Another writer has stated that on the issue of abortion a religion, (specifically the Roman Catholic Church), is attempting to impose its point of view on others who may or may not believe in that faith. That’s an interesting allegation, but alleging it doesn’t make it so. It is a central teaching in the Roman Catholic Church that life begins at conception. It is just as central to that teaching that abortion for the purpose of “family planning”, or for contraceptive purposes, is morally repugnant. I understand the desperation argument made elsewhere, that a pregnant woman may undergo an abortion as an act of desperation. That her motive wasn’t malicious doesn’t make it right.
I am mindful of the idea that having control of one’s future is an important tenant of liberty, and I am not making the argument that a mother should be compelled to carry a child to term because somehow sex is dirty. That is beside the point, and its not the point behind the Church’s argument against abortion either. (There may be some churches who still believe that, but this is not modern Catholic doctrine). The discussion is about protecting an innocent life. The Church’s opposition to abortion is based on the taking of an innocent life, and not on sex being dirty or something avoided.
I do agree that more education should be provided. This education must include something other than abstinence education, and on that issue, even the Church has started to change. I wonder if everyone realizes the enormity of the change it was when H.H. Benedict XVI stated that if a condom was used to prevent the spread of disease, then it was an acceptable use? Eventually, I think that the Church will realize that preventing the pregnancy is a far less serious matter than terminating a pregnancy. The Church has not gotten there yet, but change happens very slowly in an institution which has been around for nearly 2,000 years.
The mission of the Church is to teach its members, and anyone else who will listen, the moral beliefs of the Church that are held in common. This has included in the past protesting to extend civil rights to all in the United States, (where priests stood side by side with rabbis and protestant ministers), protesting the treatment of prisoners, (both political and those convicted of real crimes), as well as seeking to bring the rights of those who have not yet born under the protection of US law. The Church is involved on a daily basis with advocating the concept that all life is sacred, and that by aborting, one ignores that central tenant of faith.
Central to Christian (not just Roman Catholic) belief is in the belief in the existence of a soul. The existence of a soul cannot be scientifically proven. Some writers earlier seemed to indicate that this means that they does not believe in its existence because it can’t be scientifically proven. I somehow doubt that is what was meant, but perhaps I am in error. Regardless, the vast majority of the faiths in the Abrahamic tradition DO believe in the existence of a soul. In the case of abortion, it is not the soul of the unborn that is being attacked; however, it is the soul of the woman who chooses to intentionally and unjustifiably take that life, before it even emerges from the womb, that is at peril.
In some cultures in the past, a soul did not join a baby until well after birth. This meant that from the standpoint of some, that a baby could be and was killed, even after birth, for a variety of reasons. Today, I think even the most ardent pro-abortion adherent would find that to be distasteful. In some countries today, women are ordered to undergo abortions, some in the very late third trimester, if the pregnancy is not authorized. I think it safe to say that all pro-abortion adherents would find this equally distasteful.
In the United States, if a person intentionally injures a pregnant woman to the extent that she spontaneously aborts, in many states that is a crime beyond that of battery. (In a few, its murder). That is because the law presumes that the woman did not consent to the battery upon her person which caused the spontaneous abortion. The human life inside her has no choice in the matter.
We also have, in the United States, prosecuted women who have harmed themselves to the extent that their babies are stillborn or are incredibly injured, many to the point where they do not live long. Having abortion legal, especially when it is for means of birth control, is no different than the woman intentionally harming the life inside her. In the cases where she is doing it for purposes of “family planning”, she is actually doing it for her own needs, not the needs of the life inside her. When she is aborting the life inside her because pregnancy is not convenient, or that the pregnancy will be unpleasant or that it will be stressful in some way that is a moral outrage and grave sin.
Of course pregnancy is inconvenient. I am certain that all women would wish that it were not so, but it is. Pregnancy is unpleasant. Its unfortunate, but it is. However these are sacrifices that women chose to make when they become pregnant. Pregnancy is not an affliction or disease, except as defined by law. However, pregnancy is only defined as a disease by law so that insurance will pay the costs associated with it. (Insurance pays for injuries or afflictions, not naturally occurring events, go figure… but a tirade about the evils of the health insurance industry is for another forum, at a different time). Pregnancy is not truly a affliction in the traditional sense nor is it an injury. It is time that we stop treating it like an affliction or injury that is to be treated, and more of the celebration of the bringing of another life into the world.
My dear ToE, it is good to see you here writing, contributing to the diversity of opinion on Penigma.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote about my claim regarding the Roman Catholic church "is attempting to impose its point of view on others who may or may not believe in that faith. That’s an interesting allegation, but alleging it doesn’t make it so."
Altering the public health policy relating to reproductive issues such as contraception AND abortion,so as to conform to the BELIEF, not FACT, of any faith (there are a few others, besides Roman Catholicism) such that other people who belief differently no longer have the choice to exercise THEIR beliefs is NOT simply anallegation. That the Roman Catholic church has attempted to cause public health policy to conform to their views is fact. The view of the Roman Catholic church is not the view of the majority of Americans, yet it is becoming the public policy forced on those who are not Roman Catholic.
The proper distinction, the only distinction or determination which should be applied to reproductive health matters are factual not the specific spiritual beliefs of any segment of religion.
ToE writes: "Of course pregnancy is inconvenient. I am certain that all women would wish that it were not so, but it is. Pregnancy is unpleasant. Its unfortunate, but it is."
To women who do not have health insurance or health care, pregnancy, especially pregnancy without prenatal care, is a risk that goes far beyond inconvenience. It requires a woman's body - her heart, pancreas, lungs, liver, kidneys, digestive function, blood supply, bladder and entire reproductive system to be subordinate to supporting the growth of that pregnancy. Her teeth and bones are depleted as the source for calcium, if she lacks adequate additional sources of calcium and phosphorus. The immune system is highly stressed. This statement by ToE, even in the best situation of care, drastically understates the experience. And sadly, millions of Americans have no such optimal supportive medical care, in too many cases, no care whatsoever. And conservatives are restricting that more, not expanding care.
ToE writes:"Pregnancy is not truly a[n] affliction in the traditional sense nor is it an injury. It is time that we stop treating it like an affliction or injury that is to be treated,"
Pregnancy is a condition, a condition which in far too many cases IS an affliction, and causes injuries AND illnesses to women:http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/PregComplications.htm
-Depression
-Obesity
-Gestational Diabetes
-Maternal Morbidity
-Pregnancy-related Death
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death
"The major causes of maternal death are bacterial infection, variants of gestational hypertension including pre-eclampsia and HELLP syndrome, obstetrical hemorrhage, ectopic pregnancy, puerperal sepsis (childbed fever), amniotic fluid embolism, uterine rupture and complications of unsafe or unsanitary abortions. Lesser known causes of maternal death include renal failure, cardiac failure, and hyperemesis gravidarum.
As stated by the 2005 World Health Organization report "Make Every Mother and Child Count" they are: severe bleeding/hemorrhage (25%), infections (13%), unsafe abortions (13%), eclampsia (12%), obstructed labour (8%), other direct causes (8%), and indirect causes (20%). Indirect causes such as malaria, anaemia,[6] HIV/AIDS and cardiovascular disease, complicate pregnancy or are aggravated by it."
The argument boils down to you and others believe something as a matter of faith, not fact. A majority of people, certainly a majority of women, do not shre that belief.
In this country, fact not faith, determines how we make our laws, and how we make our policy. Fact should be theonly criteria for our government and women relating to public policy on reproductive health care.
Or at least it is supposed to work that way. What you express here ToE is very eloquent opinion, but still only opinoin, not fact.
The author of the Declaration of Independence, co-author of our Constitution wrote:
ReplyDelete"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802). "
and
"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle (letter to Robert Rush, 1813).
and
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800)."
and, conclusively:
"Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all religions agree (for all forbid us to steal, murder, plunder, or bear false witness), and that we should not intermeddle with the particular dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are totally unconnected with morality (Letter to J. Fishback, 1809).
Thank you, Thomas Jefferson.
I think this post by ToE and the reply by DG point out the fact which makes such issues so hard to bring to closure.
ReplyDeleteBoth have very valid points to make, both speak from a position of deeply moral and ethical conviction - both see the point of the other as well.
Yet, where can the common ground be found?
As DG says, the existence of life, according to law and provable by science and accepted as standard around the world, depends upon the existence of meaningful brain activity (and a hearbeat I believe). We accept as fact those who lack such activity are clinically and legally dead, we allow life sustaining systems to be deactivated.
In contrast, we ask our children, we expect of ourselves, that we intercede when innocent life will be lost. We do not sit by idley while someone puts a baby to death simply because they "believe" it isn't a life. Clearly allowing such conduct is beyond morally repugnant.
The point at issue, is also the point of resolution. Belief in life beginning at conception is the belief of a set of religions. It is widely held, but it is not universal, nor even close. To allow law to be dicated by belief rather than observable, sustainable fact, is to demean and discard the beliefs of atheists, of Muslims, of Jews, and of a large segment of our own christian citizenry. We cannot point to a "fact" and say "this is life because of X, where as this isn't because of a lack of X" consequently, we cannot ask atheists (or many, many others) to accept our faith as a point of law or conduct. It would be no less tyranny than making us accept a habib or burkha as being required to maintain purity.
So, the ultimate question is (and solution is) we have to find common ground to agree upon as to where life begins. Clearly there isn't substantiable evidence of brain activity at conception. Even more, there is substantial theological evidence around the fact that there isn't a biblical foundation to support the argument that life begins at conception. It is in part why there is not unanimity among christians on this point.
A good friend of mine said, brilliantly in my opinion, that this issue rests upon where we are repelled and disgusted at the idea of terminating a pregnancy, in short, where do we commonly and JUSTLY agree life begins in utero. Clearly it isn't at birth, equally clearly, for the majority of us (or at least enough that to act otherwise is to create the tyranny of the majority based on faith), equally clearly, we do not accept it starts at conception.
So, ToE, DG, where can you agree it begins? I know DG would never harm an innocent babe (or life), would never condone partial birth abortion. AS well, I know TOE feels deeply that requiring a 14 year old to carry to term the offspring of a rape is morally repugnant.
So, where? That's the fundamental question. All else, all other argument stems from it. Where???
As an aside, this EXACT point, this exact idea is the reason I started a blog in the first place. I believe that my friends and those whom I interact with CAN in fact find a way to discuss these sorts of issues reasonably. When I get people in a room they find common ground - they find they agree 99% and disagree 1%. They find they each are moral, and from it real change can occur when we put down our swords (verbal) and pick-up our plow-shares.
ReplyDelete"Every woman’s hormone levels change throughout her life for a variety of reasons, and hormone changes can lead to changes in the breasts. Hormone changes that occur during pregnancy may influence a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer later in life." National Cancer Institute
ReplyDeleteDG,
ReplyDeleteTo me, your point about the health impact is at best tangential. The impact on the mother doesn't mitigate the idea of causing a death wrongfully which the prevention of motivates the pro-life crowd.
In short, while the word "inconvenient" may be an understatement, perhaps even a gross one, it's not the focus of the argument or the issue. The health impact is considerable, without doubt, but clearly that has to be weighed against the potential destruction of life, and on balance, destroying life (shoudl we agree that it's life) must be prevented.
So, I ask again, where do you feel life begins? Date, concept, time? Where?
Roe V.Wade settled that question Pen, at viability, post 2nd trimester.
ReplyDeleteI take issue that pregnancy is merely an inconvenience. What ToE wrote inacurately dismisses the very real risks of pregnancy to women.
We begin to find common ground by focusing on fact, and by respecting EVERY individual's right to make their own decision about what they believe spiritually. While each of us has the right to express our own opinions about ANY issue, we do not have the right to harass those who disagree with us with hyperbole. We have the right for example to state "I BELIEVE that abortion is a mortal sin that could result in a person going to hell"; stating that anyone who disagrees IS going to hell, or calling women Murderers for having an abortion (which I note ToE did NOT, thank you ToE) - for which there is no proof, only belief - crosses a line that amounts to harrassment and attack.
Any woman, any PERSON, who reads Penigma should be treated with respect, not slurs and insults. That includes pro-choice readers AND those who disagree.
But so long as religions - including different segments of Christianity - and those who are atheists disagree about abortion, women should have the choice to decide that issue for themselves without interference.
Because there is NOTHING about ToE's belief which cancels out the right to belief of others.
I don't think we will come to common ground until those who are anti-choice recongize that they hold, albeith strongly, an OPINION, and that it is NOT FACT. And that so long as it is ONLY opinion, no mater how intense, there is a line that they should not cross respecting other people's right to a different opinion, and to act on their own beliefs.
When, and only WHEN they have proof, when they have fact, informing that opinion, not only faith, then is the time and place to address restrictions if appropriate of women's control over their bodies.
Women choose sex without choosing pregnancy. It is a false argument to conflate the two.
Life begins at conception. This is at this point an immutable point. Luke 1:39-44 "In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.
ReplyDeleteAnd when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy."
There are other passages, from the Old Testament, that indicate that God knew that life existed, from the moment of conception onward.
DG has stated that our public policy is dictated by fact, not morals. Rubbish.
If that were true, the Republican allegations about death panels might as well come true, because facts, and not moral requirements would mean that some people should be withheld care, or even euthanized. What? You say that's morally repugnant? But that's what the argument is... that we deal only with fact, not morals.
I am NOT, and I repeat NOT suggesting anything of the kind, of course. That would be just as much of an outrage as is abortion.
DG then made much ado about my use of the term inconvenience, and that pregnancy is inconvenient. I support providing pre-natal care to ALL expectant mothers, regardless of ability to pay. If a woman has a condition that her physician can detect, and tells her that the condition will cause her death prior to or during childbirth, then she should be allowed to decide what to do at that point, without further state intervention.
What I oppose, and what I think many, (but obviously not all here oppose), is abortion for convenience. The following is an example, but NOT the only scenario, by any means: (i.e. after a night out on the town, sleeping with 3 different men, a woman discovers 3 weeks later she is pregnant. She doesn't want a baby, so she goes and has an abortion). THAT act is an act of utter selfishness, an act of utter barbarity, and THAT is the type of behaviour to which I, and the Church as well, objects.
I don't support forcing a 14 year old rape victim to carry the pregnancy to term.
Our law in our society is not made by fact, its made by politics and by opinion. Our moral code affects our laws, and our moral code is ancient indeed. It includes aspects of religion, and of non-religious moral principles.
When my faith attempts to save the lives of the innocent, we do so because we believe that by doing so, we further our mission to God, to protect the sheep of His people.
Pen wrote "To me, your point about the health impact is at best tangential. The impact on the mother doesn't mitigate the idea of causing a death wrongfully which the prevention of motivates the pro-life crowd."
ReplyDeleteIt addresses directly an argument advanced by ToE that pregnancy is a mere imfortunate inconvenience, implying any woman who contemplates an abortion as selfish and shallow by implication, and by implication therefore denigrating that person's dissenting opinon. While that may not be the intent, it is the effect of that argument.
I agree with Pen, emphatically, that we need to have a definition which is based on proof and on fact, not on opinions or faith held by ANY one of us. That is where we find that common ground Pen writes about. Until that time, we must each of us respect the limitations of opinion and belief as distinct from fact and proof.
Let me close by emphasizing that I care very, very much about the sincerity and intensity of the emotions and the faith that motivates my friend ToE, and (Ttuck too!) to hold the views they do. I have tremendous respect and affection for both of them.
I hope they and our readers appreciate that I feel as strongly on behalf of women as they feel about their opinions.
I know DG well enough to know that she did not misunderstand my point, so perhaps I will have to try and explain it again.
ReplyDeleteScenario: Man and woman are married. They have sex, and the woman turns up pregnant. The woman doesn't want children at the moment. They have sufficient income to support a child. They have adequate health insurance. But, the woman decides to have an abortion, because she doesn't want to give up their current lifestyle. This is an example of selfish behaviour that is an abomination. If she undergoes the abortion, she will be guilty of taking an innocent life, without justification.
I did not, and DG knows it, state that ANY woman who contemplates an abortion does so because its inconvenient. I stated that an abortion done solely for the purpose of birth control, (albeit after the fact), or because the pregnancy is not convenient, or because the woman has had a bad hair day, or for any other reason not related to the woman's health (real, not just possible complications), or in cases of rape or incest, is morally repugnant.
The Church believes that by seeking to change public opinion against legalized abortion on demand, and especially not on a whim, and the policy of governments, that the Church is saving these innocent lives, and that by doing so, they are following their conscience in serving God.
Dog Gone quotes,
ReplyDeleteI contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).
It seems to me that the fundamental difference in opinion between you and TOE is whether or not religious beliefs should be a part of the democratic process. To support your claim that religion should not be made into public policy you used the above quote. As you probably know within that quote the words “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” is part of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. If I may be so bold to say you probably think this means there is a separation of church and state in the United States. You are right in theory. However, in practice this is very different. These words have been interpreted by much legal precedence to mean that simply the federal and state governments cannot establish a state church and that laws cannot be passed affecting religion UNLESS there is a purpose for the law other than infringing on such religion. (McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 & Employment Division v. Smith, 494, U.S. 872)
Since your argument that religion should not be involved in politics relies on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment this reasoning is inadequate. The First Amendment in its’ entirety states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is particularly relevant on this topic; one you seemed forget or were unaware of. In Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961) the majority opinion argues, "redress of grievances" is to be construed broadly: it includes not solely appeals by the public to the government for the redressing of a grievance in the traditional sense, but also, petitions on behalf of private interests seeking personal gain.” This part of the First Amendment and subsequent court rulings is what allows interest groups to attempt to influence legislation. Religious groups are well within their constitutional right to influence the government on anti-abortion laws. They should be applauded for being involved in the democratic process and using these methods to affect public policy.
Let me also add, again quite emphatically, that I am not prepared to stipulate that an unborn embryo has greater clamis to life than any woman on the basis of some specious claim to innocence. That again falls into a very contentious area of theology where there is no agreement.
ReplyDeleteAn ethical argument based on the recognized element of utility - an element which Jefferson mentioned in the quotes I provided - would argue for a greater value on the existing woman's life, if a choice has to be made. If ToE or one of our readers wishes to argue that the unborn embryo has a greater right than any woman who is pregnant, this is an argument which needs to be advanced by proof and fact, not belief or opinion.
I'm very unhappy with women always coming in last in abortion rights consideration.
There she goes again, with proof and fact. If DG had her way, we would truly have death panels. When we were no longer useful, and it cost more to keep us alive than we could contribute to society, then, by DG's logic, just pull the plug. DG must have been giving the Republicans their script.
ReplyDeleteDG apparently hasn't been reading what I have written, or if she has, she has not understood the writing. I will attempt to explain it better this time.
All human life is sacred. This includes unborn life. There are some, (albeit few) when another person can choose to end that life. One is when they are defending themselves or another from imminent danger of death themselves. In cases where carrying the pregnancy to term is likely to cause the death of the mother, then that is a justification for self-defense taking of a life. In cases of rape or incest, that again, is a valid reason.
What are NOT valid reasons are selfish reasons including that the mother simply does not want to be pregnant, that she can't be bothered with a child, etc. I suppose DG is correct. An unborn child is, biologically just a lump of cells. They are not a productive part of society when born, and in fact, they require enormous amounts of care and attention. That is a fact, not an opinion.
DG's insistence that an embryo is of less value than a fully mature human begs the question, is DG therefore advocating that we adopt the practices of the early Greeks, (and destroy those babies which aren't perfect, (after they are born), or that of the Nazi's, who routinely destroyed those who were less than their ideal of perfect? I suspect she is not, but it sure sounds like it.
OW, welcome to Penigma, and thank you for commenting.
ReplyDeleteToE wrote: "Life begins at conception. This is at this point an immutable point."
It is an opinion, a tenet of faith which is not universal among Christians, and certainly not universal outside Christianity either. Nor does this bible verse make that point. Quickening was as Pen noted, detectable movement, not conception. Islam believes it is 40 days out from conception.
There is no FACT about this, no PROOF, and no consensus; there is a broad spectrum of beliefs and ideas.
Toe Wrote:If that were true, the Republican allegations about death panels might as well come true, because facts, and not moral requirements would mean that some people should be withheld care, or even euthanized.
I repeat - both at disagreeing about life, and souls, and agreement about opposition to euthansia would argue that is unreasonable and not a valid argument. I repeat the pertinent quote from Jefferson:""Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all religions agree (for all forbid us to steal, murder, plunder, or bear false witness), and that we should not intermeddle with the particular dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are totally unconnected with morality (Letter to J. Fishback, 1809).
What you espouse ToE, is a minority opinion, your personal belief, not a fact, not the majority belief. You talk about what you'd like to see happen, not what is, and not what the weight of the Roman Catholic church is attempting to make the law of the land or the public health policy of this country.
ToE wrote: "Scenario: Man and woman are married. They have sex, and the woman turns up pregnant. The woman doesn't want children at the moment. They have sufficient income to support a child. They have adequate health insurance. But, the woman decides to have an abortion, because she doesn't want to give up their current lifestyle. This is an example of selfish behaviour that is an abomination. If she undergoes the abortion, she will be guilty of taking an innocent life, without justification."
ReplyDeleteJudge not, that ye be not judged Matthew 7:1
We do not pass laws or make public policy on isolated scenarios or hypothetical what-ifs.
You may choose to second guess these people, but your opinion has no more weight than any one else's opinion or belief, and is not a valid basis for laws restricting any woman's reproductive choices.
YOU cannot see into anyone else's heart than your own, nor do you have jurisdiction over anyone else's soul than your own.
Lots of churches believe lots of things. People are entitled under the establishment clause to make their own religious choices, and it is not the business of ANY church to determine that for the rest of us, no matter how well determined. Those are issues of faith, not fact, which belong to each of us to determine.
So, however well intentioned, the church is wrong to meddle in these politics. It is forcing their beliefs on others who do not share them, no matter how the argument is spun. That brings us back to Jefferson:
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800)."
OW writesvery articulately - my compliments!
ReplyDelete"Religious groups are well within their constitutional right to influence the government on anti-abortion laws. They should be applauded for being involved in the democratic process and using these methods to affect public policy."
And many religious groups OW support a pro-choice position, including many Christian groups.
The Roman Catholic church HAS removed contraceptives from the list of covered preventive medicine. That is a bad thing for them to do, AND it doesn't reflect the majority view of citizens of this country. NOR is the conception argument advanced by ToE.
Therefore we have a financially affluent and resourceful religion, with upper levels of their governing heierarchy outside of this country, out of step with the majority of our citizens, having a wrong, disproportionate effect on our public policy, in restriction of a right as determined by the interpretation of the SCOTUS.
I rigorously support the right of ToE or anyone else to their religious beliefs. But not, emphatically, to the judgement of others or to enforcing their beliefs so as to override the rights and liberties of others.
DG, most of our laws impose the belief of the majority on the minority. Believe it or not there are plenty of people out there who see nothing wrong with killing their neighbor if they annoy them. The majority of the country thinks this is wrong and we have laws against murder. Laws which were originally based on the Ten Commandments by the way. Now most of the action we make laws about (murder and theft) 99% of us agree on. Abortion is more of a 50/50 split so there is a lot of disagreement over it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the health of the mother being an issue here are some stats. The study was done in 1998, I am sure there are more recent ones out there but it is late and I am too tired to look for them tonight.
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[28] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[29]
25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other
dog gone writes,
ReplyDelete"What you espouse ToE, is a minority opinion, your personal belief, not a fact, not the majority belief."
You write about how the majority of people in the United States have different views on abortion than the Catholic Church. I have read similar statements from you several times throughout the course of this thread. It seems that part of your reasoning against the Catholic Church being involved in political dialogue is due to the fact that their opinion is not the majority one.
I have noticed that you like to quote Thomas Jefferson, a founding father. Since you obviously think they should be held in high regard perhaps you will find wisdom in other important historical figures. Alexis de Tocqueville, a French aristocrat, who studied America's democracy in the early 19th Century preached against the "tyranny of the majority" in his work, Democracy in America. Other figures including philosopher John Locke and founding father, James Madison preached against it as well.
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison writes, "[a] pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
A prominent concern of many founding fathers and the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention was the tyranny of the majority. This is why we have the seperation of powers, and why we have a bicameral legislature. The Senates role essentially was to protect the rights of the minority. Clearly founding fathers including Thomas Jefferson wished that all citizens had the right to express their views, not simply those who were in the majority.
The Catholic Church should not be discouraged simply because they are the minority. Their rights must still be respected and they are according to the letter of the law.
ReplyDeleteThoughts..
ReplyDeleteFirst, comments like DG believes in death panels aren't ok here. You know it, please stop.
Second, this was not, never has been, will never be about "irresponsbile" conduct. If you fool yourself into believing that, you will never ever develop a successful argument. I'll give you the thumbnail of why.
Say a woman has a long-standing relationship with a man, she has sex one night where she is worried that other contraception might have been comprimised (such as she forgot to take her pill the preceeding night). She gets an order for RU486, takes it, and is done. In her mind, she's done nothing wrong. She doesn't believe there was a life there, and she believes it's none of your business. I believe she's right, first because your position of when life begins isn't immutable or irrefutable, far from it, your bible passages make no claim other than to suggest in belief in "quickening", further, we don't can't and shouldn't base policy on what cannot be proved and is the view of a limited set of religions.
OW - the question wasn't about whether a religion can aspouse a certain political view, it was about whether any religious view has a place dominating (over others) policy in our government. We have a right to be free from religious persecution. You wouldn't like it if the Menonites banned all churches, I wouldn't like it if Islam forbad my daughter from being educated. We rule by building a concensus view that the law in question is a good law. What's more, religions which take an active role in politics, if they advocate for a certain law or candidate from the pulpit risk losing their tax exempt status precisely because we do not allow charitable contributions to go to political action AND because we do not believe churches should be routinely involved in political discourse. It is their right, but damned few do it because they don't chose to risk that tax exempt status AND because most recognize their parishoners don't chose to be lectured to about politics by a priest.
Fundamentally ToE, Tuck, OW, the point wasn't and isn't that only FACTS determine law, politics, personal feelings, even ethics which ALL/MOST religions embrace shape law. The point was that you can't legislate from belief, perhaps put more finely, you can't enforce law from belief, at least not effectively. To illustrate the point, define life, legally define it in a way which a policeman or the court could say "X and so died at this time because ...." As a consequence, there is little hope of defining life at conception, it fails to meet the basic understanding we hold of what is a human life. The position you take is purely religious. The court, should it be asked, would and should rule that any definition of life which rests principally upon the views of one religious faction, isn't constitutional. IF a state passes a law which supports such a stance, then that law should be immediately challenged as advancing a view based on faith, and an exclusive faith, rather than provable evidence.
Finally, while you may feel it is acceptable to force the view of even a MAJORITY of people, on an issue of personal liberty and one deeply personal at that, the court has already said such a view isn't supportable. The common good must be maintained, and unless and until you can confirm life as beginning at conception you cannot claim it is terminating a life and therefor you aren't serving a common good, no matter how strongly you believe you are. If you want to have justice, find a solution and definition which the vast majority of people can agree with and can be supported by evidence rather than simply opinion.
I left off a point/finish from the end of the second paragraph.
ReplyDeleteThe woman in question doesn't believe you have any right whatsoever to intrude into her life because you've not convinced her, not by a darned site, that it is a life other than your CLAIM it is such. To claim that the bible says so, first is a religiously based stance, and fails the fundamental challenge of being effectively the exclusive stance of one religious faith (and therefore not constitutional), but it also fails the justice test - meaning, it fails to acknowledge that since there is no provability, you are DEMANDING she accept your view about her rights from a religious stance she isn't a party to/member of. You are, in fact, inflicting your FAITH on her, not fact on her. You cannot prove a life is present other than your claims.
Put differently, what if we claim that the POTENTIAL for life is life (as some have done)? Why not claim that all human ova represent the potential for life? Wouldn't that then give us the right to determine diet, health pattern, etc.. of any child-bearing age mother? Why is such a definition any more or less flawed than yours? (that's the most important question). If the majority believed it, would it be right to pass a law enshrining and enforcing it?
The short and simple answer is "no". No because it cannot be sustained by evidence as something consistent with our other applications of law (in fact it would greatly undermine such applications), no because it isn't promoting the common good, no because it isn't consistent with our view of fairness.
The end result is this, if you want peace and justice, find a just solution. Enforcing your religious view isn't just. Find a definition of life all of us can agree with (or at least the great majority can agree with and see as fair) and you will have your answer. Anything short of that will fail. The VAST majority of the public does not yet agree life begins at conception, even if a majority does (which I don't believe is true) but regardless, if such a view isn't supportable under the law and by fact, just as occured in Roe V. Wade, the Court will decide any such law is unconstitutional because it intrudes upon the individual liberties of the mother without promoting an observable, verifiable common good. No argument about biblical text will EVER be allowed to enter the discussion except as a tangent (at best).
Penigma writes, “OW - the question wasn't about whether a religion can aspouse [sic] a certain political view, it was about whether any religious view has a place dominating (over others) policy in our government. We have a right to be free from religious persecution.”
ReplyDeleteFrom that statement it appears that you are arguing when any religious organization’s beliefs are made into public policy it means people in this country are being persecuted. I hope you are not making this case.
You bring up the point that the law is made up of ethics. That being said I would like to inform you of a view some philosophers share about the idea of abortion and the concept of life. Philosopher John Noonan writes, “The conservative position contends that from conception the fetus has full moral status; hence a serious right to life.” They reject the idea of development in states since these standards are merely arbitrary and the development of a human being is continuous. Because of this he concludes, “That the line can be drawn only at conception. The fetus has an absolute right to life from conception.” This example shows that one can believe in the right to life from the moment of conception without being religious or using religious reasoning.
You are also right that politics, personal feelings, and ethics CAN influence the law. But you are wrong in saying that one cannot pass laws based on belief. We do it all the time in this country. Many times Congress or state legislatures pass laws not on fact but on their gut instincts. However, facts OR beliefs for that matter are not needed to make the law what it is; if I may quote the late Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. He coined the term “Legal Realism.” In the Common Law, Holmes writes, “The law is not based on logic. The law reflects the will of the forces that were dominant at any particular point in history.” This means that Holmes believes law is not innately moral or RIGHT IN REASON. He believes that it is only so if a majority says the law is and that these morals and reason change. (Jeffrey Rosen, the Supreme Court.) The law is the law, regardless of political or religious motivations behind it. End of story. I am not advocating that I agree with religious beliefs being public policy simply that they are and can be made into law.
ToE, your argument is no argument, it is a repetition over and over with new variations stating the sme thing - that you believe something to be true ergo we all have to fall in line with your belief. It doesn't matter if the pope does or does not say something; he's a very nice man, but he is not an American, and if he were, he'd still only get one vote. Your interpretation of bible passages is a minority view, an interpration which is not widely supported within Christianity, and which is not supported either widely OUTSIDE Christianity. There is no consensus, there is no fact, there is simply YOUR OPINION, however fiercely you hold it. It is still just that, your opinion, your belief.
ReplyDeleteWhile I respect and cherish your spirituality as part of this friendship, and rigorously support your right to follow your own conscience and heart --- you overstep the line BADLY when you attempt to dictate religion to me or to others here.
So what you are attempting, if I may build on de Tocqueville, is a plain old fashioned straight up tyranny of the minority.
What is more correctly identify as an understanding of the applicable political science is rather Calhoun's concept of Concurrent Majority, where "great decisions are not merely a matter of numerical majorities, but require agreement or acceptance by the major interest in society, each of which had the power to block federal laws that it feared would seriously infringe on their rights." In this case the minority you would oppress by attempting to deny the Constitutional rights found by the SCOTUS in favor of women having control over our own bodies.
It genuinely doesn't matter if you consider this about 'innocent' life; our courts and our government do not intrude or make findings about souls, or their status with God - quite properly too that they do not. We have not formed a consensus or a legal definition that is consistent with the one you are using for life, beginning at conception. I doubt we EVER will accept that definition broadly, much less legally. Therefore, however passionately you believe it, it doesn't make it fact, or legal.
OW (interesting nom de plume, nicht Wahr?) we have more stringent criteria for how we legislate when it comes to Constitutional rights, especially the infringement of them.
We do not - and again, probably never will - allow one person to exist at the expense of another person's body. Our courts do not ORDER one person to donate bone marrow, a kidney, or even just a pint of blood to save the life of another. Whether ToE recognizes the larger medical realities of pregnancy or not, even if the 'inconvenience' was no greater than that involved in donating blood, our courts wouldn't coerce a person to donate that blood. Or order someone else to let another use their kidneys for nine months, or heart, liver, lungs, or other organs. NOT EVEN TO SAVE A LIFE, much less cells we do not agree are a separate life.
If at some future time it becomes practical to remove a morula - and a woman agrees to such an invasion of her body -which can then develop outside the body, maybe we will revisit that. Until such time it doesn't matter what the reason, or the inconvenience or convenience, innocent or sinful life, no one else has a right to another person's body to live; not woman's body - nor a man's either.
ToE has failed to make a persuasive logical argument, however passionate his statement of his opinion. It is still that, not more AND NOT LESS. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
Ttuck wrote:
ReplyDelete"In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[28] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[29]
25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other"
Tuck, I have problems with the statistics you provide. The first is that so very few rapes are ever reported or otherwise documented. The second, that consent is not so black and white as your numbers, but rather more of a spectrum. Third,that agreeing to sex is not the same as agreeing to pregnancy. Fourth, that anyone who believes that women make such an important decision on a single factor - which is the way these stats are framed - is wrong. It is a much more complex decision and therefore cannot accurately be expressed in a 'pick one' format like this one.
Fifth - whether you like a woman's reason for how she makes her decision about HER body, it is still HER body, not yours, not the government's, not anyone else's.
NO woman is accountable to you or anyone other than her conscience for her decision.
The day we take that away from any human being, much less on the basis of gender, is the day we engage in heinous tyranny.
The rest of the argument is really in that context just petty details, not the essence of the argument, however much passion attaches to those details.
A world where criminals are forced to be unwilling organ donors is the topic of numerous dystopian science fiction. Think long and hard about your willingness to place your judgement of innocence or sin on the line, rather than legal rights and legal process, before you advocate to strongly for such a gender dystopia.
Robert Niven's The Jigsaw Man comes to mind, which anticipated the organ harvesting of convicted criminals (some of them political prisoners) in China. "Caught in the Organ Draft" by Robert Silverberg, circa coincidentally the Roe V. Wade decision. Frederick Pohl's "Gateway" is another, or Robin Cook's "Coma".
The argument of innocence or sin is a red herring; it does not apply, it is belief, and opinion, not fact and certainly not consensus absent fact. Our rights to our own bodies is fundamental, and it has been found constitutional. You don't get to decide for anyone else, nor should you. EVER.
DG, you accuse ToE of using the same argument over and over yet reading this page you yourself have only one argument "its my body and I will do as I please with it." So when you speak of facts show me one reputable biologist who will say that the "lump of cells" will ever be anything other than a human being. Find some scientific basis that says those cells are not living. Then come back and tell me you are not taking a human life when you have an abortion. And if you have the guts to admit you are taking a human life explain how it is different from taking that life at the time of birth or shortly after.
ReplyDeletePenigma, Your reason for starting the blog, the idea that people can reasonably come together even on hot topics like this one, is that proving to work?
ReplyDeleteI can tell you over on my blog, it's really hard to keep it civil let alone reasonable about gun control. I'd imagine it would be even harder on abortion.
No Tuck, you misstate my argument, leaving out the salient parts.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that every person's body IS THEIR BODY. We do not deny them the right to their bodies, the use of their organs, based on gender. What ToE demands does. We do not make that right to the function of their bodies dependent on whether or not we happen to believe they are sinful in the eyes of God either. We don't take their organ function, their blood, or even their DNA to sustain or grow or save the life of anyone else without their consent based on how convenient or inconvenient it is either.
You make a false argument Tuck.
Unless you can get past THAT argument I just made, there is no need to aregue anything else.
And you can't get past that argument.
Btw, IF you get past the argument of a person's right to their bodies (including women as persons) then I DO have an argument to the point you raised, and it is another one I don't think you can get past either.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I DO look forward to watching you try - especially OW, one of our newest commenters. He's delightful (making a guess on gender).
To the extent that the exchange of reasoned argument is pleasurable (for me it is, very much so) then absolutely, the creation of this blog satisfies that purpose for its existence!
Tuck,
ReplyDeleteThe potential for life isn't life.
The question still remains, define what we measure life as being.
You need to please accept/understand, please, that others simply do not accept your theory that life begins at conception. It is just that, an unproven theory. It doesn't jibe with our other, observable proof of life requirements. It is the potential for life, but not a human life itself. As such others doen't accept your line in the sand because it doesn't meet that measure. Since it isn't the commonly held position of MANY religions, it is rightly defined as stemming SOLELY from a limited religious view (rather than mutliple ethics - which is what we use to frame ethical reasoning) - and consequently constitutes the position of a limited religious view being foisted upon others because it isn't commonly/widely held as ethical to support, can't be proved scientifically, doesn't jibe with logic and doesn't jibe within it's own myriad of denominations PRECISELY because it isn't IN the Bible (although this last point is the least important).
The decision to define life at conception appears (from the outside to be politically motivated for the benefit of the church) but again that's simply an aside.
Until you can quantify life in a way others can accept as logical, believable, consistent, and worthwhile/just, you can't support your argument that life begins at conception. Until you can support a definition of life as beginning at conception which isn't simply "because I say so" or "because my particular faith says so" it isn't acceptable.
Because it isn't acceptable, you can't enforce your views on the bodies of and over the objections of others. The claim that life begins at conception is unproven theory and nothing more at this point. It is not consistent with EVERY OTHER measure of life we use when establishing whether someone is alive or dead, and thus fails to convince us that you are right.
TTuck wrote:
ReplyDelete" So when you speak of facts show me one reputable biologist who will say that the "lump of cells" will ever be anything other than a human being."
Wrong way to look at it Tuck. Show me a reputable biologist, doctor, or any reasonable person who will say that lump of cells IS a human being, NOW, as Pen points out. There is no guarnatee that those cells WILL become a human being; they might, they might not. NO biologist, doctor, or other reasonable person will provide that guarantee.
What we can agree on is that those cells are human tissue, but not a full human being. There is a difference. A skin cell can, under the right circumstances, become a full human being. A spermatazoa CAN under the right circumstances, become a human being, as can an ova. They are human cells with the potential to become a human being. We don't call them human beings. Without bursting into a few stanzas of Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred", the point is - we differentiate between IS and COULD MAYBE POSSIBLY, and human cells in a clump of tissue is not the same as a human being.
At the point where there is sufficient cellular development and differentiation for a separate consciousness, sentience, self-awareness to be present, and for this tissue to exist as a separate viable life as a human being, not just cells, then that still does not at any point in development give that lump of human tissue OR human being the right to exist at the expense of another life.
What Roe V. Wade determined was that at the point they reasonably determined based on science, a woman had sufficiently had the legal opportunity to make up her mind, that by the point of viability, if she hadn't made a decision about being pregnant, the time had run out to end that pregnancy. (Except in the specific instance of some medical problem that didn't exist or wasn't known during that earlier time frame).
I know, and appreciate, how passionately ToE believes what he believes, and that he reveres the Pope as a very holy person. We also worldwide regard the Dali Lama as a very holy person, the head of a large segment of people who believe in Buddhism. We do not, in honoring the Dali Lama, deprive people of their constitutional rights because of the teachings of reincarnation. No matter how passionately the Dali Lama, or a follower of Buddhism might believe in reincarnation as a determinant in our abortion law. For the same reason that we do not do so with the beliefs or edicts or doctrine espoused by the Pope - it is a matter of personal conviction. A matter which should be respected, but that respect entails not forcing it on others, respecting every one equally. Even atheists.
Tuck, I have held off publishing anything else for the past two days, so as to not move ToE's post down the page, so as not to compete or distract from people responding to his thoughts and ideas. I did this out of respect, and in hopes of exchanges that were more open-minded and empirical.
ReplyDeleteWHY I am disappointed me is that it appears to me that however passionate your belief,or ToE's, it is an emotional rather than a rational position, one which requires others to share that SAME emotional position.
I respect that emotion, but it is not the same as reason, and I would suggest to you the idea that in seeking agreement from others, there is a threshold to be met that is reason based, that has to be empiric when you seek common ground, a meeting of the minds.
I feel the entire point of this post was for ToE to attack what I have written and what I believe. As I expressed privately to Pen, I would prefer that it had been a more affectionate and respeectful difference of opinion, but even more than that, I wish it had been more about fact than belief.
DG, we are always going to disagree on when life begins. I believe it begins at conception and you know that so let me ask you when do you believe it begins? Here is a timeline for developement. The reason for the ranges is some calenders count from conception some count from the mothers last period, which is usually about 2 weeks before conception.
ReplyDeleteweek 3-5 heart begins to beat with its own blood(sometimes a different type than the mother)
week 6-8 brain waves are detectable
week 7-9 baby begins kicking and swimming.
week 8-10 all organs in place
week 11-13 all organs functioning
week 17-19 baby can have rem sleep
So where do you believe the embryo becomes human? And don't tell me when it is no longer dependant on its mother, infants are dependant on their mother for a few yrs after birth.
Tuck wrote: "And don't tell me when it is no longer dependant on its mother, infants are dependant on their mother for a few yrs after birth."
ReplyDeleteIncorrect, dear Tuck. While children are dependent on adults for more than a few years after birth, that dependence is not necssarily specifically their biological mother as defined by uterine implantation. We define viability as being able to survive - with assistance - outside the womb, as in an incubator for example, where the fetus can continue to mature to a similar successful development. We don't define it as being able to go through a cafeteria line unassisted.
I don't know what source you used for your timeline; REM sleep is at 7 months, and that is an assumption, based on what looks like it might be rapid eye movement sleep, but absent any neurological measurement, that is a guess. 7 Months is well after the timeline established by Roe V. Wade.
Thank you for stipulating that your ideas about conception are a belief, not a fact, and that there are no facts to support it.
I am perfectly happy withthe Roe V. Wade timeline. I think it is fair to all parties, and should remain in place until such time that science provides a basis for moving that line.
You still, dear Tuck, have not addressed that we do not base who lives or dies on our notions abot their relative sinfullness, nor do we coerce through the force of law one person to make their body subordinate to another to survive.
I've answered your questions. Please answer mine. Hold in mind that to make one person have to let another use their body to survive is a very dangerous precedent.
It seems ToE has abandoned commenting in support of his own post.
ReplyDeleteTuck,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to post some details regarding development.
While some of what you've posted seems a little optimistic, such as when brain activity begins - (this measurement is one of cerebral cortex activity associated with breathing/heart function rather than higher level brain activity) - I want to applaud you on at least bringing some semblence of a starting point for discussion to the mix.
I don't agree with DG's position that viability is the measuring stick. Frankly, viability was in part a recognition of respecting the right of the woman to control her own body without inflicting another person's right upon it. The point, in part, of viability was that it was the point at which a life could sustain itself OUTSIDE the womb and therefore, killing it was unnecessary.
I measure life by the standards of science. I may believe something else entirely (or not), but without evidence, I place my legal system in limbo if I try to enforce anything other than what has been accepted by a multitude of cultures, societies, social mores and laws, namely, the existence of HIGHER level brain activity and a heartbeat which is not sustained by artificial means for a substantial period of time - even that latter part is less important than the former. We consider someone clinically dead (and they are allowed to die biologicailly) if there ceases to be higher level brain function (e.g. Terry Schaivo).
I have read that lower level brain function starts at 40-43 days, but higher level brain function is typically found to start (baseline EEG measurements are detectable) in the 12th week, with what we'd call "normal" brain function starting about the 25th week (close to the viability measure). I'm perfectly happy with a date of 12 weeks as a definitional point. It is where conciousness is at least beginning to develop and (if we want to use a theological reference) where we could say the "soul" is beginning to form.
Such a measure would be supportable by people as reflecting where they can "see" a life beginning, where termination of that "life" is repellant - regardless of their faith (or denial of faith). Such a measure would allow a woman time to make a decision about whether she is able/prepared to go throw with giviing birth (note I do not say raisinig a child because one does not necessarily beget the other). It would be ample time to commit, and ample time for society to say "you've had enough time to decide, from here on out you're not the only one affected."
The point is, a reasonable, supportable, scientifically sustainable position which satisfies the needs of the "new life" and the law, is achievable. It doesn't give everyone everything they want, instead both get some of what they want. In the end, isn't that how comprimise, and with comprimise, good policy is made?
Winning (always) leaves the others side always losing, and never satisified. Justice cannot be found if the liberty and needs of one are always subordinated to the needs of the other (whether that "other" is the mother OR the child).
So Tuck... I've answered everything you've asked of me. I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions I've put to you and so far you haven't.
ReplyDeleteDo you favor the government being able to coerce people into making their bodies available to save lives, even if they don't want to?
Are you in favor of compulsory organ donation for example? Or if not outright donation...compulsory organ borrowing or organ use, backed up by the coercive power of law? And in order for it to appear more legitimate, more acceptable, would you support government funded, sponsored, and mandated medical misinformation be supplied and made required reading? Would you agree that it was justified if these medical procedures were obligatory for not only you and your spouse, but also for your children? And add in to it that YOU would have to pay for these expenses, out of pocket, and couldn't even use your health insurance, if you have any? And if you fail to comply, or even simply object, how would you and your family members feel about being hounded from the pulpit of your local churches for not saving a life by submitting to this mandatory medical life-saving-for-others procedures? How would you feel about this affecting your own medical and health issues, like compromising your immune system, or your heart, lungs or kidneys?
If you cannot agree that it is acceptable to substitute bone marrow donation, or skin graft, or blood donation, for abortion and pregnancy, then you are a hypocrite. You have a different standard for women from everyone else, and a different and very draconian double standard for pregnancy from other procedures which are life saving to another human being - including an unborn human being.
And before you try to opt out children from that exercise, I can give you more than just the recent post attempts to remove juvenile rape or statutory rape from qualifying for abortions. Whether it is your personal belief or not, Republicans are making a concerted effort to not allow children who are made pregnant to receive abortions, regardless of how young, regardless of the damage that a pregnancy at such an early age might do physically and psychologically.
I'd be willing Pen to split the difference in time frames with you and make the cutoff period for abortion the midway point, 4 1/2 months. My reasons for that time frame include not only my quite strong disagreement with the accuracy of the figures Tuck provided for embryonic and fetal development, but also for allowing an adequate amount of time for a pregnancy to be correctly determined. For example, many women athletes do not have regular menstrual cycles due to having dropped below a certain body fat ratio while training. Girls and younger women may not have established regular menstrual cycles. Certain pregnancies do not properly register on pregnancy tests, due to things like low levels of hormone therapy for acne or other medical problems, or medications for certain illnesses that interfere or even environmental factors like Bpa used in plasics, which leeches out of them, and is also a synthetic female hormone. Or women who are perimenopausal, or........I could list others, but I think I've made my point. Not every pregnancy is apparent in the first trimester. Nearly all of them are by the second. I don't know any woman who is textbook average or normal, without some variation from that norm. And I would only agree to such a change to more restricted term limits on abortion IF - big IF - it came without the restriction on cheap, readily available contraception, including the morning after pill and the abandonment of abstinence only sex ed. Because without those two things, women remain at an obscene disadvantage in managing their reproductive choices.
ReplyDeleteDG,
ReplyDeleteThe quesiotn of whether a woman knows, should have known, can know is subordinate to whether it's a life by legal terms.
That a woman may not menstrate frequently doesn't relieve her of her burden, if she is sexually active, to be at least aware enough to know three months in, whether she's pregnant. If she doesn't ovulate, she needs to check, because at THIS point, if we agree it's a life at X weeks, no matter the mitigation, it's still a life, and she's crossed the point of no return.
Put more bluntly, once it's a life, it gets to live, regardless of her ignorance. That's the comprimise, that's the responsibility.
So, no, I would not agree to that date. If we have higher level brain function at 12 weeks, then at 12 weeks it meets the legal definintion of a life. That means some folks will carry an additional burden, that's the price of admission. I recognize you feel this causes someone to subordinate their rights to another person, but the first party had ample time to determine their status - that they didn't get the "same signs" as others isn't material, not in the least, not the least because it opens up far too slippery a slope. If it's a life, it gets to live in my humble opinion
So, how about this as a compromise to those who wish to impose their religious beliefs and intrude on women's constitutional rights... women only have to carry a fetus, that precious life that you anti-abortionists are so convinced begins at conception as a full human being, ONLY until viability outside the uterous. After that, anti-abortionists will pay for the embryo/fetus to continue in whatever medical equipment is necessar - incubator, etc. That will make the religious folks happy, without intruding upon a woman's body further than absolutely necessary. And clearly, if the anti-abortionists are so very concerned about life, they don't mind putting THEIR money where their mouths are, right? Women can then relinquish their parental rights, and those anti-abortionists who are so set on coercing women to endure a pregnancy can arrange for those millions upon millions of children to be adopted - I'm sure they'll all happily take a few themselves - out of their deep and profound concern for those innocent lives.
ReplyDeleteNow, as someone who has been active in adoption rights, we have to stand up for the rights of the unborn after they are born too. So I propose that those incubator babies be given the names of both parents at the age of 18.
A condition of women surrendering some part of their constitutional rights requires the abandonment of the religious opposition to contraception, and instead supporting it being freely available, and of course, honest, factually accurate sex ed.
But....how will we know the fathers' names to give those incubator babies? Because of course for that increased responsibility for having sex and using contraception, it is only FAIR that both parents have to be accessible to the grown child.
Easy solution, since clearly those who are anti-abortion are not ONLY dismissive of the constitutional rights of women, they aren't at all, you know, discriminating and penalizing ONLY women, naturally.
We make it a requirement that for men to drive a car, vote, own property,Legally OWN A GUN, or participate in government in any way such as taxes or social security, they have to volunteer to provide a DNA sample. Or, those anti-abortionists can simply agree that just like women's constitutional rights, the rights of the unborn according to their religious beliefs, justify any and all disregard for constitutional rights.
I can't wait to see how the NRA would spin that one....
But it IS perfectly logical, and it does address the punitive to women only anti-abortion, foisting religious beliefs on others argument by making the whole thing much more fair. If the anti-abortion people wish to intrude between a woman, her spouse or partner, her medical provider and her clergy, it's the least they can do.
Personally, I still prefer Roe v Wade.
How about a more reasonable comprimise? (though I agree that those who advocate for preventing abortions have provided ZERO meaningful answers to date about what to do with these children that cannot be afforded).
ReplyDeleteNamely, define life as starting at 12 weeks. Women have to decide by that point whether to carry to term or not. Up to that point, the decision is theirs alone, and the anti-abortion crowd stops preventing the use of RU-486, and stops opposing contraception eduction and dissemination. The pro-choice crowd stops creating strawmen out of false arguments about "slippery slopes" if they move away from abortion on demand.
Further, the anti-abortion crowd has one final responsibility. They have to provide for a way (as DG asks) to pay for the roughly 950,000 children per year they would have be born who will not be adopted. Adoption in the US has a pent up back log of about 200,000 cases, after that the demand falls to between 50,000 and 100,000 per year, though for 2009 the demand fell by half.
Consequently, what's your answer? A. do you agree to a dividing line which gives both sides the GREAT majority of what they want? B. Will you pay for it?
BTW, DG, you still didn't answer my question/point that it's not about the rights of athletic women that determines when life begins, and that because it's about when life begins which ultimately will be the logical point the populace decides upon, are you ready to agree to a point of something around 12 weeks?
ReplyDeletePenigma said...
ReplyDelete"BTW, DG, you still didn't answer my question/point that it's not about the rights of athletic women that determines when life begins, and that because it's about when life begins which ultimately will be the logical point the populace decides upon, are you ready to agree to a point of something around 12 weeks?"
No, all of the data I've read would suggest that the age you are aiming for is later than 12 weeks.
I haven't been ducking your question, I've been thinking about it before answering you.
While on the surface it appears a perfectly reasonable compromise, I don't believe you're going to ever persuade the people who hold the religious view of life at conception will ever accept that compromise, no matter what the science ultimately determines, no matter how conclusively itmight be established.
It further fails to address that women's rights to their bodies preclude forcing pregnancy on them, while limiting even more the exercise of that right. If you seriously include a provision where at no expense to the women those fetuses continue outside their uterus, rather than a full term pregnancy, at the earliest possible time, that is something I would consider a fair compromise.
Ditto some means which allows those incubator unwanted pregnancy children to identify both parents at a later time when they are 18.
We have THAT technology, we need to use it. Sadly, I don't think those same people who are so very willing to ride roughshodover women's constitutional rights are willing to have their own voluntarily proscribed in even the smallest, least intrusive way.
In short, I don't believe that a compromise is possible. I find the less advantageous for women than leaving Roe V.Wade in tact as is.
But I would consider it, if you can find someone else who is on the opposite side of the argument to agree to it.
ReplyDeleteSaying that outlawing or limiting abortions is akin to forced organ donations is really off the wall. Abortion is really more like donating an organ then coming back later and saying I want it back.
ReplyDeleteAnd since you brought up about making all males contribute dna so we could tell who the fathers are that would be fine with me if they changed the way some of the child support laws work. Right now the father has absolutely no legal say in the matter. If the mother wants an abortion he cannot stop her unless he just talks her out of it, if she wants to keep the kid he has to pay child support. So if we go with your idea to know who all the fathers are they get a say in what happens. If they don't want anything to do with it they give the mom half the cost of an abortion and walk free and clear. I mean fair is fair, the father has the right to not have a child if he doesn't want one right?
Ttucker wrote:""DG, ... you yourself have only one argument "its my body and I will do as I please with it." and
ReplyDelete"Saying that outlawing or limiting abortions is akin to forced organ donations is really off the wall. Abortion is really more like donating an organ then coming back later and saying I want it back. "
No actually it is not. I'm saying it no woman's body is given with consent simply because she has sex.
You can't come back to ask for something back you've donated, if you've never consented to give it in the first place.
This seems to reflect an ignorance or lack of awareness on the part of Tucker, and perhaps others who are unfamiliar with the bio-ethics or medical ethics core, basic, foundational principle that we do not do things with or to someone's body without their consent, and that we do not give one person's body preference or precedence over another's, and we do not take OR USE another person's body to benefit someone else EVER without their agreement or consent. It is so fundamental, we can't even do so legally, or ethically, or morally after they are dead.
That is why it is considered such a very bad thing that in China, they harvest the organs of executed criminals. The Chinese consider it a practical matter - they're dead, they're not using them anymore anyway, and part of the penalty of being an executed criminal is you lose your rights to your body. This is contrary to Human Rights as recognized globally. That is why to override a person's refusal of a medical treatment or procedure, a court order is involved - and then only very rarely.
So, even if we change the definition of when cells develop into a human being, as opposed to they might or might not at a later time become a human being....that would seem to be a great deal less important than are we doing something unethical in using a woman's body for the life of someone else without her consent.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of Roe V. Wade is that the SCOTUS found that women have a constitutional right to their bodies. They determined that after the second trimester, if women haven't acted to terminate the pregnancy, they have effectively given permission for it to continue, and the rights of the fetus as a human being have to be balanced with the woman's rights to her body.
Now we may change where that implied consent point is determined. I would argue that both ethically and logically, a woman has to know she is pregnant to give consent to a pregnancy. That is not determined by when a fetus or embryo has higher neuro functions. It should be a factor, but not the only factor.
It is highly immoral and unethical to say that every human, even the worst criminals in the world, have these rights to their bodies - even after they're dead.
Except women, and except pregnancy. Sex is not a crime. Neither is abortion of cells which are not YET differentiated and developed into a human being by legal definition or moral consensus. So that answers the rather insulting statement by Tuck which effectively accuses anyone who supports a woman's rights to her body of infanticide by falsely, wrongly, and improperly equating the two.
when Tuch wrote "Then come back and tell me you are not taking a human life when you have an abortion. And if you have the guts to admit you are taking a human life explain how it is different from taking that life at the time of birth or shortly after."
I would furthe argue that it is not in the public good to bring millions of unfunded and unwanted children into the world in addition to violating the rights of over half the population on the basis of gender by banning abortion.
I would agree that it is desirable to reduce abortions to the fewest possible, by instead promoting the use of contraception as widely as possible. Beyond that, I can only agree that persuasion, but not legal coercion, is acceptable to limit abortions more beyond Roe V. Wade. If at some point there was a constitutional amendment, which at this time would not pass, imho, to change when that cutoff point is legal for abortion, then I would advocate that it contain some provision that gives women who are not aware they are pregnant 30 days in which to come to a decision about having an abortion, or Roe V. Wade, whichever came first.
I don't agree that because those who oppose contraception, including the Catholic Church, are glacially slow to change their views we cannot properly and fairly criticize that position.
ReplyDeleteIf individuals wish to not practice contraception, no one is riding roughshod over their rights not to do so as a moral choice. To use the resources of any organization,including religious organizations, to promote the religious practices of any faith as public policy is however an egregious violation of the separattion of church and state. It involves government policy
It would be, imho, a better use of their time and resources for those who oppose abortions as birth control to do more to advannce birth control, instead of trying to legislate sexual morality. Because agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy - for either party.
t would be far more persuasive to me that there is genuine concern for life if there was more support for the born, for the living, to have food, shelter, education and most of all health care necessary to live and be healthy. There is a preponderance of conservatives - although not all - in the anti-abortion movement. It seems apparent that it is conservatives who are the most interested in violating their much vaunted love of the Constitution, and who despite their protests about their concern for life, are willing to do the least in the form of public policy to support it. In some cases this is hypocritical; in others perhaps only inconsistent.
Otherwise it looks suspiciously like people just being very judgemental about other people having sex; no one else knows or can know what is in the hearts or what is the experience of others, including those making the decisions about abortion. It is inappropriate for anyone else to insert themselves in that decision that is not the woman, her partner, or her clergy and medical care provider, much less to do so judgementally.
Original sin is a precept of both the roman cathoilc church and the protestant denominations. So is 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' and 'judge not lest ye be judged.'
But then, as a Lutheran, I'm a strong believer in divine monergism, and of course in free will.
This entire argument has been wrongly framed. A poorly, or inaccurately framed argument cannot succeed.
ReplyDeletehttp://zetetis.blogspot.com/b/post-preview?token=TW3m7S0BAAA.nIH2NKqLIKJTxnw3KLGPfA.VfNZjaOzXf_mnXRwFUAUZA&postId=5801518146876108392&type=POST
Here are some facts to contradict the poorly framed theory which clarify why this is a wrongly framed argument:
http://www.alanguttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html
"Among the subregions of the world,.....Western Europe [had] the lowest rate (11 per 1,000). Among countries where abortion is legal without restriction as to reason, the highest abortion rate, 83 per 1,000, was reported for Vietnam and the lowest, seven per 1,000, for Belgium and the Netherlands. Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law (and where many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions) than in areas where abortion is legally permitted.
Conclusions: Both developed and developing countries can have low abortion rates. Most countries, however, have moderate to high abortion rates, reflecting lower prevalence and effectiveness of contraceptive use. Stringent legal restrictions do not guarantee a low abortion rate.International Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 25(Supplement):S30–S38
The above numbers include abortions for rape, incest, the life and health of the mother, btw.
The answer is not to demonize women, the answer is not to try to make sexuality punitive, the answer is not to impose draconian religious ideas - that won't succeed any better than trying to legislate morality did with prohibition.
The answer is to respect the rights of women and all people.
I agree whole heartedly with Pen that we need a better definition of when tissue becomes an actual human being. That would benefit everyone.
I don't agree that determination should restrict women's rights to their bodies. We need to find a balance that respects women as well as any other human being. That is not accomplished by violating her body or her constitutional rights by forced or legally coerced pregnancy.
It doesn't work, never has, and is a badly framed argument, it is the wrong argument to be having.
DG,
ReplyDeleteI reject your premise. Your facts are frankly FAR too general to be compelling.
First, we have no knowledge of the impact of economic support for carrying to term or termination of pregnancy at a point akin to viability, from the statistics you've provided. All we know is that abortion is practiced both in nations where it is legal and where it isn't and generally in similar numbers UNLESS other preventative/pre-contraceptive means are available.
Second, we have no knowledge of the effectiveness of any campaign to both educate and otherwise support some other defintion of life than either conception or "at birth" from your statistics.
Consequently, your conclusion is wrongly supported and flawed.
I absolutely agree that attempting to frame this argument on one side as being primarily about the "evils that promiscuous women do" is just as stupid as attempting to frame it that "men don't give a crap about women." Both are totally wrong-headed, and equally objectionable. What I see you seeming to miss is that many people are truly motivated by a desire to save the lives of unborn children, including those we may not agree are yet equivalent to our definition of human life.
Framing arguments from such extreme ends leads to nothing but two people in a room screaming at the tops of their lungs wondering why they can't hear anything.
Saying something like, "I don't agree that determination should restrict women's rights to their bodies." is doing just that, it is using hyperbole and overstatement to claim something which isn't the case nor is the suggested resolution. Women would have an opportunity to act to terminate a pregnancy, so long as such action happened prior to the abortion of that pregnancy resulting in the death of another person. The legal argument that this is akin to forcing someone to give up a kidney is specious. In the case of a kidney, there is a hope of another cure, further, there was no predicate act by the donor. Roe V. Wade CLEARLY forces the pregnancy on the mother once viability is crossed. This is moving the ball forward, and that's all, to a point where the vast majority of folks agree life exists, and a point which can be scientifically supported.
Whether this might be a burden, even an extreme burden, to a minority of women (and likely a relatively small minority at that) isn't a reason to demure or not change. Roe V. Wade implies the exact same burden, just at a later point. It is fair to say that a scant few women don't know they are pregnant by the start of the third trimester, but it is still fair to say a FEW don't. Aren't your objections equally pertinent, equally relavent at that point? As such, then aren't you FORCING pregnancy on those women and stripping them of their rights, no differently than you are objecting to?
(continued)..
ReplyDeleteThe point is, your verbiage is careless. It fails to consider whether a middle-ground lies both within the law and within reason, and in fact has already been enshrined as vaible legal standard (as it was in Roe V. Wade). It also fails to pay proper respect to those with whom you are discussing this. Calling arguments wrong and wrongheaded is deeply disrespectful. I've done it here to let you see it, not because your arguments are without merit, in fact they have substantial merit, but because I believe it is important for you to appreciate the appearance you are creating by using such loaded terminology. No one here has any desire to start stripping liberties (certainly not any more than Roe already did) - but by the same token, we must be mindful that the Constitution isn't a "suicide pact" and a solution which is respectful of BOTH lives is what is mandated, not optional.
We need to find a balance that respects women as well as any other human being. That is not accomplished by violating her body or her constitutional rights by forced or legally coerced pregnancy"
On that we agree, as long as you include .. "respects woman AND the human life they carry"
The hyperbole about forced pregnancy is needless.
Tuck, I apologize for calling you either directly or by implication, a hypocrite. It was impolite, not conducive to constructive discussion, and unfair. I do not know your personal position on support for all those unborn children who would result from ending the option of abortion.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to seeing an apology from you for any suggestion that either I'm going to hell for having a different belief, or that my beliefs make me the same as a baby killer. In the same spirit of reasoned and civil discussion.
I also look forward to seeing how you justify a violation of women's constitutional rights in the name of ending, or at least dramatically reducing abortion, that has proven not to work, and look forward to seeing your response to the statistics on how contraception DOES dramatically curtail abortions, without either trying to legislate sexual morality OR coercively violating the rights of women, both civil and constitutional, and ethical.
I would also like you to clarify your understanding of medical ethics. It was wrong of me to assume you were simply not cognizant of them, based on your previous comments. I apologize for that as well.
DG, I read thru the thread, where did Tuck say that?
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I didn't reply earlier.
You are correct. Abortion is an EXTRAORDINARILY emotionally charged issue. When DG wrote about Roe V. Wade, I believe she understood just how likely it was to evoke an emotional and passionate response
When ToE replied, I KNOW he was aware of the likely outcome.
What I hoped, and was unfortunately Polly-Anna about, was that by having them both post their positions each would recognize the emotional baggage the other side carries and react to critcism gently and patiently.
Clearly I was a bit optimisitc, but as this is the most seminal social issue of our time, I suppose it is more than fair to say I shouldn't have been surprised. I hope for a resolution - and hope reasonable people can reasonably discuss this - but that requires us to set aside our deeply held convictions (albeit temporarily) to objectively evaluate comprimise. That hope was not met.. this time :), but perseverence is the hallmark of success.
DG, Tuck should clarify his understanding of medical ethics right after you provide your bonafides about law and or your M.D. certificate.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I say that is you've postulated in inaccurate legal (and thus medical) position vis. a vis. the conclusion from Roe V. Wade. Roe clearly spelled out (and you said so yourself) that in fact there WAS and IS a point at which the woman's right's have become subordinated to the baby's. Consequently, it is clear this issue is not black and white, but streaked with grey. The position you've taken, while true generally (from what I understand) seems to take a general position and apply it universally. Such application isn't universally supported.
Tuck,
ReplyDeleteI had to cause look over your comments, and while I generally feel you've been restrained, I have an issue with one thing you've said.
Biological life isn't the same thing as human life. Were it, we'd have a real problem with squashing flies, or killing bacteria, etc.. The rules of biological life, e.g. reproductive ability. Clearly, when you or DG or I kill a misquito, it isn't considered criminal or immoral. Clearly, when we butcher a cow, it isn't considered a mortal sin.
As such, claiming that because it is a biological life, terminating it is akin to killing a baby, is hyperbole and inflamatory. I recognize you claimed as an intervening step that because it's a life and has the potential or will become a human life, it is a life, but that's the fundamental point of departure. You feel it is, other, reasonable people disagree. They accept it has the potential, but using your standard, any human ova or sperm has the same life potential with a small bit of additional action. It is a living, biological cell, it has the potential to be a human life, and can become nothing other than a human life (or a mass of dead cells).
Consequently, there is no ipso-facto of A=biological life B=potential A+B= C human life thus killing A+B is the same as killing a human life. I know you FEEL it is, but it isn't the point from which our law is derived. Our law is derived from a point that says the abscence of higher brain function is death, therefore the presence of brain function in humans IS LIFE - and nothing short of it is. We can believe it is, but we cannot prove it is.
Gentlemen, I am acutely aware of being the only female voice here, and even more aware of not being heard.
ReplyDelete1. An undeveloped and undifferentiated cluster of tissue does not have the same rights as a fully developed human being. Undevelepoed is not equal to developed.
2.At the point we have a consensus on when that development IS an equal human being, in utero, it has the same rights and significance as the mother, not more. At no point does the embryo or fetus EXCEED the rights of the mother.
3. Not less at that point for either of them, which seems to be a meaning you keep reading into what I write that is not there. Part of persumably what Pen describes as 'not listening'. That is why the most excellent decision of Roe V. Wade allows for preservation of the life of the mother in the third trimester.
4. Pen jumped to an erroneous, more precisely incomplete, conclusion when he got his knickers in a twist at the idea of ex utero pregnancy. Yes, at the current level of our technology, incubation life for a developing fetus is quite expensive. We do need to put a practical dollar amount on what is possible in sustaining life. What Pen did not allow for were other alternatives. As we have explored the scientific boundaries of areas like cloning, and in vitro fertilization, and pregnancy surrogates - both in human medicine and animal husbandry where developments and research are often parallel - what you did not consider was the potential option of re-implantation into another individual from the birth mother. While mechanical support for a growing fetus or embryo might (or might not) be prohibitively expensive, growing that embryo inside another human being would not. There would be only the tranfer expenses. While this is not currently possible, just as we don't have definitive information CURRENTLY to define that consensus point that Pen has written about, it is not out of reach IF - and ONLY IF - we frame the issue as one that provides alternatives not eliminates alternatives. It is theoretically possible that being the surrogate continuing host mother would not even need to be restricted to women. IF we want that option. It is one that offers a far wider range of potential benefits, including the possibility of saving the life of a mother - as an example who might have cancer and need chemotherapy or radiation therapy to survive - without costing the life of her wanted unborn child to save her life. There is tremendous possible public good to justify the expenditure of research resources to supply a better solution, including a cost effective solution, that is not simply the stupid idea we MUST simply, only stop those evil, immoral, slutty women who have sex from having constitutional rights to their bodies. It is in the framing of the argument, and the defining of the problem.
The better focus for this argument - and it is an argument, not a debate or a simple discussion - is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, not simply to focus on reducing abortions, punishing women, and demonizing human sexuality beyond the narrowest possible limits.
ReplyDeleteI would argue with Pen's conclusions. Both contraception and NOT abstinence only sex ed result in not ONLY fewer abortions, worldwide, but fewer unwanted / unintended pregnancies.
This is true consistently regardless of other factors, such as culture, religion, social or governmental health support.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pregadol.htm
Factor United States France Germany Netherlands
Pregnancy 79.8 20.2 25% 16.1 20% 8.7 11%
Births 48.7 10.0 21% 12.5 26% 4.5 9%
Abortions 27.5 10.2 37% 5.6 20% 4.2 15%
The percentages show the rate for each country expressed as a percentage of the U.S. value. For example, the Netherlands abortion rate per year is 4.2 per thousand adolescents which is about 15% of the American figure.
Those numbers are only for adolescent pregnancies - women under 18. But they track with adult patterns.
That is a difference in unintentional pregnancies of aprox. 49 per thousand in the U.S., compared to 5 in the Netherlands.
Restricting or even trying to eliminate legal abortions won't stop them, won't even significantly reduce them. It will only make them more dangerous and drive them underground. Like bootlegging with prohibition.
Eliminating as many unwanted pregnancies as possible from happening WILL reduce abortions as far as it is possible to do so. You don't do that by assaulting women's rights to their bodies.
IF Toe and Tuck WERE successful in eliminating abortions, resulting in millions - per Tuck's numbers - of now unwanted births, you have not only done a terrible harm to women by violating their rights to their bodies, you have simpl created a new and more severe problem instead of providing a solution. A disastrous problem, for which they have no solution. The premise that we simply decree women can't have abortions, while providing only narrow-minded puritanical attitudes towards sexuality and pregnancy is disasterous at every level, at every stage. It is not a solution.
ReplyDeleteAnd sadly while religion is an extraordinary force in human lives in many respects, when it comes to human sexuality it is too often abysmal, destructive, negative, even catastrophic.
As a woman who started life as an unintended pregnancy, and who grew up as a very very much wanted child, not only with devoted parents, but blessed with some exceptional mentors - a majority of whom were men. I am grateful to them - parents AND mentors - for the gift of valuing my own gender. Sadly, not all women do, fully - or men either.
I am tired of not being heard fairly, (and Pen this includes you) I'm tired of the false and negative assumptions, the insults, and most of all the willingness to do harm without questioning it in pursuit of your belief, no matter how you try to justify it. It is not that the end never justifies the means, but it very rarely does. It doesn't in this argument.
I'm done. There is little difference between being silenced, and not being heard.
DG,
ReplyDeleteThis discussion is (apparently) the sound of one hand clapping (meaning everyone else has left).
They left because their sense of humor (including mine) left the building when you over-focused on "Assualting women's rights to their bodies" without adequately or consistently addressing the right of the unborn life they carry.
You did this by making suggestions like having 950,000 children born 25-15 weeks prior to normal birth, ex utero, as absurd a suggestion as has been forwarded on this blog, ever. So, if "undies in a twist" is your way of covering that ludicrous comment, understand no one thinks you're being funny any more, so they're not likely to laugh.
With respect to the statistics you've provided. They're not surprising, but they're also NOT somethign I didn't already know. They certainly support something ALL of us already agreed to, namely, we should first stop unwanted pregnancy - rather than focus first on abortion, but since everyone and I mean EVERYONE already stipulated to this point, what was the point in bringing it up again. It wasn't and isn't the focus of this discussion because it's like rooting for zero poverty. It's a nice idea, but it isn't going to happen, so we have to deal with the reality.
That reality, no matter how many times you get exorcised about it, ISN'T "assualting a woman's right to her body" not at least any more than Roe already does, it simply moves the ball forward by 10 weeks (or so) to a point (potentially) people agree that the life is a life, and that point is, in agreement with Roe, a point at which woman's consent is in part assumed - but that consent is still subordinate to the life.
You've been asked, time and again, whether you'd be willing to move the ball forward. Your response has been effectively "no" because you don't see the science, but also because of this fictional assault you see. Which makes it seem as if you subordinate the life to the rights of the mother.
That's your decision, but if so, you've clearly demonstrated you are unwilling to comprimise to find a workable solution. Others have at least entertained the idea. They haven't agreed, but they've not consistently thrown out irrelevant roadblocks.