Abortion compromise...what do you think?

[rmcrobertson]

In other words, as raedyn points out (and I shoulda looked up) we already have a perfectly-sound compromise, which involves EXACTLY the idea of increasing viability/increasing social concern that most of you are arguing for.

We already have that. So waddya want? My contentions are that a) the "concern," is often just code for, "I don't want women out from under men's control, because the poor dears can't make these tough intellectual and moral decisions very well;" b) the claims about "compromise," given the number of folks who make them and then, offhand, throw in the info that they're completely opposed to abortion, are really just tactics employed en route to a complete ban; c) the rational and moral thing to do is for guys to support women in their choices, making good solid contraceptive help and good solid child care available, as well as a better society, then just accept that men don't get to make this decision for women.

To me, this endless proliferation for "concerns," moral and otherwise, is just smokescreen. Guys don't want a world in which women are free, they want their religious beliefs forced on everybody, they don't wanna pony up for the costs of choice, and they don't wanna confront the reality of the world we live in or work on changing it.

Endless nagging and presuming to the moral high ground is both easier, and cheaper.

Hell, look at our current Administration's "faith-based," looniness about the sex ed that we know for a FACT would cut unwanted pregnancies drastically if we actually had the brains to do it--yes, and pass out condoms, too.

Safe, legal and rare, gentlemen. Safe, legal and rare. There's your compromise. But that takes time and effort, and it seems to be a lot easier to theorize against women.

Hell, you think THAT post was annoying--yell at me about it, and I promise to go off on Marx's "The Holy Family," and the connection between the denial of reproductive services to women and the maintenance of the traditional family as a unit of economic/ideological production under capitalism.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Just riddle me this simple question, to anyone who cares to take it up.

If someone should decide that they want to shoot a man who's walking down the street, we say that they can't do that because that man, as a person, has a right to life.

If some doctor should decide that they want to kill off one woman because her vital organs could save the lives of two other people who will otherwise die, we tell the doctor no, that woman, as a person, has a right to live.

Now, both the shooter and the doctor think that the man and the woman, respectively, for whatever selfish or morbidly noble reasons, deserve to die, but society says that they're wrong and it's not their choice.

Now for the question: how is it that, in the case of unborn children, the question of whether they're a person is suddenly irrelevent and it's entirely up to the mother, and not society, whether the unborn child gets to live? Society obviously was justified in imposing the right to life with the first two murderees (sorry, victims didnt sound right and I can't think of a neutral term); why not unborn children?

Some possible answers I've thought of are that,

1. hey, society just plain hasn't transfered that right to them, so they don't have that right. Well, that doesn't seem satisfying, since

(a)black people, once upon a time, didn't have any rights in the US either, but it's been since decided that they deserve equal rights, so the lack of proscribed rights doesn't bar them ever being created, and

(b) whether or not society should convey those rights to unborn children is the very question at bar.

2. The mother has a closer and more personal relationship with the unborn child than either the father or society at large. Besides, forcing the mother to raise the child on her own is far too unjust.

(a) Okay, but close and intimate relationships don't create an absolute bar against legal sanctions. Mothers get in trouble for beating their born children; we must now ask why aborting the unborn one should be outside the law's jurisdiction.

(b) Well, adoption is available for mothers who don't want to raise the children. There is the situation where the mother's health is threatened by labor or pregnancy, but that's a situation where it's one life or the other. As for making the mother go through pregnancy and labor just to send the kid to be adopted, this once again brings us back to the question of whether the unborn child deserves a right to life, because if they do, then is 9 months of admittedly excrutiating physical discomfort too much to ask of a woman in order to preserve a life?

So, that's my reasoning as of now. Real long post for a Quick Reply, but oh well. Too much to delete now.

(a)

 

[michaeledward]

Just riddle me this simple question, to anyone who cares to take it up.

If someone should decide that they want to shoot a man who's walking down the street, we say that they can't do that because that man, as a person, has a right to life.

If some doctor should decide that they want to kill off one woman because her vital organs could save the lives of two other people who will otherwise die, we tell the doctor no, that woman, as a person, has a right to live.

Now, both the shooter and the doctor think that the man and the woman, respectively, for whatever selfish or morbidly noble reasons, deserve to die, but society says that they're wrong and it's not their choice.

Now for the question: how is it that, in the case of unborn children, the question of whether they're a person is suddenly irrelevent and it's entirely up to the mother, and not society, whether the unborn child gets to live? Society obviously was justified in imposing the right to life with the first two murderees (sorry, victims didnt sound right and I can't think of a neutral term); why not unborn children?

Some possible answers I've thought of are that,

1. hey, society just plain hasn't transfered that right to them, so they don't have that right. Well, that doesn't seem satisfying, since

(a)black people, once upon a time, didn't have any rights in the US either, but it's been since decided that they deserve equal rights, so the lack of proscribed rights doesn't bar them ever being created, and

(b) whether or not society should convey those rights to unborn children is the very question at bar.

2. The mother has a closer and more personal relationship with the unborn child than either the father or society at large. Besides, forcing the mother to raise the child on her own is far too unjust.

(a) Okay, but close and intimate relationships don't create an absolute bar against legal sanctions. Mothers get in trouble for beating their born children; we must now ask why aborting the unborn one should be outside the law's jurisdiction.

(b) Well, adoption is available for mothers who don't want to raise the children. There is the situation where the mother's health is threatened by labor or pregnancy, but that's a situation where it's one life or the other. As for making the mother go through pregnancy and labor just to send the kid to be adopted, this once again brings us back to the question of whether the unborn child deserves a right to life, because if they do, then is 9 months of admittedly excrutiating physical discomfort too much to ask of a woman in order to preserve a life?

So, that's my reasoning as of now. Real long post for a Quick Reply, but oh well. Too much to delete now.

(a)

Is there a question in there somewhere? It looks like a bunch of opinions. There is no such thing as 'unborn children'. It is a fetus.

 

[pete]

Just because the majority of primary caregivers in this country - and around the world - are women, that's a stereotype? I think KT made it clear she was making a generalization.

ms.mouse, let me be even more clear: a generalization made in reference to a particular group of people is a stereotype. ie, men do not care for a child when it becomes ill. this is similar to saying blacks are generally lazy, italians are generally mob-connected, and the jews have all the money. ok.

no irish need apply,
pete

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Yes, there was a question in there, if you bothered to read it. But if you'd like a simpler format, here's the question...

"There is no such thing as 'unborn children'. It is a fetus."

WHY NOT? What's the difference?

What the hell is the difference between a person walking down the street who someone wants to shoot for the fun of it, a woman in the hospital who a doctor is considering killing in order to save two other lives, and an as-yet-unborn kid who the mother wants to abort for whatever reasons? Why would the first two be deserving of a right to life, while the last one isnt? And before you ask, no, nobody mentioned the hypothetical street-walker or woman before, I came up with them on my own.

That was the question. The rest of the post was just a few extra stuff I'd thought of to throw in there that I thought were relevent.

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, there was a question in there, if you bothered to read it. But if you'd like a simpler format, here's the question...

"There is no such thing as 'unborn children'. It is a fetus."

WHY NOT? What's the difference?

What the hell is the difference between a person walking down the street who someone wants to shoot for the fun of it, a woman in the hospital who a doctor is considering killing in order to save two other lives, and an as-yet-unborn kid who the mother wants to abort for whatever reasons? Why would the first two be deserving of a right to life, while the last one isnt? And before you ask, no, nobody mentioned the hypothetical street-walker or woman before, I came up with them on my own.

That was the question. The rest of the post was just a few extra stuff I'd thought of to throw in there that I thought were relevent.

The difference is science.

the group of cells that create the fetus, specifically a human sperm and a human egg cell, need the support of the female host. Without the femaile host, the cells can not continue to divide and evolve.

That is why there is a difference between a child and fetus.

 

[rmcrobertson]

As a rule, the proliferation of partly-baked hypotheses and claims of repression directed against men (yes, we are so very cruelly-treated by those...those FEMINISTS and LESBIANS) are exactly the sort of smokescreen I was talking about.

We already have a compromise. Why do some of you guys find compromise intolerable, while insisting that compromise is essential?

 

[Phoenix44]

Here's what I don't understand: How come so many anti-choice people are also anti-contraception?

 

[rmcrobertson]

I smell a rhetorical question, which I'm just stupid enough to just answer: because if women can control their own bodies, men can't control them.

Fear of the Other, plus the extent to which our economy and our culture rests on the submission of women, don't ya know.

 

[Phoenix44]

Well, maybe, because there has to be SOME reason OTHER THAN professed respect for human life. Because if you believe abortion = murder, then you have to have an ulterior motive if you are also anti-contraception.

 

[raedyn]

well, duh.

It is about control. But the people behind these ideas genuinely believe they are doing it for all the 'right' reasons. I don't have to agree with them, but that is where they are coming from.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

As a rule, the proliferation of partly-baked hypotheses and claims of repression directed against men (yes, we are so very cruelly-treated by those...those FEMINISTS and LESBIANS) are exactly the sort of smokescreen I was talking about.

We already have a compromise. Why do some of you guys find compromise intolerable, while insisting that compromise is essential?

Sure hope none of this was addressed at me, 'cause I haven't said anything of the sort. It would help if you'd specify which members you're referring to with ambiguous phrases like "you guys", especially when accusing them of masogeny(sp).

the group of cells that create the fetus, specifically a human sperm and a human egg cell, need the support of the female host. Without the femaile host, the cells can not continue to divide and evolve.

So because the fetus requires the support of the mother to survive, it therefore isn't human? Sounds a bit arbitrary to me. Why is this relevent?

 

[raedyn]

You are registered as a citizen at birth. Until then, a fetus is an event in a woman's medical file.

I'm not trying to make a big statement with that. Just something I was thinking about. I think that says something about when we confer 'personhood' status.

 

[michaeledward]

So because the fetus requires the support of the mother to survive, it therefore isn't human? Sounds a bit arbitrary to me. Why is this relevent?

I didn't say it wasn't human. You asked What's the difference between the 'unborn child' and a 'fetus'. The dependancy of the fetus on the host woman for all bodily functions is what makes it different. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

If I extract a human egg cell, and combine it in a petri dish with a human sperm cell, an ebryo is created. If we leave that embryo alone, and take not further actions on it, does anyone know how long those cells will continue to be 'life'? An hour? A day? Two weeks? Are these cells in a petri dish also considered to be an 'Unborn Child'? That is exactly what it is, isn't it?

Further, your examples ask what is the difference between a "person walking down the street ..." I point out that a fetus can not ever be "walking down the street".

 

[RandomPhantom700]

This is pointless. My apologies for taking up room on the thread. Continue.

 

[loki09789]

We already have that. So waddya want? My contentions are that a) the "concern," is often just code for, "I don't want women out from under men's control, because the poor dears can't make these tough intellectual and moral decisions very well;" b) the claims about "compromise," given the number of folks who make them and then, offhand, throw in the info that they're completely opposed to abortion, are really just tactics employed en route to a complete ban; c) the rational and moral thing to do is for guys to support women in their choices, making good solid contraceptive help and good solid child care available, as well as a better society, then just accept that men don't get to make this decision for women.

To me, this endless proliferation for "concerns," moral and otherwise, is just smokescreen. Guys don't want a world in which women are free, they want their religious beliefs forced on everybody, they don't wanna pony up for the costs of choice, and they don't wanna confront the reality of the world we live in or work on changing it.

Endless nagging and presuming to the moral high ground is both easier, and cheaper.

Hell, look at our current Administration's "faith-based," looniness about the sex ed that we know for a FACT would cut unwanted pregnancies drastically if we actually had the brains to do it--yes, and pass out condoms, too.

Safe, legal and rare, gentlemen. Safe, legal and rare. There's your compromise. But that takes time and effort, and it seems to be a lot easier to theorize against women.

Hell, you think THAT post was annoying--yell at me about it, and I promise to go off on Marx's "The Holy Family," and the connection between the denial of reproductive services to women and the maintenance of the traditional family as a unit of economic/ideological production under capitalism.

Gee this looks like long winded "men are evil" post to me

 

[raedyn]

I ask everyone to pause a moment and consider if we are allowing this to degenerate.

 

[loki09789]

I ask everyone to pause a moment and consider if we are allowing this to degenerate.

Sorry, trying to inject some levity (yes barbed but levity all the same).

Maybe it would be time for a summary of what has been said from the thread starter to get it back on track?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Gee this looks like long winded "men are evil" post to me

but I don't think men are evil, and I love robertson's post.

So because the fetus requires the support of the mother to survive, it therefore isn't human? Sounds a bit arbitrary to me. Why is this relevent?

It is tissue that is genetically human. Humans are a species designation. When is it an individual person? I would say when it (can or does) survive outside of the mother's body.

If I extract a human egg cell, and combine it in a petri dish with a human sperm cell, an ebryo is created. If we leave that embryo alone, and take not further actions on it, does anyone know how long those cells will continue to be 'life'? An hour? A day? Two weeks? Are these cells in a petri dish also considered to be an 'Unborn Child'? That is exactly what it is, isn't it?

Good question - I'll have to find out. A zygote is what is created at fertilization - essentially a dividing ball of cells that does not increase in mass at all for several days (cleavage). The zygote, when in the fallopian tubes, is brushed into the upper body of the uterus by the uterine walls, and will implant about 7 days after fertilization. At this point, it is essentially a hollow ball, with a cluster of cells (stem cells) on one end. Then it begins to invade the mother's uterine wall lining (endometrium) - literally digesting her tissue.

So my guess would be that, given the proper environment, you could get development into a week-old zygote (ball of omnipotent cells), and then development would halt.

I'm curious though - I'll have to check out IVF sites when I have a mo.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Random,

I understand your frustration. You must remember that this group loves a good fight, whether it's in the sparring ring or online.

I must disagree with your characterization of the doctor feeling the woman 'deserves' to die. As to the murder of a man walking down the street, if it is a random (sorry - too good to pass up) event which leads to his murder... I just don't think you can say that anyone *deserves* to die. Consider all of the underlying circumstances, and perhaps that woman doesn't have a viable life left to her, therefore her organs would best serve saving two lives. It's an untenable situation.