
For example:
A monkey is alive and smarter than a newborn baby, should killing it be equated with murder?
A brain dead individual breathes and is of the same species as other Americans, should they be able to own property?
A fetus does not breathe on its own and does not have the mental capacity of a monkey, but exceeds the mental capacity of some adult invalids, do they have the right to individual, legal representation?
Without a binary filter of "person" to work with, we have to answer each and every question by itself, which may lead to many arbitrary decisions instead of just one.
@218 : "No person has the right to use your body against your will, even to save his or her own life."
Perhaps you are a libertarian. Otherwise, I suspect you hold many positions that contradict this statement.
Should a father have to pay child support if he does not want to?
Err, you missed the distinction of 'body', which is not the same as money. They can tell you to pay, but they can't anesthetize you and take your kidney.
Martha: Listen, people - if you want sources they are all over the Internet.
So is a lot of nonsense. Perhaps you might have a few DOI citations to support the connections you claim?
Aaron: Being a person should likely be a binary condition. Not having it be a binary condition usually leads to bad laws, corrupt governments, and many, many other problems.
I believe you're confusing "should be" with "should be legally viewed as". Also, I think non-binary legal conditions are merely contributory to extant social problems.
Aaron: As I mentioned in my last post (210), not having personhood being a binary condition is likely the correct solution, but that position must be approached very carefully, and every contingency must be examined before it is reasonably accepted. To not do so is intellectually lazy and perhaps even morally wrong.
Again: binary in the legal sense.
Looking at the question in the broader ethical sense, the question is even worse: why limit "person" to the human species?
Martha #181: "an increase in female hormones in the environment leading to: transgendered fish in our lakes and rivers; decreased male fertility and emasculization(manboobs, anyone?) "
Manboobs? Ever heard of the obesity epidemics, Martha? BTW, it's "emasculation". Failed again.
Oh, and about the fertility in fish and men, hello! Here's a hint for you: don't use incomplete, ten-year out of date studies as if research hadn't progressed before. Not all chemical pollution of the waters is cause by estrogens, and not all estrogens released in the environment is from the Pill. Think about fertility treatment, think about menopause treatment, for instance. And then, there's the anti-androgens, molecules that counteract the male hormones. They can be found in several kinds of pharmaceuticals, including drugs used to cure prostate cancer in men! And you even find them in cosmetics, soaps, etc. It's everywhere.
Eruvande, as you say, they are not worshipping God by defending the so-called rights of the fetus over the rights of the mother.
They are really deifying human DNA, because they base all their arguments on whether the fetus is human and when to consider the beginning of an individual life to be. They set it at conception, which is when the individual DNA gets consolidated.
They've forgotten their religious obligation to assist the troubled and needy in their haste to exalt a group of chromosomes. Wonder how far their jaw would drop if they realized what they were doing was idolatry.
"Demographic catastrophe" is Austrian for "too many brown people".
And the "devastating ecological effects" you're referring to is from a bullshit Vatican study that took the real concerns about synthetic estrogen and estrogen-like chemicals from industrial use that have gotten into waterways, and then linked them to contraceptives because, hey, the Pill has estrogen too! Unless women are dumping contraceptives down the toilet, the Pill isn't turning our fish gay.
@231
Many jurisdictions will jail you if you fail to provide support for an extended period of time. Jail = coercion of your body.
@226
I should know better than to argue with libertarians, but here goes...
A person takes your shoes. Should he be coerced into giving them back?
I suspect you'll answer yes, because they violated your rights by taking your property. The issue I have with that stance is that property is an arbitrary construct of society, and that the right to live takes precedence over these other arbitrary rights. If a person is unable to defend themselves then it is the government's role to protect them, by way of the police or military.
So we are back to where we started. We have many laws that coerce us to action, they are okay if they protect another person's health, and we don't know if a fetus is a person who deserves that protection.
@232
'I believe you're confusing "should be" with "should be legally viewed as". Also, I think non-binary legal conditions are merely contributory to extant social problems.'
I agree, your clarification was correct. They are not only contributory but often amplify and encourage the problem.
I'm not a lawyer ... but I did abort a fetus at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
I'm I the only one who thinks the dimwit at 4:08 is HOT? [insert typical feminist commentary here]
Woody, I disagree 'Epic Fail' describes them properly.
Martha is right in one thing, Christian teen pregnancy machines are out-breeding the smarter sectors of the population rapidly. Wasn't that the principle behind the nightmarish last 8 years?
Anyway, I admit I'm fuzzy about it myself, a blastocyst isn't a human, an 8 month fetus probably is, somewhere down there we should mark difference, shouldn't we let that decision to the experts?
...property is an arbitrary construct of society, and that the right to live takes precedence over these other arbitrary rights...
It's a little sad that you think you know how to frame a consistent libertarian argument. Fact is, the other person's right to live and own property stops at my right to live and own the property I legitimately obtain without fraud or coercion. It's commendable if I grease the wheels of society by assisting the needy, but it's morally indefensible to allow the needy to defraud me and take my property (whether a pair of shoes, my livelihood, my home, or my remaining kidney) by force.
@ Martha
Three lies for the price of one.
"All over the internet" takes me to bastions of scientific objectivity like the National Catholic Register, the National Review and the Worldnet Daily.
If you have a source conclusively linking "increased environmental estrogens" to the birth control pill, let us in on it. I can find two sources, one from 2003 and another from 2005. Neither one of them conclusively linked elevated estrogen levels to the use of birth control pills. Synthetic estrogens are present in a lot of products, including plastics and even hair straighteners.
Even if the evidence strongly indicates that synthetic estrogens are primarily infiltrating water sources because of pill useage, this becomes a conservation and ecological management issue, not the deathblow against contraception that you want it to be. Massive amounts of untreated human sewage are bad for the environment too so rather than not taking a shit, we have waste treatment plants.
As for Djerassi, you need This Man's Pill. He is no friend to anti-abortionists or anti-contraception-ists, except in the minds of deluded quote miners like you.
Forget barf; everything you post here smells like ass.
Aaron:
"The issue with this approach (even if it is correct) is that it is generally dangerous to have laws that make an act legal or illegal based upon who commits it."
There is plenty of precedent, though. For instance, certain tasks are limited to those possessing valid licenses to perform them. It is a crime in most states to practice medicine without a license, for instance. So this is not necessarily a problem.
That said, I think abortions are bad -- a painful choice that is sometimes the least bad option available. I think that if pro-lifers were really concerned about life (rather than pontificating about the "evils of abortion") they'd spend their efforts more productively making sure that a) fewer women get pregnant in the first place and b) those who do get pregnant know they have enough support that they don't have to be scared. Hell, if I were a twenty-one year old high school dropout with three kids already and a minimum wage job, and my latest abusive abusive boyfriend got me pregnant, I'm not so sure I'd feel safe carrying that kid to term. I'd look at my other kids and see the cost to them. I'd look at the boyfriend and cringe at what he'd say. I wouldn't even want to think about what my parents would say. I might just want to get rid of it. The real problem isn't that abortion is legal. The real problem is that a lot of people are in really crappy situations and not enough people really give a damn. And some of those who don't give a damn are pro-lifers. (I'm sure there are also pro-choicers who don't give a damn. Frankly, I suspect a significant majority of the population doesn't give a damn, because of the very human tendency to focus on one's own immediate situation.)
Trying to save babies by banning abortion is a bit like trying to save horses by banning horse slaughter. It disregards the rather significant problem of why these babies/horses weren't wanted in the first place.
@199: You know, it's probably better that way. Otherwise, you'd likely do one of two things - link to an article written by some thoroughly-refuted wingnut, or link to a serious article which either says the opposite of what you think it says, or agrees with you only in a very trivial way. So spare everybody the carpal tunnel syndrome and just stick to your Fox Mulder "The Truth Is Out There" bullshit.
Yes, it is a difficult question, which is why the stance itself is so absurd. I commend the video, it illustrates its point rather effectively.
Look, it is one thing to believe that a fetus is a human being, and deserving of consideration (I happen to disagree, but that's not germane). It is another thing entirely to attempt to codify your religious belief in the legal code.
The thing I find astonishing about many people who are religious is that they often run immediately to the Constitution to defend their rights to their belief; but when faced with an issue where their stance depends upon their faith, they will not then concede the point that this is not an area for legislative purview.
I've found that the majority of the pro-life movement is less concerned with "preventing abortions" than they are with "making abortion illegal", because they believe (in spite of evidence) that the second goal as being a necessary precondition to the first. Call it like it is... all that "making abortion legal" accomplishes is establishing your religious beliefs and providing a social justification for your otherwise dogmatic stance. This is a no-no here in the U.S. of A.
Calli, you're doing good by calling attention to the plight of women in trouble, but what you don't realize is the poverty, abuse, and oppression is tangential to the core issue. By invoking the woman in trouble, you muddy the waters.
Fact is, even if, say, a rich, sociopathic socialite purposely impregnates herself in a coldblooded affair with the pool boy in order to deeply hurt and shame her loving, longsuffering husband, she should still be able to get an abortion on demand because it's HER BODY. I'm not comparing, for example, a incestuously raped, pregnant, kicked-out thirteen-year-old to such a woman in any way except for their common right to decide whether or not to carry their fetus.
@240
speedwell,
As I said, I was reluctant to debate a libertarian, but consider the position that property is largely arbitrary. We, as a society, have decided that it is beneficial to divide up resources in a certain manner. That's all property is. There is no god given right to own things, it is just a decision we all made as a result of existing in a society run by animals that evolved as social animals.
Private property works well, but it is not magic. It is not an axiom. It is a pragmatic conclusion.
OK, full sex and contraception information should be compulsory for all kids entering high school, along with complete information about the abortion process, sexually transmitted infections and laws about the age of consent.
(Otherwise they just hear garbled versions from older members within the school, which gives them skewed ideas and makes sex almost "mythological" instead of a set of basic facts.)
Teenagers should be encouraged to discuss sex, gender, respect etc in mixed sex groups throughout high school as part of their PHSE course. This would probably help to break down gender barriers/preconceptions - and encourage more mutual respect between the sexes.
Women need the legal right to the final say when it comes down to their own body, especially in situations where a continued pregnancy will endanger their own lives.
Better education should greatly reduce the amount of girls who become pregnant through fear/ignorance of contraception etc.
Aaron, the conditions under which we assign certain rights to individuals are often not "binary", but depend on the specific circumstances. For example, the notion of mental competence, a concept tied deeply to certain legal rights, involves a subjective determination that can be quite fuzzy. Likewise the notion of "legally dead" -- just look at the mess that was the Terry Schiavo case. Even if we have clear defining criteria for personhood, determining if those criteria are met can be difficult and subjective.
There are many ethicists who argue just that (or, at least, argue that a monkey and infant should have the same ethical status).
Property has nothing to do with personhood -- we restrict the civic rights of persons all the time (e.g., those under 18 can't vote in the US, those under 35 can't be US president, those declared mentally incompetent can't sign binding contracts, etc.).
CodewordConduit: I think that mandatory, comprehensive sex ed would very likely result in far, far fewer unwanted pregnancies in adult women as well as teenagers. With that in mind, how many pro-life activists think that parents shouldn't be able to pull their kids out of sex ed classes? I don't doubt that some DO think all teenagers should take sex ed, whether their parents like it or not, but how many others say all parents have the right to prevent their kids from learning about sex and its attendant responsibilities from a licensed teacher in a secular setting, and then wax astonished at the number of women and girls flocking to the family planning clinics to get rid of pregnancies they don't want?
So I googled for "estrogen levels waterways" and within 2 minutes found this:
"A study conducted by Webb et al. (2003) supports Christensen’s claim. They conducted an experiment that examined the degree of human exposure to various pharmaceutical compounds in drinking water. Based on their results it was determined that the average daily intake of estrogen from drinking water is negligible. They assert that humans naturally produce and intake various forms of estrogen. The level of this natural exposure to estrogen is approximately two orders of magnitude greater than the potential levels of exposure to synthetic estrogen from pharmaceuticals. (emphasis mine) Therefore, they suggested that current increased levels of estrogen in the environment will not cause harmful effects on humans."
Webb, Simon, Thomas Ternes, Michel Gilbert, and Klaus Olejniczak. 2003. Indirect Human Exposure to Pharmaceuticals via Drinking Water. Toxicology Letters
142(3): 157-167.
That's for doing the research online.
Djerassi is not a crank. He's a world-class chemist, playwright, novelist, and professor at Stanford.
I'm shocked, simply shocked I tell you, to see Martha misrepresent his views on contraception.
This is quote-mining of the "Darwin said it's impossible for the human eye to have evolved" caliber.
Aaron @ 246: I'm also reluctant to engage this aspect of the argument (it's getting away from the topic), but you're arguing a shortsighted, mistaken view.
We have finite lives and finite personal resources (strength, intelligence, talent, and so forth). Anything that I obtain without force or fraud, I obtain at the sole cost of part of my life (the time it takes to obtain it) and/or of my personal resources (that I trade with a willing purchaser for the thing I obtain). Therefore my property right derives from and is inseparable from my right to life.
I may choose to spend my time and resources on something from which I derive no immediate benefit but personal satisfaction, such as helping the needy. But it is not consistent with my right to life that I be forced to do so or stolen from if I choose not to do so.
These poor people are pathetic. They are being led around by a ring in their noses and have never even considered thinking about what they are doing or saying. It is depressing to realize that millions of people in the USA are similarly afflicted by their religion.
Martha, that ^^ is how you use an ellipses.
Kalirren: thank you for posting that source. Note the interesting conflation of "elevated environmental estrogens may pose an environmental hazard" with Martha's "oh noez teh pillz r killin r dudz!"
I am personally a liberal pro-lifer; in that, I believe that abortion is wrong not because the fetus is the SAME THING as a grown person but that abortion robs them of the same potential we are given. It devalues them and human life in general, and makes them disposable. Humans are ends in themselves.
That said, I think abortion is a problem but more or less a symptom- of a society that is lacking something. What do we lack? I can think of some: support for single mothers; free health care; fully funded aid programs; a decent foster care system; better adoption programs; accessable birth control and education, to name a few. We need to begin fixing these problems first, or else legislation will only be a pretend bandaid.
When these aims begin to be accomplished, I believe the abortion rate will plummet. At that point, we can begin legislation. But because I see women in the situation as misguided or put in a hard spot, I don't think that they should be punished to a large extent. We would need to punish for example, dealers of abortion drugs and those that assist in an illegal abortion that causes harm to the mother. If the mother were in some respect found to have an abortion and is healthy(those that get hurt in the process obviously needs proper care)should go into counseling, much as I think first-time drug offenders should go to rehab. It's not that the drug users didn't intend to do drugs; it is that it is a behavior that is destructive to the fabric of society and ultimately to themselves. But they themselves are not a direct threat, so there is less of a need for jail time.
Sorry this is rambling. But that's what I think.
@252
speedwell,
I respect your views and hold many of them myself. The problem I have is that I have seen property rights abused (e.g. environmental destruction), overstretched (e.g. intellectual property laws), and misappropriated (i.e. cost of society supporting and protecting someone's property exceeds their contributions to society). Consequently, I am cautious about moral absolutes when it comes to property rights.
Having said that, I agree this discussion is far off topic now, so we should drift back to the topic at hand. Perhaps another day, with high regards.
prettyinpink @ 255: I believe that abortion is wrong not because the fetus is the SAME THING as a grown person but that abortion robs them of the same potential we are given. It devalues them and human life in general, and makes them disposable. Humans are ends in themselves.
The nonexistent human rights of a potential human trump the existing human rights of an actual human? Whether or not that potential has a value, the value cannot possibly be more than the value of the actual. You need to rethink this.
speedwell,
Not more of a value. Same value ;)
I'm going to head out to the soup kitchen but will be back around 9 to answer any concerns. I don't plan on being disrespectful so please grant me this same pleasure :)
PnP: Rethink, don't simply assert. You have an interesting start--it's decent and humanistic, but it's not an adequate and complete defense of your point of view.
No...it robs religions from a potential opportunity of indoctrinating another child. Period.
In my experience, that's all that it is about. Religion has proven throughout history that it only cares about life if it can be a direct influence on that life. If not, it doesn't give a shit about it. As a matter of fact, it will probably want to destroy it.
Aaron, #230:
Well, now I'm not sure what you are arguing. If you are arguing that the legal distinction between a person and a non-person must be based on clear and obvious criteria, then you are simply going to be disappointed. This is not possible. I will repeat: a 30 year old human is clearly a person. As you yourself pointed out, a clump of 4 or 5 cells is clearly not a person. Yet there is no clean, clear dividing line between one or the other. There is no set of easily defined characteristics that will clearly divide all persons from all non-persons.
If you want, you can try to find a set of easily measurable and readily agreed upon criteria that will nicely separate persons from non-persons. You will quickly find that many people are going to disagree with your choice of criteria, and I suspect that the criteria that you choose will not be easily measurable.
More to the point, any criteria that you choose will exhibit a smooth continuum between the clump of cells and the adult human. There is not going to be a sharp, specific point where everyone on one side is clearly and obviously a person and everyone on the other side is obviously a non-person. Gray areas are unavoidable. To even use any conceivable criteria, arbitrary and arguable "cut-off" points are going to have to be imposed.
This is problematic, I agree. But that's life for you. The rational thing to do is to accept this, come to some common understanding as to where we should make the cut-offs, and continue to discuss and debate these issues, hoping to come to an ever better understanding of what justice should mean.
We do this all the time. Dividing minors from adults is an example. An age of 18 years old is a pretty arbitrary number, but it is the one we have decided to use. And, in fact, certain rights and obligations can be granted or denied to the same individual at different ages -- an 18 year old can legally vote in the US, for example, but can't purchase alcoholic beverages. There are a lot of problems and arguments concerning laws establishing ages of majority and ages at which various privileges and obligations are imposed, but I don't see how we can escape from this.
"Whether or not that potential has a value, the value cannot possibly be more than the value of the actual. You need to rethink this."
Certainly do. And remember, that "potential" is just a couple of cells, maybe. Not much bigger than a sperm, which, come to think of it, has a lot of potential. But the sperm, a potential life, can be freely disposed of, right? If not, why not, if potential human life, of even the single cellular type, is "sacred?"
This is what people who don't think look like. No pressure, no goading. Just non-thinking in action. Amazing documentary in it's simplicity.
Chiroptera, may I point out that it doesn't really matter if the fetus is a person or not? If it was somehow possible for a magician to make you so small that he could slip you into my uterus while I slept and force you to survive only by parasitically siphoning off my bodily resources, I would still have the right to evict you if I chose, even if it would kill you for me to do so.
Whether or not the fetus is a person is a red herring. The real issue is does it have a right to the woman's body? Does the woman have the right to "pull the plug" that is attaching her to another life (whether human or not). Everyone has a right to life; their own life, not the life of another. A fetus has no more right to be incubated in the mother's body than anyone has has a right to a continuous transfusion from another or to someone else's kidney. The fetus is entirely subject to the permission of the mother. As for late term abortions, the mother has the right to terminate the connection, period. If the fetus can live outside the womb, she does not have the right to kill it. Abortion should be aborting the pregnancy, i.e. the connection, not necessarily aborting a life (depending on the stage of development of the fetus). Yes, early abortions necessarily terminate the life of the embryo, but that is no different than refusing to donate a kidney would result in the death of the patient. Do you charge someone with murder for refusing to donate?
It's astonishing to see Aaron diligently searching behind plant pots and on top of cupboards for the item that is all the time in plain sight: the best point at which to say a developing member of Homo sapiens becomes a person. As everyone sane can agree (yes, Martha, we know you disagree) a blastocyst is not a person, and a normal three-year-old is. The development from the first to the second is continuous, so we can't expect to find a point at which all the characteristics of a person are acquired at once. However, we have been extremely lucky: nature has provided us with an amazingly obvious place to draw the line - namely, birth. This not only marks a discontinuity in the relationship between mother and fetus/baby, making the latter no longer an obligate parasite on the former; it is also a time of enormous physiological change, as the infant breathes on its own; and of a huge increase in its ability to sense and affect its environment. That so many people prefer to search for some alternative - any alternative - that will mean at least some women can be coerced into remaining pregnant and giving birth, is rather telling.
We have at this moment pills that prevent pregnancy AFTER sex.
The "anti-choice" movement doesn't even want that accessible.
There is nothing wrong with someone terminating a pregnancy within the legal framework that's been established in most states. Which is within the first trimester.
I think we should make birth control cheap and accessible to all men and women and high schoolers. High schoolers should be given all the facts about sex. I had a pretty straightforward health class that covered the bases. Certainly made me want to use a condom and not get anyone pregnant or get diseases.
But this "every gzygote is sacred" stuff is stupid.
Alyson,
This is why I think "respect" for religious beliefs has gone too far. In state schools, parents should not have the right to obstruct any single aspect of their child's education.
Totalitarian rationalism has an ironic ring to it, granted - but what can be fairer than laws based on what is testable to the masses?
Anyone can tell their kids what they believe to be true about sex.
But anyone who denies their child an education should (in my view) be repeatedly fined on an increasing scale.
Home-schooled children should have to sit Personal Health and Social Education tests. If they are failing them, their parents must send them to state courses on the suject or... WHAM! Fined again.
The answer is rather simple actually. But the people in your video being asked may be anxious about how their answer will be exploited by the slow witted herd animals known as the media, along with anyone who may appears to be the "media" (such as some wild and crazy guy with a camcorder and a self-serving question or three).
Let's see, if an anti-abortion protester were to say something similar to "10 years in jail" as fit punishment for killing babies, well wouldn't that be a lot of fun to kick around, eh? I'm sure this blog would have hundreds of comments in the first 24 hours.
What the questioner, some on this thread and other self absorbed comedians fail to take into account is that most people, even those who believe that killing unborn babies is wrong, have much the same attitude towards being judges and juries. Now I know that sounds contradictory, but it's not. People believe, as we are told by everything seen or heard in our modern society, that the big questions, like what an appropriate punishment should be or if it's OK to spank a child, ought to be left to the "experts". Of course, I'm no legal expert so should I determine punishment?
Boiled down, it means that trying to prevent something that is felt to be very bad such as abortions can easily be publicly opposed, while determining punishment for the deed is someone else's job.
This questioning technique is actually a pretty good ploy for getting people who oppose your beliefs to keep their opinion to themselves. Just let them know that they will be publicly ostracized and humiliated, possibly losing their jobs and reducing chances for future employment for other than a greeter at Walmart, not to mention being made a laughing stock to all who know them, if they dare stand up for something they believe in. Especially when they are believed to be in the minority. It was Sen. Chris Dodd that said SCOTUS nominee Roberts scared him because the Judge had "core beliefs" (How scary is that?).
BTW: I didn't watch the entire video, but I'm sure it meets with the standards of acceptability that this blog is known for (lack of civility, etc.). So, kudos to the videographer.
BTW: Since killing unborn babies is legal in this country, no one who has had an abortion or has performed an abortion should be punished in any way under federal or local law. So, what remains is what the deterrent to abortions should be if it were outlawed and then someone was found guilty of breaking the law? For now, I would say an acceptable starting point would be whatever the punishment was before 1973.
Wow, I have to get back to work. Good chat, everyone. :D
Steve_C @ 209:
I have a feeling that Martha doesn’t like sex and isn’t having any of that either. Which makes this entire topic irrelevant for you, doesn’t it Martha? Oh wait, Martha doesn’t want anyone else to have any fun either. So Martha, who are you going to go tell? Maybe you can try sending a complaint prayer to your god.
Hey, god! Those people are doing bad things and having fun. Make them stop!
Uggh, the Christian TattletaleTM, the most prevalent and repugnant of the sub-species.
The problem with the "edge cases" being discussed here (specifically between Aaron and Nerd of Redhead) regarding the legal line drawn at which abortion becomes infanticide is the belief that a national or statewide legal code is capable of handling such fine distinctions. Someone older and wiser than me once said, "The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel. It's a club." We cannot expect our legal codes to go to the point of "there's a fetus delivered, but the umbilical cord isn't cut; is killing it abortion?" There is a reason our legal system is more advanced than Hammurabi's, or a computer program wherein if X then always Y. We have police, prosecutors, juries, and judges to filter these closer cases through. That is why despite the astonishing lengths to which we have expounded upon our own laws, ambiguous cases still exist. As such, the responsibility of the government is really to try and stay out of it as much as possible, because the more ambiguous (and religiously-charged) the issue, the more likely a poorly written law will cause undue suffering (just look at the Atlanta failure of Romeo & Juliet law that put a minor away for years because of consensual statutory rape-a blow job-when actual intercourse would have been protected). Aaron identifies as a libertarian, and as one myself, I would expect him to reject any type of government regulation of sexuality given the proven potential for abuse.
@ Porco Dio #151:
"i live in holland so not to sure how democracy works in the usa.."
No matter where you live, the more you study the question, the less you will understand how democracy works in the USA!
Look up "gerrymander" and "Electoral College" for starters.
Once you've done that, look up "territory," the concept of a geographical area of but not in the USA, whose residents are called "citizens" of the USA but who can't run for federal office and who are taxed without any representation in the tax-levying bodies. After "territory," look up "commonwealth" (as in Puerto Rico, not as in Kentucky or Massachusetts.)
And to get this comment somewhat back OT, look up "death penalty" to find out why there are probably more than 3,000 different standards in the USA for when, why, and how a government operating under the US Constitution may ritually murder its own citizens.
Well PZ, I don't know if I should laugh or cry. It is funny that these protesters are so against abortion and yet have given no consideration to the possible repercussions if it were illegal. It is sad that they wouldn't think about that.
Reminds me of what my dad would tell me as a teenager "Use your head for more than just a place to put your hat"
speedwell, #265: Chiroptera, may I point out that it doesn't really matter if the fetus is a person or not?
Well, you can point out that it doesn't matter to you. Maybe you can convince me that it doesn't matter to me, either. Maybe you're trying to tell me that it doesn't matter to most people, and that might be true.
But I'm not a Christian and don't believe that there is any absolute standards existing apart from the individual thoughts and feelings by which to judge whether anything is morally acceptable or unacceptable, and so it would be very difficult for you to point out to me that it doesn't matter in some absolute sense.
@262 "The rational thing to do is to accept this, come to some common understanding as to where we should make the cut-offs, and continue to discuss and debate these issues, hoping to come to an ever better understanding of what justice should mean."
Isn't that what we're doing?
My point about personhood is that it seems to be an intrinsic concept that people have, which they then overapply. Or, to see it from the pro-life position, if it looks like a baby then it is a person. They then meander to the extreme position that a clump of 4 cells has the same rights as an adult.
It is still valuable, however, to have a legal distinction between a person and non-person. Why? It puts the burden on whoever is trying to restrict another's rights to prove why that person does not deserve them. Today we may be arguing that a 4 month fetus's right to an existence is secondary to the mother's right to not be pregnant, whereas tomorrow we may be arguing about whether a mother might restrict the diet of her newborn, to dangerous levels, for religious reasons.
In either case, we should start with a sound legal (or moral, if you prefer) definition of what rights a human animal has, and then be forced to defend our position when we seek to restrict those rights.
In either case, glib comments like
"It's a baby, not a choice"
or
"My body, my choice"
are insufficient to that task.
Oh joy, Mover's back.
It devalues them and human life in general, and makes them disposable. Humans are ends in themselves.
Whereas forcing women to be unwilling incubators only devalues women, not actual people, so it's okay.
Jesus.
i believe that in Germany abortion is formally but illegal does not carry a criminal punishment. because their post-holocaust constitution is very sensitive to human rights and holds eugenics as anathema their constitutional court was unable to rule, like ours, that the right to have an abortion is an appurtenance of liberty and privacy. however, abortions are available in Germany and are provided by the state to those who cannot afford them. it is an extralegal act and the basic position of the government is that it is wrong and should be discouraged.
Oh, fergawzakes. I just got enough time to watch all the way through to the end.
The last woman he interviews mentions that she's with Joe Scheidler. Yes, that Joe Scheidler.
I know for a fact that these people are trained not to say what they really think when they're presented with these questions. They all know full well what they think the penalties should be for women who have abortions after these people succeed in making them illegal, because their allies have already succeeded in plenty of other places outside the United States.
As you say, the answer should be relatively simple -- if a fetus is the same as a baby, then abortion is murder, and a women who gets an abortion is soliciting murder. Why is this so hard? The question is simply whether the fetus is a baby -- if it is, all the legal apparatus is already in place. There is no "legal" expertise needed.
Classic, just classic...
@266 "If the fetus can live outside the womb, she does not have the right to kill it."
SteveM,
You will find that some pro-choice advocates disagree with this position. As long as the fetus is in the womb, they would contend that the woman has the right to remove it through any means necessary.
@268
The discontinuity of birth is an easy point to assign the start of being a person. As with some other easy distinctions, it fails in many ways to agree with our basic observations. Specifically, a fetus just before birth, or even in the 3rd trimester, is little different than one just after birth. Easy conclusions are not always the correct ones.
I am still a fan of changing the name to "Eviction".
Then asking the protesters if they want a fetus implanted. That might clear up the issue even faster.
Is it just me, or do some people seem to confuse civility with using 500 words to call you an asshole without actually using the word asshole? #270 could have said what he wanted to say with just seven letters (eight if he opted to pluralize).
Martha wrote:
Idiot! What makes you think women who have abortions won't also have children? I had an abortion in my 20s, and later had a son. I would tell my college-aged son about you and your stupidity, but he would only say "meh".
Of course anti-choice types haven't thought through their views about abortion. Being against abortion for those people is not about "save the babies". Don't be distracted by that claim because it's really not what they care about. It's ALWAYS been about controlling women's sexuality, and about making women the property of the men who may or have impregnated them. Someone here mentioned the passage in the Bible saying that in the event a pregnant woman is attacked and she miscarries, that a fee should be paid to her husband to compensate him for the loss of his property. Seeing women as property and controlling women's sexuality have been going on for over 2,000 years and longer. That's what the anti-choice movement is really all about.
"People believe, as we are told by everything seen or heard in our modern society, that the big questions, like what an appropriate punishment should be or if it's OK to spank a child, ought to be left to the "experts"."
Since you seem to disdain this notion, then wouldn't you be amenable to the idea that the decision of whether or not someone should have an abortion should be left up that person, and not any self-proclaimed "experts"?
"Just let them know that they will be publicly ostracized and humiliated, possibly losing their jobs and reducing chances for future employment for other than a greeter at Walmart, not to mention being made a laughing stock to all who know them, if they dare stand up for something they believe in."
Pure unhinged bullshit and claptrap.
"So, what remains is what the deterrent to abortions should be if it were outlawed and then someone was found guilty of breaking the law?"
Would bleeding to death in an back-alley abortion clinic be sufficient?
I would tell my college-aged son about you and your stupidity, but he would only say "meh".
No doubt he walks on eggshells given your history. But he's thinking "She wouldn't try to snuff me now that I'm grown, would she?"
Aaron, you are being deliberately obtuse. Breathing. Why don't you stop breathing for two minutes. Or try to. I don't know what physical shape you are in. The breath of life. Easy. Basic observation you ignore. What do you get out of ignoring it? Easy, you can sound pseudointellectual. But all I see is weaseling.
is a Fool @293, you claim to have "no doubt" about an utterly uninformed supposition. That's truly foolish.
@294
Cell division. How long will you live if your cells stop dividing? Basic observation you ignore. What do you get out of ignoring it?
See, it's easy to come up with arbitrary arguments for when life begins. You picked an arbitrary one that you like. I just picked an arbitrary one that pro-life advocates like.
You are ignoring basic physiological facts in your attempts to be scientific. Specifically, fetuses have the capability to breath air far longer than they are required to.
Your argument amounts to little more than the creationists claiming that since something is simple and easy to explain (the eye is irreducibly complex if you don't bother to think about it), then it must be true. I prefer to ask hard questions and be skeptical about the answers.
murder and death by natural causes are two different things.
Weak, Martha, very weak. Are you really suggesting that we as a society should ignore deaths from illness because they are "natural" and only worry about murders, even though vastly more people die and die young of "natural causes" than of murder? Do you oppose all funding for the NIH, medicare, medicaid, state funding for hospitals, public health initiatives, etc? Are we wasting our time and money trying to save, for example, infants who die of SIDS because SIDS is "natural" and only investigate it in terms of whether or not child abuse might be involved? In short, do you believe your own BS or do you just find it convenient to not really think about it too hard?
Aaron, #296: See, it's easy to come up with arbitrary arguments for when life begins.
Not only is it easy, it's probably impossible to come up with a non-arbitrary argument for when life (or personhood) begins. At least I haven't yet seen anyone succeed at it. Have you?
Specifically, fetuses have the capability to breath air far longer than they are required to.
I think you mean that fetuses can start breathing air before they are (usually) required to. That is, that a fetus born at less than 40 weeks can often survive. If I've misunderstood your argument, please feel free to ignore the rest of this post. To start with, the vast majority of abortions occur during the time before a fetus can breath air even with the most advanced technical assistance. I think the youngest surviving premies are about 21 weeks. So your argument makes no sense for prohibiting the vast majority of abortions. The 1% that do occur at 21+ weeks are usually done because of fetal abnormalities that are incompatible with life, i.e. non-Down's trisomies, ancephaly, etc. So all you're really saying with this argument is that third trimester abortions in the absence of medical indications should be illegal. Which they are in the majority of states and countries. A nice moderate pro-choice position really.
Martha and the others who didn't understand my point.
Martha said re: parents allowing their child to die/ be killed.
Therefore, yes. Any parent who allows their kids to join the military would be guilty under Marthas' law. By signing papers for their sons and daughters to join-especially now, they would fit Marthas' definition of 'leathal negligence'. Or, if you like, every judge who told unruly kids it was either service or jail.
And no Martha, my parents didn't force me to 'run into burning buildings'. It's freedom of choice, much like being free to choose....
@298
Nope.
I'll admit that. Everyone seems to want simple solutions (life begins at conception, life begins at birth) that really do not seem to exist. Arguing when life (or personhood) begins is only as useful as it allows us to answer such questions as:
Is it okay to kill __X__?
If __X__ == an adult, then I'd say definitely not unless in self-defense.
If __X__ == an kid, then I'd say definitely not (under almost any imaginable circumstances)
If __X__ == a newborn, then I'd say definitely not (but not quite as bad as killing a grown kid)
If __X__ == a late term fetus, then I'd say perhaps, if you are the mother and have a valid reason.
If __X__ == a early term fetus, then I'd say okay, if you are the mother.
If __X__ == a blastocyst, then I'd say okay, if you are the mother.
If __X__ == a haploid human, then I'd say sure, it happens every day.
Not only is it easy, it's probably impossible to come up with a non-arbitrary argument for when life (or personhood) begins.
Life began in the precambrian. It's been continuous since then. Personhood...that's a more difficult question. There is a perfectly good definition of end of life for an individual person: when the brain completely ceases to function then the person is dead, regardless of continuation of cardiac function, renal function, etc. So why not use the beginning of brain function to establish when an individual life starts? The first functional neurons probably establish themselves around week 9-10 (IIRC). So that gives a lower limit--anything less developed than that is clearly not a distinct, individual person. But what about later? It is not considered murder to disconnect a person who has irreversible brain damage to the extent that they will never regain consciousness from a ventilator (a few high profile manufactured controversies such as the Schiavo case aside). Why then should it be murder to kill an entity that has never had conscious thought of any sort, even if it does have some basic brainstem function? It is not at all clear that the fetus is conscious at any time prior to its birth (there are, anti-abortion arguments not withstanding, many differences between a fetus and a newborn besides location--pO2 of the blood being one of them), but the earliest consiousness might occur is at about 30 weeks. So banning abortion at 30 weeks might be reasonably consistent with standard practice in analogous situations in end of life care. So might not banning abortion at all. But banning abortion altogether would be completely inconsistent with what is known about the fetus and how life and death are defined in other medical contexts.
I've been wondering...are human cancer cell cultures people too? Do they have souls or other supernatural endowments bestowed upon them by the Creator of their creator? Because I'm starting to think all of those cancer researchers are committing !MURDER! every time they do an experiment.
KnockGoats @ #272 says it perfectly.
ctygesen @ #257:
While we're harping on grammar/orthography, the singular of the word is "ellipsis." :-) Sorry, I couldn't resist.
But I do agree with your actual point. I'll add that people who oppose birth control or abortion for one reason, but argue to others based on points they consider merely incidental are just being dishonest.
@prettyinpink #258:
At that point, if the abortion rate has plummeted, why would we need legislation? I am pro-choice, but we both appear to share a mutual goal of reducing the total number of abortions (you for the sake of a fetus, me for the sake of the woman). If all the abortion protesters would put their energies into the goals you listed above, I think they would prevent far more abortions than any amount of picketing and harassment of women at clinics ever will.
"Lethal negligence" is a nonsense phrase, anyway.
But because I see women in the situation as misguided or put in a hard spot, I don't think that they should be punished to a large extent.
prettyinpink, in other words, you go with option #1: women are too stupid and morally immature to be held responsible for their decisions.
#1 is especially popular in the "pro-life" movement because some of its members are women who have had abortions, and want to pull the bridge up after themselves. The only way they can excuse murdering their children is the ol' Abortion Industry Doctors Hid The Truth From Me excuse.
I've been wondering...are human cancer cell cultures people too?
Not all of them. Some have arugably speciated. (See Hela cells.) But what about cancers in people? They are genetically unique individuals. Some produce all 3 tissue types, and even mature tissues such as hair and nails. So are they human? They don't generally produce organized neural connections, but according to the pro-lifers that's not what matters anyway...I think you're right. Chemotherapy is murder!
"Watch. Every one is stumped."
You say some of the dumbest things PZ. Did it ever occur to you that they only spliced together the interviews of those who didn't have an answer? Did you notice that the last lady referred the interviewer to the leader of their group who she said could probably answer the interviewer's questions better? Did you further notice that no such suggested interview was included in the video? Did that tell you anything? Hello Biff - knock knock knock - anybody in there?
I love the way the lady at the end crossed herself after talking to the interviewer. I imagine she thinks he was the devil incarnate and she had a narrow escape. Perhaps next time the interviewer could offer an apple to the women at the end of the interview?
Martha said: Women are murders.
Me, #308: Did it ever occur to you that they only spliced together the interviews of those who didn't have an answer?
Reminds me of a Ray Comfort video where he asks alleged atheists questions about their beliefs and shows them to be confused and contradictory. I had exactly the same thought.
But then, I know Ray Comfort probably selected the interviews to show, because I have seen atheists give coherent, logical answers to those very same questions. (I like to think I'm one of them, too, but that might be open to dispute.)
On the other hand, the fact that the anti-abortion advocates on this thread as a group don't seem to be too much more coherent in their answers makes me suspect that the video in PZ's link may not be too misleading.
If there is an illegal abortion, no government payments to
the individual (and this INCLUDES cheese handouts), no tax refunds, no tax breaks relating to children or stimulus checks. Period.
Doh!
Hey me, it's not a difficult question to answer.
That ANYONE wouldn't have an answer is what's pathetic... they're protesting.
There's 3 or 4 quick answers.
"Jail"
"Death"
"Nothing"
"Therapy"
"Jesus!"
Dianne, #302: It is not considered murder to disconnect a person who has irreversible brain damage to the extent that they will never regain consciousness from a ventilator (a few high profile manufactured controversies such as the Schiavo case aside).
It is exactly cases like Schiavo's that demonstrate my point to Aaron. Yeah, I like to think that consciousness is a reasonable criterion as well. But the Schiavo case demonstrates that there are plenty of people who don't agree with this.
Further, I'm not sure how to measure how "conscious" a person is. As far as I know, it, like most other things, develops in a gradual manner during development -- I doubt that there is a magic point when someone suddenly switches from "non-conscious" to "conscious", so fixing the cut-off point is going to be somewhat arbitrary. Either we end up protecting "persons" who aren't really very "conscious", or we risk killing people who do have a fairly developed consciousness. (This doesn't even take into account that I don't think that there is yet any clear definition what what "consciousness" is, but I may be wrong.)
I suspect that a person doesn't fully develop what we call "consciousness" until years after birth -- but I don't have the foggiest idea of where a suitable cut-off would be. That is mainly why a support the idea of legal personhood at birth -- it protects everyone who should be protected while also supporting the right of women to be not pregnant.
Aaron, the default definition of personhood is birth. Several other people have mentioned it too. Time for you to throw out your definition for us to savage. You are being obtuse on purpose.
Wtf Philos? I call Turnip.
Pretty In Pink #258 wrote:
First off, I do agree with you that we need more of the services you mentioned. However, are you aware that abortion rates in the U. S. have been dropping steadily for many years? Recent news has reported that current U. S. abortion rates are the lowest they've been in more than 30 years. The reasons cited are the same reasons that have been cited for a very long time now, including proper sex education (not abstinence-only nonsense), availability of family planning services, and more use and availability of contraception. I don't agree with you that women who get abortions are "misguided or put in a hard spot". They investigate their options, and make informed choices.
@tom #303:
Think of the TUMORS!
Oh, and Aaron, you are not leading us to group consensus, but rather to your personal consensus. Nothing you have said to date has made me rethink my position, and is unlike to based up your weaselly posts.
If we were to make abortion legal and punish whoever is responsible, how do we properly punish God for all the abortions He obviously performs? I mean the guy is notorious, he'd be on America's most wanted in no time.
I doubt that all the doctors in the world could keep up with all the babies lost to natural causes, and according to his followers, that means Goddidit.
I say throw the book at him!
I've reached comment #120, and I can no longer, er, hold my load. I promise to go back and read the rest.
But, to Martha and any other pro-lifers, here's the thing. You hate abortion. Got it. You consider it "baby murder." Really bad stuff. Got it. But it's not that simple.
Because here's the thing, what you are actually advocating here is not only "outlawing murder" but ALSO "forcing pregnancy and birth." You can't do the one without doing the other, not when we are discussing abortion.
Now, at this point you say, "Well, the women CHOOSE to become pregnant, by having sex, protected or not, THEREFORE, it is okay to FORCE them to remain pregnant and give birth. They have, by their actions of having sex, forfeited the use of their body to another for 9 months and their birth canal for a matter of hours.
So, here's the thought experiment: A madman kidnaps a child and threatens to kill it in nine months. In order to stop the madman from killing the child, the man says, "In nine months, I will, at random, take a woman off the street, and, if she has had sex at any time in the last nine months, I will force a grapefruit into her vagina, a sort of forced birth in reverse. If she refuses, I will kill the child. Remember, I'm only going to grab a woman who choose to have sex in the last nine months, she was warned what would happen if she had sex, and the life of a child is at stake. So, let me force a grapefruit into the vagina of the women or I'll kill the child."
Now, the questions is, should the STATE, in the interest of saving the life of THE CHILD, FORCE the WOMAN to take the grapefruit in the vagina, because she had sex, sometime in the last nine months?
Because, that is, basically, what the anti-abortion/forced birth position is. Because a women choose to have sex nine months ago, the state can now force her to push a grapefruit sized head out her vagina, whether she wants to or not. We usually call the unwilling use of a woman's vagina rape. But, the term "rape" does not do the actual reality of this situation justice. Responses?
Philos, #312: If there is an illegal abortion, no government payments to
the individual (and this INCLUDES cheese handouts), no tax refunds, no tax breaks relating to children or stimulus checks. Period.
Good solution, Philos. I especially like the idea of cutting off cheese handouts. That'll show 'em!
@KnockGoats
I believe you have it wrong. "Birth" does not mark "a discontinuity in the relationship between mother and fetus/baby, making the latter no longer an obligate parasite on the former".
It only separates them physically. The little "parasite" still needs his or her mother and is totally dependent on her for survival. In the sad situation where the mother decides she cannot be burdened with a creature that needs attention for what seems like 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the next 16 years or more, the little parasite will need someone to care for him or her (or them) or they will die.
This kind of reminds me of a Carlin bit, where he notes this is my stuff, but when it's yours, it's just shit. My stuff, your shit. Ergo, my daughters are human beings. Your offspring are parasitic blastocysts.
It makes me sad for you.
Correction on my last statement, yes I meant "If we were to make abortion illegal". Sorry for any confusion.
Martha said: women are murders murderers.
I had a spelling error in the earlier post, but my point is that it sums up Martha's position. Bringing the Schaivo case in to the picture actually goes right to the heart of the controversy because late term abortions are not done on a whim but out of mercy for the mother or the child, such as for horrible birth defects like the baby not having much of a brain or for cases where birth would kill or maim the mother. If people like Martha would wake up to that fact then they would see how intellectually dishonest their narrative is on abortion. annrose at DailyKos posted a really insightful entry on late term abortions (she calls them mercy abortions) back when Obama was taking heat for the NARAL endorsement.
You have to stop somewhere in the chain of life with the legal and moral definition of human life, and the best place to do that is when the fetus can survive outside the womb otherwise you get into whack-ball territory where spilling a man's seed is equivalent to murder, but at the same time you have to allow medical doctors to make the ultimate decision for the health and well-being of their patients (it goes both ways for the mother and the unborn fetus). Where is the evidence from anti-abortion activists that medical doctors are aborting fetuses past 24 weeks without medical reasons?
@321 I like. :-) Only thing is, it should be necessary to push that grapefruit through the cervix, too...
Mover the nitwit is back. Never has a point. Not smart enough for one.
Aaron, fathers don't go to jail for not paying child support. They are jailed for willful refusal to follow a court order. It's the willful refusal to pay child support, as according to the child support court order, that lands them three hots and a cot. Also, jail time is done only as a last resort, after all other avenues are exhausted.
Also, women getting abortions and fathers paying child support have no connection to each other. GTMoogle is right - "body" and "money" are not the same thing. You are trying to compare GTMoogle's statement "women merely become baby factories with no control over their own bodies" with your statement that "...privileging the baby over the father means you are valuing a potential person over an actual one, living, breathing, talking, walking, thinking, loving etc, etc, etc, and that is wrong. Because the other way around means men merely become baby providers with no control over their own bodies." First off, upon marriage, men agree by law that they will provide for any children born of the union, so they are not "mere baby providers with no control over their bodies." This situation is somewhat complicated in unwed parent homes, but the crux of it is that the marriage contract includes recognition of children of the union, including the support of those children by both parents. So, your comparison of fathers/child support to women/pregnancy/abortion is not a good one.
You've displayed quite a misrepresentation of law here, so I'm not surprised to see your other arguments are just as specious.
@Me:
Did it ever occur to you that this is completely beside the point? The point, by the way is that an astonishing number of people committed to holding signs with dead babies on them and pushing so hard to criminalize abortion never thought about the legal consequences of the legislation they so fervently desire. It doesn't matter how many others at this gathering had pat answers ready. The fact that enough people to fill a 7 minute video clip hadn't even considered the question before is worth exposing.
Do you think the fact that the woman didn't want to voice her own opinion--assuming she even had one--is in any way redeeming?
It's "Hello, McFly...", you yammering putz. Biff was the one doing the knocking.
Well, someone finally pulled a "WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ????!!11"
Funny, it usually happens much earlier in threads like this...
Nice to see more than just my BS meter going off.
#326
You are sooooo right.
Please forgive, as a guy, I only think about what I can see. Pathetique, No?
Nerd of Redhead #331,
My BS meter went off as soon as he started his Choice 4 Men-type men "forced" to pay child support nonsense. I wanted to see where he went with it before I shredded it. ;)
Guy Incognito @ 289:
I don't understand how what I wrote could be considered 500 words to call someone an asshole.
"I'm sorry sir, who are you with? Go talk to our cult leader standing just down the street! I'm not a lawyer and I'm not good with answers, and anyway he told us not to talk about the fact that we secretly want to stone women to death who've had abortions and sex outside of marriage and illegitimate children! Thank you! God bless you!"
Oh, they're thought about it, all right. I'll bet you.
I'll also bet you that some of these protestors have had abortions and think it should always be there for them.
Oh gee. I hope you are good at something besides thinking, something you are failing at. Mopping the floor, washing dishes, mowing the lawn, at least one useful thing.
The Catholic birth rate in the USA is identical to the national average. Same thing in Europe. It Italy, the population is at zero growth or even falling except for immigration, much of it Moslem.
You are entitled to your own opinions, no matter how evil or wacko they are. You are not entitled to just make up facts and expect people to take you seriously.
The vast majority of Catholics plan their families like any sane, responsible adults. The priests babble on and everyone ignores them. The priests in turn look the other way. If they tossed everyone who used contraceptives or got divorced, they would end up with no members and a dead religion
Duh! The obvious answer is the whatever the same punishment is for pre-meditated murder in that State. Sheesh!
These people...man, that really was hard to watch. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
Kristine @ #335:
I wish, I really wish, I could find it again, but there was an article from a couple years back (Vanity Fair, maybe?) about pro-life protesters who quietly have abortions. It's a fascinating bit of psychological insight into that group.
Basically, they believe that when they have an abortion, it's out of no other choice, and a necessary evil; but all the other women in the waiting room are nasty sluts doing it for simple convenience.
Thing is, while some remain cemented in that belief -- they treat everyone haughtily, other patients and staff alike -- some few of them were actually changed by the experience. They remember, and take it to heart, that they were treated warmly and understandingly by the staff -- they were not judged the way the prolifer would have judged others -- and it opens their eyes. They manage to put themselves in someone else's shoes, and in the end, they became more pro-choice.
It was a great article. Hopefully someone else knows what I'm talking about and can find it again.
Fascinating. One potential REASON they can't answer:
Despite all their memetic brainwashing, these anti-abortion crusaders come with pre-programmed moral circuitry, which tells them that a woman who chooses to abort her fetus has already made a punishing choice, and should not be punished further for it.
The righteous indignation meme provided by their religion -- "it's murder!" -- gets overridden when they are forced to think of the pregnant woman herself as murderer -- "it's between her and her god". The reason is clear. They know, on a hard-wired moral level, that having an abortion isn't really the same -- or "as bad" -- as committing real murder. The stunned look on their faces when asked the question says it all -- as if their brains were processing, "But why should she be punished, when she hasn't actually done anything wrong?"... As though the "concept" of abortion is equivalent to murder, but the reality of abortion is merely an unfortunate, if painful, personal trial.
Still, feels good to be righteously indignant, doesn't it?
(Brilliant tack, by the way; a good question, well posed -- and a nice video, well-edited.)
Minimalist, this is one article about pro-life women getting abortions. I read it when it first came out. It's not the same as the one you've mentioned, but it's eye-opening.
The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion: When The Anti-Choice Choose
I say they should get jail time.Stop those ladies from killing poor infants.
Facilis theFallacious Fool, you should get jail time for mangling logic. Time to take some logic courses. Might take you a few years to pass them though.
It appeared to me, most of these people had the idea that we should have sympathy for the women who have abortions and living with what has happened is punishment enough.
It was pointless for the interviewer to continue to press these people for an answer to a question they've already answered. Unless the point was to make these people look silly, which is not all that impressive.
They didn't need help to look silly. Non-thinkers like religious people do that frequently.
facilis wrote:
What a brilliant group of individuals.
And once again you contradict the bible. I guess you don't really believe in it.
Fascilis, see comment #321, and for the record, you are for using State power to force the use of a woman's vagina and cervix, against her will and consent, (a pretty good definition of rape) for someone else?
maybe this is troll feeding, but i felt that i couldn't let one of loudon is a fool's many stupidities stand--there are actually very many female philosophers of note; to name one example off the top of my head. G.E.M. Anscombe once kicked C.S. Lewis' ass so hard that he gave up theology and turned to writing books for children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.E.M._Anscombe#Debate_with_C._S._Lewis
"The Countess" @ #330:
Link doesn't work for me. Would you please repost?
Aaron, we understand that you can divide every discrete event into still smaller ones and that the distinctions are completely arbitrary. No one is arguing that. And yet you continuously state this. We can analyze the process of development for the next hundred years, and it will not become any clearer at what point a fetus becomes a person. Why? Because 'person' is simply a word, that can be redefined to suit the tastes of the populace. In other words, there is no strictly correct answer. Yet you then say things like:
Here's the rub. If we're trying for absolute correctness, every solution is a red herring. The answer, whatever it ends up being, is going to simply be what society has agreed on. It will be 'good enough', in other words.
So, in light of the fact that we're going to pick an arbitrary point in development anyway, why don't you give a shot at what the arbitrary position might be. Keep in mind that this forced discontinuity is simply to allow the legal system to actually deal with this issue at all.
A page which, unfortunately, includes this paragraph:
She scandalized liberal colleagues with articles defending the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to contraception in the 1960s and early 1970s. Later in life, she was arrested twice while protesting outside an abortion clinic in Britain, after abortion had been legalized (albeit with restrictions).
Did you choose her on purpose?
Aaron, you are being deliberately obtuse.
Well, of course he is. Aaron is the kind of Lofty Theorizer who likes to dress up his hunches with a tone of superiority to the actual issue. By seeming to reduce every issue to a thought experiment or a matter or semantics, he gets to ignore the fact that abortion is a serious, personal issue for many genuine, walking around people (yes, women count). I notice that he has yet to offer a argument as to why a woman should be obligated to allow a fetus (person or not, who gives a fuck?) to inhabit her body.
The best response to the Aarons of the world is not to engage them in argument - you can't win because they have no interest in thinking - but a hearty, "go fuck yourself."
Diane G @ 350, here's the link. I messed up the HTML the first time around.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion: When The Anti-Choice Choose
not for that purpose no; she was just the first to come to mind, and the C.S. Lewis story is funny. She's also a famous deontologist and I don't agree with that either; but the fundamental point i was trying to make is there is nothing inherently 'masculine' or 'feminine' about abstraction.
A person here thinks 10 years in jail might be appropriate.
and of course when i wrote abstraction I meant philosophy >.< I need caffeine
It's very possible Anscombe was smuggling a sausage. But in any event I didn't say that no woman is capable of abstraction. But many not be. See by way of illustration any post of Nerd of Redhead or The Countess.
Nerd,
Loudon appears to think you're a woman. Does the Redhead realise she's been a lesbian all this time?
#358 First you did imply that females are by nature less capable of abstraction; more importantly you said that there are no female philosophers of note. That is demonstrably false. Anyway this whole line is OT
Brain death occurs when the entire brain ceases to function. It does not matter if the heart still beats and the lungs breathe (by artificial means) because the mind - the 'person' - ceases to exist. In other words, it takes more than human DNA and a functioning body for a person to exist. You must also have a living brain.
The fetus does not begin to develop the basic brain structures until the neural tube (becomes the spine later) completely seals the opening at the top. Typically this occurs on the 28th day after conception. Even so, electrical activity in the fetal brain doesn't begin until the 43rd day after conception.
In other words, the existing legal and medical definitions imply that the 'person' who will inhabit the body of the fetus does not exist in the first 6 weeks of life.
Truly I would be shocked if Nerd were not a chick. At the very least he's sporting a double X.
I would be surprised if Loudon's brain is larger than a tadpoles. But, what else is new. Stupid in, stupid out.
From the link The Countess gave in #354:
Poor Loudon. It must be hard to type using only one hand. :)
Thank you! Well worth reading and saving. The hotlinks in its ref section were also most pertinent.
Thank you for making that point. :)
I've discussed this before, but my take on the morality of abortion doesn't depend on whether the fetus is a person, whether it would be viable outside the womb, or whether life begins at conception. I contend that the moral issue is perfectly clear if you postulate that the fetus is a fully-grown human being with all the same rights as the rest of us.
If some other person's life depended on my provision of a continuous blood transfusion to keep them alive, then I and only I would decide whether to provide it. This is part and parcel of my ownership of my own body. It is not altered if I had initially agreed to some game of chance which would result in this situation if the odds came up a certain way. It is not altered if I gained some benefit from the initiation of this connection. It is not altered if all the other people in the world demand that I continue to provide the blood transfustion, nor is it altered if the period for which this other person is dependent up on me is limited to nine months.
The right to abortion proceeds directly from self-ownership.
-jcr
Aaron, fathers don't go to jail for not paying child support. They are jailed for willful refusal to follow a court order.
That should be the case, but quite often it's not. Men are routinely jailed if they're unable to pay their child support liability.
-jcr
They're discussing this same video over on unreasonablefaith.com and somehow the anti-abortion minions are out in force. It looks like at least half of the one shot "pro-life" posters are in favor of murder convictions with typical murder punishment for women who seek abortions. Quite scary.
Sarah Palin answered this in October, without even being asked!
JCR:
Well yeah, but a fetus is clearly not a fully-grown human being, so what's the point?
Postulating a counterfactual is not a reductio ad absurdum, it's merely avoiding the issue.
Wowbagger, So I'm a tool receiving big bucks from the AGW "big science" mob, and a woman. If the latter was true, it meant Michigan had gay marriage thirty-five years ago. It has been an interesting week.
Not true. Jail is a last resort when it comes to child support, after all other avenues have been exhausted. And it's the willful refusal to pay, not the actual act of not paying, or an inability to pay, that results in jail time. Please note the following, from FindLaw [bold my emphasis].
http://family.findlaw.com/child-support/unpaid-support/support-orders-e…
Enforcement of Child Support Orders FAQ
[excerpt]
Under the Child Support Enforcement Act of 1984, district attorneys (D.A.s) or state's attorneys must help you collect child support owed by your ex. Sometimes this means that the D.A. will serve your ex with papers requiring him or her to meet with the D.A. to arrange a payment schedule. These papers usually say that, if the ex refuses to meet or pay, he or she could go to jail.
Federal laws allow the interception of tax refunds to enforce child support orders. Other methods of enforcement include wage attachments, seizing property, suspending the business or occupational license of a payer who is behind on child support, or -- in some states -- revoking the payer's driver's license. Your state's D.A. may employ any one of these methods in an attempt to help you collect from your ex.
As a last resort, the court that has issued the child support order can hold your ex in contempt and, in the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delinquency, impose a jail term. This contempt power is exercised sparingly in most states, primarily because most judges would rather keep the payer out of jail where he or she has a chance of earning the income necessary to pay the support.
-----
I'm not going to continue with a child support discussion because it is very much off topic for this post. I couldn't let the "men routinely are jailed for being unable to pay child support" nonsense go unanswered.
I seem to have ticked off a few people. If I were to tell you that I was pro-choice and supported a woman's right to choose, would that make you love me more?
Yes, I make some ridiculous arguments. The child support payment was a huge stretch, I admit that, but it was the best example I had off the top of my head of where the state can force, at penalty of imprisonment, someone to provide for a child (willful or not doesn't really matter). There are likely better examples, but I did not have time to do that research.
I also made some cogent arguments. There is a legal definition of when life begins (if Nerd of Redhead is correct, at birth), but if that were changed to conception (by law), would everyone buy that new definition hook, line, and sinker? Should we accept definitions just because they are legal? No, nor should we accept consensus opinions, even when the consensus opinion is from such a rational group of people as on this blog.
My basic point remains (as start in post 76): I have a definition of the right/wrongness of abortion that I don't feel I can adequately defend. It is likely "good enough", but I'm not sure that good enough is sufficient in this case. Maybe good enough is the best we can do, but I was hoping that someone would provide a clear line between the ridiculous and cogent positions.
John Morales @371:
The point is that the issue of the fetus' "personhood" is completely independent of the morality of abortion. By putting a fully adult person in the position of the fetus, you can ask whether the woman still has the right to terminate the "pregnancy". If a fully adult person does not have the right to demand a parasitic life support connection from another, then why should a fetus who's "personhood" is questionable?
Amazing... people wanting to make something illegal having never thought about what the word illegal means and what the consequences will be.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | January 21, 2009
Truly I would be shocked if Nerd were not a chick. At the very least he's sporting a double X.
That would be just so icky.
Aaron, sometimes in life one must just make a choice and live with the consequences. There is no "perfect" solution or choice. You just have to pick what feels right to you. I've seen people pick fertilization, implantation, development of the nervous system, ability to live outside of the womb, or birth as when it is a full person. I use birth, but feel uneasy about abortion when the fetus is capable of living outside of the womb. I also recognize the right of a woman to control her body, because I want that type on control myself. The golden rule in action. So, I got called a woman by a troll tonight. It is a consequence of making a decision and living with the consequences.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 21, 2009
Wtf Philos? I call Turnip.
Steve_C, check the dungeon list. Philos is a vile piece of work.
Funny how the topic of abortion brings out the freakiest trolls.
For more than five years, I've volunteered as an escort at our local Planned Parenthood clinic and the protesters I meet weekly have given their position just as much thought as those in the video (which by the way has been around several years and has been widely disseminated in the Planned Parenthood community). Almost without exception they are people devoted to dogma, typically either Catholic (note the rosary in the video) or evangelical Christian. Interestingly, the Planned Parenthood draws supporters who are both Catholic and evangelical, just not the same churches that supply the protesting foot soldiers. In fact on our local Planned Parenthood Board of Directors we have four Catholics and three evangelicals with the rest a mix of Episcopalians, freethinkers, Unitarians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Jews, and Lutherans. It's interesting to see these folks called satan's servants, agents of the devil, or evil people, most of whom are community pillars in politics or civic affairs.
"No...it robs religions from a potential opportunity of indoctrinating another child. Period."
Well, I"m not religious, and I think it's a shame that the pro-life movement that is so vocal is also chock full of the religious right. I think them and their hostility are robbing us of getting to connect with you guys and be able to come to an understanding and move forward. Likewise, I don't think its fair to characterize us all as religious just because the most vocal and radical ones are :/
"Certainly do. And remember, that "potential" is just a couple of cells, maybe. Not much bigger than a sperm, which, come to think of it, has a lot of potential. But the sperm, a potential life, can be freely disposed of, right? If not, why not, if potential human life, of even the single cellular type, is "sacred?""
I used to be a more radical pro-choicer, and now I've ended up somewhere in the middle, so I do understand the argument. First, I think that we all value human rights, and that is what makes abortion such a difficult issue. I consider the right to life to be a human right- whether that person is a baby, unborn, a killer, a homosexual (you'd be surprised haha), or an adult. But the right to reproductive freedom is also important. Therefore women everywhere should never be forced into sterilization or abortion, and should have access to health care, birth control, education, and prenatal care, etc. It really comes to a head with abortion. If we give women everything at her disposal to prevent pregnancy, and she gets pregnant anyway, we will also be there for her decisions from there on- I just don't believe that taking human life is a valid option.
I should also say that, I don't believe a free embryo is in question here. Pregnancy is not having a fertilized egg in your fallopian tube..pregnancy is when it is implanted in the uterus. By the time most women realize she is pregnant, it has developed substantially. It is not just a bunch of cells (more than we are, I guess) at that point, it is past that stage. Just like we have an interest in protecting infants for their potential as adults, we should have an interest in protecting our unborn, as well.
"Whereas forcing women to be unwilling incubators only devalues women, not actual people, so it's okay."
Now, you know very well that isn't the intention here. My proposal (in my opinion) gives women more choices. In some ways the prevalence of abortion has made some things more difficult. Some college faculty are being told their pregnancies are 'inconvenient' if they are not due in the summer, others fear losing their jobs, students are aborting in record numbers because they feel they must drop out. In other countries sex-selection abortions are creating some massive social problems (not unlike some of their distorted social systems but that's another argument for another day). I am giving women all they need to prevent pregnancy or make good decisions should it happen. Women are strong, and they can handle the consequences of their actions. I find talking to women that they often don't want abortion, but they feel they have no other choice! We should be giving these choices to them!
"At that point, if the abortion rate has plummeted, why would we need legislation?"
My hope is that we won't have to--but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
"I am pro-choice, but we both appear to share a mutual goal of reducing the total number of abortions (you for the sake of a fetus, me for the sake of the woman)."
I'd say for the sake of both of them! I don't think abortion is fair for either, therefore I'm trying to reach a solution that is best for both.
"If all the abortion protesters would put their energies into the goals you listed above, I think they would prevent far more abortions than any amount of picketing and harassment of women at clinics ever will."
I agree. I don't know what they are trying to accomplish :/
They mean well, they really do, but....well, let's just say on this, my pro-life sisters and brothers disagree heavily.
SteveM @375,
1. That's JCR's (and, presumably, yours) opinion; it is not mine, nor that of those who call abortion "murder".
2. As I said, it's counterfactual. By adopting arbitrary premises, you can sustain any contention - but this is cheating.
You just said that the personhood issue is irrelevant to the morality of abortion, now you raise it?
Maybe I'm slow today, but that seems very confused.
"However, are you aware that abortion rates in the U. S. have been dropping steadily for many years?"
Yes thank goodness, and I hope that continues!
"I don't agree with you that women who get abortions are "misguided or put in a hard spot". They investigate their options, and make informed choices."
In my experience many women that have made "informed choices" have said that they didn't necessarily want an abortion, but they had a limited set of options. In my setting (I go to school) it's usually, "I can drop out of school, or I can go get an abortion." Many women honestly feel that this is their only true 'choice'- my opinion is that it's not much of a choice at all. I have met few women who adamantly wanted an abortion. But again, that's just my experience.
Argh, look what fast typing gets you:
"well, let's just say on this, my pro-life sisters and brothers disagree heavily."
I meant, "well let's just say that on this, my pro-life sisters and brothers and I disagree heavily."
How does this...
Now, you know very well that isn't the intention here.
jibe with this:
If we give women everything at her disposal to prevent pregnancy, and she gets pregnant anyway, we will also be there for her decisions from there on- I just don't believe that taking human life is a valid option.
You want women to have every choice available, except the one you find personally icky. Despite this:
I am giving women all they need to prevent pregnancy or make good decisions should it happen.
you aren't giving women a damned thing. You're spewing a few vague talking points that have no bearing in reality, and neither you nor anyone else has provided a valid reason why a fetus has the right to houseroom in someone else's body.
A consistent mark of misogynists: they think that women are unable to responsibly exercise their own bodily autonomy, and are better off having the option of abortion denied to them.
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/pro_pro_voice/
Didnt anyone answer "it should be illegal to perform abortions. The doctor should be punished"??????
These people have thought it through at all - scary.
Re 382:
obviously. yes, this is my opinion.
How is it counterfactual? Many people seem to be saying that abortion is only moral if you declare the fetus to not be a person. I am arguing that whether it is a person or not, whether it is a tumor or an adult, it is infringing the right of the woman to her own body.
What is confusing? I am trying to illustrate exactly why the question of the fetus' "personhood" is irrelevant. How can I do that without discussing it?
"You want women to have every choice available, except the one you find personally icky."
If you mean personally icky to mean ethically wrong, then yeah, I guess you nailed it. I think that lack of human rights is personally icky no matter what form it is.
"you aren't giving women a damned thing. You're spewing a few vague talking points that have no bearing in reality, and neither you nor anyone else has provided a valid reason why a fetus has the right to houseroom in someone else's body."
I don't know, I think giving women accessable affordable birth control and education as well as a functional increase of options on the other side, is a pretty good compromise. If you have sex, like most everyone else is, you take the risk. It's a part of being human. But, just because a woman is pregnant, doesn't mean she can't succeed in her chosen career path or have a fully functioning and comfortable family. It just means she's pregnant, and needs to explore the options that she has in front of her.
"they think that women are unable to responsibly exercise their own bodily autonomy, and are better off having the option of abortion denied to them."
I'm pretty sure you misinterpreted my statement. In my (admittedly limited, whose isn't) experience abortion is not a pleasant thing for women nor is it often a preferred choice. But, because its available, a lot of other options are substantially downplayed (when my friend got pregnant her second year at college, she told us that she didn't want an abortion, but felt she had no other choice...very typical of people that age). It is for both fetus and mum that I have in mind when I say I am against abortion; and that is because I feel abortion takes away the right to life of one as well as sending a self-loathing message to women. For these reasons, I'm against it.
I think it's more a matter of having sympathy for women and thus not punishing women for their actions. That is to say, adult women are assumed to be little girls who shouldn't be punished or held accountable for their actions because they have the mental capacity of little girls and are not actually culpable of crime or of fully understanding their actions. For example, if you asked one of these protesters what criminal penalty there should be for a women who procured RU486 from her female best friend to facilitate an abortion they likely would not be inclined to send either woman to jail, On the other hand, if you asked one of these protesters what should happen to a man (a boyfriend or male friend) who gave RU486 to a woman they likely would state that the man should go to jail.
And this demonstrates what, exactly? That certain people who object to abortion haven't really thought out their position entirely? Granted, but was that ever in dispute? Is it in dispute whether there are certain people who DON'T object to abortion who haven't thought out their position either?
Stupid people are on both sides of the fence, no matter how the lines are drawn... However, that says nothing about the merits of the issues themselves...
@RJ #392
non sequitur.
the former's ideas stem from god-bothering and the latter's from altruism.
altruist's positions do not need to be thought out... do i need to philosophize about whether or not you should be allowed to wear a particular type of clothing?
SteveM @389, OK, I get JCR's post @367 now.
I was slow, so thanks for clarifying.
It's not a compromise. Feminists are going to continue to work for subsidized birth control and education and access to safe, legal abortion. That's nice if you want to work for the first two, but if your support is conditional upon making abortion illegal, you can fuck right off. We'll do fine without your 'help.'
No, I did not. You believe women are not capable of deciding for themselves that abortion is the best choice in some cases, and you believe that women who choose abortion are stupid and have made a mistake.
First, quit imagining that your limited experience is something that we should build public policy from. How arrogant. How sexist, that you would seek to control women's lives based on your parochialism.
Second, no, abortion is not pleasant. Neither is a root canal. Neither is chemotherapy. Neither is divorce, as in the example above. So what? By your reasoning, root canals, divorce and chemotherapy should be illegal. Abortion, like many other unpleasant things, is often necessary and often the best choice.
Bullshit. You don't care about women. If you did, you would not say "it is for both fetus and mum that I have in mind when I say I am for forced gestation and forced birth."
You cannot care about women and simultaneously wish to force them to bear children against their wills.
You're a dishonest person, so you keep trying to hide what you're actually saying. You talk about offering women choices when you actually mean to take a choice away. You talk about how all the women you know don't want to have abortions, but you never acknowledge that some women never want to have children. You can't keep going on about how it's some big tragic mistake when it's a fact that some women never want to give birth, and some of those women will get pregnant. You just think you know what women want better than women do. This is because you are a misogynist.
I know several women who've had abortions who have no self-loathing about it. In any case, if some women feel badly about themselves for getting abortions, it's the fault of you and people like you, because you're the ones who portray abortion as something wrong and shameful. You're the one sending the anti-woman message.
And silly, immature children, "very typical of people that age".
Consistently, the brazenly sexist message from you, prettyinpink, is that women cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, and need you to take one of their options away for their own good.
@Aaron
The thing is that question is not equivalent since it does not pertain to the male's personal autonomy. To address the question I think males should provide for the children they sire for the simple reason that not to do so leads to irresponsibility. Besides, being asked to help provide for the child is far lesser evil than forcing the guy to marry the girl and not allowing divorce which is what used to happen. Which lead of course to the phenomenon of women 'ensnaring' men.
We forget what life used to be like before the '60s and the condom and the pill and the liberalisation of the divorce laws . . .
Nerd of Redhead@378,
"I also recognize the right of a woman to control her body, because I want that type on control myself. The golden rule in action."
A very libertarian point of view. It would seem to follow that you would also oppose conscription and favor legalizing over the counter sales of prescription drugs.
It's posts like this that make me think that facilis is a poe. If we didn't abort babies then what would us atheists eat at the devil-worshipping rituals?!? You're being discriminatory against baby-eaters!!!
Is there anyone who actually thinks that over the counter prescription drugs would be anything but calamitous?
Kel,
Sounds pretty stupid to me. I would imagine prescription drugs are controlled in the way they are for several reasons, but the most significant being that lay people don't know what the effects of what they're taking are, especially in combination. AFAIK we lost Heath Ledger for something along those lines.
We can ask clinteas if he shows up anytime soon.
Kel#400,
"Is there anyone who actually thinks that over the counter prescription drugs would be anything but calamitous?"
Yes, chemical beings should have a right to chemical freedom and control over their own body without having to asked a government licensed practitioner for permission.
Why is it that liberals only pay lip service to "freedom", with a cynical sop to legalization of "recreational" drugs, but wanting to retain a government granted monopoly on the drugs that really count? Those who want to consult physicians would remain perfectly free to continue to do so. Basic scientific literacy is all that is needed to read the Physicians Desk Reference or to look up the meaning of the values of blood tests. Who can be more interested in the nuances of ones physical condition, than oneself. If you are not interested in making your own decisions about your body and health, go to a doctor, but be prepared to be treated formulaicly. Freedom will result in lower costs, even for you.
Wowbagger,
"lay people don't know what the effects of what they're taking are, especially in combination."
You mean unless they look it up, like the doctors do, right? Or do you have a jaded view of the public school system?
Yes, a sibling society with no medical training who are already over-medicated should be loading themselves up with drugs at the slightest scare... give me a break. We've got enough problems as it is from unnecessary anti-biotic use. By allowing complete unregulated access to dangerous substances without the necessary safety precautions, we put people in unnecessary danger, both the individuals taking those cocktails and greater society as a whole while we develop drug-resistant strains of germs and viruses.Having such freedom to do so without the balance of education would be disastrous, it's a shame that libertarians can't think beyond the idea of personal freedom and look at the overall consequences.
Kel,
Libertarian's have joined with the left for the legalization of recreational drugs, and nobody was saying things like "lay people don't know what the effects of what they're taking are, especially in combination."
You know, recreational drugs are drugs too, they are metabolized by the liver and kidney also. What hypocrits they are to want to maintain paternal control over our bodies.
But lets get beyond this, libertarians are not likely to be elected to office with the two party stranglehold on the political process. So discussing the extremes of what might be possible is purely hypothetical. Do you think that if the typical high school graduate can't be trusted with freedom, perhaps there can be a privileged intelligent class, something like a scientific literacy license based an tested ability to read and understand a PDR and other medical references? It would be an open book test of course.
I think you underestimate the damage done by drug prohibition. Remember the bird flu scare? Governments were scrambling to stockpile anti-viral drugs because there was a limited capacity to produce them. That capacity might have existed if private stockpiling had been allowed to increase demand for productive capacity. I know in the wake of the anthrax scare I was willing to pay for such a personal stockpile out of my own pocket. If the bird flu epidemic had happened without sufficient antivirals available, the government would have been responsible for the consequences. Try some freethinking.
Here's some free thinking, the free market isn't god. Your ideology is limited by the consequences and I couldn't give a shit if libertarians and liberals agree on the issues of drugs. What you are proposing is dangerous given the limited access people have to information and how much they are credulous fools when it comes to potential dangers. I have thought freely and I came to the conclusion that what you are proposing is absurd. Or is it only free-thinking if I agree with you?
I am arguing that whether it is a person or not, whether it is a tumor or an adult, it is infringing the right of the woman to her own body.
That was precisely my point. The right to abort a pregnancy follows from self-ownership of one's body.
Self-ownership is also the premise on which I reject drug prohibition.
-jcr
africangenesis wrote:
To quote Sam Harris: 'Only 28 percent of Americans believe in evolution; 68 percent believe in Satan.'
Assuming that's accurate it means that it's not an exaggeration to say that somewhere in the region of 72% of Americans don't possess what I'd consider enough scientific literacy to understand the material.
All it'd take is listening to a friend rather than the literature ('nah, i took A + B and I was fine') and you're going to wind up with a corpse. Yes, that happens now - but what you're suggesting is like tossing away the reserve parachute because you've never had a main 'chute fail and you don't think we should spend the money for something we don't ever use.
Though I will admit that if a society were to adopt the over-the-counter approach and made sure people were educated enough to self-medicate then the system might work - but you'd have to begin with education, not just suddenly open up the pharmacy to anyone with a wallet.
But I can't see that happening. And I dislike the idea of having to be okay with a few corpses so people can get cheaper Viagra - or some pharmaceutical CEOs can add another zero on the end of their bonuses.
@Aaron
Regarding child support payments by mother or father: there is an alternative to willfully refusing to pay support, and potentially facing jail time for contempt of court. Voluntary termination of parental rights or, as it's alternatively named, relinquishment. You can legally sever your ties with your spawnling with the proper family court song and dance. A court order divests the natural parent of all legal rights, privileges, and obligations with respect to the child.
Your point was:
The answer is - persons do have the right to decide whether to provide for the spawnling after it's been evicted from the uterus. It's ridiculous, however, to assert that pregnancy impacts men in any way equivalent to its impact on women. Normal side effects of pregnancy - exhaustion, altered appetite and senses of taste and smell,nausea and vomiting, heartburn and indigestion, constipation, weight gain, dizziness and light-headedness, bloating, swelling, fluid-retention, hemorrhoids, abdominal cramps, yeast infections, acne/skin disorders, congested, bloody nose, skin discoloration, backache/strain, increased headaches, difficulty/discomfort sleeping, incontinence, bleeding gums, pica, swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain, difficulty sitting/standing, inability to take regular medications, high blood pressure/hypertension, anemia, pain on delivery (I could go on) - and those are just the routine side effects. Even in the developed world, 1 out of every 2800 women die of pregnancy complications (WHO Maternal Mortality, 2005). Major culprits - bacterial infection, variants of gestational hypertension including pre-eclampsia and HELLP syndrome, obstetrical hemorrhage, ectopic pregnancy, puerperal sepsis, amniotic fluid embolism. So - when 1 in 2800 men die of paying child support, we can compare those apples to these oranges. When paying money to support a child has a laundry list of physical side-effects, I'll be more willing to compare the two. Until that day, however, I'll have to file it under "ridiculous argument."
I have thought freely and I came to the conclusion that what you are proposing is absurd.
I find it rather sad that you can't imagine people making decisions for themselves w/r/t their health care. Your quip "the free market isn't god" ignores the fact that a government isn't god, either. Of course the market isn't god: the market is a result of people acting on their own prerogatives, and your approval of their choices is neither sought nor required.
Why would you presume that removing the power to decide on treatment from the patient himself to the bureaucracy will result in better outcomes? In the UK, the taxpayers subsidize quackery like homeopathy.
-jcr
Kel,
"Or is it only free-thinking if I agree with you?"
No, you don't have to agree, but you do have to at least "think", i.e., thoughtfully consider propositions and objectively question assumptions and preconceptions, and rationally apply principles and values. It would help if you could also consider how possible objections might be overcome. Just asserting fears and dismissing ideas based on preconceptions is not "free-thinking".
it's not an exaggeration to say that somewhere in the region of 72% of Americans don't possess what I'd consider enough scientific literacy to understand the material.
Sure, and this is where the social division of labor comes in. When we lack expertise, we employ experts in the subject matter at hand. We did so before the FDA was created, and we'd continue to do so if they went away.
Even with all the regulations we have, people who want quackery will still employ quacks, and people who want to be over-medicated with pain killers and antibiotics will seek out practitioners who don't comply with the regulations.
-jcr
wowbagger@408,
"Assuming that's accurate it means that it's not an exaggeration to say that somewhere in the region of 72% of Americans don't possess what I'd consider enough scientific literacy to understand the material....Though I will admit that if a society were to adopt the over-the-counter approach and made sure people were educated enough to self-medicate then the system might work - but you'd have to begin with education, not just suddenly open up the pharmacy to anyone with a wallet."
Thanx, you have considered a means of overcoming an objection. People may not be educated enough to truly be free. I think we should remember this, when considering other propositions, such as is the public education system a failure in need of radical reform, or should women be allowed to control their own bodies.
So I assume you saw into my mind, saw how my thought process worked and then could adequately gauged why I came to my conclusion? Or did you just see my conclusion and assumed I didn't stop to think about the proposition? Because to me it would appear the latter. I have thought about it, I have read the objections and taken them under consideration. I still think it would be a calamitous occurrence given the position our society is currently in. After all the problems of drug-resistant strains and the utter ignorance that people display on a daily basis on even the most basic of decisions, why would I think that people with no medical training (I don't know what public school system has a comprehensive medical awareness program) taking drugs they don't need to cure illnesses they don't have would be overall a disaster for society.
This is a good point. It's one thing when an individual's life is in danger due to that same individual's drug misuse; this is no argument for limiting access to those drugs. But when an individual's misuse of a drug, like antibiotics, can harm others, those others have a legitimate interest in curtailing misuse.
So here we have an argument for limiting antibiotics to prescription, but such reasoning does not apply to painkillers. I can't think of any good reason why painkillers should be restricted.
By the way, this is not the same as saying "drug A makes some people do illegal things and thereby harm others." That's also no argument for restricting drug A; instead, just bust people for whatever real crimes they're committing. In the case of antibiotics, it is not some further action, but the mere use of the drugs which harms others.
Yawn. Another misogynist.
John C. Randolph, said
Yes it does, to an extent at least. However, that subsidy is dwindling all the time for a number of reasons. Some to do with protests about a waste of public money and some to do with organisations like NICE which investigate the efficacy of treatments and only license those that work for the NHS. In fact, over the last few years quite a few homoeopathic hospitals and clinics that relied on the NHS for funding have had to close or rely purely on private, i.e. non NHS, patients to continue operating.
However, one of the main problems we have with homeopathy in the UK is the Quack of Wales and his ma, both of whom support it with the Quack of Wales even promoting it. Though ironically, whenever they have anything serious wrong with them they soon resort to non homoeopathic medicine.
I'd love a society where everyone was educated enough to be able to limit dependency on experts; perhaps one day it can happen but even if it does it won't be anytime soon.
That being said, the point Kel is trying to make is that individuals taking antibiotics has significant consequences for other people in the sense that, as he said, germs/bugs etc. rapidly develop immunity and become more resistant to existing drugs, rendering them useless.
As it is medical science is struggling to deal with the impact of that with the current limitations on the availability of antibiotics. I don't think people making their own, unaided choices - especially when health is concerned; it's an area where greater-than-normal irrationality can occur, hence the success of quackery - is something that would work as well as it might in other areas.
So, this kind of 'personal freedom' would be seriously endangering the lives of others - something I'm fairly sure isn't any more acceptable to Libertarians than it is to anyone else.
Non-antibiotic and recreational drugs, of course, aren't impacted by the same issues.
uyi,
"Yawn. Another misogynist"
Typical, another ad hominem attack, based on failing to read the thread. I am the one who though women should be able to control their own bodies. It is others that thought they needed to consult with practioners before making any decisions. Where do you stand? Which one of us is really misogynist? The example was apropo because of the context of this posting. Some thinking is in order.
You are the one who just said women might be too stupid to know whether they should get an abortion:
Bawwwww
Apologies,
I thought I had addressed my concerns about how we handle the antibiotic issue in this thread, but it was actually on the child sacrifice thread. I link to the apropo comment here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/child_sacrifice.php#comment-…
Ending prohibition on most prescription drugs except antibiotics would be considerable progress. But I think the case even for antibiotics is not open and shut.
UYI,
You failed to consider the context again. It is others that said women may not be educated enough, I merely considered the propositions they might have to reconsider. Do you think women are educated enough to make their own prescription drug decisions on an over the counter basis? If not, by your reasoning, you are the misogynist. Can they control their bodies or not?
However, one of the main problems we have with homeopathy in the UK is the Quack of Wales and his ma, both of whom support it with the Quack of Wales even promoting it.
I do have some sympathy for the guy. It's not his fault that he's dangerously inbred.
-jcr
John C. Randolph, funny you should say that, I very nearly put a quip in my post about that very issue. LOL.
Your supposed context is not as clear as you seem to think. A perfectly coherent reading of your comment is that people can't be free unless they are properly educated to use their freedom, and abortion should be limited such. Your shoddy communication is your own fault.
My answer is already at #415.
You haven't really thought this through. Even if I thought people in general couldn't be trusted with various classes of drugs, that would not be a misogynistic position. It would only be misogynistic if I focused restrictions on women more than men, or on drugs that only women need, like for instance estrogen/progestin birth control.
uyi,
The context is in other comments.
"It would only be misogynistic if I focused restrictions on women more than men, or on drugs that only women need, like for instance estrogen/progestin birth control."
So equal oppression is OK, and you only favor women controlling their bodies to the same extent as men, except for a few extra female issues.
"A consistent mark of misogynists: they think that women are unable to responsibly exercise their own bodily autonomy, and are better off having the option of abortion denied to them."
Hmmm, you didn't qualify the above statement. You are quick with the name calling, but apparently your concern for womens freedom does not extend far beyond their right to abort.
I agree with jcr and africangenesis that the FDA, and its counterparts in other jurisdictions, should not have the power to prevent drugs from being sold or used before the testing is complete. Don't get me wrong; the FDA et al. should continue to test new drugs and publish advice as to whether they are safe. But if, say, a terminally ill person with no other options wants to take an unapproved drug, having been advised of the risks of doing so, why shouldn't he have the power to make that choice (assuming that he's a competent adult)?
However, I don't think the opposing view is in any way misogynistic (and I think we all need to stop flinging that word around).
It's pretty obvious now that you didn't actually read my #415:
And after that, everything else you said is so much blah blah blah.
Whatever else you are, you are certainly a narcissistic fucking troll, for hijacking this thread just to yap about lifting prescription drug restrictions.
No one is throwing the word around, Walton. You are a misogynist for trying to outlaw abortion. I know you don't like to hear it, but it's a fact.
uyi,
Now you add the "troll" attack. Women's freedom was on topic, and the validity and implications of the arguments used to justify or restrict it were on topic. The pompous attitude of those who claim to be on the side of women's choice, but really have only one freedom in mind, was on topic. I actually found some thoughtful people here who were able to engage in a civil discussion.
Sorry guys, while I do have some libertarian tendencies on social issues, they do not include access to prescription drugs or drugs in clinical trials. The reason for the former is simple. Almost all drugs have side effects. Anyone taking more than three drugs will be having drug interactions that may actually incapacitate them. The Redhead and I know of two cases in the last three months, of people taking multiple drugs, and were feeling terrible. Doctors are likely to give even more drugs to try to relieve the symptoms. But in both cases, a review by one physician recognized the drug interactions and prioritized the medications and cut them back to the two most need. In both cases the drug induced stupors/haze went away. Self dosing is a potential public safety issue, and I think it could be very dangerous. I'll post on the second issue later.
Nerd of Redhead, So should grapefruit require a prescription too?
I know I'm going to regret bringing this up but Martha mentioned above about how the pill was feminising fish and increasing male infertility back up at 181.
Well http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/river-pollutants-linked-to-ma…
and http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/its-official-men-really-are-t…
You will notice the startling lack of references to the pill, but plenty of references to many other chemicals. One could conclude that it is the cocktail of chemicals mainly responsible for this trend rather than one single contraceptive.
(also look out for the entertainingly alarmist point about young boys playing with tea-sets, clearly end of the world stuff)
AG, stupid question. Should never have been asked. Ask an intelligent one and I will give you an intelligent answer.
Fatmop @95
Nerd of Redhead,
Does prescription nexium have more side effects than OTC prilosec? Do the prescription non-sedating anti-histamines have more side effects than then sedating OTC anti-histamines? Are the new antifungals more toxic or less than those available OTC?
Your example where the doctors weren't aware of the drug interactions, is actually an argument for the patients to do their own reviews for interactions and side effects.
I've been correcting and educating doctors since my teenage years, from letting them know that men could get breast cancer, to the benefits of ACE inhibitors and ARBs to the different side effect profiles of ED drugs and potential off label uses, to the anti-oxidant characteristics of melatonin, to the research on oxygen therapy for central sleep apnea, to the suspected anti-angiogenesis properties of thalidomide, etc. Doctors just can't stay as up to date on the best therapies for a patients condition as the interested patient, unless they are specialists in the condition.
Except there are no such people here, troll. You can find people who are skeptical of lifting all restrictions on prescription drugs, but that doesn't mean they aren't interested in the thousands of other freedoms that constitute feminism.
A troll, though, would put up one unrelated issue (having nothing to do with women per se) and claim that anyone who was skeptical was anti-freedom and only interested in abortion. No, troll, the thread is about abortion. The thread is not about prescription drugs. So if people don't want to talk about your pet issue, it's not because they're Taliban who hate freedom.
I understand that going around and around about you being a troll is in fact feeding the troll, so I'm going to stop now. But I wasn't going to let pass the insistence that you are no such thing.
This being the Internet, as thread length increases the likelihood of a libertarian troll threadjacking for libertarianism approaches 1. I know. That doesn't make it okay.
AG, you still here? PZ asked you to leave. Your credibility is zero with me. Leave.
"But, just because a woman is pregnant, doesn't mean she can't succeed in her chosen career path or have a fully functioning and comfortable family"
Ahhh, male privilege. The only explanation for posting something so astonishing socially tone deaf. What fucking planet do you live on?
Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY @ 75 "On a lighter note, is it just me, or does it seem that religious zeal is inversely correlated to physical attractiveness (for both genders)? I wonder if not being able to get a date or attract a lover makes people so angry and envious that repressing sexual activities of everyone else is their coping mechanism."
No, don't think so. I'm as uuugly as sin, but as casual and laid-back as anything. (I cope by being an internet junky. "On the intertubes no-one knows you're a dog)
Uyi, by saying "(typical of people that age)" I only meant it's a typical position that women find themselves in. A lot of college students who become pregnant feel forced to choose between abortion and eduction. It's a tough position, but it happens a lot, is all I'm saying.
Furthermore, your post consists of simplifying my argument and just personally attacking me, so I find little reason to respond. If you can't respect my opinion in our exchange of ideas, I don't really want to respect yours.
"Ahhh, male privilege."
What do you mean? Men already have the privilege when they and others tell women they can't have children and continue school or keep their jobs, or have a promotion. For example, one college faculty member was told by her (female!) boss that her pregnancy was "inconvenient" because her due date was in the summer. My goal is to reduce the need for abortion by removing that factor.
"What fucking planet do you live on?"
One that hopes to unite with pro-choicers for a common goal. One that works for social justice. One that hopes for an honest and respectful discussion about the topic. Wishful thinking, I guess.
prettyinpink, good luck with that. Unfortunately, most of the anti-abortion side, or at least the most vocal and powerful, are only interested in the foetus as a means of controlling women. Otherwise they would be in favour of good sex education and easy access to contraception rather than supporting only abstinence only sex ed and generally demonising women by misrepresenting the issue in general.
Walton wrote:
May I recommend orac's blog for what I think are very good arguments why that is a bad idea? Sorry I can't give pointers to specific articles, but he has written many times about this very issue and makes what I think is a very strong, reasoned argument against unrestrained use of untested drugs, even by desperate, terminal patients.
I'm possibly the most anarcho-libertarian commenter around here, and even I don't think pharmaceuticals should be made universally available to any walk-up know-nothing who wants to buy them.
I think the practice of regulating medicine and licensing doctors is as legitimate as creating laws and licensing lawyers (in other words, the role of government should be less intrusive and micromanaging than it is now, but not absent altogether). The sick are disproportionately vulnerable to coercion and fraud, and the consequences are disproportionately severe.
Certainly I do think that many pharmaceuticals that are now prescription drugs, such as birth control, should be available as over-the-counter drugs instead. This is not a radical view. Prescription drugs transition to nonprescription all the time. People learn to use them.
Recently, I went on a business trip to Germany for the first time. I was surprised to find that paracetamol (Tylenol in the U.S.) was only available by request from a pharmacist. (In the U.S., for those of you who don't know, you can pick Tylenol up everywhere--every grocery store, gas station, newsstand, first aid station, and so forth.) The pharmacist was very careful to ascertain what other drugs I was taking, that I had experience with the drug, and that I knew how to take it. I was sure that she would educate me if I showed that I was not familiar with it or if there were possible interactions. This is, to my thinking, the proper educational role of a pharmacy professional, as opposed to the purely vending role of the pharmacy clerk. It provides accountability and safety. I didn't need to see a doctor to know that the cold I picked up on the airplane was the cause of my sinus pain. If I thought something else was wrong, I would naturally have consulted one, just as we consult any other professional when any situation is beyond our own ability to make informed judgments about. It wasn't lost on me, incidentally, that all the effective, scientific medications were behind the counter, and all the woo was up front with the impulse items.
To contrast with this, I was in Dubai on another business trip a couple months ago. I twisted my ankle and had to go to the international hospital in Jebel Ali. The doctor took a blood sample, which surprised me, and I asked why. It turns out that they always rule out gout when joint pain is involved, because gout is so prevalent there. The routine test showed that my lifelong "occasional blood sugar issues" had turned into full-blown diabetes. It wasn't pleasant to find that out, but it would have been less pleasant to lose the use of my sight and the feeling in my feet. In that case, it took a properly certified professional to take care of me.
Now, the Dubai doctor, though thoroughly competent and experienced, prescribed a newly approved medication that horrified my doctor back home, and she took me off of it immediately, which shows how vulnerable the patient can be even under ideal conditions. I was impressed with the Dubai doctor, and I would have continued to do whatever she recommended, if I hadn't been required to visit my home doctor to renew my prescriptions.
"Otherwise they would be in favour of good sex education and easy access to contraception rather than supporting only abstinence only sex ed and generally demonising women by misrepresenting the issue in general."
Yeah I disagree with most of their tactics and its really a shame that they are the most vocal group. There are plenty of pro-lifers like me who are pro-birth control, pro-real education, pro- social programs that help out women, rather than the "just keep your legs shut" mentality you see on TV. The thing is, most of us are actually doing something about it and not waving signs around and screaming at people...
@Natalie
Thank you.
@Nerd of Redhead
That you cannot find the point is representative of the times we live in. So, don't feel bad about it.
What is the Christian solution? Should women just pray for a miscarriage? Isn’t that what God would do? Provide a miscarriage?
Step 1: Make Abortion illegal
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Abortion is an odd one.
There's nothing in the bible about it, and the closest it ever comes is God commanding his marauding armies to slay their enemies' pregnant women and dash their infants on the rocks.
And it's not like you can derive the "no abortion" commandment from nature either, since over half of all feti spontaneously abort.
God, if we posit its existence, is the biggest abortionist of all.
The answer why the fundamentalists are so nuts about this should be obvious.
After being so dreadfully behind on women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, and just about everything else, they searched around desperately for something, anything where they could claim the moral high ground. Ah, seedling humans!
Also, for people who hate Darwin so much, many Christian strategies are blatantly about making more little Christians: Anti-birth control, Anti-sex.ed., Anti-abortion.
Of course, the only way to control their own women, absolutely rather than relatively, is to control all women through the law.
Really, it's a pity. If fundamentalists had not polarized the issue so badly, we might very well have level-of-neurological-development-based abortion laws, ie easy early, harder on a sliding scale as the capacity for thought and pain increases.
Mythago said:
"Lethal negligence" is a nonsense phrase, anyway.
Yes, I know it is. I stole it from PZ’s blog, which immediately precedes this one.
Step 1: Make Abortion illegal
Step 2: Claim the out-of-wedlock birth rate is rising out of control. Associate it (truly or falsely) with equally out-of-control rises in poverty, crime, and immoral behavior. Choose dominionist politicians to run for office under platforms of reform and values. Promise the poor the moon if they vote for your chosen candidates; withhold charity services from the poor who voice disagreement with your religio-political aims. Pretend faith is the only solution to societal ills. Buy expensive advertising to disseminate your lies. Infiltrate the schools in order to indoctrinate children, who will in turn go home and indoctrinate their families. Persuade people that church membership is the only way to show that they are socially responsible. Persuade corporations that contributing to your charities is key to controlling the problem. Persuade government to throw shitloads of tax money at the problem (through the politicians and charities you control). Embezzle from your churches, charities, and constitutents.
Step 3: Profit.
Good point. No one is in favor of abortion per se. Many people are in favor of woman making their own family planning decisions.
The best way to lower the number of abortions would be,
1. Continuous, comprehensive sex ed. Everyone figures out where babies come from and early on. It is no secret and there is nothing wrong with sex and reproduction which is how we all ended up alive and our species keeps going.
2. This wouldn't just be the biology but the sociology and psychology of reproduction. The teen age girls in my community who get pregnant usually come from dysfunctional poor families and they usually do not get abortions. They are attempting to fix a bad situation and what they perceive as a bleak nonfuture by dragging a kid into their lives that they have no idea what to do with. Or they are naive and ignorant and screw up.
3. More research needs to be done into contraception to make it more effective, tolerable, and safer. There is some ongoing but not much.
The reality based community runs on data and analysis, not mindless ranting. In countries where the above are done in Europe, the abortion rate is a fraction of the USA rate. In the USA, the states with the highest teen age pregnancy rates are all in the south, full of mindless religious fanatics. The much lower rates are all in bastions of godless commies, New England.
The prolife religious bigots are mostly just reinforcing their cult tribal identity and indulging their Nihilistic desire to demonize and hate other groups. They don't really care about the patients or the fetus/babies. If they did, they would be on board with the above points, which they are most assuredly not. As Planned Parenthood points out, they have done more in 1 day to prevent unwanted pregnancies than these clowns have done in a decade. The vast majority of their efforts are focused on preventing unplanned pregnancies, not terminating them.
@Endor
Back on the oppressed feminist tack again I see. Please enlighten us on how the pregnant female is held down in modern society.
@446: wouldn't that then make Gawd a...a...baby killer? (it's not like Gawd's never done that before. Ask the Egyptians as depicted in Exodus) What should Gawd's penalty be for causing miscarriages?
Mover, still no point. So why post your ignorance.
@Mover
That's not true. Anyone can provide for the child once it has left the womb. KnockGoats comment was based on the biological while yours is based on the social. You are picking a point of contention that has no bearing on the actual thrust of the conversation. If you care to weigh in on when a person becomes a person, then you you may see some more relevant responses.
Why would you even bring up incivility in your posts when you yourself engage in it?
@334 (SteveM): Darn it! I swear you weren't #270 when I wrote that. I only had a beer or two with dinner, so I can't have been that drunk. It was aimed at Mover who used 500 words to basically say that everybody here is just a big meany. I think that post is (for now!) #274.
Hopefully it is not too late to apologize.
Abortion is an odd one. There's nothing in the bible about it
Actually, IIRC there is something in Leviticus about it, but King James may have deleted it from his version. One of the laws states that if a man strikes a woman and causes her to abort, then he owes compensation to the woman's husband. It's treated as a property matter, and doesn't contemplate the possibility of a woman choosing to abort deliberately.
-jcr
speedwell: Therefore my property right derives from and is inseparable from my right to life.
Ah; the Randite derivation.
You implicitly presume that either (or any) "right" is an absolute on par with the laws of physics. They aren't.
As ethical principles such as "thou shalt not kill" are for individuals, so are concepts such as "Right to Life" at the level of societies: finite oversimplified expressions which do not necessarily catch all of the edge cases for demarcation of "good". Treating the simple rules as if they were absolute may be of more benefit to the individual/society, in that more complex rules take more effort to work out individual cases.
However, I'm fairly certain (meaning "have most of the math") that if you use the Second Law of Thermodynamics as the starting point, it is possible to derive a formal definition of "good" where traditional Rights and Ethics can be shown to be finite approximations, and that no perfect approximation is possible. Such a result would indeed be an absolute on par with the laws of physics, since it is a direct expression of one.
So, I'm afraid I consider your claim of an absolute "Right to Life" to be a suspicious premise.
"Back on the oppressed feminist tack again I see."
decoded as: misogyny doesn't exist because Helfick doesn't have to notice it.
Goodness, privilege really does makes people dumb.
"Please enlighten us on how the pregnant female is held down in modern society."
feminism 101 has a website. Go. Learn. google "mommy track". Check your privilege.
Raven, I agree. If the past (and present) has taught us anything, the way to combat social problems is through a social approach, not a legal one. From what I've read about the European system, it is a good approach. It's just sad that all of these good ideas are going to waste because "socialism is bad and Europe is a godless wasteland." Europe is really on to something- why aren't we watching and learning? Hopefully the new administration can help us do so!
That’s right, make the sign of the cross so the demon goes away. Punctuate the sentence with “god bless you“. Discussion over; brain closed for the day.
#427 Walton:
I'd say that the proper role for the FDA (or equivalents at the state level) would be to police the industry for fraud (like, does this capsule contain the drug I'm paying for, or is it a placebo?)
What I strongly object to is the FDA usurping my right to decide for myself what I will or will not ingest either on my own initiative or on the advice of my physician or pharmacist.
-jcr
abb3w # 458: You talk like a real bright guy, you do, but what does "good" even mean to an individual if they don't have the right to define it for themselves? How do you ascribe any rights to anyone that aren't fundamentally based on the basic right of self-determination?
A looneytarian objects to experts making decisions in their field of expertise. And the looneytarians wonder why the rest of us hold them in dim regard.
I agree, but implicit in your other comments on the subject has been the theme that all women really want to be mothers, and those choosing abortion are denying their true selves. Again, very sexist of you.
Think I care? I don't need or desire the respect of a misogynistic, anti-choice asshole.
When I'm simplifying your argument, I'm cutting away your obfuscations. Your actual beliefs, that women deserve forced birth and are nothing but state-owned wombs, are repellent. So you try to sugarcoat it all with some paternalism for your imagined poor dumb young girls who don't know what's best for themselves. You talk about offering women choices when you actually mean to take a choice away.
You don't care about women. If you did, you would not say "it is for both fetus and mum that I have in mind when I say I am for forced gestation and forced birth." You cannot care about women and simultaneously wish to force them to bear children against their wills.
You want me to call this "concern for women," like you do, instead of "forced birth," what it really is? No. I will not play along with your lies. How sad if that's disrespect. If you want to take away women's rights, then you are not a decent person, and you do not deserve respect.
No one is in favor of abortion per se.
Raven, I think there's a lot that's wrong with that statement. I can understand the point behind it that in a perfect world there wouldn't be any need, but saying it that way concedes too much to the anti-abortion side. I'm in favor of abortion, in the same way that I'm in favor of root canals and heart bypasses and limb reattachments and cataract removals. Abortion is necessary and beneficial. It literally saved the life of one of my favorite bloggers as she was crashing and bleeding out in the ER. I am definitely in favor of it.
You may "decode" it any way you like, but putting words in my mouth doesn't make them true. I actually agreed with your points on education and avaliability of services, but when you start in on the misandry you lose all credibility. Much like your denigration of the girls at Suicide Girls, you seem to speak out of some dated and pitiful outrage that has nothing to do with what is happening in this conversation.
From feminism101.com "GUESS WHO'S A FEMINIST ?
A feminist is, and always has been, anyone who favors political, economic and social equality for women and men." Sounds fantastic. I love the idea of equality for all. Period.
Done. What's your point? The statement was that pregnant women are capable of pursuing their career and family at the same time. Do you have something of substance to present that says otherwise?
Fuck you too.
Oh boy, this is going to be rich. Tell us, MRA, where's the misandry? Quotes, please.
Actually the statement was:
Here, asshole: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1855441,00.html
Safe, legal, and rare. You know what I mean.
Using common sense approaches to reduce the abortion rate will also reduce the unplanned teen age pregnancy rate.
Teen age pregnancy rate is a critical metric. This is the most highly correlated variable for life long poverty. It is a tough world getting tougher and when you stumble right out of the gate, it is hard to recover.
I have a friend who works with Child Protective Services. A lot of their case load is dealing with clueless teen age kids who happen to have gotten pregnant. Some may make it out of the swamp, most probably won't.
I know what you mean, but still, taking that angle is saying that there is something quantitatively/qualitatively different about abortion from other types of surgery. No one makes platforms based on the idea that kidney transplants should be rare. It's still saying that there's something wrong with that surgery, that it shouldn't exist. It's just not value-neutral enough for my taste.
And the looneytarians wonder why the rest of us hold them in dim regard.
You mean, "the 'looneytarians' who agree with you and disagree with the one you disagree with wonder why you hold them in dim regard." Be careful you check the breadth of your tar brush, friend. Should I consider all men, including you, abusers because I once married one?
You hate "looneytarians" (of the juvenile epithets, I prefer "LOLtarians", myself) because you disagree with them, which is a little too fervent of an overreaction, if you ask me.
After perusing (and regretfully participating in) the posts above, I have reached the following conclusions:
Most (not all- I don't want to be accused of generalizing) atheists:
1. are angry
2. have potty mouths
3. usually resort to profanity and name-calling when faced with a challenge - oops, I mean opposing viewpoint
4. sometimes resort to pettiness (i.e. making irrelevant comments about one's use of punctuation, spelling, grammar, etc. while accusing their often logical and articulate opponent of being irrelevant)
5. almost always accuse obviously intelligent, well-read and rational opponents of being stupid
6. are ARROGANT beyond belief! "We're all smart, and religious people are all dumb!" should be written on all of your gravestones!
I find it all very amusing, to be quite honest.
@uyi
Had to look up MRA. That's funny, never heard of that. Since you asked:
Which I may have misinterpreted.
No, the statement was #438:
Ok, thank you (for the article.) I hadn't seen that. I was going to point here: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-preg.html and here: http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/ as a sign of things getting better.
Martha, your god likes abortion. He does it a lot. Why aren't you in favor of all women getting abortions. They are just doing gods bidding.
Shorter Martha: "Wank, wank, wank."
Nerd,
God has the authority to decide whether a person lives or dies. It's all about ownership privileges.
@Helfrick
"That's not true. Anyone can provide for the child once it has left the womb."
I believe I mentioned that. Try to read the entire post, pal.
"If you care to weigh in on when a person becomes a person, then you you may see some more relevant responses."
No one can say for certain exactly when a person becomes a person and I would not pretend to. But some who think they know what's best for everyone else have decided that they know, and have used their peculiar point of view to justify laws and religious standards that they use to impose their views on others. For instance, the Bible gives no consideration to people who have not been born yet. Abortions are restricted based different stages of life in the womb to determine what is and isn't permissible. Baby people are are not normally given names until they are born (unless their goofy parent likes names such as "apple" or "Moon Unit". They probably thought long and hard on those names).
So, I have decided that since I don't know when a fertilized human egg becomes a "person" and neither does anyone else, I will fault on the side of life and say that I believe it is a person at the time it is conceived. Also, since abortions cannot be undone I will leave the continued support of abortion-for-your-convenience to the people who do not believe that life, other than their own, has any particular value.
I will fault on the side of life and say that I believe it is a person at the time it is conceived.
You can do whatever you like, but it doesn't make you logical, correct, or virtuous.
Also, since abortions cannot be undone I will leave the continued support of abortion-for-your-convenience to the people who do not believe that life, other than their own, has any particular value.
That's called a straw-man fallacy, and it's definitely textbook-quality.
Mover, your god loves abortion. He commits so many of them. So if you are religious, women must get abortions because it is gods will.
Mover, #477: So, I have decided that since I don't know when a fertilized human egg becomes a "person" and neither does anyone else....
So why not err on the side of the one who is indisputably a person, namely the mother, and protect her right to make the decisions she feels are important to the quality of her life?
I find it quite amusing that Martha has been reduced to pointing and saying "You use bad words!" instead of actually addressing any of the points that have been made, either due to stubbornness or inability to do so.
1. We are indeed angry, because people like you keep trying to shove your own whacked-out views on the world on everyone else through legislation.
2. We like to make full use of the English language. So do a lot of people who call themselves Christian. What's your point? The prohibitions in the Bible about swearing are about taking false oaths, dearie, not about saying fuck.
3. See above. If you would quit fainting every time you saw the word "damn", you would find that there are actual arguments of substance there as well.
4. This usually happens because the errors are so often deliciously juxtaposed with said writer castigating everyone else for being stupid/ignorant. This is funny. We like funny things.
5. Not if they show clear evidence of being intelligent and well-read. Sadly, this is rarely the case. Usually they just sit around and complain about our potty mouths.
6. Some are, some aren't. Again, same as Christians. You have to be pretty arrogant to think that your sect, and yours alone, knows exactly how to interpret what God wants properly and that everyone else is wrong.
"No one makes platforms based on the idea that kidney transplants should be rare"
You know in a funny way, you can. As with above mentioned root canals, etc. Or liver disease. Or gastric bypass. A good way to make liver transplants rare for example is to help prevent them through things like promotion of moderate alcohol intake, more funding for AA etc. Obviously there are some things that you just can't help (and like in the case of emergency abortions, they are absolutely necessary), but in a way you could say surgeries that are necessary due to personal choices, should be made more rare, just because it's not too fun to need them in the first place.
I don't think wanting abortions to be rare is giving credence to anyone. I think that most people, including those who choose abortion, would rather have not gotten pregnant in the first place, and would rather focus efforts on things like developing good education and more reliable birth control methods. And its a good starting point for bipartisanship. My two cents, anyway.
PNP, you don't just want abortions to be rare, you want them to be unavailable, except in the rare cases that don't squick you out.
Who the hell asked you, little miss holier-than-thou?
Martha, #472: After perusing (and regretfully participating in) the posts above, I have reached the following conclusions:
Most (not all- I don't want to be accused of generalizing) atheists....
Actually, I think you can make those same characterizations about almost any group with whom you try to argue about controversial topics on the internet. Maybe you should try to make some atheist friends in real life, and try to interact with them as friends and colleagues rather than as debate opponents. I bet you'd see a far different side to them.
Also, since abortions cannot be undone I will leave the continued support of abortion-for-your-convenience
Oh, the sweet, juicy nonsense.
The fact that abortions "cannot be undone" is a crushing blow against? Can birth be undone? Can motherhood be undone? I think we call the latter either "abandonment" or "murder." Neither one is considered acceptable. Better yet, can a forced full-term pregnancy be undone? If an abortion is prevented, it still leads to something that can't be taken back. So, I'll leave support of everybody-must-make-babies to the folks who think the End Times are coming within their own life expectancy and therefore don't think sociological or economic concerns are issues that need to be dealt with.
Your mention of "convenience" also tickles my wacky-bone. I simply love it when the pro-lifers rail against abortion for "convenience" as if the alternative is mere inconvenience. It's good to know that if I have to give birth to a child I didn't ask for, I'm merely being inconvenienced like when I have to stand in line too long at the post office.
Carlie,
Re-read my list. You'll find that you are simply reiterating what I just said about you. However, I still disagree with you regarding #4 and #5. If you scroll back you will see that my assertions are correct.
Now, I need to withdraw for awhile and recover from the shock of seeing the word "d#%n" in print! Heck, I can't even bring myself to type it!
Most (not all- I don't want to be accused of generalizing) atheists:
That is a generalization, dumbass.
1. are angry
Depends. When god-sotted authoritarians wade in here asserting their contempt for the right of women to control their own bodies on behalf of their imaginary friend, and with no consideration of the consequences, that makes some of us pretty mad.
2. have potty mouths
3. usually resort to profanity and name-calling when faced with a challenge - oops, I mean opposing viewpoint
Most theists seem to be content to feign a case of the vapors when confronted with blunt language rather than deal with the substance of arguments that have been expressed in that way.
4. sometimes resort to pettiness (i.e. making irrelevant comments about one's use of punctuation, spelling, grammar, etc. while accusing their often logical and articulate opponent of being irrelevant)
If you don't like it, deal with the substance. If your spelling sucks, use a spellchecker. If you can't reliably construct a coherent, grammatical sentence, what are you doing here?
5. almost always accuse obviously intelligent, well-read and rational opponents of being stupid
Examples, please. I see no such "opponents" here. Are you referring to yourself? Because what may seem obvious to you, is not.
6. are ARROGANT beyond belief! "We're all smart, and religious people are all dumb!" should be written on all of your gravestones!
If religious people didn't consistently make such dumb, fallacious, and transparently self-serving arguments on subjects like abortion rights, maybe fewer of us would think that. In any case, it's not arrogance so much as frustration. If you're so goddamn smart like you keep telling us, why does drivel ensue from your keyboard every time you sit down to prove it?
I find it all very amusing, to be quite honest.
Any time an argumentitive godbotherer finishes a sentence with "to be quite honest," you know they're lying.
Isn't asking what should be done with the mothers who have abortions similar to asking what should be done with the people who killed themselves with the assistance of someone else? As a pro-life person (not neccessarily anti-choice) I would answer that question by saying any type of punishment should be focused more on the person performing/providing the abortion than on the person having the abortion.
@Martha, and Mover, and any other anti-abortion lurker.
I'd like to engage you in a discussion, first, on what abortions, if any, are morally kosher by you.
For instance - the mifepristone and misoprostol cocktail? The plan B pill? IUD after unprotected intercourse? Is early term abortion okay? Is abortion to save the life of the mother acceptable? Abortion in the case of incest, rape? If any of these are acceptable - why?
QDA, trying to move the goalposts? No, what punishment the woman should get is the correct question.
As a pro-life person (not neccessarily anti-choice)...
Utterly incoherent. Please restate. English is preferred.
similar to asking what should be done with the people who killed themselves with the assistance of someone else?
Amazingly enough, there is life after abortion. It resembles, to a quite astonishing degree, life before the terminated pregnancy. So that analogy is a non-starter.
any type of punishment should be focused more on the person performing/providing the abortion than on the person having the abortion.
Supply follows demand, not the other way around. If women wanted nothing more than to birth and rear every single child they ever happened to conceive, abortion providers wouldn't be able to make a living. I'm sure most of them would be happy, in that case, to find another occupation. Even putting economic factors aside, however, most women simply want to limit their family size and keep their children spaced at a healthy age difference because children tend to have better chances if their mothers are in good mental health.
Nerd: Let's clear up your confusion regarding God's will.
God's will is very clear: "Love your neighbour as you love yourself." Part of "loving your neighbour" is found in the fifth commandment: "You shall not kill."
So, if you don't relish the thought of having your brain crushed and limbs broken so that you can fit through a narrow aperture, then you can safely conclude that perhaps you shouldn't be doing this to another living person.
You'll find that you are simply reiterating what I just said about you.
Yeah, but you said it all like it was a bad thing.
And with regard to #5, if you're referring to yourself, I still haven't seen evidence to the contrary yet. All you've done is complain about our tone.
Part of "loving your neighbour" is found in the fifth commandment: "You shall not kill."
So, Martha, I assume that you also actively protest against the death penalty and the Iraq war?
Martha:
After reading (and regretfully responding to) your posts, I have concluded that MOST (not all--don't want to generalize) pro-lifers are:
1. Incredibly self-important and inexplicably confident of their own intellectual prowess.
2. Entertainingly self-oblivious and prone to compulsive projection.
Posted by: Martha | January 22, 2009
So, if you don't relish the thought of having your brain crushed and limbs broken so that you can fit through a narrow aperture, then you can safely conclude that perhaps you shouldn't be doing this to another living person.
Because, dontcha know, all abortions are like this. They always until the pregnancy is in the third trimester before they abort.
CJO said: Any time an argumentitive godbotherer finishes a sentence with "to be quite honest," you know they're lying.
Oh, but you're wrong. I think you would be surprised at how much chuckling I do when I read these posts. You probably don't believe me, because you're an angry person and all, but I'm being quite honest!
It's all part of the inner joy that comes with being a Christian.
It's all part of the inner joy that comes with being a Christian.
Been there, done that, got the Michael W. Smith t-shirt. It's really not all it's cracked up to be.
Martha. Don't have an abortion, support birth control, including Plan B and real sex education. Those are positives things you could do.
QDA,
Your assisted suicide case is totally different. Since the patient is now dead, there isn't a question of legal penalties. In contrast, the woman who gets an abortion is still alive and subject to legal penalties.
If you want to defend the view that legal penalties should be directed at abortion doctors only, okay, but drop the assisted suicide comparison and come up with a real justification of your view.
Posted by: Martha | January 22, 2009
It's all part of the inner joy that comes with being a Christian.
Smug and condescending as well as being dishonest.
Martha, over half of fertilizations are aborted. Don't tell me you imaginary god doesn't like abortion. He loves it. You twist words to make into what you want. That makes you a liar and bullshitter. Everything you say must be questions until the lies stop.
"I think you would be surprised at how much chuckling I do when I read these posts. You probably don't believe me, because you're an angry person and all, but I'm being quite honest!
It's all part of the inner joy that comes with being a Christian."
This is just the "fake it til you make it" thing theists love to pull. She's not happy, she's miserable - that's why she's here trying so desperately to convince herself that we're angry. Since it's been shown she's a liar, she's got to grab for the tired old memes to pathetic to be taken seriously. Her arsenal is empty. Rather like her brain.
I notice Martha completely ignored the questions in post #495
Typical godbot.