If you don't think this type of thing is possible when Roe v. Wade is overturned (yes, I said "when", it's pretty much inevitable that it will happen at some point in the not too distant future), you're seriously delusional. This will be customary litigation if state's have the right to decide a doctor and patient do not have the right to make medical decisions.
It makes the phrase "forced childbirth", which used to seem an appeal to emotion to me, sound like a pretty reasonable argument that feminists have. The right really wants to force you to bear a child even if there are no major organs or if the baby has no chance of living more than three days. Their attack on birth control is beyond perplexing to me.
Also, just as a note, "late term abortion" and "partial birth abortion" are NOT synonymous. That is a note for Brian Williams. Freakin' tool. A "partial birth abortion" is A type of "late term abortion".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I think you are jumping to conclusions here. And generalizing, which is generally wrong. The abortion debate is not left/right, nor secular/non-secular. The issues in Ireland are EXTREMELY different as to why that situation exists, so let's not even try to wrap this pig in that blanket.
I think the only general truth is those on the "far right", which, to me, means the group of people who go to church every Sunday and want to send their children to institutions like Regent University want all forms of abortion outlawed. Most other groups of people tend to want to have abortion available, but possibly with some stricter limits. What they never ask in surveys is what should be done to someone who breaks the law or how to discover someone has broken such limits.
Note: Incidentally, nearly every time I see survey results that break down political affialition I am almost always in agreement with the "independents". This is why I consider myself an independent.
Also: I suppose to me "right" has come to mean "religious right" in my eyes. The left/right supposed dichotomy just doesn't really exist to me and thus when I say "right" I should really say "religious right".
OK - so we can agree that abortion on demand is wrong? So when you limit your definititon of "religious right" to mean those that attend church regularly and send their children to non-secular institutes of higher learning you mean that one-half of one-percent of the US population? About the same number of members as ELF.
Surveys are bullshit. These polls are constructed to find responses within the limited range of what they pollster wants as a result. They go in a priore on these things. Polls are ways to make pretend news and to sway public opinion.
So, what has "left" come to mean to you? Not right?
I don't think I can agree that "abortion on demand" is wrong at this point. This post doesn't address that issue. It addresses the issue of those on the religious right who are trying very hard to pass legislation that does not take the woman's health into consideration. I think THAT is wrong. If the baby is doomed and partial birth abortion is the only way to prevent possible damage to the woman's uterus, I see no reason why a doctor shouldn't have that method at his disposal.
Polls CAN BE everything you said they are, but they aren't NECESSARILY that. Sometimes a blind dog finds a bone and I think what survey after survey shows is the public is fickle about issues like abortion. There are those with very strong opinions one way or the other, and then there are those like me, in the middle, who think it's unfortunate that they occur, but think the society has more to do with it than moral bankrupcy of the individual. It "teenage pregnancy" and adoption weren't looked down upon you wouldn't see nearly as many. My argument for or against abortion is not yet set in stone though. It used to be "An activity is WRONG if its consequence is the possible extinction of the human race if every adopted said activity", but I just think that is way too simplistic, especially for something this complex. At this point, I don't think taking the day after pill is wrong or getting an abortion one month or less after the little organism has successfully attached itself to the uterus, but nor do I think walking into the doctor to ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy is right either. It's my understanding that "abortions on demand" are usually prior to the 20 week point, so I don't know where to draw the line on those. I tend to favor the mode of thinking that "if it cannot survive on its own, it's technically a parasite".
This issue is going to be around until the end of time. So, the "solution" will shift endlessly. I have beef with the extremes. That is what this post was concerning.
Also, I never mentioned the "left", but I would say it means "those who vote Democratic Party ticket" every time, without thinking about it. I think I will revise my vote of the "right" to the same "those who vote Republican Party ticket". To me, all thinking people in general are in the middle. Yes, that means the people that vote straight party ticket every election are not thinking people. You shouldn't be allowed to vote for someone if their name has never been seen by you.
Also, I said those who WANT to send their children...and that was hyperbole.
There is a very real group of people in this country that want to pass laws reflecting their inane idea that this is a "Christian Nation". I would like to see a survey on this.
For not addressing abortion on demand you sure address it thouroughly. Unviable tissue mass is the 70's version of global warming. It seems that the latest research has shown that gender can be determined at 6 weeks. You equate unborn life as a parasite? Someone sure the fuck raised you wrong. I've got this kid that is 20 years old and costs me over $100/day and brings nothing to the table. Parasite? No, it is my child and I love her regardless of the situation. My comments can and should be harsher towards your position but I hope that in hindsight you see where you may have misstated you position or chose words poorly. And if not, we can discuss this at a later date when I feel like talking to you.
Be glad that someone chose to bring a certain parasite to term, you asshole.
So, take one sentence of an argument and appeal to emotion and then smear the messenger. I will refuse the urge to nuke your comment.
Furthermore, "tend to favor" and "agree" aren't even close. There is no "argument" I agree with 100%. It's hard to put into words how one feels about abortion and any logical metaphor can be taken wrongly.
The post didn't mention abortion on demand, my response to your comment did, how is that inconsistent?
The genetic switch may be turned on to determine sex at six weeks, sure, but if is has no beating heart or brain (which, I think is 12 weeks ish?) I'm not sure I understand the problem.
Also, I explicitly state 4 weeks (aka one month) in saying what I have no problem with. I have not come to terms with my position on abortion, mostly because I have not been in a position to decide whether or not to have one. If it was illegal, I know I would not even consider it, but regardless of the legal question, I don't think I would consider it either.
That being said, my "position on abortion" is still open to "outlaw it" or "keep it available for those that DO think it is an option". This is why being a moral relativist sucks. Trying to understand both sides of an issue is actually very difficult, especially when you take away appeals to emotion. I like said, I tend to "favor" the latter. It's their argument I'm favoring, not an argument I constructed myself. It is also more complex than the one sentence that pissed you off. There are multiple arguments in fact. Perhaps I should list them to the best of my recollection:
1. If the host dies, the baby dies. That is the definition of a parasite. Yes, that is a cold argument. I realize this. I understand the argument and think it is valid to a point. I don't think this means that a woman should be able to have abortion on demand, but I understand how someone could hold that position and thus I don't think they should be punished for it.
2. A woman bears the responsibility of carrying the child to gestation, so why should an organization made mostly of men be deciding on the fate. The organization being the goverment. Don't really know what to say about this one besides both groups (men and women) are affected but the men don't have to go on maternity leave or postpone their careers or feel pressured to stay on the job while wanting to bond with the child for 1 or 2 years, constantly in fear that their job won't be there when they want to go back. This is a problem for society if solved would prevent many abortions. I realize my mother probably made the choice. It's possible a "choice" wasn't necessary as some women don't even consider any other option. I don't think that is the case though. I think it's because my mother takes responsibility for every action that she takes.
3. If a health of the mother exceptions or rape/incest exceptions are not in the bill it's a terrible bill. I agree with this sentiment.
4. The morning after pill is no different than a fertilized egg not attaching itself to the uterus. I imagine this happens a lot. I see no problem with the morning after pill.
5. Anti-abortion activists want to control sex. While this may be true for a certain amount of the anti-abortion activists in question, this is a blatant appeal to emotion, a strayman, and a non sequitor all in one. That has no place in a discussion on the merits of abortion/outlawing abortion.
6. If abortion were outlawed, the number of abortions would not decrease that much. I tend to disagree with this. I would imagine it would decrease them by 70% or so.
7. - 100.+ All bad arguments, usually appealing to emotion or just plain incorrect.
Bottom line: I don't care what the laws are on abortion, as long as doctors hands are not tied when dealing with health of mother (as was the point of the post) and despise when rape/incest exceptions are not included in a bill. Yes, I understand a woman could then claim she was raped when she really wasn't, but I think it's better safe than sorry. I don't really have a good argument for why I think abortion on demand MUST remain legal. I tend to favor an argument which has been used by those who think it MUST remain legal, but don't have strong feelings one way or the other, very weak feelings toward pro-choice.
I'm unsure how any of this makes me an asshole.
I chose to comment on a particular area because I am personally offended by them. If you can't figure that one out then I refer you to the last line of your reply.
1. Not necessarily, and you know this. The parasite can find another host in nearly all circumstances.
2. The woman SHARES the responsibility. Unless she found sperm on the street and shoved it iside herself. Because the woman bears the child is a result of nature, not a result of personal choice. Obtaining sperm was the choice.
3. No argument here.
4. I see it as another substitute to abdicate personal responsibility. Oops....my bad! Wanted the coq, not the creme!
5. What? And what do the Pro-Deathers want? That's right, abdication of personal responsibility and the degradation of human life. Twisting a position that does not support pre-marital sex into somehow legislating sex is a leap worthy of Evel Knievel.
6. Betcha the ones that are on the 70% side of the equation will be happier than hell. If I pass a burning building and know that of the 10 people inside only 7 can be saved should I just keep walking by?
7. Huh?
No doubt it is a complex problem. Taking emotion and heart out of the equation merely makes you emotionless and heartless. Calling an unborn child a parasite is both of those - in spades. If you want to parse facts to determine best outcome and not base decisions on how a situation or problem makes you feel then you can never feel passion about anything. However, if you do feel passionate about certain things then you have allowed emotion and feelings to enter into the equation.
Your well-established dislike for any organized religion seems to be more rooted in a fear of establishing an emotional base in something that cannot be defined by fact. That may scare you - or not. Whatever the case, I think there is a lot there that causes you to reject any thing or position where organized religion is involved. Just so you can maintain truthiness to your righteous position.
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Arguments 2-6 are mostly arguments I disagree with. The first sentence is the "logic". The sentences following them are my positions regarding them. The only one that has any logic whatsoever is argument 1. The main point of comment 6 was to say "I don't agree with the pro-life crowd in most cases". Argument 7 through 100+ could be listed but it would be a waste of time because they're all terrible. The only argument that has struck a cord with me is #1, not because I think it's true, but because if the mother dies prior to the baby developing all it's organs, it dies too. What do you mean the parasite can find a host in most circumstances? Depends on what kind of parasite it is. Lots of them move from host to host. I understand that, but if there is no other host to jump to when the host dies, the parasite is SOL. The argument is that a fetus is DIFFERENT than a baby. It is what makes a baby, surely, and an adult for that matter. I know this. But it's different. That's all it gets at. One small point.
Legislation ought to be emotionless and heartless. That is my position.
"Your well-established dislike for any organized religion seems to be more rooted in a fear of establishing an emotional base in something that cannot be defined by fact."
Why do you assume that I am afraid of establishing an emotional base in something that cannot be defined by fact? I just do not UNDERSTAND why anyone would choose to do such a thing. I don't think that is an unreasonable position. The only reasons for the establishment of religion in my eyes is to control the public's actions. I see nothing inherentely wrong with that, but their emperor has no clothes and more people are waking up. But surveys are propaganda efforts of course...
What scares me is the phrase "In God We Trust". I want to start a vandalism campaign to change the "We" to "I" on every single plate I can get away with changing. Not really, but every day there is now a constant reminder that I am different that I can't help but read (I don't read my money as it turns out). Yes, it makes me angry. Mostly because I can't get "I don't trust in YOUR god" on my license plate for free. Not that I would actually get that on my plate, perhaps something more like "I don't wear my lack of faith on my sleeve". But the irony would be lost I think. Talk about a propaganda effort though.
By the way, what exactly is out there that cannot be "defined by fact"? Some questions are just absurd questions and can be dismissed out of hand by me, such as "why are we here?". This presupposes purpose. I prefer to loiter indefinitely.
Also, just wanted to note that in note 4 the personal responsibility can be construed as going to the store to get the Plan B pill. I agree with that construction.
I also agree on point 6. That is one reason I am more than willing to be swayed, but I feel that there are many things we need to change in society and they would be very easy to change such that those 70% wouldn't even consider getting an abortion. I'm not sure I want the 30% having children anyway.
"Why do you assume that I am afraid of establishing an emotional base in something that cannot be defined by fact? I just do not UNDERSTAND why anyone would choose to do such a thing. I don't think that is an unreasonable position." If you cannot understand it then, ergo, you have chosen not to do so. Hence why I was not assuming anything - I knew this to be true of you. It was just that you were not willing to admit it until just now. Or do you not understand why you do not understand? Thanks for helping me better state the case I was making.
OK - so since a baby is not a baby until...when? Birth? 20 weeks? Less? Pick a date that the "magic" occurs. What scientifically proves this? Gender can be determined as early as 6 weeks. Should abortions not be preformed past that time? Or is a baby a baby the earliest it can survive outside the womb - in your pathetic "parasite" scenario. And it has reached pathertic on so many levels now. You now put the "heartless" tag on legislation and conveniently ignore your statements on how you reach your decisions.
You can feel free to not have an IGWT plate. Or you can go with those that do, print a bumper sticker that professes your position and go about with those folks and resort to sloganeering. Does not paying for the plate piss you off? I think this is another way for you to vent your anger about/towards organized religion.
"Presupposes purpose"? Do you ever actually read what you write? It sounds like you read enough Dawkins to at least regurgitate it verbatim. I am now waiting for the "res ipsa loquitor" any time now...
In note 4 - if Plan B does not work, then by logical extension you would be OK with an abortion - right? Because you INTENDED for Plan B to work, therefore you are absolved of any moral implications and responsibility.
I don't want anyone having a baby that thinks a fetus is a parasite - whether they are on the 30% side or the 70% side. And sometimes one never knows who ends up on which side of the scale until after they have a child.
I don't think a fetus is a parasite. I suppose Lot's wife was REALLY salt then? Of course the bible did not say "Hello, this is a metaphor" whereas I did.
I don't understand the point you refer to in paragraph 1. How does not understanding something concede that I made a choice to not do it? It's not like a drug or something. I believe myself physically unable to "establish an emotional base in something I cannot define as fact". So I guess I do not understand why I do not understand. But not understanding something does not lead to choosing not to do it. How is there is a logical connection there?
Why do I have to have passion about this issue? I'm passionate about very little. Usually only about things that directly affect me.
Also, if someone were so cold to say "Oh, a fetus IS technically a parasite" rather than, you know, saying that is a metaphor I see a small point in, why would you have a problem with someone having the baby who loves the concept of the "parasite" turning into a baby. Someone that loves their supposed parasite?
I'm not sure how I reached the decision that legislation ought to be heartless, but I certainly didn't detail the process by which I came to that conclusion. I just don't understand why one would deliberately legislate something which is a blatant appeal to emotion. That's right, if you insert emotion into an argument, it's an appeal to it. This is logic 101 stuff. I never took logic 101, but I assure you, it's in there somewhere.
I've read maybe one Dawkins book about 3 years ago. Not sure if I stole "presupposes purpose" but I like that phrase wherever it comes from. Are you going to deny that "Why are we here?" is a loaded question with "Purpose" being the ammunition?
If Plan B did not work that doesn't necessarily mean I'm ok with abortion. If the egg does not attach itself to the uterus, that's a very common occurrence. If it does, that is also a common occurrence. I would not understand the argument that equates the two because it's a non sequitor. The abortion question would be independent.
By the way, the federal government is not an organized religion...how is my dislike for the government allowing "in god we trust" on license plates showing my dislike for organized religion? It's showing my dislike for the power organized religion has over people. There is a large difference. Why should I be forced to sloganeer? So my car can be keyed? F' that.
Also, like I've stated, I have no idea what the answer is to paragraph two. There is some point where it ought to be acceptable in my opinion. This being my position in response to you saying "Can't we agree that abortion on demand is wrong"? I would say, "wrong is a strong word, perhaps "unnacceptable in this civilization after a certain point, maybe 8 weeks, maybe 12, maybe 20...not sure yet...still thinking". You have not presented any information that would sway my opinion there besides saying I'm an asshole and I read. Nothing can "prove" anything in this. I know my opinion will be just that, and opinion, based on the best information that exists.
You said you tend to favor the mode of thinking that equates a fetus with a parasite. How does this now become a metaphor?
If you cannot understand something then how can you conceive to not understand the initial concept? That is my point.
The passion question came not because of this particular issue, per se, but how you stated how you view issues in total. Hence my comment.
Face it, the notion of something to being a parasite is not a positive tag to place on a child, irrespective of context and humorous metaphor. Hence why I never refer to my kids as "rug rats", "ankle biters" or some other such nonsense. These are not the way I want my kids to percieve my perception of them to be. Positive reinforcement is always a good thing. However, if you want to give your child a pet name then at least wait until they understand and can acknowledge the concept and the frame of reference. My daughter does not think she is a cow because I call her "Little Moo", but she knows I call her that because of a frame of reference and it is out of love. I never tease her in reference that "moo" connotes that I think she is a small cow.
"Why are we here?" is a very different question than "How are we here?". Does "why" mine purpose? In some cases, yes. But that does not mean that the superior question is "how".
Right on Plan B, but the non sequitor is where folks are hanging there hat in this debate. They call them "options".
How and why are you being forced to take that license plate? It is not mandatory. Your argument falls flat here.
I am not trying to sway your opinion on this. I began this by objecting to how you were reaching your conclusions that was followed by how you chose to use a "metaphor" in describing your position. My position is that abortion on demand should be outlawed and a reasonable set of standards should be established. Unfortunately, reasonable in this arena is difficult to discern. So the battle wages on in narrowing the debate to "allow all abortions" or "no abortions" - which moves nothing forward and does not even come close to resolving the issue.
I agree that the two extremes drown out the middle, but I will not claim that the extreme positions should not be part of the discussion. Nor did you, just clarifying.
Equate in language can mean "is metaphorically". In this case that is what my intention was and I stated as such in comment 6. I mentioned that language can lead to misunderstanding each other. I do not think a child IS a parasite, I think it functions LIKE a parasite (that is a simile) and therefore this is different than a newborn baby (sucking on the teet may be what normally happens, but it COULD get food from another host at that point). I used that argument to show why I refuse to say flatly "abortion on demand is wrong". I just don't like to speak in terms of right/wrong. That is the Nietsche coming out in me. "Beyond Good and Evil" is one of my favorite books, when you remove the sexism that is included (or rather, was possibly inserted by his sister/mother who despised him after his death...I'm not sure which books of his have been discussed where that is a possibility, but regardless, I throw his anti-female crap out).
"How are we here" presupposes a method or mechanism. It does not have to exist. Evolution MIGHT BE that mechanism, but I don't think it matters at all to me one way or the other. My predicament is usually, "I'm here, now what?" I think some questions after having been asked require no answer because they develop into nonsense no matter which tact of logic you try to use. For instance, if someone said "what is the whole number square root of 11?" Well, sometimes there is no answer. "There isn't one, you've tricked me". "How are we here?" "I'm not sure, but that is insignificant when compare to what we should do now..."
My origin seems insignificant. My present being is all that is significant to me.
Well, to be fair, abortion IS (no metaphor) an option. Some people have chosen it. It's an option whether it's illegal or not.
I'm forced to READ the license plate because I'm behind cars and eventually my eyes read the plate. You suggested I sloganeer, I said "why I should I be forced to do so"? It shouldn't be on people's cars. What purpose does it serve besides to propagate the notion that this is a Christian nation? To show pride? Isn't pride a sin?
I've often considered renting out billboard space to put up a billboard that says "A family that thinks together is linked together" in order to respond to the "A family that prays together stays together". I think the former is a much more functional family unit.
Options other than abortion:
Birth control pill
Condoms
Diaphram
Morning after pill (which is a birth control pill with more hormones)
Having sex at other times of the month when the woman is most fertile
If anyone thinks "pulling out" is an option, they are mistaken
In my opinion edumacation about these other options is the answer to the problem. The 70% can be swayed by logic rather than laws.
Post a Comment