Abortion compromise...what do you think?

[RandomPhantom700]

C'mahn, guys, be honest: you have religious beliefs that support these ideas, right?

No.

You have set notions about women's roles in life, right?

Very few, most of which I'm getting over, but none of which include women not being able to decide what to do with their bodies.

You're uneasy about the idea of women's independence, right?

Again, no.

You have doubts about sexual freedom and access to contraception, right?

Haha, if only you knew how innacurately that describes me.

That's certainly the history of people arguing for these so-called compromises; what makes your arguments any different?

Well, that's certainly not my history. But it sure is dandy to be accused of being a sexist, bigotted control freak simply because I have questions about abortion.

I have already said before, and I think Tgace takes the same position (please, Tgace, correct me if I'm wrong), that the only issue I'm considering in thinking that abortion should be at least limited is that of the unborn fetus' humanity. I've heard numerous arguments about whether an unborn fetus deserves to be treated as a human being, would have liked to hear more about that issue, and last time I checked, that was the entire purpose to the brain waves argument that began this thread. You know, BEFORE you hijacked it and began accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being motivated by Freudian desires to suppress women.

I say again, the only concern I have with abortion is the question of the fetus' humanity. Not a discomfort with women having independence, or a desire to see every one of them barefoot and pregnant, or a desire to control their sexual activities, or whatever other notions you'd like to project in there so that you can conveniently disregard the actual issues raised.

 

[shesulsa]

* shakes rmcrobertson's hand *

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gee, and here I thought the topic was: "Abortion compromise....what do you think?" You think that we should change our present laws: I think they represent a pretty good compromise.

I ask AGAIN: why do you feel it's your place to consider taking the decision--about "humanity," or anything else concerning pregnancy--out of women's hands? Why don't you simply militate for doing something about all the suffering kids whose humanity is as clear as it gets?

Freud's also very good on denegation: you should take a peek.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

You think that we should change our present laws

Oh I'm sorry, you got this from where? I never said that I thought we should change the laws, just asked questions about the issue of fetus' rights.

why do you feel it's your place to consider taking the decision--about "humanity," or anything else concerning pregnancy--out of women's hands?

Well, IF the position that an unborn fetus does deserve rights is correct, then the mother's decision to terminate the pregnancy would be violating those rights, wouldn't it? The fetus having rights of its own would prevent the issue of abortion from being just the mother's decision, which is why discussion of that issue is important to this thread--not just to be dismissed as a smokescreen.

Why don't you simply militate for doing something about all the suffering kids whose humanity is as clear as it gets?

Didn't know that I was militating against anything. And incidentally, when did I say I wasn't for helping kids?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, at least you're making your argument clear: in the event that you decide, "the position that an unborn fetus does deserve rights is correct, then the mother's decision," doesn't matter.

I ask AGAIN: why do you feel it's your place to consider taking the decision--about "humanity," or anything else concerning pregnancy--out of women's hands? Why do you feel they can't be trusted to make that decision?

 

[shesulsa]

I ask AGAIN: why do you feel it's your place to consider taking the decision--about "humanity," or anything else concerning pregnancy--out of women's hands? Why do you feel they can't be trusted to make that decision?

I'm not sure anyone is intentionally campaigning against the intelligence of women here, Robert, though I understand where you're coming from. The suppression of women's rights has often been championed under another banner. What's that song by John Lennon... "Woman is the N****r of the World?" I congratulate you for wanting to champion the cause of women's rights, though I think - I think - the discussion is still on the viability of life.

Though the topic of humanity and life is titillating. What of persons who are severely brain-damaged but have some brain waves. If you were that person - what would you want done? What is the HUMANE thing to do? Who are we to play God? God's subjects, I suppose. We do it all the time.

Do we begin to protect the life of living sperm cells? They are most definately alive - certainly upon ejaculation... what exactly are the moral implications when they go swirling down the drain? Can women who pass living ova upon menstruation be accused of squashing human life?

I suppose my question is.. how extreme is extreme? We can narrow life right down to a skin cell if we really, really wanted to, especially if DNA can be extracted and a clone produced.

*sigh* too much thinking ... not enough doing....

 

[Tgace]

I'm not sure anyone is intentionally campaigning against the intelligence of women here, Robert, though I understand where you're coming from. The suppression of women's rights has often been championed under another banner. What's that song by John Lennon... "Woman is the N****r of the World?" I congratulate you for wanting to champion the cause of women's rights, though I think - I think - the discussion is still on the viability of life.

Though the topic of humanity and life is titillating. What of persons who are severely brain-damaged but have some brain waves. If you were that person - what would you want done? What is the HUMANE thing to do? Who are we to play God? God's subjects, I suppose. We do it all the time.

Do we begin to protect the life of living sperm cells? They are most definately alive - certainly upon ejaculation... what exactly are the moral implications when they go swirling down the drain? Can women who pass living ova upon menstruation be accused of squashing human life?

I suppose my question is.. how extreme is extreme? We can narrow life right down to a skin cell if we really, really wanted to, especially if DNA can be extracted and a clone produced.

*sigh* too much thinking ... not enough doing....

Well said, and kind of my point all the long....I dont think we should go too far either. I also think we should be able to discuss how far we should go the other direction too. Unfortunately, it appears that some people take a "you are with us 100% or you are against us." stance.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Well said, and kind of my point all the long....I dont think we should go too far either. I also think we should be able to discuss how far we should go the other direction too. Unfortunately, it appears that some people take a "you are with us 100% or you are against us." stance.

I hope you weren't referring to me ~ I keep trying to emphasize the difference between *my* personal choice - where I would be comfortable (or not) having an abortion, or a friend of mine having an abortion - and the law, which would dictate to all women when they could or could not have an abortion.

If you want to continue this "if you had to pick a legal cutoff point for all women", and still think that my position is somehow waffling or not addressing the issue (although I think I have) - I think the cutoff point could be the age of viability - when, if the baby was born prematurely, it could survive outside of the mother's body. That's in the 3rd trimester. So 1st and 2nd trimester abortions should be OK.

 

[shesulsa]

Maybe it's time that we as a species need to just say, "I don't know," and leave it be.

Personally, my opinion is that since pregnancy permanently changes a woman's body and life - whether or not she chooses to raise a resulting baby herself or not - it is ultimately her choice - legal or not.

I had a good friend who practiced multiple barrier contraception and STILL got pregnant. She is a recovering addict and was using at the time. She visited drug and alcohol babies at the hospital (there's a dose of reality for ya) while she was deciding what to do. She was of the opinion that her addiction already destroyed the life of the child to some extent and could not feel right about bringing a compromised life into the world, as she would not have the guts to give the child up for adoption either, thereby further terrorizing (her word) the child by her addictive nature.

All that women who have had abortions can do is pray for absolution - just as do all the people who execute others who have been convicted of taking life.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Well, at least you're making your argument clear

Wow, nice attempt at a compliment.

I ask AGAIN: why do you feel it's your place to consider taking the decision--about "humanity," or anything else concerning pregnancy--out of women's hands? Why do you feel they can't be trusted to make that decision?

Well, it would be society's decision, just like it's society's decision that a wife has the right not to be beaten in the home, that a black person does have the right to vote, that a street walker has the right not to be shot by a passer-by, etc.

I guess a good analogy would the rights of black people. During the time of the slave trade, blacks weren't recognized as people, at least not in the legal sense; they were property. The had no rights, were't recognized as human, for all intents and purposes, and were the business of their owners. Then, over time (and, unfortunately, through a civil war), society recognized that they were indeed deserving of rights (albeit on paper at least).

It's the same type of question here. There's a subgroup who currently don't have rights and aren't recognized as human, and are considered the business only of the mother (much like the slave was considered property of the plantation owner). And I can imagine that, before slavery was abolished, many slave owners would respond to assertions that slaves have rights by saying "that slave is my business, and who are you to tell me what to do with them?" (although that's my own speculation, of course).

You could argue, I suppose, that blacks, as opposed to fetus, are already humans, but the important fact is that that wasn't recognized at the time. Besides, the humanity of a fetus is the very question at issue. So using this analogy, if it was right for someone to claim that blacks might deserve rights as humans at a time when they weren't granted them, why is it suddenly a selfish grab for power over women to question whether fetus' similarly deserve rights? As far as rights and humanity are concerned, these two issues seem analogous enough.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, not a good analogy. Slavery was based upon racist and demonstrably bizarre, "science," weird readings of the Bible, and economic exploitation--this doesn't apply to "the unborn," though it most certainly does apply to the women whose power to control their own lives you apparently wish to remove.

More to the point, Roe v. Wade--for the 14th time!--ALREADY FEATURES PRECISELY THE COMPROMISE AND THE SEPARATION BETWEEN TRIMESTERS that you're arguing for. It already grounds that separation in issues of fetal development. It already identifies the State's increasing inteerest in intervention.

We already have that. That's pretty consistently what you guys have been arguing for, even while you're arguing that we don't have that. So, if the compromise you're arguing for, which we already have, isn't the compromise you're arguing for, then what is it that you want?

So--who wants to sign up for the Contraception and Abortion Police? Which of you guys--and it is guys--wants to spend their days going around and checking to make sure, every time somebody gets pregnant, that your little "compromise," is obeyed? Will you be boarding up clinics, or just bulldozing 'em? Hey, no more IUDs, no more "morning-after," pills, no nothing.

Just the endless dance of every sperm is sacred...which, come to think of it, is really what this is all about. Protecting men's precious bodily fluids...hm, interesting.

 

[shesulsa]

I think what makes the debate on abortion so unique is that no other human rights argument other than the right to die has parallel consequences.

One cannot know what the future holds, what fates are at play. In terms of the right to die, for the sake of analogy, medical miracles are made every single day to the baffled mind of scientists and doctors everywhere, so who is to say we must take life in a merciful way? Conscience? Pity? In the spiritual realm, absolutely ANYTHING is possible, so how can we say there is absolutely no way a person can recover even from brain death? There have been humans declared dead and in the morgue, on the slab suddenly recover to breathe again. How can THAT be?

What is death?

Are not these the very same reasons we might choose to take life before it begins outside the womb?

Perhaps we attempt to understand things we cannot possible comprehend yet as a species.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Wow, nice attempt at a compliment.

Well, it would be society's decision, just like it's society's decision that a wife has the right not to be beaten in the home, that a black person does have the right to vote, that a street walker has the right not to be shot by a passer-by, etc.

I guess a good analogy would the rights of black people. During the time of the slave trade, blacks weren't recognized as people, at least not in the legal sense; they were property. The had no rights, were't recognized as human, for all intents and purposes, and were the business of their owners. Then, over time (and, unfortunately, through a civil war), society recognized that they were indeed deserving of rights (albeit on paper at least).

It's the same type of question here. There's a subgroup who currently don't have rights and aren't recognized as human, and are considered the business only of the mother (much like the slave was considered property of the plantation owner). And I can imagine that, before slavery was abolished, many slave owners would respond to assertions that slaves have rights by saying "that slave is my business, and who are you to tell me what to do with them?" (although that's my own speculation, of course).

You could argue, I suppose, that blacks, as opposed to fetus, are already humans, but the important fact is that that wasn't recognized at the time. Besides, the humanity of a fetus is the very question at issue. So using this analogy, if it was right for someone to claim that blacks might deserve rights as humans at a time when they weren't granted them, why is it suddenly a selfish grab for power over women to question whether fetus' similarly deserve rights? As far as rights and humanity are concerned, these two issues seem analogous enough.

Holy cow.

Right to abortion = slavery? I think not.

Could another person live without the slave master? Indeed - probably better. Was the slave a "sub-human", as the contemporary, flawed science tried to indicate, or fully a human?

I would, and will, continue to argue that the fetus is potential. When born, the baby has all the rights of an individual in our society. Before that, the fetus and mother are one and the same - biologically speaking, the fetus is a very adapted parasite of the mother's body.

And each woman's body remains in her sole possession. Would you appreciate it if I could have anyone who drank arrested, because they were harming their liver, and I find that morally reprehensible?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Alright, this one outta be fun.

though it most certainly does apply to the women whose power to control their own lives you apparently wish to remove.

Yes, that's exactly it, robertson. I don't think any women should be able to control their bodies, not at all. They should all just stay home and cook my dinner. While we're at it, let me go ahead and brand my name on the *** of every one of my girlfriends, so that they know their f***ing place.

Hope the sarcasm's noticeable enough.

As for Roe v. Wade, I never said that the compromise therein wasn't valid. All I tried to do was say that the pro-life arguments (or at least the only ones I see as having any valid point) are based on the fetus' humanity and rights, not a desire to subordinate women. I actually do agree with the basic ruling of Roe v. Wade. It'd be good to point out, however, that others in the thread who've been arguing for the pro-choice perspective are claiming that the mother has the right to abort allt he way to delivery, which isn't the Roe v. Wade decision.

And, once again, I've never said anything about getting rid of contraceptives. I'm actually quite all for them, and use them quite often. But, you know, glad to have the fundie Christian values imposed onto me once again, based solely on the fact that I've disagreed with you. It's usually either fundie Christian values that I'm allegedly holding, or neo-conservative Michael Savage worship. Seems to be the pattern, anyway.

Right to abortion = slavery? I think not.

Could another person live without the slave master? Indeed - probably better. Was the slave a "sub-human", as the contemporary, flawed science tried to indicate, or fully a human?

That wasn't the relationship I was trying to point out. I was using the slavery example as one where society--legitimately, I assume you all to believe--said that a group that didnt have recognition as humans beforehand suddenly received rights, and that decision isn't some form of, let's say, them damn Yankees imposing their beliefs on us southerners. Whether or not a fetus is a child is another issue entirely from the motives of pro-life (or should I say anti-abortion, I guess) arguments.

As for my liver, well you said it yourself: it doesn't have the potential to become a human being.

 

[Tgace]

I hope you weren't referring to me ~ .....

No. I was kind of making a general statement about the "if you arent all in..pro-choice wise...than you are an anti" atmosphere I seem to feel.

In general though, everybody here has been very polite and well mannered considering the subject.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

No. I was kind of making a general statement about the "if you arent all in..pro-choice wise...than you are an anti" atmosphere I seem to feel.

In general though, everybody here has been very polite and well mannered considering the subject.

I think it's, again, keeping the line firm in terms of legally, what any woman would be allowed under the law, and, personally, what each individual woman and her doctor (and partner, if he's around) would choose based on their situation.

Once you start saying "anything after X date is just wrong and should not be allowed" (which we have, anyways), you can start moving the line in the sand. That worries me.

 

[rmcrobertson]

One of the things that folks should think through, from time to time, is the level and origins of their unconscious commitments, however liberal they believe they are at a conscious level.

As for this, "the fetus, yes the fetus," claptrap, wellp, what makes us human is culture and history and language. It isn't simply our "brain-waves," or whatever other pseudo-science we come up with to obviate that reality.

And oh, incidentally, most cultures for much of history have allowed abortion. It's more in the modern period--as capitalism needed to control the holy family and its production of, "docile and useful bodies," and patriarchy demanded more and more close formal control over the dangerous figures of women--that abortion even became an issue.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Robertson,

You mistake rational, logical human thought in those you know with that of many in our society. Not every male thinks the way you do, unfortunately, and that's where these laws come from. SheSulsa's argument with the example of the alleged corpse coming back to life is interesting. But -- we all know that there's no happy medium (other than Roe v. Wade -- we know, we know) which can be reached in such an emotionally-charged issue. Way it is. KT

 

[RandomPhantom700]

One of the things that folks should think through, from time to time, is the level and origins of their unconscious commitments, however liberal they believe they are at a conscious level.

So "folks" should just realize that, no matter what they say, ideology is controlling them? Interesting way to completely invalidate anything they may say in response.

As for this, "the fetus, yes the fetus," claptrap, wellp, what makes us human is culture and history and language. It isn't simply our "brain-waves," or whatever other pseudo-science we come up with to obviate that reality.

Wouldn't this argument allow parents to kill newborns, since they arguably haven't been socialized with culture and language yet, and therefore aren't, according to these standards, human? The very few but still intriguing "wild child" cases also come to mind; I've seen two documentaries of kids who have grown up without socialization--no language, no culture, wild children. Where would they fit in?

And it's nice to finally hear some responses to the arguments, rather than just insulting other people's psychological motives.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I am pleased to be classed as at least a fellow traveller of the girls, on the side that's opposed to all this emotion-based male irrationalism...and no, I'm not kiding, neither.

Infanticide, which has been part of many human societies, is something we don't do deliberately. I'd add that it's probably not a great idea--and, as suggested, something of a signpost for the limits of theory.

As for my irrationalism, well, guess what, was rational right from start. Was just disagreed with; rather than saying that, some folks chose to attack instead. Tone toughened subsequently.

Should know better.