"The Guy James Show " need your expertise on the abortion issue

[BeachBuckeye]

I want to do a segment on Saturday's show about abortion. I don't like abortion but I firmly believe in pro-choice. How do each of you frame that argument against pro-lifers? I don't want to get into a debate about when life begins, I just want to answer the charge that we are a bunch of "baby killers". Give me your views.

Guy

[iverglas]

1. sorry

But I recommend against amateur dabbling.

Saturday is two days from now. I can't imagine how you could possibly frame that argument articulately and effectively, for public consumption, in that time, especially when you put your mission as I just want to answer the charge that we are a bunch of "baby killers".

I think that a task as important as defending one of women's most fundamental and important rights is better left to those who are familiar with the issues and committed whole-heartedly to those rights. I don't think that "I don't like abortion" is quite the right starting place for a defence of rights.

(Would you start out defending same-sex marriage rights by saying "I don't like homosexuals having sex"? Would you defend affirmative action in police department hiring by saying "I don't like African-American cops"? They might be true statements -- but would they be effective ways of defending the rights of gay men and lesbians or African-Americans?)

(and on edit -- would you really prepare for a broadcast in which you set out to, say, argue that Bush stole the 2000 election by asking on the internet for someone to tell you how to do it? I don't mean to be rude -- but I would expect you to treat women's rights just as seriously. Those rights are under some threat, and there's too much at stake to blow the job.)

The way to answer the charge that we are a bunch of baby killers is to call anyone who says it an evil lying piece of shit demagogue.

The way to defend women's right to choose is to suggest that people who want to violate it read their constitution, and/or get ready to have a lot of their own rights treated the same way.

.

[liberalhistorian]

5. I don't think he was saying he thought

we were a bunch of baby killers, I think he was just trying to show the mentality of those who are against us on this issue.

[BeachBuckeye]

7. Amateur dabbling?

I didn't ask for opinions because I wanted to use them to form my opinion. I asked for ideas because I like to hear many viewpoints so that I am not unprepared to answer whatever calls I might get on the subject. I resent your "amateur" label.

"would you really prepare for a broadcast in which you set out to, say, argue that Bush stole the 2000 election by asking on the internet for someone to tell you how to do it? I don't mean to be rude"

Well you WERE rude with this statement. I only ask for opinions so that I know what others are thinking. I know full well what I'm thinking, thank you.

[ulysses]

89. on what issue is public input *not* "amateur dabbling"?

Abortion shouldn't be a public political issue, but the fact is that it is. I'm not sure why you're rejecting the help.

[iverglas]

138. well, for one thing

Abortion shouldn't be a public political issue, but the fact is that it is. I'm not sure why you're rejecting the help.

... because I just don't see saying "I don't like abortion, but ..." as being "help".


on what issue is public input *not* "amateur dabbling"

Setting out to speak on an issue to the public, to a mass audience, to attempt to persuade the audience of something, is not quite the same as "public input". In my purely personal opinion, someone who does that has a little heavier onus than someone who decides to hold forth on a topic in his/her living room.

The strength and health of a liberal democracy depends, for one thing, on the transparency of public discourse. People who offer up reasons for their policy proposals that are wholly unfactual and unreasonable (say, that same-sex marriage would spread disease and be the end of civilization as we know it) are not acting democratically. People who appeal to emotion, in favour of their own policy proposals and against others', rather than presenting facts and argument, are not acting democratically.

Our ability to assess whether facts and arguments in favour or against any policy are persuasive depends on our knowing enough about the facts and arguments to make that assessment.

I believe that we *all* have a democratic duty to enhance the amount and quality of facts and argument about policies that are in circulation. I also believe that someone who speaks to a large audience of the public, and is reasonably perceived by that audience as representative of those who support the policy s/he supports, and presenting facts and argument on their behalf that they would present, has a particular duty to do that.

I would not go on air and make pronouncements about certain aspects of tax law, say, because I would simply think it irresponsible of me to do that -- to say things that I intended to, or that could, influence public opinion when I was not sufficiently informed, and my influence was not likely to be based on the truth of my facts and the persuasiveness of my argument.

I might influence people to support me by appealing to emotion and prejudice -- "tax the rich!" -- when in fact the policy I advocated would be disadvantageous to the poor. I would even be afraid that my actual influence might end up being at cross-purposes with my intended influence -- that I might sway people more against my position, because of my inability to present solid facts and persuasive argument, and the ease with which what I said could be rebutted or discounted, than I would sway in favour of my position.

And if I did that, I would be hurting the people that the policy I supported was meant to help.

To be perfectly frank, this is indeed how I very much feel about a lot of "pro-choice" discourse. A lot of people say a lot of things that are factually incorrect, or illogical, or irrelevant to the issue, and do the cause of women's rights no good at all, and possibly harm.

If people simply voice opinions about policy based on personal preferences that they hold for whatever reason they may have, and don't bother having fact and argument to back them up, they're not engaging in democratic discourse, they're just chattering. Or worse, they're attempting to undermine genuine democratic discourse in order to get their way undemocratically, by appealing to the emotion and prejudice of their listeners instead of to things like facts, and like the common values on which consensus exists. Like rights, for instance.

I'm not suggesting that either of these is what our friend here was doing or intending to do, not at all. In this case, I'm simply saying that because of the serious risk of doing more harm than good, doing nothing -- or doing something different, like inviting someone with the necessary knowledge and skills -- might well be better.

.

[ulysses]

176. we had this discussion when Kucinich first got into the race

and the fact remains that a lot of folks who are pro-choice don't care much for the thought of the procedure itself. Or, put the other way round, a lot of people who are troubled in some way by the thought of abortion do not seek to project those troubles on others and are therefore pro-choice. Frankly, I think the ability to be honest about what one thinks does help, whether what one thinks is particularly germaine to the issue or not.

In my purely personal opinion, someone who does that has a little heavier onus than someone who decides to hold forth on a topic in his/her living room.

Fair enough. Remember that the original poster was asking for input.

To be perfectly frank, this is indeed how I very much feel about a lot of "pro-choice" discourse. A lot of people say a lot of things that are factually incorrect, or illogical, or irrelevant to the issue, and do the cause of women's rights no good at all, and possibly harm.

Personal statements of feeling on any topic cannot be incorrect by their nature as statements of feeling. Illogical perhaps, but much as you might rail against emotion in public debate, the topic under discussion is an emotional one. As to relevance - no, the feelings of Person X are not relevant to the issue if Person X is not the person undergoing the procedure, but in a discussion of abortion they're unavoidable, and if this person can, after saying "I don't like abortion", then go on to make a dent in the ludicrous and harmful "baby killer" mantra, then I fail to see how that's to anything but the good.

In this case, I'm simply saying that because of the serious risk of doing more harm than good, doing nothing -- or doing something different, like inviting someone with the necessary knowledge and skills -- might well be better.

I understand your point, but I can't disagree enough about doing nothing. And again, inviting someone with the necessary knowledge seems pretty close to what Guy was doing with this thread.

[iverglas]

177. Kucinich etc.

Actually, Kucinich does not say things that sound like "I don't like abortion but ...", from what I can tell.

I looked at his initial statement on the issue, when he first announced his candidacy, and also looked at his abysmal voting record on the issue. I came away enormously impressed. My bookmark to that statement no longer works, but this is pretty much what he said in it:

http://www.kucinich.us/materials/FAQ.pdf

Why your switch on abortion?
I;ve had a journey on this issue in the last couple of
years, influenced by women in my life. Before I became
a presidential candidate, that dialogue led me to
broaden my view and change my voting pattern. I
whole-heartedly support a woman's right to choose. I
have come to believe it's not just about the right to
choose, but about a woman's role in society as being
free and having agency and the ability to make her own
decisions. When I voted recently against a ban on late-
term abortions, I stated on the House floor: "I believe
that equal protection under the law and the right of
privacy should be freedoms enjoyed by women as well
as men. But women will not be equal to men if this
constitutionally protected right is denied." I want to
keep working to make abortion less necessary, through
sex education and birth control. But with reproductive
choice under attack, I will only support someone for
the Supreme Court if he or she embraces privacy rights
and Roe v. Wade.


There's that "less necessary" bit, which is of course ambiguous -- I'd agree with working to make abortion "less necessary", since what makes it "necessary" is that women are pregnant when they don't want to be, and I consider that unfortunate and worth offering our collective assistance to individuals so they might avoid it.

But what he expressed, and stressed, is a strong commitment to women's rights. I'd almost think he'd been reading the famous (up here) words of Madam Justice Bertha Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case in which the Court struck down Canada's abortion law. ;)

To be able to decide what to do and how to do it, to carry out one's own decisions and accept their consequences, seems to me essential to one's self-respect as a human being, and essential to the possibility of that contentment. Such self-respect and contentment are in my judgment fundamental goods for human beings, the worth of life itself being on condition of having or striving for them. If a person were deliberately denied the opportunity of self-respect and that contentment, he would suffer deprivation of his essential humanity.

... It is probably impossible for a man to respond, even imaginatively, to such a dilemma not just because it is outside the realm of his personal experience (although this is, of course, the case) but because he can relate to it only by objectifying it, thereby eliminating the subjective elements of the female psyche which are at the heart of the dilemma. As Noreen Burrows, lecturer in European Law at the University of Glasgow, has pointed out in her essay on "International Law and Human Rights: the Case of Women's Rights", in Human Rights: From Rhetoric to Reality (1986), the history of the struggle for human rights from the eighteenth century on has been the history of men struggling to assert their dignity and common humanity against an overbearing state apparatus. The more recent struggle for women's rights has been a struggle to eliminate discrimination, to achieve a place for women in a man's world, to develop a set of legislative reforms in order to place women in the same position as men (pp. 81-82). It has not been a struggle to define the rights of women in relation to their special place in the societal structure and in relation to the biological distinction between the two sexes. Thus, women's needs and aspirations are only now being translated into protected rights. The right to reproduce or not to reproduce which is in issue in this case is one such right and is properly perceived as an integral part of modern woman's struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being.

Kucinich sounds like he gets it -- that how he "feels about the procedure itself" is of absolutely no consequence.

If it's of no consequence, why say it? Why lend credence to the notion that it is of some consequence by saying it? Why not say "my personal feelings are of no consequence ... and neither are yours"?

When I referred to things people say as "factually incorrect", I wasn't talking about "statements of feeling". I was talking about statements presented as statements of fact that are not correct statements of fact. Things like "in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court balanced the rights of the woman against the rights of the fetus". It didn't. It hardly helps the cause to be saying that the Supreme Court of the US found that z/e/fs have rights, when it found exactly the opposite. That's a pretty fundamental point in the debate.

Some people who make such erroneous statements are undoubtedly very well-meaning. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea for them to make those statements.

When I referred to things people say as "illogical", I wasn't talking about the intrusion of emotion into the debate. I was talking about plain old bad logic, reasoning applied to facts; adding 2 and 2 and getting 4.

When I referred to things people say as "irrelevant", again, I wasn't talking about emotion. I was thinking about things like "Who is going to adopt all the babies, the anti-choice crowd? Let them adopt them, before they hypocritically try to stop abortions." Adoptions, and whether anyone adopts, have nothing to do with women's reproductive rights. If every anti-choicer in the world swore an oath to adopt five unwanted babies a week, it would still be a violation of women's rights to prohibit abortion. So why bother saying something like that -- which is, besides, always open to rebuttal by the anti-choicer who comes along and says "I adopted five unwanted babies; whaddaya got to say to me now?"

... in a discussion of abortion <personal feelings are> unavoidable, and if this person can, after saying "I don't like abortion", then go on to make a dent in the ludicrous and harmful "baby killer" mantra, then I fail to see how that's to anything but the good.

Personal feelings are not unavoidable in the discussion, in the sense that anyone can always drag any kitchen sink they like into a discussion of anything, but no one else is under any obligation to legitimize their doing so by responding in kind.

I would just re-ask my questions: who would defend against an effort to recriminalize homosexual activity by saying "I don't like homosexual activity, but ..."? who would defend against an effort to resegregate schools by saying "I don't like black children being in the same class as my kids, but ..."? Who would not say "your personal feelings about homosexuals (or black children) are of no consequence when the issue is the denial of someone's rights"?

I understand your point, but I can't disagree enough about doing nothing. And again, inviting someone with the necessary knowledge seems pretty close to what Guy was doing with this thread.

Well then we disagree.

It just seems to me that this is one of those issues where an awful lot of people feel that it's their place to speak out in public without making the effort to inform themselves and analyse their positions, not that it's the only one by any means.

I wonder how a gay person would respond if a straight person approached a bunch of people on a discussion board and said s/he wanted to speak in public about efforts to recriminalize homosexual activity, and framed what s/he wanted to convey to the public as "I don't like gay men and lesbians having sex ... but I want to make people believe that it's their right to do it and they're not all pedophiles". Or how an African-American would respond if a white USAmerican did the same, and framed his/her message to the public as "I don't like black children being in my kids' class ... but I want to make people believe that it's their right to be there and they're not all gang-bangers".

Well, I would imagine that they would respond much as I did, which is pretty much: "with friends like that, who needs enemies?"

I couldn't care less whether Guy "likes" abortion or not. I (speaking as a generic woman) couldn't care less what he thinks about my choices about how to live my life. And I am really not interested in having him go on the airwaves and tell the world that he doesn't "like" my choices. I don't think that is going to do very much to persuade other people that I deserve to be able to exercise my rights.

And there is where those personal feelings do come into it. Problems arise when some people think that other people don't deserve to have and exercise rights (one sees it all the time on threads dealing with capital punishment). They think that if people aren't deserving, aren't nice people like they themselves are, then it's just fine to violate their rights. They're wrong, of course, but yup, those personal feelings can't be discounted when it comes to whether people are going to do things they're not entitled to do.

I think that a gay man/lesbian or an African-American who was offered the kind of help I described above would say something like "how's about you just let us fight our own battles, if that's how you're going to say you feel about us?"

And I think it's perfectly reasonable for women to say the same thing. Feel about us as you will. Just don't bother telling the world about your feelings, thereby legitimizing all those other people's negative feelings about us and jeopardizing our ability to exercise our rights when they find us undeserving, and then expect us to be grateful for your efforts.

It really comes down to this:

... if this person can, after saying "I don't like abortion", then go on to make a dent in the ludicrous and harmful "baby killer" mantra, then I fail to see how that's to anything but the good.

-- I just can't imagine how anyone could think that s/he could make that dent by doing that. If I were anti-choice and someone presented me with this argument -- I don't like it but they have a right to do it -- I'd have no clue what he was trying to persuade me of. Why would someone not "like" abortion, except because it is a bad thing for people to do? If it's a bad thing for people to do, why shouldn't we outlaw it? Who says people have a right to do bad things?

People, of course, don't have a right to do bad things to other people. And if that's not the reason for not "liking" abortion -- that it is doing a bad thing to another person -- what is? A distaste for surgery?

"I don't like abortion" sounds pretty much like "they're baby killers", to me. So I'll still say thanks, but no thanks.

And again, don't get me wrong. In dealing with a particular individual, with particular objections to abortion being legal, such a tack might prove useful, as might saying irrelevant things to address their irrelevant things, etc. In that situation, there is space to explore the nature of the objections, and the feelings, on both sides. Nonetheless, what I've personally found, having in fact had some success in this kind of persuasion, is that this was really a quite ineffective strategy. It takes a visceral understanding, like what Kucinich seems to have acquired, of women's lives, and the effects on women's lives of criminalizing abortion, to persuade the anti-choice. And of course this assumes that the anti-choicer in question gives a damn about women's lives and the effects on them of criminalizing abortion. When that's not the case, you're certainly not dealing with anyone who can be persuaded by "I don't like abortion, but ...", either.

Whatever little good such a statement might make in opening a door for exploration between individuals, in speaking to the general public, as a perceived representative of advocates of reproductive choice, it's not likely to do more good than harm.

.

[Misinformed01]

2. Hi Guy

This is Stephanie, and this is my favorite essay on abortion, written by the late Steve Kangas:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-abortion.htm

He wrote four or five essays on the subject, they are short reads, and if you want I will just send you the whole Liberal Faq link. In fact, I am going to do that now:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm

Steve Kangas was the guy who was found dead in Richard Mellon Scaife's office, supposedly from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

I hope that helps you; I can't say anything as well as this man did.

[ogminlo]

3. I think it boils down to this:

I think life begins at birth, they think life begins at conception. I often argue that a fetus is essentially a parasite, and cannot live freely outside the womb. This is a very grey area, and thus unfit for black and white legislation.

The pregnancy process is not cleanly defined in terms of alive and not. What is conception? Is it the penetration of the egg? The embedding in the uterine wall? When is a fetus a baby? When it can be observed as different from any other mammal's fetus (in the first several weeks, there are no discernible differences). What about the mother? Whose life is more important?

It is these important questions that cannot be definitively answered that require that we NOT legislate this issue. I feel it isn't a quesiton of a RIGHT to life or a RIGHT to choose. I feel it is an issue that is firmly embedded in the grey, and as such more damage is done legislating it than is done not legislating it.

I like to frame arguments in a way I think will affect the target audience. When you remove the emotion and talk hard science and law, you take away the so-called "pro-lifers" favorite weapons. They like to throw out inflammitory crap like "baby-killer" to draw attention away from the real issues which are the context of the law and what laws can achieve.

[liberalhistorian]

4. I found my abortion decision to be among

the most difficult, agonizing decisions of my life. While I ultimately decided against having the abortion, and walked out of the clinic, I was, and remain, very glad that the choice was UP TO ME ALONE, and that I actually HAD THAT CHOICE AVAILABLE legally and in a safe, sanitary, clean environment, unlike the underground butchers women had to endure before Roe. And make no mistake, thousands of women each year died or were injured or permanently disabled due to such horrendous butcherings, the only thing available to desperate women without a lot of money. If you had money, well, then, no problem, but it was a major problem for most women.

I remember a sociology professor I had in college, an older woman, telling me horror stories about students who'd undergone illegal abortions. One came running into her office screaming for help, she was bleeding uncontrollably and died less than an hour later despite my professor's rushing her to the nearest hospital. And I remember when I attended a March in Washington in 1986, there was a woman holding a large white poster with red scraggly letters that read "My mom had an illegal abortion. I don't miss the baby, I miss my mom." The woman said she was only six when her mom died, and that she'd always resented those who didn't even know her mother who considered a clump of cells more important than she was.

I thought about all that when I was making my own decision, and I remember thinking how glad I was that I had that choice legally available and didn't have to worry about dying a painful death or being injured or disabled due to being desperate enough to go to an underground butcher, and how glad I was that I was considered intelligent enough to make my own decision based on what was best for me, without interference from people who didn't even know me and who were pushing their own black-and-white morality on me. When I left the clinic, I remember a woman who was there with her parents, she wished me luck and said she hoped I understood why she was making a different decision. I told her she had the right to make whatever decision she wanted, and that the only things that mattered were that she had the choice available, she was able to make it on her own without interference, and that she made the choice that was best FOR HER, just like I was doing for myself.

I will never forget what I went through in making my decision and how glad I was that I had that choice available, though I ultimately chose not to have the abortion.

On edit: I should add that I was engaged to my son's father, and that he threw me out of the house when I was three months pregnant because he "didn't want to deal with it"; well, I didn't want to deal with it, either, but I had to, due to brutal biological reality. And the real kicker? He'd claimed to be "pro-life" and that my parents would have to "go through him" if they wanted me to have an abortion (I was 25 at the time), well, then, where the hell was he after he threw me out and didn't want to hear from or deal with me anymore, accused me of "cheating on him", and shit like that? Talk is cheap, especially when it comes to this issue.

[alcuno]

6. Remember to bring up that * never mentioned it in the SOTU.

I don't believe that the Republican Party ever wants this issue to go away because they use it to divide people in this country.

I happen to believe that an embryo is life and for me abortion would be a sin. However, that is between a woman and her God. The government can work to make abortion rare by funding family planning and educating young people. The government should not interfere in a decision that a woman makes; a decision that in the end is a moral decision.

We can all agree that a 20 year old human being is a life. We cannot all agree that an embryo is a life. That's the bottom line. My faith should not interfere with your rights.

[liberalhistorian]

18. I saw a sign at

a D.C. pro-choice march once that pretty much summed it up for me: "Leave the decisions to people and the judgments to God."

In other words, a woman's abortion decision ain't no one else's business!

[KCDem]

63. I like that sign!

Hm, good way to put it. :hi:

[JanMichael]

8. Why do people always say "I don't like it but..."?

I don't have any say as to wheter I "Like" it or not, it's none of my fucking business, it's not my reality (I will never have one) nor my concern. I know several women who have had them (None because of me mind you) and there's some trauma described but hell, LIFE is traumatic, and the alternative wasn't wanted.

So do I "not like it but"? Actually I think it's probably a net positive on the societal level so maybe I'll just say I dig the idea.

[JanMichael]

9. I hope that I didn't offend anyone...

...nah.

Safe and accessible, period.

This is one of my "litmus" tests.

[iverglas]

48. not at all

Say it often. And thank you for that: "safe and accessible".

... and as "rare", or "commonplace", as might result from individual women's exercise of their rights as they and they alone see fit.

.

[alcuno]

10. But it's different when you think it's life.

It doesn't matter if it's your business or not if in the back of your mind you think that an embryo is life. It is difficult for those of us who do to just turn that off. I think that those of us who support a woman's right to choose are better off acknowledging these deeply held feelings than dismissing them.

Not everyone who feels disturbed on a personal level by the issue of abortion necessarily wants to change the law.

[JanMichael]

11. I suppose you're right but I think it enables the anti-Choice types.

What a dilemma.

"It doesn't matter if it's your business or not if in the back of your mind you think that an embryo is life"

Of course it's "live" just not viable. But viability is a debatable term too so I just stick to the "It's none of my business" approach.

[Misinformed01]

12. JM

Phone Home

[alcuno]

13. I didn't say "live" I said "life."

As in a spiritual sense.

[liberalhistorian]

19. So does it also disturb

you that thousands of women either died a horrible death or were injured or permanently disabled by an illegal abortion at the hands of an underground butcher, which, frankly, most of them went to out of total desperation, while the man involved in the pregnancy got off scot-free both in terms of responsibility and no societal recriminations?

Do the loss of/damage to those women's lives, some of whom left other children and families behind, mean as much to you as the embryos the pro-lifers worship but magically disavow once they're born? Do you not realize that women had as many abortions before 1973, they and the consequences just weren't reported?

[alcuno]

21. Of course it's disturbing.

All of it.

[LeahMira]

49. What about the women?

LiberalHistorian, you have made two posts so far... I haven't read all the way to the end... and I want to thank you for focusing on the women.

The people who claim to be pro-life are so focused on "the baby" (and I put that in quotes because "the baby" is often no more than a clump of two or four cells) that they refuse to even see the woman... to the extent that when they post their drawings of late-term abortions the woman's body is often nothing more than a few strategically placed curved lines.

When a child is born and relinquished for adoption there is much made about giving the baby a better life and making a couple into a family, but what happens to the birthmother? She doesn't just disappear... except from the awareness and concern of the pro-lifers.

When a woman has a child and raises the child herself as a single parent, the pointy-nosed critics are quick to mention that children of single parents have a harder time in school and both parent and child are likely to end up on the welfare rolls, but who among them is there to help the single mother?

As you said, the deaths from botched abortions weren't reported as such before abortion was legal, but the women who have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy today are pushed aside and out of sight by pro-lifers whose concern extends only to the life of "the baby" and who care little or nothing about what happens to the woman.

When society frames issues in terms of competing rights, someone always gets pushed out of the picture. Someone always wins, but someone always loses in competitions. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing the woman forced to take the losses every single time!

[Jane Roe]

53. whoa whoa whoa

First, under Roe v Wade, the woman does always win in the first and second trimesters

Second, she always wins in the third trimester when her "life or health" are at an unreasonable risk from pregnancy continuation.

What planet have you been living on since 1973?

[Misinformed01]

14. Kicking up for the DU latenighters

Guy, you are the only person I have ever met that made me think about getting speakers on my computer.

[Judi Lynn]

32. It's a great show, Misinformed01, and DU'ers call in, too

Another selling point on speakers is the chance to listen to C-Span online 24/7 at www.c-span.org

They are playing duplicates to the actual tv programming, simultaneously, and you also have the opportunity to check through their archives, and listen to recent shows you missed or want to hear again.

Judi

[Misinformed01]

33. I'll have to think about it...Not sure if I can listen to that Michael guy

for three hours a week.

But, he is cute to look at-

:)

[Robbien]

15. I really wish you wouldn't

This is a subject about which everyone has strong feelings and have staked out their position. Talking will change nothing. The only thing that may change one's position is if they or their loved one suddenly gets caught in the situation themselves.

[liberalhistorian]

20. There's certainly a lot of truth to that.

I've known many people who've considered themselves anti-abortion until they or a wife/daughter/sister/mother/aunt/friend, etc., had to face that situation. They then understood what the pro-choice people had been trying to tell them all along, and changed their minds.

[outinforce]

87. I Happens the Other Way, too....

Like you, liberalhistorian, I know people who've considered themselves anti-abortion until they themselves or a woman whom they loved had to face that situation.

But I also happen to know several woman who considered themselves pro-choice, and actually had abortions. Later, when they had pregnancies and gave birth to children they "wanted", they then understood what the pro-life people had been trying to tell them all along, and changed their minds.

In saying this, I want to be clear -- I certainy know and understand that everyone's life, and everyone's reaction to the decision s/he makes is different. I am not saying thateach and every woman who has ever had an abortion has felt regret later. Nor am I saying that each and every woman who has had an abortion should feel regret.

[Jane Roe]

93. I dare you to name any example of this kind of backwards mind change . . .

ever happening.

[outinforce]

94. I'm Not Sure What....

I'm not sure what you are asking here, Jane Roe.

Do you want actual names of people I happen to know who have changed their minds or modified their positions regarding abortion?

Can you help me to understand your request a bit better?

[Jane Roe]

95. Example I thought you would give:

The plaintiff in the Roe v. Wade case, who went by the psydonym (sp?) of "Jane Roe" in that case.

Don't worry, I wasn't trying to get any private info out of you. I just find it kind of telling that the only single abortion that was made public enough to get national attention (unless you count Black Dahlia perhaps) was later recanted by the woman.

Side note to explain some other cryptic stuff: "life begins at the hop" was a song by English band XTC. Their principle songwriter is a fellow named Andy Partridge.

[Az]

97. Fame brings attention

There was a serious campaign by the right to lifers to court your namesake. Getting her to side with them was of course a high objective. What better play on the emotional strings than to get a "survivor" of the most famous abortion case to come out against abortions.

Another song by Mr Partridge and crew is Dear God. Practically my theme song for a couple of summers.

[Jane Roe]

100. I bet the antichoicers rhetoric with McCorvey was . . .

almost as emotionally high pitched as some of the the prochoice rhetoric posted here on some of DU's abortion law threads.

Sometimes debates over rights balancing need an extra dose of objectivity so that no cognizable rights get completely ignored.

[iverglas]

121. "rights balancing"?

Are you still retailing the falsehood that abortion law involves some balancing of rights?

"... so that no cognizable rights get completely ignored"? You got some cognizable rights in mind that are getting ignored?

Or are you just muttering irrelevancies?

Unless you have a reply to the second question, I see the only options as being #1 and #3.

In either case, I'd want to know your purpose. I just don't know why people would say things that are false, or mutter irrelevancies.

.

[Jane Roe]

126. Minor correction

When the US supreme court writes about the issue what they recognize, instead of "fetal rights," is a state's legitimate interests in protecting fetal life or potential life. These "state interests" are what is supposed to be balanced against the pregnant woman's 14th amendment rights.

If I ever get a chance to write for the supreme court, I promise to phrase it their way because I understand that there are good Con Law reasons, when writing as a supreme court justice, for using the exact wording they use in their opinions.

However, I am writing for a different audience. In the context of the nob-Constitutional scholars here on DU, I think "fetal rights" is fair shorthand for the "legitimate state interests in protecting fetal life."

Since even you must acknowledge that (in the US), states currently are deemed to have some legitimate interests in protecting fetal life, it should be understandable what I mean when my posts speak about balancing.

[iverglas]

136. ya think, do ya?

In the context of the nob-Constitutional scholars here on DU, I think "fetal rights" is fair shorthand for the "legitimate state interests in protecting fetal life."

I'm afraid that "shorthand" just is not the word I would use to describe using one expression, an expression that refers to something that does not exist but that prompts listeners/readers to respond in an emotional and adverse way to something that does exist and is valued, by consensus, to replace an expression that means something completely different.

You know, the way saying "fetal rights", something that does not exist, instead of "state interests", does in respect of "women's right to control their bodies and lives", something that is valued by consensus (as expressed in constitutions).

But okay. From now on, when I say "demons from the gates of hell", you can understand that to be shorthand for "people who want to criminalize or severely restrict access to abortion".

You and I and everybody else know that saying "fetal rights", and suggesting that such rights must be balanced against women's rights (as of course they would have to be ... if they existed ... but could not ever be) conveys the message that women who have abortions are doing something very nasty. All unintended as that may be, eh?

Since even you must acknowledge that (in the US), states currently are deemed to have some legitimate interests in protecting fetal life, it should be understandable what I mean when my posts speak about balancing.

"Even me"? You mean, me who has repeatedly cited the US SC decision in Roe v. Wade asserting that the state has an interest in "fetal life"? Your prose does amuse me so.

But sure. It is perfectly understandable -- "fetal rights" means "the state's interest in fetal life". And "demons from the gates of hell" means "people in favour of criminalizing abortion".

And "square" means that thing with three sides, and "dinosaur" is the meal you eat at noon.

http://members.aol.com/SLK03333/private/hpages/NTZepisodes1.html

Wordplay (favourite New Twilight Zone episode of mine)

A salesman wakes up one morning to discover that words have changed meanings ('dinosaur' now means 'lunch'). He eventually adapts and begins learning this new language.

And we'll all just have to memorize what each of us means when s/he says "square", or "dinosaur" ... or "fetal rights".

Or we could all just use the words and expressions in our language to mean what they are commonly accepted to mean, instead of engaging in some sort of exercise in nouveau symbolism.

Or whatever it is you're doing ...

.

[outinforce]

101. You May Indeed Be Correct, Az

You may be correct, Az, when you say that there was a "serious campaign" to "court" Norma McCarvey away from the pro-choice people and into the clutches of the evil , nefarious pro-life zealots. And your implication that this "serious campaign" was part of an overall plan that included a strategy to woo more people into the mindless foolishness of pro-life thought by appealing -- not to their logic, but rather to their "emotional strings" may likewise be 100% accurate.

I recall things just a bit different, however.

I seem to recall that Ms. McCarvey said that she felt abandonned and used by the people who had won the victory for her in the Supreme Court. I also seem to remember that she said that she felt loved by the very people who opposed the Supreme Court's decision. I think she said she felt loved, accepted, and not condemned.

I could be wrong about th is, but I think that after she voiced her pro-choice sentiments, there were some pro-choice folks who condemned her (by that I mean that they questioned her sanity), who did not accept her, and certainly did not show any signs of loving her.

[Az]

103. Her words are going to be tinged

towards whichever group she is currently siding with. This does not mean that the proponents of choice are a wonderful kindly bunch of people who were just misunderstood by her. Both sides are playing to win. The prochoice has a very dry clinical legal issue it is arguing about rights. The antichoice crowd specializes in emotional appeals. Thus they are going to come off as the loving compassionate group and the prochoice crowd are going to seem the brutes.

Keep in mind the religious right forms around religious structures(this may seem obvious). This is going to have ramifications on their recruitment techniques. The hard core fundimentalist groups sometimes operate similar to cults. They embrace and overwhelm individuals who are lost. They specialize in emotional take overs. I would expect nothing less than to hear that she felt loved and accepted by them. I am sure the followers of Rev Jim Jones felt loved and appreciated. The human psyche is easily manipulated.

Another fator is the simple fact that it was the lawyers arguing the cases that made the difference. The simple cold truth is that the individual at the center of the case does not make the case. It is the situation that was on trial. Thus what the person at the center decides has no real legal bearing after the case has finished. It may have a dramatic emotional/social reaction but that is the nature of our legal system.

[outinforce]

110. I See.

I think I hear you saying that it is only pro-life folks who appeal to emotion when it comes to the issue of abortion.

You may be correct when you suggest that this is true. I might suggest that fear is a really big emotion. And I might also suggest that there are some corners of the prochoice community which do a really gpood job of using fear -- rather than an appeal to logic and to the "dry clincial issue" -- to win converts or to hold onto true believers.

And are you really suggesting that simple acts of love from one person to another -- things like accepting a person for who s/he is, not condemning someone because of something that s/he has done in the past -- is akin to recruitment by a cult? Help me to understand exactly what you are saying here, because it seems to me as though you are suggesting that any time an individual demonstrates compassion and love towards someone else, there must be some sort of nefarious, Jim Jones-esque, motive.

Or are you saying that it is only when people who hold views on political issues different from your own demonstrate love that an attempt is made to recruit a lost person into a cult by manipulating her/his psyche?

[Az]

113. What I am trying to say

I am not trying to say that the prochoice crowd is beyond using emotions.

Having encountered and dealt with cult leaders I cannot say I am beyond believing that some emotional manipulation takes place at their behest. Knowing how the founder of operation rescue works I know for a fact they are not beyond such actions. The individuals involved at the ground level may be genuine but there is likely manipulation taking place.

You tell me what I am supposed to make of quotes like this:

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism.
-- Randall Terry, quoted in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, August 16, 1993

When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed.
-- Randall Terry, referring to doctors who perform abortions, quoted from TheWarOnFaith.com

What it is coming down to is who runs the country. It's us against them. It's the good guys versus the bad guys. It's the God-fearing people against the pagans, and some of the pagans are going to church.
-- Randall Terry, confusing the religion of paganism with the use of the word pagan as slang for atheist or unchurched, as religious Pagans would not go to church, but atheists are often forced to attend Christian worship services because the sheer bigotry against us at the hands of the Christian majority almost guarantees social failure lest we pretend to be Christian, in a speech (1992)

You better believe that I want to build a Christian nation, because the only option is a pagan nation. Not that the government can make someone a Christian by decree. A Christian nation would be defined as "We acknowledge God in our body politic, in our communities, that the God of the Bible is our God, and, we acknowledge that His law is supreme."
-- Randall Terry, quoted from TheWarOnFaith.com

There is going to be war, take up the sword to overthrow the tyrannical regime that oppresses them.
-- Randall Terry, describing his plan at the 1995 National Operation Rescue meeting in Louisiana, quoted from Refuse & Resist!, "Who's Coming To Dayton -- An Introduction"

Lets try some invective from another stalwart of the religious right. Ralph Reed had this to say about their tactics:

It's like guerrilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night. You've got two choices: You can wear cammies and shimmy along on your belly, or you can put on a red coat and stand up for everyone to see. It comes down to whether you want to be the British army in the Revolutionary War or the Viet Cong. History tells us which tactic was more effective.
-- Ralph Reed, Los Angeles Times, March 22, 1992, admitting that he wants to deceive us regarding his true aims

I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night.
-- Ralph Reed, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, November 9, 1991


I believe I am not too outside the norm in suggesting that there are some leaders in the religious right who are willing to place pressure on a simple individual in order to bolster their argument.

The woman involved here was not chosen based on her litigious ability. She was not chosen because she had a cause to champion. She was not chosen because of her philosophical fortitude. She came to the picture because she was in trouble and wanted to make a choice. She was denied. The offspring of this troubled person has become a lightning rod for the religious right to reach because of what she represents. Her opinion matters no more than anyone elses but because of what she went through the right has decided to make her a cause.

[outinforce]

115. Since You Asked.....

Since you asked, Az, what you are supposed to make of quotations of the sort you cited, here is my suggestion:

In the case of Randall Terry, take them as the rantings of an extremist -- a person whose views are so extreme that he has placed himself, as well as those few deluded people who adhere to his notions, outside the mainstream of pro-life thought and people. And, although I cannot speak with authority on this, I would suggest that Mr. Terry, who appears to place his faith in the power of government, is outside the manstream of Christian thought as well.

In the case of Ralph Reed, take them as the ravings of a person who must beleive that the end justifies the mean. Speaking only for myself, I think that any position which says that the "end" is so important that it justifies using "any means necessary" -- including suppression of the truth -- is likely to be very dangerous.

I appreciate your observation that you are "not too outside the norm in suggesting that there are some leaders in the religious right who are willing to place pressure on a simple individual in order to bolster their argument."

But I hope that you will also appreciate my observation when I suggest that the same could be said for some on the extremes of the pro-choice community.

Neither "side" -- or, to be more precise, none of the many "sides" on the abortion issue is completely pure or completely free from using tactics that appeal to emotions. Abortion is, after all, a very emotional issue. And it is an issue about which people feel very --very -- strongly.

[Az]

118. Side stepping

My posting of these quotes was not a suggestion that all Christians are like these individuals. It was in direct response to the question of what the intent and actions of the individuals behind the movements were about. In question was the motives and means by which the defendent of Roe V Wade and her child were drawn into the religious right.

I do not suggest that the actions of the left are pearly white or any such thing. I merely wish to draw attention to the Extremes to which the antichoice crowd Will go.

Randall Terry is not just some doofus arguing against choice. He is the founder of Operation Rescue. One of the dominant antichoice activist groups around. He is a primary voice of the Religious Right. He is not outside the mainstream of the activist branch of the antichoice group. He is one of its founders.

Ralph Reed is not just some extremist. He is the former head of the Christian Coalition. He is an active and effective campaigner for the religious right. He is in fact part of how the Economic Right was brought together with the Religious Right. He brokered the deal swinging the the voting voice of the Religious Right to back the energy bills put forward by Enron. Ralph Reed was a paid consultant for Enron during the 2000 elections. He negotiated a deal to bring the Religious Rights support on the enegery deals Cheney/Enron were cooking in exchange for hard right religious judges seated on the bench.

These are not the outside screaming zealots you paint them as. They may be outside the branch of Christianity you practice but that is not the end all and be all of Christianity. They represent strong voices within the antichoice movement. There are others certainly. They may be screaming zealots, but they are not outside. They are enscounced squarely at the center.

[outinforce]

142. Two Things

Two things, if I may, Az --

First, my words may have led you to conclude that there is a "branch of Christianity" that I practice. If so, please know that you have concluded something that I did not, in fact, say. I have never said what my own religious beleifs (if any) are. I may be an atheist, and agnostic, a Hindu, a pagan, a Jew, a Muslim, or a satanist -- or, for that matter, any of several other possibilities.

Second, I'm afraid that if I do not get to define who is and who is not representative of the pro-choice movements mainstream, then I really don't think it fair that you get to define who is and who is not in the pro-life mainstream. Operation Rescue most certainly is outside the pro-life mainstream, and so is Randall Terry. The fact that you would consider both OR and Terry to be one of the "dominant" pro-life groups and to be the mainstream of pro-life thought demonstrates to me how ineffectively my pro-life friends are at communicating their positions. It could also be, I suppose, symptomatic of the desire of some portions of the pro-choice commuinity to (incorrectly, but nevertheless intentionally) paint the pro-life community by saying that it is defined at the farthest extreme.

[Az]

144. As much as I worry about Randall and Reed

I do not consider them the most extreme. There are individuals that have killed Doctors and others in their extreme pursuit of this issue. They would be the extreme.

As you said you nor I posess the authority to define who is the dominant voice of any particular movement. I have endeavored to provide evidence that they are in fact significant members of the antichoice movement. I believe the inverse is also true that you cannot designate who is not a significant member in a movement without providing evidence.

Forgive me for presuming your position without any knowledge of the matter. It was unintentional. I have unfortunately been hit with too many No True Scottsman arguments in dealing religious debates. I was trying to head off that particular venue and my enthusiasm got the better of me. I appologise.

[outinforce]

149. Thanks.....

Thanks, Az.

I agree with you when you say that "There are individuals that have killed Doctors and others in their extreme pursuit of this issue. They would be the extreme."

In fact, I would suggest that anyone who supports the notion that doctors who perform abortions should be killed is an extremist, and outside the mainstream of pro-life thought and pro-life people. And that is precisely why I suggest that Terry is outside the mainstream. I am pretty sure I am correct when I say that he gives comfort and support -- at least rhetorical comfort and support -- to those who kill or who plot to kill doctors.

Look, for instance, at one of the quotations in the post you made citing things that Terry and Reed have said. You quote Terry as saying, "When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed.
-- Randall Terry, referring to doctors who perform abortions, quoted from TheWarOnFaith.com "

I might also add that my limited knowledge of the teachings of Jesus is that he preached a doctrine of love at all times (something about "turning the other cheek", I think). And so, I think that anyone who says, as Terry is quoted as saying, "want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation" is not only outside what I understand Christianity to teach, but is also seriously in error when he says that he wants a "Christian nation" -- what he really wants is a nation of hate -- which, as I understand it, would be a far cry from anything remotely resembling a nation based upon the teachings of the man called Jesus.

Thanks again for your post.

[Jane Roe]

117. another tangent

I think I gave you some wrong info on another thread yesterday. I said 18 when I should have said 19, due to an error in interpreting the formatting there.

In fact, through this error, I think I may have gotten some poor freeper's post zapped over there.

[outinforce]

98. I See

When I composed the post yesterday afternoon, I was not thinking of Norma McCarvey (I think that is her name). I was thinking of friends and acquaitances of my own. I'm npot really sure whether Norma McCarvey ever had any children subsequent to her abortion.

In my experience, there is at least one other abortion that was made public enough to get national attention. It's Kate Michaelman's. I believe I am correct when I say that she has said that she herself has had an abortion.

Regarding my own cryptic comment about "Life Begins at the Hop", one of the buildings on the campus of the college located in Hanover, N.H., is the Hopkins Center. It is referred to by the locals as "The Hop".

And is Andy Partridge part of the famous Partridge Family?

[Jane Roe]

105. Answers

I guess her real name is McCorvey.

I do not know whether she had repeat abortions and I don't know whether she had children.

Although I chose her psydonym, I certainly do not endorse all her views (which keep shifting over time anyway). However, I think her shifting views do show us that abortion law is not a man versus women issue. The opinion polls certainly bear this out -- abortion is the one issue that does *not* seem to skew significantly by gender! You would probably never know this in the echo chamber of DU abortion threads.

Rather, abortion is a woman versus fetus issue -- which is tough because: (1) fetuses seem less human to us than do women; yet (2) the woman (absent life or health risks) suffers a lesser degree of injury than does an aborted fetus.

These two complexities make the balancing of political rights very tough. You have to compare apples and oranges because nature and medicine face us with an apples v. oranges trade-off. Also, because women "in trouble" and fetus images push our emotional buttons (and push the buttons differently depending upon an individual's personal tastes and experiences), it is tough to come by any objectivity in this debate.

You certainly ain't going to get this objectivity listening exclusively to fetus lovers or listening exclusively to women who stand to lose economically and suffer physical discomfort by their pregnancies.

I hope my statement of the political problem isn't too leading, but I am sure some people will think it is. I think R v W provides a pretty good compromise solution to the political problem. I really wish the Democratic Party would start taking R v W's rights balancing mandate more seriously than they do now.

I always thought that the Republicans were the party of black and white thinking, but that Democrats could operate more intelligent when political issues were grey (as they usually are). It is true that Republican party thinking is black and white and duplicitous on abortion law (because the high ranking Republicans secretly want abortion to continue and increase). However, I find typical Democrat thinking to be equally black and white, just less duplicitous. I engage these threads to try to be a voice for this objectivity and balance.

Musical Notes: Andy Partridge was not in the Partridge family. His band XTC was a wonderful new wave kinda band, who started in the late 70s and peaked in the early 1980s. Mr. Partridge stopped performing due to stage fright. He still releases music to this day. I am hoping that the album he did with Robert Schneider of Apples (in Stereo) will be released soon. If it comes out you should get it.

[Az]

107. Complete tangent

XTC has been refered to as "What the beatles would sound like today if they had stayed together". An excellent band indeed.

[Jane Roe]

109. The Fall kicks XTC's ass nt

[outinforce]

111. Thanks

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. And I also appreciate you letting me know about Andy Partridge. In many ways (and I'm afraid music is one of them), I am rather retro. But I will try to check out some of Andy P's music.

I think that you have left out one big "stakeholder" when you say that "Rather, abortion is a woman versus fetus issue".

The stakeholder I have in mind is what I refer to as the "abortion industry". There is money in abortions. Abortion is not just a "woman versus fetus issue". It is also an issue which pits those who make money from providing abortions against those who have -- for whatever reason -- problems with the current laws on abortion.

[Jane Roe]

112. yeah

Both the abortion industry and Operation Rescue have historically been quite instrumental in forming and changing the attitudes of my namesake Ms. McCorvey.

Personally, I think neithe the economic interests of the abortion industry nor the theological arguments qua theological arguments of some of the moralists should be given much weight in the abortion debate.

[iverglas]

163. if I may risk quoting Lenny Bruce again

... or it might have been Redd Foxx, but I'd always understood Lenny Bruce, speaking as Tonto to the Lone Ranger ... anyhow, if I may quote without getting deleted for being racist (imagine, getting deleted for quoting Lenny Bruce -- too delicious) --

(1) fetuses seem less human to us than do women ...

"Whaddaya mean 'we', white man?"

Speak for yourself. My big toe seems just as human to me as your ear. I couldn't say whether my big toe seemed more or less human than *you*, though, since if I did I wouldn't be making any sense. Just as you haven't.


... yet (2) the woman (absent life or health risks) suffers a lesser degree of injury than does an aborted fetus

And when my big toe is amputated, what suffers the greater degree of injury: me, or my big toe?


... abortion is a woman versus fetus issue ...

And when I choose to have my tonsils out, is this a "woman vs. tonsils issue"?

Damn I'm offensive, aren't I? Would it make you happier if I made an analogy between a z/e/f and your kidney, maybe? Then you can compel me to retain a z/e/f I don't want in my body, at the risk to me that this entails, and I can compel you to retain a kidney that you don't want in your body (perhaps it is cancerous? perhaps you wish to donate it to your child? how would I know why you don't want it?).


It is true that Republican party thinking is black and white and duplicitous on abortion law (because the high ranking Republicans secretly want abortion to continue and increase).

Wow. Forgive my open mouth ... but that's just weird.

There's just a new conspiracy theory every day, isn't there?


However, I find typical Democrat thinking to be equally black and white, just less duplicitous. I engage these threads to try to be a voice for this objectivity and balance.

I think that I shall start a thread about slavery so that you may bring your objectivity and balance to an issue on which it is obviously sorely needed.

You can tell us how to "balance" the rights of prospective slaves and would-be slave-owners.

Oops. You might first have to tell us what those would-be slave-owners' rights might be, and whence you derive them, huh?

Then we can do the same for how to balance the rights of me vs. my big toe, or you vs. your kidney, or trees vs. grass ... and any other "rights" than any of us might care to dream up, huh?


Gosh, it's fun watching you two "misunderstand" each other, though, I must say. I dunno ... perhaps the misunderstandings are genuine, and the result of unfortunate backfiring.

.

[Jane Roe]

166. What do you think of the way labor is treated in Asia?

Does it amount to slavery?

Should the US and Canada pass trade laws aimed at punishing companies who run Asian sweatshops?

Look forward to an objective answer.

[iverglas]

174. if I may quote myself

(You) Look forward to an objective answer.

... well, quote the bit of my post, from memory, that I didn't bother rewriting when I lost the half-done post to a netscape crash and had to start over ... and expand as I didn't have time to then ...


These two complexities make the balancing of political rights very tough. You have to compare apples and oranges because nature and medicine face us with an apples v. oranges trade-off. Also, because women "in trouble" and fetus images push our emotional buttons (and push the buttons differently depending upon an individual's personal tastes and experiences), it is tough to come by any objectivity in this debate.

-- what has "objectivity" got to do with it?

How, exactly, does one "compare" apples and oranges unless one has already agreed to the criteria by which each will be measured?

One can compare apples and oranges based on size, and conclude that apples are "bigger", or, if one has established the rule that "bigger is better", that apples are "better". Objective? Not objective?

One can compare apples and oranges based purely on personal preference for colours, convenience and degrees of acidity in taste; that comparison would be "objective", since there is a standard to apply. Right?

Obviously, where a standard has been accepted, an "objective" evaluation can be made by measuring the subject object against that standard.

Is a standard itself ever objective? Of course not. The choice of standard is arbitrary, always.

"Nature and medicine face us with an apples v. oranges trade-off"?? Of course they don't. Nature and medicine do nothing at all.

I mean, does nature provide us with a trade-off between rocks and weeds? Does medicine provide us with a trade-off between life and death? What sort of idiocy would those sound like?

Nature provides us with information that we consider when deciding the criteria by which to compare things, and that we use in effecting comparisons. Ditto medicine.

You, of course, want to leave out that middle step -- the decision as to what criteria to use.

Those criteria have been decided. A woman is born, human and alive. A z/e/f is not. A woman is therefore a human being; a z/e/f is not.

The purpose for which we make that distinction is to determine what has rights and what does not. A woman therefore has rights ("human rights"); a z/e/f does not.

We don't effect "trade-offs" between things that have rights and things that do not. The interests of things that have rights cannot, by definition, be subordinate to the "interests" of things that do not have rights; that's what "having rights" means.

Saying that there is a trade-off to be effected between women and z/e/fs amounts to either a false claim that z/e/fs have rights or a reduction of women to the status of things without rights.

Once the criteria by which things are to be compared have been decided, and it is determined that they fall into different classes, they simply cannot be "compared" based on criteria that only one of them meets.

We don't compare apples and oranges for the purpose of determining which of them has the biggest core. Oranges don't have cores. There is no "trade-off" to be made; it is impossible to prefer oranges over apples, or vice versa, based on which has the biggest core.

It is impossible to prefer rocks over weeds by applying the criterion of "which is more edible"; rocks are not edible. It is impossible to prefer tangerines over Toyotas by applying the criterion of "which gets the better gas mileage"; tangerines do not use gas.

It is impossible to compare women and z/e/fs by applying the criterion of "whose rights are most important"; z/e/fs do not have rights.

And that is the only comparison that matters.

It is indeed possible to compare an individual woman and society by applying the criterion of "whose interests are more important", since both women and society have interests. Of course, the existence and nature of the interest in the particular matter at hand, on both sides, would have to be demonstrated. Society really doesn't have much of an interest in what colour lipstick women wear.

So ... is it really "tough to come by any objectivity in this debate"?

Just as tough and not tough as it is in any other debate.

If there are no criteria established by which to evaluate anyone's conclusions, then no debate can really even be held. If we don't agree that "orange is better than red", for instance, then we can't even debate whether apples are better than oranges. We could agree that oranges are better than apples by the high-acidity criterion, while apples are better than oranges by the convenience of eating criterion, but we would have to agree to disagree if we both insisted that colour was the determining factor in the "good"ness of fruit.

That's not what we have here.

We have agreed criteria for determining what has human rights (life, liberty ...): that which is born, human and alive. There will of course be individual self-described dissenters from those criteria, just as there will be people who claim to believe, and advocate the application of, all manner of other irrational things.

We have agreement on what the effect of that distinction/classification is: that which has human rights may do what it wants with that which does not have human rights, unless there is justification for preventing it from doing so.

You apparently want to pretend either (a) that we have not have agreed that the criteria for determining what has human rights are "born, human and alive" (contrary to your Supreme Court's finding that those are the criteria, and its application of those criteria), or (b) that the rule we have agreed to, that "that which has rights may do what it wants with that which does not have rights, unless there is justification for preventing it from doing so", suffers from an exception in the case of pregnant women.

Well, we all know about the exception proving the rule -- and of course we also know that in that maxim, "prove" has its less common meaning: to "subject to a testing process". If the rule is tested by seeing whether it can accommodate an exception, and it is found unable to accommodate that exception, then either the rule has to go (or the exception has to go, in the case of rules that are based on consensus rather than observation -- you know, "laws of nature" vs. legislation).

So if there is an exception to the rule that "that which has rights may do what it wants with that which does not have rights, unless there is justification for preventing it from doing so" to allow women, who have rights, to be prevented from doing what they like with things that do not have rights, absent justification, then the rule just doesn't apply for any of us. Exceptions may be made arbitrarily; that simply means there is no rule. We may all just be arbitrarily prevented from doing what we like with things, regardless of whether we die as a result, for instance.

Since the other bit of the rule that "that which has rights may be prevented from doing what it wants with that which also has rights, unless there is justification for allowing it to do so" (e.g. may not kill it, except in self-defence), and since we would be making an exception to that rule by allowing anyone to do things to pregnant women that they did not want done to them (i.e. compel them to continue pregnancies and possibly die), that rule would go poof! too; tested, found unable to accommodate the exception, inoperative if the exception is made.

If it is a rule that a square is what a thing with four sides is called, and a three-sided thing is called a square, the rule ceases to exist.

If it is a rule that people have rights and may not be treated in certain ways (which it is), and a woman is treated in ways prohibited by the rule, the rule ceases to exist. And we're back to the cave and the primordial jungle, killing and stealing food from one another with impunity.

So. We have agreed to the criteria for determining what has rights, and we have agreed to what "having rights" means.

We have also agreed to rules for determining "justification" for interfering with the exercise of rights; these are the rules that our constitutional courts apply.

Any rule we make is subject to a constant "proving" process, to determine what exceptions it can accommodate as part of the rule without obviating the rule.

If it is a rule that the state must demonstrate that its "justification" consists of a desire to protect an important public interest that can only be protected by interfering in an individual right, and that the interference must be as slight as possible, and the state fails to do that and yet is permitted to impair a right anyway, has the rule been "proved"? I'd say so. Tested and found wanting, apparently, since the exception completely obviates the rule and we'll apparently be operating under some different rule now.

I'd say that Roe v. Wade constituted an exception to that rule, because the state did *not* demonstrate the nature and importance of its interest, and yet was permitted to interfere in the exercise of women's rights anyhow.

So what is the rule now? The state may interfere in the exercise of rights when it happens to feel like it?

And what other consequences of this rule may be expect to be seeing?

"Objective" enough for you? Me, I don't claim to be objective. I claim to attempt to honestly represent the rules that apply to the decision that must be made and the facts relevant to it, and to attempt to apply them in good faith, in a sincere effort to reach a conclusion that complies with the rules ... and is most respectful of the values underlying the rules.

Honesty, sincerity and good faith, not "objectivity", comprise the standard by which to evaluate this kind of conclusion.

Circumstances alter cases, and all that. When the issue is how to apply a rule to a case, there will virtually always be disagreement since there will virtually always be other applicable, and conflicting, rules that operate as exceptions. (Thou shalt not kill ... but you have a right to life, so you may kill in in self-defence; thou shalt not steal ... but you have a right to life, so you may steal to avoid starvation; thou shalt not speed ... but you have a right to life, so you may speed to escape a tornado.)

Civil discourse depends on the honesty of the parties in identifying the rules that apply to the issue that is to be resolved and the facts relevant to the issue, their sincerity in wishing to resolve the issue according to the rules and not merely in the way most advantageous to them, and their good faith in attempting to apply the rules.

I'm more interested in someone's effort to meet those standards than in anyone trying "to be a voice for ... objectivity", since trying to be a voice for "objectivity" is as irrelevant and impossible and meaningless as someone trying to be a voice for "height" or "colour", in a discussion of public policy.

And a claim to be trying "to be a voice for ... balance" in a situation in which the rules preclude any attempt to "balance" something that exists against something that does not exist -- the rights of something with rights against the "rights" of something without rights -- not to mention persistent assertions that those non-existent things do exist and must be "balanced" against the others, strikes me as perhaps not the best effort at civil discourse.


So ...

Should the US and Canada pass trade laws aimed at punishing companies who run Asian sweatshops?

Shall we begin by identifying all the rules that might apply to this kind of policy-making decision, and all the facts that are relevant to the issue, and the nature of the outcome we both (or each) wish to achieve, and then set about, honestly and sincerely and in good faith, discussing the effect of those rules when applied to those facts and how far our proposed resolution(s) of the issue go toward resolving it while respecting the values underlying the rules we identify?

Or you could just go ahead and try to resolve it "objectively". I'd certainly like to see how it's done.

.

[LeahMira]

125. Norma didn't have an abortion.

I'm npot really sure whether Norma McCarvey ever had any children subsequent to her abortion.

She didn't get her abortion. Because of the time involved in bringing her case to court, etc., she was forced to have her baby and she relinquished it for adoption.

This brings all sorts of other issues into the picture as I see it because birthmothers always suffer after they relinquish their children. Admittedly, some more than others, but they all have "issues" to deal with.

[Jane Roe]

127. Did she have abortions subsequently?

Maybe that is not public knowledge, which would be understandable.

[iverglas]

120. know thyself

I just find it kind of telling that the only single abortion that was made public enough to get national attention (unless you count Black Dahlia perhaps) was later recanted by the woman.

Isn't it kinda hard to "recant" something that never existed?

Norma McCorvey did not have an abortion. (Not the one you're talking about, anyhow. Who knows what else she might have done?)

Anyhow, who cares whether someone changes his/her mind about abortion?

What matters is whether someone decides to attempt to prevent other women from exercising their rights. Anti-abortion: of no concern. Anti-choice: problematic.

Here's one for you. Barbara Amiel, charming columnist/wife of the magnificent Lord Black, formerly plain old rich white guy, rabid RC convert Conrad Black, he of the newspaper empire and spot of bother with the US's SEC just recently.

Babs had an abortion in her misguided youth. She went on to engage in serial liaisons/marriages with the richest famousest guys she could find (including a well-known right-wing Canadian writer, before Konrad) and make her name as a right-wing writer in her own right. This would undoubtedly been a little harder to do with a rugrat in tow from a young age at which she as yet had no fame or fortune. And the rooms full of pricey ball gowns that she now spends her time tending might not have fit quite so well.

But Babs too saw the light. She had done a bad thing, and no other woman must ever be allowed to do it, per Babs.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,630-903740,00.html

Aged 24, the five-months-pregnant, Amiel had an abortion, something she came to regret bitterly. “I was in too much of a hurry with my life,” she wrote in Confessions. “I couldn’t wait the extra four months and then, if the child was ‘inconvenient’ for me, put it up for adoption. I chose murder instead.”

Five months?? Well, it was nearly 40 years ago, so maybe she had a hard time finding someone to do it. Abortion was illegal pretty much everywhere in the mid-60s.

Barbara Amiel, former drug addict, vile murderer, darling of the far right wing on two continents, the woman who wanted to title her autobiography Fascist Bitch ... a role model for us all, and for all progressive people everywhere.

McCorvey obviously doesn't have Babs' smarts, or she would have parlayed her misfortunes into a bigger fortune, and be dining with the glittering classes rather than being guest speaker to white supremacists as she does -- http://www.barf.org/articles/0080/

In May of 1998, The Jubilee Newspaper reported that McCorvey was a featured speaker at “Jubilation ’98,” a convention hosted by the newspaper and its editor, in Scottsdale, Arizona. Jubilee is a newspaper that is widely recognized as one of the leading publications of the Christian Identity movement. Christian Identity ideology holds that only white "Aryans" are the true "Israel," that is, only they are eligible for salvation in the Christian sense of the word, and that Jews are of Satan. This belief can be found directly on the Jubilee web site as part of the explanation of the newspaper’s viewpoint, as follows:

We understand and teach that the descendants of the Israelites of scripture are the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Celtic, Germanic and European people with whom God has made His covenant. They are the descendants of Abraham. Those who refer to themselves as Jews and are NOT but are of the synagogue of Satan (the adversary)...

The Jubilee Newspaper of May/June, 1998, published a photo of the Jubilee editor, Paul Hall, sitting with his arm around McCorvey at the 1998 conference; there is no question that Hall is responsible for the quote above.

A fine role model indeed, that one.

.

[Jane Roe]

122. Good question

"Anyhow, who cares whether someone changes his/her mind about abortion?"

I do because I think it shows what a difficult issue abortion is when you really start to think about all the countervailing interests pulling your sympathies in opposite directions. Anybody who thinks it is an easy issue one way or the other is blocking out at least some of the factors that make the abortion law issue difficult.

Thanks for the partial correction on the McCorvey situation. Eager for more info on her if you have it. Was she pregnant at the time of Roe v. Wade? Did she allege that she was pregnant in the court proceedings in that case?

Side note: In trying to find the answers to the above questions, I found that "Mary Doe" (real name: Cano), another somewhat famous abortion plaintiff at the time of Roe v Wade, has also changed her mind on abortion and has become much more antichoice over time.

[iverglas]

128. yer a gas

Thanks for the partial correction on the McCorvey situation. Eager for more info on her if you have it. Was she pregnant at the time of Roe v. Wade? Did she allege that she was pregnant in the court proceedings in that case?

Hey, I'm not the one who named myself after her. If I named myself "Queen Boadicea", I imagine it would be because I knew something about her and what I knew had persuaded me to take her name.

Perhaps you pulled your name out of a hat, eh?


Anyhow, who cares whether someone changes his/her mind about abortion?

I do because I think it shows what a difficult issue abortion is when you really start to think about all the countervailing interests pulling your sympathies in opposite directions. Anybody who thinks it is an easy issue one way or the other is blocking out at least some of the factors that make the abortion law issue difficult.

Like I said: who cares?

The "issue" is whether abortion may, constitutionally, be prohibited or restricted by law, and if so, to what extent.

The "countervailing interests" involved are women's and the state's. And what may be pulled in opposite directions aren't usually called "sympathies", but thoughts. I mean, unless one is spending too much time listening to demagogues.

That may not be an "easy issue", but then many constitutional issues are not "easy".

But there are rules for settling those issues, and those rules just don't include what anybody thinks about the thing; they involve determining whether we have justification for prohibiting or regulating or restricting the thing.

If gay men and lesbians debated anti-sodomy legislation or same-sex marriage rights by arguing about how nasty or nice their sexual practices were, they'd be idiots.

They stick to the issue: whether we may outlaw their sexual practices or deny them the institutional framework within which other people engage in them.

I'm happy to do the same. I just don't care what some people might think about how I exercise my rights (or other people exercise theirs) unless they can justify interfering in how I (they) do it. So far, they don't seem to have been able to do that to any great extent, so it seems to me that I'd be an idiot to argue with them about how nasty or nice women seeking abortions in the exercise of their rights might be.

Not my job to talk about other women that way, by expressing either approval or disapproval of their choices. (Yup, talking about the "sin" *is* talking about the "sinner".) My job to defend their rights.

What's yours?

.

[Jane Roe]

130. to balance legitimate state interests against women's rights objectively

I don't agree with your whole post here, but I think I agree with a lot of it

[pop goes the weasel]

16. several different ways

1. Few people who argue against abortion are truly pro-life in all cases. Most people agree that, under certain circumstances, it is appropriate to take life, even a human life. In America, those who commit murder in the course of self-defense, state execution for felonies, or war are generally absolved of the blood-guilt by society. Obviously, the issue is not really about life and death, but about who has the right to make life and death decisions.

Recent history has provided examples of what happens when the right to determine the fate of pregnancies is moved from the individual woman to the state. China's one-child policy stands as a horrific example of state-mandated abortion, regardless of the welfare of mother or the status of the pregnancy. Equally terrible was Romania's forbidding of contraception as well as abortion, with the attendant abandonment of unsupportable children to an over-burdened and indifferent state welfare system, where these abandoned children faced death rates of 44%. Clearly, leaving the life/death decision in the hands of women, and trusting to individual morality and restraint, is a wiser course than trusting to the machinery of state, with its tendency toward one-size-fits-all solutions.

2. Not all pregnancies terminated by medical abortion would result in viable infants, or even live infants. This is an issue completely apart from the hot-button issue of aborting disabled fetuses. Sometimes, fetuses simply do not develop in any way that is sustainable. They may be missing a brain, or lungs, or digestive organs. They may have never completely differentiated specialized cell functions. They may die from these, or other problems, and the mother not have a spontaneous natural abortion. In these cases, the parents are already having to go through trauma, and there can be a need for emergency medical abortion. Bringing the courts into what is a difficult family situation is unwarranted.

3. The existence of choice makes it easier to accept an unplanned child. Yes, many women faced with an unplanned pregnancy will have an abortion. Many will not. You already have one testimony from a woman who chose not to have an abortion. I also am a woman who also chose not to abort an unplanned pregancy. During difficult, frustrating times, during sleepless night after night, my constant mantra was that, while I didn't choose to conceive, I had chosen to carry the pregnancy to term. I could not have accepted my daughter if she had been forced on me, but she was not forced. I chose. I chose her, and she knows that she was chosen. She tells me herself that it means a great deal to her that I had a real choice, and still chose her.

4. Making abortion illegal through the process of giving rights to fetuses, as is currently being done, will result in state interference with personal lives on a level that will make the heads spin on gubmint-hating conservatives. Sure, first it will just be pregnant women whose lives will be subjected to 24/7 Big Brother oversight. Then it will be all women of reproductive age, including girls as young as 10. Then it will be the fathers of these girls, and the husbands and spouses and lovers of the women. In the name of "protecting the unborn," we will all be under house arrest.

5. There really are women for whom pregnancy is a death sentence or would result in permanent severe disability. While they may try to avoid pregnancy, its easy to find the evidence that current methods of contraception are not 100%. (Would everyone here due to contraceptive failure please raise their right hands?) The lives of these women should be accorded at least as much value as any fetuses.

I'm sure there are other arguments, but those are the ones I can make off the top of my head.

(edited cuz I thought of something else)

[outinforce]

92. I'm Having Some Difficulty Understanding Something...

I think I understand most of what you are saying here, pop goes the weasel. And you have made several interesting points.

But there is one thing that I really do not understand.

You said, "I could not have accepted my daughter if she had been forced on me, but she was not forced."

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you mean that, if you had become pregnant with the cluster of cells that grew into the daugther you now know during a time when abortion was not legal, you would have put her up for adoption? The only other possibility that I can think of is that you would have "not accepted" her as a member of your own family, in much the same way parents sometimes withhold love from their own children.

I have only read a few posts of yours, pop goes the weasel, and, from what I have read, you seem to be a caring and compassionate person.

So you see the problem I am having, I hope. I am having difficulty reconciliing in my own mind how a caring and compassionate personmm could "reject" her own child simply because she did not have the option to terminate that child's developing life before birth.

Can you help me out here?

[LWolf]

17. A couple of thoughts.

I won't do the "when does life begin" thing...too easy to get stuck in a circular, lose-lose battle.

Do focus on the fact that, for pro-lifers, supporting and nurturting life ends at birth; it seems the only life worth valuing is pre-natal.

If I get home in time (a big if; I'm working too many hours during the week right now, and Saturday is "take care of real business" day) here on the left coast, I could call in with a different perspective; personal experience that both supports the pro-choice stance and makes a big statement for responsible choice before conception, and for reducing the need for abortion. My call is your call, so to speak.

[veganwitch]

22. i think its interesting that

most abortions are done before 10 weeks. before anyone can tell that youre pregnant and the only way someone outside of myself will know is if i tell them.

i could be riding in the metro next to a pro-life person and they are none-the-wiser. but the second i walk done the street and into the planned parenthood, im suddenly pregnant to the world and whoever the assfucks are that are protesting that saturday.

so the 99% of women who have abortions in the first trimester have to make themselves known to truly be cared about by anti-choice assholes.

[yella_dawg]

23. This was touched on in another post, but it needs to be emphasized

Roe v. Wade did not permit abortion. It moved abortion from hourly motel rooms into sanitary clinics. I'm old enough to remember that two of my classmates had abortions prior to Roe v. Wade. I want to state very clearly here:

No decent, caring person, no person with any level of humanity, would challenge any aspect of Roe v. Wade!!

If these pro-life fools want to make a difference, they need to pull their heads out, get to work on adoption programs, child abuse, sex slavery, child hunger, and so on ad infinitum, and accept the fact that the abortion issue is a political hot button and they're nothing more than mindless tools.

[liberalhistorian]

24. Amen!

Couldn't have said it better myself! I was only eight in 1973, so I really have no memory of what it was like for women when it was illegal, but I've heard enough from my parents, grandparents, and older relatives and friends to curl my hair!

My mom had a friend who damn near died from one, my grandmother had a friend who DID die (and she remained bitter about it to the end of her life), and other friends who were adversely affected physically and went through hell, etc., etc.

THANK GOD I'm of the generation that doesn't have to deal with that anymore, but I worry that the generation who've grown up with it being legal now have no idea of what it was like beforehand and may not fight as hard as they should to keep Roe.

[Jane Roe]

27. Glad to see your unqualified support for all aspects of R v W

Here are a couple important aspects of the Roe v Wade case that not everybody on DU seems to know about yet:

"On the basis of elements such as these, (some people) argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree."

"(The pregnant woman's) arguments that (her state) either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive"

"The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute."

"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

[Woodstock]

25. These are the things I try first

Ask them do they want John Ashcroft deciding if their wife lives or dies. That's what it ultimately comes down to.

I rarely meet an anti-choice woman. So if it's a man, I'd remind him the stakes aren't as high when you answer that question if it's being answered for someone else, not yourself. (The "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament" saying alludes to that - there is more truth in that statement than many will admit.)

Also, I'd remind them that Roe v. Wade DOES have restrictions on abortion, and that pro-choice people are fine with Roe v. Wade. It's worked well for 30 years. We aren't asking for anything to change. So when they turn it into, "So what, you want no restrictions at all?" Say, "No, I just want the thing that's worked well for 30 years, the thing most Americans agree is satisfactory, to stay in place."

When they ask about "partial birth abortion" tell them there is no such procedure - that bill was created to gain votes for Republicans from extreme religious groups by overturning Roe v. Wade.

Also remind them Bush is actively campaigning against contraception outside the US - this tells you what his true motivations about women are. (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030203&s=block) Tell them what a slippery slope is, and how to avoid one by holding tightly onto one's civil liberties.

A picture is worth a thousand words - save this photo and share it with them. These are the people that signed the above bill undermining Roe v. Wade in exchange for votes. Hopefully, they will notice something similar about all of them.



And of course, pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.

[kaitykaity]

26. Bigger picture.

The fight to outlaw abortion is part and parcel of the fundamentalist Christian effort to turn the United States from a secular democracy into a theocracy where only their vision rules the day.

The status of women in a society is an indicator of how evolved that society is. Outlawing abortion means to me that women are not capable of controlling their own reproductive destiny, that the men must have that control, thus making women incubators and nothing more.

The next step is to put us in burqas, figuratively speaking.

[mandyky]

28. kick

I am still thinking about the issue.

[SoCalDem]

29. It's a "lose-lose" issue for us, I am sorry to say.

The religious zealots will NEVER change their minds.Even when their little "Susie" gets pregnant at 14, or the 48 yr old wife gets pregnant, the ones who are "talkin' the talk" will always have an accommodating family doctor, who will take care of the "female troubles". They will still be out there carrying their signs about how evil it is, because they can rationalize it in their own minds that "their" brush with it was different..

Abortion = school prayer = 2nd amendment = vouchers = gay marriage = all the other wedge issues.

We can talk them to death, and nothing will EVER change any minds.

Those issues are all ultimately about CONTROL.. When ya got it, ya don't ever want to let it go..

It's about "some" people who get to dictate how "other" people live.

Until the churches,think tanks,and advocacy groups all lose their tax free status, and lobbying is made a felony, nothing will ever change..

I know that we have some groups that we would hate to see fall into this, but it's the only way.. Cut off their money, and we cut off their ability to brainwash people. These organizations are collecting money hand over fist from their "parent organizations" and from the tax payers..

[Jane Roe]

30. Are you personally more flexible than the other side on wedge issues?

On edit: Or is it more a matter that you are completely correct and they are completely incorrect, end of story?

[SoCalDem]

34. I am a "live and let live" person

What YOU do in your private life is YOUR business..

[Jane Roe]

38. I read your post #29 as a criticism . . .

of peeople who NEVER (CAPS in original) change their mind on certain issues.

I am asking whether you are a person who NEVER changes their mind on these same issues. Are you as rigid as the people you criticize for being overly rigid?

[SoCalDem]

41. Not going to play that game, sorry..

:hi:

[Jane Roe]

43. That's a yes.

[Bunny]

46. Only to you.

n/t

[Bridget Burke]

56. You figured it out!

"Jane" likes to play word games.....

[OneTwentyoNine]

36. Who on this site has ever said that about abortion?

I know I haven't,I'm Pro Choice not Pro Death as the abortion quacks like to call us.

If someone choose's not to have an abortion fine,that IS your call to make not mine. It goes the same with having an abortion,its that person's call to make,not Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.

David

[Jane Roe]

37. I recommend reading post #27 above

It sounds like you have some problems with the law of the Roe v Wade case.

For the Roe court the issues are a little more nuanced than you make them out to be.

[Hamlette]

31. the absolute best argument is in Roe v Wade

there must be a balancing of rights between a woman and the fetus. Until the fetus is viable, the mother's rights trump.

There are also a few good books out there on the history of abortion in the US and the case itself. Abortion was not always illegal in the US. It became illegal in a power struggle between midwives and physicians then it was physicians themselves who backed the effort to make it legal again. Which is not really surprising when you think about it. Many (most?) docs care deeply about their patients and put their health above politics and religious dogma. At least the ones I know are like that. (The history of the actual writing of the decision is also interesting. Blackmun had been legal cousel for the Mayo hospital. He went back to the hospital and stayed there for the summer while he wrote the decision with the help of the medical staff.

Another intereting case is Griswold v Conn. which set out the principles making Roe possible. When people argue they want to reverse Roe ask them if they want to reverse Griswold too. The case is 1964 (!) when it was ILLEGAL for a doctor to talk to a patient about birth control (!!!!!). One of the reasons Bork had trouble with confirmation in the 80s was because he said he would reverse Griswold. A state, he argued, should be able to decide if a woman is able to get birth control information from a doctor or not. Talk about your Nazi. What possible interest does the state have in preventing a woman from getting birth control? Of course, you need to remember, the first big issue for feminists in this country was a law which prohibited the importation of diaphrams (!!!!!) (Ed. When people say women haven't made any progress we need to remind ourselves of these things.)

[Karenina]

39. the (potential) mother's rights trump.

Exactly WHAT is so controversial about this statement of FACT? Oh, these endless "discussions." :Sigh: ;-)

[Jane Roe]

40. Answers

1. First, the trump statement is a statement of law, not a statement of fact.

2. THe part that is controversial here on DU is the 3d trimester, when Roe says that the potential mother's rights do *not* always trump. Some DUers disagree with this part of the current US abortion law. However, expanding Roe v Wade is a controversial proposition and would be a controversial plank in a Democratic presidential campaign. That is why we have controversy and endless discussion. If the DUers who dissent from this part of Roe would just accept the law as it stands, then the controversy and discussion would greatly diminish.

[Hamlette]

42. there are people on DU who believe

that a woman has an absolute right during the 3rd trimester?

I do believe that when a 3rd trimester abortion meets the Roe test a woman should be able to use whatever procedure her doctor recommends, even so called 'partial birth abortion."

Anyone out there think its an absolute right, even in the 3rd trimester? If so, what is the doctor supposed to do if the fetus survives? Sheesh. Who wants to go there?

[Jane Roe]

44. For some examples 3d trimester absolutists here on DU . . .

see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=4298

at post #22


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=3113

at posts #33 and 50


Side note: Having corresponded on abortion law threads, I have observed that it is pretty difficult generally to get DUers to distinguish between third trimester fetuses and other z/e/f's in their posts. So you tend to see many unqualified assertions of a woman's right to choose, where you strongly suspect that the poster believes this unqualified right to choose extends for 9 months -- but you can't prove it.

[Karenina]

45. Yawn....

"Jane's" posts always go so MARY!!! ;-)

[Jane Roe]

52. btw, I'd like to thank all my regular readers out there . . .

in DU-land. You don't always get the credit you deserve, but you really are a great buncha folks!

I'd also like to thankLogitech keyboards and mice and SyncMaster brand monitors for making my commentary possible.

Finally, thank you Tim Benners Lee for creating the technology I need to get my message out. You had it all and you gave it all away. Amazin'!

[LeahMira]

50. Nothing controversial about the third trimester at all...

THe part that is controversial here on DU is the 3d trimester

And exactly how many women choose to have abortions in the third trimester? Or how many women would choose it if they could?

Most abortions are done in the first two months of the pregnancy. A few are later than that by a week or two, but not very many.

If you actually think that a woman would actually go for six months or more and then just change her mind about having the baby for no particular reason, you really don't know women very well. That idea is totally absurd.

[Jane Roe]

55. Good

Then, let our candidate advocate making 3d trimester abortion illegal, providing only for the exceptions mandated by Roe v Wade. If your view of the world is correct, then no pregnant woman would suffer in the slightest under this new law.

What's better, the Democratic Party will then be the party of choice for both pro choicers and antichoicers and the next election will be ours!

[LeahMira]

57. No reason to do that...

Then, let our candidate advocate making 3d trimester abortion illegal, providing only for the exceptions mandated by Roe v Wade

Laws aren't made to regulate things that nobody does anyhow. There's no law to prevent corporations from distributing their profits to the poor, because they don't do it and wouldn't do it on any day of their existence. Neither would any woman volunteer for a late term abortion.

If the Democratic candidate has to make abortion illegal at any time or for any reason in order to be elected, then let's sacrifice the election. I imagine a Democratic candidate could do really well in the South, for instance, if he came out against affirmative action, equal opportunity in employment, or school desegregation. If he stood up for states' rights to decide whether or not to post the Ten Commandments in public buildings he's have their little hearts won for sure. But, ya know, some things are just not worth it.

[Jane Roe]

58. Winning an election is a super reason

and that's why I propose my proposal.

I want Chimpy McCokespoon outta there. BAD!

On edit: Besides, there are lots and lots of laws on the books that are invoked infrequently if ever. Do you feel so strongly about the disused law problem that you would rather risk a second * admin????

On 2d edit: Besides, unless you are a legal librarian with a hernia, disused laws, by definition cause you no problems in real life whatsoever.

[LeahMira]

124. It's not worth the price in human rights...

Winning an election is a super reason

Sometimes the ends don't justify the means. If a woman's rights are compromised, the price is too high.

Besides, there are lots and lots of laws on the books that are invoked infrequently if ever. Do you feel so strongly about the disused law problem that you would rather risk a second * admin????

I believe that every time a law is enacted someone loses a little freedom. That's not always such a bad thing, but I also think that the fewer laws we can get by with, the better off we all probably are.

For these sorts of reasons, I object to the "late term abortion ban" law. There was no reason for such a law since Roe v. Wade already covered the same ground adequately.

In addition, the "late term abortion ban" added a significant disadvantage... it did not stipulate that the life of a woman was to be saved even if the life of the fetus was not saved as a consequence. Indeed, I do maintain that no woman volunteers for a late term abortion. Still, sometimes it is medically necessary to save her life. Please do not try to be so disingenuous as to claim that the" late term abortion ban" law will be a "disused law." No doubt it will be invoked at some time in the not too distant future, and it did take away freedom and rights from all women.

No election is worth that price.

[Jane Roe]

131. If a law never applies . . .

(as you claim my proposed law would never apply), then by definition, no rights are compromised.


Would my proposed law ever apply in the real world or not?

[Hamlette]

162. Are you nuts?

Is there one Dem candidate out there who does not "advocate making 3d trimester abortion illegal, providing only for the exceptions mandated by Roe v Wade"? 3d trimester abortions are illegal in every state of the union except as provided in Roe. (Life or health of the mother.)

I'm unaware of anyone, Dem candidate or DUer for that matter, who advocates the position that Roe should have gone farther.

You have some kind of ax to grind Jane. And you are playing fast and loose with the facts, law and your accusations to prove it.

Silly argument.

Silly.

[iverglas]

165. well, that would be moi

I'm unaware of anyone, Dem candidate or DUer for that matter, who advocates the position that Roe should have gone farther.

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's abortion law in its entirety, and there has been *no* criminal law in respect of abortion in Canada ever since. (And civilization as we know it has not crumbled, even though abortions are covered by the universal healthcare plans for the most part.) And that's exactly what *I* advocate.

Mind you, I don't actually advocate anything in respect of the *US* law on abortion, since that isn't mine to advocate about.

3d trimester abortions are illegal in every state of the union except as provided in Roe. (Life or health of the mother.)

I'm not quite sure that this is correct. The decision in Roe merely permitted US states to prohibit post-viability abortion; it did not require that they do so. This was because the Court found only that the state has an interest in post-viability "fetal life" that it may, if it wishes, act to protect. It has no more obligation to do so than it has to impose speed limits or collect sales taxes.

.

[Jane Roe]

168. Really?

I do not think you are correct about the 3d trimester state abortion laws here, but maybe you are.

If we already do have the laws on the state level, then why am I getting so much flak for proposing laws that are already on the books?

I am definitely *not* proposing to change Roe v Wade ONE BIT. Please let me know how you got that idea because I want everyone reading my writing to be crystal clear on the fact that I am *not* proposing changes to the law of Roe v Wade.

Based on your assertions about existing state law, it seems like you would have much more disagreement with post #124 than any of my posts.

On edit: I just noticed your response on this one, Iverglas. Thanks (honestly) for stepping up on this one and helping to clear up a manifest misunderstanding.

[iverglas]

47. I wish more people would actually read Roe v. Wade

the absolute best argument is in Roe v Wade
there must be a balancing of rights between a woman and the fetus. Until the fetus is viable, the mother's rights trump.

Forgive my bluntness, but the US SC in Roe v. Wade said nothing remotely like this.

The Court found unequivocally that z/e/fs are not persons. That which is a person does not have rights.

There is no balancing to be done, ever, and the Court in Roe v. Wade did not do any such balancing, between any woman and any z/e/f.

The interests that the Court balanced in that case were the woman's interests (which it defined as privacy interests, whereas in actual fact women's life and liberty interests are very much in issue) and the state's interests, which the Court found to include an interest in "potential human life" or "fetal life".

The Court did not explain why it regarded the state as having an interest in "potential human life". (I am not saying that I would not agree that the state has such an interest -- simply that your Court did not state what that interest was.)

The Court did not explain why it regarded the state's interest in "potential human life" as becoming sufficiently compelling at a certain point (~ viability) that it outweighed the woman's interests. (I am not saying that I would not agree that such a point might exist in some circumstances -- simply that your Court did not state why it did.)

FETUSES DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. The US Supreme Court has said that fetuses do not have rights. It does no one any good to talk about "balancing" women's and fetuses' rights.

The woman's rights never trump the fetus's rights, because fetuses do not have rights.

The US Supreme Court has said that at a certain point, the state's interest trumps the woman's interests.

Our Mr. Roe, in this thread, has already referred to a thread in Civil Rights where this issue was discussed: Question on the Scott Peterson case + CA Abortion laws - ? I have just rebutted his assertion that the US SC found that "Roe v Wade does in fact advocate the protection of fetal interests of third trimester z/e/f's as such" ... again ... for anyone interested in what the Court actually said.


When people say women haven't made any progress we need to remind ourselves of these things.
(criminal prohibitions on birth control during my lifetime, e.g.)

Yes ... and of how many women fought, and how hard they fought, to achieve that progress.

.

[Jane Roe]

54. Slight clarification

The Supreme Court found that z/e/f's are not persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

As the practicing lawyers out in the audience know, this is different than saying that z/e/f's are not persons for all contexts.

[iverglas]

59. fascinating

The Supreme Court found that z/e/f's are not persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

As the practicing lawyers out in the audience know, this is different than saying that z/e/f's are not persons for all contexts.

Hmm. And we all know what bit of the 14th Amendment was in issue, right?
From Roe, http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/410b4.htm (emphasis added)

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well- known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.(51) On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument(52) that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." ... But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.(54)

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the l9th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.(55)

Not a "person" to whom the 14th Amendment applies, no right to life. Pretty simple.

Was there some other "context" you thought we should be considering?

The issue was whether a z/e/f has "interests" that the US SC found, in Roe v. Wade, could/should be protected.

You alleged that the Court found that a z/e/f does, and that the Court found that they could:

Roe v Wade does in fact advocate the protection of fetal interests of third trimester z/e/f's as such

Your statement was false, as I demonstrated. You chose in your response to ignore this, and to go off chasing some wild goose to who knows where. Fine with me.

Oh, by the way, even to the extent that the Court found that the state has an interest in "fetal life" or "potential human life", it NOWHERE "advocated" that this interest be protected:
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/410b5.htm (emphasis added)

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Can one buy those funny reading glasses of yours without a prescription?

.

[Jane Roe]

60. The R v W decisions says that there are other . . .

rights and interests besides 14th Amendment interests. R v W says that these other interests cana and should be balanced against 14th amendment interests. Sometimes the 14th amendment interests win -- sometimes non-14th amendment rights and interests win.

Balancing of rights and intersts. Extremely common theme of SCt cases back in the 20th century.

On edit: As far as I can judge, I agree with most or all of your latest post, except for the hostility toward me.

[iverglas]

61. your point?

The R v W decisions says that there are other . . .
rights and interests besides 14th Amendment interests. R v W says that these other interests cana and should be balanced against 14th amendment interests. Sometimes the 14th amendment interests win -- sometimes non-14th amendment rights and interests win.

So?

Did someone say otherwise?

What the US SC said in Roe was that THE STATE's interest in "fetal life", "potential human life" or "the potentiality of human life" (Blackmun J. used all three expressions) could be protected by the state regardless of the fact that the state doing so would interfere in THE WOMAN's interests, in situations in which THE STATE's interest was sufficiently compelling that it outweighed THE WOMAN's interest.

Kinda like how the state's interest in protecting the public will outweigh a convicted murderer's liberty interest -- and thus the state may imprison convicted murderers. (Well, "kinda like" -- except that we know what the state's interest is in that case, and we know what the justification is for interfering in the convicted murderer's exercise of liberty ... while we don't know what the state's interest in "fetal life" etc. is, and what the justification for interfering in women's exercise of rights is. But that's another matter.)

Most issues in constitutional law, where an interference with individuals' exercise of rights is challenged, tend to involve the balancing of a state interest against an individual interest, in fact. Some, such as challenges to anti-discrimination law, might involve the balancing of competing individual interests. Roe v. Wade did NOT involve the balancing of competing individual interests. You claimed that it did -- and many people seem to mistakenly think that it did (that it weighed women's interests against z/e/fs' "interests), this having been my original point.

What YOU said was:

Roe v Wade does in fact advocate the protection of fetal interests of third trimester z/e/f's as such

What has this most recent pronouncement of yours, with which no one has disagreed and no one sensible would disagree, got to do with my proof that YOUR statement was false?

.

[Jane Roe]

62. Look

With respect to your last point:

I could argue with your argument that *only* "people" can have "interests," but the argument is too silly to be worth my time.

[iverglas]

65. look again

I could argue with your argument that *only* "people" can have "interests," ...

... or you could just quote me as saying that.

Lemme help you out. I did say: "That which is a person does not have rights."

Oh, yikes. I actually said that. Of course, I *meant* to say: "That which is NOT a person does not have rights." I'm sure we all knew that I meant to say that, and we all know that what I said is true.

I'm assuming that you know the difference between "persons" and "people", so I'd wonder why you chose to drag "people" into this. As I asked: was there some other "context" you had in mind? Might z/e/fs be corporations, and thus have interests and rights?

It occurs to me that not everyone might know what is meant by "interests" in this context, so allow me, from the Osborne that happens to be handy:

A person is said to have an interest in a thing when he has rights, title, advantages, duties, liabilities connected with it, whether present or future, ascertained or potential, provided they are not too remote. ...

Likewise, the Oxford Concise:

5b. a legal concern, title or right (in property)

A person has an interest in his/her life and liberty, and privacy, and the security of his/her person.

A totally random reference from near the top of the results from a Google search for "interest in life and liberty": here (emphasis added)

In Ake the <U.S.> Supreme Court identified and weighed three concerns. The first is the defendant's interest in life and liberty, which Justice Marshall, writing for the Court, described as "uniquely compelling."

Second is the state's interest in denying the requested services, such as cost savings or efficient administration of justice--provided, however, that the state may not oppose such services to gain strategic advantage, since the state must, above all, seek justice. ...

The US SC found in Roe that z/e/fs do not have "interests", but that THE STATE has an interest that is in issue when women are pregnant.

It therefore, and a fortiori, continues to be false to say "Roe v Wade does in fact advocate the protection of fetal interests of third trimester z/e/f's as such".

.

[Jane Roe]

66. Look (cubed)

Didn't quote you because I didn't want to waste my time on this silly, collateral issue

the argument was silly the first time you made it, and it sounds even sillier now that you expand on it

[iverglas]

71. "silly, collateral issue"

The fundamental issue in Roe v. Wade was what/whose interests were at stake, and which interests should prevail in what circumstances ... and after misstating the US Supreme Court's ruling on those points, and never acknowledging the misstatement (let alone retracting it or apologizing for it, or explaining the reason for it), you call it a "silly, collateral issue".

Ask me why I'm not surprised.

... Nah, don't. I'm not sure I could answer properly without breaking a rule.


the argument was silly the first time you made it, and it sounds even sillier now that you expand on it

The only argument I'm aware I've made here is that there is no "balancing" to be done between women's and z/e/fs' rights, since z/e/fs have no rights, the US Supreme Court plainly stated that z/e/fs have no rights (interests), and the US Supreme Court never said what you claimed it had said.

You can call that "silly", or you can call it "mauve", or "speedy" or "really really tall", or any other irrelevancy you care to come up with. I won't be expecting you to demonstrate that what you say is even arguably true, in any event.

.

[mandyky]

35. OK, I try to keep emotion and morals out of the issue

and make it a civil rights issue as applies to the right to control one's lifestyle and body.

Abortion and civil unions are "rights" that although I doubt I would ever utilize these rights, I do not want to make them unavailable to those that would use them. No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion (or have a civil union), it is merely an option.

[Misinformed01]

51. Hey!!!! NO offense here, folks

But, the Guy James Show was OVER about 4 hours ago.

No one ever agrees on the issue of abortion. Get over it, and let this thread die-

[Az]

64. The mind's the thing

The cry baby killer depends on ignorance to stick. Because something looks like a human. Has a heart like a human. Will eventually become a human. It must be a human. Well its not.

Consider this. Which would you rather have preserved for all time your DNA in a jar or you'r mind? That which we idenitify with is our mind. Our body just happens to be what gives rise to the mind. But it is the end product the mind that we strive to fight for the preservation of.

The mind cannot arise without a brain. That which has no brain has no mind. A 2 month old fetus has no brain. The heart and other organs form long before the brain. Thus cries that abortions stop a beating heart are meaningless. Heart surgery stops a beating heart. But it does not kill a mind.

Which would you rather be. A body without a mind or a mind without a body.

[Jane Roe]

67. I thought that under your philosophy . . .

humans are whatever concensus decides that they are.

How come the sudden attack of metaphysics?

[Az]

68. Do not confuse observation with position

The way the society functions is that it forms a consensus understanding of a matter over time. This becomes the basis of morality for the society. Individuals can hold different positions from the society. It is this struggle to express these differences and defend them that causes the societal consensus to change over time.

Thus my position is that which we seek to defend is the mind that arises from the brain. No brain, no mind. No mind, no loss of individual. Its not a person till it thinks it is.

[Jane Roe]

69. I don't think that infants realize they are people

ergo, I think your position leads to infanticide

ergo, I disagree and hope you never win a concensus on this particular point

[Az]

70. Language vs mind

An infant does not understand the word self. This does not mean their mind has not begun to relate to itself. I fear you may be running afoul of semantic issues with my statements. By no means would I ever advocate the killing of an already born infant.

Let me restate my ideas in simpler terms. Before the 3rd trimester there is no risk of killing a person. At that point the fetus has not developed a brain at all. From the point of the 3rd trimester on the brain begins to develop and once it is entirely functional the process of becoming a functioning mind begins. Thus at the 3rd trimester the moral risk of killing an individual with a mind becomes increasingly more likely. So from that moment on the rational for obtaining an abortion should become increasingly medically oriented rather than maternal descision.

To summarise. 1st and 2nd trimester bear no moral burden for obtaining an abortion. 3rd trimester becomes grey as the likelihood of destroying a functional individual becomes more likely. Doctors should resist requests for abortions at this stage unless there is a medical reason for the process. But the mothers right to her body must be respected too(by no means an easy period of time). After the baby is born there is no turning back. It is a person both morally and legally at this point.

Does this help you understand my position any better?

[Jane Roe]

72. sort of and question

why does your test for "personhood" (or whatever you want to call it) only apply during fetushood, but not infancy?

Why are you so sure that cultures that practice infanticide have got things screwed up? It seems like they are simply applying the test that you advocate for detecting personhood in a fetus.

[Az]

74. Minimize damage

The problem comes about because we cannot currently pinpoint the exact moment a mind arises from the brain. Thus if our wishes are to protect that which we value in ourselves we must procede with caution. The bare minimum we know of to harbor a living mind requires a functioning brain. So by setting this are a line in the sand we establish a measurable point by which we can make educated descisions. Keeping in mind our limitations we can procede from this point with a modicum of confidence.

[Jane Roe]

75. why are infants considered past the line in the sand?

are you sure they are past the line? How are you so sure?

Clarification: I ask with respect to *your* position, not society's concensus

[Az]

78. A host of reasons

First off the presense of a fully functioning brain places an infant into the position of being able to have a mind. Its ability to interact and respond to the universe around it demonstrates the awakening ability to distinguish seperation of self from the universe. Presense of functioning brain wave patterns consistant with conscious adults also furthers the argument.

The brain has begun its awakening to identity. It is in process of gathering experience from the world around it. This is part and parcel of identity itself. It is this very process that continues for the life of the individual that we value as self. Not knowing when this exact moment comes about does not mean we do not know it happens. Thus we attempt to confine the point to our best guess and err with caution.

[Jane Roe]

79. Your position:

so babies only have to have an awakening ability to distinguish themselves from the exterior universe, but fetuses must have the same mental ability, but fully formed already?

This doesn't make sense. Do babies get an easier test because they look more like adults? because they are so cute?

[Az]

80. Not at all

The presense of a brain is the line in the sand. Cuteness has an impact socially but we are attempting to answer the harder direct moral question. As I stated since the brain is formed within the third trimester its arrival herolds the line in the sand that we draw when the matter shifts from a simple medical procedure to one with moral implications. The fetus could be a twisted mass of deformed tissue. But if it has a functioning brain the moral issue arises.

[Jane Roe]

81. Agree

Actually I think our positions agree very much (I think that brain development may start a bit earlier than you do as a factual matter -- but that is just a factual issue -- which I am sure we could resolve if we got enough medical science type people interested in the criteria we agree on).

Somehow I got the incorrect idea that you were saying that a fetus had to have self awareness. Re-reading your posts, I really do not know where I got that ?!?!

Sorry for making you repeat yourself so many times. Got it now. Glad we agree.

[iverglas]

73. bravo

in part, anyhow ;) --

The way the society functions is that it forms a consensus understanding of a matter over time. This becomes the basis of morality for the society. Individuals can hold different positions from the society. It is this struggle to express these differences and defend them that causes the societal consensus to change over time.

Exactly.

I just think you have mis-identified this particular consensus:

No brain, no mind. No mind, no loss of individual. Its not a person till it thinks it is.

That is too narrow, and would exclude a number of individuals that we do consider to be "persons".

Born, human and alive. That's the consensus. Not "a human being" if it hasn't been born; not "a human being" if it isn't human; and not "a human being" if it's dead.

(That which is human and alive but not born does not have rights; that which has been born and is alive but is not human does not have rights; that which has been born and is human but has ceased to be alive does not have rights.)

That's the broadest consensus it is possible to have and actually use for the purpose for which we use and need it. Calling anything that has not been born, is not human or is no longer alive "a human being" -- i.e. saying "it has rights" -- would simply make it impossible for human beings, including those of us who are now human beings and anything that became a human being under that new consensus, to exercise rights. It would be a consensus on a nonsense.

Ya can't define "a square" as including things with three sides and still communicate mathematical concepts and build houses. You can't define "human being" as including things that are not born, or not human, or not alive, and still have a functioning society.

.

[Az]

77. Perceptions, Society, and Reality

The second comment (no brain no mind) is my position. I do not suggest it is the current social consensus. In fact I would suggest that the current social consensus is muddled by visual appearances and thus tends towards sympathy for anything that strongly resembles a human. The reality is not always convieniant to our language or current understanding of a matter. Thus the very thing which we value in life (identity) is not readily observable in a developing fetus.

We have a struggle between a variety of factors in determining the moral issue of abortion. There is science which provides us with an ever increasing understanding of the hard reality of the matter. We have religions injecting their authoratative stances on the matter. We have psychology which plays upon our own processes of projecting identity on things. We have social forces at play causing us to modify our positions. The entire circus comes into play on this already mirky matter.

There is an absolute reality at play here. Piercing its veil and being able to make an absolute judgement based on all the relative information is the goal. As the knowledge we gleen shifts and changes the social fabric is thrown into chaos. Science and knowledge always move faster than society can. Thus there is going to be a lag and reaction based on this. So if the people believe that a square has 3 sides and science keeps trying to tell them otherwise there may be some time before they catch on.

[iverglas]

82. ah ;)

The second comment (no brain no mind) is my position. I do not suggest it is the current social consensus.

I understand. Of course, I disagree with your position!

I would not agree that we should define "human being" according to some standard involving measurement of the functions that human beings are capable of performing. I don't even think that it would be possible to do this, in the sense that it could ever produce a usable definition.

If a person in a persistive vegatative state, for instance, who would presumably not meet the standard you suggest, were not "a human being", then s/he would have no rights. Could I just take his/her house? shoot him/her? use him/her for medical experimentation? With impunity? The only reason I could be prevented from doing any of that would be that s/he were "a human being".


In fact I would suggest that the current social consensus is muddled by visual appearances and thus tends towards sympathy for anything that strongly resembles a human.

I would agree that this is somewhat true, but having sympathy need not lead to recognizing rights. There's nothing wrong with sympathy in itself, and there can be much good about it.

Thus the very thing which we value in life (identity) is not readily observable in a developing fetus.

The problem when we talk about what "we value in life" is that there may not be consensus, and there may never be. And there is also the fact that an infant, to the best of our knowledge, really does not have any self-awareness, so your proposal comes with problems. Saying that you would never agree that infants could be killed (as I think you did) doesn't solve those problems; it implies that some standard is being applied other than the one you propose.


We have a struggle between a variety of factors in determining the moral issue of abortion.

Well ... we first of all would have to agree that there is such a thing as "the moral issue of abortion", and I probably would not agree with the issue as you framed it. The "moral issue", to me, is the question of the extent to which women's exercise of their fundamental rights may be interfered with, and for what reasons. Pretty much the same as the "moral issue" involved in any other decision about restrictions on the exercise of any other right. Whatever moral issues a particular abortion raised would derive from the circumstances; there is no moral issue that arises universally from abortion.


There is science which provides us with an ever increasing understanding of the hard reality of the matter.

It hasn't changed our understanding of the reality that z/e/fs have not been born. And I don't know of anything that science has told us that would lead me to think that the "born" criterion should be abandoned.


We have religions injecting their authoratative stances on the matter. We have psychology which plays upon our own processes of projecting identity on things. We have social forces at play causing us to modify our positions. The entire circus comes into play on this already mirky matter.

There isn't anything inherently more murky about the question of whether it should be permissible to prevent women from having abortions than about any other question about the extent to which the state should be able to interfere in the exercise of anyone's rights.

Undoubtedly, there are many who wish to portray it as murky, or muddy it up, by making claims about the nature of z/e/fs based on religion, or confused or selective perception, or a political agenda. That doesn't affect the nature of the issue.


There is an absolute reality at play here. Piercing its veil and being able to make an absolute judgement based on all the relative information is the goal.

Well, there are indeed facts involved. But facts are never exclusively determinative of our decisions about what to do, and what may and may not be done.

It is a fact that the moon is made of rock. That doesn't tell us anything about whether we should build a space station on it.

It is a fact that "figure A" has three sides. That doesn't tell us whether it is a square or not. We can only determine whether it is a square by applying the definition of "square" -- and that definition is entirely up to us to write. That is our "judgment", how to categorize things based on the facts we know about them -- and which of those facts we are going to regard as relevant in the classification exercise.

For determining whether to classify something as a square, we consider whether it is a two-dimensional figure that has four equal sides and four equal angles. We don't consider how big it is, or what colour it is.

For determining whether to classify something as a human being, we consider whether it is born, human and alive. We may once have considered what sex it was, or what colour it was, but yes, science provided us with facts that we decided were relevant, and we abandoned those criteria. Our present consensus works better than any consensus with more criteria (including your proposed criterion) would work. But it is the bare minimum set of criteria if we wish our consensus to function for the purpose we need and use it for: determining what is "one of us".


So if the people believe that a square has 3 sides and science keeps trying to tell them otherwise there may be some time before they catch on.

But science does not determine what "a square" is. WE do. Science can tell us how many sides a thing has, but not what to call it.

Science can tell us when a fetus has the various structures in place to enable it perform the functions of an organism if it were removed from the uterus. Science doesn't tell us whether that fetus has rights. We decide whether it is relevant, for the purpose of classifying it as "one of us" or "not one of us", that a fetus might be able to function as an organism if removed from the uterus. Since calling it "one of us" means that it has rights, and since it is incapable of exercising rights, and saying that it has rights would necessarily result in either saying that pregnant women do not have rights or creating an absolutely insoluble conflict of rights such as does not arise in any other situation, it would be ridiculous for us to say that.

People who "believe" that a square has three sides aren't rejecting science, they're being psychotically irrational. Ditto for people who "believe" that a z/e/f is a human being. There is simply no way that they can reconcile what they (claim to) believe with what else they claim to believe, unless they really just don't believe that human beings have rights.

.

[Az]

83. Further information

Identity, life, and morality are tricky subjects. Legality is a completely different subject. In fact our legal stance on abortion is specifically not based on the moral issue of when life arises. It is based on the woman's right to control her own body. This discussion has not been about the legality of the matter. Rather it has been an attempt to discern the nature from which the moral issues arise. These issues tend to plague the legal issue and cloud the matter. Thus understanding them is probably a good avenue to pursue in order to find ways to contraveine their morally based arguments against a woman's right to control her body.

As to the morality of basing ones conclusions on biological functions, they have to be tempered with social conventions and expectations as well. For example once an identity has been clearly established in the form of a human being we generally extend this title even during lapses in the condition. We have learned that comas and other factors are interuptions in a person's identity that sometimes are recovered from. Thus we extend a period of time where in we preserve hope that their identity will reassert itself.

Life is not a static thing. The laws and contrivances we adopt to govern ourselves should not be static either.

[myomy]

76. This is an extremely personal decision that should be made by

the woman and without any government intervention.

[Cleita]

84. I guess I came to this discussion too late, but if you

want to think about another aspect of this in the future, this is what I think. The pro-life has nothing to do with preserving life but it has everything to do with controlling women and keeping them in their place.

Let me explain. The same institutions against abortion are the same who have no problems with killing live people in certain circumstances, so whatever they SAY about the sancitity of life is bull shit. That argument isn't what their true agenda is about.

Considering that the Catholic Church never spoke out against abortion until 1869 speaks volumes about how recent this religious position is. So really it's about not allowing women to have a choice about a medical procedure or control over her own body but about men still thinking of women as their property. It may be subconscious, but that is what is about.

[Az]

85. Actually

It is the Hamanae Vitae pronounced by the Pope Paul VI that causes a great deal of the trouble in this mess. Due to the proclomation that the Pope when speaking on official matters is infallible this proclomation became cemented to the Catholic doctrine. Thus began a campaign to force their position on the world starting with the US.

In 1973 when the US issued Roe V Wade the States and the Vatican were set on a collision course. In 1975 the American Catholic Bishops council issued the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities. This detailed the plans for altering the US political landscape. Soon afterwards Protestant leaders were brought into the plan by showing them the recruitment potential such a hotbutton topic wielded. Paul Weyrich a Catholic activist recruited Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who soon turned their hordes upon the issue making it their own.

[Jane Roe]

86. This is a pretty gross overgeneralization of antichoicers.

It is also demonizing (overused word, but appropriate here) the opponents.

You see this kind of post a lot on abortion law threads on DU.

This kind of thinking probably probably hurts the Democratic Party a lot more than it helps.

[Cleita]

90. As a man you wouldn't understand the control of women issue.

It seems normal to you because that is how you have been socialized. As for the religious issue I have plenty of historical documentation that shows the church didn't have much of a problem with how women controlled their fertility prior to 1869 leaving those matters to the women and their midwives.

[Jane Roe]

91. As a non-fetus You fail to understand . . .

or consider their potential feelings and interests.

For a significant proportion of antichoicers (and some antichoicers are fertile women), this is what the issue is all about. I don't deny that some get carried away with it, but it is not fair or productive to demonize the entire group as your posts do.

[Az]

96. Methodology of the argument

The moral issue until recently has been mired in a quagmire of ignorance. We simply did not have a basis to make an educated judgement on the matter. Even now we cannot pinpoint the issue to a specific moment and have to set a wide mark to insure we do not misstep. Thus the legality of the matter has never been pinned to the question of morallity.

The legal issue has always been one of the woman's right to control her own body. Thus even though we get into a morally questionable situation in late term pregnancies the legal issue never backed down. No person has the right to enslave another person even if it comes at the cost of a life. I cannot take posession of your body even to save my life. It is your body to do with as you choose. This is the primary issue of the law.

[Jane Roe]

99. Then explain governmental military conscription to me

Also, Roe v Wade mandates that 3d trimester fetal rights and women's rights be balanced. It does not tell states whose rights should be paramount under what circumstances (except life and health risks). The case definitely seems to anticipate that some or even many states will find that fetal rights are paramount after some point in a pregnancy, but prior to birth.

This case alone disproves your blanket assertion about "enslavement" (if I am correct in understanding your use of this term).

Clarification: "Enslavement" is an inappropriate term to use here. I think slaves in the US suffered a lot more than a typical pregnant women does in the third trimester. For one thing, slavery was for life, while the third trimester is only 3 months. Also, a late term pregnancy restricts some life activities, but does not control every aspect of life and work (at least until birthing time arrives). This is a significant difference between the two types of suffering. Also, typical pregnant women generally have much better access to medical care than masters allowed their slaves. I don't think you understand how insulting it is to compare late pregnancy (absent substantial life / health risks) to what slaves suffered back when slavery was legal. To me, the pregnancies that R v W allows states to compel women to continue are not as bad as slavery was.

[Az]

102. You almost had it there

The law does in fact state that some balance should be put in effect during the 3rd trimester then utterly fails to suggest what this balance is. It dileberately leaves this part of the law grey. This gives Doctors the leeway to act upon situations that medically require action and allows for extreme examples. It does not come out and insist that the fetus be carried to term but instead issues a cautionary suggestion. It is a very carefully stated position designed to leave options open and preserve rights as best it can in a very messy issue.

As to the term enslavement. The quality of suffering has no bearing on the use of the word. This is simply trying to hitch an emotional tangent to the issue. A person denied their rights and pressed into service is no less a slave because their condition is not as dire.

This is a semantic issue however. If the term slave bothers you I am more than prepared to cease using it. Would you care to suggest another term from someone who has no rights over their body and has had their rights removed from them for the service of another?

[outinforce]

104. How About This?

"Would you care to suggest another term from someone who has no rights over their body and has had their rights removed from them for the service of another?"

I assume that you do not mean, when you say, "has their rights removed from them for the service of another" that you mean "all" rights. And I likewise assume that you do not mean "absolutely no rights" when you say "no rights over their body".

Even pre-January 22, 1973, a pregnant woman still had the right of free speech, the right to vote, and the right to decide what she will and will not wear. She could enter into a contract, purchase property, smoke, drink, drive, petition for redress of grievances. She had the right of freedom of religion, and many other rights, even though the Supreme Court had not yet discovered, within the umbrae, penumbrae, emanations, and entrails of the Constitution, the right to terminate developing human life.

So, since you asked for another term, might I suggest the term "taxpayer". A taxpayer has his or her "right" to freely spend the fruits of his or her labor in the matter in which he or she determines to be best. S/he is compelled, under penalty of law, to turn over a portion of her/his income to the State, which then uses those funds "in the service of others".

You, for instance must pay a part of your income to the US Government which then uses a portion of your income to fund the Army, which protects me as I take public transportation (also funded by tax dollars) from the Pentagon to my workplace.

See?

[Az]

106. I am not interested in a semantic argument

As I said. I have no real problem with another word for this issue. Trying to make it a semantic issue does not bring us any closer to resolving the matter. The specific reason for the law is to preserve a woman's rights to control her own body. Just as I cannot force you to carry me around for 9 months a woman cannot be forced to carry a fetus around for 9 months. Call it what you want but please let us focus on the issue at hand.

[Jane Roe]

108. I prefer the terms pregnancy, health complications, contractions and birth

They convey what it is like to undergo pregnancy much more accurately than the term enslavement.

Also: Roe v Wade does not utterly fail to suggest alternatives for the 3d trimester. While they do leave 3d trimester law to the states, they clearly suggest that outright prohibition is an acceptable 3d trimester option (absent life / health issues). Given the fact that most or all states had completely outlawed abortion at the time of the decision, I think it is reasonable to say that the Court thought that most or all states would take them up on this liberty to legislate.

[Cleita]

114. You just did it. You framed your argument in such a way

that you called me stupid without saying it. Instead, according to you, I have "demonized a whole group" (pro-choice men perhaps?)because I'm too stupid to know any better because I can't consider their potential feelings and interests? Isn't this the same argument our conservative government used to go to war with Iraq? Isn't this what you meant? Of course you wouldn't make a blatant ad hominem attack, but it's there as much as if you had written it in your post. You just said I don't have the brains to make an informed and moral decision. You just reduced me to a non-person.

It is a control issue and nothing else. This is what the pro-life movement does and idiot women who feel subservient to them follow along because they are afraid of going to hell or something like that. I do hope if you have a daughter that you will have the compassion to let her make her own decisions regarding her reproductive choices.

[Jane Roe]

116. Roe v Wade directs us (voters) to balance women's and fetal interests

Those who consider only fetal interests are doing it wrong.

Those who consider only women's interests are doing it wrong.

However, unlike you, I do not impute evil motives to either group. This imputation of evil motives on the part of one of the groups is why your post demonizes and my post does not.

Also, I do not think that either group is stupid -- both groups merely fail to be sufficiently objective, fair and balanced. However, a group can fail to be objective, fair and balanced without being evil or stupid. This is because objectivity, fairness and balance are extraordinarily difficult things to achieve -- especially when the issues are emotional and life-or-death, as they can be with abortion.

[Cleita]

119. Evil motives?

There's that word again, EEEVIL. Since I believe that only God has the right to judge anyone as evil or as having evil motives, I don't use the word to accuse anyone of being evil or thinking about evil. You used the word "demonize" a lot, a derivative of "demon" or devil. Again we are back to that word, evil. Do you have demons on your shoulder that causes you to think of others, like women, as being evil or having evil intentions? Think about what you have posted and how it translates to me?

[Jane Roe]

129. I don't think I ever used demonize on DU . . .

prior to this sub-thread.

Your post did effectively accuse the Catholic Church and other antichoicers of having evil motives. The post may not have used the word "evil," but the accusation was loud and clear.

On edit: To put it simply, accusing an entity of wanting "control of women" is accusing them of an evil motive. It sure ain't a nice motive!

[Cleita]

141. Have it your way, however read these posts you made

on this thread.

“but it is not fair or productive to demonize the entire group as your posts do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&...

and

This imputation of evil motives on the part of one of the groups is why your post demonizes and my post does not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&...

[iverglas]

146. ah ... motive vs. intent

I'll bet you know the difference.

If someone were trying to kill me, I wouldn't probably give a good goldurn what his/her motive were -- why s/he wanted to kill me. I'd be concerned about his/her intent -- to kill me.

The courts, of course, would feel the same way. If a person commits an act with the intent of committing it, nobody really cares what the motive was. In fact, in some cases, we might be forever in the dark about what a murderer's motive was, but have no problem at all finding that s/he had the requisite intent, and convicting him/her.

Then we have the concept of being presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions. We all invoke that concept all the time. We don't excuse the cyclist who knocks us down on the jogging path where s/he was cycling at high speed simply because s/he didn't aim his/her vehicle directly at us; we consider that a person speeding a bike down a crowded jogging path should have anticipated (and virtually certainly did anticipate) that someone might get knocked down -- as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of what s/he was doing.

Prohibiting or restricting access to abortion will result in women being denied control of their own lives and bodies. Kinda by definition, eh? (Oh ... and in some women dying, or being disabled, or having their life expectancies reduced, or living lives of poverty and misery ...) Kinda like prohibiting women from accessing, or restricting their access to, employment, or the streets after dark, would -- even if the prohibition or restriction were motivated by a desire to "protect women". Whatever the "reason" offered for wanting to do any of those things, the entirely foreseeable consequence of doing them is to deny women control of their lives (that is not denied to other people).

If someone does NOT want to control women, s/he will NOT propose that women be prohibited from having abortions. I mean, I do NOT want to knock down joggers, so I will NOT speed down a crowded jogging path on my bicycle.

Now, if I had no option but to speed down a crowded jogging path on my bicycle in order to achieve my objective, I might be heard to say that I did not WANT to knock anyone down ... but I could not deny, when I knocked someone down, that I INTENDED to do that, since there was virtually no possibility that I would fail to do it.

If my own objective was sufficiently compelling -- like, say, fleeing certain death -- I'd probably be excused from responsibility for what I did, even though I intended to do it.

So ... where is this compelling objective that the anti-choice are pursuing when they propose measures that will necessarily remove control of women's lives from the women themselves??

No matter what it might, they still don't get to claim that they do not INTEND to control women's lives, since that is the absolutely inevitable, by-definition consequence of what they want to do.

I'm sure it might make a lot of women feel better to know that they didn't WANT to do that, though, eh?

I'll bet it's gonna hurt them more than it hurts us ...

.

[iverglas]

123. the repeated recitation of falsehoods

Why does someone do it?

Roe v Wade directs us (voters) to balance women's and fetal interests

Despite repeated presentations of proof that Roe v. Wade DOES NO SUCH THING, and in fact SPECIFICALLY REJECTS the idea that such a thing should or can be done, you persist in saying that it said it.

Can you explain your thought processes for me?

Those who consider only fetal interests are doing it wrong.
Those who consider only women's interests are doing it wrong.

As a statement of some conclusion you have reached after considering some stuff that you for some reason think is relevant, this might be meaningful, perhaps as a statement of "moral" belief.

As a statement of fact -- that what is being done is "wrong" according to the standard that applies for determining the validity of law, you being the one who has framed the issue as one of law by citing Roe v. Wade -- your statement is false.

Here's what would be a correct statement:

Those who consider only STATE interests are doing it wrong.
Those who consider only women's interests are doing it wrong.

You seem to have a problem with making a correct statement. Is it because you don't understand Roe v. Wade? How could you not understand it, when it has been explained to you so many times? If you do understand it, why would you continue to mischaracterize it as you are still doing?

Inquiring minds ...

.

[Jane Roe]

132. Do you consider any legitimate state interests in protecting fetuses?

Do the posts of the poster I was conversing with consider there to be any legitimate state interests in protecting fetuses?

[iverglas]

143. circumlocutions and onuses

Do the posts of the poster I was conversing with consider there to be any legitimate state interests in protecting fetuses?

To the extent that I can decipher this, I'll infer that you are asking me to characterize what someone else thinks. I'll decline that invitation.


Do you consider any legitimate state interests in protecting fetuses?

I'll bet you know how this works, where you're at and where I'm at.

The party asserting a state interest that justifies interfering in the exercise of an individual right has the onus of demonstrating the interest and the justification.

I wonder whether this might be one reason for preferring to talk about the non-existent "fetal rights" and the "balancing" thereof against women's rights??

The "balancing" that is done between state interests and individual interests is only done once the state has proved its interest and demonstrated its justification.

Then the courts will weigh the state's interest against the individual's interest.

As I am wont to say, I (and I'm not the only one) have been unable to find anything in Roe v. Wade that identifies the "state interest" in "fetal life", "potential human life" or "the potentiality of human life". And as I have also repeatedly said, I am not saying that the state does not have such an interest, I am simply saying that we don't know what the Court thought it was.

I mean, I can say "I have an interest in", oh, the health of the local wetlands. But before I got a court to allow me to interfere in the exercise of anybody's rights in respect of those wetlands, I'd have to show pretty clearly what my interest was, eh? Ditto for the state. Except that the US SC doesn't seem to have thought it worthwhile to make the nature of the state's interest explicit.

And ditto for justification -- the Court seems to have just assumed that the state had justification for interfering in the exercise of women's rights in order to protect its own interest in fetal life. What is that justification? Who knows? The Court sure didn't bother to say.

If you wanna trade analyses, you can tell me in detail how the courts set about this task where you're at. Here's a rough outline of how they do it where I'm at (and forgive me if I repeat myself):

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1986/vol1/html/1986scr1_0103.html

Two central criteria must be satisfied to establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society <the standard in the Cdn constitution>.

First, the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter <constitutional> right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. The standard must be high to ensure that trivial objectives or those discordant with the principles of a free and democratic society do not gain protection. At a minimum, an objective must relate to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important.

Second, the party invoking s. 1 <the constitutional standard of justification> must show the means to be reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves a form of proportionality test involving three important components.

To begin, the measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and rationally connected to that objective.

In addition, the means should impair the right in question as little as possible.

Lastly, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective -- the more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be.

So up here, anybody wanting to legislate restrictions or prohibitions on abortion would have to pass that test.

Anyone opposing such restrictions or prohibitions would need to establish that the exercise of a right was being interfered with, and perhaps argue the state's claim of a sufficient and sufficiently compelling interest to justify such interference (the onus being then on the state), or, if unsuccessful in rebutting it, demonstrate that the state's proposed action was not arbitrary, not excessive, and not the minimum possible impairment of the right.

Me, I don't see any need for any restrictions or prohibitions on abortion. We've got along just fine without any restrictions or prohibitions on abortion up here for over 15 years now. And unnecessary law simply is acknowledged, by those with informed opinions, to be bad law.

So me, I think that the onus is on whoever is proposing any such restrictions or prohibitions to meet whatever the applicable test is -- to justify what they're proposing.

I'm sure you've heard me say that if the very survival of the human species were immediately threatened by either overpopulation or underpopulation, I might agree that women could be compelled to either terminate or continue their pregnancies ... if I thought that a species that did such things deserved to survive, I suppose, and if I were assured that there would be no arbitrary or unnecessary interference in rights.

That is, the state -- as a particular manifestation of society, of *us* -- might well be said to have an interest in preserving and protecting itself, and therefore to have an interest in pregnancies, which in some circumstances might justify interfering in women's rights in respect of their pregnancies.

But that is not an interest in "fetal life" etc., or in "protecting fetuses" in the sense in which you presumably mean that. It is "protecting fetuses" in the sense in which we might "protect the wetlands" -- as things that *we*, as a society or species, need for our continued well-being or even existence.

To address the notion you are presumably referring to, I might not be averse to legislation to "protect fetuses" from, say, pain that might be experienced in certain abortions at certain late stages of pregnancy, the way I am not averse to legislation to protect animals from pain, which I agree is a valid state objective. But such "protective" measures could never come at the expense of serious interference with women's rights, and would have to be fair and non-arbitrary, and the minimum interference necessary to achieve the objective, and proportional to the objective. The objective of "minimizing fetal pain" would never override women's interests in life and health.

.

[Cleita]

140. Dupe

Sorry.

[eleny]

88. Republicans don't want all the laws to be overturned

They just want to argue about it forever so they appear to hold some moral high ground. If abortion is completely outlawed, the pictures of aborted fetuses will be replaced by images of women who died from back alley abortions.

My stand on the issue is that I am against abortion for myself. But I refuse to force my personal position on another woman.

[loyalsister]

133. what's worse?

Consider a situation where a woman is six weeks along and discovers her husband looking at child porn. Her dilemma: does she want to create a situation where this man will have a legal right to spend time with a child?
Or, a woman who is in an abusive relationship discovers that she is pregnant. Once again, does she want to create a situation where a man who she knows has abusive tendencies will have legal right to spend time with a child?
What about the woman who has had children removed from her home because she is abusive herself?
Terminating parental rights is a very difficult thing to do. A woman has to have the approval of the father in order to give a baby up for adoption.
Can a person honestly say that it is a morally superior choice to create those situations when it is possible to terminate a pregnancy and avoid it?

[Jane Roe]

134. This makes it sound like abortion . . .

is a solution to child porn and spousal abuse problems. Regardless of the level of legality of abortion, I don't think abortion should be a large component of society's solution to child porn or spousal abuse. There should be more positive solutions and we should avoid pressuring women to have abortions to fight these problems.

[Az]

135. Circumstances

The creation of a human being should be one of the most considered descisions a person can make. We can be fairly certain that no moral line is being crossed for the bulk of the pregnancy. Thus abortion is a perfectly rational and responsible course of action for a person considering the options before them.

I have known too many women guilted and emotionally blackmailed into making bad descisions on this matter that would up destroying multiple lives. I consider this the ultimate in irresponsibility. Making a human being when you have not fully considered the ramifications of your actions. Reprehensible.

[outinforce]

154. You Do Understand, Of Course...

You do understand, I hope, Az, that the words you have used here: "The creation of a human being should be one of the most considered descisions a person can make." are precisely the words that many in what you call the anti-choice community use to describe the seriousness of abortion and to explain their opposition to that procedure.

For you, the "creation of a human being" is something that occurs some time after conception. But imagine how your viewpoint towards abortion would change if you really truly felt (or considered it to be a biological fact) that a human being is created at the point of conception.

It sounds quaint and old-fashioned, I know, but there really are people who would seriously suggest that it is precisely because sex can result in the creation of a human being that having sex (or at least sex that could possibly result in a pregnancy) should be "one of the most considered decisions a person can make".

[iverglas]

164. and of course *you* understand

You do understand, I hope, Az, that the words you have used here: "The creation of a human being should be one of the most considered descisions a person can make." are precisely the words that many in what you call the anti-choice community use to describe the seriousness of abortion and to explain their opposition to that procedure.

... that Az is NOT claiming to be entitled to make those decisions for anyone else, no matter how much he disapproves of the decisions they do make. People may negligently and harmfully "create human beings", in the most immoral way he can imagine, but he is not advocating that anyone be able to stop them.

And we all understand that the "anti-choice community" is just a tad different, in that respect.


For you, the "creation of a human being" is something that occurs some time after conception. But imagine how your viewpoint towards abortion would change if you really truly felt (or considered it to be a biological fact) that a human being is created at the point of conception.

I always wonder how I would feel about things like lunar space stations if I really truly felt (or considered it to be a meteorological fact) that a human being was created at the moment the moon broke off from the earth ... i.e. that the moon is a human being. I try to imagine how my viewpoint toward lunar space stations might change in that case. I never quite succeed, though. I'm just not good at thinking too many absurd things before breakfast.


It sounds quaint and old-fashioned, I know, but there really are people who would seriously suggest that it is precisely because sex can result in the creation of a human being that having sex (or at least sex that could possibly result in a pregnancy) should be "one of the most considered decisions a person can make".

And ain't we all just damned fortunate that what these people would suggest just isn't any of our concern? We don't have to bother our heads about it at all, at least as long as we have constitutions and courts and such.

Kinda like how what Az suggests about people who make babies isn't any of their concern (as Az didn't suggest it was) ... and how what the anti-choice brigade suggests about anything isn't any of our concern either.

Not unless they can come up with some constitutionally valid reason for making us care, anyhow.

Until then, they can say that believe that z/e/fs are human beings, and the meal eaten at noon is dinosaur, and things with three sides are squares. And the rest of us will just go about our business, exercising our rights and making our choices as we happen to please, eh?

.

[Az]

172. Opinions in Post Modern Society

Lets say that I believe that kicking a rock is the worst offense against everything in the universe imaginable. I am certainly entitled to my opinion on a matter. But how am I to interact with others who have no problem with kicking rocks and think nothing of it. These rock kickers are around me all the time. Kicking rocks. Offending the very universe itself.

We cannot impose our opinions on others in a diverse and free society. Instead we have to struggle to dialog matters and form consensus educated by our accumulated learning. Science helps us to understand the world around us in order to better be able to decide important matters (such as rock kicking).

Thus we have a situation in our real society similar to the rock kickers. There are those that believe abortion at any time is an incredible offense. There are those that believe it is little more than a medical procedure if performed before a certain time. The society must struggle with how to adjudicate this issue in a diverse society rich in varied value systems.

The antichoice crowd depends on an appeal to authority. It is true many people deeply believe in this appeal to authority but this does not change the nature of it as an appeal to authority. Society has to deal with matters in less emotional ways. Thus it relies on science. Unfortunately this does not sit well with groups that decry science. Thus the struggle continues.

Post Modernity attempts to be fair to everyone. It is doomed to failure though because some will position themself diametrically opposed to others. Even a null position will be fought against by some. Further still over time those that wish to impose their will upon other people will learn to usurp Post Moderns methodology and recast themself as the oppressed individual. They will position their hatred as a cultural value that needs to be protected. They will spin anything that shows their values as false to be oppressive. And Post Modern ethoes will be incapable of dealing with this because it can only maintain stasis. It cannot support any progress towards a truth that denies anothers beliefs.

Thus we find ourselves in this situation where we can with a relative degree of certainty determine when an individual arises from a biological process. This enables us to use abortion as a suitable recourse to enable a woman to have more control of her body. Yet this is opposed by a group that do not pay heed to this body of knowledge accumulated in the name of science. They have learned to game the system and posit themself as the oppressed. And the system is in a quandry as how to respond.

[outinforce]

173. I Don't Understand

Az, when you say, "The antichoice crowd depends on an appeal to authority.", I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying.

What "authority" are you referring to, exactly?

And when you say that "Society has to deal with matters in less emotional ways. Thus it relies on science.", aren't you also suggesting that "society" is depending upon some "authoritative" standard?

I'm just really confused here, and I hope you can help me out.

I also am fascinated by your discussion of post-modernity. It intriques me to hear you say, "Post Modernity attempts to be fair to everyone.", and that "It cannot support any progress towards a truth that denies anothers beliefs.".

But, in the example you cite, concerning rock-kickers, isn't a post-modern society which you tell you, a person who beleives that kicking rocks is the worst offense against anything in the universe, that your beleive is unimportant or insignificant, or silly, then isn't that society, in effect, embodying a "truth" that denies your beliefs?

[Jane Roe]

175. The main authority I look to . . .

is Rene Descartes. Does he count as a theologian or a scientist in your view?

If I understand you correctly, if Descartes is a scientist that makes me prochoice, but if he is a theologian that makes me antichoice.

[loyalsister]

137. If you read it VERY simplisticly maybe

The idea is that there are times when a woman is in a situation where continuing a pregnancy creates a situation that is worse than an abortion possibly could be. The fact that this is possible leads reasonable people to the logical conclusion that the decision should be hers.

[Jane Roe]

139. You failed to mention adoption

But this alternative would also solve (from the zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/child's perspective) the problems you have cited.

In fact, if it is the zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/child's interests we are trying to protect, then I submit that the zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/child would prefer adoption to abortion.

What I am saying is that abortion may be in the pregnant woman's interests, but don't tell me that it is in the zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/child's interests.

[LeahMira]

145. When they speak for themselves...

In fact, if it is the zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/child's interests we are trying to protect, then I submit that the zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/child would prefer adoption to abortion.


And you have been told that about a third of them would not prefer adoption to abortion. I believe I even gave you the reference.

[Jane Roe]

147. Not sure what you mean

Are saying that for the first third of this development, there is not sufficient development that a preference can be formed by the entity?

Or are you saying that 33% of people who had difficult childhoods wish they had been aborted?

I can see ignoring the best interests of the zygote because it is too underdeveloped to be accomodated at the expense of a more developed person. However, I do not kid myself into thinking that it is in the zygote's own best interests to be aborted.

[Az]

148. Interests

Zygotes do not have interests. Just as a rock does not have an interest. You seem to be either trying to extend rights to something that is not a human being or you are trying to imply the potential human argument. Could you please specify what sort of interests a zygote has and what you are basing this claim on.

[Jane Roe]

150. Why do you define interests so narrowly?

I think anything that exists can have interests. The thing may not be aware of its interests, but it has them. Also, I think things can happen for or against the interests of people who don't exist yet. For example, it would probably be in my grandchildren's best interests if I won the lottery.

The thing with the abortion debate isn't that we don't know what the various present and future players interests are. Rather it is that we have to define what legitimate intersts the state has in safeguarding the interests of the various present and potential future people inviolved. As we all seem to agree, present people can and should be protected a lot more than potential future people, and under Roe v wade this is exactly what happens.

In a more general sense, states often circumscribe our freedom and spend our money in order to benefit future generations that don't exist yet. This is mostly what environmental law is about, for instance.

On edit: I hope somebody still sees fit to answer the question I raised in post #147

[outinforce]

155. Not An Answer, But A Question....

"I can see ignoring the best interests of the zygote because it is too underdeveloped to be accomodated at the expense of a more developed person."

I think I hear you suggesting that the interests of a "more developed" person should take precedence over those of a "less developed" person.

I want to understand what you are saying here.

I do not hear you saying that the best interests of a zygote can be ignore because it is not yet a person. Rather, I hear you saying that the best interests of a zygote can be ignored -- at least with regard to its mother -- because, although the zygote is a person, the mother is a more developed person.

If I have stated your thought correctly, then couldn't that also mean that the best interests of a 4-year-old child could be ignored (at least with regard to its parents) because its parents are "more developed persons"? Surely an adult in the prime of her/his life is a more developed person than a 4-year-old child. And if the best interests of such a child could only be accomodated (as in most cases, they likely are) "at the expense of" its parents, then wouldn't that suggest that the best interests of the child could be ignored?

[loyalsister]

151. Adoption is irrelevant

in this case because the approval of the father is necessary. The point is this is a woman who wants to prevent a man from having ANY legal rights to spend time with a child. If she gives birth he has them, and he can block adoption.

[Jane Roe]

153. Sounds like we should fix the adoption laws . . .

instead of taking a "terminate'em all and let God sort'em out" stance here.

Also: what if the pregnant woman falsely accuses the father of child porn or abuse. This happens, you know. Some people think it happens more often than real abuse. In this case, it seems like it would be in the z/e/f/i/c's interest to be born and then run off with the father. Again, I am not saying that the z/e/f/i/c's interest is always paramount in this situation, but let's not kid ourselves about what the z/e/f/i/c's interests really are.

On edit: If you really follow your logic, then it would seem that abortion is the answer to lots of other issues, too: war, famine, pollution, energy crisis, etc, etc. If we just abort all the zygotes then they will never have to deal with all these unpleasantnesses. I am so glad the Democratic Party did not think that way back when *I* was a zygote.

[loyalsister]

156. what if what if?

Please spare us the drama. I have never heard such simple minded tripe as that that comes from anti-choicers. Women are hideously ashamed of being abused. The dynamic is very complicated, and so not a situation to bring a child into. I know someone who was in a situation I described. She would have felt guilty having a baby with an abusive man. He beat her up regularly, she knew the potential was there. It took her a very long time to finally leave him, because he was so controlling. She didn't want to be around her friends or family because she was ashamed.
My logic is that some people think it's immoral to actually create situations where they know there is a good chance a child will be abused. What that has to do with the extraneous list you named, I haven't a clue. It actually seems like a no brainer- I've even heard as much from some people who are personally morally opposed to abortion personally.

[iverglas]

159. thar he blows ... again

Sounds like we should fix the adoption laws . . .
instead of taking a "terminate'em all and let God sort'em out" stance here.

And once again, I shall purse my lips sanctimoniously and agree with you.

I'm afraid I won't be able to keep myself from asking, though, whether you expect your supply of straw to run out before spring.

If you keep making these straw-person arguments, I'm afraid you might.

Did anyone HERE (your word) take a "terminate 'em all and let god sort 'em out stance"?

Can you point me to whoever did, and the words in which s/he did it?


So, with the erection of your little straw fella, what we have is a false dichotomy, might you agree?

"Fix the adoption laws" *OR* "terminate 'em all".

Hmm. How about "fix the adoption laws if we determine that they need fixing" *AND* "continue to allow women to make the decisions that they believe to be in their own best interests and the interests of anyone else whom they choose to consider".

Gosh, that sounds good to me. How about you????


Also: what if the pregnant woman falsely accuses the father of child porn or abuse. This happens, you know.

I give up: what if?

Should she be prevented from terminating her pregnancy?

THAT, you know, is the subject of the discussion.


In this case, it seems like it would be in the z/e/f/i/c's interest to be born and then run off with the father.

Ah -- so you DO think that the woman should be prevented from terminating her pregnancy??

(Forgive me if it sounds like certain patterns of "argument" are rubbing off on me; let's just say I do it for effect and demonstration purposes.)

I'm just damned if I can figure out how anyone's interest in living (the result of "being born") could EVER be outweighed by ANYONE else's interest in ANYTHING. Except someone's interest in not being killed, I guess. I mean, we just wouldn't let your interest in living outweigh my interest in not being eaten.

But sigh, no, we're still playing the silly game of pretending that a z/e/f has interests. As you know perfectly well that it doesn't.


Again, I am not saying that the z/e/f/i/c's interest is always paramount in this situation, but let's not kid ourselves about what the z/e/f/i/c's interests really are.

Okay. They are non-existent. I promise not to kid myself about that if you promise to stop trying to kid me. Or whatever it is that you're doing. It can be just sooooo hard to tell, can't it? </sarcasm>

If you really follow your logic, then it would seem that abortion is the answer to lots of other issues, too: war, famine, pollution, energy crisis, etc, etc. If we just abort all the zygotes then they will never have to deal with all these unpleasantnesses.

Who knows, eh? But since the interests of the pregnant women in question have so far managed to outweigh whatever interest anyone might have in something that could only reasonably be achieved by compelling pregnant women to terminate their pregnancies, that just isn't something we need to think about, is it now?

I mean ... given that NO ONE here was talking about compelling pregnant women to terminate their pregnancies, and NO ONE here was suggesting that anyone's judgment but the pregnant woman's should be brought to bear on the question of whether terminating her pregnancy is the best way of solving whatever problems she perceives to exist.

If a pregnant woman decides that aborting her pregnancy is the best way she can contribute to solving the problems of "war, famine, pollution, energy crisis, etc, etc.", that's her business. After all, she's not interfering in whatever action *I* decide to take to solve those problems, so why would I want to interfere in whatever action *she* decides to take ... if I can't justify doing so?


I am so glad the Democratic Party did not think that way back when *I* was a zygote.

Yeah, eh? 'Cause if it had, your country would have been a fascist state. That's pretty much the only situation in which we would expect to see women being compelled to terminate their pregnancies without justification. Lucky thing nobody's proposed it HERE, ain't it? Sure makes for a fun diversion to consider though, I guess.

But hey -- what's the price of tea in China today? I don't think we can possibly address the issue of whether there is justification for interfering in women's exercise of their right to choose the outcome of their own pregnancies without considering that bit of info, and maybe insinuating that someone here has suggested a tax on tea ...


If you really follow your logic, then it would seem that abortion is the answer to lots of other issues, too ...

What kind of person would pretend that saying this was "follow"ing the logic of the person s/he was responding to?

I fear to think where we'd end up if we followed *that* logic.

Oh yeah. When public discourse accepts misrepresentation and appeal to emotion and prejudice, and ... what was that? oh yeah, demonization of opponents, as substitutes for transparency and the presentation of facts and argument ... I know exactly where that leads.

.

[iverglas]

152. the only ones

... "pressuring women" to do anything ... well, it ain't the pro-choice movement, my sweet.

Regardless of the level of legality of abortion, I don't think abortion should be a large component of society's solution to child porn or spousal abuse.

Did someone say it should be??

On reading the post to which you replied, *I* had no difficulty whatsoever in understanding that the poster thought that a woman's decision to have an abortion might be a perfectly good solution to HER problems, or perhaps more accurately, a way of PREVENTING problems that she perceived would result from having a child.

How on earth anyone could think it relevant to admonish against using abortion as "society's solution to child porn or spousal abuse", in response to that idea, well I just don't know.


There should be more positive solutions and we should avoid pressuring women to have abortions to fight these problems.

Allow me to purse my lips sanctimoniously and agree with you. Will you agree with me that there should be more positive solutions to traffic accidents than the eating of bugs, and we should avoid pressuring people to eat bugs to prevent traffic accidents? I mean, just in case anyone ever got pressured to eat bugs in order to prevent traffic accidents, we wouldn't want to have not come out against it, would we?

If anyone were actually heard to say that abortion was a way of fighting the problems of child pornography and spousal abuse, well, I'd sure be looking for his/her real agenda, or inquiring where s/he might have left his/her straightjacket.


In our non-utopia, and in our societies that recognize individuals' right to solve their own problems as they see fit (where we have no justification for interfering), many of us consider it indecent to tell them that their solutions are bad. It's just not our business to call their decisions good or bad.

If we could have offered them a solution that they would have preferred but we didn't, without good reason, then that would be indecent on our part too.

The fact is that we can't always offer people the solutions to their problems that they would prefer to choose. And then they get to make their own decision as to what solution is best, for themselves and anyone else they may wish to consider.

And I just don't know what kind o' demogogue would call that "pressuring" anyone to do anything. So of course I'm sure that you didn't do that.

.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

157. How come a thread on abortion attracts the same bunch of DUers?

all of them anti-choice, all of them men, all of them with the same tired arguments?

:boring:

[outinforce]

158. I Dunno, RationalRose...Perhaps

I'm not sure why a thread on abortion attracts the same bunch of DUers.

Perhaps it is because we are exercising our right to choose.

And, I think if you will check out the regular posters to threads such as th is one, you will find that not all of us are men. Nor are all of us anti-choice.

And, if you really want to charcterize the expression of deeply-held beliefs, and the questions of people of good will who are seeking to understand the complexities and sensitivities of this issue which will not, despite the fervant wishes of some, simply go away, as "tired arguments", then you will find those arguments from men, women, and people on all sides of this issue.

If you have an issue with my exercising my freedom of choice concerning what threads I choose to post one, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you in a civil and respectful manner.

[iverglas]

160. and the other one blows

I'm not sure why a thread on abortion attracts the same bunch of DUers.
Perhaps it is because we are exercising our right to choose.

I just love this one!

"Why did you jump off the bridge?"
"Perhaps because I was exercising my right to choose."

Go figure, eh? Somehow, I just wouldn't think that was a smart answer. Dreadfully clever, but pretty dumb all the same.


If you have an issue with my exercising my freedom of choice concerning what threads I choose to post one, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you in a civil and respectful manner.

Maybe, someday, someone will succeed in explaining the difference between "choice" and "freedom of choice"/"right to choose" to our friend here.

If he could grasp it in this context, maybe he could even grasp it in the context of abortion.

Nobody said the slightest little thing about anyone's "right to choose" to post where they post blah blah.

Nobody had anything to say about anyone "exercising <his> freedom of choice" blah blah.

The question is the CHOICE itself. Not whether someone has or should have freedom of choice, or the right to choose -- but why the hell anyone would choose what s/he chose.

A perfectly good, and civil and respectful, question, by the way. Just like "why did you jump off the bridge?"

Whether "perhaps because I was exercising my freedom of choice" is a civil and respectful answer, to either question ... well, people of good will might disagree. I doubt it, though.

If I exercised my freedom of choice in respect of the speech I engage in to stand on streetcorners and bellow right-wing dogma, I'd expect that someone might ask me why I chose to do it. And, being a person of good will who answers questions civilly and respectfully, *I* would not say "perhaps because I was exercising my right to choose". I would actually answer the question.

And I am so glad to see how our outinforce has adopted my own choice of "people of good will" to characterize what we should all aim to be and hope for in our interlocutors. Maybe someone will now explain that concept to him, too.

.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

161. Right on the money, iverglas

"And I am so glad to see how our outinforce has adopted my own choice of "people of good will" to characterize what we should all aim to be and hope for in our interlocutors. Maybe someone will now explain that concept to him, too."

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jane Roe]

167. If you don't like an abortion thread

JUST DON'T READ ONE!

[Bridget Burke]

169. A chance for verbal swordplay.

They like to play word games & make pretty abstract arguments about something that will never affect them personally.

[Jane Roe]

170. I am the Lorax

I speak for the trees.

By the way: If somebody aborted a fetus you fathered, how do you know whether or not that would "affect" you? You are not a man so you got no clue about that.